1984-01-24

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 14, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to his Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mulroney (p. 45).
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to have an opportunity to say a few words on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I express congratulations to the mover and to the seconder on their speeches in this debate.
Also I want to express my compliments to you, Mr. Speaker, on being chosen the Speaker of the House of Commons. You have been a distinguished Member of the House for many years. The recent expression we hear when we talk about astronauts being made of the right stuff certainly applies to you. Certainly during your tenure as Deputy Speaker you proved that in fact you had the right stuff to take on that important and difficult role in which you distinguished yourself. We wish you well, and I know that you have equipped yourself well for your important role in this difficult year of the rest of this Parliament.
In speaking to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, I believe the Government has set out an excellent range of priorities and plans for the Second Session of this Thirty-second Parliament. It is easy to say that there is not enough detail in it; of course, a Speech from the Throne is never designed to give complete detail. That will come as individual Bills are introduced in the House during this session, as well as the Budget which I understand will be announced later this week.
The two priorities of global peace and security and national prosperity are the twin themes on people's minds today. Clearly the concern for economic recovery, the opportunity for jobs and an improved economic situation have to be the top priorities of any politician. At the same time we recognize that as a significant middle-range power in the world Canada has an important international position of responsibility.
[DOT]	(UIO)
Having been in office for the last 15 years, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had an international position of seniority and I think most Canadians are pleased and happy that
he has taken on the role of trying to make a really meaningful contribution to international peace and security.
Last September the Prime Minister visited my constituency of Algoma and the neighbouring constituency of Sault Ste. Marie. At that time he had the opportunity of meeting with the parents of one of the passengers on the KAL-W07 flight involved in the Korean airline disaster, Mr. and Mrs. Hendrie. It was a very difficult time for that family and I am sure it will be in the months and years ahead.
While speaking to 500 to 600 people I realized how much concern there was for the international scene, the growing hostility of the superpowers in the East and West. As the Prime Minister spoke to the gathering about peace. Although we were furious, disturbed, discouraged and concerned with the Russian action in shooting down the airliner, it was obvious that in the end we had to communicate with them in order to find a way to cool down the cold war rhetoric and the ongoing difficulties that exist between the East and the West bloc.
I think it is important that the Prime Minister, because of his position on the international scene, has gained a lot of support for his peace mission, not only from the 45 countries attending the Commonwealth of Nations meeting in New Delhi, India, but from the western European nations, the Chinese, the President of the United States and the Pope, as well as from the countries of western Europe and here at home.
Late in December a poll was conducted by the Toronto Star which indicated that four out of five Canadians polled at that time support the Prime Minister's peace initiative and urge him to continue with it. In the face of the tremendous cynicism there is among the press toward any Canadian taking on any international function or activity, that is encouraging and indicates that the Canadian people do not share that cynicism.
No one underestimates the enormity of the task or the chances of success. It is a very difficult one. It is easy to gain support for a mission of this nature from western democracies and the Third World countries in the Commonwealth of Nations. The real difficulty in western and eastern bloc countries and in Russia is that they do not have the same open society that we have and the same freedom of the press.
As the Prime Minister leaves tonight for a visit to the eastern bloc countries of Europe, I am sure all Members of the House wish him well in this momentous and important undertaking.
I want to comment now on a number of items in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, relating to the economy because these things are important in my constituency. I am

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. Foster
especially pleased that the Government has focused on the question of youth unemployment and has taken a number of initiatives in that regard. A Youth Opportunities Fund of $1 billion has been set aside for youth training. I am pleased that a lot of that money will be earmarked for programs like the Access Program which will provide subsidies for young people to go into the private sector and get jobs. Unemployed youth are always confronted with the question: "What experience do you have?" The youth Access Program will provide the employer with some subsidization while the young person is training. I believe the 400,000 or 500,000 young people who are unemployed and looking for work in this country today represent a great potential opportunity for us if we give them the opportunity for employment, and hopefully much of it will be through the private sector. Conversely, if we do not zero in on that problem, if we do not work very hard to resolve it, it can become the most destructive and wasteful situation in our country.
I am pleased that the Government is going to commit nearly $100 million more to the Canada Works Program. In my constituency that translates into some $445,000, which will, of course, be beneficial. Likewise, the Summer Canada Program which provided approximately 400 jobs last year will be funded at a similar level this coming year. Although there have been additional funds put into the Canada Works Program, I note that there is no corresponding NEED Program this year. I certainly hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), when he brings down his budget next month, will look very seriously at reinstating a program of that magnitude. I know he is concerned that he not increase the budget deficit and I feel that is a sound fiscal position. However, if we look at that $500 million which was spent last year on the NEED Program, we find that the Ontario Government alone put up an extra $100 million which was augmented by several hundred millions of dollars by the private sector and non-profit groups. I believe we see a massive megaproject in terms of dollars being expended. The beauty of that is it is expended in a hundred small communities across the Province of Ontario and across the other provinces of this country.
Unemployment insurance payments, I understand, are running in the order of $1 billion a month now. A commitment of some $400 million or $500 million for additional employment with emphasis on youth in the Budget would be very wise. When you subtract the amount of money which is being paid out in unemployment insurance benefits for those people who are being employed under the NEED Program-in Ontario we call it the Co-Ed NEED Program-the net cost is probably only 25 per cent or 35 per cent of the actual cost of reinstating that program. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look at that when it is planning the Budget later next month.
The important measures which were in last year's Budget, the special recovery tax credits of some $2.4 billion, will start to show a benefit in terms of plant expansion, in export marketing and in additional economic activity in this coming year. In my constituency some of these programs under the
special recovery project got underway last year. Last year we spent about $1 million on small craft harbour development in communities like Little Current, Gore Bay, Bruce Mines and a number of other communities. In this coming year an additional six or seven small craft harbours will be developed and some $2 million will be spent.
This provides not only construction opportunities but a real boost to tourism in our area. We have the north channel of Lake Huron, one of the best cruising and boating areas in the world, and the Government is making an important contribution to small craft harbour development.
As well, in the next few weeks a major project will be tendered and construction will get underway in Elliot Lake on the $8 million mine research laboratory. Construction is slated to get underway in May of this year and will provide significant employment opportunities, and ultimately a very important mine research facility to support the uranium mines there and other mining operations throughout our country.
In Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Speaker, in the Algoma constituency, a new $5 million airport terminal is being designed by the architect and is slated to go to tender later this spring. Those projects will play an important role in providing jobs in this coming year.
There is a project which I have been working very hard in my constituency for, under the Distribution System Expansion Program of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. This program extends natural gas pipelines to unserved areas of eastern Canada. A study is now underway on building a major natural gas pipeline from Sault Ste. Marie along the north shore of Lake Huron, ultimately to the natural gas pipeline in Espanola, but serving all the intervening communities of Bruce Mines, Thessalon, Blind River and Elliot Lake. We hope that project will be approved for support under the DSEP program.
One of the most difficult economic problems faced by my constituency, Mr. Speaker, is that of the steel industry in Sault Ste. Marie which during the past two years has been in a very depressed state of development. There have been important layoffs both in Sault Ste. Marie and many other areas of our country where the steel industry is the main employer. 1 am hopeful that the $16 billion of economic development provided under the Crow Bill which was passed in this House last fall will be beneficial there. I am also hopeful that the agreement which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) has been working on with the Japanese auto industry will be successful because I think that will provide additional opportunities for the steel industry.
There has been very encouraging news in the last few days concerning exploration and development in the oil and gas industry. I think this will provide additional incentives to this industry which is so important to many communities in our country.
January 24, 1984

The Government has to continue to be cautious about dumping of steel in this country. The surtax which was imposed on specialty steel in January shows its concern and interest. There are bills in the United States House of Representatives which would likewise provide protection in the United States. We have to be careful to try to keep the opportunities for sales of steel in the United States open and flowing. That is very important to our steel industry.
1 would like to mention one or two other matters which were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and which are very important in my constituency. There was mention of strengthening the regional development agreements with the provincial governments. I would like especially to mention the forestry industry. It is important that this Government recognize how important this industry is, not only to hundreds of single industry towns such as those in northern Ontario that depend on it, but to the whole national economy. I would like to see the Government make a firm and full commitment to that forestry agreement with the Province of Ontario.
I hope there will be a renewal of the NORDA agreement which will be running out in a couple of months. It is important to the small rural communities in tourism, agriculture and economic development, because some of the other programs just do not reach in and assist those communities. We need to put an important priority on tourism. My constituency is immediately adjacent to the United States and can benefit from the announced program there in many ways.
I would also like to mention the Livestock Stabilization Program which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is very important to that very depressed industry that we work out an agreement with the provincial governments to maintain this industry, which is beneficial to all rural agricultural areas.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think 1984 should be a time of building for our country; a time to build on the turnaround that we have seen in the economy, a time to make the improvements to the social security programs that were suggested in the Speech from the Throne, and to continue to provide the opportunities for all age categories in the communities which we represent in this place.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to you on being promoted to the chair. I wish you well. I would also like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to extend my congratulations to Mr. Speaker Francis on his election as Speaker of this Parliament. I would like to extend my very best wishes to him as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The Speech from the Throne is a traditional part of the life of Parliament at the commencement of a new session. It is put there for a very good reason. It enables the House to examine the Government's program which is epitomized and contained in the Speech from the Throne. It gives
The Address-Mr. McGrath
all Members of the House, particularly Private Members, an opportunity to relate the Government's initiatives and legislative plans to the needs and priorities of Members' respective constituencies. It is a useful exercise. Unfortunately, nobody pays very much attention any more. One could say that is a contradiction. If it is a useful exercise, why are people not paying attention?
I look at the Government Treasury benches and I notice that another convention is being defied here today. It is an established convention of this House that there shall always be a Minister present throughout the sittings of the House regardless of what item the debate is on. That is another convention that seems to have died. That speaks to the need for the Government to get on with parliamentary reform.
We are now operating under an extension of provisional rules which were brought in by the special committee on parliamentary reform. We are essentially operating under the recommendations of the third report of that committee but there are seven other reports, substantively six, which speak to the evolutionary process of parliamentary reform and complete the work of the committee.
The recommendations contained in the third report under which we are now operating were indeed just the beginning of the exercise. In order to complete the exercise, the Government must get on with the implementation of the recommendations of the other six reports. I say six reports because one of those seven reports still outstanding is merely one that corrects the language of one of the previous reports.
I hope the Government will take seriously its plans to get on with parliamentary reform. It certainly is a priority of this Party because we must make the institution relevant to the needs of this modern country. We had to take a look at perfunctory debates, like the Speech from the Throne debate, to see whether or not it still has a useful place in our proceedings.
The Speech from the Throne to open the session, which was supposed to outline the Government's legislative program and address its priorities, was certainly a long speech. In terms of addressing priorities or announcing new intentions, we found very little in it. In fact, we found that the Government was paying lip service to the urgency of getting on with addressing the most pressing problem, unemployment, while at the same time not coming forward with any new programs. All we had was a recycling of existing programs by changing their names. Essentially, instead of getting a program of new legislative intentions, we in fact got an exercise in public relations.
The fact is that there are no new funds in any of the programs announced in the Speech from the Throne to address the problem of unemployment in this country. We are still operating under the same program that was announced in the Budget of last spring and fine-tuned in the announcement in April by the then Minister of Employment and Immigration. That situation will not change until the commencement of the next fiscal year and I do not think we can expect any change

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. McGrath
until the Government brings down its Budget in April which, of course, will be its pre-election budget that will contain all the goodies that are designed to attract the Canadian people and restore confidence in a Government that in fact has lost the confidence of the electorate.
I suppose one can hardly blame the Government in a way when we look at how the press is treading this question. It is difficult to understand how the press could ignore it every time it is raised in the House. That has been the pattern lately. For example, the last unemployment date released a few days before the House opened indicated that unemployment in Canada had actually risen during the recovery year of 1983 over the recession year of 1982. In 1982, the year ended with a rate of unemployment of 11 per cent. In 1983 the year closed out with an unemployment rate of 11.9 per cent. We had fallen behind in terms of unemployment in the country bearing in mind the growth in the labour force.
We saw something in those figures which should be very disturbing to the Government and the country. We saw unemployment locked in at 11.1 per cent over the past quarter, the past three months. There has been no change month over month for the past few months. We are told that that situation will continue into 1984.
We sometimes lose sight of the fact that behind these statistics there are human beings and human problems with potential human tragedies. We seem to forget the fact that there are 1.3 million people in this country today without work. Many of them are long-term unemployed. We forget the fact that there are still over 500,000 young people in this country who are unemployed. That is a situation which has not changed in the past 16 months. Youth unemployment in this country has averaged between 18 per cent and 20 per cent over the past 16 months and we are told by the OECD and economists that this will continue on into 1984 and 1985. That is totally unacceptable. Yet there are no new dollars going into youth programs for this current fiscal year and no new dollars for the next fiscal year. All we have is a recycling of existing programs.
A few days ago I put questions in the House to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) regarding what is called a Special Employment Initiatives Fund. What is the Special Employment Initiatives Fund? That is good question. There is $150 million in the Budget of June, 1982 for what is called the Special Employment Initiatives Fund. That reappeared in the Budget of April last year under a new name.
But it was the same fund, $150 million. It has $300 million so far but we cannot get any information about how that money was spent. We cannot get any information on the criteria regarding how that money is to be spent. We are told that it is not part of the four streams of employment programs of the Department of Employment and Immigration. We are told that it is global in nature and touches all Departments. We are told that we must wait until the Government sees fit to let us have the criteria.
In actual fact, this is a pre-election porkbarrel. We must recognize it for what it is. It is a Cabinet porkbarrel to which
only Cabinet members have access so they can announce grants for swimming pools and hockey arenas across the country in constituencies where they believe it might buy them some political points.
That $300 million is equal to the amount the Government is spending on the only special program it has for young people, the Career Access Program. If that $300 million was taken out of that porkbarrel, or the $200 million which we see was budgeted for that special program next year and which we are told will continue is added to the Career Access Program, we just might do something for the young people rather than provide a mere 90,000 jobs for the 540,000 young people who are unemployed. Yet there was not a word about that from the Government. In the committee we asked for the criteria and were told that it would be coming. We asked for the criteria in the House and were told that it would be coming. We were told by the Minister that it is a fast-tracking program. In other words, you can get your hands on it very quickly if you are a Minister.
There are no criteria. There are no regulations. They answer to no one. It is a hidden porkbarrel and there is not one single line about that fact reported by the press of this country. Why? Because they are bored with the unemployment question. They cannot come up with any new headlines; they say that we are saying the same things over and over again. Certainly we are saying the same things over and over again. We have an obligation to say the same things over and over again as long as unemployment in this country remains the same. We have that clear, moral obligation to say the same thing over and over again. The press has a concomitant obligation to report what goes on in this House, and as long as the press continues to refuse to report the unemployment story and continues to be bored by it, the Government will complacently seem to have nothing to worry about. I say that is a sad commentary on what is going on in this place.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary just made a rather unbecoming intervention. I hope he will say the same thing when he gets the floor, if he does get the floor.


Mr. Fisher:: Do you know what I said?


