1984-11-07

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the effects of acid rain on our lakes, fisheries, forests, and monuments are of great concern to Canadians, and rightfully so. Thus far the meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan, followed by the meeting between the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and his American counterpart in Washington, have failed to produce the results promised by the Prime Minister.
We on the Liberal side of this House urge the Government to intensify its efforts, but also to show that we are determined to reach the goal of cutting emissions from smoke stacks and cars in Canada. Therefore I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) to continue to work in co-operation with the provinces, as initiated by the Liberal Government, and to convene as soon as possible a meeting with the provincial environmental Ministers so as to make further joint progress toward the modernization and clean up of dirty plants in Canada.
Finally, I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) to conclude consultations with industry and the public so as to control automobile emissions which contribute to acid rain.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on September 4, 1984, a sick Canada was delivered into the hands of the Progressive Conservative Party. A diagnosis revealed a country dying under a burden of excessive taxation and a rising debt of billions of dollars. Interest rates were killing investment and forcing farms and businesses into bankruptcy. A million people, including thousands of youths, were unemployed and looking for work but could find none because Canadians with
money were afraid to invest in their own country. They were heading elsewhere, taking their capital and jobs with them.
Ill will between the east and the west, between the English and the French, was festering. The country was breaking apart. Yes, indeed, we found a Canada sick unto death!
The Progressive Conservative Government, believing that a strong and united Canada is again possible, and with honesty, determination and free enterprise as their tools, are tackling the job, not with band-aids and aspirins, but by gradually removing the causes of the illness, by reducing the gigantic debt in an orderly way, thus forcing interest rates down, and by creating a climate of confidence so that thousands of entrepreneurs will invest their capital and hire Canadians.
A sickness which was neglected for ten years cannot be cured overnight, but now complete recovery will gradually take place and we will again have a strong and a united Canada led by a PC Government which represents all parts of the nation under that dedicated Canadian, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISASTERS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the House, and particularly of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates), that a number of fishermen have died off the west coast of British Columbia in storms at sea because of inadequate weather information provided to those mariners as well as because of inadequate search and rescue coverage of the area.
I would urge the Government to hold a public inquiry into this matter at which testimony and information will be solicited from fishermen and mariners so that the widest possible information will be made available to the Government in order to develop a plan on which to act. I would also urge the Government not to revert to the old ways of the former Liberal Government whereby in-house inquiries were held but very little action was forthcoming on the results.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks Canadians have been shocked by television reports of mass starvation in Ethiopia. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) should be commended for their timely visit and intervention. However, Canada must become more conscious that Ethiopia is not a unique example. Africa holds 21 other countries with declining food capabilities. Their populations are growing faster than their per capita food productivity.
Shipping food to afflicted areas is a moral imperative which Canadians must accept in the short run, and, indeed, have shown themselves ready to accept. However, if other and equally tragic "Ethiopias" are to be avoided in the future, there is a greater need. We must make a sustained effort to enable the afflicted countries of Africa to expedite scientific agriculture and to develop vital infrastructures.
In 1975 it was predicted that 50 million people might starve to death within a decade. Never has a prophecy of doom been fulfilled with more horrendous accuracy. Never has a prophecy been more avoidable. Can the developed world now face a reality from which many turned away ten years ago? In the 18th century the western nations brought slavery to Africa. We now have a chance to renew its life.


PENSIONS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne on Monday afternoon the Government outlined what is supposed to be its blueprint for economic renewal and social justice. While I applaud the Government for committing itself to extending the spousal allowance, it comes as a grave disappointment to me that it has ignored the more than 160 recommendations for reform, which were contained in the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform, a report, which I remind Hon. Members, had the concurrence of all three Conservative members on that committee.
Instead of concrete action the new Government has said it will "enter into negotiations and discussions with the provinces for a comprehensive overhaul of the Canadian pension system, including such matters as portability, vesting, survivor benefits, and pension coverage for women".
These are all much needed reforms and long overdue, but the Government was given a mandate on September 4 to change, not to study. The Canadian people do not want more discussions; they want action, and they want it now.
I therefore urge the Government to illustrate its commitment to pension reform by reforming the Canadian pension system and taking a lead role by tabling amendments to the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, under the National Energy Program there are in existence two expensive and, in my view, totally redundant programs which represent a serious drain on the treasury and in reality are a transfer from government to the relatively affluent. I speak of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program-in other words, the new furnaces for old furnaces program-which puts $800 in your jeans if you convert from oil to gas or whatever, a program which subsidizes the relatively well off to buy heat pumps so their homes can be air conditioned in summer. The other is the CHIP program under which we pay home owners, certainly not the most poverty stricken in our society, $500 toward insulating their homes.
All forms of energy in Canada, Mr. Speaker, are now in surplus. World oil prices are falling, and producers are being directed not to produce. Indeed, they are being pro-rated. Why then spill out literally millions of taxpayers' dollars to those well enough off to own their own homes in order to encourage them to do what they ought to have done in the first place, to insulate; or to bribe them to buy new furnaces, heat pumps, and such devices. Surely there can be no justification for these programs.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) announced that every effort is made to sell four Crown Corporations employing 10,000 Canadians.
We deeply regret that before taking such a decision, the government has not applied its philosophy of consultation. In the Speech from the Throne, there are many references to consultation and co-operation. The government referred to the importance of trade unions in Canada. However, their advice was not sought about the sale of those corporations. That is not the way an economic consensus can be reached. For the employees of such corporations, especially Canadair and de Havilland, that decision is quite dangerous. Many jobs could be lost. Mr. Speaker, we ask the government to consult the employees of those corporations.
November 7, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, in its Throne Speech the Government made a very positive statement to the women of this country. It was a commitment to work toward achieving economic equality for all women.
I would like to bring to the attention of this House an example where immediate steps can be taken to redress a situation existing today which blatantly discriminates against the women of Canada.
Existing regulations of the Armed Forces of Canada allow members, both male and female, to claim sick leave without any loss in pay, without any loss in seniority or vacation leave, and without any loss in their pension contributions, for anything from hangovers to facelifts.
When a member of the same Armed Forces becomes pregnant, however, time lost as a result of that pregnancy results in the loss of pension benefits, loss in seniority, and loss of pay. Her record is marred in terms of future promotions, and being put on leave without pay has quite a stigma attached to it.
The previous Government, aware of such blatant discrimination, had years to address this problem and failed to do so. I call upon the new Government, committed to achieving economic equality for women, to introduce immediate steps to bring the Armed Forces up to date and into the 20th century.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is properly for the Prime Minister. It is a question which he has undoubtedly been anticipating, and which he has had more than two months to recollect. In July, in Prince Albert, the Prime Minister promised the Canadian people: "You're going to see tens upon tens of thousands of jobs created just as quickly as a new Government can be sworn in." Where are those tens upon tens of thousands of new jobs?


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


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the fact is that, since the Government was sworn in just a few weeks ago, interest rates have already dropped three-quarters of a percentage point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Conference Board is now forecasting a net gain of 56,000 new jobs as opposed to a loss of 101,000 which it was forecasting last July. I think that is close enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


YOUTH PROGRAM FUNDING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I were deeply concerned when the Minister of Employment and Immigration froze the program for training and employment initiatives for young people, which was called the First Chance Program. It is now November; two months have passed. The program which the Minister announced yesterday is merely a pilot program.
Would the Prime Minister assure the House that tomorrow evening the Minister of Finance will make a commitment to young people which will at least match the $100 million a year in the First Chance Program and, if possible, the $1 billion a year commitment which the previous Government made?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many remarkably good statements made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he was a candidate for the leadership of his Party in regard to repudiation of previous policies, I think he is going to be well pleased with what he hears tomorrow night.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I hope there is something tomorrow night, because there was not much on Monday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, considering his commitment to create jobs and still more jobs, can the Prime Minister of Canada inform the House whether he has had discussions with the management of General Motors and his friends in the new American administration about the reports published in The Gazette with respect to the alleged decision made by that corporation to shelve its

November 7, 1984
Oral Questions
investment project of roughly $700 million for expanding its assembly plant in Sainte-Therese?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition has every reason to be concerned over that question, and the Minister and I will take this up with the management of that corporation which, hardly a few months ago if I am not mistaken, announced major investments in the riding of the leader of the New Democratic Party. So, to be fair and equitable, the situation in Quebec will have to be reviewed as well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the Right Hon. Minister on his decision to go on to Ethiopia, after attending the funeral of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in India, in order to see for himself the extent of this human tragedy, and I am pleased to see the Hon. Minister has confirmed that for many years, Canada has, both on a per capita basis and in terms of absolute figures, contributed the most towards food aid in Ethiopia.
Considering the famine situation in many African countries, does the Government intend to set up a permanent mobile unit in Africa that would include de Havilland surplus planes-the Buffalo type-available at this time and as yet unsold, to provide a quicker and more efficient system for delivering food to the hungry in these unfortunate African countries?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the former minister for his question, and I think his comments have made it clear that aid provided by individual citizens and government to persons in need is in the Canadian tradition. The Government has just appointed the Hon. David MacDonald as co-ordinator, and his duties will be to co-ordinate all activities of the Government, non-governmental organizations and private citizens, so that Canadians will be able to respond to this very serious human crisis in the most effective way possible. Perhaps the suggestion made by the Hon. Member will be included among Mr. MacDonald's recommendations. I trust that Mr. MacDonald will be in a position to give us in Parliament, and all Canadians, some indication of what kind of program would guarantee that Canadians wishing to help the people of Africa in their time of need will be able to do so effectively.


ETHIOPIA-DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD DONATIONS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the famine is a result not only of years of drought but also of a lingering civil war. Does the Minister have the assurance from the authorities in Ethiopia that they will make sure that food will be distributed to all parts of the country and that the food and relief will not be used to achieve some political leverage?
In addition, does he intend to join the international commission that is proposed by former Chancellor Willy Brandt to attempt to negotiate safe conduct with the successionist provinces and the central government in Ethiopia, so that the food will go to all parts of that country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the reason why I went to Ethiopia was precisely to seek to satisfy myself personally that there was a reasonable prospect that Canadian aid would be delivered to people in need. I was pleased to be joined in that mission by representatives of the other Parties represented in this House. Certainly, for my part and, I believe, for theirs, we are confident that the Government and authorities of Ethiopia are doing everything that is possible in very difficult circumstances to ensure that aid that comes from the rest of the world to help starving people in Ethiopia will get to those people.
There is conflict internally in Ethiopia. Undoubtedly there will be some diversion. My view is that that is minor and on the margins and it should not deter the people of Canada from giving the aid that is necessary. I am looking for reasons to encourage Canadians to give aid that will help the starving. I am not looking for reasons to stop that aid. I think that is the view of all Members in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As regards the undertaking by former Chancellor Willy Brandt, we will look at that and come to a judgment as to whether that is the most constructive way to try to reduce tensions internal to Ethiopia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. During the election campaign, he said that the priority of the Conservative government would be to create new jobs. Since then, the Government has switched its priorities by deciding to focus on the deficit and not on creating new jobs.
November 7, 1984

