1984-11-16

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech pronounced on November 5 of this year contained a number of glowing and vague promises, but the likelihood of their ever being kept became more than uncertain when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made his economic statement three days later.
Let me give an example. In the Speech from the Throne the following was said, and I quote:
My government is determined to ensure that social justice in Canada keeps pace with the changing needs and circumstances of our people.
In the economic statement, however, the Conservative Government announced that it would extend the allowance program to spouses between ages 60 and 64, but only to widows and widowers.
One may well ask why only widows and widowers. What about separated and single individuals who are in need?
If we look at the figures published by Statistics Canada in 1981, widows and widowers constitute only 4.7 per cent of the Canadian population, while people who are separated, divorced or single make up 36.9 per cent.
The Government will have to revise its position and take into consideration the groups it has overlooked. Apparently, the Conservative Government does not have all the facts.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the dog fights and recriminations between members of the decimated Liberal Party are wondrous to behold. Having been justly turfed out of office by the Canadian electorate, they now
seem bent on destroying what remains of that Party by internal bickering and in-house squabbles such as that between the former Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) over which of the two were more directly culpable for their crushing defeat.
All of this would be rather humorous were it not for the fact that the parliamentary system of government requires a responsible Opposition, something which we, unfortunately, do not have at the present time. In all likelihood the Liberal Party will, over the next few years, disappear as a political force with which to be reckoned. Those few remaining Liberals, however, can find some solace. They will all go down in the history books as the last living fossils of a species which has outlived its usefulness.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, a New York Times story exposes the falsity of Canada's policy toward Nicaragua. It reported that a Canadian naval ship is taking part in a 19-day exercise in the Caribbean, with 25 U.S. naval ships, infantry, airborne and helicopter troops of the United States, as well as two Dutch, one German, and one British ship.
Canada professes neutralism, objectivity, and support of the Contadora peace negotiations. Yet Canada is silent about Reagan's flights over Managua, Reagan's invasion of Nicaraguan territorial waters, Reagan's funding of the Contras, and Reagan's lying story about the alleged MIGS.
Against their protests, Canada directs Canadians living in Nicaragua to register with the U.S. embassy, the embassy of the country which will invade Nicaragua. Canada sends a Canadian warship to join in manoeuvres in the Caribbean to intimidate Nicaragua, or to help prepare for the invasion by Reagan. Shame on Canada's two-faced foreign policy!


CONVERSION OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO PROPANE FUEL USE
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the House today on a matter which I feel is of importance to consumers as well as producers of sources of energy. That subject is alternate fuels. I, like many Canadians, was encouraged by the tone and direction set out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in last week's economic statement.

November 16, 1984
Deficit reduction and sound fiscal management are the first steps toward economic recovery, and management of our energy resources is of major import in that recovery.
1 encourage the Minister of Finance to continue the present subsidies for conversion of automobiles to alternate fuels. In my riding of Welland propane fuel is used exclusively by the Niagara Regional Police Force in their police cruisers. In the City of Welland 90 per cent of all taxi cabs have been converted to propane as an alternate fuel. Many of my constituents have converted their private automobiles, and I personally have 14 vehicles in my family business on propane. The savings in all cases are in excess of 40 per cent. Propane is readily available to the public at an increasing number of service stations in my riding of Welland and through southern Ontario. It is proving to be a reliable and economic source of fuel.
I would therefore invite Members of the House to encourage their constituents to examine the benefits of alternate fuels such as propane and natural gas, and would encourage the Minister of Finance to continue and, when appropriate, to increase the subsidies for alternate fuel conversions.
This action would increase the opportunity for an increasing-


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


TRANSPORT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport must be aware that the Quebec government has abolished highway tolls; he must be aware that the abolition puts an end to unfair treatment in the regions of the south shore and the Eastern Townships; finally, he must be aware as well that this demonstration of equity towards autoroute users is not yet generalized since motorists still pay tolls to cross the Champlain bridge. I am convinced that the Progressive Conservative Members from the south shore and Eastern Townships ridings will echo my representations urging the Minister to consider the possibility of dismantling immediately the Champlain bridge toll booths which constitute discrimination towards and cause delays to motorists travelling to the south shore and the Eastern Townships.


FUEL PRICE INCREASE-EFFECT ON LAC-SAINT-JEAN REGION OF QUEBEC
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians, the people in my riding applauded the statement made by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on our country's economy and finances and the direction the present Government intends to take. One of the Government's priorities is a more equitable redeployment of public funds, which will be done through consultation on ways of regulating, for instance, the price of oil. In the past, distant areas like mine have often been neglected. We believe it is time for a change. As the Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, it is my duty to ensure that this new approach has no adverse effects on the people of my riding. There is certainly a way to meet the needs of Canadians while taking into account the regional dimensions of Lac-Saint-Jean.
For instance, the increase in the price of fuel is a distinct disadvantage. Almost everything is shipped in and out of this area by road transport, and transportation costs are already 25 per cent higher because of weather and road conditions. I would appreciate receiving your suggestions in the next few weeks, so that 1 can then express the views of all my constituents.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has made flagrantly contradictory statements on the subject of arts cut-backs. Neither he nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are in the House today to answer to them.
During the course of the election campaign the position of the Party was very clear-no arts cut-backs in real terms and consultation with the arts and cultural community. Further, in opposition, the Conservatives were very strong on the arm's length relationship between government and the cultural agencies. Yet the economic statement broke all three promises.
To complicate matters, the Minister said in answer to a question yesterday that he would ensure that there would be increased funding for creative and productive work in the arts, yet he could not assure the House that cut-backs would not be confined to administration because of the arm's length relationship. However, a story in today's Globe and Mail says that there will be further interference with our major cultural agency, the CBC.
Where do we stand? Nobody knows. I suggest that the way out of this incredible muddle is for the Minister to go back to square one with no arts cut-backs, consultation with the arts
November 16, 1984

community, and a strict respect for the arm's length relationship between government and that agency.


EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS' GUIDELINES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to ask the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) to intervene on behalf of the young people who are being discriminated against in the hiring guidelines for federal works programs released yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
The Minister of Employment said that we have the highest number of young people in our history without work, and that this is a short-term make work measure on their behalf. I would ask the Minister responsible for youth to examine these guidelines. She will find that preferentrial hiring is given to unemployment insurance exhaustees, then to those drawing social assistance, and then to those who are drawing unemployment insurance. It means that a young person who has not worked before and who is not on social assistance is not allowed to go to work in any of these federal works programs called Canada Works or Section 38.
I am asking the Minister of Youth to intervene, and do whatever she must, to get the Minister of Employment to drop these discriminatory hiring regulations that discriminate against all of our young people in this country who are out of work.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
According to a story published in the press today, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion owns a company; he has a 50 per cent interest in a company that manufactures shoes, and since he is responsible for the Anti-dumping Tribunal and for setting quotas on footwear, and the president of the company said that the company was having problems because of imports. Did the Right Hon. Prime Minister take the necessary precautions when appointing the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion by asking him certain pertinent questions, and did the Minister inform the Prime Minister of the potential conflict of interest that existed at the time, and if the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister was aware of the situation, how could the Member in question become the Minister of a department where he must make daily decisions that may affect the financial position of a company in which he has a 50 per cent interest?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister);: I am disappointed and surprised at the Hon. Member for asking such a question. However, I can assure him that all legal requirements were met before anyone was appointed, including the Minister in question. The Hon. Member is no doubt aware that from time to time, Canadian citizens, including Members of this House who have worked in the business world, have been faced with certain problems, and I must say 1 have received every assurance that all legal requirements have been met, and I am confident that the Hon. Member in question has the integrity and competence required to perform his duties as Minister.


RESPONSIBILITY QUERY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the question because it is a very important problem. It is not the integrity of a person, I do not put that in question, but a Prime Minister has an obligation that, when he appoints a Minister, he must make sure there is no conflict of interest and no appearance of conflict of interest.
How is it that since September 17 one person in this House, being the owner of a shoe factory, becomes a Minister and remains a Minister until the end of October, owning shares of a company and having the responsibility during that time to make decisions that can affect quotas and the future of this company?
I think the Prime Minister had a duty to make sure when he appointed that Member of Parliament that there was no conflict of interest. He could have appointed him to a different portfolio but not to a portfolio in which he makes decisions about a business in which he has a personal interest, a very important interest because he owned 50 per cent of that company.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to presume bad faith and dark motives on behalf of the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: No, that is a different matter.


An Hon. Member:: If the shoe fits, wear it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can assure the Hon. Member that all of the provisions of the statutes governing conflict of interest were discussed with the various Ministers by me, and they were all fulfilled to the letter within the time frames stipulated to ensure precisely that there would be no conflict of interest.

November 16, 1984
Oral Questions
That included following, as I understand our predecessors did, provisions in regard to blind trusts and so on.
If there is a suggestion or an indication of impropriety I would be happy to look at the matter again and report back to the House and to the Hon. Member. But I want to give the Hon. Member the assurance that I exercised vigilance and care with regard to all of the nominations, and I was thoroughly satisfied that these matters had been properly dealt with, as well as the competence and integrity of the Minister involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the Right Hon. Prime Minister intends to look into the matter.


OWNERSHIP OF SHARES-PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a very precise question. Was the Prime Minister made aware at the time of forming his Cabinet that that Minister owned 50 per cent of the shares of a shoe company? Did the Minister inform him precisely that he had these shares? If the Prime Minister knew, why did he appoint him to his job while for at least a month and a half the Minister was in a position to make decisions in relation to this industry? The blind trust in that matter cannot work because everyone knows that the company exists and that the Minister has shares. A blind trust cannot work; the company is his.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a crime for anyone to hold shares or to hold directorships in companies prior to their holding high public office.


Mr. Waddell:: Did you know?


Martin Brian Mulroney: One either divests oneself or one complies with the full requirements of the blind trust and other reporting arrangements which are quite properly required by Parliament.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Did you know?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was aware that the Minister and others had financial holdings with which they were obliged to deal pursuant to statutes of this House. I have received the assurance that all provisions of the Act have been complied with. However, as I indicated to my hon. friend, I will be happy to look at it again with care to ensure that there has been full and absolute compliance, not only with the letter but with the spirit of the law as well.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It was reported this morning by Informetrica Limited, an economic forecasting firm, that, as a result of the budget cuts announced on November 8, 50,000 jobs will be lost next year and real economic growth will be reduced by .5 per cent. In refusing to give the House the Government's figures on the jobs to be lost by these cuts, the Minister said that they were insignificant and that in any case there would be an increase in jobs in 1985.
Considering the contradiction between his answers and the report of Informetrica, would the Minister tell us whether the loss of 50,000 jobs is to be considered insignificant? Is this new 1984 Tory newspeak? Would he now release the job loss figures calculated by his forecasting model? Will he respect the Conservative commitment to open government and let the House judge what is significant or not?
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the job loss was not insignificant. I said that the statistics which were thrown up by the econometric model were statistically insignificant.


An Hon. Member:: What is the difference?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There are differences between what the Informetrica model has produced, our models and other econometric models in the country. I ask the Hon. Member to remember two things. One is that $2 billion of spending cuts, net in a $400 billion economy is not a major amount. The second is that econometric models do not measure the qualitative element of the improvement in confidence for both consumers and business, which I am sure will lead to an increase in jobs that will far exceed the measurable job loss according to the model.


MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister and the Prime Minister continue to speak of jobs which might be created if interest rates decline far enough, if business confidence leaps ahead far enough. Is this projection merely a pious wish on behalf of the Government? Or, do they have some hard data or information from their friends in big business that they in fact will invest in jobs? Does he really believe that he merely pushes a "cut-cut" button and out the other end of his economic machine he gets "jobs-jobs"? How does he explain that in Japan, where the deficit is a higher percentage of GNP than it is in Canada, there is a much lower rate of unemployment?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 remind the Hon. Member that 32,000 more jobs were created
November 16, 1984

in the month of October. Things are moving in the right direction.
In spite of what the Hon. Member is trying to get at with the question, let me state one overriding consideration that his Leader will support. We cannot, as a country, run away from the deficit problem. We cannot run away from the problem of accumulating debt. We are on a treadmill here. It is a very dangerous thing that we are facing. If we do run away from it, the job loss, the economic and the financial mess that we will be in in five years' time will be far more serious than it is today. That is why we took the actions that I announced in my statement last Thursday.


DEPARTMENT'S STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Now that Informetrica has confirmed what my Leader said over a week ago, that there would be a net loss of 50,000 jobs to the economy as a result of the Government's economic statement, is the Minister now willing to provide for the House of Commons and for the public of Canada the statistical information that was made available to him by his ministry officials, and show conclusively exactly how many jobs his Government is prepared to risk in an effort to achieve the kind of economic Utopia that it claims might occur some time in the future?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to achieve an economic Utopia. We are trying to withdraw ourselves out of a very serious problem that we are facing as a country and as a Government. We are taking the steps that we feel are necessary. The Hon. Member has seen the results of the Informetrica modal. I am sure there will be others that will be somewhat less. There may be others that are somewhat more. I say to the Hon. Member that he must look at the broader reasons for the action that we took last Thursday.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF INFORMATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is a very simple question. It surely can be answered. The Minister has in his possession statistical information given to him by his ministry officials which shows that there will be a loss of jobs as a result of the economic direction the Government has decided to take. Will the Minister provide for the House the information that was given to him, in order that the public of Canada can draw some reasonable conclusions as to whether or not those are the risks that they are prepared to take in order to achieve the aims that the Government wants to achieve?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have said in the past, and I will say it again to the Hon. Member, that this information was provided to me as part of an over-all policy recommendation. I do not believe that it is
Oral Questions
appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to be making information available publicly to Members in the House and the general public which is part of a set of policy options. That is the reason for my not making that information available.


METRIC CONVERSION
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his election and on his portfolio. I wish him well in the House, but not too well. In that regard, I want to know if he has seen the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail and, in particular, if he saw the comments of his Parliamentary Secretary who was quoted as saying:
The Conservative Government is abandoning Canada's move toward mandatory metric measurement-
He then goes on to say:
Definitely, that is what's going to happen, as sure as I'm talking to you now.
He was talking to Miss Barbara Yaffe. The article continues:
We will be selling to the consumers for one more generation in Imperial.
I want to know, if the Minister has seen that, if his Parliamentary Secretary was speaking for the Government and for the Minister. Also, can he confirm that that is going to be the policy of the Government, that it is not going to go ahead with the metric policy?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that the responsibility of the department is to listen to all comments and consult the public at large with respect to metrication. That is what we are doing now and as soon as we are through consulting we will have an opportunity to set forth the government's final policy on that issue.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking for the Government. The answer to the question is no. Obviously the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking for the Parliamentary Secretary.
It is just as serious, if not more serious, that in the same article, the Parliamentary Secretary said:

November 16, 1984
Oral Questions
The Consumers' Association of Canada has not been speaking for the consumer.
He said that the Consumers' Association of Canada is nothing more than an extension of the very Department the Parliamentary Secretary represents.
Does the Minister concur with his Parliamentary Secretary that, indeed, the Consumers' Association of Canada is not speaking for the consumers? If he believes that, will he cut off aid to the Consumers' Association of Canada? If he does not believe that, will he confirm that he will continue to support the Association, and will he ask his Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw those comments?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, again 1 say to the Hon. Member that the department's responsibility is to listen to the various spokespersons and interest groups and, as far as I know, the Consumers' Association of Canada does speak for a legitimate interest group. It so happens that I had a meeting this morning with CAC representatives, a meeting which ended just before the question period. Our discussions covered various issues concerning the Consumers' Association of Canada. As I said, the government has every interest in listening to all groups, including the CAC.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: My question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The Government has appointed a committee of three, including a former CTV employee and adviser to the Prime Minister, to advise the Government on budgetary cutbacks in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. My question is quite simple. Does the Prime Minister trust Mr. Pierre Juneau? If so, why did he not give Mr. Juneau this responsibility.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In the
absence of the Minister of Communications, I can answer the Hon. Member. If I am not mistaken, it is an advisory committee that will be helping the Department and the Minister of Communications analyse questions that concern the CBC, among others, but for the time being it will help analyse the matter of budgetary cutbacks. This is being done to help the Minister ensure that as far as possible, budget cuts will be restricted to the bureaucratic level and will not affect employees of the CBC or other corporations. I think the Minister already gave this explanation, which is an entirely legitimate one.


CORPORATION'S MANAGEMENT MANDATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister is failing to make a major distinction. Does the Prime Minister not understand that there is an important difference between hiring a group of outside advisers perhaps to suggest a change in mandate for the CBC, something which would be quite appropriate, and hiring a group of outside advisers, including a former political adviser to himself, actually to carry out part of the mandate within the CBC? Surely that is a management function properly belonging to the existing management of the CBC. Surely the Government has confidence in that management. Either the management should be given that job, or the management should be changed. The Government should not provide outside political interference.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Hon. Member is horrified by the idea of someone having been involved in partisan politics having a right to advise the CBC. The proposition clearly does not outrage the present President of the CBC who is less horrified by partisan activity than is my hon. friend.
We have confidence in the management of the CBC. We propose to allow the CBC to proceed in a manner very much at arm's length, consistent with its honourable traditions. That does not preclude, nor should it preclude, a Cabinet Minister from soliciting expert counsel to assist him in his parliamentary obligation to analyse, and advise the House of Commons as best he can on ongoing developments in his Department, including the proper responsibility that he has for the general over-view of the CBC.