James Aloysius McGrath: I know what the hon. gentleman said. What he said is not parliamentary and I will not repeat it.
I could continue with the national unemployment statistics but I have an obligation to make some references to my own province. I did a little bit of checking this morning prior to coming into the House. The Province of Newfoundland, with a work force of 221,000 people, has an unemployment rate of almost 20 per cent; 19.5 per cent in actual fact. There are
43,000	people considered to be unemployed, seasonally adjusted with labour force participation factors built in.
That is bad enough, but if you look behind the figures the situation is even worse. I checked with the Unemployment Insurance Commission to see how many people in Newfoundland were drawing unemployment insurance. There are 94,000
January 24, 1984

people, out of a work force of 221,000, or 42 per cent of the work force, in Newfoundland at this moment who are drawing unemployment insurance. That is twice the unemployment rate of 20 per cent. We all know that to draw unemployment insurance you have to be available for work. That is one of the conditions of being able to draw unemployment insurance. Presumably, these people are legitimately unemployed, yet they are not reported as part of the unemployment statistics.
A few days ago an announcement was made that Eastern Provincial Airways would be moving 300 jobs from Gander to Halifax. I am glad the jobs are staying in Canada. I do not begrudge Halifax. All I say to you, Sir, is that Eastern Provincial Airways has the right to move anywhere it wants in Canada but the Government has an obligation to pick up the slack.
Newfoundland gets 0.9 per cent of the national defence budget. Newfoundland receives 0.9 per cent of the national defence budget as opposed to 13.3 per cent for Nova Scotia. Here is an area where the Government can move in and pick up the slack.
Shortly before this we were told that the Bowater mill in Corner Brook would be closing down in April unless a new buyer was found. There will be 1,300 jobs lost in April, not to mention the spin-off in terms of the woodworkers and the City of Corner Brook. A major paper mill in this country will close in April unless a new buyer is found. We are told that the prospects are not good. Yet a few weeks ago the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) announced that this Government was financing to the tune of U.S. $143 million a new paper mill in Malaysia.
Where in the name of God are our priorities? Does the Government think that because we have a built-in unemployment rate of 20 per cent nobody really cares, that the people in Newfoundland do not want to work? We would expect this Government to be looking for new markets for the paper that comes from that mill as opposed to financing the construction of new mills which will further exacerbate the situation for an industry in this country that is in very big trouble because of changes in the trading patterns and new trade arrangements between the Scandinavian countries and the European Economic Community. We are in deep, deep trouble.
Imagine 42 per cent of the work force drawing unemployment insurance in a province that has an abundance of natural resources, the greatest fisheries in the world, a province that has some of the greatest timber resources in the world, a province that has the greatest mineral resources in the world and the greatest potential in terms of untapped hydro resources in the western world, not to mention offshore oil and gas where we have the greatest proven reserves of very high grade crude in the world outside of the Middle East. Yet a province with that kind of a resource base has 42 per cent of its work force drawing unemployment insurance. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary can call that by the same four-letter word if he likes, but the fact is that that kind of a situation in a federation like ours cannot be allowed to continue. It cannot be
The Address-Mr. Penner
allowed to exist. It cannot be condoned and it cannot be tolerated.
If we were to have an agreement today to develop the offshore, we would probably have to wait two or three years before we would feel the results of it. At least it would be something to look forward to. I came to Ottawa from my province during the weekend. There is a feeling of doom and gloom in Newfoundland. There are people watching me on television in Newfoundland right now because they have nothing else to do except watch television. They are drawing unemployment insurance. They do not want to. They want to work. They want to be able to produce. This is lost productivity to this country which we will never regain. They want to get on with the job of producing that tremendous resource base that we have in our province.
Newfoundlanders want to contribute to this country. They want to see opportunities for themselves and they want to see some kind of a future for their children. I say to you, Sir, those opportunities and dreams will go largely unfulfilled as long as we have a government that can accept a national rate of unemployment in this country of 11.2 per cent, that says that full employment is no longer a realistic goal, and that can ignore a provincial economy where 42 per cent of its work force is drawing unemployment insurance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish you well in your new duties. In the brief time available to me to participate in this debate, I want to direct my remarks to just one sentence in the Speech from the Throne. That sentence is as follows:
Action will soon be taken to respond to the report of the parliamentary committee on Indian self-government.
May it be so, because the time is now to end an anomaly which has existed in Canada for far too long. This abnormality, this gross irregularity to which I refer, is that there are
400,000	of our citizens, Indian people, who are living in this country today in a state of colonialism. I am aware that is an emotion laden word, but I chose it very deliberately and carefully. I ask Members of this House how else do they describe a situation in wich 400,000 people living in 600 communities scattered across Canada have virtually everything determined for them on a top-down, decision-making basis.
Their education, their child welfare, their economic development, their housing, their community development, their social services and health are all looked after for them by a huge bureaucracy of some 5,000 people who operate under an antiquated, unjust, discriminatory, prejudicial piece of legislation called the Indian Act, which is the worst piece of legislation that exists anywhere in the entire western world. Officials carry out their duties with appropriations from this House amounting to some $2 billion a year.

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. Penner
I want to be fair. It is true that the Government of Canada has endeavoured to carry out consultations with Indian people regarding policies and programs, but the process has not worked. It has been totally unsatisfactory, so much so that in the Indian community today the word "consultation" has been discredited. It is a tainted and unacceptable word.
To be perfectly fair, and I want to be fair, the Government has made efforts to transfer administrative responsibility to the Indians, but it has never transferred any real control. In transferring administrative responsibilities, it has created more officials to monitor, examine, check and cross-check, to look over the shoulder and breathe down the neck with a never-ending series of memorandums and directives. The special committee that I chaired learned, for example, that there are Indian chiefs and councils across this country that are spending up to 75 per cent of their time as elected people, looking after the administrative over-burden imposed upon them by the federal bureaucracy, the Department of Indian Affairs.
This Elouse is generous, or so it would seem, in appropriating $2 billion annually for all of these programs for Indians. Surely to goodness there is something to show for that amount of money. There must be something good out there to which we can point with pride, because $2 billion is a lot of money.
Let me refer to some statistics, Mr. Speaker. Among Indians there are five times the national average of children who are taken into care. Among Indian young people, only 20 per cent complete high school compared to the national average of 75 per cent. Housing? Well, I do not even want to get started describing housing in Indian communities. It is just deplorable. No other Canadian would live in such conditions.
Income? Indian people have one-half to one-third the national average income. My hon. friend across the way spoke with great passion about the serious problem of unemployment. I share his concern. We have a national rate of unemployment of 11.2 per cent, which is shocking, but among Indian people it is 35 per cent on average. There are Indian communities where unemployment is as high as 80 per cent or 90 per cent.
Infant mortality is 60 per cent higher among Indians than the national rate. As for life expectancy, an Indian woman can expect to live for 66 years; a non-Indian woman in Canada can expect to live 79 years on average. There are too many Indians in prison. There is far too much alcoholism among Indian people, too many violent deaths and too many suicides. All of this is well documented in the Government's own report published in 1980 entitled "Indian conditions-A survey". It is all there, and much more.
It is a shocking, dreadful story. Something is terribly wrong. These statistics tell us that this bureaucratic, top-down, colonial approach is not working. It is a total failure. After reading yesterday's The Globe and Mail, I probably have to correct that. There was a little item in "Morning Smile" which stated: "nothing is ever a total failure-it can always serve as a bad example".
What we have with the Indian conditions in this country is a national disgrace. This national disgrace puts a severe strain upon our international credibility. The report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government in Canada, to which I now want to refer, deserves careful study and consideration. I want to pay tribute to the Members of Parliament from all political Parties in this House who worked with me in the production of this document. I also want to give special thanks to the three Indian members who served in an ex officio capacity. They made a very significant contribution to the findings in this report and to the recommendations.
The report has been well received by Indians and by non-Indians alike. It is a positive response to the fair, just, reasonable and legitimate aspirations of Indian people in Canada today.
This report was not conjured up by a group of Members of Parliament sitting in a committee room in the West Block, dreaming up some ideas that would be good for Indians. It is based on the testimony that we received in one full year of public hearings across this country, listening to Indian leaders and to people who live in Indian communities. We took that testimony, digested it and put it into language that can be utilized by Parliament and by the Canadian people. The report is based soundly on the testimony that we received.
I want to thank this Parliament for having given to this Special Committee terms of reference that were broad enough to enable us to do a comprehensive job. I want to thank this Parliament for granting us the necessary funds so that we could carry out what I consider to be a monumental task.
What, then, are the fair, just, reasonable and legitimate aspirations of Indian people in this country? What is it that Indian people want and have a right to expect? First and foremost, Indians want to have Indian forms of government recognized in Canada, constitutionally, and, if necessary, in the interim by legislation. Let me remind Hon. Members that Indian people governed themselves quite acceptably long before Europeans set foot on these shores. Long before the Europeans came here as explorers and later as settlers, Indian people were governing themselves. One of the world's great anthropologists, Claude Levi-Strauss, has described the Indian culture of the northwest coast of British Columbia as one of the great efflorescences of mankind, fit to be compared with the ancient Greeks and Romans.
Let me say to my hon. friends in this House that Indian people are governing themselves today, but in governing themselves they are being controlled and manipulated. Their aboriginal right of self-government is eroded, undermined and diminished by the Indian Act and by the Department of Indian Affairs. Indian people want their forms of government to be recognized so that they may direct, manage and control their own affairs. Is that so radical or revolutionary? Is that so unacceptable to thinking men and women who make up the House of Commons today? Surely not.
Let me just summarize this report in a sentence. If I had to put it in one sentence, I would describe it this way: All and
January 24, 1984

every aspect of Indian affairs should be the sole responsibility of the Indian people themselves.
If the Government carries through in its commitment to act on this report, the Members of this House will be called upon to deal expeditiously with legislation and with constitutional accords that will enable the Indian people to live their own lives in their own way and at the same time be contributing members of Canada.
Indian people are demanding to get out from under the domination, the suffocation and the top-down control of the federal Government. They want a new working relationship. Have no fear or concern, Mr. Speaker; there is no question here about separation which frightens us so much. There is no question about sovereignty association, which we do not like. There is no question here about apartheid which we have rejected and condemned in other parts of the world. There is none of that. The Indian people are asking for the opportunity to become active partners in Confederation, to become participants in Confederation. They do not want to be outsiders any longer, observers looking in and recipients of our largess. They are not asking to opt out. They want to opt in. They are not asking to leave Confederation. They want to join it. They want to work together with us to define precisely and accurately what is the Indian jurisdiction. They want to negotiate with us fair fiscal transfer arrangements so that they can carry out their own obligations as elected leaders, chiefs and councillors to their own people. They want to be assured that they will get their fair share of all national programs.
Certainly there is the need for a new day to dawn in this whole area. A new order has to be recognized. Indian people are not asking the Government of Canada to give them some power. They are asking that the Government of Canada recognize the right of Indian power to be used.
1 would like very briefly to say something about three items which arose continuously during the course of our public hearings and have continually been referred to since. The first is accountability, the second is leadership in the Indian community, and the third is cost.
We heard much about accountability. If there were direct transfer payments to Indian people, there is no question that there would be a system of accountability put in place. I want to make a prediction: I believe that Indian people will put into place a system of accountability which could be an example for us. Certainly we cannot provide them with an example of accountability, can we? One just has to ask the Auditor General, if there is any doubt on that question.
Is there sufficient leadership in the Indian community? There is a quality and quantity of leadership within the Indian community at the local, regional, provincial and national levels which is equal to anything in the non-Indian community in local councils, provincial legislatures or here in the House of Commons. I realize in saying that that I am not necessarily being all that complimentary to Indians.
The Address-Mr. Yurko
What about cost? Some people have said that if this report were to be implemented, it would cost huge amounts of money, some $4 billion. If we wanted to bring up to the national standard all Indian communities, it would involve a substantial amount of money. If we transferred the $2 billion we now appropriate and allowed Indians to utilize the resources on their own lands and obtain revenues from them, and if we shrunk the Department, we would do a great deal more than is being done now.
Indian self-government is a concept whose time has come. At the present time-and I do not want to sound too much like a poet-the concept is like a small stream bubbling across the country, uniting Indian people as they have never been united before. This stream will become a mighty river and no government will be able to resist its impact.
When Indian self-government is recognized in Canada and is fully operative, Indian people will become an economical and political force in the country. A proud, noble and dignified people will have their independence and self-respect restored. Indian people in Canada do not want to be locked into the past. Never did we hear that, but I can tell Hon. Members of the House that Indian people deeply resent being excluded from the present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me and thus giving me the opportunity to speak during the Throne Speech debate.
As I said a few weeks ago in the House, the Throne Speech is a time for sowing-sowing new ideas, new intentions, new directions, new determinations, new anticipations and even new obsessions. Those who wrote the Throne Speech did a great deal of sowing. Nevertheless, they missed planting in several areas. Permit me to point out some of these misses.
First, the Government should have announced that no political embargo would ever be imposed upon any form of technological transfer or sale from Canada to any world nation. It should have planted firmly the principle that technology, except military technology, is the common heritage of all mankind regardless of where and by whom it was evolved and developed.
Second, the Government should again have enunciated the desire and in fact the necessity of entrenching property rights in the Constitution.
Third, it should have again enunciated its determination to have the Quebec government of the future become a signatory to the Canadian Constitution.
Fourth, the Government should have announced the formation of a joint federal-provincial commission or committee to establish conditions and criteria for new-province formation.
Fifth, it should have announced a tri-level Government committee or commission to study all aspects of the growth of governments in Canada and establish criteria for some stabilization and reduction in this area. In my view the Macdonald

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. Yurko
Commission is not necessarily an adequate mechanism to handle the problem.
Sixth, it should have enunciated the need to maintain and increase international trade with all nations and, in particular, to maintain and increase western Canadian grain trade with Russia and China.
Seventh, the Government should have announced its intention to become a full member of the Organization of American States and play its full and destined role in the future of the Americas.
Eighth, the Government should have announced new determination and new mechanics to reduce United States-Soviet tensions.
Ninth, in my view the Berger moratorium on building a gas pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley should have been scrapped.
Tenth, capital gains taxation should have been again revised either by totally scrapping it or by providing a maximum non-taxable annual gain of $25,000 for all taxpayers.
Eleventh, a constitutional limitation on the national debt as a percentage of the national GNP should be considered seriously. The increasing debt structure is not a comfort to national well-being.
Twelfth, some major policy changes on energy pricing and taxation should be worked out with the provinces. Energy feedstocks for all petrochemical upgrading plants should be free of any federal taxation. Domestic crude oil energy pricing should be fixed to international pricing. All major oil sands plants should pay no royalties and no federal taxes until full capital recovery of the plants has been accomplished. An entire new natural gas pricing regime for export should be evolved, The PIP exploration grant program should be effectively equalized as between offshore and onshore exploration.
Thirteenth, property taxes paid on the principal residence by all families should be deductible as income for calculating both federal and provincial income tax. No one should have to pay taxes on taxes in our free society.
These are but a few areas of concern that might have been included in the Throne Speech as government policies. There are others. Permit me to speak briefly about the quality of the debate thus far.
From past experience, I would have thought that the Throne Speech debate would have brought some life to this House but it has produced little more than a yawn. I am reminded of a plaque I once gave to my brother which describes this place quite appropriately. It states: "Sometimes we sits and thinks- and sometimes we just sits". Perhaps this place sits and thinks sometimes, but I have concluded that mostly it just sits.
Not long ago I read in Richard Needham's column in The Globe and Mail a nugget of wisdom I thought I would share with the House. Needham said that silence should never be broken unless it can be improved upon. Unfortunately, it is
often the case in this House that when silence is broken, it is not improved upon. That cannot, however, be said for the Leaders' day debate that took place on December 9. The verbal joust that occurred in the House of Commons that day was oratory par excellence. Exchanges of the like that we witnessed are too few and far between.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that as we approach the next election, the Leaders of the three Parties should be encouraged to face each other more often across the floor of this House in open debate. Canadians want to see them test their intellectual mettle, they want to see them exchange the occasional barb, to blow off steam, and even to broach a subject which appears to have become taboo-that is policy. Although it was a little thin on ideas, the Leaders' day debate was stimulating and exciting, there was no denying that. It was a grand prelude to entry into 1984 when all of Canada will know who will lead the pack and who will be sent to pasture. It was a good debate even though it was a debate of words rather than of ideas.
May I repeat several statements I made in this assembly in my very first speech on October 11, 1979. I said then:
We would be wise to remember that the troika that leads all good governments consists of honesty, husbandry and humility.
Second, I said:
I look upon the world society and I see it adrift. There seem to be no overall goals, no consistent philosophy, no inspiration, no overall meaning, not even any hope. The global society seems apprehensive and confused. It is the rapid growth of technology that has brought us to this condition; whereas on one hand we have the potential to build heaven on earth, and yet on the other we can create hell on earth and destroy it utterly as a place for mankind.
It is on these two areas of concern that I also wish to speak briefly today.
More and more Canadians are beginning to sense that Canadian leaders-political, scientific, business, religious and even labour leaders-have a unique role to play in stabilizing the nuclear madness that faces the world society. We all support the Trudeau world peace initiative. We support the initiative not as a partisan political policy or ploy, but as a desperately needed shot in the arm for generating political will to find world peace and the reduction of world tension.
The Prime Minister is doing what destiny and geography has dictated that he do. He is the leader of this nation. Canada is a nation which is sandwiched between the two most powerful nations in the history of mankind, each capable of destroying the world with its respective nuclear potential. It is incumbent upon the leader of this nation of Canada actively to seek accommodation and peace between our two global, giant neighbours. We must seek not only peace but peace with freedom rather than peace with slavery, and by slavery I mean slavery to fear, apprehension, pessimism and hopelessness.
In fact, I do have some minor criticism to direct to the Prime Minister in regard to his pilgrimage of peace. Why has it taken him so long? I, like so many others, kept repeating the need for a superpower summit conference almost two years before the Prime Minister was struck by a bolt of lightning. The 1981 Pugwash conference in Banff which I was fortunate
January 24, 1984