My question is very simple. Why did this happen?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I believe that the Hon. Member might be making an involuntary mistake. We formally stated in the Speech from the Throne that unemployment was the most important issue confronting us. Of course, to deal seriously with unemployment, we need a healthy economy, and to have this healthy economy, someone must finally be prepared to deal directly with the deficit, and this is what we are going to do.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that he cannot have it both ways. He knows that in the Throne Speech he said "the urgent priority", that the urgent priority was the reduction of the deficit. In the election campaign he himself indicated an awareness that if you are going to have job creation as the priority you cannot have at the same time a priority of concern with the deficit.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I notice the Prime Minister's colleagues are questioning behind him. They should wait for the quotation from a statement that he made in August. In August the Prime Minister indicated his own awareness that you could not have it both ways, by saying:
Clearly, there can be no drastic reduction in the deficit until... the country gets back to work.
"Massive cuts," he added, "would guarantee a recession".
Why has the Prime Minister changed his mind? Why has he changed his priorities? Why do unemployed Canadians have to wait for a job?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the operative word in the quotation is the word "drastic". I think there would be general agreement that any such cuts would have the effects to which the Hon. Member refers. That is not our intention. What we are trying to do is to reconstruct an economy, to re-energize an economy, to provide durable employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, an economy that was too long built on the premise that where there is a problem you print money and throw it at it. That is not the way you build an economy capable of throwing off the kinds of jobs we all want for our people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT'S PRIORITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that since the election not only he himself, but the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance, and a number of other Ministers I could mention have said
Oral Questions
that the number one priority is the reduction of the deficit. No amount of any sort of linguistic game-playing in the House now is going to disguise th^t reality, and I am sure when we hear the Minister of Finance on Thursday we are going to hear drastic cuts being announced to the people of the country.
Since the Prime Minister suggested that there will not be such cuts, will the Government maintain the priority which the Prime Minister promised in the summer, namely, that its leading priority would be job creation? Will he guarantee that on Thursday night we will not hear drastic cuts announced by the Minister of Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the best indication I can give to the Hon. Leader of the NDP is that the first step the Government took with regard to the unemployment problem was when my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, announced the proposed expenditure and allocation of some $430 million to create jobs by the direct job-creation process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Just throwing money at it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This was required because of the state of the economy we received. However, we will be dealing with some of the structural deficiencies as of tomorrow night in a statement by the Minister of Finance which I know even the Leader of the New Democratic Party will applaud.


YOUTH TRAINING OPTION PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In announcing her Youth Training Option Program yesterday, I know how disappointed she must have been with the $27 million given to her by her Cabinet colleagues for a pilot project when she probably would have preferred something closer to the $100 million which was set aside for the First Chance Program.
Considering the many promises made during the election campaign by the Conservative Party to place a high priority upon employment, and training for employment, how does the Minister justify a mere $27 million for this important matter, and considering the fact that this subject has been studied and experimented with over and over again, how does she justify another pilot project?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, we have been reviewing all programs within government to take a look at their efficacy. As he will further know, yesterday we announced that we would go ahead with the Youth Training Option Program, which is a $27 million pilot project affecting some 4,000 Canadian youths. However, we also emphasized that our major training program for young people

November 7, 1984
Oral Questions
would be worked out in consultation and in collaboration with the provinces, the business community, and labour groups.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We did that because we believe this is a major task which will require us to work together, and not to have a program which is in conflict with the other partners in the economy. Unfortunately that is what First Chance was.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister now admitting that throughout the two months of the election campaign, and for many months before that, she and her Party had no program or blueprint for the creation of jobs and training for employment? Is she now admitting that she misled the Canadian people, that she had no program, that she will now start from scratch consulting, reviewing, and looking for a program, and that she never had one in the first place?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker. I will admit no such thing because it simply is not true.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Within days of assuming office we announced programs to create some 70,000 jobs, jobs which had not been put into effect or had no money allocated to them by the previous Government. It had not taken any steps to do that.
We were elected to change what was taking place, and we will. We will do that by working with our partners, not by fighting with them.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, not many weeks ago, stood in the House and said that policies such as the Liberal sales tax increase would result in the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians having absolutely no hope for a job, and would inevitably create a recession in the country within a matter of months.
I know the Prime Minister campaigned for change. However, is this the kind of change, where he is simply changing his mind about a tax policy and in a sense saying to Canadians: "I had no option"?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had said that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the Hon. Member knows full well, because of his very considerable expertise on the economic side, that indeed the situation we came upon after September 4 was rather worse than what our friends had let on. Thus we were forced to take some measures which, had we been in control some time ago, we would have preferred not to take.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I suspect the Right Hon. Prime Minister will perhaps wish that he had not made those statements, because in fact he had an option. He could have said: "I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price". He had an option and he said "No". He "chose to say yes to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party".


REQUEST THAT DECISION BE RESCINDED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Knowing that since he has taken office we have lost 81,000 jobs in a very short period of time, that by his own admission we will be losing more and more jobs as a result of the sales tax increase, and that we will now be heading into a recession, again by his own admision, would he not now have the courage to stand before the House and say: "I am going to change my mind once again. I am going to go back to my original position and stop the introduction of legislation to impose that sales tax"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, as will his Leader, will be well pleased with the manner in which the Minister of Finance will come to grips with some very grave structural problems we were left by a Government which sat too long. We propose to deal with them in a very positive and productive way tomorrow night. I think the manner in which it is done will receive the support of all Members of the House, including the Hon. Member.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. However, with your indulgence, and through you, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Hon. Minister on his appointment to a position which is of great importance to my region of the country. However, in saying that I should like to express the surprise and disappointment of many people in western Canada at the total lack in the Throne Speech of any reference to the serious drought conditions faced by farmers in that area.
Would the Hon. Minister and his Government consider bringing into the House today, with the full co-operation I am sure of all Hon. Members on this side, the proposals made last
November 7, 1984

summer by the previous Government to bring in advance payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Fund so that some $500 million of cash flow wouuld be in the hands of farmers to meet a very serious problem before the change of the fiscal year? This is something which western farmers have been expecting and planning for, Mr. Speaker. We would hope the Minister of Agriculture will prevail upon his colleagues so that we could have that Bill in the House right away.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to utilize this opportunity to thank the Hon. Member for his congratulatory messages and remarks. Indeed, I congratulate him on his electoral success.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: All my colleagues may not agree.
Indeed, I think that he can take some satisfaction from the fact that the agricultural industry was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It was selected as one of our resource industries which we should make every effort to strengthen and to revitalize.
With reference to the Hon. Member's question drawing our attention to the very serious drought conditions in western Canada, we are very much aware of them. Indeed, one of my first trips after being sworn in as Minister of Agriculture was to Regina where I sat down with my provincial counterparts, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. An agreement between the federal Government and the provinces, to the extent of $60 million, was signed. We have not ignored the drought conditions in western Canada. We have addressed this as well as we can, given our limited financial resources.


POSSIBLE CONTENT OF ECONOMIC STATEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. We on this side of the House are, of course, very pleased that the Minister signed an agreement that we negotiated. That shows some good sense that other Ministers have not shown in some of the other programs.
I would point out that the Minister has not answered the question as to whether they intend to bring in changes to the stabilization fund so that the farmers will have cash. I would ask here and now today, in order to erase any uncertainty, that he repudiate the statements made by officials of his Department which suggest that in tomorrow's statement there will be an elimination of many important programs for farmers in western Canada which would cause their present very serious condition to deteriorate substantially.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Hon. Member's second and third questions, I would indicate to him that on Friday, I believe, we released the final payment in the amount of $123 million. With reference
Oral Questions
to the possibility of providing an initial payment for 1985, I can assure him that my colleagues in Cabinet, and my colleagues from western Canada, are presently discussing that possibility.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: If you are not careful, you will get the previous Member back.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: My question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It was recently reported in The Toronto Star that the CNR will be cutting some $15 million worth of steel rail orders from Algoma Steel and transferring that to Sydney Steel Corporation. Keeping in mind that the unemployment rate in Sault Ste. Marie is far in excess of the national rate, unofficially 20 per cent, can the Minister guarantee the people of Sault Ste. Marie, and this House, that the old Liberal shell game of shifting jobs from one regionally deprived area of the country to the other is no longer in vogue, and that in fact that $15 million order will be placed with Algoma Steel?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I welcome him back to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the Hon. Member knows, the transaction that he is referring to involves a Crown corporation. I would advise him, though, that certain of those transactions are under review. I can assure him that the concern of many in Sault Ste. Marie and in other areas in Canada has been brought to our attention. We will do our level best to ensure that there will be no adverse fallout from any such transaction such as that referred to by the Hon. Member.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW DECISION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. There are two points. First, the Nova Scotia election is over.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: The applause, I presume, was for Alexa McDonough, the Leader of the New Democrats in Nova Scotia.

November 7, 1984
Oral Questions
The other point is that that is the old answer we used to get from the Liberal Party when it sat on that side. In view of the fact that Crown corporations are not the best loved by this Minister, will he be more specific and give hope to the people of Sault Ste. Marie by stating he will review it with the intent of ensuring that that order is placed with Algoma Steel and that no jobs are lost as a result of it?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member I would indicate that I, too, share in his jubilation with respect to the Nova Scotia election. With reference to the second part of his question, I indicated in my first answer that we are reviewing the transactions and that he has our assurance that we will do our level best to ensure there will be no adverse fallout such as he is referring to.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported in the media over the last few days that the Government was planning to cancel the 1986 census. I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services who is responsible for the matter.
Since there has been a census every five years in Western Canada since 1886, and in other parts of this country since 1956, and in view of the importance of the data collected by way of that census to the business and academic communities and also to social and government affairs, not to mention of course the issue of the jobs involved in census-taking, can the Minister give us his personal assurance that the census will not be cancelled, but held in 1986 as usual?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Member on his election and welcome him to the House of Commons.
The Government has made no announcement with regard to the 1986 census. All programs of the Government are under active review because of the very serious financial situation in which we find ourselves. When a decision is made, it will be announced. I will make sure that the Hon. Member receives the announcement as quickly as possible.


INCLUSION OF NEW QUESTIONS IN CENSUS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I asked the Minister whether he had made the announcement. We are looking for his personal assurance.
Is the Minister aware that new questions were to be included in the 1986 census pursuant to the "Obstacles Report' of this House of Commons, dealing with important matters concerning visible minorities and the handicapped? There were also to be questions in this census for the first time concerning native peoples. No affirmative action programs can be established without the data base which would be received from this census. In view of that, will the minister assure this House that this census will take place?


Harvie Andre: 
PIPELINES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was in Regina during the summer election campaign, there was some confusion about whether he supported a water pipeline for the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina. The Regina Conservative candidates assured everyone in Regina that he indeed did.
[DOT] (U50)
Just to clear up the confusion that might exist, will the Prime Minister now tell us if indeed his Government is committed to a water pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are examining the various options, technical and otherwise, that are available, and I will respond just as quickly as I can to the Hon. Member.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, again this is a bit discouraging because those are the same kinds of answers we were getting from the previous administration.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there is now a Conservative Government in the Province of Saskatchewan, and a mayor who is very sympathetic to the Conservative Party. When will they all sit down together and draw up an agreement? When, in fact, will we see some real changes so that the people of Regina and of Moose Jaw can have clean, safe water, and as well create some desperately needed jobs back home? When are we going to see some changes and some action?
November 7, 1984


Martin Brian Mulroney: Soon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Mr. Minister, in the Throne Speech you stated that your Ministers will seek to "further define" the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Last August, however, during the Leaders' debate on women's issues, you stated, and I quote-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the Hon. Member does have some parliamentary experience and knows how questions should be addressed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am directing my question to the Prime Minister through you. Last August, during the Leaders' debate, the Prime Minister stated:

I believe it imperious for the Prime Minister and the new Government to give very clear instructions to the Treasury Board. The law is clear.