FREEDOM FROM INTERFERENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should clarify things with his Minister. The Minister has said publicly that there were two broad responsibilities given to this group. One was to discuss a mandate for the CBC. It is quite proper for that to be done either by advisers to Ministers' offices or outside groups. There is no question about that. The other mandate that he said was given, and this is in my own words, was actually to implement budgetary cuts involving programming within the CBC.
Does the Prime Minister not see that there is a major distinction between outside advice concerning policy, and internal interference with the decision-making process within a Crown corporation itself? Surely a Crown corporation like the CBC, which is the largest broadcasting entity in the country, should remain free of all outside interference from the Government, and should especially remain free of political appointees nominated by the Government, who are directly involved in management decisions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if that is true, it will come as a surprise to the present President of the CBC. I say that without any malice, because
November 16, 1984

we have a high regard for Mr. Juneau and his accomplishments. That is a fact.
With regard to responsibility, I think my hon. friend has obscured the clear indications of the responsibility of this committee. It is not empowered directly or indirectly to intrude on, insinuate itself into, or interfere with the operations of the CBC. It is an advisory group to the Minister, empowered to assist him in his proper assumption of his duty to the House of Commons, which is to provide all Members with proper and timely information on the best manner in which government policy can be implemented.


PIPELINES
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my first question in this House is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last summer the British Columbia Utilities Commission selected the so-called southern route from the Lower Mainland to Nanaimo for a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. There is some concern in my riding that the project may be in jeopardy, particularly in view of the perilous financial position in which the new Government has found itself. What is the status of the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline project?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his election to the House of Commons. We welcome him to our PC caucus.
Our position on the Vancouver Island pipeline, which we have conveyed to the British Columbia Minister of Energy, is that the project is on hold until the economic climate improves, as are the Quebec pipelines. We have asked the Government of British Columbia to bring us a more economic proposal with revised figures, which we will then discuss with our officials. Hopefully we will be able to schedule this project for construction but it will probably begin a little later than the B.C. Government had requested.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for national parks and concerns employment in New Brunswick's Kou-chibouguac national park during the summer of 1985. This past summer, 230 people were employed in the park. According to some press reports, the Kouchibouguac national park operating budget will be cut down considerably, to the extent that employment in 1985 will be reduced by some 100 person-
Oral Questions
years. Since the policy of this government is to eliminate jobs, can the Minister confirm the bad news and explain in unequivocal terms why my constituents are the target of such savage and unacceptable cutbacks?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Department of Environment is reducing person-years. I want to say to my colleague that nobody has yet been sent a dismissal notice and we will do our best to ease the situation, help retrain employees who can be given other duties and proceed as humanely as possible.
It stands to reason that cuts hurt everybody and it is obvious as well that the cutbacks made by my department will be spread throughout Canada; we are talking about 305 fewer person-years out of a total public service work force in excess of 10,000 people.


INQUIRY CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT FOR LA ID-OFF WORKERS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister giving me the assurance that employment will be found for the workers who will be laid off?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: I cannot give that assurance to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, because we are now in the process of considering how best to implement our staff cutbacks. What I can say is that the Department of Environment's prime concern is not to create jobs but, before reducing our staff, we reviewed those programs where a minimum of hardship would be caused.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment and it concerns cut-backs in her Department. One of the cut-backs proposed is in the Canadian Wildlife biotoxicology unit. This unit has undertaken some very important activities in Canada. It was the first to identify DDT as an environmental hazard, and it was responsible for banning a number of dangerous chemicals, particularly in New Brunswick. Would the Minister indicate whether she is prepared to review the cut-backs in the biotoxicology units of the Canadian Wildlife Service, because they are such an important assistance to health and safety in Canada?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I think I replied yesterday to one of the hon. members' colleagues who was seeking this information in

November 16, 1984
Oral Questions
more general terms when I said that there will not be any cut-back in toxicological research, since $27 million from my department and $150 million from the federal government are being allocated to this research.


PUBLIC SAFETY
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot say that will not be the effect. The Canadian Wildlife biotoxicology branches are being cut back. The unit in New Brunswick is being cut back, which is currently studying heavy metals in the Bay of Chaleur and the links between cancer and birth defects. If the Government and the Department of the Environment are not prepared to do that, would the Minister state to the House who will take care of the problem of safety for Canadians in connection with these important issues that she and the Conservative Party are proposing to cut back?
[ Translation]


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: When we considered these cuts, Mr. Speaker, I agreed, along with my officials, to make very minor cuts to a number of programs, and they are very minor indeed, for we are talking here of 305 person-years out of a total of 10,000 employees; it is clear, therefore, that we are not thinking of abandoning toxicological research. I suggest that some people are dramatizing the situation somewhat, and if the health of the Canadian people were really jeopardized by cuts such as these, we would certainly review the situation and make cuts in some other less essential programs. But we do not feel that such is the case just now.


GAS PRICE INCREASE-EFFECTS ON GASPE RESIDENTS
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Considering the long distances people living in the Gaspe Peninsula generally and in my own riding of Gaspe in particular must travel to obtain their basic services, and considering the 64.6 cents a litre they must now pay for no-lead gasoline, could the minister tell the House whether she has recently contacted or met her Quebec counterpart about this situation? If not, does she intend to meet her Quebec counterpart or any other official, in order to deal with this problem and roll back the price of gasoline to a level more acceptable to the Gaspe people?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Hon. Member
that I have in fact met with my Quebec counterpart. I can only tell him that the Governments, either provincial or federal, do not set the price of gasoline. In this country, which is so vast, the whole issue of the difference in gasoline prices is a real irritant, whether it is in the Yukon, Gaspe or northern Alberta.
Gasoline prices are a function, not only of the price of crude oil, but also of federal taxes, provincial taxes and competition. Even in the cities the spread between gasoline prices at the moment is something in the order of 40 cents a litre in Edmonton and 58 cents a litre in Montreal. I am aware of the concern of the Hon. Member and I certainly will meet with him to see if there are any special circumstances that we can alleviate. However, I can only repeat that gasoline prices are not set by the federal Government.


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. During the recent election campaign, his Leader, as a major part of his Party's policy, declared in Toronto: "We will stamp out racism wherever it rears its ugly head." The Minister will surely know that the Quebec Human Rights Commission recently concluded without a doubt that racism and discrimination prevails in the Montreal taxi industry against black Canadians and members of the Haitian community. In addition, East Indian Canadians in Hamilton yesterday filed the same grievance.
My question is very straightforward. In light of the fact that this ugly head of racism has unfortunately and clearly identified itself, what specific and immediate proposals will the Minister and the Government introduce in the House of Commons to address specifically these two abusive cases which are causing economic inequalities among Canadians?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the situation which has developed in Montreal, and also in the other part of the country to which the Hon. Member alluded, is very troublesome, as is the report which has recently been released in the Province of Quebec vis-a-vis the taxi industry. The Member should know that one of the jurisdictional areas in this dispute lies with the Government of Quebec. It is a provincial government matter from that point of view. However, we will be working with provincial Governments across Canada in order to help them in any way that they feel necessary to stamp out racism wherever it exists. That is a commitment which was made not only by the Prime Minister but by the entire Conservative Party. It was also a commitment which was made in the "Equality Now" report to which all Parties have agreed. We are moving to implement the recommendations of that report as quickly as possible.
November 16, 1984


QUEBEC RECOMMENDATIONS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I am quite troubled by the fact that we are breaking down racism on a regional basis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect, the Hon. Member had a very long preamble to his first question. Could he now simply ask his supplementary question?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is, in light of the fact that the Quebec Human Rights Commission spent two years and $300,000 studying the problem, is the Government prepared to act on some of its recommendations, including affirmative action programs, and not give Canadians the generalities which we have seen over the last two months?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is in the wrong Legislature. That question should properly be addressed to my colleague in the Legislature in the Province of Quebec. Both .1 and the federal Government have stated that we will do everything in our power to make sure that racism does not continue to rear its ugly head in this country.
Oral Questions
native sources of funding are available, and these projects will qualify alongside many other projects in the private sector.


DECISION TO END RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. Could he explain why, since government policy is to put the emphasis on private sector research, the Government has chosen to terminate a program which was related exclusively to research in private industry, and which was responsible for instance for 90 per cent of the total Canadian Government research activity in the solar industry area, and 90 per cent of the total Canadian Government research work done in the fusion industry area towards developing another alternate energy source? Why is it that, in spite of the stated policy, the government has moved in that direction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The Hon. Member is quite aware that his question has been put and it is now up to the Minister to answer.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. It reflects the tremendous concern people are feeling about the science and research and development cutbacks announced last week. Does the Government consider that energy conservation, solar, wind, and other alternate forms of energy have a contribution to make to the Government's goal of energy self-sufficiency for Canada in a few years? If so, can the Minister explain why the Government has chosen to shut down the National Research Council's energy division, and with it some 200 research contracts that were supporting a fledgling but very important and developing high-tech industry in the alternate energy area?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In the private sector, too.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, the Government recognizes the importance of continuing research into alternative energy. The facts of the matter, as described by the Minister of Finance last Thursday, are that we just cannot afford to do everything we would like to do for reasons he made very clear to this House. Indeed, alternative energy projects will continue to be funded under a variety of programs, including the new IRDP initiatives announced recently by my colleague, the Minister for DRIE, the Industrial Research Assistance Program, and other initiatives of the federal Government. Alter-


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague from Ottawa Centre, I would simply emphasize what the Minister has just referred to. Of course there has been a review in that area, as in the case of many other existing programs, those well down on the priority list and which could be liable to certain cuts, and of other programs which may be introduced, as my colleague stated, to replace such activities, and to help meet the Government's objectives in the specific field of research and development.
* *
*


COINAGE
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. As the Minister well knows, the penny candy machines and the twenty-five cent coin laundromats are now basically museum-pieces. In light of these changing realities, and recognizing the increasing usage by Canadians of coin operated facilities for food services, transportation, home maintenance, and entertainment, would the Minister advise the House whether he plans to instruct the Canadian Mint to proceed with plans to produce a new Canadian one dollar coin? Will he also assure the House that appropriate efforts will be made to ensure public acceptance of such a coin before it is introduced?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that the Mint is being prudent, and is ready to answer any such request

November 16, 1984
Oral Questions
from the Government. However, no such request has been made of it. There are ramifications which affect many sectors of our society and economy, and if and when the Government takes a decision in this regard it will certainly be preceded by extensive consultations with all interested parties.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Science and Technology on a subject already mentioned this morning. The Minister says that research and development into renewable energy can be carried by the private sector, but he knows very well that the private sector dealing with renewable energy is very small and very weak. In fact the work abandoned by this Government had been carried on for ten years. Is the Minister saying that there is no place in this country's future for renewable energy?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear a moment ago that in fact this Government remains committed to continuing work and research on alternative energy, and the necessary research to support that enterprise. As the Member pointed out, this work has progressed for some ten years largely with federal Government support in the form of major subsidies. If there is an export potential for solar energy technology, for example, it is high time that industry began to demonstrate its capacity to market products which will sell in the external market. We intend to support such initiatives through various other government programs.


RENEWABLE ENERGY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said the Government supports alternate energy; he has not said the Government supports renewable energy. What is the position of the Progressive Conservative Government now, a Government that promised during the election campaign that it would support all industrial projects which would reduce our country's dependency on crude oil?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, estimates and information sought from my own officials at the National Research Council and others in government have indicated that for the foreseeable future our hydro-carbon, hydro-electric and nuclear resources will adequately provide for Canada's energy requirements. In terms of the potential to export renewable energy technology, this Government will continue to support research and development and product development initiatives geared to bringing that type of return back home to the Canadian economy.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Mines. Stelco Incorporated announced yesterday that its plans to close its Griffith Iron Ore Mine located between Ear Falls and Red Lake. The closing of this mine will mean the direct loss of 283 jobs, almost one quarter of the area's work force. It will be devastating for the area. Will the Minister act to influence Stelco to keep this mine open, or, in the alternative, to locate another operator? If unsuccessful in keeping the mine open, will he commit himself to working to ensure a more reasonable timetable for its closure?


Hon. Bob Layton (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and providing me, as a new Member of the House of Commons, with an opportunity to address the Commons. The issue of the closing of the Griffith Mine in Red Lake is well known to us. We are monitoring developments and the work being done with the provincial Government as well, but I can assure the Hon. Member, and the community and workers of the Red Lake area affected by the announcement, that our Government stands ready to assist them to the fullest possible extent with existing programs. These will provide for mobility assistance, retraining, helping the workers to find other jobs, and exploring whatever economic options are available to the community.


ASSISTANCE TO MINERS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the answer was well read, and my supplementary question should properly be directed to the Minister of Employment. However, in her absence I direct it to the Minister of Mines.
If in fact the mine does close, will the Government ensure that assistance similar to that given to the mines recently closed in Quebec will be given to this area?


Robert E.J. Layton: Without question, Mr. Speaker!


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Will it be the policy of the Government of Canada and of his Department to ignore the needs of the shoe industry and the question of shoe imports until his shares are sold in the bankrupt shoe company?
November 16, 1984


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to-


Mr. Crosbie:: Give him the boots.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, in which he has made reference to the shoe industry, 1 understand that a series of questions were raised earlier. I certainly intend to give notice that I feel I have a Question of Privilege. I would like to read Hansard with respect to the purport of those questions which 1 believe have been based on misinformation.
In direct answer to the Hon. Member's question, I can assure him that I have no shares in any shoe company that I am aware of.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dun-das (Mr. Warner) on Thursday, November 15, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



STANDING COMMITTEE


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Striking Committee. If the House will give its consent, it is intended that there will be a move for concurrence in this report later this day.


Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, when a report of this committee is presented to the House and concurrence in that report is sought at the same sitting, it is the custom of the House to have the Clerk at the Table read the entire report to the House. Since this report is lengthy and the report is being circulated, may we dispense with its reading? Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Statements by Ministers EXTERNAL AID



ASSISTANCE TO AFRICAN REGIONS SUFFERING FROM FAMINE

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians, as Hon. Members are aware, have responded with overwhelming generosity to the tragedy which is unfolding in Ethiopia. In the face of unparalleled suffering, offers of assistance have come from individuals, voluntary groups, corporations, municipalities and many many more. Non governmental organizations have effectively channelled and stimulated this massive public concern for Ethiopia. Two weeks ago the Government appointed the Hon. David MacDonald as Canadian Emergency Co-ordinator for the African famine.
The generosity shown by Canadians for such colossal suffering abroad is especially heartening in view of the difficult economic circumstances that prevail right here at home. Despite budgetary restraints, the Government is taking its lead from the concern demonstrated by so many Canadians.
Recognizing that the famine is ravaging not only Ethiopia, but threatening most of the African continent, the Government is creating a $50 million special fund for Africa. Parts of that special fund will be used to match funds raised by Canadians. Specific matching formulas will be worked out in consultations between the voluntary sector and Mr. MacDonald.

I am also happy to announce that the following measures will be taken immediately. The Canadian International Development Agency will be granting an additional contribution of $3.5 million in humanitarian aid to Ethiopia, through the intermediary of non-governmental organizations and UN agencies, and it will be sending between 10 and 15 additional tons of grain, for a total value of $4 million.
In order to provide long-term development assistance, the Government has decided to extend to other regions as well a water supply program which has made it possible to provide drinking water for 200,000 people in the southern part of the country, representing a contribution of $800,000. With respect to Africa in general, CIDA will be approving two projects to improve bean and wheat production, which will be carried out jointly with international agricultural research institutes in a number of African countries, at a total cost of $6.9 million, spread over five years.