to attend convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that vastly greater efforts by world political leaders were vital.
At that conference we were certainly apprised of the following facts. First, there are no absolute policies to prevent nuclear war. Dialogue between the superpowers is mandatory. Second, we must evolve and choose and live with policies which minimize the odds of aggression; in other words, deterrence. Third, Canada must of necessity promote and follow policies of deterrence, hopefully to be followed by policies of arms reduction after an arms freeze is negotiated. And fourth, policies of deterrence must encompass the principles of (a) verifiability; (b) mutual applicability; (c) minimization of blackmail; (d) balance at the lowest possible deployment level; (e) multilateral application to minimize lateral proliferation; and, (f) limitation of vertical proliferation.
The Trudeau pilgrimage is based upon four guide posts. First, a summit meeting of the five nuclear powers; second, shoring up both vertical and horizontal proliferation treaties and practices; third, balancing conventional force deployment in the European theatre; and fourth, a ban on space weapons development and deployment.
A reasonable agenda to some, yet somewhat fanciful. The pyramid of negotiable success, as has been proven several times now, must start first with a meaningful summit meeting of the two superpowers. The meeting of the five is a secondary step in the pyramid of success.
All world leaders must first promote a meeting of the heads of state of the two superpowers and Canada is perhaps in the best position to bring such a meeting about. However, it is not timely because of the political timing in our southern neighbour and possible leadership transition in our northern neighbour because of the health of the present leader. However, I would like to predict that such a meeting will evolve within the next several years. It simply must take place. The Prime Minister should journey to Russia to promote such a meeting at the earliest acceptable time. This peace initiative by the Prime Minister, in my view, will stand the test of time and rank as the greatest initiative undertaken by any Canadian Prime Minister.
Some international superpower agreements on the military use of space must be realized in the next five years. Initially, the nuclear delivery mechanisms involved hours in their delivery time-that is conventional aircraft and Cruise missiles. This has now been reduced to minutes with the Pershing 2 and SS-20, and space deployment will reduce the time frame for delivery to seconds.
War by accident and massive escalation will then be beyond the control and reason of man and totally under the control of computers. To the modern mind, technological development is the very essence of mankind. Without technological progress some people believe we die as a human race. The very pride of man decrees that space will be conquered and space systems both for military and peaceful use will be developed and deployed. That is the general view in America today. What we
The Address-Mr. S. Robinson must find is the human will to rationalize and then regulate these systems for the continued constructive evolution of civilization itself. The converse is only darkness.
As I said earlier, we as a nation are destined to be a bridge of reason, the catalyst of conciliation, the substance of accord and understanding and trust between our two mighty neighbours to the south and to the north of us. We can, and we must, bring these two giant nations, these two peoples, together. To the north of us is a nation whose history is filled with war and conflict and a degree of sadness; 270 million people who fear war but who wish to become so strong that no one would ever again attack their land.
When I was a young lad, I lived in northern Alberta. From the south we would welcome the warm winds, the sunshine, the interchange and the friendship with that giant south of us- the United States of America. We loved the people of the U.S.A.; they were like us, our neighbours, our supporters, our protectors. From the north we got cold winds, snow, blizzards, darkness and the Northern Lights, which we often likened to the Russian people fighting. Now the winds bring needed snow and the Northern Lights seem more like the Russian people dancing rather than fighting.
On a recent trip to Russia, I found the people desperately wanting to be friendly with the Canadian people. We in this modern world have no choice but to see our northern neighbour and its people in a different light. They are there. They have built a world order. They are armed to the teeth. Nuclear war is not acceptable in our world society. We must change their ideology, therefore, through peaceful means, friendship and trade. We must become friends with their people, if not their system and ideology.
Last year some 14,000 Canadians visited Russia and some
6,000	Russians visited Canada. There is a vast potential for tourism which should be actively promoted, and in doing so we should not in any way reduce, minimize, or interfere with our love and friendship with our southern neighbour. No, we must build a bridge so that these two peoples, each some one-quarter of a billion in number, can get to know each other and live in peace and trust. We have no other choice. They are our neighbours. It is only through trade, tourism, sports and dialogue that a bridge of reason and trust will be built. Dialogue with the eastern European leaders is necessary for bridge building between East and West. The meeting between the Prime Minister and the leaders of Romania, Czechoslovakia and Poland are welcomed as part of the process.
No other nation in the world can play Canada's role in bringing these two powerful neighbours of ours to the conference table to talk peace and arms limitation, to talk progress for a world which is staggering from the number of nuclear weapons and the potential for total destruction of this earth.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take my place in this debate on the Speech from the Throne, which gives all Members of Parliament an opportunity to raise some of the concerns they have heard during the course of the, indeed, years since the last Speech from the

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. S. Robinson Throne. In the past several months I have taken the opportunity to get out and listen to the concerns of my constituents in Burnaby by going door to door in different parts of my riding. I have listened to the views of my constituents, young and old, men and women. As well, I have held a series of accountability sessions and, of course, received many letters and telephone calls from my constituents expressing their viewpoints on the issues of the day.
I have noted over the past four years a significant shift in the priorities and in the mood of the people I represent. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne which was tabled by the Government fails to come to grips with the various concerns of the people I represent. I would group those concerns into three major categories. First, and certainly most important, is the failure of the Government to recognize and respond to the very serious and devastating economic crises facing the people of our country. For most, of course, it is the question of unemployment, of layoffs, of insecurity and the need to create jobs.
The second major area of concern-one which, of course, in the Province of British Columbia is even greater as a result of the vindictive and destructive policies of the provincial government-is that we must preserve and indeed strengthen essential social programs which we in this country have for many years taken for granted. Now, in the face of the neo-conservative mood which seems to be prevalent in the Official Opposition and at the provincial level, and, indeed, in the Government itself, important social programs are being whittled away and dismantled.
The third area-in many ways the most important one because, indeed, it is a question of basic survival-is the end of the madness and waste of the arms race. Certainly, if I would have to identify one issue above all others which has grown in significance to the people I represent in Burnaby over the years, it would be the very important question of disarmament.
I will address first the issue of job creation and economic security. Certainly, Hon. Members of this House are all too familiar with the grim statistics of unemployment and layoffs in our communities and in communities right across this country. In Burnaby, for example, according to the latest official figures, there were over 5,000 of my constituents receiving unemployment insurance. Many more have had their unemployment insurance benefits run out and have been forced on to the welfare rolls. In some cases they have been forced to return home or to go back to school, if indeed they can afford to do so in the face of cuts in post-secondary education. A recent two-line advertisement in a Vancouver newspaper seeking clerical assistance resulted in over 425 applications from qualified people who were desperate for any kind of work.
Behind these grim statistics of thousands and thousands of people who want to work and cannot find jobs, lie far too many human tragedies. All of us as Members of Parliament have had the agonizing experience of having to deal personally with
individuals who are victims of this Government's economic policies. Just yesterday in my constituency office I received a telephone call from a young man who said he was in graduate studies at Simon Fraser University. He was desperately trying to find a job but had been told by his advisers-indeed, in looking for work it became clear-that there was nothing for him.
In the almost five years I have represented Burnaby, I have not yet heard the kind of tragic feeling of hopelessness and despair that this young man related to me. He said he felt he could do one of three things. First, he has a kidney for sale in the United States. What kind of society have we come to when our young people seriously contemplate selling an organ of their body in order to survive? Secondly, he said he had spoken with the Manpower counsellor who said to him, perhaps only partly in jest, that maybe his only alternative was to turn to criminal activity in order to survive in British Columbia today. We know too well there has been an increase in crime in our community. I believe this Government must accept some of the responsibility for that because of the bankruptcy of its economic policies.
The third and final alternative he set forth was leaving the country he was born and raised in because he felt there was nothing left for him here. Again I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of message is it that this Government and its allies at the provincial level and in the Official Opposition are sending to the people of our communities, particularly young people, when they are so desperate they feel they have no alternative but to leave the country?
"Help me find a job", he said. "I want to work. I don't want welfare. I don't want unemployment insurance". How do we as individual Members of Parliament respond to that plea? Should I quote to him the comments of the Minister of Finance in March, 1982, when he said: "If you go overboard saying I am going to fight unemployment, create jobs and all that, well, the first thing you know you create a loss of confidence". Well, Mr. Speaker, what about the confidence of these young Canadians who want to work? Should I remind him of the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in June of 1982 who mused and shrugged his shoulders and said: "Well, it is always possible to scare the hell out of people by creating more unemployment". Perhaps he might be interested to hear those comments. Hundreds of thousands of young people right across this land share the agony and personal despair that this young man expressed so eloquently to me in my constituency office.
In addition to the problem of unemployment and the inability to find work, there is another great crisis, that of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are working now but, because of technological change, face the insecurity and fear of losing their jobs.
We have heard much talk of this in the House in recent months. Once again I would like to draw to the attention of the House a personal example from my constituency, a letter which I received and which I think documents, far more clearly and eloquently than any statistics or reports could do,
January 24, 1984

the impact of changes in technology and the impact of a government which has refused to come to grips with the need to respond in a human and civilized fashion to those changes. This is a letter from a man 46 years old. He writes:
-for all my adult life I've worked at the same trade (rubber engraver). In April 1982 1 was temporarily laid off due to lack of work & six months later was informed that, because of a new process my line of work & job had been eliminated. I then found myself at age 45 & with very little education (grade VIII) looking for a new field of employment-or any work for that matter-
He says that he realizes now:
-that 1 should have prepared myself by up grading my education via night school etc. during the past yrs while I was working, but I always thought, my job would last me out till retirement. However such was not the case.
He was thrown out of work, Mr. Speaker, and desperately tried to find something else or train for another line of work. What he decided to do was to train for horticulture. He put together his meagre savings and went into a horticultural course, was refused unemployment insurance and found that his savings ran out. In December of this year he asked UIC to give him a hand in his retraining. Well, Mr. Speaker, instead of saying yes, they are prepared to assist him with unemployment insurance benefits while he upgrades himself and retrains for another job, he was cut off from benefits and forced to quit the retraining program. As he says:
I strongly believe in my situation, because I desperately need a trade in order to find employment I should have been able to collect benefits in order to complete the course in March.
Of course, when his unemployment insurance benefits run out he will be in a worse situation. He will go on welfare with no trade, no profession, and his own training as a rubber engraver is useless in a world in which technology has passed him by. As he says:
-I do strongly feel that there must be something wrong with our system, where I after paying into UIC all my life (from the age of 15 yrs old on, without collecting benefits till now), that now I find myself in this unfortunate situation, desperately in need of financial help in order to re-establish myself, 1 am denied the opportunity & will sit around wasting time where I could be bettering myself with a chance for a new career.
He continues:
What are people like myself who at the age of late 40s, who are repeatedly told we're too old & are not given a second chance to regroup & start over, are supposed to do? Do we curl up & die?
Again, Mr. Speaker, how does this Government answer that cry, a cry which has been repeated right across this country? My constituent closes by saying:
I'm not belittling this country we live in, as we who live in Canada are a fortunate people compared to other countries, but all the same it is very discouraging & depressing.
What are we to do?
Is there any hope?
Is there any hope for a man in this situation in Canada today, Mr. Speaker? We must recognize that there is need for a fundamental restructuring of our economy, a reordering or our priorities, to ensure that investment capital is not being used to serve the needs of corporate shareholders by flowing wherever they get the maximum return on their investment.
The Address-Mr. S. Robinson Rather, that investment must be channelled into the creation of jobs here in Canada in the manufacturing sector as well as strengthening the resource sector.
It is a national shame that, despite the fact that we are one of the major mining and forestry countries in the world, we still have a massive balance of payments deficit when it comes to mining machinery and forestry machinery. We have a similar situation in the agricultural sector. If we are going to be creating new jobs, we have to do it by revitalizing manufacturing. We should also be looking at establishing a merchant marine so that Canadian products are transported on Canadian ships.
Instead of talking about cutting back on social services such as post-secondary education, pensions and health care, we should be recognizing that in many areas there is no need to expand those social services. We should be revamping the taxation system in this country to bring a sense of equity and fairness. Wage earners in Canada are paying their taxes by deductions. Despite this, last year almost 8,000 Canadians with incomes above $50,000 did not pay a penny in income tax. In fact, 239 Canadians who earned in excess of $250,000 in 1982 did not pay one cent in income tax. Where is the fairness in that? Our Finance Minister said he did not see any problem with this because down the line those individuals will be called upon to pay their taxes. In tough times there certainly is a need for sacrifice and restraint. However, there must be a sense of equity and fairness in that.
What is the alternative that the Official Opposition offers to the people of Canada? Naturally, people are anxious to get rid of the present Government. I fully share that sentiment. Let us look at the record, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at who votes time and time again with the Government. Over the past three years the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party voted together on 103 occasions. The New Democratic Party voted with the Government on 54 occasions. It is the Tories who prop up the Government time and time again.
I would like to quote from an article in The Globe and Mail in November which refers to the Finance critic, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
He says that if he were in government tomorrow he would continue with the general approach taken by Finance Minister Marc Lalonde: that is, emphasize the need to reduce inflation and interest rates, support business and talk about restraint.
He says as well on policies:
We're not giving anything away. If you want to find out (what the policies are), elect us.
What kind of contemptuous attitude is that to the people of this country, Mr. Speaker? I know my time has come to an end. I hope that the Government will recognize that there is a crisis in terms of economics, preservation of social services and, more importantly, in terms of the survival of this planet and an end to the nuclear arms race.


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


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I have one very simple question for my colleague after listening with some interest to his

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. S. Robinson dissertation on what he thinks is necessary in terms of economic policy. I would like to thank the Hon. Member most sincerely for his advice to the Official Opposition. I appreciate the constructive approach that the Member takes. His Leader indicated the position of the NDP as a Party at the beginning of this sitting. I am glad the Hon. Member is separating himself from his colleagues in the Party, as he often does.
His Leader, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), said that the preoccupation of the New Democratic Party would be to attack the Conservatives at every possible opportunity. I accept by inference that that means they would support the Liberal Government in order to attack the Conservatives. I would like to deal specifically with some of the points that have been raised by the Member in terms of the economic policy of the NDP.
Over the course of the Christmas break the NDP underwent a "Laxertive". They received advice from their senior policy adviser, Mr. James Laxer, who has typified the Party as being basically still in the 1950s as far as philosophy and policies are concerned. The seatmate of the Member for Burnaby, the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), has dismissed Mr. Laxer as irrelevant and not appropriate. She has snapped her fingers at him and said he did not know what he was talking about.
I am taking a poll of all my friends in the NDP and I am interested in where the Member for Burnaby stands. Does he support the criticism of the NDP economic and social policies as enunciated by their senior policy adviser, Mr. James Laxer, who ran for the leadership of the Party? I know what the Member thinks about the Conservative Party because he is critical of our Party. I would like to know what he thinks about his own Party. Could he in a very few words tell us whether he supports Mr. Laxer's observations or whether he shares the position taken by the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam that Mr. Laxer knows not of which he speaks?


Ms. Jewett:: Try and make something out of that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has given me an opportunity to reiterate once again my concerns about the total absence of policy of the Official Opposition and to put on the record the stand which was taken by the Finance critic for that Party.
He refers approvingly to his Party's stand on specific issues as "a blurred shadow" or "a moving target". He goes on to say that in principle he favours universal access to such programs as family allowance. He favours taking us back to the old days of the means test. I would be most interested to hear the comments of the Member for Saskatoon West on that particular suggestion. I know that the Member for Saskatoon West is a strong supporter of the economic policies of the Hon, Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The Hon. Member for St. John's West goes on to say that in most cases he approves of Mr. Lalonde's actions and he rarely attacks the Minister in the House of Commons. That is a most interesting admission, Mr. Speaker. The Finance critic for the Conservative Party is so taken with and so enamoured of the policies of the Finance Minister that he does not even feel motivated to get up and attack those policies.
When the Member for Saskatoon West raises questions about economic policy, I suggest that what he and his Party have an obligation to do is to put on the record the fact that they have no policy. Or indeed, if they do have a policy, as the Member for St. John's West indicates, it is a policy which basically supports the Government in power.
I am also pleased that the Member for Saskatoon West, in raising this issue, gives me an opportunity to point to the fact that both his Party and the Government are supported very heavily by the banking sector in this country. For example, last year the Bank of Montreal gave $30,000 to the Conservative Party and $30,221 to the Liberal Party.


Mr. de Jong:: How much did they give the NDP?