The Prime Minister said last August that the law is clear. I would like to know what has happened to cloud the Prime Minister's vision so much between August and November, that what was clear in August needs further definition in November? Why will the Prime Minister not move immediately on the changes he promised to all the women of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the point she has made, particularly in view of her sense of humour. In a television interview she referred to the Liberal opposition as the "Fabulous Forty".


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was the "Feisty Forty".


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this Government stands committed to that pursuit. We hope to achieve full equality for women, and that shall be a principal hallmark of everything we do throughout our legislative life.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN STATEMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity, through you, to remind the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister of the comments he made last August, because not only did he say that the law is clear, he also said: . [Translation]
Of course, I will go further. I will make sure that this equality principle is adhered to by all those who are eager to do business with the federal government.

He said that he would apply the principle not only to the Government but to those companies that wanted to do business with the federal Government. Again, Mr. Speaker, what happened between August and November to change the Prime Minister's mind about the direct action he promised to the women of Canada? How does he expect the women of Canada to trust him when he changes his mind so frequently?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed by the indignation of the Hon. Member. I think that the program we set out to the Canadian people resulted in the election of an historic number of women to the Progressive Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This, in turn, resulted in the appointment of an historic number of women to the Cabinet of a Progressive Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is an indication of the bona fides of this Government, and we plan to continue this kind of positive, forceful, vigorous action on behalf of the women of Canada, action which has been so badly lacking in the past.


Ms. Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, that was garbage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AID
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whom I would first like to thank for inviting representatives of the opposition Parties to accompany him to the funeral of Indira Gandhi and on his stopover in Addis Ababa. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River, reported on both to our caucus this morning.
My question does concern what Canada is doing about aid to the starving people of Ethiopia. It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he did earlier, that David MacDonald is looking after it. David MacDonald is co-ordinating it, not instigating it. Has the Government yet instigated a special fund drawn from new moneys, and not from transfers from other moneys in CIDA or elsewhere, for emergency aid and development in Ethiopia? In that connection, has the Minister

November 7, 1984
Oral Questions
also considered providing matching grants, out of this fund or other funds, to the contributions of private individuals and organizations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have not done that yet. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement within the next few days regarding that precise kind of action. We are not sure of the nature of a matching formula or whether or not that formula will be part of the announcement, although it is being considered. However, let me make a point and ask again for the help of the Hon. Member, and indeed of all Hon. Members of the House of Commons.
We believe that there is an urgent job for the Government of Canada to do, and we intend to do it. However, this is a matter of concern not only for the Government, this is a matter of concern for the people of Canada. I ask the help of Members of Parliament throughout the House of Commons, and of citizens across the country, to ensure that the Government acts and that the people act to do what we can to stop the starving in Ethiopia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, it was on behalf of this Party that I asked whether or not the Government was going to start such a special fund and was going to have sharing with private citizens, because we feel very strongly that the Government can do so.


ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that Willy Brandt, the head of the Socialist International, is now heading a commission to see whether or not there are ways by which the warring factions in the northeast of Ethiopia can be brought to a ceasefire. I understand that the Eritreans, and I think the Tygraians as well, have agreed to a ceasefire. Can the Minister, or will the Minister use his influence with the Government of Ethiopia to get its co-operation with the Brandt Commission and its efforts?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I confess that that is not a matter which I raised with the Ethiopians. I will raise it with them another time. I repeat what I said to the Hon. Member for-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Saint-Maurice.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am too accustomed to referring to him as a Minister. I am glad that is behind us. As I said to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice earlier today, I think that a very important part of our approach to this question is to determine whether or not the mission upon which former Chancellor Brandt has embarked will in fact, at this point in time, help us deliver aid to the starving.


UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and is supplementary to the previous question. The global implications of the Ethiopian food crisis have already called for substantial efforts by the United Nations and national Governments which have spent many billions of dollars since 1974. How impressed is the Minister that these programs have been and are now sufficiently well directed to merit Canada continuing its support for these programs, such as those of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt at all that Canada must continue to support multilateral approaches to development and, as well, must continue to pursue a very active bilateral program. It is important for us, in this period of active broad attention in Canada to the crisis in Africa, to turn the attention of Canadians to the fact that this crisis did not emerge overnight. If we are to prevent starvation in the future there must be much more attention given by authorities in countries which are affected by starvation, and in countries like ours, to ensuring that there are programs of rehabilitation and agricultural renewal in those societies. That is a commitment of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WELCOME TO NEW PAGES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence of the group of pages in the House who started their new duties, along with many of us, last Monday.
Each one of those 40 young men and women is enrolled as a first-year full-time student at either Carleton University or the University of Ottawa, and was selected from over 400 applicants from across Canada to participate in the House's page program.
They will be working with us for one year and I am sure that all Members will want to join with me today in wishing them a rewarding and worth-while experience in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all Members will want to join me in wishing the pages the best of luck and hope with me that their year with the House of Commons will prove to be a profitable and enriching experience.
November 7, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) with regard to the sums required for the administration of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985 was presented by Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in Vancouver-Kingsway who pray that the Parliament of Canada will act to refuse further testing of the Cruise missile. They also ask that Canada be declared a nuclear-weapons-free zone and, as well, ask that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs. Finally, they ask that there be a free vote on these matters in Parliament.
I respectfully present the petition.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty as the representative for the constituency of Mississauga South to present a petition to the Parliament of Canada, on behalf of 31 residents of my ridings, who are requesting that Canada be declared a nuclear-weapons-free zone.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an Act respecting the winding up of the Canadian Sports Pool Corporation and Loto Canada Incorporated.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1984-85


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an Act to amend various Acts as a consequence of the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and Manitoba.


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


John Wise: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.


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


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.


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


John Allen Fraser: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Saltfish Act.


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

['I have examined the subamendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and find it proper.\nAt this point we are continuing debate on the subamendment moved by the Hon. Member for Oshawa.\nOn motion of Mrs. Browes the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn the House adjourned at 5.14 p.m.', 'Thursday, November 8, 1984']
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 63,1 move:
That Supplementary Estimates (B) 1984-85, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
30

November 7, 1984
Supplementary Estimates (B), 1984-85
Because the list is rather long and there is a detailed allocation of the Estimates to the committees, if it is agreeable with the House, I ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:}
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 25b, and 30b External Affairs Vote 20b
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 25b, 45b, 65b, and 70b Secretary of State Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 25b, 30b, 35b, 45b, 50b and 55b
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes lb, 5b, LI2b, 35b, and 40b National Defence Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Finance Trade and Economic Affairs External Affairs Votes 10b and 25b Finance Votes lb, 5b, and 35b Regional Industrial Expansion Votes lb and 6b To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Agriculture Votes 36b, 37b, 38b Environment Votes lb, 5b, 15b, 20b, and 25b Fisheries and Oceans Votes lb, 2b, 5b, and 10b To the Standing Committee on Health Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes lb and 10b Labour Votes 25b, 26b, and L30b
National Health and Welfare Votes lb, 5b, 10b, LI lb, 15b, 25b, 30b, 35b, 40b, 45b, 48b, and 49b
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15b, 20b, 25b, 30b, 40b, and 45b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes lb, 5b, 30b, 45b, and 50b Solicitor General Votes lb, 20b, and 25b To the Standing Committee on Labour Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, and 35b Labour votes lb, 5b, 10b, and 21b
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services Parliament Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Governor General Vote lb National Revenue Vote 20b Privy Council Votes lb and 2b Science and Technology Votes 25b and 30b To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes lb, 10b, 26b, 35b, 40b, 45b and 55b Public Works Votes 30b, 50b, 55b, 65b, 70b, 75b, and 80b To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Regional Industrial Expansion Votes 10b and 40b To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport Votes: lb, 5b, 10b, 16b, 17b, 35b, 75b, 85b, 90b, 120b, 126b, and 130b
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Votes: lb, 5b, 15b, and 20b


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the various House Leaders with respect to the business for tomorrow, at which time we are planning to have the economic statement. I have before me and want to present to the House for approval at this time, by unanimous consent, the following Order:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Thursday, November 8, 1984, at six o'clock p.m. the House shall suspend its sitting until 6:30 o'clock p.m., and, at that time the business to be considered shall be a statement by the Minister of Finance;
Provided that upon the conclusion of the statement the Minister may lay upon the Table certain Notices of Ways and Means Motions related thereto, and that after a reply to the statement from one Member of each of the other recognized Parties, the Speaker shall adjourn the House.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to acknowledge that in fact the consultations which the Hon. House Leader has indicated did take place, and in our consultations we recognized that, although this is an unusual situation, the length of speeches of Opposition Party Members responding to the speech would not be longer than the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm on behalf of the Official Opposition that the motion read by my friend, the Government House Leader, represents the discussion we had among House Leaders and our understandings. I would also like to confirm that there was a further agreement that the spokesman for the Official Opposition, and the other Opposition Party, would have up to the same length of time as would be taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in presenting his statement tomorrow evening.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have also been consultations with respect to the conduct of the affairs of the House relating to Private Members' Business. As Your Honour will know, because the draw for Private Members' Business is taking place today and it will, in the course of our procedures, take a couple of weeks in order to have the list promulgated and the Bills or the motions in question put into place for discussion, I have consulted with my opposite numbers in the Opposition and propose that it be made an order of the House that Private Members' hour be suspended until Friday, November 23, 1984.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that the proposal of my hon. friend represents the decision which was reached by the mutual consent of the
November 7, 1984

Official Opposition and we would certainly have no objection to the motion proceeding.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to confirm that that is the case.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Government House Leader. There must again be unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, I would like to indicate to the House the business for tomorrow. In order to accommodate the economic statement, and at the request of the New Democratic Party, we will not be proceeding with the Speech from the Throne debate tomorrow but rather will be dealing with government business. Accordingly, I would like to tell the House that the order of business proposed for tomorrow will be, first, the Bill relating to the courts of Manitoba and Ontario which was introduced today by my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie); second, the Bill relating to the sports pool and Loto Canada which was introduced by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp); third, the Bill introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), relating to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; the fourth item of business will be an item relating to the Saltfish Corporation which was also introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The last item of business will be an item introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act amendment with respect to the tobacco farmers.
I would also want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there have been consultations with respect to the debate today, which we are all awaiting with anticipation, being Leaders' day, and there has been an understanding arrived at by the House Leaders that with respect to the addresses of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Turner), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent), we would have the three Leaders speak today; and if the Leader of the New Democratic Party finishes after six o'clock, we will not see the clock until his remarks have been concluded. In any event, the arrangement is that once the Leader of the New Democratic Party has concluded his remarks, at whatever time, the House would adjourn at that point.


Mr. Speaker:: Should I take from the Government House Leader that there is also, therefore, an agreement that the normal limitations of time do not apply?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: As they might in the third case?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard that suggestion. We need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion is carried. There are no further motions? There being no questions on the Order Paper, I will call Orders of the Day.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, again I would like to say at the outset of my remarks how proud I am to have been re-elected to this House.


Pauline Jewett: Lucky you!


John Napier Turner: The hon. lady says I am lucky. There is a lady in the gallery, my wife, who helped me get elected, and my family and my sister, and there was a great, great movement on the streets.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Whereas I agree I was fortunate, it was not a matter of luck.
No greater honour can be paid to a Canadian than to have been elected by his fellow citizens to the forum of the nation, to the highest court of the land, this Parliament. I am immensely grateful to the people of Vancouver Quadra and I undertake, Mr. Speaker, to serve them to the best of my abilities, to lead and rebuild a great national Party and to lead that rebuilding from western Canada.
I am grateful, as I have said, to the citizens of Quadra. They have stood up against a national tidal wave to give me the privilege of serving them in this House and I am proud, once again, of the efforts made by my supporters, my wife, my sister and my children and the sacrifices they have undergone in order to facilitate my return to public life.