Food assistance from Canadians has been a critical factor in sustaining life among Ethiopians. As the drought intensified over the last three years, Canadian food aid accounted for almost one-third of all food aid received by Ethiopia. In the past year it has accounted for more than half of all food aid delivered to date. In Africa at large, Canadian food assistance this year will be $150 million, reaching more than 30 countries. Only the United States provides more, and even then, on

November 16, 1984
Statements by Ministers
a per capita basis, Canadians are the largest donors of food aid in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As I see it, considering the present situation, Canada should encourage better co-ordination among donor countries.
Last Tuesday, I wrote to the Minister of External Affairs of each of the seven countries of the Western Economic Summit. I pointed out that many Ethiopians will die of hunger or disease unless their country receives massive support in the form of goods, humanitarian aid and logistical support.
I also told them of my impression that the Ethiopian government was doing everything it could to deal with the situation. [English]
Each evening as our families witness the anguish and suffering brought so intimately into our homes by television, we are reminded of how very well off we are, of the quality of our lives compared to the desperate lot of so many people throughout the world. I am deeply touched by the enormous response from Canadians to the plight of the hungry in Ethiopia, in the Sahel, and throughout the areas of Africa stricken by the current drought.
While the extent of the generosity of Canadians has been overwhelming, I wish to assure our fellow Canadians that their intentions, proposals, contributions and offers of assistance are sincerely welcomed and are being given every attention. In the days and weeks to come, the Government will continue to work closely with those individuals and organizations at home to ensure that Canadian assistance is brought effectively to bear in face of this desperate situation.
Abroad we will continue to work with the Ethiopian Government, with other donor nations, and with the United Nations and its agencies to monitor the African situation and maximize relief efforts. In this endeavour the compassion and the expectations that have been made so manifest by the Canadian people will be our guiding light.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister for his statement today. I believe it really reflects the thoughts of the Canadian people. They want the Canadian Government to move quickly and effectively in this area. Any move made by the Government in that direction is applauded by me, my Party, and, I am sure, by all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would also like to congratulate the Minister for his objectivity. We are all proud that we have been the first for some time, in terms of per capita aid to Africa, and we must continue to be first. I am glad that the Minister recognizes that we are by far the greatest per capita contributor to Ethiopia. I commend him to carry on in this endeavour.
This move to contribute more money to Africa is good. We agree with the $50 million funding. However, we would like to know whether the Government is taking that money away from other people in the world who are suffering. We would like to know if this is new money and if that action will in fact reduce the cuts in foreign aid which were indicated a week ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We do not want that to look good while other people suffer. In addition, CHAD made an application this morning, because the same problem exists there and it is spreading to other countries in Africa.
I do not think that we should cut aid, and I commend the Minister for not doing that. I hope that what he said last week will be withdrawn, because, in spite of the fiscal problems facing Canada, all Canadians want the Government to do more in this area. Now is not the time to cut foreign aid.
Our Government had the very commendable goal of spending 0.7 per cent of GNP on foreign aid by 1990. It is not the time to reduce these goals because of economic problems in Canada when we see on television every night what is happening in those countries.
I am pleased that the Minister indicated that these funds will come from new money. We must be prepared to assist on a daily basis, because this is not only a problem at present, it is spreading throughout the world. It is a positive step in order to help these countries develop their infrastructure through such methods as water projects to help avoid future crises of this sort. No one wants to be partisan about this issue.
While I believe the Minister is taking the right steps, I hope he can assure us that it is not just a facade to hide cuts in other areas.
I am sure that the House of Commons would want to keep its commitment. The goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP is not enough. Our former distinguished Leader, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, along with those who had missions around the world, asked that the rich countries of the world increase their foreign aid to 1 per cent of their GNP. I believe Canada can be a leader in this respect, and I personally was frustrated that we were not proceeding fast enough.
When I was Minister of Finance and President of the Treasury Board I always ensured that we did not cut funds destined for foreign aid in order to solve Canadian problems.
I know that the Minister wants to be successful and achieve that goal of 0.7 per cent. That is what he said to the United Nations on September 25 and that is what he asked Mr. Lewis to say two days before the cuts were announced. I am pleased that the Government is taking this action and that it is using new money. It should continue this policy, because Canadians want the Government to make a good contribution to aid around the world.
Although Canada has its problems, we are fat compared with those countries. The Government cannot ignore the prob-
November 16, 1984

lem and all Canadians will applaud it for taking action. We will not blame the Minister of Finance if he backs away from those cuts. We know that he has other goals to achieve, but I am sure Canadians would not want these goals achieved at the expense of hunger in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too would like to say to the Minister that the response of the Government to the Canadian public's concern is admirable. I am sure that the Minister and the Government are as much aware as we are on this side of the great concern that Canadians have shown through their phone calls and financial contributions. This concern over starvation in Africa is not just recent but has continued for some time. Undoubtedly it has been brought to a head in the last few months because of the global village in which we now live. When television captures the misery and horror in one part of the world, we instantly know about it. Television has brought to our attention vividly the plight of these literally starving millions in Ethiopia and indeed at least seven other countries of Africa in a most serious way.
We welcome the announcement by the Minister today that a special fund of $50 million will be established, part of which, yet to be determined, will be used to provide matching grants to organizations and individuals in the private sector who have shown their concern about this tragic situation.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister say that he is already taking steps to ensure better co-ordination among donor nations. I believe he said that he has written to the leaders of the economic summit nations and to officials in the United Nations to determine if a better co-ordination of donors could be provided and ensured.
I realize that the Minister cannot provide an answer now, but I would like him to indicate in the future whether he has also taken steps, through consultation with other donor nations in the western world and quite possibly those in eastern Europe, to co-ordinate their activities on long-term development assistance.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), reminds me that this was one of the Government's primary concerns when he was with the Minister in Addis Ababa. While this concern for greater co-ordination of long-term development assistance does not take precedence over the immediate crisis-because it is extremely vital to meet this immediate crisis-it does involve problems of a deeper and long-term nature. It was over 13 months ago when the report of the Food and Agriculture Organization warned that 22 of Africa's 50 nations were already suffering catastrophic food shortages. The former Minister of Agriculture, Eugene Whelan, was aware of this. I understand that he tried to persuade the previous government to respond to it but was unsuccessful.
The present Government is aware of the FAO report that it has been the worst drought in Africa this century. Although our emergency assistance is both valuable and important, the
Statements by Ministers
Minister is well aware that it will not solve the long-term problem.
I hope the Minister will also indicate if he has any assurance that the emergency aid special fund will go to those in need. I thought that he would have mentioned that in his remarks today. It is my understanding that the situation is of the most grave proportions in Eritrea and Tigre, yet civil war rages there. Does he have any assurance that the aid will go to those most in need?
The Minister has already been asked to clarify exactly from where the $50 million will come, but can he tell us what is its relationship to the $180 million cut in ODA in the current fiscal year? Will it remain the same or is it now reduced by $50 million? I think it is important for us to know that as well.
A third question to which the Minister did not comment concerns the Government's influence in helping to bring the civil war to an end. Does he not have a grave concern-


Mr. Speaker:: I deeply regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the tradition is very clear that the time for response by opposition Party spokesmen should not exceed the time used by the Minister. Could the Hon. Member conclude her remarks briefly?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, this is my final question. The Minister will know that over a third of the budget of Ethiopia is spent on the military. Has he made an effort to persuade the Government of Ethiopia to take the Brandt Commission seriously and be as constructive as possible to end the civil war in Ethiopia?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) want to ask a question?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and it happens to be about funding. I think that we all have heard about the cuts made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last week. I would like the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to give me the assurance that the $50 million he is talking about is money to be spent very soon, not over a number of years, and tell me whether it is in fact sliced off the $180 million. Can we now tell Canadians that external aid expenditures will be cut down by $130 million, not $180 million?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best thing I can do is to indicate the source of the $50 million: $28 million come from the cancellation of cuts ordered by the former government led by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). We are cancelling some of the cutbacks made by the previous administration and $28 million from those funds have now been earmarked for the Africa fund. Some $13 million come from savings flowing from the cuts announced recently by the Minister of Finance. The rest of the money for the fund comes from Canadian commitments to

November 16, 1984
Statements by Ministers
international financial institutions; that money will not be spent this year by the international institutions.


Jean-C. Lapierre: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is saying that it is nothing but funds which have been shifted around. He is telling us that those $50 million in fact... He has spent the last two or three weeks juggling figures to come up with a total we can understand. If I consider the $28 million he has mentioned ... I would like to know which cuts he is talking about. And then, we have the $13 million which he had cut, but he has now changed his mind. He should have announced today a $30 million rather than a $50 million program. I would like to have an answer to my question: is that so-called fund of $50 million for one year, two years or for the rest of their mandate?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear about the sources of the money. There was a reduction in the funds made available for Overseas Development Assistance by the previous government in the summer of this year during the election campaign. That reduction, much of it, has been restored to the budget of the Overseas Development Assistance, and $28 million of that reduction has been directed toward the fund of Africa.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on Thursdsay night announced a series of reductions, including some in spending within the envelope of External Affairs and overseas development. Of the amounts reduced from our envelope, in the neighbourhood of $13 million has been restored and directed toward the fund for Africa. It has been taken for projects cancelled or delayed in the declaration by the Minister of Finance and has been put back now into the fund for Africa.
The remaining amounts of money come from commitments that Canada had made to certain international financial institutions, commitments which those institutions will not call on and will not need this year, so that money is surplus to us.
To be absolutely clear about what is happening, of the $28 million that came back in the exercise that was revealed by the Minister of Finance on Thursday night in his declaration, that money was available for Overseas Development Assistance. We have made the decision that that money available for Overseas Development Assistance, will be directed toward the purposes of the fund for Africa.


Mr. Benjamin:: None of it is new money.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for a very dedicated and sincere effort on the trip he made to Ethiopia.
Would he respond to the questions raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett)? Particularly, is the Government of Canada undertaking activities that would bring some resolution to the civil war there so that resources can be applied directly to the need for emergency aid and longer term development?
My second question again reinforces the question put by my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam. Does the Government of Canada intend to become involved as a single nation in the longer term need for development in Ethiopia? Will the Minister be attempting to encourage other nations to join with us to try to find a long-term solution to that problem? What is the Minister's role as a co-ordinator for other nations in bringing more effective response for emergency food aid and equipment into that country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in response. Let me say how much I appreciated the participation with me and the quick visit to Ethiopia of the Hon. Member and of a representative of the Liberal Party, and, if I may take the opportunity, let me say that it is our hope that when Mr. MacDonald returns to Ethiopia to carry out further consultations, there may well be interest on the part of representatives of the Parties represented in this House to be part of that delegation with Mr. MacDonald.
Let me try to take the issues in order. In terms of the civil war, as I have tried to indicate in the House, I have two observations. One is that there is no doubt in my mind from my consultations in Ethiopia that while the war is continuing, the priority for the Government of Ethiopia is to get aid to the starving. There is no doubt we have to make use of Oxfam and other non-governmental organizations that have a particular interest in getting money in through the Sudan into the so-called rebel areas. That is envisaged in this program.
In terms of the Brandt Commission, as I have suggested earlier in this House, we have some very real questions as to whether pursuing that initiative at this point in time would help or hinder the delivery of aid to the starving. Undoubtedly there have to be some means found, and we have to play whatever role will be effective, in helping and encouraging an end to that war.
In terms of long-term development, we have announced as part of this project the extension of an important water project. During that period of extension we will be looking to see whether there will be other water projects in Ethiopia that also can be made effective.
We have announced in the statement today the funding of significant cereal and bean projects in Ethiopia and elsewhere. We will be looking for others that will contribute in similar ways to long-term stability and to the avoidance of famine and drought in that area.
As concerns our relations with other countries, I have written, as I have indicated, to the foreign ministers of the summit countries. We are working through the United Nations both in New York and in Ethiopia. Many of the non-governmental organizations with whom we are working are themselves international. I certainly will look for and take advantage of any useful opportunity that arises for Canada to bring greater co-ordination to the effort in Ethiopia. Let me say also that one of the aspects of this breathtaking Canadian response has been the degree to which non-governmental organizations in Canada, which have not always worked well
November 16, 1984

together, have been prepared to make it a common cause to work together to respond to this crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me be clear. 1 see two more Members rising to ask questions, I presume of the Minister. 1 will accept those two questions and then I will end this discussion.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister inform the House of the outcome of his discussions with the former Minister of Agriculture, who apparently had substantial plans in mind to deal with this situation but which apparently did not meet with the favour of his colleagues in the last administration?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet for an hour last week with the Hon. Mr. Whelan. 1 thought it not proper to go back into matters that were the business of the previous government and so spoke with him about his responsibilities as President of the World Food Council and any recommendations that he might make. He had some useful specific suggestions that we are following up, and it is Mr. MacDonald's hope and my own that we will be able to take advantage of the very real experience of Mr. Whelan in continuing an effective Canadian response to the crisis in Ethiopia.


Mr. de Corneille:: Mr. Speaker, first I want to add my congratulations to those of others to the right hon. gentleman in terms of the trip he has made and his efforts on behalf of those who are suffering. Also I was happy to hear his comments in relation to the Hon. Eugene Whelan. Unfortunately he is unable to fulfil the kind of mandate he could have been doing so well at the present time.
My question is about this "now you see it now you don't", this $27 million. Is this the $27 million which he has "found" the $27 million that was presumably cancelled by the last government? Was that before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made his announcement or made his cancellation, or did he find the $27 million after the Minister's speech? Where did this $27 million come from? Was it from the present budget since the Minister of Finance made his announcement, or did it come before the Minister's announcement?
This juggling of figures is confusing not only to me but to a number of Canadians. On the one hand they are cutting money for foreign aid in the statement of the Minister of Finance, and on the other they are finding money which was cut out by the last Minister, and now adding on a number of new items. It is a sort of shell game. Would the Right Hon. Minister explain to Canadians just what is happening? He said that it is clear. I do not find it clear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will explain it for a third time. First, let me say that it was the decision of the Government, after we had decided not to go ahead with the establishment of an ambassador to the Food and Agriculture Organization, to invite the Hon. Eugene Whelan to remain in the chair of the World Food Council. I am pleased, as I trust
Statements by Ministers
are other Members on all sides of the House, that he accepted that invitation which allows him to play, not only with his interest but with some authority, a role in this and other questions of concern to Canadians and to the world.
With regard to the money involved here, the former Liberal government cut foreign aid in the summer. When the Minister of Finance made his economic statement, he indicated in those figures that much of the money which had been cut by the Liberal government in the summer was being returned by the Progressive Conservative Government to the purposes of overseas development and foreign aid. By a decision of the Government, $28 million of that sum has been directed toward the fund for Africa.
In addition, we have secured in the neighbourhood of $20 million which would not otherwise have been available to me as the Minister responsible for the Canadian International Development Association and for external affairs. That money is now available for the special African fund. I trust that my third explanation is clear to the House.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). A number of my constituents have asked for assurance that our food and other aid will be spread equally in Ethiopia. Could the Minister give us that assurance? They do not believe that someone should starve because he or she has a different political ideology than the government of the day.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it was precisely to seek an answer to that question that I went to Ethiopia along with other Members of the House who were part of the delegation. I cannot give an absolute guarantee. There is no doubt that there will be some slippage in the delivery system. However, I can tell the House, the Hon. Member and the people of Canada that it is my view-and I think that is the view shared by all other Canadians who were there-that the Government of Ethiopia is giving it the highest possible priority and has developed what non-governmental organizations working in Ethiopia believe to be a very effective system to ensure that aid is being delivered to the starving.
There is a civil war in progress. Part of the reason for adopting the formula we have today is that many non-governmental organizations that are being helped by the fund announced by the Government of Canada, rather than working through the Government of Ethiopia, are working by coming in through the Sudan to ensure that aid is available to the starving who are on the other side of the government in that civil war. I cannot guarantee that there will be no people who are put aside because of the civil war, but I think the actions taken by the Government of Ethiopia and the care we have taken in the design of the fund go as far as humanly possible toward ensuring that Canadian aid gets to Ethiopians who are starving.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 16, 1984
Striking Committee Report PETITION



PEACE CAMP ON PARLIAMENT HILL

Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons. It is signed by some 6,000 people who have been on Parliament Hill at the peace camp. They indicate to the House their desire to see the peace camp remain on Parliament Hill in order to inform people of the nuclear disaster we face and to protest against the Cruise missile.
The people who signed this petition come from as far away as Tanzania, Australia, West Germany and the United States, as well as from all the 10 provinces of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thank the Hon. Member for the last part of his explanation. For the record perhaps I should point out that obviously the names of petitioners from other countries cannot be submitted. We will check the petition submitted as to form. I just wanted to ensure that the petition included the signatures of Canadians.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The vast bulk of them are signatures of Canadians both local and national. The petition also contains a sprinkling of signatures of people from other parts of the world. There are 6,000 in all.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), that the first report of the Striking Committee presented earlier this day be concurred in. I should like to address that motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there is an important ongoing debate with respect to the Speech from the Throne and that we have also heard an important statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). Therefore, I will keep my remarks brief this afternoon in connection with the report of the Striking Committee. However, I think it is an important report for Parliament and for the House.
The Striking Committee report sets the standard for the operation of the standing committees of this House. The committees of this House are its backbone and its heart. They provide Members with the opportunity to engage in detailed scrutiny of the Government's legislative and spending initiatives and are the fora for the consideration of major issues which confront the Canadian nation. Because it is in committee that Private Members can have the greatest impact on the legislative process, it is important that a government which is committed to reform is sensitive to the wishes and interests of Members when those committees are struck.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this is a government that is committed to real and meaningful reform. In the Speech from the Throne it was announced that a special task force on the reform of the House of Commons would soon be established. This task force will have a mandate to investigate possible areas of reform and make recommendations to the House. Reform, however, is not achieved through mere changes to the rules of the Chamber. The most critical element of reform is a change in attitude.
If the views and needs of Canadians are to be adequately represented at the federal level, the House will have to work in a co-operative and constructive manner and to respect the traditions of this place. As well, the rights of individual Members must be restored. To that end I believe the report of the Striking Committee is a sign that the Government is prepared to work in the spirit of compromise and co-operation which will be necessary if reform is to succeed.
The report before us today departs from the recent practice of the House. The Provisional Standing Orders under which the House is now operating are the result of the deliberations of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure in the Thirty-second Parliament. That committee was of the view that the House would be better served by smaller committees. It was felt that by reducing the size of committees it would be possible to give greater opportunity to each member of a committee to participate in its deliberations. For that reason, the House decided that committees should have no more than 15 members and no fewer than 10.
In the last Parliament, that rule was interpreted as meaning that the majority of committees should consist of 10 members and that only those committees, such as the Committee on Agriculture, which had a particularly heavy work-load should consist of 15 members. At all times, committee membership was to reflect the standings of Parties in the House, that is to say, actual numbers in the House with respect to the ability of the Government to reflect its majority or the actual position reflected in the numbers they had in a vote of the committee.
The report that we are debating today, however, provides for 15 member committees in all but four cases. Furthermore, the report provides for Party representation in committee that varies from the ratio of representation in the House.
The proposal outlined in the Striking Committee Report provides for enlarged committees, at least in part, to ensure that they can cope with an anticipated enlarged work-load. Those committees, which deal with House matters or which are customarily chaired by opposition Members, however, are smaller but have a higher proportion of opposition Members than are represented in the House. Thus, on the Public
November 16, 1984

Accounts Committee, Procedure and Organization, Management and Members' Services, and Privileges and Elections, opposition representation is set at a level of 30 per cent rather than their 24 per cent representation in the House.
By proposing the committee sizes and composition outlined in this report, the Government is agreeing to allow Members of the Official Opposition to occupy nearly 17 per cent of the positions on all House committees. Members of the New Democratic Party will occupy over 12 per cent of all positions. This proposal results in a significant under-representation of the Government on House committees, but it is a proposal which has been agreed to in the interest of ensuring the full participation of Members from all Parties on all committees.
There are other formulas that might have been used and which would have resulted in a more accurate reflection of Party standings. It would be untrue for me to suggest that those formulas had not been considered by the Government. Indeed, I continue to be concerned that the Opposition will not be able to ensure that they are fully represented on all committees at all times.
The proposal contained in the Striking Committee report sets committee sizes in such a way as to give 60 positions to the Official Opposition, to be filled by full members of committees, and an additional 60 positions to be filled by alternates. Thus, there are 120 positions to be filled by a caucus which consists of 40 Members. This problem is further exacerbated when you consider the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Opposition House Leader, the Chief Opposition Whip, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and any opposition Member attending to duties outside of Ottawa will not be able to participate fully in committee work.
For the NDP, the Striking Committee report provides for a total of 88 positions, to be filled by a caucus consisting of 30 Members. Full participation on all committees may prove to be a daunting task to members of the Opposition. Nonetheless, the report reflects their desire to ensure that their level of membership on committees is adequate to permit them to participate fully. We respect their wishes, and that is why we made and support the proposal that is brought forward today.
In the coming weeks, Members will have the opportunity to monitor the work of committees. If modifications to the size and composition of committees are required, those changes can be made in January when the Standing Orders require the Striking Committee to meet again.
Until that time, however, it is my hope that Members from all Parties will take the opportunity to participate fully on the committees of the House and that they will do so in a cooperative and constructive manner.
I believe that on September 4 Canadians signalled that they want a real change in the institutions of this country. They want a real change in the style of government. I think that this report reflects our desire to carry out that mandate.
Striking Committee Report
By agreeing today, I believe that all three Parties are taking an important step in setting aside what has been termed by some observers as a bitterness which has prevailed in this House of Commons, one that has often marked our deliberations in this House in recent years. We are in fact moving toward real reform and a real spirit of reconciliation in this most important of our national institutions.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments at this stage concerning the Striking Committee report, which I played some part in forming, along with my colleagues from the other Parties. Of course, the ideal situation would be to keep parliamentary standing committees and special committees down to a small number. There is no doubt about that. In that way, Members could concentrate on their work which sometimes becomes very specialized. They could also develop what I like to call a good working rapport with their colleagues. This is very important in committee work.