Svend Johannes Robinson: My friend asks how much they gave the NDP. Of course, they did not give a penny to the NDP. The banks recognized the interests that they must protect and of course they donate to both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. I do not know if the member for Saskatoon West received that kind of money, but certainly he can talk to his friends in the banking community in Saskatoon and I am sure they would be pleased to co-operate with him.
Once again 1 want to reiterate the point that the Conservative Party over the last three years voted together with the Government on 103 occasions, which is almost twice as often as the NDP, and they are the Party which is effectively keeping this Government in office, a Government which long ago lost its mandate to continue.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Athabasca to take part in the Throne Speech debate. First I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to the chair. I know it might be difficult at times but I also know by reputation that we can look for impartiality from you. In turn we will give you our fullest co-operation.
I also want to congratulate the new Speaker of the House of Commons. It has been my pleasure to have known him during my time here. As a new Member coming to the House of Commons I was always very pleased with the kindness and consideration that he has shown me in the past.
The latest Throne Speech certainly did not deliver what we needed. It particularly upsets me to see a Throne Speech delivered so late in the term of office of the present Government. Since 1980 the Government has been working on one Throne Speech, creating the longest session in the history of Parliament. In the latest Throne Speech we needed a speech which meant what it said and not simply a statement which repeats words that will blanket the population and attempt to include everyone without being specific.
January 24, 1984

Let me refer to the original Throne Speech in 1980 in which it was said: "My government will reduce the federal deficit in a planned and orderly manner". When that was said the deficit was approximately $11 billion. Today it is approximately S33 billion. That is an example of the lack of foresight and planning shown by the Government for many years.
When I go back to my riding I am continually confronted by people in my constituency office who are unemployed. These include people who have been employed for up to 25 years of their working lives. They have held steady jobs and never even thought that they would end up on social assistance or welfare. Today these people are coming into my office to ask what in God's name has happened and why it has happened to them in a country where God has blessed us with so many resources.
Why has this happened when we are the most blessed country in the world? It has happened because of the lack of foresight of the present Government. This is a Government which would rather bamboozle, flim-flam and look after Liberal back-benchers and their supporters across the country with its pork barrelling. As its own Party is beginning to recognize, the Government would rather manipulate than listen to people at the grassroots level in Canada.
We have seen what has happened in the Department of National Revenue and the income tax services it provides to Canadians. We have set up a system of taxation in Canada which is self-assessing. This means that Canadians have agreed, through legislation, to assess their own incomes and determine how much money will go to the Department of National Revenue. While the Department certainly has an obligation to send out auditors to ensure that all Canadians are paying their fair share, it has come out very clearly in the House what is happening in the country.
It has been revealed that auditors are given a quota. I can think of one specific case of a young man, approximately 25 years old, who was appointed an auditor for a certain sector. He has entered my riding with a quota of a certain amount of money in the community that he must reassess. In this case it was approximately $1 million. The main criterion for whether he is doing his job properly is if he is meeting that quota. People who have an understanding of a quota system may not be too alarmed by it until they see what the next step is. Once a taxpayer is reassessed he cannot file an objection to that reassessment unless he pays it in full. I know of one case of a reassessment of $12,000. This reassessment of the individual which was carried out by the tax auditor dates back to 1972. The individual in question said that he disagreed with it and felt that it was absolutely wrong. The Department told him that his taxes were now due and payable immediately or it would garnishee his wages.
The individual could not afford to pay so he literally sat down with the auditors of the Department and offered to pay it off at $250 a month, an amount he could afford. Having done that, of course, he has admitted that the tax is due and payable to the Government even though he disagrees with it. He did not have the $12,000 to pay the Department up front. The auditor has that $12,000 credited to his quota even though
no follow up is done to determine whether that assessment is valid. It is still credited to his quota.
I would like to continue after lunch, Mr. Speaker. May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, for the past several months, federal cabinet ministers have been jetting across the country informing the masses that the worst recession since the Depression is over. In a speech to the Canadian Club of Toronto, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said:
In 1984, Canada will move, in terms of economic growth and employment, from the period of recovery to a period of expansion. Having recovered lost growth and jobs, Canadians will begin to make significant new gains.
Clearly these kinds of statements show once again how completely the Liberal Party is out of touch with the suffering and hardship that exist throughout the country.
For the past several weeks, while I have been working in my constituency offices in Timiskaming, I have had dozens of farmers come and see me about the dire financial straits in which they find themselves. High interest rates, coupled with the fact that more and more farmers are having tremendous difficulty securing short-term loans to help them over troubled times, proves the Government's optimism is ill founded.
Ministers of the Crown insist on parading across the country proudly boasting about how the recession is now behind us. Perhaps the figures indicate that the recession is behind us, but the results of poor government planning and forecasting have left the farmers with virtually no hope for their share of the promised prosperity.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to speak up once and for all in cabinet and tell his colleagues that the after effects of the recession can still be felt by farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member and inform him that his time has expired.

January 24, 1984



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, for the past nine years I have pursued the case of base status for CFS Gander. Newfoundland does not have an armed forces base at present. Newfoundland is strategically located for defence purposes, and an armed forces base can fulfil any number of purposes. The Search and Rescue Squadron, which is doing an excellent job, is already located there, following a decision by this Government to try to ensure the safety of our men at sea.
Also, I have documented to three Ministers of National Defence the pure logic of locating interceptor jets at Gander, either permanently, or as an advance staging base, because of frequent interceptions of Soviet bombers off the coastline of my riding, bombers which stray off course from time to time. 1 firmly believe that the interception time could be drastically reduced if Gander were the advance staging base for our interceptors.
By whatever logic is used, Mr. Speaker, CFS Gander should become CFB Gander. As has been the case with two previous Ministers of National Defence, one Liberal and the other Tory, I am now requesting our present Minister of National Defence to grant us base status in Gander.




Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: The song changes so fast in Chatham, New Brunswick, it is not surprising the residents do not know whose crooning they should dance to, Mr. Speaker. In 1976 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised the people of Chatham that the air base would never close while he was Prime Minister. Quicker than you can sing "Do-wa, Do-wa", the Liberal Government announced the phase out of CFB Chatham.
Steadfast and loyal, the Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) promised his constituents that he would fight to keep the Base intact. Last week the tune on the juke-box changed as the Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy for Miramichi spoke of finding alternative employment for the community, thus reneging on his pledge. Neither this Member nor his toe-tapping colleagues understand that the people of Chatham want the base retained as it is critical to their community and to the economy of their region.
The Tory House Leader (Mr. Nielsen) visited Chatham last weekend and made it very clear that a Progressive Conservative Government would regard the maintenance of CFB Chatham as critical to our defence system and to the economy of that region. We have long been on record as favouring the retention of this Base, and are determined to stand by our
word. The Liberal Government and the Member for North-umberland-Mirami chi are to be resoundly condemned for closing out this vital economic sector. Or, in words they will understand, boys, they are playing your swan song!



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Nationalist Party has started its recruiting campaign, which the Acting Leader, Marcel Leger, has very delicately called "Operation pantoufle". However, this political group is having trouble getting off the ground and Quebecers have caught on to the tricks of these pseudo-independantistes. You have to hand it to Rene Levesque, who managed to get rid of a troublesome minister by making him an offer he could not refuse: the Nationalist Party. The new party will soon have a clear response from Quebecers, who are not in the least impressed by these so-called "nationalists". I am sure Marcel Leger must feel very uncomfortable in his new role, since he now has all kinds of problems on his plate, and he cannot afford to give the impression he wants to back out. I had already predicted that the Nationalist Party will not get any members elected to Parliament in the next federal election. I now think it is quite possible they will not even be fielding candidates in the next election, because of lack of support. I would urge the Leader of the Nationalist Party, for the sake of the public disclosure they themselves are so fond of, to reveal the state of his party's recruitment finances now that several months have passed since the party was launched, and to make the audit data available to the public.



LOTTERIES


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the recent lottery craze that swept the country has died down and we now know the identity of the Lotto 6/49 winners. Mr. and Mrs. Kelly of Brantford, Ontario, yesterday claimed nearly $14 million in prize money. But do Canadians realize that an even larger sum remains unclaimed in the coffers of Loto Canada? Loto Canada you may ask? Yes, that dinosaur of lotteries still exists five years after the federal Government got out of the lottery business. Unclaimed winnings, amounting to $14.5 million, sit collecting interest as Loto Canada goes merrily along with nothing to do except waste taxpayers' dollars.
Last year Loto Canada, with a part-time staff of five, managed to spend the incredible sum of $779,000. That is $166,000 for each part-time employee. In addition, it hired a
January 24, 1984

consultant to prepare a report on sports pools that the Auditor General has said was outside its mandate. That consultant, Mr. Ian Howard, by mere coincidence, was a former aide to Iona Campagnola, the President of the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Howard collected the tidy sum of $75,000 for his services. With nothing else to do, Loto Canada has become a make-work project for unemployed Liberals.
Loto Canada should have been eliminated five years ago when its lottery operations ended. But it is typical of the Liberals to keep something around long after its usefulness has run out. After all, Canadians are still burdened with this Government, aren't they?

[ Translation]



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Sherbrooke.
Centre presumed to be caused by leaking sidewalks. We in the House were informed that snow clearing machinery, salt, and increased traffic were to blame for the damage to the sidewalks around the Centre, causing the deterioration of the expansion joint in the roof of the NAC garage. Yesterday, however, it was brought to my attention that in a memo to Public Works official T. Heinmaa, the Minister of Public Works actually misled the House, and the structural problems are really due to faulty, slipshod original construction. The memo states:
The original working drawings of the NAC often do not reflect the true state of existing conditions ... and the intolerable situation has been talked about but never tackled for the last seven years.
The Minister has obviously misled the House and I must again ask that he launch an independent inquiry into this situation immediately to determine where the responsibility lies for the inferior original construction of the NAC. Furthermore, I have been informed that the $300,000 repair work contract was never tendered but merely given to a contractor. I am sure this House would be most interested in hearing the Minister's explanation for this one as well.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, in October 1981, the Prime Minister announced a special program to help the textile, clothing and footwear industries, under which $265 million would be spent on modernizing these sectors, while later on, seven special zones were designated where the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board would focus its efforts. This has certainly been the most effective Government program we have ever had, and the one best adapted to the economic situation in the Magog-Sherbrooke area. Not long ago, most business and financial groups and Sherbrooke and Magog authorities expressed their satisfaction with the obvious success of this program.
Together with my colleagues from the Eastern Townships, we urge the Canadian Government to consider as soon as possible a request submitted by the City of Sherbrooke and the City of Magog to have this outstanding program, which has helped our region to make remarkable progress in a period of economic difficulty, extended for at least two years.
Mr. Speaker, I hope Cabinet will consider this request favourably, in order to pursue the econmic recovery of an area that has been severely affected by unemployment during the past few years.
* *
*



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17, 1983, I called on the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) to launch an independent inquiry into responsibility for more than $300,000 of damage to the National Arts
* *
*



THE JUDICIARY


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, concern has often been expressed about the present system of appointing judges in Canada. In a recent address Mr. Robert McKercher, President of the Canadian Bar Association, suggested a few ways in which to improve the present system of evaluating candidates for judicial appointments, and I would like to mention them to the House.
Mr. McKercher's first suggestion was that provincial bar committees could be established in all provinces where equivalent committees do not exist, to review all nominations for appointments to the available positions on provincial court benches in Canada. Second, provincial Attorneys General and the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) should take action to formalize this expanded review procedure and to guarantee that, in all instances, only the best of the nominees are appointed. Third, consideration should be given to finding nominees for judicial office outside the political process. Fourth, some system of scrutinizing appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada should be implemented.
While I agree with the intent of Mr. McKercher's remarks, it seems to me that the selection of judges is too important to be left solely to the legal profession, which would have its own indigenous forms of patronage. For this reason I feel that in principle a continued, though more circumscribed degree of political input is essential to represent the voice of the people.

January 24, 1984



INCOME TAX


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a representation to the Government, on behalf of all employees receiving gratuities in the Province of Quebec. These employees will now be obliged to enter on their income tax returns both their income and the total amount of gratuities received. It also seems this will create a very unfair situation when their income tax returns are processed by the Department of National Revenue. These employees are being required to declare their income from gratuities on their income tax returns and to pay tax on this income which is not, however, recognised as insurable earnings for social security programs such as unemployment insurance. In the circumstances, since the Quebec National Assembly has passed legislation, I would like to ask the Minister responsible to adjust, if necessary, the regulations of the Department of National Revenue to the legislation passed in Quebec, and if no amendment is necessary, I would appreciate it if the Minister would give employees who receive gratuities the assurance that their total earnings will be insurable for the purposes of social security programs, especially unemployment insurance.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, Central America is still poised on the brink of regional war. Unfortunately we are not getting much clear news these days. Nevertheless, I understand that the American forces continue to carry out a non-stop operation under the title of Big Pine III. There is now the possibility of direct military intervention against El Salvador, as well as the continuing intervention against Nicaragua.
The Kissinger Report, unfortunately, did not speak about a negotiated settlement, but put in a high place the question of a military settlement. It also talks about aid. I am happy to know that Canada has released $13 million to go to aid to Nicaragua. It is a good kind of aid which will buy cattle, dairy equipment, and dairy machinery.
The Contadora Group, however, made up of Venezuela, Mexico, Panama, and Colombia are having difficulty bringing about a negotiated settlement. The President of Argentina, Raul Alfonsin, with the most difficult country in Latin America to handle at this time, has indicated that he believes the situation in Central America is so serious that he is prepared to send his Foreign Minister, Dante Caputo, to visit the region.
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) once again, as the best friend and ally of the
United States, to visit the region so that Canada can have its own independent support policy for the Contadora Group.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have learned that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) now intends to appeal last month's B.C. court decision in the Otto case. The House will recall that a homemaker in my riding, Mrs. Mary Otto, was charged and taken to court by the Department of Justice because she refused to answer the detailed, personal questions contained in the 1981 census long form, questions dealing with such things as race, religion, colour, ethnic background, and even the number of bathrooms in her home. Mrs. Otto fought the Department of Justice without the benefit of a lawyer, and she won. It was a David and Goliath story that heartened many people across Canada, especially the hundreds of others facing similar charges.
When one reads Judge Govan's decision, it is obvious that the ruling is clear cut, with virtually no grounds for appeal. Judge Govan found that the definition of a census as set out in the Statistics Act means just that, a head count of population. It does not include randomly sampled survey information. It does not give "Big Brother", the right to enter anyone's home or business and demand a wide range of personal information.
I had hoped that the Government's response to this ruling would be an abandonment of its police state methods, and an acceptance of the judge's decision. However, if the Minister of Justice insists, as he has, on grinding Mrs. Otto into the ground through the long appeal process, the Government should at least suspend legal action in the other cases, as it did in the case of a similar ruling on the metric issue.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In Toronto yesterday the Minister delivered another of his Pol-lyanna views on the situation of the Canadian economy. In his speech he stated: "In 1984, Canada will move in terms of economic growth and improvement from recovery to a period of expansion." This morning, however, the Conference Board of Canada, a widely respected forecasting agency, gave an
January 24, 1984

entirely different and deeply troubled view of the Canadian economy. It forecasts substantially slower growth than does the Minister, a depression in all of the leading economic indicators when compared with his assessment and, more ominously, the Conference Board suggests a return to a fullblown depression in 1985.
Since the information for the forecast was based on the assumption that there would be no significant change in the measures outlined in the last Budget, does the Minister now intend-because it is so vital for the welfare of all Canadians, and he has the opportunity and the time-to change any of the policies to avert the tragic consequences being forecast by the Conference Board?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how the Leader of the Opposition can say that the Conference Board forecast is more pessimistic than mine, for the simple reason that I have not put forward a forecast for 1984. I indicated that this would be part of my forthcoming Budget. At that time the Leader of the Opposition will be able to assess whether my forecast is more pessimistic than that of the Conference Board.
Second, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that Conference Board forecasts of the last several months have been away out of line with forecasts of practically every other forecasting agency in Canada or the United States. I remind my hon. friend that the Conference Board of the United States forecast as recently as a few weeks ago a very good year for 1984. In fact it put Canada at the top of the industrial countries in terms of growth and progress in 1984.
I am not surprised, however, with the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. As a good Tory, he only sees the bad side of things. When the sun comes up in the morning, all he sees is that it casts a shadow.