Mr. Speaker, each one of us has the important duty of providing, to provide proper representation for our constituents. Together, we have a duty to serve to the best of our ability the interests of all Canadians. Everyone of us has or should acquire a profound and indestructible respect for the traditions of the House. We rely on you, Mr. Speaker, to preserve and safeguard those traditions.

As well, I would like formally, as I have personally, to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on his impressive election victory.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 7, 1984
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner


John Napier Turner: It is good to know that in this country a man from humble yet honourable beginnings can aspire to the highest office in this country. He is entitled this day to some personal reflections, some private thoughts of satisfaction and pride, and for this he would be fully excused. A great responsibility has been laid upon his shoulders by the people of Canada, and to respond to that, I wish him courage and good health. I need not wish him much more because I understand he has told his closest aides that he is going to govern as if he had a majority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: May I, Mr. Speaker, also congratulate the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) who were the mover and seconder respectively of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Both Members spoke eloquently and frankly about what we expect of this new legislature, and I wish to congratulate them on their contribution. Having been in the same position many years ago, I am fully aware of the importance of a Member's maiden speech in the House, and I think the Hon. Members did a remarkably good job. I trust we shall have further occasion to hear them in the House during this session. [English]
We are here, Mr. Speaker, for a purpose greater than partisan loyalties. We are here to defend and preserve the democratic institutions of this country, of which this House is by far the most important. A former Opposition Leader and Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, had this to say in this House. These are his words:
Mr. Speaker, this institution must not fail. Without it there is no freedom. We are here today not only as the custodians of the present and the inheritors of the past, but Mr. Speaker, we are here as well as the hope of this institution's future.
On behalf of the members of my caucus, I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that we will uphold what Mr. Diefenbaker had in mind. But I promise you and the members of the Government that we will be a strong and vigilant Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As a matter of fact, when the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and 1 first entered this House of Commons we were in opposition. We have some experience of what that role is. We interpret our position here as recognizing that the people of Canada did accord to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues and supporters a massive mandate. But such was the nature of what they said, what they undertook and what they promised, so vague were those undertakings, that we do not extend that approval to any particular piece of legislation and we undertake to examine with care every Bill which comes before this House. If it is good legislation, it will have our approval and pass quickly. If we believe it needs improvement, then we will propose changes and amendments. If we feel it is not in the
best interests of the people of Canada, we will oppose it and oppose it vigorously. I might add that we will not oppose just for the sake of opposing. We do not propose to be, as was contemplated by the Prime Minister in an interview he gave to Val Sears of The Toronto Star, "purely destructive".
I represent a political party which is a party of reform and innovation, a party of openness, with a willingness to experiment with new ideas. We will respect the rights of the individual and the rule of law. We will defend the social contract. We will work to preserve our social programs with special attention to those in greatest need. I want to remind the Prime Minister that he said during the election campaign, and I use his words, that universal social programs are "a sacred trust not to be tampered with". We on this side of the House, the Official Opposition, will hold him to that particular commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I have said before and I say again in this House that I will not stand by, nor will my colleagues, and watch the social programs built up by successive Liberal Governments being dismantled in the name of economic expediency.

Liberals respect the right of every individual Canadian to develop to his or her greatest potential. We believe in equality of opportunity and access to education, training and job opportunities regardless of family background, colour, creed or sex. My colleagues and I believe in providing the widest possible scope for individual initiative and reward for success. But we also believe fundamentally in protection for those who need help or suffer through no fault of their own.

Liberalism, Mr. Speaker, believes strongly in private enterprise but holds that governments should play a positive role in the marketplace where private capital cannot do the job or where the public interest demands such an intervention. We believe that the role of government is to support and encourage private initiative and to provide the framework in which it can grow and create the thousands of jobs we need. Liberalism is not static because the world is not static. Liberalism is pragmatic and not doctrinaire.

Liberalism is not rigid for socialist nor single interest dominated. Liberalism rejects monopoly power, whether it is exercised by business, cults, unions or majorities.
A liberal understands that political freedom is impossible without economic freedom. Economic security is necessary for the full development of human personality and human fulfilment.

Liberals are never content with today. We accept change and we seek it. We believe in reform and we fashion it. We
November 7, 1984

believe, indeed, that the world truly can become a better place to live.

I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier probably gave the best definition of Liberal doctrine when he spoke to the Reform Club in Quebec, in the old capital of Quebec, in the following terms, and I quote:
I am a Liberal, that is, I believe that in this world, there is abuse that must be stopped, there are new horizons to be discovered and new forces to be developed.
Mr. Speaker, the programs introduced by the Liberals over the years are a reflection of Laurier's vision: health insurance, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, the guaranteed income supplement, family allowance, funds made available to educational institutions under established programs financing, on-the-job training for youth, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Student Loans Act, a bill I had the privilege of presenting here in the House at the time.

There was a question, Mr. Speaker, directed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), concerning the commitments of the Prime Minister and the Government to the women of this country. There are indeed, as the Prime Minister observed, more women Members in this House today than ever before. I congratulate each and every one of them in every quarter of the House. I congratulate them no matter what partisan loyalties they may share, and 1 urge the women of this country to stand in greater numbers for public office, for Parliament, for the legislatures and for the municipalities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The women of this country have helped set the agenda for the last decade and we need more women in public life to help implement that agenda. All issues are women's issues. We must put an end to discrimination against women. We must allow women, by way of legislation and precedent, to have the freedom to choose how they want to live, whether they want to fulfil their careers at home or in the workplace, or both, either full time or part time.
The rules by which this Party will govern legislation affecting women are those of fairness, equality, equity and a real partnership in this country. This Party has always fought and will continue to fight to improve the position of women, whether they work at home, outside the home, or both. We believe in the full equality of women, we believe in equal pay for work of equal value, and we believe that the Human Rights Commission should take a more activist role in making that principle a reality. As my colleague from Hamilton East pointed out, it is the law; it is now up to the federal Government and its agencies to ensure that the law is fulfilled in the federal Public Service, in federal Crown Corporations and in those who fall within federal jurisdiction.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No more studies. Action!
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner


John Napier Turner: My colleague from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) says: "No more studies. Action!"
We need adequate funding for day care. We do not need any more studies on day care such as the Throne Speech proposes. We need adequate funding for day care.
The Loyal Opposition will support an amendment to the Indian Act affecting Section 12(1 )(b). I am glad that the Government intends to make that a priority.
We on this side believe in improving the enforcement of maintenance orders across the country and hope that the legislation contemplates something in that respect. We believe that the Government should follow up the Badgley Report on sexual abuses.
We believe that the Government should continue what we were doing in conducting an audit of all federal and provincial legislation to ensure that it accords with the Charter amendment which will become effective on April 17 next year affecting equality of women. There should be an active audit of every piece of federal and provincial legislation led by the Attorney General.
We also believe in affirmative action and equal access to training, jobs, opportunities and career options. I have been on record, Mr. Speaker, on this subject. We do not believe in a quota system. We believe in a merit system. We believe women ought to have an opportunity to qualify for merit as we believe they easily will. In this respect we will be watching what the Government does on affirmative action because we expect the publication of the Abella Report later this month or next month and we will be watching the Government's response to that particular report.
The cultural heritage of this country must be defended and preserved, Mr. Speaker. There is no longer a majority and a minority in Canada. We are all minorities and the time has come for total accessibility by way of statute, precedent or regulation for all Canadians in business, government and the unions, no matter what their creed, colour, faith or sex, and no matter how long they have lived in this country. In the past Liberal Governments have pursued progressive and humane immigration policies which have enriched the heritage of this country. We have stressed policies which underline the reunification of families. We have welcomed political refugees from Poland, Chile, Vietnam and other countries.
With the greatest respect, the Throne Speech touched only lightly on the subject of multiculturalism. I note, for instance, that there was no mention of compensation or acknowledgement to the Japanese Canadians for the treatment they received during World War II. The Prime Minister proposed that earlier this year. It was also the last question which he happened to direct to my predecessor when my predecessor sat in his seat in the House of Commons. The issue of acknowledgement and the redress which I believe Japanese Canadians are entitled to did not receive mention in this Throne Speech. I

November 7, 1984
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner hope that we will learn of the Government's position on this issue before very long.

I am happy to see that the Speech from the Throne contains a commitment to preserve both official languages and to protect language minorities throughout Canada. I note that the Government intends to honour its constitutional commitments to our aboriginal peoples. As we all know, these commitments were laid down in the Canada Act, 1982. They are constitutional commitments. However, this throne speech does not mention any progress with respect to aboriginal government, land claim settlements and other issues of interest to Canada's native peoples. We had hoped for more on this subject-

We are going to press for the fulfilment of the Penner Report. The Hon. Member still sits with us. We are going to press the Government to move toward allowing our Indian, Metis and Inuit people to move toward more self-government and more self-reliance and to assure them the dignity to which they are entitled. I regret very much that the Throne Speech did not address this particular concern.
We on this side would also have hoped for more reference in the Throne Speech to the development of all regions of the country, and for more special emphasis on correcting regional disparities and equalizing opportunities across the country. Where was mention of that in the Throne Speech? What support was there for building up the industrial sectors of this country? Why was that not in the Throne Speech?
I have travelled widely in western Canada since the election, Mr. Speaker. I gave a commitment to the people of British Columbia and the other western provinces that I would do my best to ensure that any government would bring western Canadians into the decision-making process and that that feeling of frustration, alienation and impatience could somehow be dissipated by allowing westerners to become more fully represented. I also gave an undertaking that I would make the Liberal Party more relevant again in western Canada. That is an essential priority for me. Canada is not just an Atlantic nation, Mr. Speaker. Canada is an Arctic nation and a Pacific nation. New prosperity in western Canada depends upon the Pacific Rim. Our trade, tariff and transportation policies must reflect this new reality and new direction. I congratulate the Government for making some reference to it in the Speech from the Throne.
Our Party, Mr. Speaker, stands for an independent foreign policy for Canada. We must have close relationships with all our friends and allies. We must keep our NATO commitment. However, we must never simply mimic American policy. Those are grand words in the Throne Speech about restoring "goodwill, partnerships" and "fruitful co-operation" with the United States. I am all for that. I echo those sentiments, but not at the expense of Canadian political sovereignty, the independence of our foreign policy or our cultural or economic integrity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I sincerely hope that the omission from the Throne Speech of issues between Canada and the United States, such as acid rain, the bilateral problems we have with our fisheries on both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, and other bilateral problems, does not mean that the Government does not intend actively to pursue solutions on behalf of the people of Canada.
I am glad that the Government intends to continue the initiatives of the previous Government to upgrade our contribution to the NATO alliance. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that while a strong defence is desirable and necessary, the ultimate goal we seek is peace. It is disappointing and I find it incomprehensible that the Throne Speech does not mention any commitment to the peace initiative of my predecessor, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau.
[ Translation]
Mr. Trudeau has won tremendous respect and admiration in Canada for his efforts to establish a reasonable dialogue on the nuclear arms race. I have met many groups and discussed with them the very active role Canada can play in the search for peace. We shall be keeping a very close watch on the Government's activities in this area.
The throne speech mentioned the tremendous problems facing Third World countries. I would urge the Prime Minister at this point to ensure that Canada will continue to play an important role in reducing the economic gap between North and South.