Mr. Speaker, until 1969, the committees of the House consisted of 30 or 40 Members, which meant that they were far too large and did not operate efficiently. It got to the point where the parliamentary committee system was almost a myth and of very little interest to Members.
In an attempt to enhance the role of backbenchers in the House, a new system was introduced in 1969. The membership of the committees was reduced to twenty, except for the Committees on Agriculture and External Affairs, which, if I am not mistaken, had 30 Members.

The result of these changes was that there were not enough Members to make the system work. Because of this, platooning of committees developed, thereby weakening the efficiency of Members and the effectiveness of the system. More seriously, no working rapport was developed among members because of this platooning phenomenon. It soon became quite evident to the House that we would have to change our rules again.

In December 1983, the Standing Orders of the House containing these changes were adopted and extended for a trial period.
Hon. Members will recall that the provisional changes were extended for a period of 120 days after the adjournment of the 32nd Session of Parliament-the former Parliament-120 days starting September 4, counting only days on which the House is sitting, which means that our present Standing Orders will be governing the proceedings of the House from now until the end of June 1985.

The present rules were adopted to allow for flexibility. That is the reason for Standing Order 69(1)-and this was referred to by the House Leader-which states this:

November 16, 1984
Striking Committee Report
-standing committees of the House . . . shall consist of not less than 10 and not more than 15 Members:
The flexibility, of course, recognizes that elections sometimes result in varying changes. The composition of the House does vary from election to election. While committee memberships must reflect the composition of the House of Commons, I believe all Members will agree that the job of the Official Opposition cannot really be carried out if it has only one person on a ten-member committee.
1 would like to point out that the Official Opposition in committees traditionally leads off the questioning of witnesses. It must be able, therefore, to present in an effective and efficient manner the views of the Official Opposition. It is not a position that I take lightly. I hold the view also that the official role of the Official Opposition cannot be fully carried out with a single Member.
People do have conflicting demands on their time. Committees do sit when this House is in session. Sometimes a Member who wants to speak on a particular legislative measure before the House is called upon also to sit in a committee and to do his work as a serious committee member and member of that team. More important, I am pre-occupied with ensuring a high degree of continuity in our committees. One person acting can hardly be expected to carry the burden of presenting the views of the Official Opposition.
I believe that there is a significant, meaningful and constructive role to be played in committees and I also believe that the minimum requirements of human resources demand that Members be accompanied by one of their own Party members and that two substitutes be made available. The Striking Committee has seen the wisdom of providing for these two members of the Official Opposition. I am hopeful that it will be effective and constructive.
Finally, I would like to remind Hon. Members that in this Thirty-third Parliament, the Government was elected by a population of which 50 per cent of the voters cast their ballot in support of this Government. The Government received 75 per cent of the seats with 50 per cent of the popular vote. In other words, as was alluded to by the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Opposition will have less than a third of the members of the standing committees while at the same time representing more than 50 per cent of the Canadian population. I take it that that argument alone would bear some weight with the House Leaders and that they would keep it in mind when allowing the committees to set their own rules. They must also be able to work effectively in representing all of Canada and work for those who voted for them, whether they happen by chance to have control of 75 per cent of the House or, in certain cases, less than that.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief. As you now know, Mr. Speaker, the committee worked magnificently together. Co-operation was the key word. The flexibility of the Government is clearly exemplified by the document that is before us if you are to believe the
Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and of course 1 do. I simply want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if the House continues in the traditions established by the Striking Committee, there will be no discord and there will be absolutely no disagreement. It will come to a satisfactory compromise on all matters. However, I suspect that that will not be the case.
I found it interesting to note that while the Government House Leader was describing the balance of the seats in the House of Commons as being 211 government Members to 70 opposition Members, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) said that 30 New Democrats are as good as 211 Tories any day. He is right.


An Hon. Member:: Better than 40 Liberals anyhow.


Ian Deans: It is better than 40 Liberals as well.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are a legend in your own mind.


Ian Deans: At least I have a mind in which to be a legend, right?
I think the argument over the numbers of votes cast in the last election and the percentage of seats in the House of Commons probably has some validity. I think that at some point in time, we may well change the method of representation in the House of Commons to reflect more adequately the percentages of the votes obtained by each of the political Parties involved in the electoral process. This is not something that is foreign to us. In fact, we have suggested from time to time that such adjustments could and should be looked at. They should be analysed and debated, and perhaps that is the reason for the creation of yet another committee of the House of Commons which would put to work those other people who do not have jobs.
I believe that the report of the Striking Committee, of which I was a member, is a good report. It reflects the requirements both of the Opposition and of the Government. The role of the Opposition, whether Official or otherwise, is a difficult role, and I will remember that when the Liberals come third. I will make sure that they will be given a suitable number of members on the various committees. I do think, however, that the role of the Opposition in a Parliament in which the Government has such overwhelming support is an even more difficult role. The role of the Opposition at this point in time has been made more difficult by the unbalanced nature of the Parliament of Canada.
Earlier on, one government Member said something about the role the Opposition must play. I hope that government Members will always bear in mind the role that they played when they were in Opposition. They were not always as constructive as one might have hoped. They were led ably by the now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). At some point in time, Mr. Speaker, I might be moved to inquire exactly what it is he does for the money he receives.


An Hon. Member:: When he is not here.
November 16, 1984


Ian Deans: No, when he is here. I may be one of the few people in this place who is not afraid of him.
1 hope the committees work well. I am sure they will. I think that the added numbers of opposition Members and the larger numbers on the committee will make sense. The committee that decided on the numbers of 10 and 15 took into account that there would be changes to the composition of the House of Commons. It took into account the fact that as the numbers were struck, they should reflect the balance of the seats in the House. It was difficult to come up with a reasonable balance which would afford both the Government adequate representation and the Opposition an adequate opportunity to participate.
The Government House Leader, in suggesting that we go to 15 members from 10 for all of the normal standing committees, showed a flexibility and understanding which I would have expected from him. I therefore believe that the committees will work well. I believe that having four combined opposition members will permit the Opposition to operate effectively in terms of its analysis of the Government's legislative programs and, equally important, its analysis of the Government's expenditure programs. That is in fact the role the Opposition must play.
I am quite happy with the report. If it is a forerunner of the kind of co-operation we can expect in the future, then I think it will serve the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada well. If, with that kind of co-operation in mind, the Government should decide to make known to the Opposition the analyses of the Treasury Department regarding the numbers of jobs that will be lost, then I think that that would be going even a little further with that kind of co-operation than it has presently gone and it would be welcome.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the few
minutes we have left, I would like to ask a question of the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn). One of the weaknesses of the system now which has been addressed by a recommendation of the last Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure is that standing committees are not self-starting. We saw evidence of that in the last session of the last Parliament. 1 had direct experience with one standing committee, the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. Notwithstanding the important issues of the day, that committee did not get under way until about three months after the commencement of the last session, much to the frustration of Members of the House who wished to address the important issues of the day to be dealt with by that committee.
In view of the fact that this problem is not addressed in the current Provisional Standing Orders, I would ask the Government House Leader whether it is the intention of the Government, which now has the required responsibility and initiative, to proceed with the organization of these committees soon so that they can get their important work under way?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. The Address-Mr. de Corneille McGrath), for asking that important question. I believe it reflects our desire to ensure the full participation of Members. I can only say to him that it is our intention to move immediately with the organization of committees, particularly in light of the fact that this Parliament commenced on November 5 and, under the Provisional Standing Orders, we are obliged to report Supplementary Estimates by December 10. I was happy to see a consensus with respect to the composition of the committees at an early date. This will therefore allow us to organize those committees and give the maximum time available to private Members of the House of Commons to examine those Supplementary Estimates before the date of supply which, in this trimester, is December 10.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Allmand (p. 252).
Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, the House shall stand adjourned until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Conservatives promised a better future but gave very few specifics. They appealed to the people that change was needed to bring in fresh ideas. Change was the key word. Canadians awaited the Throne Speech with great curiosity and anticipation. What are the changes? What are the fresh ideas?
Some people heard the Throne Speech, others relied on the media to find out about it. Was it startling? Was it exciting? Was it interesting? Was it full of changes and filled with new ideas? Indeed, were there any new ideas? Can anyone remember what was said? I would say that the Throne Speech was one of the most forgettable speeches that I can possibly remember except that that would not be correct because one cannot remember a forgettable speech. I must say that the Throne Speech is the most forgettable on record. In fact, the only hope it has of being remembered is that it has been hailed as such an outstanding failure.
1 refer to the writings of Barbara Amiel in The Toronto Sun of November 6. She wrote this about the Throne Speech:
Throne Speeches are by their nature vague. This was breathtaking in its vacuity. When it was specific, it was silly. Brian Mulroney couldn't have crammed one more pretentious cliche into his Throne Speech if he tried.

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
The article continued:
What kind of fools does he take us all for? For thirty-three minutes his Throne Speech rolled out every tired, shopworn idea as if you, the people of this country, were a passel of idiots, unable to face reality .. . We must all hope that the men around Mulroney are better than Mulroney's ideas appear to be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the Hon. Member, when he is talking about other Hon. Members, to refer to them by their titles and not by their names.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, that was from a quotation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That does not matter.


Roland de Corneille: Why is the judgment that has been passed on the Throne Speech so severe? After all, it is true that we have come to expect Throne Speeches to be general in nature, and this one certainly was general. But by tradition, as well as by common sense, it is required that the Government announce in the Throne Speech an outline of the policies and legislation which the Government will bring forward in the next lengthy session of Parliament. That is why the speech is read at the opening of Parliament. It is to give us a blueprint for the future. It is so important that the Members of the Senate and the House of Commons await its words with great anticipation. The media gives it national television coverage so that people can hear what the Government is proposing for the years ahead.
Of course, it is true that the Conservatives promised heaven on earth to the electorate during the election campaign but offered few specifics. So, in one way, the Throne Speech could not pick up specific policies from the election campaign. The Tories could not give us anything from the election campaign, but the Throne Speech was the time to reveal to the people and to the House of Commons what the future legislative program held in store.
If the Government actually had a program, we must conclude that it deliberately hid it from the scrutiny of the Opposition, from the media and from Canadian people; in which case it was deceptive and secretive. On the other hand, if the government really has no program, it confirms what many suspected about the Conservatives but could not prove during the election campaign. In any case, we are all at sea on a ship of fools. Either way, the prospects are less than ideal.
One would have thought that the Tories would have realized the great possibilities and opportunities of the moment. Here is a Party which was swept into power on the basis of a mandate for change. What a golden opportunity the moment presented. The Throne Speech could have placed before Canadian people the real issues and problems that beset us and this planet as we move toward the 21st century. The speech could have suggested the goals and the agenda for the next four years. It could have given us a vision of the future. Here was a chance worthy of this nation to explain what were the dangers, challenges, opportunities and directions of the future that it would choose. Instead, it was a myopic speech-a narcissistic speech. It was a speech that was intended to anaesthetize us so as to make us feel good.
The Speech from the Throne was out of touch with the real world. It did not tell us about the real problems and challenges we face, and for that reason it never came to grips with how the Government would deal with them. For example, where did the speech tell us that long before we reach the 21st century we will have already been swept up in a technological revolution of computerization and robotry which will require an entirely different orientation and adaptation? Where did the speech tell us that we will need a very highly educated population; that we will require new definitions of work, work time and work place; that there will be new experiments, models and programs for work-sharing and profit-sharing, and for leisure and productivity? Why did the Government not tell us honestly that the middle class will be eroded as more and more people will be dragged down from white and blue collar jobs into lower paying occupations? What does this Conservative Government have to say about how it will prevent this erosion of the middle class?
In the face of technological change, what does the Government have to say about the large number of experienced, valuable and talented people over 50 who will be laid off, or to our young people about ways to prepare themselves for this new age? What did the speech tell us about the world food and agricultural crisis? Did it remind us that we in Canada are using up our precious resources of soil and water at so frighteningly rapid a rate that unless we act, in 25 years we may be unable to export food because we will be barely able to feed ourselves? What did the speech say about the ravages of acid rain? What did it have to say about lead, poisons and pesticides in our soil, air and water? What did it have to say about the massive problems we have in Canada and throughout the world?
The Speech from the Throne could have given a keynote to the people and told us how Canada was going to mobilize in the face of these challenges. It could have put the truth before us about the tragic hunger and destitution of Third World nations. It could have spoken about the devastation suffered by their economies, caused in part by high interest rates in the U.S. and in part by the unwillingness of the Americans to enter into a North-South dialogue. The speech could have told us what we thought about that. It could have told us the truth about the hunger, disease and poverty that stalks most of humanity. It could have given us specific goals in legislation which the Government had to propose.
Nothing was said, Mr. Speaker, about the tragic famine in Ethiopia. Never mind about the ravages of hunger afflicting the entire continent of Africa. All of this incredible suffering did not merit a sympathetic reference other than "continuing need for developmental assistance", and "cost effective and valuable humanitarian work done by our voluntary and nongovernmental organizations". No program, no plans, no solutions, no action mentioned. Just a cynical, cruel, uncaring, passive, laissez-faire Tory attitude which does not want to talk about the real problems because it wants us to feel good. It was only after media coverage of the Ethiopian disaster
November 16, 1984

during the last weeks and months, and an explosion of public furore when the truth was brought before us, not by the Throne Speech but by the media, that the Government finally recognized that there are real problems which must be addressed. I am happy to see that today some positive action is being taken.
What of nuclear war, Mr. Speaker? Oh, the speech did make references to nuclear war, several times. But it did not deal with the magnitude, nor the gravity or urgency of the problem. It did not specify what action Parliament would be asked to undertake, either by way of moral or political action. It did not give us a policy direction on a nuclear freeze, on suffocation, on arms reduction or initiatives for inspection, or on diplomacy. To do that would have broken the spell that the mood manipulators over there want to create. They do not want problems and issues to be mentioned, they just want us to feel good.
I could cite many more such major global problems. Canada, the second largest nation on earth, a strategic continental nation facing three oceans, the Pacific, the Arctic and the Atlantic, has reason to be concerned about such global problems. It is because this Government wants to continue to manipulate our minds with images rather than facts, because it wants us all to feel good in a Tory world, that it did not want the Throne Speech to talk about such disturbing and touchy issues as our ecology, our survival on this planet, the economic problems of the Third World, and the impact of the technological revolution on our older people, our younger people and our national independence. We should not be surprised that the Throne Speech skirted all of these problems and issues which are most important to Canada and to this House of Commons.
Here was a moment in history that was lost. It was a cowardly, evasive and empty speech when humanity was crying out for greatness. It was a damnable betrayal of the weak and despondent of this world who are listening and waiting for just an inkling of understanding, a ray of compassion, a word of hope. It was not a speech worthy to be delivered from the throne of a sovereign who reigns over a commonwealth that spans the world and comprises hundreds of millions of people. It was, rather, a speech from a small-minded, mean and self-centred leadership that would not recognize greatness if it fell into it. The speech was not a bang, it was a whimper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, while not subscribing to all the rhetoric the Hon. Member used, I certainly share some of his concerns about things that were missing in the Throne Speech. However, I do get by implication the feeling that the Government of which the Hon. Member was a supporter prior to September 4 was apparently meeting and responding to many of these challenges which he feels the new Government is not doing. That does not correspond with all of my recollection of facts. Can the Hon. Member comment on the failure of the Trudeau Cabinet and Turner Cabinet to respond to the urgent
The Address-Mr. de Corneille entreaties of the then Minister of Agriculture, who had visited Ethiopia and, in his role as President of the World Food Council, knew what was happening months before the Ethiopian famine situation came to the attention of the world through the media in the last few weeks?
In addition, the Hon. Member indicates, rightly, the failure of this Government to respond to the need for a nuclear freeze and for Canada to take a lead in getting the nations of the world to agree to a cessation of the build-up of nuclear weapons, both in the East and the West. He seems to imply that that was a policy of the former government, and that is distinctly in contradiction with my recollection. In fact, I seem to recall that even though the wife of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) indicated her support for that particular proposal, and even though the President of the Liberal Party of Canada indicated her support as well, even though we were told from his bed and his pillow that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) favoured that particular proposal, it never became his policy while he was Prime Minister of Canada.
I would just like the Hon. Member to comment perhaps on those points because it seems to me that his recollection is perfectly at odds with the policies that were adopted by his Party when it was in power. In fact, I think most of the Hon. Member's comments with respect to the new Government would have applied equally cogently to the old government.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the observations of my colleague. His comments, it seems to me, were addressed really to the past and to what happened before.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: What did not happen before! Nothing.