TAXATION INCREASE-REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY MINISTER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I have to rise to the defence of the Conference Board which has been wrong, but very infrequently, and right more often than the Minister of Finance. I suspect that that kind of answer is to be expected from a Government whose Prime Minister yesterday did not even have the foggiest idea of what the real rate of unemployment is in this country.
Following his speech of yesterday, at a press conference, and he may have been misquoted, the Minister of Finance stated with regard to personal income taxes and others that are coming onstream: "I don't think the tax increases of the previous Budget will act as a serious brake on the economy". Since those tax increases account in part for the return to recession-and the Minister knows that the Conference Board is an extremely able forecaster-and since those taxes impact negatively upon the situation, and the return to depression or recession being forecast for 1985 by the Conference Board- and the Minister still has time to cause them not to be
Oral Questions
imposed-will he review his plans with regard to the imposition of those taxes due later?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I saw a headline in The Globe and Mail which referred to personal income tax increases this Fall. None were foreseen or announced in the Budget last year. What was talked about was a 1 per cent increase in the excise tax, the sales tax, the federal sales tax. It was announced, and it was part of the program to finance the Special Recovery Capital Projects, which will mean that hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent this year and next year, as they were spent last year, to advance projects that will be beneficial for Canadians and will create jobs all across the country. I have announced these. I have consulted extensively with various organizations across Canada. I have come to the conclusion that the scenario, or the plan of action, announced in the last Budget remains the right one. I intend to proceed with the measures I announced in the last Budget.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RECONSIDER POLICIES
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board is suggesting that a stubborn adherence by the Minister to these policies will put Canada and Canadians into the real jackpot of another full-blown recession within 12 months. The Minister has the time and the opportunity to reflect upon this. There will be another 1.5 million Canadians out of work with absolutely no hope for gainful employment unless the Minister changes his mind and changes the course of some fundamental policy options which he has selected.
Will he reconsider some of those options in light not only of the Conference Board forecast but most particularly of the Conference Board statistics of earlier this morning? He has the opportunity to change course. Will he now do it on behalf of the 1.5 million Canadians who are desperately crying out for the opportunity to get back to work?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first, the statement of the Leader of the Opposition would have much more strength and validity if he indicated what change of course he is advocating and what kind of Budget he would want to introduce. Second, his claims for the unemployed, which is a very serious problem, would have a little more validity and credibility if, when we prepared the last Budget, the Hon. Member had made representations other than the one I obtained from him when he was in private business at the time, to deal with an advantage for the rich and a deal which would have benefited him rather than the unemployed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!

January 24, 1984
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is no belt below which the Minister will not kick. He has again misled and distorted the truth. He has done it many times.


REQUEST THAT POLICIES BE AMENDED
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I tell the Minister that there are 1.5 million Canadians crying out for an opportunity to work. Will he correct the miserable policies which have devastated the country and the economy? He has an opportunity to do it. Will he bring them in in his next Budget? Will he do it now?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that I distorted the truth. If that is his argument, will he let me release the letter he sent to my officials at that time on this particular subject?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Release it any time.


Mr. Nielsen:: Table it.


LEVEL OF PRODUCTIVITY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Toronto the Minister waxed eloquently about improved productivity. It looks like a productivity increase of about 2 per cent or so this year. Is the Minister satisfied with that kind of productivity increase? How will he explain the suggestion of the Conference Board that productivity will again decline to a 1.3 per cent increase this year, and perhaps down to 0.0 next year, 1985? How will we ever get the country growing again if we do not get some productivity increases more appropriate to the people and the resources of the country? What is the Minister's program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member wants me to explain the forecasts of the Conference Board. I suggest he ask the Conference Board how it arrives at those particular conclusions. I would be very happy to explain to him the basis of our forecast when I come out with the Budget. At that time he will have all the information, and I will be able to explain exactly what is our forecast.
If the Conservatives want to believe in doom and gloom, that is their business, that is their policy, and that is their approach to life. They are welcome to it. Let him check on other forecasts by other agencies. Let him check the forecasts for Canada of the Conference Board of the United States. Let him check the OECD forecasts for Canada in 1984. They are not along the lines the Hon. Member likes to choose. They are certainly not along the lines of the doom and gloom of the Tory Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Government has offered Canadians a bleak, dim, grey future. The Government has offered to do nothing except to make Pollyanna suggestions and rose-coloured speeches to the Canadian Club. When will the Minister come up with a program which puts people back to work again? When will he do something about the fact that 250,000 more Canadians are unemployed today than there were when the recession the Government started, commenced?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend must have been very absent minded in the last year because Canada has created over 400,000 jobs since the trough of the recession. Canada has created more jobs proportionately than any other industrial country. We on this side of the House intend to proceed with that record in 1984, while my hon. friend will stay at the Wailing Wall and refuse to face reality.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it, or has it ever been the policy of the Government to give or restrict access to the operations and facilities of Crown corporations, based on political affiliation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


ELDORADO RESOURCES LIMITED-ACCESS TO MINE DENIED TO NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS
Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Why is it that Eldorado Resources Limited, the operator of the Rabbit Lake uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan, a federal Crown corporation which owns 100 per cent of the mine, denied our request to visit its operations this Thursday solely because we are members of the New Democratic Party?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, they have a pretty good reason, because the Hon. Member does not even know who is the Minister responsible. It is not I; it is the Minister of National Revenue.


Douglas Keith Anguish: That is not correct. It is the Minister of Energy.
January 24, 1984


REASONS FOR CORPORATION'S DECISION
Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, Eldorado Nuclear is involved in the nuclear industry. Eldorado Resources Limited is the same Crown corporation as is Eldor Resources. We have been allowed into Key Lake through that mining consortium. Why are we not allowed by that Crown corporation-and I direct my question to the Minister responsible-access to that mine because we are New Democrats?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's concern and I repeat it is not the Government's practice to reject requests from groups of members who wish to visit facilities, and I think Eldorado Nuclear should take steps to accommodate members of the NDP caucus and members of the other caucuses as well when they wish to visit facilities.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. An employee who has worked in the Winnipeg office of Revenue Canada has stated, and I quote directly from an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press as follows:
"1 knew how many accounts I had to collect-call them quotas or whatever you like. I was expected to collect five accounts a week at a minimum of $10,000 per account," Darryl Cruickshank said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Why did the Minister persist in saying in the House that quotas were only in place in the Kitchener office when in fact they were in place in Revenue Canada's Winnipeg office? Will he confirm to today that in fact quotas were in place in Revenue Canada's Winnipeg office?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member did not follow the debate that has been taking place here in the House for several weeks, or perhaps he has not been properly informed by his colleagues. 1 have had occasion to explain to the House, when referring to a very specific set of duties within the Department, namely, the duties of an auditor, that it was not the policy of the Department to set assessment quotas for each auditor. Auditing accounts is a very specific function, and once that operation is finished, the result is an assessment, which is reviewed and then issued by another division, the Assessment Division.
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member skipped the Assessment Division and went directly from auditing to collection, in other words, the group that is responsible for collecting monies owing to the Government and, in the final instance, owing to Canadian taxpayers. I think it is ironic to see a Member of a Party that has always said without the slightest compunction that there are too many public servants for the work there is to be done, and which as soon as it comes to power, if it ever does and I doubt it, but in any case, would fire a number of these public servants right away, and second, a Party that is constantly complaining about the inefficiency of public servants-


An Hon. Member:: It's true!


Pierre Bussières: -to see them complain instead of congratulating a Department that sets objectives for employee performance and efficiency.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Minister that I have followed the debate and my colleagues have kept me informed.


REQUEST FOR REASSESSMENT OF AFFECTED TAXPAYERS' ACCOUNTS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I want to tell the Minister that in our constituency office small businessmen, part-time farmers, people with capital gains assessments, and senior citizens, have talked to us and asked what they can do to get a fair assessment. Now we have this kind of information, and if the Minister thinks I am going to buy his line, he is wrong.
In view of the fact that this revelation is out that there were quotas in Winnipeg, that there was this kind of assessment, and that these people had to have five accounts at $10,000 each, what is the Minister going to do in the name of fairness for these people who want a hearing with Revenue Canada? What does he have in place to give them a fair assessment, rather than the view that these tax collectors were there either to get their quotas completed or to confiscate the personal assets of these taxpayers?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly high opinion of the Hon. Member's intellectual honesty and his honesty per se.
I would therefore ask him to make a distinction between the auditing function and the assessment issued following an audit, and subsequently we have the collecting function which comes after a notice of assessment has been issued, in other words, after the amount of money owing to the Government has been evaluated and the taxpayer has refused to respond to the notice of assessment. The amount is then referred to another Division which is the Collections Division, and if the Hon. Member makes those fundamental distinctions between these different functions, he will realize that he has unfortunately

January 24, 1984
Oral Questions
been confusing the issue by relying on one of his colleagues who is very good at simplifying things, at making them simplistic, and as a result, the Hon. Member has raised a debate where there is none.


GARNISHEE1NG OF PENSION INCOME
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Revenue Canada has moved from an era where terms could be negotiated by taxpayers having cash flow problems, to an era where hard, brutal, arbitrary measures of collection are the order of the day, and where any sense of compassion for people in trouble has disappeared. If this is not so, why would the Minister of National Revenue, just before Christmas, garnishee $100 per month from a $254 per month pension cheque, to collect a 1976 tax debt which occurred as a result of a bankruptcy in which the party lost his home and all other assets? Is it not time for his Department to return to a sense of service and respect for people in this country?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives of the Department is to serve the public and to be fair and compassionate in its dealings with the taxpayers. We reasserted this aim last week when we announced that a study would be undertaken to advise us on ways of improving our service to the public. We have therefore reasserted in practice this desire and concern to serve the public well.
My second comment has to do with the question asked by the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. When he speaks of fairness, he should know that one very basic rule is that you should not refer to specific cases the circumstances of which are unknown to you. Indeed, 1 would legally be prevented from discussing this case because it is said in the Act that you cannot refer to specific cases. The Hon. Member is therefore not abiding by the rules of the game. I would like to repeat that there has been no change in our policy of attempting to come to an agreement with taxpayers on their tax assessment, and when they are unable because of their financial situation to make an immediate repayment, to come to an arrangement acceptable to both parties for repayment of the debt.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister asked us to bring specific cases to the attention of the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. It is understood that specific tax cases should not be mentioned or cited individually; otherwise, the general principles can be raised.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not mention a specific case.


DEFINITION OF &quot;HARDSHIP&quot;
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When the Minister accepts third party demands against pensioners and where this loss of income creates hardship, why does the system force the pensioner to apply for further assistance from her Department in order to make Revenue Canada back off? Is she not worried about the definition and the management of the definition of hardship remaining with Revenue Canada?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand all the implications of the question. In any case, I do not have the answer at hand and I shall make enquiries, but I must ask the Hon. Member to please be more specific.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister has made reference to his forthcoming Budget. I would like to ask him to what degree this Budget has been structured and when this Budget will be presented to the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Budget is being structured, and structured well, I hope. I still have to consult with a few groups within the next few days. However, I expect that those consultations should be completed by the end of next week at the latest and I would expect, therefore, to introduce a Budget in this House on Wednesday, February 15.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to whom I have given notice of

it. 1 have been advised that senior staff of the Toronto Regional Office of the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Commission are planning to chop the service to unemployment insurance claimants by removing the claims adjudicators from at least six offices in metropolitan Toronto. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether unemployment insurance claimants who run into difficulty with their claims will be able to do as they can now, and talk over their problems with someone in that office who can make a decision?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me notice of his question, because that enabled me to look into this matter. Two Toronto area offices may be involved in some changes, one located at 1985 Danforth where the lease expires before summer. People will still be able to go to 811 Danforth to get better service, since someone will be there to answer queries. However, a final decision has yet to be made.
As to the other location, the Hon. Member mentioned in his notice, on James Street in Toronto, a good many employees were moved to the main building of High Parks' Office two years ago. The lease expires within a week, but people will have improved services at that central building because fewer clients go there and staff will be on hand to answer questions. Full services will be available in the two buildings I mentioned.
Should the Hon. Member experience problems or any of his constituents say that service is bad or whatever, I hope he will let us know so that we may look into the situation.


SERVICE TO CLAIMANTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has answered one of the questions of which I gave him notice, but not the question which I have asked now. I would like to reiterate that question. I am advised that in about five offices the claims adjudicators will be withdrawn to offices much further away. Will the unemployment insurance claimants, therefore, have to make an extra trip to some other part of the city to get questions answered which at the present time are able to be answered at nearby offices?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member that, according to the information I have on the situation in the Toronto area, the clients will not have to travel great distances. I have already told him that qualified staff will be on hand at both places to answer queries about claims and unemployment insurance, and full services will be available thanks to the employees who work there.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that the people with whom he was dealing in those two offices-and very few
Oral Questions
people went there to begin with-were not permanent employees. I think that my previous answer covered the situation of permanent employees in both offices.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I refer to an internal departmental document on the Bell Helicopter deal which shows that, of the $514 million to be invested, $275 million is to be invested by the Government and $239 million is to be invested by Bell Helicopter. However, of the $239 million which Bell has agreed to invest, $215 million is in respect of research and development already done by Bell Helicopter in the United States. In other words, Bell Helicopter has agreed to put up about $25 million of new money compared to the government investment of $275 million.
Would the Minister confirm that Bell Helicopter has been given a credit of $215 million in respect of its commitment in work already done, and that it is in fact only spending $25 million or thereabouts in new money?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's figures are inaccurate.


DETAILS OF INVESTMENT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be quite precise, then. Is the Minister saying that Bell Helicopter is investing new cash, amounting to $239 million or thereabouts, and that money already spent by Bell Helicopter in the United States is entirely in addition to this amount of $239 million? Would the Minister also give us a commitment that the Government will not invest any new money, any government money, until Bell Helicopter invests that $239 million, or at least match the Bell Helicopter spending on a dollar-for-dollar basis?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact dollar figures in front of me. It has been three or four months since I have seen those particular figures. However, we are investing approximately dollar for dollar with Bell Helicopter. There were some funds which were spent buying the technology. That is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why we ended up with three quarters of a billion dollars investment rather than a $70-$80 million investment which the Bell Corporation initially put up.
We are going to create at least 2,000 more jobs than originally planned because we are going to use that technology. Instead of producing one model of helicopter, we are going

January 24, 1984
Oral Questions
to end up with three models of helicopters which are to be produced in Canada.


CHOICE OF MIRABEL AS PLANT SITE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It concerns the pressures which were brought to bear by the federal Government to have Bell Helicopter located at Mirabel, even though the company preferred to locate in Kingston, Peterborough, or the Eastern Townships. In that regard, I want to mention that a high ranking public servant said to the Kingston Whig-Standard, and I quote:
"Lalonde told Lumley two things: 'First you've got millions of dollars and, second, it's got to be Mirabel.' "
"Lalonde made it clear that it would be Mirabel, or there would be no money at all".
Would the Minister tell the House why, when other communities were being considered by Bell Helicopter, did he so meekly accept that ultimatum from the Minister of Finance? Or is this part and parcel of the Government's ongoing attempt to cover up the fiasco of Mirabel?


Edward C. Lumley: First of all, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member believes everything that is in that story, she is more naive than I have given her credit for in the past. Second, I have never read a more inaccurate series of articles in my whole life than the articles which appeared in the Hon. Member's hometown paper. Third, Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to sit down with the Hon. Member and discuss the details of that particular transaction.
As I indicated to the reporter of that paper, I believe if she looks at one of those articles she will see that the Chairman of the Board of Bell Helicopter-who should know better than anyone else in the world-said that he made the final decision as to which location he would choose. It was the Chairman of Bell Helicopter, Mr. Speaker, not the Government of Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I may be naive, but I am not naive enough to believe these protestations of the Minister, not when there have been so many other stories to the contrary.


COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS INQUIRY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: If the
Minister is so certain of the decision which was made, can he tell me if he has any proof? Was there any cost-benefit study or analysis done to show that locating Bell Helicopter at Mirabel would be more economically beneficial to Canada, a better deal for Canada, than if it were located in eastern Quebec or eastern Ontario? And if he has such documentation, which I very much doubt, would he be prepared to table it?