I welcome the study of a parliamentary committee on Canada's role in the world, but what are we going to do in the meantime? I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will enlighten us in the House at an early opportunity as to what his views and those of the Government are and what priorities and new direction the Government intends to pursue. If this is a Government by study, let them have their study; but I would hope that the Minister, who has travelled widely and once held high public office, would honour us with his thoughts on an early occasion in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What about all those undertaking and promises that the Tory Party made during the election campaign? During that election the Prime Minister, his colleagues and his candidates across the country showered an avalanche of promises on the heads of the people of Canada. We tried to count them. We gathered 338 together in a booklet.
I am sorry that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is not here. He put a price tag of $20 billion on those promises and then thought that that might have been generously low. We on this side of the House in the Liberal Party did not believe that
November 7, 1984

the time was right for lavish political promises because the public debt was so high. We knew it and the Prime Minister knew it.
I would like to cite the Prime Minister as quoted in the Financial Post of March 4, 1984. He said we must-[DOT]
-deal with some degree of prudence and frugality with public spending, which is completely out of hand.
When I opened the campaign in Edmonton I set out clearly for the people of Canada the fact that the huge public debt meant that 33 cents out of every tax dollar collected by the people of Canada through their federal Government is now necessary to pay interest. Therefore I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party knew the facts, the Prime Minister knew the facts, but they went ahead anyway and made those promises. We will remind the Government on every relevant occasion about those commitments to the people of Canada and we will remind our fellow citizens about them as well.
I do not want to anticipate, nor do the rules allow me to anticipate, what the Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman, will say this afternoon. I have heard his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and we can hear him tomorrow. He will say, as he has already said, that the cupboard is bare. He will say that the situation is, to use his words, "even worse than we had anticipated". That simply will not wash.
Let me quote Allan Maslove, Director of Carleton University's School of Public Administration. In his words the bare cupboard theory is "a bunch of nonsense". The Conservatives knew the situation. They had the same numbers that we had and they were able to see the same forecasts that were available to us in both the private and public sector. But they chose to ignore them.

I also said during the election campaign that if the Progressive Conservatives ever came to power, they would have only three choices. They would either have to renege on their promises, raise taxes or cut our social programs. Mr. Speaker, they never had the slightest intention of keeping those promises, because they knew the state the country's finances were in.

They might say on the basis of the polls that they like to receive that promises are just words. That only adds to the cynicism with which Canadians tend to view their elected representatives. I tend to believe that it is a question of trust. It goes to the heart of a parliamentary democracy that governments should do what they say they will do, and if they do not they are not fulfilling the mandate which was given to them by the people of Canada.
The Government is now faced with these three options: renege or welch on those promises, raise taxes, or cut into our social programs. That is the position in which the Government has put itself. That is the position about which we will remind the people of Canada. There are a lot of IOUs out there.
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner
I wonder what Peter Lougheed and Premier Devine are saying to the new Prime Minister. I am sure that the Province of Alberta expects the Government to keep its word on market prices for energy. We will wait and see what the Premier of Ontario has to say about that, if he is still saying anything about anything. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the big blue machine that was donated free of charge for the campaign will soon come calling here on the Hill for some of its demands. We will be interested to see how the Prime Minister responds to that.
What has the Government been doing since September 17? There is an old saying which is: "Actions speak louder than words". There are many words in the Throne Speech but very little action. However, in the case of the Government, it is also a case of say one thing but do another.
The Conservatives promised us lean and efficient government. Those were their words. They have given us the largest federal cabinet in history. Restraint is for others. Restraint is for ordinary Canadians, not for that gang. It is the largest government in the history of this country.
I know that the cabinet choices were difficult. There are the blue Tories and the red Tories. To use the vocabulary of the Prime Minister's friend, Margaret Thatcher, the Government has its "wets" and its "drys". If you look, Mr. Speaker-and you should-it is plain that most of the wets in the caucus ended up high and dry.
It is true that the Government has tried to cut down. It has eliminated the foreign affairs and defence committee of cabinet. There are already winners and losers. To use the Prime Minister's words, he promised Canadians "jobs, jobs, jobs". What did we get? Cut, cut, cut and freeze, freeze, freeze.
The Prime Minister said at Prince Albert as he announced the great Prince Albert charter-and I alluded to this earlier in my question-that "You are going to see tens upon tens of thousands of jobs being created just as quickly as a new government can be sworn in". Where are those jobs? What did the Conservatives do? The minute that they were sworn in their policy was to cut, cut, cut and freeze, freeze and freeze. The Government froze the Special Recovery Projects that were necessary to get the economy moving and put Canadians back to work. It killed the First Chance program which would have given on-the-job training to 100,000 young Canadians a year. In its place it produced a pilot program for 3,000 or 4,000 young people, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon. While we offered a first chance for young Canadians, the Government is offering little more than a fat chance. It says not to bother it now but come back later; it says: "Let us see you in the Spring".
The Government is closing embassies and consulates around the world. I see some diplomats in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I would think that the gentleman I have in mind got reconfirmed yesterday. We do not know the purpose for these actions and perhaps the right

November 7, 1984
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner hon. gentleman, the Minister sitting attentively in the House, will advise us on an appropriate occasion.
I am sorry that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) is not here. He is conducting a fire sale on Crown Corporations such as de Havilland, Canadair, Eldorado, TeleGlobe, and apparently Fishery Products International, according to yesterday's release. There is also some suggestion about getting out of Petro-Canada. All of this is being done without any study or analysis of what the impact of the sale of these firms would be. If there is anything that needs more study it is this. I hope we will know the Government's position very soon.
I asked questions about these sales. What are the terms? Who is eligible to buy these corporations? Will foreign companies be allowed to own our aircraft industry? Who assumes the debt? What will be the impact of these sales on Canadian technology and Canadian jobs?
I remember when the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker sat in the House. He regretted for a long time the sale of A.V. Roe and the closing down of that plant.
Even the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), a former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, said the following about the proposed sale of one Crown corporation: "There is as much chance of Fishery Products International being sold to the private sector as me going to the moon". I do not know if the Hon. Member is here but he ought to check with Marc Garneau.

These important economic changes are not even mentioned in the throne speech. They should be debated in the House, because they are too important to be left to the discretion of one minister. I hope the Minister of Finance will give full attention to these issues in his economic statement tomorrow. [English]
The promise of lean government seems to apply to everyone but the Government itself. Restraint is for others. Its ministry of 40 is the largest in Canadian history. The first thing the Government did was almost double the budgets for Ministers' political staffs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Political commissars.


John Napier Turner: Then they appointed political chiefs of staff. On Jack Webster's show I called them "political commissioners".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Under Erik.


John Napier Turner: There are political commissars for each Minister at $80,000 a year per head.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: I know that an aide to the Prime Minister describes these changes as, and I quote this invisible aide, "a slight upgrading of the salary structure but
not a major one". All I can say is welcome to 1984. That comment will get the George Orwell prize for double-speak for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What next do we have? The next time the Prime Minister and his colleagues go with their staff to Meech Lake, perhaps it will be a dacha for each one of the Ministers and for each one of the commissars.
This is the Party that spoke so fervently about the rights of Parliament. Not only are these commissars paid more than Members, but they have more access to Cabinet and more influence than Members and they will be the Prime Minister's eyes and ears in every Minister's office in every department.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Nielsen.


John Napier Turner: Yes, I am going to talk about the Deputy Prime Minister in a moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: He is not worth talking about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am afraid that this vast assembly of Tories elected by the people of Canada, those who sit forlornly in the back-benches and in the wings will be the forgotten men and women of the country, the forgotten men and women of Parliament, because their authority has now been taken over by the commissariat.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Gauthier:: They are the book ends.


John Napier Turner: The Tories, Mr. Speaker, promised open and generous government. They are giving us secretive government, closed government, a very centralized government, even at this very early stage. Why? Ministers must get approval from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I congratulate him sincerely on his post. He and I have known each other for years, before he sat in Parliament. We have flown over his constituency in his plane. Nearly "bought it" once!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers must now get the approval of the Deputy Prime Minister before making public statements. The watchwords will be, "Have you checked it with Erik?"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: As a matter of fact, Members are not allowed to have a drink with our colleagues
November 7, 1984

here in the Press Gallery without worrying about whether Erik is going to come through the door.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Check with Erik. Can we go to the bathroom? Check with Erik.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Foster:: Go to the john? Check with Erik.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: It used to be follow John. Now you have to get permission.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Woe betide his dictum and his fiat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The motto of the Deputy Prime Minister has become, after Theodore Roosevelt, "Speak softly. Carry a big stick". But that is just when he is dealing with his Cabinet colleagues. I say to the Members sitting behind him: Beware, watch out, and protect yourselves!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You ain't seen nothing yet.


John R. Rodriguez: You, too.


John Napier Turner: I am sorry he is not here but I find it inconceivable, for instance, that when the Minister of Justice appeared at the roast for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, (Mr. Johnston), and my sister was also there and competing with Mr. Crosbie for attention-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -he said, 1 am sorry I cannot be as eloquent as I usually am because I am "not allowed to speak".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That was the most disappointing news I had heard because I was counting on the Minister of Justice to raise the standard of debate from the other side of the House and to make it a little more interesting in here.
This is but one of the many reversals we have witnessed since the Ministers were sworn in, Mr. Speaker. I saw the "born again" Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) earlier. When in opposition he attacked the Government vehemently for trying to collect the $3.5 billion in taxes owed to Ottawa. Now, suddenly, he intends to get tough. I use his
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner words. He said he was going to "get tough with income tax evaders".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is terrible.


John Napier Turner: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, what a difference and what a wonderful change a large staff and a chauffeur can do to a man.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: During the campaign the Progressive Conservative Party built up enormous expectations in the people of Canada. This Throne Speech has frustrated those expectations. It offers only meditation, contemplation, rumination, and, most of all, hesitation.


John Edward Broadbent: Sounds like a Liberal to me.


John Napier Turner: New Democrats are impatient, Mr. Speaker; they have an exaggerated opinion of their own importance. But I want to warn the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) not to let that chauffeur and car go to his head.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: His price was a car.


John Napier Turner: At least it was a General Motors product. As the session goes on, maybe the price will be higher.
One of the most important programs in our country is medicare. It is being threatened by user fees and extra billing. During the campaign the Prime Minister had an answer, which I will quote:
The answer is clearly, in the circumstances, more money to maintain the services ... and it's a question of where your priorities are.
Obviously the protection of medicare is not a priority with this Government. It is not even mentioned in the Throne Speech.
The Prime Minister indicated a willingness to address the issue of pensions for homemakers. He made a commitment in the debate on national television affecting womens' issues, but there is no mention of homemakers' pensions in the Throne Speech.
There were 39 specific promises made by the Progressive Conservatives in the energy area. Not a single one received even an honourable mention. In fact, the whole energy sector was ignored. I think this is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) admitted during the election campaign, that was that quiet little accord with the provincial ministers-this is carrying it a little too far. We could at least have heard something in the Throne Speech as to the direction of this Government. Farmers and fishermen at least get a passing reference. But where is the promise to change the advance payments crops Act to double cash advance levels?

November 7, 1984
The Address-Rt. Hon. John Turner
We realized the necessity, as the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said in Question Period, to trigger a further payout of $500 million in advance payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. The Prime Minister's colleague, the Premier of Saskatchewan, says even that is not enough. When will the Government tell western farmers what they can expect? Where is the promise to remove the 9 per cent federal sales tax on diesel fuel and gasoline used by farmers and fishermen? Where are the 46 specific promises to our multicultural communities? They are not there.
Where are the commitments to regional development, that special assistance to the Atlantic Provinces announced in Halifax? They are not there. Where are the commitments to housing? Housing starts have dropped by 14,000 this October. What does the Government intend to do? Where is the commitment to remove the capital gains tax on the transfer of farm land? Farms in western Canada are immobilized until the Government makes up its mind and the Minister of Finance tells us whether or not that commitment will be fulfilled. Where is the commitment to roll back the freight rate increases on grain for western farmers? Where is the commitment to freeze rail line abandonments?