An Hon. Member:: Abandon the record.


Roland de Corneille: Well, I would be pleased to run on that record.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You did.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You did and look what happened.


Roland de Corneille: That is why I am here, that is right, and I am glad that I am here in fact to give witness to those same concerns that were expressed in the House. The concerns about nuclear war, for example, and the efforts made by the previous Prime Minister in this respect have certainly set an example for the world. This country's example concerning the famine in Ethiopia, as witnessed by the Right Hon. Member today, and Canada's record over the past year and years, is the finest in the world. I really do not think I am going to apologize for that.
What I was addressing myself to, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that here was a great opportunity. We are supposed to have a change, we are supposed now to be looking forward to the future, to the 21st century. A vast mandate was given to that Party, and I am simply expressing my grave amazement and

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
disappointment that this opportunity to have provided the Canadian people with an understanding of the real issues was lost. I suggest to my hon. colleague that those are the major world issues. 1 am simply asking what was mentioned about it, what kind of programs were put forward and what kind of attention was given to these world issues which concern Canada as a nation, which holds a strategic continental position and to which the Third World looks with such hope and longing. What kind of example was this country being given? What kind of hope were we being given that we could have and could play a role in terms of saving our ecology and that of the rest of the world? What about the issue of human suffering throughout the world? What about the issues of nuclear arms and disarmament in general?

To answer my colleague, 1 was not proposing the answers. It is up to the Government, which asked for a mandate from the people, to put forward its program to us. I look forward to seeing what that will be. I hope it will be more concrete than this Throne Speech.
[Translation}


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend from Eglinton-Lawrence whether he thinks the statement made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is also what he refers to as "mood setting". And the aid Canada is going to give Ethiopia, is that "mood setting", and nothing else, on the part of this Government?
I also like to ask him whether increasing veterans' allowances is "mood setting".

Is the bridging pension for widows and widowers also only mood setting by the Government? Are the $1 billion for job creation and the additional millions of dollars for Canada Works projects for this winter also mood setting? Are the
34,000	jobs which have been created since September also mood setting by the Government? Is the appointment of Stephen Lewis as ambassador to the United Nations mood setting? It is mood setting of the kind that the Liberal Government never had the courage to do. The appointment of the Hon. Doug Roche as ambassador for disarmament is also mood setting of a kind which the Liberal Government never had the courage to do. I could go on and on. Would the Hon. Member please tell me whether all of these things were only simple mood setting?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is new to the House and to the affairs of the nation. Otherwise she would know that disarmament ambassadors have existed before. She would also know that many of the measures that she is talking about are simply the refurbishing and shuffling around of figures.
When one wants to find out what is being done in terms of the employment situation in the country, one need only look at
the 50,000 jobs that the Government actually eliminated when it finally got around to making its announcements. It was unwilling to explain to the House what the implications would be.
1 think the Hon. Member should remember that there are all kinds of examples which one could have talked about. I am certainly happy to see that something was announced with regard to what would be done about the veterans. I look forward to seeing just precisely what that is, because I was the Parliamentary Secretary for Veterans Affairs and watched step after step of positive legislation which was introduced in the House, partly through the efforts and encouragement of the Hon. Stanley Knowles who was then a Member of this House. He encouraged the Government and others in the House. We did make progress, so I am happy to see that take place.
I am happy to see things done with regard to the spousal allowance, but obviously the Hon. Member does not remember where all these programs began. She does not remember how they were originally put in force. The concern for child care, the pension plans, the GIS and the spousal allowance were certainly all instruments of the Liberal Government. Therefore, I think if the Hon. Member were to go back and look at the record, her questions to me would be phrased differently.
We should consider the example of Canada student loans. When the Government finally took a step to come out with something precise, the result was that $5 million was taken away from the Canada Student Loans Program. It is not even as though the Government were going to give it away. The Government was going to lend the money to the kids so that they would be able to work. This was done after the Hon. Bette Stephenson told us in April of 1983 that the amount of Government spending on student loans should be increased. That is found in her communique from her council of Ministers of Education on April 25, 1983.
I am concerned whether our vision is going to be big enough or whether, instead, we are going to be mean, narcissistic and inward looking.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many of the speeches which have been given in the House. Could the Hon. Member indicate how long he thinks a Throne Speech should be? If I added up all the things that various Members think should have been in it, I think we would have been sitting here into the second day listening to the Governor General read the Throne Speech.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not concerned with length as much as with quality. There were several dozen references to dialogue, communication, understanding and discussion; but with regard to hard concrete understanding of where the Government is going, we are as clueless now as we were before the Throne Speech was made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allocated for the question and comment period now being over, we shall resume debate with the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
November 16, 1984


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 believe that the New Democratic Party missed its opportunity to speak in the usual round of debate this time. The Member was present, rose, but was not recognized. I would urge that the New Democratic Party be recognized at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will tell the Hon. Member that the Chair always does its utmost to be fair to all political Parties and that the order of speakers in the House is not open to dispute. 1 will advise the Hon. Member, however, that the representative of his Party will be the next speaker following the Minister of Agriculture.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say what a great privilege and pleasure it is for me to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I would like to utilize this early opportunity to join with all of the previous speakers and all of the Members in the House in extending my sincere thanks and congratulations to the Speaker and to yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that these are very difficult jobs. Certainly if the past few days are any indication of the future, and I am sure they are, I want to congratulate you both on doing an excellent job.
I would like to congratulate all of my colleagues on both sides of the House. 1 would like to congratulate those Members who have been my colleagues in the past and who have sat in the House of Commons over the years, some longer than others. I want to extend a special word of congratulations to the newly elected Members of Parliament. 1 think they are in for an experience of a lifetime. 1 am sure that they will enjoy their stay here and I certainly wish them well.
I would like to indicate as well my intentions of personal co-operation and support to all Members of the House. Once again I am not just speaking to my colleagues on this side of the House, but to my colleagues in the other two Parties as well. If they have carefully read all of the mail which they have received up to this point in time, they will note that I am not only extending a verbal commitment to work co-operatively in the interests of the agricultural industry across the country, but I have also put that commitment in writing to them. I have also undertaken to put that commitment to you in writing. In addition, we are in the process of circulating to all Members of the House a notice indicating whom they might contact within my ministerial office, both on the exempt side and the ministerial side, in an effort to speed up their inquiries. I want the record to show that I have taken that step.
This is not my maiden speech in the House of Commons, nor is it my maiden speech as the Minister of Agriculture, because 1 had the good fortune to occupy the portfolio of Minister of Agriculture during a very brief time in 1979.
However, I hope you will allow me to take this opportunity to say a few words in that regard. I am entering my thirteenth year in the House of Commons. 1 have spent some 24 years in public office, the first 12 being in various elected capacities in
The Address-Mr. Wise
my community, the constituency of Elgin. I want to take this opportunity to extend to the people of Elgin my sincere thanks and gratitude for the tremendous degree of support I have had from the great people of the City of St. Thomas and the people of Elgin during the past twenty-four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne has pointed out many challenges that we will face in this session of Parliament. In particular, it has focused on the tasks that lie ahead for a national reconciliation, economic renewal and social justice.
I would like to speak briefly today about what those challenges and those directions mean for the agri-food industry in this country. I know that Members of the House appreciate the important role that the agri-food sector plays in the economy and in the traditions and social fabric of our nation. We are talking about an industry that generates one-sixth of all economic activity in Canada, an industry that is a key to the further economic development of every region of this country. It is an industry with retail sales of nearly $60 billion, an industry that exported about $10 billion worth of products and generated a trade surplus of about $4.3 billion in 1983.
It is an industry that directly employs some 1.4 million Canadians and accounts for almost three million jobs, if one counts all the services used by primary producers and all the services used by processors, distributors, and indeed retailers from coast to coast.
Food has always been so plentiful and cheap in this country that many Canadians overlook the fact that our agri-food industry is a big business. Many people are not aware of the fact that it is a big business that, I regret to say, faces some very big and serious problems. These problems include low and declining farm incomes, stiff competition in export markets, and soil degradation.
No one can deny that the industry has problems that must be resolved, but the industry also has opportunities for growth. Our Government is pledging to revitalize and strengthen the agri-food sector so that those opportunities are not lost to Canadians.
We have already taken the first necessary steps in that direction. Last week the economic and fiscal statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) included a number of initiatives that will benefit farmers. They will benefit food processors and agri-food businesses across the country. First among these improvements is the three cent per litre fuel tax rebate for gasoline and diesel fuels purchased for off the highway use. This decision will be a big help in bringing down production costs, improving farm returns and keeping the Canadian food and agriculture products competitive on the world markets. I might say that as a result of the decision of the Minister of Finance, we are essentially delivering approximately $100 million into the hands of Canadian food producers.
318

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Wise
The fuel tax rebate, which is roughly equal to the federal tax on these fuels, will go into effect as of December 1, 1984, until the beginning of 1987. In addition, farmers, along with their counterparts in fishing, forestry and mining, will receive rebates of about 1.8 cents per litre to offset the announced increases in the petroleum compensation charge.
Another important decision announced in the economic statement is the referral of the agricultural taxation issue to a parliamentary committee. These issues include agri-bonds, taxation difficulties of part-time farmers-that is, Section 31-and capital gains tax on farm lands. The early consideration of these issues by Parliament will permit us to act on these matters before the next fiscal year.
Perhaps even more important to the agri-food industry than these specific initiatives is the over-all thrust set out by the Minister of Finance last week. This Government is acting to address the fundamental concerns of Canadians about the state of the economy. We are acting to improve fiscal management. We are acting to reduce the deficit and to restore investor confidence. These measures are profoundly important in removing the obstacles to growth in our agri-food industry as in other sectors of our economy.
Some difficult decisions have been necessary in order to reduce expenditures and increase government revenues. Agricultural programs have been among those that have been reduced, postponed or curtailed. These decisions are not made without pain. However, I believe that the program changes announced last week will not have a severe and long lasting impact on the agri-food producers of this country.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) salary has been reduced by 15 per cent. My salary and that of my Cabinet colleagues has been reduced by 10 per cent and my Department's budget has been reduced by 2 per cent. Including increases in fees for agricultural services, Agriculture Canada's total contribution to the $4.2 billion package announced by the Minister of Finance will be little more than $60 million in 1985-86.
I readily admit that it was hard to come up with that money from an already tight budget for agriculture. However, Government expenditures must be reduced. We cannot back away from that necessity and that commitment. Canadians cannot afford the debt burden that the previous government has imposed on them. Obviously the agriculture and food sector must share in the pain in lowering that deficit. Obviously our agri-food sector will share in the benefits of the revitalized economy that will result from the Government's effort to put our financial house back in order.
The largest item on Agriculture Canada's list is the increased fees for departmental service. Over the last few years, fees for agricultural services have not kept pace with the increased costs of providing these services. My departmental officials have reviewed current fee schedules and they have applied the principle that those who receive a specific benefit from government services, a specific benefit that has a market value, should pay at least part of the costs of providing that benefit.
As a result of this review, we will be increasing existing fees for a number of departmental services. In some cases we will be introducing fees for services that were previously offered free of charge. We will be discussing these changes with affected client groups in the very near future.
While I am anxious to confer with the industry associations before new fee schedules go into effect on April 1, 1 must point out that my Department is committed to collecting an additional $33 million next year in fees for service.
Two agricultural capital projects are being deferred at this time. These are the animal drug testing laboratory planned for Trois Rivieres and the regional plant health laboratory planned for Victoriaville, Quebec. These projects have not been cancelled, but are now on hold pending further review and the availability of additional capital funds.
There are two reductions in the dairy program, the elimination of the Canadian Dairy Commission's research program and a 50 per cent cut in the special export subsidy program. The Canadian Dairy Commission's research program has been successful in building up the capacity for dairy processing research in many parts of the country, and 1 believe that the industry is now in a better position to carry on much of this research at its own expense. I hasten to add that Agriculture Canada's Research Branch will continue its dairy research program. The Department spends about $6 million annually on dairy research. Over time, the special export subsidy program has become less financially attractive for industrial milk producers and I believe they have not received the full benefits from this program in recent times, particularly during the time in which that program was started. I know a fair amount about that program, Mr. Speaker, because we initiated it when we were in government in 1979.
Canagrex and the Commission of Inquiry into Marketing Practices for the Potato Industry in eastern Canada are both being wound up. Existing trade promotion activities within Agriculture Canada will be strengthened in order to further enhance agri-food exports. Submissions concerning the potato marketing situation in eastern Canada will be received by the National Farm Products Marketing Council. It will review these submissions received by the Carter Commission and up-date them with its own studies. I will then consult to see what future course of action I should take. I should consult with my provincial counterparts and also with people in the industry.
The Department will be reducing its salary and operating expenditures in a number of areas where greater economy is possible. In addition, there will be cuts in research grants and contracted-out research and in grants and contributions in areas such as livestock improvement.
As I said at the outset, these changes are not done without pain. But I believe they are necessary in streamlining and rationalizing government operations. I will be consulting with the provinces and the private sector over the coming months to determine which other program areas can be changed to
November 16, 1984

provide greater support and assistance to the agri-food industry at less cost to the taxpayer. I expect to be issuing at least one discussion paper on agricultural issues to help focus these consultations.
The Speech from the Throne underlined the need for a sustained, co-operative and national effort to achieve Canada's economic potential. In this regard, 1 am fully committed to working with all of my provincial counterparts on ways to overcome problems facing the agri-food sector.
One of my first priorities after being sworn in as Minister of Agriculture was to begin rebuilding constructive working relationships with the provinces on agricultural matters. I have met individually with most of my provincial colleagues as well as meeting with them as a group. We have had fruitful discussions about our mutual concerns and about how to work in greater harmony in the best interests of agricultural producers.
Without a doubt, the problem of farm financing is the biggest obstacle facing the agriculture sector today. Interest payments now constitute the largest single expense for the majority of Canadian farmers. And, unfortunately, a significant number of farmers are having difficulty making those payments.
Last week, I met with provincial Ministers of Agriculture to discuss what can and must be done to meet the unique and serious credit problems in Canadian agriculture. I will soon be seeking the support of my Cabinet colleagues for measures to alleviate some of those problems.
In the meantime, I have instructed the Farm Credit Corporation to suspend loan foreclosures until early next year.
Another top priority which I have been discussing with my provincial counterparts is the establishment of a voluntary stabilization plan for red meat producers. This program would involve contributions by the federal and provincial governments as well as producers. It will require amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. 1 hope to place those amendments before the House in the very near future.
Another urgent piece of agricultural legislation has already been introduced. The proposed amendment to the national Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act will permit tobacco growers to explore the possibility of forming a national tobacco marketing agency. This amendment has been requested by tobacco growers who have recently suffered from higher input costs, lower prices and declining markets and decreased acreage.
Members of this House will also be asked to consider legislation this session to increase the maximum level of payments under the Advance Payments for Crops Act. This change will bring advance payments for commodities covered by this legislation into line with the cash advances that are available for grain production in western Canada.
The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and I announced last week that prairie grain farmers will receive a final payment of $123 million under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan for 1983-84. The cheques will be in
The Address

Mr. Wise
the mail next week. Considering the smaller grain harvest that resulted from this summer's drought in many parts of the West, it appears likely that a significant pay-out will be triggered under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan in 198485 as well. A further amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act will be necessary if we want to make an interim payment to producers rather than have them wait until next November to receive another payment.
There will be minor changes to some of our regulatory Acts, as well, but I believe I have outlined the major agricultural legislation and some of the problems that we will be considering over the next few weeks and months.
This Government understands the diversity and importance of the agriculture and food industry. We will work with members of the industry and with the provinces to stimulate and strengthen agriculture's contribution to the Canadian economy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) rising to ask a question?