Edward C. Lumley: First, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the Hon. Member and her Conservative colleagues. I would have thought they would have rejoiced in the fact that Canada obtained 4,000 new jobs, high-tech jobs, 20-year jobs. We beat every other country in the world and got a major helicopter facility here in Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Based on her previous questions, I can understand the fact that it is positive news and is not something which the Hon. Member wants to hear. We did a cost-benefit analysis, Mr. Speaker, with respect to whether it is beneficial for Canada. It is very beneficial for Canada. We are very proud that we have the major job-creation project in our country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a meeting with officials of his Department a few days ago I was assured that his Department would make representations to the U.S. State Department on behalf of the nine Canadians who suffered grievously as a result of CIA funded brainwashing experiments conducted at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal. Have such representations been made to the U.S. Government? If so, what was the response? If not, when will those representations be made?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows I am quite familiar with this particular problem having discussed it with him on more than one occasion. I have instructed officials of the Department to pay particular attention to this problem with a view to seeking a resolution. We have already made representations to the State Department. As late as last August Ambassador Gotlieb had consultations, and further consultations will be held. We are exploring various methods by which we can help the persons so adversely affected by the experiments conducted in Montreal with the support of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.


POSSIBILITY OF INTERNATIONAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in their meeting with me, representatives from External Affaires said the Department has now come to the conclusion that the actions of the CIA in Montreal were a violation of international law. They suggested that if no settlement were reached with
January 24, 1984

the U.S. Government by the nine Canadians in question, the Government of Canada would consider taking this case to the International Court at The Hague. Could the Minister advise me and the other people involved when such action might be proceeded with?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the first step is to try to seek a bilateral settlement with the United States. Officials of my Department have been in consultation with a solicitor in Washington who is acting for these persons. There are certain documents that would be helpful which are not available for a number of reasons. When we have explored that aspect of the case it will then be time to make a judgment on what international steps we can take. But we certainly are exploring the international law on this subject and we think there is a basis by which we might consider taking action in the International Court.


INDUSTRY
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering the interest of all Canadians-and I think the Minister ought to know that on this side of the House we are still very happy about the location of the Bell Helicopter plant-my question is very simple: At the time, the Minister emphasized Government assistance and benefits in connection with two locations being considered in the Province of Quebec, namely Bromont and Mirabel. Could the Minister give the House and those concerned in the Eastern Townships, the assurance that the benefits offered to Bell Helicopter for locating at Mirabel were exactly the same as they would have been if the company had located in Bromont?


Edward C. Lumley: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that, based on the questions I had from the Conservative Opposition, this is the first time that one of their Members has praised this particular project. I am happy to see at least one Member over there appreciates the project.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the two sites, I think the company narrowed down to Bromont and Mirabel. 1 forget the specific details, but there was a substantial difference between the financial assistance for both based on the tier category of the locations at which they originally looked. When it came down down to the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons over and above the financial assistance, the company chose the Mirabel site.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


MANAGEMENT COSTS OF WEST COAST SALMON FISHERY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries, who knows that the value of the landed salmon catch on the Pacific coast is about $240 million. The cost of operating the Department there is about $84 million, plus the cost of operating the Ottawa Department. With management costs of 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the value of the catch, does the Minister feel he is getting value out of his Department?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very simplistic presentation of the figures. The Hon. Member fails to say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a great number of responsibilities on the Pacific coast besides the fishery. We have hydrographic services, fishery research, oceanographic research, and two of our major laboratories are on the B.C. coast. Contrary to the Hon. Member, my intention is to increase the activities and the budget of the Department on the Pacific coast.


NUMBER OF VESSELS ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERY
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, with an increase in the budget we have a decrease in the amount of stock available. In the days of the free entry program into the commercial fishery there were approximately 20 vessels per year which entered the commercial fishery. Since 1969, with the buy-back program and restricted entry, there have been about 45 vessels per year entering into the fishery. In view of the proposed new buy-back program, is that another excuse for expanding vessel entry into the fishery?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member is alluding to rumours that there is going to be a new buy-back program. I have said repeatedly that no decision of that sort has ever been made by cabinet. The Hon. Member is right to say that already two buy-back programs have bene implemented in the past and that has not prevented the participants in the fishery from over-investing and over-fishing to the point where today's stock has been the object of substantial pressure.


Mr. Speaker:: In the light of the present developments, I am going to allow the Hon. Member for Joliette a supplementary. However, I may point out that the Chair was told the Hon. Member only wanted to ask one question. Supplementary for the Member for Joliette.

January 24, 1984
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


REQUEST THAT BELL HELICOPTER DOCUMENTATION BE TABLED
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering our interest in the Bell Helicopter project and the major Government investment involved, could the Minister give the House the assurance that he is prepared to table all agreements that were signed, all commitments and the cost of the studies, to inform all concerned across Canada?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to dispute the location of the plant, perhaps-


Erik Nielsen: We want the documents.


Edward C. Lumley: -he should write a letter to the chairman of the Bell Helicopter Corporation and have him tell the Hon. Member why he chose Mirabel.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour and relates to the so-called "Black Paper'' published by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, dealing with issues of occupational health and safety as they affect the Public Service. The first and likely principal recommendation contained in that paper was that the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, in so far as they apply to health and safety, be extended to the Public Service. What is the Minister's general reaction, and his specific reaction to that principal recommendation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree, in principle, with this recommendation. I am sure my colleague and neighbour, the President of the Treasury Board, who has a responsibility for public service employees, has the same objectives in mind, and I trust there will be a solution in the form of legislation when we introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. His Department has been historically and traditionally the opponent of the extension of those provisions, mainly for legal and technical, if not specious, reasons. All other jurisdictions have circumvented these technical and legal objections. Has the
President of the Treasury Board and his Department now come around to the view that the Canada Labour Code provisions dealing with occupational health and safety should in fact be extended to the entire Public Service?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will look at the Throne Speech which was presented to this Parliament on December 7 he will see a commitment by the Government to take steps to have standards apply to the federal public servants equivalent to those applying to workers under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain indicated he wanted to raise a point of order at this point.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall early in Question Period, during an exchange between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance made reference to documentation which was submitted to him by the Leader of the Official Opposition prior to his election to the House of Commons. Is the Minister of Finance in a position to table those documents, given that they would clearly influence the public debate on the question of the Budget?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. If the Minister of Finance wants to make a statement on the matter it would be permitted.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the letter was not sent to me but to my officials. It was sent to the Department and I have had an indication from the Leader of the Opposition that he is agreeable to the release of the letter. I will be very happy to table it as soon as possible.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) raised a question of privilege on December 21, 1983, prior to the Christmas recess, alleging that officials of Revenue Canada, in not informing the responsible Minister of certain facts, have caused him to misinform the House and that subsequently the Minister did not attempt to correct the record. The Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe also raised a separate question of privilege on Monday, January 16, 1984. Since the latter question of privilege was
January 24, 1984

similar in nature to the first one, I propose to deal with both in this ruling.
The Hon. Member has quoted, in support of his argument, a ruling by one of my predecessors which appears at pages 964 to 967 of Hansard of November 9, 1978, and also quoted pages 136 and 141 of Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition. He also submitted to me supplementary documents in support of his case, and I am grateful to him for having done so.
The Chair has spent considerable time reviewing the quoted references and several other precedents and rulings which it believes to be relevant to the issues the Hon. Member has raised.
Before going any further, I wish to underline the role of the Speaker in ruling on questions of privilege. The Speaker is confronted with a "claim" that privilege has been breached. All that the Speaker is called upon to decide is whether privilege appears sufficiently involved to set the matter down for debate in precedence to all other items and Orders on the Order Paper. There the role of the Speaker ends. The House will then, in its wisdom, decide if a breach has indeed occurred and what action it chooses to take, if any.
In every case, except one, that I have studied that is related to the issue involved, the Speaker has ruled that there was no prima facie case of privilege. The question I have to answer is whether the facts in this instance require that this one decision by Mr. Speaker Jerome in 1978 should be the relevant precedent.
In the 1978 case, there was evidence before the McDonald Commission that the then Solicitor General had been deliberately misled by officials under his jurisdiction. That evidence was the specific element which led Mr. Speaker Jerome to find a prima facie case of privilege and to allow the usual motion to be put to the House. In the present case before the Chair there is no such admission of wrongdoing or of wilful omission by officials or by the Minister. The Hon. Member appears to be in agreement with this since he himself stated at page 410 of Hansard on December 21, 1983:
Unlike the 1978 case . . . the House has no evidence that the departmental officials deliberately falsified documents and thereby caused the Minister to mislead the House.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker Sauve clearly interpreted the scope of the 1978 case on May 27, 1981. I refer the Hon. Member to page 9979 of Hansard. She stated then:
That precedent has to do with a letter which had been improperly drafted by the RCMP and which they admitted had been improperly drafted, and which probably allegedly impeded the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) in performing his duties in the House.
I have also reviewed the newspaper article and the document the Hon. Member provided to me. I found nothing in the newspaper article that I could link to privilege. The other document bears no departmental identification and no signatures. Its contents could be applied to any number of situations and indeed could be interpreted in different ways. The Chair could not find evidence therein relating to privilege.
I would suggest that this is a case where, far from having its privileges abridged, the House has provided a graphic instance
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
of the exercise of its privileges. Hon. Members have decided, through the persistent and effective use of their right to question Ministers, to bring a specific issue before the House. The issue has been intensely debated. It has been the subject of an allotted day and continues to be raised during the Question Period. The questions asked and the answers given, together with the statements made on both sides of the House during debate, have raised considerable public concern.
This serious issue will undoubtedly continue to be pursued. We see the House at work in the full exercise of its privileges. The statements made on both sides of the House, the allegations and the answers to those allegations, are outside the Chair's responsibility or authority. It may well be, however, that the pursuit of this matter could result in departmental disciplinary action should it emerge, as alleged, that certain officials have in fact misled the Minister. However, this is not a matter for the judgment of the Chair. The evidence available is not such as to enable the Chair to determine that a prima facie case of privilege has been established.
The second point the Hon. Member for Wellington-Duffer-in-Simcoe made was that the Minister had not corrected the record as soon as he realized he had made an incorrect statement. The Minister stated on January 16 that he has provided the House with accurate information.
It is the responsibility of the Chair to consider the procedural acceptability of questions and answers during Question Period. The quality and content of what is said during that period is not for me to pronounce judgment on.
As to whether false information is still on the record, I must refer the Hon. Member to Citation 145 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I quote:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. A statement made by a member in his place, is considered as made upon honour and cannot be questioned in the House or out of it.
On December 15, 1981 Madam Speaker Sauve in a ruling said the following:
It does not amount to contempt for a Member to mislead the House inadvertently, and this does happen from time to time. Furthermore, it is not unparliamentary to suggest that an Hon. Member has misled the House.
In such a case the Member may feel obliged to apologize to the House and to its Members where he may have unintentionally misled the House. This is an accepted procedure where a Member has made a mistake and has had his attention directed to it by another Member, or where his attention has not been drawn to a mistake but the Member nevertheless felt that he should advise the House.
But if one Member wants to bring the conduct of another Member into discussion in the House and refer it to the committee, whether or not that conduct amounts to contempt of the House, he must accuse the other Member of a serious charge, and to say that a Member misled the House does not constitute a serious charge.
This, too, is a matter of serious and continuing concern to the Chair, but if a specific charge does not follow the allegation, the matter should end there.
702

January 24, 1984
Petitions
Speaker Michener, on Friday, June 19, 1959, made this point very clearly when he said:
It has been strongly urged by some Members that the House should not set in motion its power to try and to judge the conduct of a Member unless such Member is charged with a specific offence. It is urged further that not only must he be charged, but that he must be charged by a Member of the House of Commons standing in his place.
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
After careful consideration, it is the opinion of the Chair that this issue involves basically a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the facts and of what has been said.
I would like to remind all Hon. Members of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 19(1):
A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
The Hon. Member may have a grievance but, in both incidents he raised, I must advise him that he does not have a prima facie case of privilege and that this matter should be brought before the House through a different process.


PETITIONS
Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I would like to present to the House today. It was brought to me by some residents of the Province of Quebec. They started out on December 12 from Quebec City and had a fast on December 25. Their intention in presenting this petition for me to bring to the House is that they wanted to protest the testing of the Cruise missile-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is an established format for the presentation of petitions. The Hon. Member should state what is in the petition in quick summary form.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They are protesting the testing of the Cruise missile and the cost of the arms industry compared to the high level of poverty. There are some 15,000 names which I am presenting here today. The signatures are mainly from the Province of Quebec.
The petition is to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Quebec, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly showeth that the petitioners formally object to the testing of the Cruise missile over Canadian territory.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw Canada totally from the nuclear armaments race between the American and East bloc
countries of which the Cruise missile is but one part. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today signed by scores of my constituents from the village of Fairvale Station who are protesting the closure of their post office substation. The post office has served that community well over a good number of years and they ask the post office to reconsider its decision to close this facility so that that service may remain.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by 116 citizens of the riding of Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario who are duly concerned over the method of taxation of the distillery industry by both the federal and provincial governments. These petitioners object to unreasonable increases in the federal excise duty and sales tax on distilled spirits and request that the taxation system be revised to prevent further loss of jobs in the industry.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Turner (London East) moved:: That the Fourth Report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House on Friday, January 20, 1984, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that all Members of the House are just chomping at the bit, ready to go to work on the various House of Commons committees.
As the report suggests, the Striking Committee has decided to retain the status quo as to the basic membership of committees. This does not mean that individual changes cannot be made when necessary through the Whip's office.
The composition with regard to Party representation remains the same, even though both opposition Parties have some reservations with regard to how these numbers compare to the composition of the House. The reason that this has been decided is that our Provisional Standing Orders by which the size of committees were reduced are still in the experimental stage. It is still too early to completely assess the experiment. The jury is still out.
Before major changes are made, we believe that the experiment should be given more than one year to be assessed. That is why the House extended the Provisional Standing Orders
January 24, 1984

until approximately two-thirds of the way through the first session of the next Parliament. By then we will have had almost three years' experience and hopefully will be able to reach a consensus on what we should keep, what we should change and what we should discard.
In conclusion, I should like to thank the members of the committee for their civility. I have had the honour to chair many committees and I think that it is fair to say that the meeting of this one was, despite the fact that we had a few votes, the shortest and most polite meeting that I have ever attended.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to add a few comments, after hearing the Whip of the governing Party.
As the Party which has introduced and brought about the discussion of parliamentary reform in recent years, I am very pleased to discuss some of the inequities which I believe arise under the present system. I would like to point out that it was our Party under the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and his House Leader at the time, the Hon. Walter Baker, who first took an initiative toward parliamentary reform.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) prepared an intensive paper at that time. It was as a result of the Government introducing in the last session of Parliament its infamous national energy policy of 15 pieces of legislation wrapped up as one Bill that triggered a debate and the ringing of the bells which forced this committee to get together.
Although it has not been traditional to debate Striking Committee reports, this being only the second time such report has been debated in recent history, I strongly believe that we must use these occasions to assess real progress which is being made with regard to parliamentary reform.
More specifically, to permit this report to be adopted without debate would imply acceptance of a membership breakdown of six for the governing party, three for the Official Opposition and one for the other opposition Party, which severely discriminates against the Official Opposition.
I accept the fact that the Striking Committee has great difficulty in allotting proportional party representation based on the present standing of 148 Liberals, 102 Progressive Conservatives and 30 NDP members, when membership on standing committees has been limited to a minimum of ten and a maximum of fifteen.
As has been pointed out by other Members, under the present standing the only truly fair committee division would be either a nine-member or seventeen-member committee. Using these numbers it will be possible to get a breakdown of membership between all three Parties which reflects the breakdown in the full House.
Unfortunately, the new Standing Orders, which stem from the recommendations of the Special Committee on Standing
Concurrence in Committee Report Orders and Procedure, limit committee membership to between 10 and 15-thus our continuing numbers problem.
However, we must go back to the spirit of that Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, to the spirit of parliamentary reform, of genuine co-operation and the desire to make Parliament relevant and workable. Let us consider the spirit of compromise, flexibility and conciliation. I believe that if we are to return to that spirit we would reject this Striking Committee report and seriously attempt to find a breakdown of committee membership which is truly fair, or at least fairer than the one proposed.
I do not believe there is a Member on any side of this House who could honestly say that the present division of Party membership on the small ten-member standing committees reflects the standings in the House. At the moment government Members represent about 53 per cent of the 281 seats in the House-not counting your own, Mr. Speaker,-but they represent 60 per cent of the Members in committees. The New Democratic Party has a total of 30 seats, which is in the 10 per cent to 11 per cent range and reflects well when compared to the 10 per cent representation on the small standing committees.
It is therefore the Official Opposition that is really discriminated against in committee representation. With slightly more than 36 per cent of the total seats in the House, the Progressive Conservative Party is allowed only 30 per cent of the members on standing committees.
A more equitable solution, admittedly still not perfect but at least fairer, would be to add one Member to the ten-man committees, allowing for a breakdown of Party representation as follows: Liberals-six Members, being 54.5 per cent of the standing committees which is very close to the 53 per cent of the Members in the House; Progressive Conservatives-four Members, being 36.36 per cent of the standing committees which is very close to the 36 per cent and a small fraction which we have as representation in the House as a whole; and the New Democratic Party-one Member, being 9.1 per cent.
Under this breakdown the Liberals would still benefit from a slight overrepresentation on committees, namely 54 per cent versus 53 per cent; the Progressive Conservative committee representation would almost exactly mirror our numbers in the House-namely 36 per cent plus fractions versus 36 per cent plus fractions-while the New Democratic Party would be slightly under-represented in comparable percentage terms- approximately 9 per cent versus 11 per cent.
I know my friends sitting to my left will say we should consider the ratio between the three Parties. Based on the Party standings in the House, the ratio is more or less five Liberals to three Progressive Conservatives to one NDP Member.
Our proposal for committee representation would increase the ratio between the Official Opposition and the NDP to four to one from the previous three to one ratio. This, I agree, slightly distorts the proportions of the seats in the House, but the distortion is not as great as what has been in practice for