Mr. Blaikie:: You don't want to kill the Crow.


John Napier Turner: There were many more promises made which I will not list. They are there. They are not mentioned and they will not be fulfilled.
The point is: it is fine to make grand gestures during election campaigns, but the real acid test begins today. I say to the Prime Minister: "What are you going to deliver to the people of Canada?"
The Minister of Finance just told us today that in his economic statement tomorrow there will be expenditure cuts. We are seeing the plan as it develops, the old one-two punch- first, the Throne Speech to try to soften us up, and then tomorrow the knock-out punch in this financial statement. Maybe when Canadians pick themselves up off the floor on Friday morning we will have at last a clear indication of where the Government will take us.
Tremendous expectations were raised during the campaign. What we are presented with in the Throne Speech is a series of consultations. It is government by study, by seminar. The word "consultation" is used eight times. "Consensus" is mentioned eight times. "Co-operation" is mentioned seven times-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -but no action. We expected a bold plan of action. We now have a Government which gives us no action but goes into a retreat. They are not monks and we are not living in a monastery. Canadians want action. They do not want contemplation. Canadians do not want studies and they do not want seminars. Perhaps what is most disappointing is that there is really no vision of the future in that Throne Speech. There are no new goals to inspire us,
no new directions in which to lead us. Instead we are presented with a long list of studies, consultations, consensus and process.
That is not leadership. Studies are not action. Process is not an agenda for progress. The Prime Minister and his Party have a massive majority. We can see it in this House. We can see it all around us. Now they are the Government. Now they must fact the tough issues and difficult decisions. That is what their role is. That is what the Canadian people put them into office to do, not to study, contemplate, ruminate and meditate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Harry Truman, a former President of the United States, would not have been happy with yesterday's result across the border. However, I commend his words on one ocasion to the Prime Minister:
A leader has to lead, or otherwise he has no business in politics.
A government which promised jobs, jobs, jobs is telling 1.5 million unemployed Canadians to wait until spring. They are saying "Go away, give us time; we want to reflect upon it. We cannot talk to you now. Come back next year when we have studied everything".
For this reason I propose, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the following amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne:
That the Address be amended by adding the following words:
"But this House condemns your advisers for their failure to demonstrate
leadership and to provide plans for immediate action in the creation of tens
upon tens of thousands of new jobs".


Mr. Speaker:: I have checked the amendment and it appears to the Chair to be in order.
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude to the constituents of the riding of Manicouagan where I was born. At a critical, very critical moment in my life, my constituents, my childhood friends and others gave me outstanding support, for which I am deeply grateful today.

I was touched by the thoughtful and eloquent comments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) at the beginning of his remarks. Then they went downhill. However,
I thank him for his generous and appreciated thoughtful observations. I want to tell him-and I speak with some knowledge as a Quebec Conservative who watched many elections go by-that he should take some heart from the realization that he is now the leader of the largest group of Liberals elected anywhere in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is nice to see his Quebec lieutenant seated exactly where he should be-two sword lengths away.

November 7, 1984



How things change after an election, Mr. Speaker! The "common man" from Shawinigan has become the spokesman for Bay Street. How extraordinary! A revolution! As legal adviser, he will undoubtedly defend the interests of the multinationals and American corporations. What a dreadful omen for the future!

I was impressed by the ringing declaration of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect-and I think I got it right-that governments, it was said, should always do what they say they are going to do, with just about that degree of emphasis.
The Throne Speech of 1980 given by the then government contained the following words, and I paraphrase but modestly: "18 cents a gallon is too much". "We must reduce the rate of unemployment". It was 800,000 then and it rose to 1.5 million. "We are going to arrest the growth in the size of government". It was $60 billion per year then. It is $100 billion now and climbing every day as a result of their mismanagement. Then the big one in the Throne Speech: "Elect us and we are going to reduce the deficit in a planned and orderly way". It was because of four solemn undertakings made and violated by the Liberal Party that the Canadian people placed not the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, because he was not here, but his colleagues in opposition for a long, long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition alluded to a growing concern in recent years about the perception of Parliament and the fact that it does not appear to be in full control of government, parliamentary committees are less than effective and the role of the individual Member is under attack. Canadians, irrespective of politics, want to know that the elected Members are in charge to the extent humanly possible of Canada's affairs and that government, again irrespective of stripe, is accountable to the duly-elected Member of Parliament.
Therefore, for that reason among others we announced the creation of a parliamentary task force to deal with this vital matter. I am honoured today to be able to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most outstanding Parliamentarians of my generation has accepted the chairmanship. I refer to the Hon. James McGrath.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In congratulating the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) for his conviction in and great knowledge of the petrochemical industry in his area, I want as well, and I think he would want me to do it, to-

-underline the graceful and eloquent manner in which the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) seconded the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne yesterday.
The Address-Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney
Although she is the youngest Member of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, she delivered her speech with obvious ease and self-assurance, and I think that she belongs to the generation of Quebecers and Canadians who are now striving for a stronger, more open and more generous Canada.

In terms of improvements, there are many. I will not list them today, but one of the dramatic improvements that have been made since the new Government took office has been the quality of some of the ambassadors appointed. Yesterday, in a moving speech by Stephen Lewis, the new Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, with regard to Ethiopia and the problems of Africa, he cut out and set out important policies and views. He spoke movingly of the situation in Africa. I know I speak for all Members of this House in saying, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), that we shall provide leadership and assistance in this grave crisis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was with deep consternation and sorrow that we learned last week of the tragic death of Mrs. Gandhi, and again I would like to extend my personal heartfelt condolences and those of all my fellow Canadians to her son, the Prime Minister, and to the other members of her family. Canada is determined to maintain close and cordial relations with the world's most populous democracy.

Still in the area of external affairs, yesterday I had the opportunity of conveying personal congratulations and those of my Party-and I know I spoke for all Members of this House-to President Reagan as Leader of the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know I spoke for all Members of this House, even some people in the galleries. In fact, I may say parenthetically that the Liberal convention was a dismaying event. Not the result; I was delighted with the result. I refer to the visceral anti-American feelings that were expressed. The hostility to our friends saddened and disappointed many Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Canadians responded on September 4. The United States is our friend, neighbour, ally and largest trading partner. We value our friendship with the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and our other allies and supporters. Recognition of this is an act of maturity, not of servility. Our intention as a government is to maintain those first-class relationships around the world.

In a few moments, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will have to leave for the airport. I have already mentioned this to

November 7, 1984
The Address-Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney
the Leader of the New Democratic Party and asked him to forgive me, but I must go to the airport to welcome Laurent Fabius, the new Prime Minister of France.
This relationship is a cornerstone of our foreign policy which will help us in establishing and maintaining warm and fruitful relations with France at all times and under all circumstances.

I do not mean to be unduly critical today. Even if I tried to be critical of the previous Government, I could not do as good a job as was done by the Leader of the Opposition during the Liberal leadership convention. He was tremendous: deficit spending, declining productivity, declining commitment to research and development, abusive treatment of the private sector, the 1981 Budget, the MacEachen Budget, the NEP which just about extinguished the entrepreneurial spirit and debilitated the private sector.
We are going to re-energize the private sector in this country because that is the way new jobs are created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 must say that it was with sadness when I saw the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-

-reverse his stand in the middle of the election campaign, when, after he had made serious and important comments about the National Energy Program, he went to Halifax, and, probably after consulting with Senator Davey, who is also from Bay Street and who is here today, said that he was in favour of the National Energy Program.

It was an astonishing conversion and a debilitating one. That kind of retroactive provision is odious. Canadian wealth, prosperity and new opportunities are not built on confiscating somebody's property.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 say this because my right hon. friend was by and large not responsible. Nor was he responsible, but this is the heritage, for the downgrading of our military obligations, the churlish and vexatious treatment of the United States of America, our greatest friend, neighbour and ally, the United Kingdom and others.
We were left with unemployment at tragically high levels, an industrial base that had been gravely eroded and to which the Leader of the Opposition quite properly addressed his considerable ideas and force of character during the leadership campaign. The industrial base of the country was gravely eroded, and has been. The private sector has been undercapitalized and unappreciated by a series of these governments.
Today, not a word of contrition, not a single little mea culpa for what has happened to the country, not an ounce of humility. The Liberal Party has been wiped out in the provinces,
reduced to a rump here and we do not get even a little 'I'm sorry*. I am not asking for much, just a little bit of an acknowledgement that indeed perhaps the Liberals were not-

-in secure possession of the truth at all times. They are perhaps somewhat less perfect that the Hon. Member from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) used to say occasionally! But that is not the point. I must respectfully say that I do not see how the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) can have the gall to criticize us for anything after having been with his colleagues in power for 20 years. As for us, we have only been in power for two months, but I can tell you this: Give us 20 years, and it is coming, and you will not recognize this country. Moreover, the whole area of federal-provincial relations will also be completely changed.
The Leader of the Opposition belittles the process of consultation and the notion of respect toward the provinces that are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. We believe that these are important and even vital gestures in a federal state, and that we cannot operate without healthy and dignified consultations. This must be understood.
The Hon. Member for the Thousands Islands, who has been named his deputy for Quebec, accused me during the election campaign, and this shows the mentality of that party. The Hon. Member for the Thousands Islands, who is here today, said in an important speech in Quebec that the then Leader of the Opposition-


An Hon. Member:: Laval-des-Rapides.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sorry, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said that the then Leader of the Opposition was leading a party of Orangemen. That is wrong: As the Hon. Member can see, I lead a party made up of Orangemen, Knights of Columbus, Ladies of Sainte-Anne, Daughters of Isabelle, Kiwanis and Lions' clubs members, of former Liberals, former Creditists and of all those who believe that the time has come for renewal and prosperity in Canada. To speak about Orangemen is to bring back a lot of nonsense from the 1940s. In fact, that was the traditional bogeyman of the Liberal Party in 1940. I think that after sober consistera-tion the people in Quebec and in the rest of Canada came to the conclusion that they were going to put an end to the monopoly of the Liberal Party over the francophone vote in this country. Enough of that nonsense! We are going to vote for a new party and a new prosperity in Canada.
I regret to say that the Leader of the Opposition went to Quebec and found three separatists. Three. As for me, I discovered a population saddened by such statements and determined to reject them and to respond to the call for unity and progress. The people of Quebec and Canada decided that, since it was harbouring such harmful attitudes, the Liberal Party needed a period of rest, of reorientation and of renewal which might last a long time.
November 7, 1984

I have already conveyed to my friend, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, my regrets at having to leave somewhat early to go to the airport to welcome the Prime Minister of France. However, before concluding I simply want to say that the agenda before the House as set out in the Throne Speech strikes me as being reasonable, appropriate and fair for the country. We seek an end to confrontation. We seek an end to division and conflict. We seek a new era of co-operation and understanding.
I am fully aware of the limitations of the thought itself. I know that there will be difficult moments. 1 think, for example, of the area of federal-provincial co-operation in which, for 15 years, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador asked for one thing of the Government. They asked for an honourable deal in the offshore and they were told consistently either to do it the Liberal Government's way or it would not be done at all. We applied the great traditions of building upon regions and, understanding the vitality and the necessity of that strength and in a spirit of honourable compromise, we went to Newfoundland-and we will be back again-to conclude an arrangement with Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to the development of that magnificent resource, in the firm belief that people from Newfoundland are entitled to fairness as well and that what is good and prosperous for Newfoundland is good for Canada.