James Douglas Manly: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for his speech. I am concerned about his position as head of the Department of Agriculture. The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) reports to him but he does not have a separate department. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recognized in a major way the importance of the forest industry. In a speech on July 20 the present Prime Minister told the Canadian Club in Vancouver:
A Progressive Conservative government will launch a massive co-operative effort to save this vital element of our national heritage and national economy.
To date we have seen absolutely no evidence of any such massive program in forestry. There is practically no mention of forestry whatsoever in the Throne Speech.
In the last few weeks, a five-year $300 million fifty-fifty forestry agreement was negotiated between the federal government and the provincial government. I understand the provincial government has now accepted that, but the federal Government is now stalling. According to an October 29 press release, the Minister of State for Forestry said that the funding level could change. He said that a lot would hinge on how much we could afford to flow through in the first year. During the election campaign, the Government recognized the growing deficit in our forest supply. This deficit is very important. Now it is only concerned about the financial deficit, while the deficit in timber supply threatens Canada's economy in coming years. Something has to be done about it, and the Government is not acting.
How long will Canada's number one industry, forestry, remain a poor cousin of the Department of Agriculture? Will the Minister ensure that while it is under his jurisdiction there will be adequate funds so that agreements such as the federal-provincial agreement in British Columbia and in other provinces can go ahead and not be starved for funding?

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Wise


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made an excellent speech or an excellent pitch for the importance of the forest industry in the country. I certainly agree and share most of those concerns. Let me tell the Hon. Member that he can relax because the Government is fully committed to supporting our resource industries.
The Hon. Member referred to the lack of mention of forestry in the Throne Speech. I think we all know which direction the Throne Speech took. It was not a shopping list approach. Rather, it gave some priorities. It gave Canadians some clear indications as to the direction in which we wanted to take the country. I took a great deal of satisfaction from reading in the Throne Speech that a great deal of emphasis by the Government would be placed upon strengthening and revitalizing our natural resource industry-forestry, agriculture, fishery and mining. There was a strong message to the agricultural, mining, fishing and forestry industries-and I know the Hon. Member is extremely interested in the forestry-that those industries are held in high priority.
I am not sure from what the Hon. Member was quoting when he referred to a separate department for forestry. However, one must recognize that we have a financial problem. Perhaps it might take us a little longer to achieve our longterm goals. However, as Minister of Agriculture I was quite happy to see the Ministry of State for Forestry coming over to our Department. I feel very comfortable having that Ministry associated with my Department. I place a great deal of priority on ensuring that the Ministry receives its fair share.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a few points to the Minister. First, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) on his appointment to Cabinet. Also through him I congratulate his colleague from New Brunswick on his appointment as Minister of State for Forestry.
The previous questioner rose in his place to tell the Minister that he was concerned as are many Members of the House and Canadians across the country, with simply appointing a gentleman to be Minister of State for Forestry. As well intentioned and as knowledgeable as that gentleman may be, that will not come to grips with the current crisis besetting the Canadian forestry industry.
The fact of the matter is that we are losing 500,000 hectares of forest land per year, which is more than is being replanted by forestry companies or by the efforts of federal-provincial management plans. That is just in the commercial cutting exercise. In a year like 1981 when there were forest fires and the blight of spruce budworm, et cetera, the number can rise as high as a million hectares per year. Every study which has been conducted, be it by industry, environmental groups, the Canadian Forestry Service or the Government itself-and this was highlighted in three prime time half-hour documentaries in the last three weeks on CBC alone-indicates that we have to double the amount of land we are planting if we are not to be left behind in 20 years to 40 years in what is Canada's single largest industry. The said fact is that most Canadians do not realize that the forestry sector contributes more to the balance of payments of this country than oil and gas, agriculture, for which the Minister is responsible, mining and fishery combined.
I applaud the Government for naming the Minister. But where is the Deputy Minister? Where is the Department? All we have now is a division of the Department of Agriculture. Where is the legislation setting up the Forestry Department? Where are the dollars and cents to address a problem which is in a stage of crisis now? I would appreciate hearing the Minister's comments.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the enthusiasm or the lack of it-and I am not so sure which-on the part of the Hon. Member. He should take a great deal of satisfaction from the formation of a new Department because it makes a tremendous contribution to the state of the general economy within Canada and on the export market. There are some serious problems facing our forestry industry. We recognize the potential and the problems of that industry, and we have done something about them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: What?


John Wise: The previous government ignored it and would continue to do so. Today we have a Minister.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the time for questions and comments. Whether or not the burden has overwhelmed him, he is the Minister and they are the Government. Let us cut the rhetoric. It is cheap. Let us talk about what he will do.


John Wise: The Hon. Member is living in fairyland. We want to do something about the future. We just cannot simply forget the past. As I indicated before, we as a government recognize the importance and potential of forestry, and we are doing something about it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: When will you bring in legislation?


John Wise: The Hon. Member's government did not have a ministry of forestry or a minister of state for forestry. It did not have a deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister or a director general. Today, as a result of the decision of Canadians on September 4, the forestry industry has been recognized by the Government. As a result of the Government and its decision, the forestry industry has a higher priority. It is recognized. We are in a position to do something about it. In fact, it has a Minister of State for Forestry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments is now over. We shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this Throne Speech debate. Of course it has primarily become a debate around the Government's economic statement. That is quite natural because as soon as the debate on the Throne Speech debate began, the economic statement was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
November 16, 1984

What needs to be said is that the promises of the Government to the people during the election campaign have not been lived up to in its performance. The Conservatives in office are a much harsher and meaner group than they were in the election campaign. In the election they promised jobs, they promised employment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that there would be tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of jobs created overnight if his government were elected. They held out the promise of ecomonic renewal and a hope for a better future to all Canadians. They said they could reduce the deficit by cutting out waste rather than cutting out needed programs. They said that they would be compassionate. Now that they are in office, the first thing they do is to question the universality of social programs.
They continue to say that day by day in this House when they are questioned about where those jobs are. The economic statement that they introduced really focuses upon the deficit. If they had said during the election campaign what they were going to do and had Canadians known what they were going to do thus far as a government, there is very little doubt in my mind that they would not have been elected to govern. They certainly would not have the number of members they have in the House today. They misled, whether deliberately or unconsciously, the Canadian people.
Their economic policy focuses upon the deficit. All of us in this House and all Canadians are concerned about public expenditures. When a government follows the simplistic formula, that reducing public expenditure leads to deficit reduction and in turn to increased employment, we are in trouble. There is much in the experience of this country that tells us that that sort of approach to economics, public expenditures and job creation leaves much to be desired. It deserves to be questioned.
A study by the Department of Finance, which the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have refused to make public, questions the efficacy of this economic policy. It questions whether the economic policy which the Government has adopted will in effect create jobs. That economic analysis which the Government refuses to make public states that their economic policy will lead to job losses. Rather than having increased employment and fulfilling the hopes of people, the hopes of people will actually be shattered. There will be more people unemployed as a result of the economic policy that this Government is pursuing.
It increases the cynicism in the public when the Government refuses to make available hard data about its economic policy. This Government promised to be open. It is fair and reasonable to measure a government's performance on the basis of the criteria that it established for its own performance. They said that it is important for a government to be open, important for the democratic process for information to be shared. However, when it comes to a piece of information that would be valuable for the present debate, and it is an important debate, this Government simply refuses to make that informa-
The Address-Mr. Keeper
tion available. They are a closed government. They are stonewalling us. That is completely contrary to the image that they projected to the Canadian people during the election campaign.
We have a good notion about what the secret studies say about their economic policy. A private agency has also analysed the impact of their economic policy. This organization, Informetrica Limited, has come to the conclusion that the economic statement which the Government brought down will cost the economy 50,000 jobs next year. Rather than the creation of tens of thousands of jobs overnight, we will have the loss of 50,000 jobs as a result of the actions of this Government.
There are other reasons to question seriously the economic approach of this Government, the simplistic notion that if you cut public expenditures, deficits will fall and employment will rise. All we have to do is look to the West Coast and the experience in British Columbia. The people there have experienced what is a Conservative government under a different label. They call themselves Social Credit, but in fact they are a Conservative government, a Reaganite, philosophical cabal.
That government too promised employment, freedom from want and a better future. The experience has been mounting unemployment and increased deficits rather than lower deficits. This has brought a great deal of misery to the people. It has meant that important social programs have been cut. At the same time, the amount of debt that people have to bear has increased.
This contrasts quite startlingly with the experience in Manitoba. The Manitoba Government has chosen not only in the promises in the election campaigns, but in the administration of its affairs on a day to day basis, to make employment the number one priority. Through the creation of the Manitoba Jobs Funds and through devoting public expenditures to that objective, we have the result of Manitoba having the lowest unemployment rate in the country.
We in this House should learn from the experience at the provincial level. We should learn from what has gone on in Manitoba and in British Columbia. Rather than following its ideological beacons and wearing blinders with regard to the economic facts of life in this country, this Government should re-examine the direction in which it is taking this country.
I want to note as well that while this Government focuses all of its attention upon the deficit and its hopes of reducing that deficit, and while I am concerned that the public dollar be taken care of, I want to raise some questions about the notion that somehow a deficit is necessarily a bad thing. If we take notice of the fact that Japan has an unemployment rate that is much lower than ours in Canada, we see as well that it has a larger deficit. That should give us pause to question the strategy that this Government has adopted.
The United States has a Conservative government, at least in rhetorical terms, certainly in terms of social policy and defence policy, yet when it comes to public expenditures and

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Keeper
the deficit, it has a large deficit. Its economic performance has in large part been fueled by public expenditures in the area of defence. Therefore, this focus upon the deficit really deserves to be questioned. With the passage of time, more and more Canadians will question this focus. They will experience the increased unemployment which the forecasting agencies are now predicting.
It is essential for us to be aware of the fact that this Government with its bloated majority promised one thing in the election and, having got itself ensconced in office, does another thing. That is enough to erode the confidence which Canadians have had in this Government.
When the Conservatives were in opposition and seeking to become the Government, they said that they could cut the deficit by cutting out waste. They said they would not have to cut out needed, worth-while, productive public expenditures, that they could cut the fat without cutting the muscle. What is our experience now that they are in office and showing their true colours, now that we see the fulfilment of their actions? One area where they have cut is CHIP, the Canadian Home Insulation Program. What reasonable Canadian would call that program waste? The opportunity to insulate a home, to make it more energy-efficient, is an investment. It is not only an investment for the nation, it is an investment for the individual. That action alone belies the notion that the cuts in expenditures were just going to be cuts in waste.
They are going to cut down on unemployment insurance expenditures. What will the result be? It will simply result in those people who have no employment being forced off unemployment insurance on to welfare. Does that constitute a reduction of wasteful government expenditures? No, that is a misdirected public policy. It simply shifts the burden from one hand to the other. It makes it difficult for people.
The Government cut funding to foreign aid. It cut the few dollars that we give to the Third World, countries in which people live in such poverty that we can only intellectualize about it, poverty that we have not personally experienced. This was aid to people who suffer in ways we have no way of imagining. Canadians want to help Third World countries, yet what does the Government do? It cuts developmental aid to those countries. Is that another example of what the Government promised when it said it would only cut out waste in government expenditures?
Another program cut by the Government was Summer Canada. Everyone knows that the unemployment rate in this country is very high, particularly amongst young people, and that young people need work in the summer so that they can feel productive, so that they can gain experience and can save some money to return to high school or university in the fall. Yet the Government has the audacity to cut funding for Summer Canada which provides summer employment for students. To be fair, I understand that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has since backed away from that position and indicated that the Government
will replace that program with something else. If Canadians can get their message through to the Government, perhaps there is some hope that the Government will see the error of its ways and will do something to correct its actions when those actions are found wanting.
I am disturbed as well by government expenditure cuts in the area of Indian affairs. If there is any group of people in the country who live in poverty and desperation, whose living conditions are more on a par with those in the Third World than they are with middle-class Canadians, it is the native population of the country. I am appalled that the new Government which promised to be compassionate and to give new hope to people cut funding in the area of Indian affairs. I am sure that most Canadians would be shocked by such cuts.
The list goes on and on. It is important to reiterate this list because of the fact that the Government, when it was running for election, indicated that it would reduce only the waste and would not cut out anything that is important to people. Yet when it gets into office, it cuts into programs that are essential, productive and are in fact an investment. The Government's performance belies its promise.
As another example, the Government cut out Canertech, an organization that was meant to deal with alternative energy sources like solar energy. It is important that we find alternatives to crude oil as a way of fueling our industry and heating our homes, yet this is one of the areas in which the Government made cuts. Surely investment in alternative energy is in fact an investment and not a waste. I wonder what the Government's definition of the word "waste" is.
The Government also cut the budget for the National Research Council. That investment dealt with solar energy and technology. A very good example of what the Government has done can be seen in Winnipeg. I am hoping that this is one of the areas in which the Government will reverse its action. It cut out the Manufacturing Technology Institute in Winnipeg. This is an institute which had been lobbied for for a long period of time. Unfortunately, when it finally came about it was announced by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and therefore became identified as a Liberal goody for Winnipeg.
We should not let that confuse us, Mr. Speaker, because this technology centre is very important. It assists manufacturers in Winnipeg and in fact across Canada to adjust to new technologies and to be more productive. This is in fact a use of public funds that supports the private sector and therefore it would have fitted nicely into the new Government's ideological framework and into its feeling that if we are to create employment, we need to do it through the private sector. Here was an ideal opportunity for the Government to use public funds in order to promote its own objectives. Instead, it cut it out.
I am hoping that when the Minister of Finance goes to Winnipeg and meets with ordinary residents of Winnipeg, he will learn how vital this institute is to the Manitoba economy and will give very serious consideration to reversing that decision. Once again, we can have an agency in Winnipeg that will help the manufacturers in our province and across the
November 16, 1984

country become more efficient and productive, thereby allowing us to add some strength to our economic capacity.
The list of cuts goes on and on. Because time is short, 1 cannot complete my enumeration of that list. However, I would like to say that my great disappointment with this new Government is that its performance falls so far short of its promises. It promised to be compassionate. What did it bring to us? It brought to us a new, harsh agenda for the social scene. The Government spoke of universality as being a sacred trust before the election and now it is directly attacking the universality of social programs. It is questioning the pension programs in this country. It is questioning the distribution of family allowances, social housing, federal-provincial transfers which include those for education, and health and social allowances.
The very large and widening gap between the Government's promises and its performance will be more and more visible to Canadians as time passes. People have every reason to start losing confidence in this Government. I would ask the Government to keep that in mind because it will see that rejection in the Gallup polls of which I know they feel so proud.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he would consider a reasonable deficit. How high would he let the deficit rise? Around 25 per cent of our tax dollars is already going toward servicing the debt. How high would he let it go? What would be a reasonable level for the deficit?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, obviously like all Canadians I would like to see the deficit as low as it could possibly be. The point that I was making is that cutting public expenditures the way this Government has will lead to greater unemployment, and greater unemployment will mean more social costs and less revenues for the Government. Therefore, we run the very real risk of ending up with a larger deficit than we have today. That is exactly what happened in the Province of British Columbia.
I think it is important that the Government focus on employment as the key priority rather than on the deficit. That is what it promised to do. If the Government focused on employment and got people back to work, it would have revenues coming in and there would be some real prospect of reducing the deficit.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make. 1 listened carefully to the Hon. former Member for Winnipeg-St. James, the present Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). He figured he could not get re-elected in his old riding, and he was probably right, so he ran in another riding. He was condemning the Government for having said one thing before and during the election campaign and supposedly doing something else afterward.
What he was trying to do was instil fear in Canadians. He was saying: "Look at this Government that we now have. Look at what it is doing. It will decrease jobs and it will cut back on
The Address-Mr. Beatty
the amount of money which will be available through the Government".
I would like the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre to look at the facts. What has happened in the two months of the lifetime of the new Government? Is it not a fact that already some 30,000 new jobs have been created in Canada? That is the way the Government is moving.
Look at interest rates. We promised to bring interest rates down, and in just two months' time interest rates have decreased almost a full percentage point. That will generate activity in the construction industry, and mortgage rates will decrease. I invite the Hon. Member to take a look at the facts and not give us empty NDP rhetoric.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, we wanted the facts, so I asked the Hon. Member to prevail upon his colleagues in Cabinet to release the study that analyses the impact of the economic statement upon employment in this country.
The Hon. Member mentioned 30,000 new jobs. I would challenge him to tell me how many of those jobs are part-time and how many are full-time. He mentioned interest rates. We know that interest rates are coming down. They are coming down because the American economy is slowing down. That is a reason for concern. I would like the hon. gentleman to pay some attention to those facts, and release the information with regard to the economic statement analysis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions, I will recognize, on debate, the Hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty).