January 24, 1984
Concurrence in Committee Report
the past year when the ratio between government and Official Opposition Members on committees has been two to one.
Further, the NDP has gained in the make-up of the two 15-Member committees whether measured in terms of per cent, 13 per cent, or in a ratio comparison of eight to five to two. Again, on those committees it has been the Official Opposition that has been penalized. We are not requesting changes to these larger committees, but we do believe it is reasonable, equitable and fair that after a year of underrepresentation on committees this Party be given its just share of seats on the smaller standing committees for the remaining few months of this Parliament.
The stated fear by the Government that our proposal would undermine the non-partiality, independence or neutrality of committee chairmen by requiring them continually to break the votes is entirely without substance. While it may be expected that committee chairmen on procedural matters display a degree of non-partiality, there is no Member naive enough to believe that in a crunch chairmen of standing committees would act in any way other than a partisan manner.
The special committee on parliamentary reform recommended establishing a panel of neutral chairmen for the proposed legislative committees, but recommended nothing along this line; that is, nothing in terms of a neutral chairman for the standing committees.
At this point perhaps we should review the recommendations of the special committee on parliamentary reform as they concern the operation of the committee system.
In the third report, item (1) concerns the size of committees. This would mean between 10 and 15 Members-not just 10, but between 10 and 15 Members-on standing committees. "This will provide for the possibility of fluctuations in proportional Party membership from Parliament to Parliament". That item has been more or less implemented.
Item (2) is substitution. For each member of a standing committee there shall be an alternate member from the same Party. Changes in the membership of a committee will require notification 24 hours in advance of a committee meeting. An alternate member could act only in the absence of one of the regular members from his or her own Party and could only then be counted in the quorum of the committee. That item has been implemented.
Item (3) is automatic referral of annual reports, the power of committees to initiate inquiries granted through automatic referral of annual reports by Departments, Crown corporations, including their subsidiaries, and other agencies to the appropriate standing committees immediately after tabling of such reports in the House. That has largely been implemented, though we do not get many reports tabled.
Item (4) is Government response to committee reports. It states that the Government should be required, if a committee so requests, to table a response to committee reports within 120 days. That recommendation has been implemented.
Item (5) is special committees. The use of special committees should increase. Their size should be kept as small as possible and there should be no change of membership unless agreed by the committee. The committees have the authority to make interim and final reports public. That has been implemented. However, there are a number of reforms which have been recommended by the special committee dealing with committees which have not as yet been implemented.
In the fifth report item (6) is a mechanism to convene the committees of the House. All House committees should be convened within 10 sitting days following the adoption of the Striking Committee report to elect a chairman and a vicechairman. During a session any four members of a standing committee can request, giving reasons, that the committee be convened. That recommendation has not as yet been adopted.
In the sixth report, item (7) refers to legislative committees. Within five sitting days after second reading of any Bill not referred to Committee of the Whole, a report from the Striking Committee would establish a legislative committee not to exceed 20 members, which would include the member having responsibility for the Bill-in the case of Government Bills, the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary-as well as the Opposition spokesmen for the subject area. That recommendation has not been introduced or adopted because of the Government's attitude.
Item (8) deals with a panel of chairmen. At the beginning of each session no fewer than ten Members shall be appointed by the Speaker to act as neutral and independent chairmen of the legislative committees. That is where this neutral chairman comes in-on legislative committees not on standing committees. That recommendation has not been introduced because of the Government's failure to move ahead with parliamentary reform.
In the seventh report, item (9), financial accountability committees, reflecting the belief that accountability is fundamentally important in a parliamentary democracy, the reform committee recommended that in addition to the Public Accounts Committee, the following committees are needed to ensure increased financial accountability: a fiscal framework committee, an expenditure proposals committee, a government corporations and agencies committee, and a liaison committee. That very important recommendation cannot be implemented because the Government refused to go ahead with parliamentary reform.
Finally, in item (10) in the seventh report, there is a call for improved resources, facilities and intercommunication for all committees.
It is clear that Parliament is not going to act on those recommendations not contained in the third report of the special committee. Nevertheless, we should seek to adopt in spirit and in attitude the feelings of the committee proposing the reforms, at least in the terms implementing the recommendations of the third report. My Party's proposals with regard to committee makeup, recommending a membership of 11 for
January 24, 1984

smaller standing committees rather than 10, is consistent with the philosophy of reform and is fair.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I should like to point out that the rules of the House provide for a ten-minute question and answer period if Hon. Members wish to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken. If there are none, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be much less involved in the discussion than was the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). I can appreciate the concern that he expresses. I have indicated my understanding of that concern on both occasions when I was a member of the Striking Committee.
I recall during the deliberations of the special committee that studied parliamentary reform that I personally raised those matters in the committee when it met at Meach Lake for the purpose of drawing up its final report. I found no support for the proposal that I made, which was to make the committees of such size as to allow for proper representation from both sides and from each of the Parties in the House of Commons.
I indicated on the two occasions last year and this year again that, if the Striking Committee were of a mind to alter the size of the committees to ensure that they properly reflect the representation of each of the Parties in the House of Commons, I would not in any way stand against that. That did not find favour. I say to the Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Official Opposition that it serves no useful purpose for me to mislead him. I cannot see that we would in any way be better off by taking an unfair situation and making it into another unfair situation. That is what the Hon. Member is asking us to support.


Paul Wyatt Dick: But less unfair.


Ian Deans: Less unfair from the point of view of the Official Opposition, but certainly no less unfair from our point of view. I would be remiss in my duties and responsibilities if I were to accept, given that the committee studied the question, given that on behalf of this Party, and I believe on behalf of all Hon. Members at the time, I made recommendations that would have allowed a committee of the size that would have ensured proper representation, given that that was turned down and given that this special committee on parliamentary reform, having studied it, decided to recommend the size of committee we are now faced with, that the imbalance which presently exists and which I willingly accept exists, should be willingly altered for the purpose of improving the standing of the Official Opposition to the detriment of the standing of the NDP.
Recognizing the problems, if the Hon. Member had proposed new numbers for the committee which would have allowed proper representation based on the number of seats held by each of the Parties, I can assure him that both in the
Concurrence in Committee Report Striking Committee and in the House I would not have spoken against it. However, I am afraid I am not in a position to accept on behalf of my colleagues that we should have less than that to which we are entitled. Let's face it, when you only have one member, it is difficult to have less than one member on a committee.


Erik Nielsen: You do it all the time.


Ian Deans: It may well be that the one member we send to the committee is the equivalent of five or six Conservatives. Recognizing the superior intellect of our members, we do recognize that to reduce the number to less than one in some way or another would hardly be satisfactory.
I say to the Hon. Member in all fairness that I regret we cannot support his proposal. If he would care to put forward another proposal that would allow for the numbers to reflect truly the proportions in the House-and the Whip for the Government knows this as I said it before-we would be quite happy to sit down and look at such a recommendation. We would be happy to sit down and review the numbers that make up the committees and the committee sizes, if it were the desire of the House of Commons, in order to consider whether a different sized committee would be better, but we are not prepared to further diminish what little influence we have been given on the committees by granting to the Official Opposition additional membership.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, at least they would be there as they usually are:


Ian Deans: They may well be there, but the presence of Opposition Members in committees infrequently results in a higher level of debate or understanding.


Erik Nielsen: I thought you were a wit. Now I know I was only half right.


Ian Deans: That one came out of the Ark with you.


Erik Nielsen: That was Diefenbaker.


Ian Deans: Hon. Members can appreciate my reasoning. The nature of the committees allows for members to participate in accordance with their proportional representation. The opportunity for all members to participate would be reduced considerably if we were to allow for an additional member from the Conservative Party. I thought the Hon. Member's argument was interesting but not supportable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

January 24, 1984
Concurrence in Committee Report


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
++NAYS
Messrs.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.		
[Stage Direction]
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE		
CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY		
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack		
Burghardt for an	address to his Excellency the Governor	
General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session;		
and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mulroney (p. 45).
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, continuing with my presentation on the Throne Speech, it is my contention that there is not a problem facing Canadians today that cannot be solved by reasonable men and women sitting down and coming up with a reasonable solution. Today we have approximately 4.5 million unemployed youth between the ages of 15 and 24. This represents an unemployment rate in excess of 20 per cent. In other words, one out of every five of our young people leaving universities, high schools, and trade schools faces the prospect of permanent unemployment in the present economic climate of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has the floor.


Jack Wendele Shields: These problems exist in Canada today because of a government that has been operating in confrontation. The unemployment rate among young people is high because of confrontation between regions of the country and the federal Government. The present federal Government is unwilling to
January 24, 1984

sit down with the regional governments to work out a compromise. This situation is particularly evident in Newfoundland, on the West Coast, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Nearly two million people across the country are unemployed, again as a result of confrontational politics. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we live in a country endowed with resources, with energetic and willing people with the drive to work and to get the economy going, but because of a government with its confrontational policy which attacked, through the misguided National Energy Program, an industry that was leading the country, creating employment throughout the land, under the guise of fairness and with the false promise of "We will give it back to Canadians", which the Government knew full well it could not do, it destroyed the engine that was keeping the economy of Canada moving ahead. Again, the Government did this through confrontation. We did not see reasonable men and women sitting down trying to work out an energy policy that would be equitable to the industry, equitable to the ownership of the resources, the provinces, and to all the people in Canada. We saw a government that determined a policy sitting in its ivory towers in Ottawa and imposed that policy on the provinces and the industry in a confrontational way. This was done with disastrous results, and that is why we have two million unemployed.
Let us look at the native unemployment, Mr. Speaker. Talk about confrontation. The native people, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) so eloquently expressed it this morning, want to participate on an equal basis with all other Canadians. What have we had? We have had nothing but confrontation.
Let me give you one brief example, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development funds the bands at the band level and says, "Okay, fellows. You are going to run your own show". The Department decided to fund the bands but it thought, "We cannot trust them sufficiently to fund them on a yearly basis, so we will fund them quarterly." The Department tightened down the budget for those bands and restricted the ways in which the money could be moved around within the budget.
Funding comes quarterly but at the same time the budget is very tight. Each band that is funded quarterly is forced to go to the bank for interim financing. This interim financing over the year costs bands something like $15,000 and sometimes $20,000 in unanticipated expense. Then the Department comes back, in a confrontational way, and says, "You have exceeded your budget". Again, this is confrontational politics.
I could not help but listen to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) this morning. He talked about his Province of Newfoundland. He said that the people of Newfoundland would probably be watching the proceedings of the House of Commons on television because many are unemployed and drawing unemployment insurance or welfare. Newfoundlanders want to work. I can attest to that. Those people do want to work. They have moved from Newfoundland to all parts of Canada. More particularly, they have moved into my riding and into the City of Fort MacMurray. They are prized
The Address-Mr. Shields
workers and prized employees because they know how to work. The shame of it is they could be working in their own province where in many cases they would be more happy. They would not have to leave families and friends. They could be working in Newfoundland, except for the confrontational politics that we have.
There are reasonable men in the federal Government, yet the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cannot sit down with the First Minister of the Province of Newfoundland and work out a solution to the ownership of resources in Newfoundland. That is a shame. The same situation existed with Alberta and Saskatchewan. The bottom line is that the federal Government does not accept the fact that the provinces own the resources. That is the shame of it. It is confrontation politics. Canada needs new and credible leadership, one that will inspire the Government to work in co-operation and not confrontation so that all Canadians can work toward a common national goal.
What is the record? The present Government did not have a mandate to destroy the energy industry, but it brought in the national energy policy under the guise of a budget in 1980. This Government did not have a mandate to force Canagrex on the agricultural industry, which it did in a confrontational way. It did not sit down to discuss what was best for all sectors of the industry. It engaged in confrontation politics. It did not have the mandate to nationalize the East Coast fishing industry. It did not have the mandate to make massive changes to the tax system, resulting in the activities we see in the tax department today, changes brought in in the 1981 Budget.
This Government did not have the mandate to destroy the Crow rate benefit to western prairie producers, which it did in a confrontational way. Confrontation politics does not work in a country as vast as Canada. It cannot work unless reasonable mean and women are prepared to sit down and work out a compromise. That is the challenge we face today.
This Government did not have the mandate to change the very nature of our parliamentary system, which it did. Members on the Government side must go home periodically. When they speak to their constituents, they must hear the same questions that I do. Our constituents want to know what in God's name has happened to our country when we are blessed with such an abundance of resources.
I want to give an example of something that happened in my riding. A man approached me with a $385 cheque that he had received in unemployment insurance. He used that money to start his own business. He rented a small place, hired two people and began to repair cars. The First roadblock was the income tax department. He was told that because he did not make his last month's remittance, his business would be closed and his bank account seized. He explained that he had too much out in receivables and could not meet the payment at the time, but that he would give priority to it the next month. With a $385 unemployment insurance cheque, that man creat-

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
ed jobs for himself and three other people. That is the kind of initiative we see in Canada.
If the Department of National Revenue received any direction from this Government, its auditor would have seen the ridiculous situation in which he was placing this young man and those who work for him. He would have seen that these people were going to be put out of work and added to the unemployment insurance rolls. He could have seen the drive that this man had, the initiative he had to get his business going. He was not prepared to listen to him.
People do not want welfare or unemployment insurance. I ask Hon. Members to stop and think about this for a minute. Just think if tomorrow you were told that you were out of a job and had to go on unemployment insurance. How could you face your wife and children? Imagine how this would undermine an individual's feeling of self-worth. Imagine how it would undermine someone's confidence to have to say "Daddy hasn't got a job" or "My spouse cannot support me; he is no longer the breadwinner, he is on unemployment insurance".
No wonder child abuse is increasing, as well as marriage breakdown. This is happening at a time when we have the resources, education and wherewithal. If only people would sit down together and work out their problems. For the past six or seven years we have had government by confrontation not government by co-operation. The Prime Minister said over national television that co-operative federalism is dead. If cooperative federalism is dead, Canada is dead. We have not seen the last of separatist movements springing up on the East and West Coast of central Canada.
In some areas that I represent, people are saying that if they do not soon get a fair shake, they are going to separate. They are ready to give it another chance, but not ready to do that indefinitely. We have the resources and we have educated people. We have people with enthusiasm, initiative and energy. What we need is a government that governs in a co-operative way, not by confrontation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) leaves late today to pursue his efforts for peace and security. Just over the weekend I returned from the Conference on Security and Disarmament in Stockholm. I was pleased to have associated with me at least meeting a number of my fellow parliamentarians, including the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett). It is in the context of these events that I would like to make some comments to the House as we pursue this debate on the Address in Reply.
May I begin by drawing attention to the fact that it is well-known to all Members that since the period toward the end of the 1970s there and has been a steady deterioration in what we describe as East-West relations, or the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, the NATO
countries and the Warsaw Pact countries. It became obvious that quite a number of contradictions had developed within the concept of detente. On the Soviet side, that concept in its view was not incompatible with an arms build-up and with different treatment of human rights from what the West had expected. Certainly the events in Afghanistan and Poland had their own impact upon the state of East-West relations. Indeed, by last summer, relations had deteriorated so badly between the United States and the Soviet Union that high-level dialogue had virtually ceased. That had not even happened during the bombing by the United States of North Viet Nam. Meanwhile, the allies in NATO countries developed their minimum response to the Soviet military build-up, particularly the deployment of the Cruise and Pershing II missiles in response to the deployment of the SS-20s by the Soviet Union. That occurred in the face of worry in many countries, a worry based upon the fear that these developments were inexorably leading to military confrontation and possibly war.
That is the state of affairs which is well known to us. It was addressed, for example, last May at Williamsburg by the seven leaders of the industrialized countries. I mention that meeting because it was the first time that these leaders at their summit addressed international security questions. At the summit at Williamsburg they issued a declaration which developed from a suggestion that had been made by Canada and carried through the meeting by the Prime Minister. That declaration was quite important because it contained two very important elements which have been, in a sense, the basis of policy on the part of Canada certainly and of some other countries since the Williamsburg Summit. The leaders at that time undertook to maintain sufficient military strength to deter any attack, to counter any threat and to ensure peace. That was, in a sense, the deterrent aspect of the policy.
The second aspect was that the summit leaders undertook to devote their full political resources to reducing the threat of war. That was a very important message carried from Williamsburg throughout the world, that the leaders of all these countries had determined that their full political resources were to be used in that direction. We all know that a month later that basic message was endorsed in the communique by the NATO foreign ministers at their meeting in Paris.
We had this double-track policy very much on our minds when we decided to accept the American request to test the Cruise missile in Canada. When we made that decision, we determined at the same time that we would carry forward as much as we possibly could the political commitment which had been made at Williamsburg. On the day we took the decision on the Cruise missile, I wrote to Secretary Shultz and said that we were prepared to approve the testing as a contribution to alliance solidarity in the negotiation of a verifiable agreement on medium-range nuclear weapons. We also recognized an even greater obligation to join in the search for a secure peace. I also noted in that letter to Secretary Shultz, which was made public, that it was the Government's firm intention to redouble
January 24, 1984