And we have approached the West exactly the same way. We are going to negotiate with Ontario and Quebec. We are, however, going to stop building judo clubs in Quebec churches. That was a hobby of the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). We are going to or at least we shall try to reach some kind of agreement with the elected government of Quebec, and start a reasonable and intelligent dialogue in order to create jobs for Quebecers and Canadians. That is this Government's mandate, both in Quebec, Alberta and Newfoundland, and we intend to fulfil that mandate.

There is no suggestion, Mr. Speaker, not today nor during the election campaign, that we pretend to have all of the answers. We recognize the seriousness of the problems. May I say parenthetically to my right hon. friend that in regard to the litany that he not improperly set out, there was a very important caveat made in Prince Albert, in Sherbrooke and in Halifax. If he takes the time to read the statement that I released that day, he would see that we indicated that these programs and policies were good for Canada and would be introduced in a timely manner depending upon the state of the finances as we found them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Address-Mr. Broad bent


Martin Brian Mulroney: Tomorrow night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will set this out in detail. The "Hon. Member for Shawinigan or Toronto"-

I am not too sure. Does a guy from Shawinigan go to Quebec City to practise law? No. To Montreal? No. To Shawinigan? No. To Toronto? Yes. I like Toronto, but I did not say during my election campaign: You have a choice between the guy from Main Street and the guy from Bay Street. The guy from Main Street is now the guy from Bay Street. I like both Main Street and Bay Street, and they both voted for our party.

So we put in the important caveat that these programs would be introduced. Pursuant to the statement that will be made by the Minister of Finance tomorrow evening, Mr. Speaker, we will bring forward programs that we believe are reasonable, that are important for the re-energizing of the Canadian economy, that are consistent with our traditions and that people can believe in. We believe that in this spirit of renewal and co-operation and in the search-and it is only a search-for a new consensus, we can and indeed we shall bring a new degree of prosperity to Canada and to Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my comments by referring to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in a way that he will well understand. What I am about to say is not said in any mean spirit, but rarely have I heard a former truck driver talk so much about Bay Street, or a prime minister say so little about his Throne Speech.
I do want to begin, most sincerely, by congratulating both the mover and the seconder of the motion. These two Members spoke well, seriously and with conviction. I congratulate them on their beginnings in this Parliament.
I would like to speak about what I thought would be the substance of the debate-the future of Canada. Instead, what we had was a rehash of an election campaign which I thought had been put behind us. In that connection I say that the Throne Speech should assess the problems of a nation, regional, between groups and between individuals, and it should lay out in general terms a new Government's approach to those problems. It should not pretend to provide all the answers, but it should at least pretend to set a new direction and provide a new beginning for the nation following an election.
Without belabouring the problems-because the people of our country know the problems-I would like to indicate some of the matters which, in the view of my colleagues, and I think the vast majority of Canadians, ought to be addressed by this Parliament. Most of the problems ought to be addressed before the House adjourns for the Christmas break. I do not mean

November 7, 1984
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
that the problems should be solved, but provision for solutions ought to be started. What are some of the problems?
[ Translation]
Unemployment: one out of every eight Canadians has been without a job for the past two years. Among our young people, 18 per cent are unemployed. Poverty: 4.3 million Canadians are now living below the poverty line. Moreover, most of our single-parent families whose head is a woman are also living below the poverty line.
The tax system: it has become increasingly unfair. Over the past 10 years, the number of Canadians whose income exceeds $50,000 per year and who are paying absolutely no income tax has increased from 300 to over 8,000.

Add to these particular problems, that are very real, the problems of our farmers. During the past decade, year in and year out, farmers have had a decline in their real income. Add to that the problems which are becoming increasingly evident for men, and particularly women, who are faced with technological change. One can see that any government coming to power in Canada at this particular moment, whatever its ideological stripe, has its problems set out.
Canadians voted for change. I sincerely congratulate the Prime Minister and his Party. They won one of the great political victories in the history of our country and they deserve to be commended for getting the democratic support of the majority of our people. Having received that support, and having obtained a mandate for change, leadership of a very high order is required, leadership which will indeed begin to address the problems and do so from within the framework of the changes which were promised in the election campaign. The people of Canada are looking for change which will be compassionate, serious and which will provide a greater opportunity for Canadians, young and old, men and women.
If we begin to assess the Throne Speech-and I think in this debate we should spend a little time on that-and if we look at the speech in terms of providing change, what do we find? First, we must consider the stated goals and look at what is found in this Throne Speech as compared with previous Throne Speeches provided by the Liberal Government.
In this speech we find a commitment to "national reconciliation". That is a replacement for the Liberal wording which covered the same objective. The Liberals preferred to offer a "new era of federal-provincial consultation".
On the subject of social justice, we heard a commitment to "value and support the comprehensive social security system", instead of the Liberal words of "strengthening the safety net". Perhaps that expression is a little less elegant, but it is the same goal.
On the question of economic renewal, instead of Liberal talk about a "critical national objective", the Conservatives give us a "critical national challenge". Having listened to the Throne Speech, I was not at all surprised to hear on the news that evening the finance critic for the Liberal Party saying that the
Conservative Throne Speech could have been written by a Liberal. I would make a small correction to that statement-it was written by a Liberal.
If there is nothing new in terms of the stated objectives of this Government, if it is essentially a reformulation using new buzz words and new concepts of goals which were provided by the previous Liberal government, I would say right away that the New Democratic Party supports the same goals. I would also say that when the day comes-and I believe it will come-that the New Democratic Party will write a Throne Speech for the people of Canada, and if we talk about the same laudable goals, we will use new terminology. My concern is not with the spurious battle of words. I would rather get on with what I regard to be the essence of such a debate and the essence of such a Throne Speech. It is not over that type of matter that I feel we should be having disputes. My concerns are a little different.
My concern is not about the general goals, which I have said are quite laudable; my concerns are with specifics. The specifics, such as they were in the Throne Speech, almost without exception, were the unfulfilled specifics of the old Liberal agenda. I will not document that case. However, I believe any journalist-and there are a number of journalists who actually do their homework-looking through the list of specific Throne Speech commitments provided by the new so-called Conservative Government would find very quickly that the specific commitments which relate to some of these goals are, by and large, on the unfulfilled agenda of the past Parliament.
I want to add right away, Mr. Speaker, that many of those particular specific commitments we would support as well. However, I raise this point for the consideration of the people of Canada, those men and women who are regarding this debate as it takes place in the House of Commons, those men and women in Atlantic Canada-

-in the fine province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario and in Western Canada who have voted for a change.

I have a simple question: where is the change? Where is the change, Mr. Speaker? Where is the new beginning we were promised?
With respect to the Throne Speech, what really does concern me is not simply the absence of the specifics, and I will come back to some of those in a moment, but what is the economic philosophy which permeates the Throne Speech. The political agenda of this Government began to be set out pretty clearly shortly after September 4 in statements made by the Prime Minister from Meech Lake, by statements made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and other Ministers of the Crown. It is perhaps best illustrated by a phrase from the Throne Speech
November 7, 1984

itself-which I understand was added at the last moment- which is this:
That we must deal urgently with the deficit is beyond dispute.
This is not simply the view, Mr. Speaker, expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), at least the view he expressed before the summer campaign got under way. It is also the view which had begun to be established by the previous Liberal Government. The Liberal Throne Speech of last year used the following words: the Government would pursue-
-a fiscal policy track which will contain and then curb the federal deficit as recovery strengthens.
The case I want to make, Mr. Speaker-and I do so for all members of my Party from coast to coast as well as for all the men and women of our country-that if they considered all the implications of this debate, they would find that this fundamental approach pursued by the previous Liberal Government in its latter years, and reiterated with great emphasis by this new Conservative Government, is fundamentally wrong. This approach by the Government mistakes the symptoms for the disease. By attacking on a priority basis the symptoms of a disease instead of its causes, there is serious risk of doing irreparable damage to the patient.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that our problem is one of bad economic performance. Our problem in Canada is that too many men and women are collecting unemployment insurance cheques instead of paycheques. Our problem is that there is too much suffering and too few jobs in the country. Our need as a nation is not to repeat the errors of the past but to learn from them. Our need is not to have a government which plans to implement recent Liberal policy. What we need is a government which would change that Liberal policy.
I say with a great deal of emphasis, Mr. Speaker, that the current mess our economy is in and its ramifications throughout our land were indeed the creation of the Liberal Party of Canada. There can be no doubt about that. However, I also want to say that the Liberal Government just a few years ago began to try to extricate itself from this mess. It began then to see as a disease what I have described as the symptoms. It began to go just a few years ago in a direction which the Conservative Party has now pursued and will be pursuing with a great deal of vigour, I am sure, tomorrow night. That is to say, it began a series of policies and programs with which Canadians are now pretty familiar. I want to remind the Conservatives of the Liberal origin of their current policy. We had in recent years the six and five program, civil service cut-backs, reductions in family allowances, reductions in pensions, and increased loopholes provided in our tax system for upper-income Canadians. We had not millions but billions of dollars in the form of give-aways in an unaccountable fashion introduced into the corporate tax system, give-aways which went out to the corporate sector without performance criteria being attached to them. All of these things, I say, are within the framework of the kind of policy which is now being pursued but incorrectly described by this new Government as being a new policy. These policies were begun by the Liberals.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
What did the Liberals say that these policies would lead to? They said that they would lead to economic recovery, that they would begin to turn the mess around which the Liberals had created from 1968 up to the end of the 1970s. But what did we receive instead? We had upper-income Canadians who received the tax breaks, yes, but last year investment in the economy went down, not up. We had thousands of corporations taking advantage of the tax benefits, and I do not criticize them for doing so. Anyone would take a tax benefit if he could. However, the same corporations, according to the president of one of our chartered banks, indicated there was a whole batch of programs which gave them windfall profits they did not need. They received largesse from the taxpayers but did not invest it. We did not create more jobs, Mr. Speaker, we created fewer jobs, and it is to these kinds of programs that we want to put an end.
I want to say to the Conservative Government that, in my view, the approach that it is now embarking upon could turn out to be not only disastrous for the people of Canada but could be its own political undoing. Partisan politics is something that that Party understands very well. I ask the Conservative Government to consider those parts of the world that have already put into operation, on a deeply penetrating basis, the kind of approach which the Liberals started in recent years and which we heard in the Throne Speech and in statements earlier this month from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. It has not been applied in the United States. Mr. Reagan was originally elected on a campaign to reduce the deficit. He went around the United States saying that the top priority should be the reduction of the deficit. When Mr. Reagan came to power, what did he do? Did he reduce the deficit? Not at all. The United States under the Reagan administration has had the most massive increase in the deficit of any period since World War II. The United States has also had the most rapid economic growth, the lowest level of inflation and the best job-creation rate of any industrialized country in recent years. Mr. Reagan preached one thing but practised another when it came to major fiscal policy.
Where have we seen the application of this new Conservative approach, Mr. Speaker? Where have we seen it put into operation? We have seen it put into operation in the United Kingdom by Margaret Thatcher, who made the mistake of not only taking up the rhetoric of Mr. Reagan but the substance. What she has produced in the United Kingdom is an unmitigated disaster. High unemployment persists, social conflict has exacerbated. Instead of bringing a sense of renewal of purpose to the people of Great Britain, Mrs. Thatcher has brought to them a new level of despondency.
I do not have to go to the United Kingdom either, Mr. Speaker. I can go right to the West Coast and the Social Credit Government of Mr. Bennett. We have seen in the Province of British Columbia that Conservative philosophy which the present Prime Minister has advocated in this Throne Speech. That province, once wealthy in opportunities for men and women, in jobs and social services, has gone persistently