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the outset of my remarks 1 could be forgiven if I digress slightly to welcome you to the House of Commons and to congratulate you on the assumption of your new and important responsibilities. I know that you will carry them out with great distinction and great vigour.
On behalf of Members of Parliament from the previous Parliament, I want to welcome the large number of new Members who have joined us in the House of Commons. The new Members, with their vigour, enthusiasm and fresh ideas, will contribute a great deal to the deliberations of Parliament, and can help us to renew government and the services that it provides to Canadians. It will be an honour to work with them.
I would also like to express a word of thanks to my constituents for the confidence which they have shown in me. This was my fifth election since 1972, when I was first elected, and I can simply offer to them the assurance that I will do the utmost, to the best of my ability, to discharge my responsibilities to them and to try to live up to the high honour which they have conferred on me.
On September 4, using the most effective tool at their disposal-their ballots-Canadians charted a new course for the federal Government for the remainder of the decade. Canadians charged this Parliament with the singular obliga-
November 16, 1984

The Address-Mr. Beatty
tion of renewing the national economy. They directed the Government to enhance the personal prosperity of all Canadians. They encouraged us to examine thoroughly all alternatives which would direct the bulk of government services, particularly financial ones, into the hands of the needy. Canadians cautioned us that true justice begins with the fair, sensitive and respectful treatment by government of all of its citizens. As Minister of National Revenue and as the Minister responsible for Canada Post, 1 take particular heed of this message.
Above all else, on September 4 Canadians told us to direct all our energies toward realizing the full potential of our land and people. It is because the Progressive Conservative Party took up this message with vigour and foresight, and dedicated itself to the fair, timely and responsible pursuit of these goals, that Canadians endorsed my Party on election day.
Proof of our continuing commitment to these concerns was heard in the Throne Speech and in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). In both of those documents, the new Government began to plot a new course for Canada.
As former chairman of the PC Task Force on Revenue Canada, and now having the honour of being Minister of that Department, I strongly support the pledge of the Government to do more than any of its predecessors to ensure the survival of the self-assessment system, a system of taxation which is the least costly and the least oppressive means for administering the tax regime. For the self-assessment system to survive, all taxpayers must believe that they are being treated fairly and equally. At the same time, the Government must believe that all taxpayers will fairly report their income and submit the proper amount of tax on time.
It is essential for mutual trust to exist if we are to strike the correct balance between the right of all Canadians to the efficient and timely administration of the tax regime, and each individual's right to protection from undue, unfair or unreasonable treatment. Sadly, actions by previous Cabinets not only eroded that trust but, in some cases, destroyed the dreams and aspirations of many Canadians.
The failures of the previous regime in this area were several. It failed to address fundamental problems in the economy and to generate growth, thereby damaging the financial well-being of every Canadian. It failed to acknowledge, let alone diminish, uncontrolled government spending and waste, thereby fueling public suspicion of the Government's need for additional tax dollars. It failed to contain the trend toward an increasingly complex tax system and a dangerously secretive budgetary process. It failed to pass Budget provisions going as far back as November, 1982. Former Ministers of National Revenue failed dismally to direct departmental officials on the application of their powers-some of which are far greater than those of other law enforcement agencies-without regard for the circumstances or the civil rights of the individuals in question. Indeed, one of my predecessors was quoted in The Globe and Mail this morning as follows:
With delinquent taxpayers you have to put on pressure.
After all the water that has gone under the bridge, and after all the experience of the past year, Mr. Bussieres continues to fail to differentiate between people who simply choose not to pay their taxes and people who are incapable of paying because they are in dire financial straits. More than anything else, what the controversy of the past year has been about is ensuring that people who are in need are treated with compassion and decency, and that honest people are treated with respect. Yet it appears that some people have not learned those lessons.
Those are the errors of the past. Sadly, they led to mistrust, non-compliance, frustration and bitterness.
At the same time, another process has been emerging which places more pressure on tax administration. Increasingly, the tax regime is being used not simply to replenish the federal treasury, but also to motivate or discourage certain actions by taxpayers in the marketplace. Although the goals of such provisions are better evaluated elsewhere, it is important to note the greater role which is played by the Department of National Revenue in interpreting and implementing the social and economic policies of the Government. The increasing responsibility of the Department, under legislation over which it has no direct authority, further reinforces the need for Parliament clearly to define its intent vis-a-vis each piece of tax-related legislation. On that note, I would like to turn to the future.
I am most fortunate to be able to come to this office, following the review of the administration of the tax regime undertaken earlier this year by the PC Task Force on Revenue Canada. The Task Force undertook the single most comprehensive dialogue which has ever been undertaken by any policital party in Canada with ordinary Canadians, on a matter which affects us all. Its 76 recommendations form the Government's blueprint for action in the tax field. Our goal is to initiate fundamental changes to the tax system which will make it more fair, more accountable and more just for the ordinary people of Canada.
In the past two months, in the name of fairness, I have already taken these measures. I have scrapped the odious quota system that the previous government was using to force assessors to assess people for money which often they did not owe. I have withdrawn the controversial film on auditing, which raised doubts about the Department's view that taxpayers are essentially honest. I have ended the practice of seeking publicity when individuals have charges laid against them. All too often the Department would encourage publicity at the time the charges were laid, and then, after the damage had been done, if the individual was exonerated by the courts, no one was there to undo the damage. That policy has been scrapped. As well, I have reversed the notion that a taxpayer is guilty until he proves his innocence.
On the last point, the Minister of Finance will soon present legislation to ensure that until an impartial hearing has been concluded, taxpayers will not have to pay taxes in dispute. Until that important amendment is passed, we have no author-
November 16, 1984

ity to refund taxes in dispute. Neither can we relinquish the security we have accepted in lieu of payment.
That is why it will be essential that the House deal speedily with the amendment when it is brought down by the Minister of Finance. Until that time taxpayers will still have to observe the present law. However, 1 would add that I am reviewing my Department's collection policy. In the meantime I have instructed that legal collection action in the case of disputed taxes is not to be taken except in exceptional circumstances which will be judged on a case by case basis.
Our emphasis on fairness is further reflected in the documents tabled in support of the economic statement, which mentioned that we are reviewing the search and seizure provisions of the Income Tax Act and the possibility of a small claims tax tribunal. In the meantime, the tax administration measures from the February Budget will soon come into play, with two exceptions. First, the impending legislation regarding future taxes in dispute will eliminate any obligation to provide security before the conclusion of an impartial hearing. Secondly, the appeal period will remain at 90 days.
Other provisions to be introduced in keeping with the spirit of the task force report include empowering the Tax Court of Canada to award costs to taxpayers launching an appeal. In no event will such costs be awarded to the Minister of National Revenue. This measure recognizes the importance of providing taxpayers with full access to a forum in which disagreement with tax assessments can be resolved fairly. Perhaps most importantly, it removes a financial deterrent to ordinary Canadians who believe they have acted within the law. We are attempting to ensure fairness and justice for ordinary Canadians so that simple justice is not priced out of their range.
As another example, the statutory period of reassessment will be reduced from four years to three years. Unless the taxpayer has filed a waiver, reassessment may only be applied to a three-year period beginning with the 1983 taxation year. This provision will be applied to all taxpayers except in cases of wilful evasion, gross negligence or fraud.
All of these measures are designed to help the average, honest taxpayer. Two basic principles, fairness and firmness, will be guiding this Government. Fairness protects the rights of taxpayers and firmness ensures that everyone pays the correct amount owing, not a penny more and not a penny less. We will not allow the few to avoid taxes at the expense of the many.
A concrete example is our determination to collect debts outstanding and not in dispute. At present we have approximately $3.5 billion owing in this category and we will be firm in seeking payment. But we will also be fair. What is so distressing for those of us who have had a chance to work with the PC Task Force on Revenue Canada was to find that, at the very same time as the previous government sanctioned treatment of taxpayers which took away some of the most basic civil liberties, the Government allowed the accounts receivable of the Department of National Revenue to double, rising to
The Address-Mr. Beatty
the point where it is equivalent to roughly 10 per cent of the federal deficit today.
Additional staff will give collectors more time to work with those taxpayers experiencing difficulty in paying taxes owed. Upgraded training programs will enhance the collectors' thoroughness and, at the same time, his or her sense of fairness. As a final resort, when a taxpayer simply cannot pay all amounts owing at once, the collector will be better equipped to work out a time payment arrangement. We have also instituted a new policy whereby collection staff must make every effort to contact the taxpayer by telephone before taking legal action. One hundred new person-years are being added to this effort. I might add that this telephone contact will be made after a series of collection notices have already been issued. These notices have been completely redesigned to more clearly outline departmental policy and taxpayer rights, and now include a department telephone number.
In the past, as Hon. Members will know, computer-generated explanations of assessments or reassessments were often limited to 40 words. Fifty words may have been needed but were not allowed by the system. Our solution was to change the system to fit the needs of the taxpayer. This now allows complete explanations of assessments or reassessments and will cut down the number of notices of objection and appeals. In the past, taxpayers may have filed a notice of objection, not because they disagreed with the facts but because they simply did not know them. They were not told in plain, clear language by the Government. Not only will these measures give taxpayers a more clear picture of their tax situation, but they will also make it easier for taxpayers to contact and deal with the Department.
While the clarity of our various messages to the taxpayer is vital to a fair taxation system, our accessibility to the public is equally important. I would like to outline briefly a number of areas where service is being upgraded. First, we are operating a public inquiries counter in taxation centres where there is a natural volume of walk-in traffic. This will broaden the availability of service beyond our district offices.
Second, further to expand inquiry services this filing season, the network of seasonal tax assistance centres will be expanded and seasonal tax information clinics or storefront service centres will be introduced. There will be 35 seasonal centres which will allow us to serve a substantially greater number of people than last year. These seasonal services more than double our office locations for face-to-face assistance. In addition, toll-free telephone service in district offices will be extended to 6 p.m. from February 11 to April 19 and further extended to 9 p.m. from April 19 to the end of the filing season.
We are also installing an enhanced telecommunications system. It will help upgrade our toll-free telephone service and help us measure the demand for this service. The Hon. Member who spoke before me is from Winnipeg. He will know that this year the Department introduced a telecommunications device for the deaf in the Winnipeg district office to provide inquiry service to the hearing and speech impaired. I am pleased to announce that this bilingual service is now

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Beatty
available nationally through toll-free numbers listed on the back of the tax guides. In addition, we are now making arrangements in conjunction with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to provide visually-impaired taxpayers with audio tapes of the tax guide for the 1985 filing season. As well, full statements of account for corporations will also be provided every time the account changes, including details of all relevant transactions. Previously, corporations were advised only of amounts owing or receivable.
We have also made a number of improvements in our administrative procedures, Mr. Speaker. We are increasing the number of situations where we contact the taxpayer before altering the amount owing or refundable. We have already added 29 situations where this procedure is followed, and the coming filing season will see another 47 situations in which we will make this contact first. Where a decision has been made to alter the tax through initial assessment of a return, these new procedures require that taxpayers be given an opportunity to respond before any action is taken. In the same vein, for any taxpayers facing reassessment because of audits following initial assessment, opportunity to respond is also being provided before the issuing of a reassessment. In addition, as recommended by the PC Task Force on Revenue Canada, in all cases where the Department contacts the taxpayer, the taxpayer will have 30 days to respond instead of the 21 days previously allowed. Obviously this over-all approach should lead to fewer objections and appeals and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, more breathing room for the taxpayer.
We are also making a range of technological improvements in the area of storing and retrieving taxpayer data so that staff in district offices will be able to make many requested adjustments on the spot, at computer terminals in the district office. District office staff can now call up on a terminal virtually all data captured from a taxpayer's return. This, of course, cuts unnecessary delays. Next month we will bring in a system to provide corporations with a full statement of their account every time it changes. Previously, only limited information was available. Early in 1986 this same service will be provided to all individual taxpayers, as recommended by the task force.
Let me summarize briefly what these changes mean. When a taxpayer is contacted by the Department, for whatever reason, the taxpayer now has additional time to respond. Secondly, we have substantially increased our systems of advance notification before an assessment or reassessment. This notification and resulting discussions take place before a notice of assessment or reassessment triggers a 90-day period in which an appeal can be entered. This means a whole range of improved services and at the same time obviates the need to extend the period for appeals. If you look at other countries with a similar tax system, Mr. Speaker, you will find that our appeal period is significantly longer than in the United States, Great Britain or Australia.
1 am pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, to further speed up refunds, that I have directed that processing this year will begin more than a whole week earlier than last year.
Over the past year my Party has campaigned vigorously on behalf of the right of taxpayers to a simpler, more fair and accountable tax administration system. The public has endorsed these efforts overwhelmingly. I am proud that we have already acted and will continue to act until that has been achieved. If we work together in this House and continue to show the determination shown by my colleagues who surround me today to bring about a system which is more fair to ordinary Canadians, I am convinced that by the time Canadians file their income tax returns this year they will be satisfied the Government has made a conscientious effort to make the system more fair and more accountable for the ordinary taxpayer in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions. Comments. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) is not unaware of the concerns that are manifest around a particular magazine which is circulating quite freely. I thought the Minister might like to note that 1 purchased it today. That was my right as an adult. It is quite easily available.
However, my concern is with an ad which appeared yesterday which I think was an incredible affront to the people of Canada. I wonder whether the Minister of National Revenue might advise me if he believes it is the lack of teeth in the legislation that prevented his desired impact. I congratulate the Minister on the effort which he did undertake, but are revisions in the Customs Tariff Act and the Post Office Act required, or is there a lack of political will or a lack of understanding on the part of the customs officers who must apply the law?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Hon. Member for her question; I appreciate it very much. I had a chance to review the advertisement in question. I know that she has a copy of it with her at the present time. The publisher of Penthouse magazine ran an ad in the Toronto Sun yesterday in which he likened Canada to Nazi Germany. Mr. Speaker, I think that demonstrates that a person who is incapable of making a distinction between Canada and Nazi Germany is incapable of making a distinction between pornography and art.
I fully share the Hon. Member's concern about this sort of material. She raised a very reasonable question about the law as it stands today. Once material has entered Canada, the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act no longer apply. They apply only as importation is taking place at the border.
There are three statutes which regulate this sort of material. The first is the Canada Post Corporation Act which regulates the ability of people to use the mails to transfer this sort of material. The second is the Customs Tariff Act which allows my Department to regulate the flow of this material into
November 16, 1984

Canada. The third applies after entry of the material into Canada, or if it is produced in this country, and that is the Criminal Code.
At the present time 1 know that in a number of jurisdictions the police are either considering or are in the process of laying charges under the Criminal Code. In cases where material is already in Canada, the obligation is now on the police to decide whether to lay charges. The opportunity for Customs and Excise to act has passed once the material has crossed the border.
If the Hon. Member has a concern about a particular municipality where the material is still available, and if she wants to bring it to the attention of the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, for example, or of the local police department, she certainly has the right as a citizen to do that. The police would then consider what obligations they have under the Criminal Code.
I would like to make one other point. The Hon. Member raised questions with regard to the Customs Tariff Act as it stands today. She is absolutely right. One of the concerns that I have is that there are those three separate pieces of legislation, each of which may incorporate different standards for what is permissible in Canada and what is not. They tend to be fuzzy. They call upon us to make value judgments on this sort of material. 1 am hoping that the Fraser Committee on Pornography and Prostitution which is currently in existence and which will be making its report in a matter of weeks will be able to give us guidance on ways in which we can bring one act into conformity with the provisions of another so that there will be some certainty. Secondly, I think it would be helpful for all Canadians, for importers and for the Government if we were able to get better clarity on all three statutes so that people will know where they stand in relation to the law. To the extent to which we are capable of doing that, I think it will make the system more fair for everyone.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to congratulate the Minister for a very thorough and compassionate presentation. The Hon. Minister spoke of the future with an emphasis on fairness and justice and I am encouraged by this.
However, yesterday, to my strong disappointment, a capital expenditure of approximately $38 million for a proposed taxation data centre in my riding of Ottawa-Carleton was cancelled. 1 ask the Minister if this was fair and what plans he has to expand office facilities in the National Capital Region. In particular, would the Minister guarantee that any planned expansion will take place within the City of Gloucester?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, 1 would first like to say that I appreciate the Hon. Member's question and I commend him for the vigorous way in which he is putting the case for his constituents. There is no Member of Parliament who has been more conscientious or vigorous in stressing the needs of his constituents. I appreciate that very much.
The decision was made to cancel two proposed taxation data centres, one for the City of Toronto and one for the City of
The Address-Mr. Beatty
Ottawa. The total cost would have been $105 million in a time of restraint, Mr. Speaker. Going ahead with those taxation data centres would have done nothing to improve service to taxpayers. Indeed, there is some question as to whether or not it would have caused a deterioration of service.
From the point of view of the Department there was no need to continue with this massive expenditure at a time of restraint. As a consequence of the decision which we announced a day ago, we hope to be saving the taxpayers of Canada at least $75 million. In Ottawa we will be renovating and refurbishing existing office facilities to ensure that they are brought up to the standards required.
In anticipation, on the part of the previous government, of the possibility of moving out of present facilities, they have allowed those facilities to fall behind. We will be putting a new investment in them to ensure that public servants will be working in adequate conditions.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the decision to cancel the Toronto and Ottawa data centres will have the result that
1,000	casual jobs will not be moved from Ottawa to Toronto, and secondly, that 250 full-time jobs will not be moved out of Ottawa to Toronto. That will result in a savings in terms of permanent jobs in Ottawa for the people of the National Capital Region.
The final point which the Hon. Member made was a very understandable one, Mr. Speaker. Obviously this decision will come as a disappointment to the people of the City of Gloucester who were concerned, obviously, about the effects that the development would have in their area in terms of the creation of jobs in construction, for example. I cannot commit the Department at this time to say that, irrespective or whatever circumstances may take place, any new construction will take place in Gloucester, but I can make one commitment. We recognize that this represents a loss to the City of Gloucester. The Hon. Member has very vigorously put that case to me personally. Before any planned development takes place in the future, I will ask my Department and the Department of Public Works to look seriously at the services that are available in Gloucester and we will make every effort to make sure that they are fully considered at the time that any such decision is made.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to make a comment. 1 wish to congratulate the Minister for the changes that he is proposing. I represent an area which contains many fishermen who are hard working and honest individuals. The stories of their problems with Revenue Canada have become a legend. The introduction of rules of fairness and natural justice has been long in coming and I am pleased that the Progressive Conservative Government and the Minister are taking bold measures to ensure that the ordinary, honest Canadian is well protected.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I had the pleasure of being able to travel to the Hon. Member's constituency during the election campaign and was there on his

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Friesen
nomination night when some 2,000 people were there to support him.
I have been impressed during the time the Hon. Member has been in the House by the way in which he has brought the concerns of the people of his constituency to me. I can promise him that I will make every effort to be responsive to those concerns.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has given an assurance about the project cancelled in Gloucester where the Member of Parliament is a Conservative. The Minister said that he will do everything he can to compensate Gloucester, possibly with projects in the future.
The other taxation data centre which the Minister cancelled last week was to have been built in my riding of York Centre. What sort of message does the Minister have for the people in my area who were expecting close to 2,000 jobs, admittedly some temporary, to be created in the Department of National Revenue at that taxation data centre? What attention will be paid to people in that area?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, for the past 12 years I have had the opportunity to sit where the Hon. Member is sitting. I know what it feels like to be in the Opposition with the Government systematically refusing to listen to the needs of members of the Opposition. I can undertake for the Hon. Member and for all Hon. Members on both sides of the House at any time they come to me with a concern that I will try to listen with compassion and understanding and do my best to be of assistance.
I understand that the cancelled centre was in the Hon. Member's constituency. Obviously, if we are looking at new facilities being built, we will consider the best place for them to be located in the Toronto area and I will be glad to receive any representations the Hon. Member chooses to make.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now resume debate.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks during the Throne Speech debate. I certainly want to join the chorus of others who have complimented you on your elevation to the high office that you have attained. I also want to compliment your boss, the Speaker of the House, on his style and the way he conducts the business of the Chair.
As a Private Member for ten years, I have listened long and hard to questions that turned out to be mini-speeches made by Cabinet Ministers, who are called front-benchers by many, both in questions and reply. The Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is sitting there. He is also one of the culprits.
It is a breath of fresh air to have crisp rulings from the Chair on the kinds of questions and responses that we tolerate in the House. It gives other Hon. Members a chance to ask questions and get their information on the record.