its efforts in the coming months to contribute to the progress and eventual success of current negotiations.
We know the series of negotiations that were under way at that time. I believe it is within that context that we can understand the Prime Minister's efforts, particularly the launching of his peace effort in his speech at Guelph on October 27. The Prime Minister made five specific proposals in that speech, but the main message, which he underlined, was the necessity for a jolt or an injection of high-level political energy to speed the course of negotiations on nuclear arms control, on conventional arms reduction and on military confidence-building measures. That was the main thrust of the Prime Minister's message, to try to get a jolt of energy into a system which had become virtually paralysed, where dialogue had virtually ceased and where rhetoric had been built up almost as the main instrument of diplomacy.
I will not mention all the dements of the Prime Minister's speech, but I will refer to two aspects of it. One concerns his suggestion of raising the nuclear threshold in Europe by reaching agreement on a balance of conventional forces in Europe. There was good reason why the Prime Minister should have referred to the Mutual Balance Force Reduction talks, the MBFR talks as they are called. There was good reason for his mention of them because they had been ongoing for almost ten years and had not yet reached the results which had been hoped for initially. The second point in that speech which I want to mention was his desire to give additional or real political impetus to the Stockholm conference on military confidence-building measures and disarmament. I mention these two aspects of the Prime Minister's speech, namely the MBFR and the Stockholm conference, because they have a lot to do with the current political dialogue between the East and the West.
The December meeting of the NATO foreign ministers held in Brussels offered an opportunity for the ministers and the governments represented there to make a response to the then current situation. Deployment had begun. The talks between the Soviet Union and the United States had been broken off or were about to be broken off, and we were meeting in that particular difficult context. It is true that a number of Parliaments in Europe had endorsed deployment very strongly, but it is also true that public opinion was greatly concerned at the difficult situation which existed. I think the NATO meeting was very important. The First thing the ministers did was to issue what was described as the Brussels Declaration. A communique was also issued but there was a shorter document called the Brussels Declaration which was intended to summarize the attitude of the West at the present time toward eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the Brussels Declaration the ministers acknowledged their respect for the Soviet Union's legitimate security interests and reiterated earlier pledges to seek security on the basis of a balance of forces at the lowest possible level. They also affirmed their intention to do their utmost to sustain a safe and peaceful future and to work with the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact states to achieve a balanced and constructive relationship based, as the
The Address-Mr. MacEachen Brussels Declaration said, on equilibrium, moderation and reciprocity.
I thought these were all very important concepts that were declared by the NATO governments to the world as the basis of a future relationship with eastern countries. The ministers closed with an appeal for an open, comprehensive, political dialogue. That is what the Prime Minister seeks, and I am sure it is sought by every Member of the House of Commons and every Canadian who is concerned about the future of the world and the necessity for asserting ourselves in the interests of peace.
The second statement that the ministers made dealt with MBFR negotiations stalled now for 10 years, with eastern proposals on the table but with no comprehensive western response as yet. The ministers agreed to review the state of negotiations and determine whether they could be moved forward. It is to be hoped they can be resumed later this year and that at that time western NATO ministers will be able to make a response to the eastern proposals that would ensure progress. At least, that is the view of Canada. It is also the view of Canada that at a certain point the ministers might consider their own presence at these talks. The circumstances would have to be right. The possibilities for some progress would have to be assured, but it seems to me this is another forum in which a jolt of political energy could usefully be made evident.
A further decision taken at the December meeting had to do with the Stockholm conference. It was agreed that the conference should be launched at the ministerial level; that politicians ought to attend; that it ought not to be left to bureaucrats and ambassadors, no matter how important they are, but that politicians ought to go in order to underline the importance they attach to a comprehensive dialogue in the interests of peace. That was decided by NATO ministers and, as a result, the eastern European ministers, including Mr. Gromyko, were present at the Stockholm conference. I may say a word about that later but I think all those present would agree that it was important that ministers attend, that politicians attend. Not only were there speeches, there were numerous bilateral dialogues that took place on the margins of the Stockholm meeting.
At NATO the fourth important decision that was taken was to conduct a review of the current state of East-West relations. That review was first suggested by the foreign minister of Belgium, Mr. Tindemans, who referred back to the Harmel report and thought the political aspects of it ought to be revisited and that NATO had to review, at least in my view he was attempting to ask NATO to update, its assessment of the current situation in view of the deployment and other developments, and to look to the future as to what ought to be on the agenda of East-West relations. That review has to be carefully conducted and it has to be done in a way that will also give a message of importance to the world.

January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
I came away greatly encouraged by the results of the NATO meeting. NATO ministers were confident in the unity of the alliance even though they realized it had been put under great stress in the past year. The efforts to weaken the alliance had backfired and, as a result, it was stronger and more confident than ever. It was therefore in a position to give some very strong messages to the world, especially to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, that it was prepared to engage in what I have described as an open, comprehensive political dialogue.
I will now say a word about the Stockholm conference, Mr. Speaker. It arose out of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the subsequent Madrid conference where it was agreed that it would be important to convene a special conference in Stockholm. The object of this conference would be to develop and expand on the regime of military confidence building measures laid down in 1975 as a means of reducing suspicion and making arms reductions in Europe on the conventional side easier to achieve. Stockholm was important because it occurred at a time of de-tension when all other negotiations were in suspense-START, INF and the MBFR. There was no East-West forum and Stockholm was the occasion when some sort of dialogue was to be resumed.
I do not want to bore Hon. Members by repeating the speech I gave at Stockholm but I think I should refer to one or two points.
I certainly expressed the view that acrimonious rhetoric at this time was futile and that we needed to deepen and restore civilized dialogue; that we should make every effort to ensure that this conference succeeded; that we have to avoid rehearsing old grievances; that we have to adopt a businesslike approach and we have to register some practical achievements. These practical achievements could include more openness about basic military information; earlier notice of a wider range of military activities; mandatory rather than voluntary exchanges of observers at important military activities, and ways to verify any agreements reached.
I made another point that I think is important for politicians like us, and that is, that we should not let this conference drop out of sight and leave it entirely to officials. At a certain point ministers ought to be prepared to return to the conference and to ensure that it continues to have the political momentum that I think it achieved that first week in Stockholm.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my own remarks, I would like to put one or two questions to the Minister. First, I would ask the Minister if he has given any thought to making a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-whose illustrious Chairman is sitting almost beside the Minister-so that we may have a parliamentary discussion in that forum on the very topic to which the Minister has been referring today in his remarks. Can we have that reference at an early opportunity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am open to any suggestions regarding a reference on the question of East-West relations or peace, security, disarmament and peacekeeping. If Hon. Members are agreed on an enterprise of this kind, I certainly would co-operate. However, we would certainly have to see the terms of reference and have some discussions about it. I believe it would be a good thing for parliamentarians to keep an eye on this question of East-West relations and what ought to be done about it. It seems to me to be inconsistent to argue at Stockholm, as I did, that ministers ought to monitor the progress of that conference to ensure that every effort was expended to make it succeed, and at the same time to say there should be no opportunity for Hon. Members of the Canadian House of Commons to do similar things.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister would permit just a very simple follow-up question; would he assure us that any such attempt to get a reference such as I have referred to will have his support and, hopefully, with his support we will be able to get the other Hon. Members of the House to agree to it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to take an open attitude on that question. If we can decide on a reference which will facilitate discussion, I will look at it quite sympathetically. However, I would like to see what the reference is. I would like to talk to the Chairman of the Committee to find out what the work program of that Committee is and whether a reference would be useful at the present time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I can assure the Minister, Mr. Speaker, and I know the Chairman will certainly back me up on this, there is all kinds of time available to that Committee to handle the reference which might be forthcoming.
Mr. Minister, we are all deeply concerned about the tensions in the world today and, in particular, the unfortunate breakdown of negotiations between the major powers. However, something which has always startled us is the fact that there is no ambassador for disarmament, which is a role, and certainly an office, which I believe most people feel would be quite helpful at the present time. But while that office is allowed for in the structuring of the Minister's Department, it is not filled at the present time. Could the Minister indicate to the House why there is in fact no ambassador for disarmament? And may we expect not only an early appointment of such an ambassador, but also the assurance that he will have ample funding and staff to ensure he could play a truly meaningful role in this whole broad question of disarmament?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has referred to the deep tensions which exist in the world, and I agree that they do exist. They were attested to at the Stockholm conference by the very tough speech made by Mr. Gromyko from the rostrum. It was quite tough. The substance of his analysis did not vary in what he said from the podium and what was stated to me in private, and it did reflect the tensions which the Hon. Member mentions. However, I should think it important to register what I consider to be a decided
January 24, 1984

improvement in certain quarters. The speech made by the President of the United States and the speech made by Mr. Shultz, in my opinion, were relatively moderate. And just a day or so ago, Prime Minister Thatcher of the United Kingdom expressed her view that there was a distinct change in policy from Washington and she appealed for further dialogue with the East. I believe that the more that is done, the more we will be able to influence the Soviet Union at this stage to change, possibly, its perceptions of the West and of the United States. It must work both ways. Western leaders can have an impact, and that is why I came away saying that if it were possible, it would be urgent for the Prime Minister and other leaders to go to Moscow to have discussions.
With respect to the ambassador for disarmament, Mr. Speaker, the post is vacant. However, the Hon. Member need not be worried because we have been devoting, in a sense, in the past several months the full resources of the Department and, indeed, of the Government on the question of disarmament.


Pauline Jewett: Even the Prime Minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Prime Minister, as the Hon. Member says, is a prime ambassador for disarmament. Therefore, because we have devoted so much of our resources-and the Prime Minister-to this activity, I am not apologetic about the vacancy. The vacancy will be filled. I am searching for the best possible person to fill this job, and when I conclude that I have that person, the appointment will be made. In the meantime, do not feel that disarmament is being neglected. It has never had the impetus it has received in the last several months.
The Address-Mr. MacEachen military intervention . I have made these points to Mr. Shultz on more than one occasion. Our policy is not identical to that of the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(4), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment or amendments now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Mr. Mulroney, seconded by Mr. Nielsen, moved:
That the Address be amended by adding the following words:
"This House regrets to inform Your Excellency that your Government is incapable of providing leadership and direction in the social and economic affairs of the nation and has lost the confidence of this House and of the Canadian people and therefore requires that an election be called in accordance with the Canadian custom, practice and tradition of holding a general election at least every four years".
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister one question, at least. He spoke about the problems of East-West. I was happy to hear his statements. The problem, I believe, between East-West many times is a misinterpretation of facts. I feel that in Central America right now there is the major problem of the traditional injustices of many kinds being called an East-West confrontation.
Has the Deputy Prime Minister talked to the American Secretary of State on his recent visit in Stockholm about that particular problem? Again, I would request the Deputy Prime Minister to seriously think of visiting that area himself so that we Canadians can have a uniquely Canadian policy on Central America. I would also like to say that I was happy that the money was released for Nicaragua and that aid has gone there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to raise the question of regional conflict with Secretary Shultz at Stockholm. We have done that in the past. We have discussed our differences on the subject of Central America. The Hon. Member is quite correct in saying that it has become a focus of East-West interest or rivalry. That is a fact. However, I certainly take the view that the surest way to bring about peace and security in that part of the world, is to deal with the basic economic and social problems and the political problems. For that reason we have argued against third-party


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Mulroney), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 10)
++YEAS
Althouse	Ellis	HowieAndre	Elzinga	HuntingtonAnguish	Epp	JarvisBeatty	Fennell	JelinekBenjamin	Forrestall	Jewett (Ms.)Blackburn	Fraser	KeeperBlenkarn	Fretz	KemplingBosley	Friesen	KnowlesCardiff	Gamble	KristiansenClark	Gass	Lambert(Yellowhead)	Gilchrist	LawrenceClark	Greenaway	Lewis(Brandon-Souris)	Gurbin	LewyckyCoates	Gustafson	MacDonald (Miss)Cook	Halliday	(Kingston and theCooper	Hamilton	MacDougallCorbett	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	MaloneCrombie	Mountain)	MayerCrosby	Hamilton	Mazankowski(Halifax West)	(Swift Current-Maple	McCainCrouse	Creek)	McCuishDantzer	Hargrave	McGrathDarling	Hawkes	McKenzieDeans	Heap	McKinnonde Jong	Hees	McKnightDick	Hnatyshyn	McLeanDo mm	Hovdebo	McMillan
January 24, 1984
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
	Messrs.			Messrs.	
Miller	Orlikow	Siddon	Henderson	Leduc	ReganMitges	Paproski	Speyer	Herbert	Lefebvre	ReidMulroney	Patterson	Stevens	Hervieux-Payette	Loiselle	(Kenora-Rainy River)Munro	Reid	Stewart	(Mrs.)	Lumley	Roberts(Esquimalt-Saanich)	(St. Catharines)	Thacker	Hopkins	MacBain	RobinsonNeil	Riis	Thomson	Hudecki	MacEachen	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Nickerson	Sargeant	Towers	Irwin	Mackasey	RompkeyNielsen	Schellenberger	Wenman	Isabelle	MacLaren	RooneyNystrom	Scott	Wilson	Johnston	MacLellan	RossiOberle	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Wise	Joyal	Malepart	RoyOgle	Shields	Young-103.	Kaplan	Maltais	SavardKelly	Marceau	SchroderKillens (Mrs.)	Masse	SimmonsNAYS	Lachance	Masters	SmithMessrs.	Lajoie	McCauley	TardifLalonde	McRae	TessierAllmand	Chenier	Dubois	Lamontagnc	Nicholson (Miss)	TobinAxworthy	Collenette	Duclos	Landers	Olivier	TousignantBachand	Comtois	Dupont	Lang	Ostiguy	TrudeauBaker	Corbin	Dupras	Laniel	Parent	TurnerBeauchamp-Niquet	Corriveau	Duquet	Lapierre	Pelletier	Veillette(Mrs.)	Cosgrove	Erola (Mrs.)	Lapointe	Penner	WatsonBegin (Miss)	Cote (Mrs.)	Ethier	(Charlevoix)	Pepin	WeatherheadBerger	Cousineau	Evans	Lapointe	Pinard	WhelanBlais	Cullen	Ferguson	(Beauce)	Portelance	Yanakis-135.Blaker	Cyr	Fisher	LcBlanc	Prud'homme	Bloomfield	Daudlin	Flis	Bockstael	Dawson	Foster	Bossy	De Bane	Frith	Brcau	de Corneille	Garant	Bujold	Demers	Gauthier	Burghardt	Deniger	Gimai'el	Bussieres Caccia	Desmarais Dingwall	Gingras Gourd	Mr. Speaker:	I declare the amendment lost.	Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova)	Dion Dionne	(Argenteuil-Papineau) Gourde	It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow	Campbell (LaSalle)	(Chicoutimi) Dionne	(Levis) Gray	at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).	Campbell	(Northumberland-	Guilbault	At 6.01 p.m.	the House adjourned,	without question put.(Cardigan)	Miramichi)	Harquail	pursuant to Standing Order.	
Wednesday, January 25, 1984