November 7, 1984
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
downhill ever since Mr. Bennett applied the economic philosophy of the so-called new Conservative Government we have with us today. Not only has unemployment worsened but, I say with care and concern, so have relationships among the people of British Columbia. We have never seen such conflict and antagonism within the same community as we now find in British Columbia. Anyone would be pretty naive and foolish to think the people of British Columbia are fundamentally different from Canadians elsewhere. Not at all. When you have a misapplication of an economic philosophy, when you have a government that wants to determine its policies to benefit the quick and the slick, a government that tries to turn recent economic history upside down by putting forward the wrong set of priorities, you create the kind of disharmony and tension that we have in British Columbia. My Party will have nothing to do with that for the country as a whole.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister himself, it seemed to me, in the election campaign had a view very similar to what I am expressing. One of the speeches he made in the summer of 1984 seemed to indicate, in my view, that he had a proper sense of economic priorities for this nation. He said in Vancouver on August 24, appropriately enough in light of what I have just said, that "clearly there can be no drastic reduction in the deficit until interest rates are lower and the country gets back to work. Massive cuts now would guarantee a recession". Well, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was right when he said that in the summer of 1984, and he should be applying consistently the same thought as a matter of policy in November, 1984, in the House of Commons.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are very specific things that could be done to implement the general goals which were outlined in the Throne Speech, and with which I happen to agree, where it talked about economic renewal, co-operation and social justice. I also want to suggest that there are proposals the Prime Minister himself made during the election campaign but which we now find notably absent from what he plans to do as Prime Minister.
Let us consider first of all economic renewal. I believe it to be the case that we really want to reduce the deficit at some point. Every sensible politician, every sensible Canadian, indeed every sensible person around the world, wants at some point to have a reduction in his deficit. You would have to be pretty mindless to say, no, we must go on forever with increasing deficits. That is a spurious caricature of the position some people take. No one really takes that position. But if you begin with your priority of economic growth, which is what we begin with, then when you get that, you will have revenue because people have jobs. The Government will receive taxes from both individuals and companies because the people are working and the companies are making profits instead of suffering losses.
Therefore, the priorities should be jobs, jobs, jobs, as the Prime Minister once said. We should be setting targets for unemployment reduction. It seems to me that, as certain other nations have done in recent times, you could set a target of a 2 per cent to 3 per cent reduction per year in unemployment.
Why in God's name, when we have 1.5 million Canadians suffering unemployment, do we have to wait, as this Throne Speech says, until next spring? Why can we not set those targets now to give Canadians some help?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What are some of the things that could be done in terms of economic renewal, Mr. Speaker? Well, as the Prime Minister promised at one point in the campaign, we could have a reduction in interest rates. We have suggested, and I will not go over the details now, a process which, as a matter of fact, certain Conservative circles endorsed, as I found in a learned Journal not long ago, as one approach to interest rate reduction. I will commend the article to the Prime Minister. He could bring down interest rates, and that would make it easier for business to borrow and expand. But I say, not only to the Prime Minister but to the Leader of the Opposition, that if we have a 1 per cent or 2 per cent reduction in interest rates, the carrying charges for our very substantial national debt would be reduced by millions of dollars each year. In addition, we should do something which seems to me should hardly be seen as radical in a modern world. Instead of having a corporate tax policy that simply gives out money to corporations in the rather naive hope, whatever the market circumstances may be, that they will reinvest the money and use it for productive purposes, we should put an end to this largesse. We should say to corporations: Yes, if you perform, if you have a retraining program and affirmative action programs for women, if you expand because you have purchased equipment from another Canadian firm, then yes, then and only then you will get money from the Canadian taxpayer. That is the kind of policy we think should be put in place.

Mr. Speaker, we must establish a youth initiative assistance program, such as the one which was part of our party platform last summer, to help young people, put to good use both their knowledge and skills. Such a program would encourage economic initiatives and create 100,000 new jobs for our young men and women. It would result in major economic spin-offs. [English]
Next, Mr. Speaker, in terms of economic renewal, we could have some resource upgrading. Surely the time is long overdue in this resource-rich land of ours that we took seriously the task of upgrading into finished form more of the products of our forests, mines and fishery instead of simply dealing, as we have for so long in our history, with the export of the raw product. It is time now to upgrade our resources and get more of those secondary jobs. New investment is required there.
The income of farmers has been going down for a decade. The Conservatives could implement what they promised, which is to remove the tax on fuels for our farmers so that they could do their job more efficiently. Consumers would benefit and so would they as producers.
These proposals, Mr. Speaker, would put the priorities right. We are not wed to all of these ideas, but some of them make
November 7, 1984

excellent economic sense. All of them we would like to see implemented, but 1 plead with the Government, if it is talking about economic renewal, to forget this recently acquired version of Reaganism. Look at what has happened in the United Kingdom and in British Columbia. Let it implement instead the priorities that the Prime Minister promised to the people of Canada in August when he sought the office of Prime Minister.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move from the question of economic renewal to that of co-operation. The Prime Minister has spoken often about that, and I believe that he believes it very genuinely. I say candidly that one of the pleasant aspects of the personality of the Prime Minister is that he does have a disposition to try to make friends instead of making enemies, and that is good in any nation. It is particularly good in a federal state like Canada. I also say that he is going to discover before long, whether in dealing with the Premiers or with President Reagan, that a warm handshake and a smile are not sufficient. If we want a co-operative attitude to develop in our country, it seems to me that certain basic policies, rather than just attitudes, must be implemented.
Consider taxation. We in my Party talked a lot in the summer campaign about taxation from the point of view of justice and fairness. It is wrong that a pensioner and a working man and woman in this land should be paying plenty of taxes when a rich person does not have to pay a cent. Certainly from the point of view of justice we should have a change which ensures that everyone pays his or her share.
I also want to recast the argument, Mr. Speaker, because it is not simply from the point of view of justice that my Party speaks about the need for tax reform. We believe in co-operation too. We believe that men and women working in the private and public sectors should have a more co-operative attitude toward one another. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether he would not have a much greater chance of obtaining that from working people, like IWA members, steelworkers or the many men and women in our country who are not in trade unions at all, if he said that there is going to be tax reform so that upper income Canadians will have to pay their share. Otherwise, other Canadians may ask, "Why should we co-operate? Why should we not get all we can out of the market system? Why should we have a built-in obligation to try to achieve community if those who are most able to pay are not paying a cent?" Therefore, I say to the Prime Minister that it is not simply for justice but also to develop a sense of co-operation that tax fairness is important.
I come to the issue of social justice, which was also addressed in the Throne Speech. Instead of merely giving us an agenda of the unfulfilled commitments of the previous Liberal Government, some of whose items are quite good and some of whose items men and women in all Parties of the House agree with, why did the Government not bring forward something that was really new in the justice field?
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
With regard to pensions, they are setting up a new consultative process. It makes sense to consult with the provinces about a lot of things. We have had commissions, we have had study groups, and we have had parliamentary groups. It seems to me that in the past decade we have had half the country studying pension reform. Could the Government not have said that it will begin now with some legislation to initiate pension reform?
On the subject of daycare, everyone in the country knows that the majority of women growing up now are going to be working outside the home. There has been a decisive turning point, not only in the history of Canada, but in the history of all developed societies. Some women will indeed work, get their satisfaction and make their contribution in the home, but the majority of women growing up are going to work outside the home. Anyone who has studied this problem knows very well, from either the male or female perspective, that if we are concerned about the development of children, something must be done quickly about daycare facilities. Why do we have to set up a committee of the House, as is proposed in the Throne Speech, to look into the idea of daycare? Would it not have made more sense to set up the committee on the basis that the principle of daycare is now assumed, that we are going to have it in Canada, and have that committee report back, perhaps in three months, about the methods of raising revenue in our federal system to make it a real possibility? At the same time we should introduce a minimum tax on all those who are earning more than $50,000 a year, something which we have proposed. From that tax alone more than $400 million in additional revenue would be raised. That money is more than adequate for the initial downpayment which has been advocated by the Canadian Daycare Advocacy Association to give a start to daycare. That is what we could do with it.
I now turn to another area of social justice, that is, the equality principle for women. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if there was an aspect of the campaign which we all lived through in the summer of 1984 which was not simply symbolic but a change of fundamental importance to the history of our land, it was the presence of women in the campaign. They were not all necessarily candidates. My Party had a lot of women, but I say frankly that we did not have a sufficient number of them in terms of what we would like in the future. I am not talking simply about the level of candidate participation. I am talking about women in our society, whether in Montreal, British Columbia, Ontario or on the Prairies. Let us put the issue of the equality of women on the political agenda of our country where it belongs.
As I read the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, and I read it with care, I was more than disturbed, I was deeply disappointed, because in reading that wording I found that when one got beyond the rhetoric to a consideration of the specifics, there was in fact a regression in the commitment made to women. There was a move backwards rather than forwards. I want to remind the Prime Minister of what he said in the election on the issue of fundamental importance to us, the issue of equality

Novembei 7, 1984
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
between the sexes. He said this with reference to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value:
Of course, I will go further. I will make sure that this equality principle is adhered to by all those who are eager to do business with the federal government.

He said that on August 15 during the NAC debate in the election campaign. That was an unequivocal commitment to ensure that companies doing business with the Government of Canada would need to have in operation the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.
On the other important issue affecting Canadian women, that of affirmative action, in March of last year the Prime Minister said the following, which was repeated significantly in May at the lunches with leaders in Toronto:
When seeking Government business, companies will be required to detail their action plans, timetables and programs for attracting, training and advancing women within their operations. This, in my view, is a legitimate and fair requirement.
I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister that if it was appropriate to make commitments in the summer about the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, if it was appropriate to insist on behalf of Canadian women that private companies produce affirmative action programs during an election campaign, it ought to have been in the Throne Speech which we had this week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to conclude with the following words: Canadians do want change, they do want conciliation, they do want economic renewal and co-operation, all of which values are to be found in the Throne Speech. There are things which can be done and there are things which should be done.
It is clear, in my view, that the Liberal Party does not really know what it wants. It said one thing in July, another thing in August, and another thing in the House of Commons. However, something is clear, and that is, that we in the New Democratic Party will maintain consistent with what we promised. When a laid-off worker in the Yukon calls, we will be listening. When a woman telephone worker in Newfoundland complains about sexual discrimination, we will be with her. The next time a farmer in Saskatchewan must take action to defend his or her family farm against a bank, we will be one their side. In short, in the summer of 1984 the New Democratic Party campaigned day in and day out for the ordinary person of this country, and I pledge that the same Party will work day in and day out in the House of Commons for the same people. Thank you very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) wish to move a subamendment?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:
"and specifically, that your government has failed, 1. to set jobs as its top and immediate priority; and to set targets and outline specific new programs to put Canadians back to work; 2. to reform the tax system to ensure wealthy Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and that corporations use their tax breaks to create more jobs; and, 3. to provide immediate measures to bring about equality for women in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I have examined the subamendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and find it proper.
At this point we are continuing debate on the subamendment moved by the Hon. Member for Oshawa.
On motion of Mrs. Browes the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn the House adjourned at 5.14 p.m.

Thursday, November 8, 1984