Cyril Keeper: That is long enough.


Benno Friesen: All right, that is enough. Second, I want to join others in complimenting the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton (Mr. James) and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) on their fine speeches in introducing this particular motion. I believe that all Members, regardless of political affiliation, would agree with me that they distinguished themselves very well both in the quality of their speeches and in the quality of the representation they have made on behalf of their ridings. I think that that is a portent of good things to come.
I want to thank the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), who just spoke, for the frank and candid way in which he has dealt with the problems of his Department and for the way he wants to service the needs of Canadians. I want to commend him especially for the focus he has given to the needs of those with handicaps, such as the visually impaired.
A report dealing with the problems faced by those we call handicapped has been tabled in the House for several years now. It is a pleasure to see that the Minister is taking some of those concerns to heart and is implementing them in his Department.
I know the subject of jobs has been a preoccupation with every Member of the House. I know that Members of the Opposition are trying to look for an Achilles heel in the Government on this particular issue. That is fair because that is their role. It is what they ought to do in order for them to carry out their functions. However, I believe that there are other issues.
I believe the deficit is an issue and is one reason why there are not enough jobs. When I heard it announced in the economic statement that we spend $20 billion in interest payments on our national debt, it must be an issue. That $20 billion could be spent on those who are in dire need in our country or spent on the unemployed or perhaps on pension reform.
I have never been able to understand the mind-set of the socialist party in that they want to increase indebtedness in order to help those who are in dire need. It is because of that kind of philosophy that we are $20 billion in debt and taking money away from those who need it. I hope they start looking at the economic statement from that perspective.
As I have indicated, there are other issues with which we are confronted. For example, there is the issue of ensuring that we maintain and live up to our campaign promises. That is a fair issue about which the Opposition Parties can hammer us hard to make sure we live up to those promises.
In fact, I recommend that we follow the practice which is carried in the United Kingdom where each party declares what it calls a manifesto at the beginning of the election campaign. Each party specifically outlines the issues as it sees them and how it plans to fulfil its promises if and when elected to office. Once a particular party is elected it has the burden of fulfilling those promises. The opposition recognizes that the elected government has a mandate to fulfil the philosophies that it has
November 16, 1984

explicated during the campaign, but it also has an obligation to fulfil those promises.
I sense that the Opposition, particularly the New Democratic Party, criticizes the Government for not following their agenda instead of attacking it on its agenda for the country. We were not elected to fulfil an NDP agenda but to fulfil a Conservative agenda. If we do not fulfil that agenda, then they can criticize us. But do not criticize us for not fulfilling another Party's agenda.
For that reason 1 wish that we had that kind of concept being used in Canada. I might add that in the last few elections the Liberal Party has always prescribed an agenda during an election campaign and then ignored it once it was elected. This allowed the opposition to attack those governments on almost any subject. I would simply urge the Opposition that when it attacks the Government with respect to fulfilling its mandate, as it should, it should do so on the terms that the Government laid out before the people.
Another concern we face in the country is to make sure that this place functions properly once we are elected. I was pleased that this issue was addressed in the Speech from the Throne; it is time that this institution was reformed. While this concern has been expressed before, I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is taking this question seriously and appointing a special committee to make sure that reform takes place.
I believe there is an underlying confusion in the minds of many of us about goals and how to reach those goals. The focus in this country and particularly in the Chamber seems to be on democracy; that we should be democratic and make democracy work, and all the other cliches connected with that term. Since the focus is on democracy, one can easily assume that the goal is democracy. I want to assure Hon. Members that while we do not want to overlook the need for democracy, that ought not to be our goal. Our goal is freedom, not democracy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is the difference?


Benno Friesen: 1 am glad that the Hon. Member for Regina West asked what is the difference. That absolutely demonstrates the confusion in the minds of the socialist party. Democracy is the vehicle by which we ought to deliver freedom. That does not necessarily happen. I think it is a dangerous assumption that democracy is always necessarily a friend of freedom.
Let me give the most glaring example, the Weimar Republic in 1933. It was a very democratic government in Germany, a very constitutionally democratic government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Democratically elected.


Benno Friesen: It was democratically elected and it functioned democratically. It democratically elected Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. It is possible to use a good democratic institution to bring about any kind of repressive government
The Address-Mr. Friesen
you want. We should never assume just because we have a democratic government that we will always have freedom.
I think I can give another example a little closer to home. I do not want to make Members think that the odious comparison of fascist Germany-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I ask the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) to please listen.


James Douglas Manly: I am listening.


Benno Friesen: 1 do not want to make Members think that I am wrenching a comparison here when I compare what happened in Germany with what has happened in Canada. I want to point out, however, that four years ago we passed an Order in Council in this country that has been widely proclaimed as the Emergency Planning Order. That Order was passed very democratically. It was passed by a democratic government but through the powers given to that democratic government that Order in Council in its potential is incredibly repressive. It is anything but democratic. There is anything but a freedom of consensus in that particular Order.
Just because we have democracy does not necessarily mean that we have freedom. We can lose our freedom through democratic institutions. I might point out it is understandable that the New Democratic Party, rather than being called the socialist party, prefers to be called the social democratic party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have been called lots of things.


Benno Friesen: 1 hear the NDP using that term all the time, and I understand that. I understand also that the New Democrats want to be elected and they want people to vote for them. For a lot of people in Canada the term "socialism" has a pejorative ring to it and "social democratic" sounds so much better. I do not fault them on that.


An Hon. Member:: It is like Progressive Conservative.


Benno Friesen: Yes, that is right. Progressive Conservative is much the same thing.
There is another reason for it. Social democracy, as we have seen the experience of that particular institution around the world, has a limiting effect on freedom. It does not matter where you go, democracy is institutionalized.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Come off it! You are drawing a long, long bow there.


Benno Friesen: I do not know whether the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) can follow a long bow. I do not know whether his attention span is long enough for that but I will try to explain to him. In order to make democracy function, it has to be institutionalized. The more you institutionalize it, the more you limit our freedom.

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Friesen
At the heart of freedom is the ability to choose, Mr. Speaker. 1 think even the Hon. Member for Regina West can understand that. The ability to choose lies at the heart of freedom. The more we have our choices taken away, the more we have our choices limited, the more we lose our freedom. Some of that is logical. We have local by-laws and all of those factors that make society function where all of us concede some of our freedoms in order to make society function better. The institutions of democracy thrive on passing those kinds of laws that limit our freedom.
I want to point out why the social democrats like the term so much. I recall very clearly during the campaign the leadership debate. My Leader, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party were talking at one point about the role of banks and what the banks were doing, for example, to women. The Prime Minister made the point that women have a harder time getting credit for business transactions from the banks. The Leader of the New Democratic Party agreed. The Prime Minister went on to make another point. The Leader of the New Democractic Party asked; "Will you make it a law?" That, Mr. Speaker, is at the heart of everything that the institutionalized, democratic, call it social democratic, institutions are all about, hence the question: "Will you make it a law?" The NDP mentality is: Let us legalize or prohibit everything in a catalogue of values that they have created. Everything is good according to the value structures which the New Democrats have designed. Consequently and conversely, if they have not designed it, it has to be bad.
You see, Mr. Speaker, if you make everything according to law, automatically everybody becomes a potential law-breaker. That is what is so wrong. We focus the whole citizenry on law-keeping or law-breaking and it becomes a law-oriented society. The NDP likes that. That way New Democrats can categorize everybody to the most minuscule detail according to their criteria. "Will you make it a law?" We need some laws, I do not deny that. But that takes away from the real focus we ought to have, namely, a focus on relationships and reconciliation; whereas in a law-oriented society, which they like, we focus on law-breaking and violators. We ought to be focusing on reconciliation and relationships. That whole concept, that whole mind-set, destroys the relationships we can enjoy, Mr. Speaker.
1 recognize, as my friend the NDP heckler wants to point out to me, that we ought to have laws. Of course we ought to have laws. For example, we have the whole issue of pornography which came up in the House a few moments ago. This is an area where there needs to be legal prohibition for certain kinds of activities.


Cyril Keeper: Social democracy.


Benno Friesen: The criteria which New Democrats want to focus on is what you can and cannot do, whereas the focus ought to be on expanding the whole system of choices that we have in our country so we can develop our characters and our personal growth. We can do that only if we choose. The trouble with pornography is that it destroys choice, particularly when it concerns child pornography. Children's curiosity is at its highest peak, their sense of discrimination is at its lowest, and their information base is at its lowest. They do not have the tools to satisfy their curiosity as to whether or not something will help or hurt them, whether they can grow through the experience, or is know what it will do to them in future years. They are incapable of making mature choices.
Of course we ought to protect those people. We ought to preserve them in such a way so that when they become mature they can make intelligent, informed choices about how they want to live. There are no walls that one can build high enough to make sure that everybody is going to remain pure and that everybody is going to live according to the criteria that we want to establish. We cannot do that.
I see that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone) is here and I am glad that she brought up the question yesterday because I think she was honing in on this very point, that we want people to make choices on a matter of maturation so they can grow in their person rather than have their person destroyed.
I say that about much of the advertising we see on television. A lot of the advertising is not only misleading, but it is seductive when you see the kind of lifestyle advertising that is going on. It tells a false story and we need to deal with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude his speech within 30 seconds, please.


Benno Friesen: In the area of advertising, Mr. Speaker, the focus ought to be on freedom so we can preserve our system of choice and develop a mature young generation of people as well as a mature population, so that we can make choices in a much more sensible way, not have a law-oriented society. There will always be laws. However, I hope that as a government we will diminish the number of laws and regulations rather than expand them. If we make laws according to the criteria of some people, they will not sit well with some others.
I agree with John Stuart Mill about the dictatorship of the majority dominating the minority.
I want to thank Hon. Members for the attention they have given me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) on a question?


James Douglas Manly: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a question. However, first I should like to make a brief comment. From our point of view we see laws as being necessary to establish a framework within which a co-operative community can develop. I am sure the Hon. Member would recognize that there is a need for law to restrain the selfishness of certain individuals. We recognize that need. We also recognize the need for law to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. It is on that basis that we urge law, not because, as the Hon. Member falsely tried to imply we want to see people's lives regulated in every minutia. That is a complete distortion of our political philosophy. We
November 16, 1984

want to see the largest possible measure of freedom for individuals in society. That means economic freedom to share in the goodness of society.
This brings me to the question 1 should like to ask the Hon. Member. He talked about the need for restraint. Coming as he does from British Columbia, I am sure he is aware of the 1983 budget which the Hon. Hugh Curtis introduced in that province. It is interesting that some of the same people who ran Premier Bennett's re-election campaign in 1983 were also very active in the election campaign for the Tories. They seemed to give the same advice-"Don't tell the people what you will do until after you are elected", and then whammo! The Hon. Member knows the kind of budget which was delivered in July, 1983. It promised recovery through restraint. The economic forecasts were for a 6 per cent increase in real provincial product in 1984, a 15 per cent increase in capital investment in 1984 and an employment increase of 3.9 per cent in 1984. The most recent Conference Board of Canada provincial forecasts project a decline of .1 per cent in real provincial product for this year and a decline of .9 per cent in employment. Statistics Canada projects a decline of 7.6 per cent in capital investment. In fact, the seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in British Columbia has increased from 13.9 per cent in May, 1983 to
15.1	per cent in May, 1984. Of course, the latest figure is also
15.1	per cent unemployment.
How can the Hon. Member believe that the program of restraint being advocated by the Government will in any way improve the Canadian economy in a manner which the program of restraint of the Government of British Columbia did not? The same medicine is being prescribed by both governments. Perhaps the bedside manner of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is a little more attractive than the bedside manner of the Premier of British Columbia. However, the medicine is the same. It has not worked in British Columbia. How will it possibly work in Canada?


Benno Friesen: I do not think I mentioned the word "restraint" in my speech.


James Douglas Manly: You talked about the deficit.


Benno Friesen: Restraint is not the same. Perhaps in the Hon. Member's lexicon of terms "restraint" and "deficit" are the same word. According to the dictionary definition of those words, I do not think they are the same. I did not talk about restraint. Perhaps the Hon. Member ought to listen a little more carefully before he frames his comments.
I would estimate that about two-thirds of his comments were about the Government of British Columbia. I was not elected to defend the Province of British Columbia on that particular score. However, it reminds me of a child yelling across a fence at a bully because the bully cannot get at him. If the Hon. Member is so concerned about British Columbia, what is wrong with its economy and the approach of its government to the economy, why does he not run for the British Columbia legislature and attack them there? Why does
The Address-Mr. Friesen
he go 3,000 miles away and holler his head off at the B.C. Government?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, could I just make a short comment in response to the Hon. Member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A very short comment.


James Douglas Manly: In reply to the Hon. Member, I should simply like to indicate that the conditions we are seeing in Canada are the same as those we saw in British Columbia. I do not like what happened in British Columbia in the last year and a half.
I do not want that to happen in Canada. I am appealing to Hon. Members opposite to look at what happened in British Columbia so that perhaps the lessons of history can sink into their minds and there will be a change in their policy before it is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker) on a question.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to ask a question. I want to make a simple comment. I do not think it would do much good to ask a question. One of the faults with the public address system is that the sound of the Hon. Member's voice is increased for those watching their television sets but it does nothing for his ideas.
I have listened to him over the years. Nothing has changed the Tory philosophy of cutting back on the deficit. The Hon. Member said that it is to help people out. According to the Hon. Member, poor people are helped by cutting back on unemployment insurance, people who just barely make ends meet are helped by increasing the price of gasoline, students are helped by discontinuing student employment programs, and public servants are helped by cutting back on Public Service jobs.
He criticized the Liberals for making promises in the election campaign of 1980 and not fulfilling them. In the last election campaign never before in the history of the British parliamentary system was so much promised by so few to so many and nothing delivered. They shook your hand before the election and then they shake you after the election.


Benno Friesen: I want to begin by complimenting the Hon. Member on his originality. He has a penchant for words, especially for phrases. Perhaps I could improve upon his phrase-Never in the field of human conflict". I appreciate the caustic barbs which he threw at me. I remember five months ago when I rose repeatedly in the House to ask him a question when he was chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I could never get him. He was always waltzing around behind the curtain and never in his place so that I could ask him the simple question: "Why does the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, after it has given itself a mandate to travel to British Columbia and meet with the fishermen out there, not do so?" As he was chairman of that committee, I wanted to ask him why it would not go. However, he would not stay in his place. At least I am sitting here and he can ask me all the questions he wants.

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Lapierre


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on a short question or comment.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Hon. Member. He indicated that we should judge his performance or the performance of his Government on the basis of the Progressive Conservative agenda. One of the items which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put on the agenda during the election campaign was the whole question of the universality of social programs. He said to Canadians that that was a sacred trust. Now that he is in office, he questions universality as it affects pensions and family allowances. I would like to judge their performance on the basis of the criteria which they established on their own agenda. Would the Hon. Member please respond?


Benno Friesen: Why does the Hon. Member insist upon asking such simple questions? That is no problem at all. 1 have not seen any particular kind of consistency on the part of the New Democratic Party on any other issue, let alone universality. Just as a side comment, it is strange that a company like Aluminum Company of Canada, a good Canadian company, could not make it to build a plant in Manitoba but that rotten, rotten multinational from the United States, Alcoa, seems to be able to make a deal. That is great consistency in the New Democratic Party!
To go to the point of the Hon. Member's question, his Party supported the spouses' allowance. 1 do not think they ever voted against spouses' allowance. I think his Party supported the child tax credit and hailed that as a great boon to the low-income groups, as well as the GIS. 1 would ask him whether GIS is universally applied across Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for the second time, but the question and comment period is now over.
(Translation]
We shall now continue the debate. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to take this oportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. 1 may say that we on this side of the House are aware of your tremendous potential, and we would even have liked to see you on the front bench opposite. Meanwhile, we are confident that you will apply your talents wisely to presiding over this House.
1 also wish to thank my constituents in the riding of Shefford, who decided to resist the landslide on election day and show that they know the difference between a concrete program and an illusion. They refused to be tempted by the quick-fix solutions offered by the Party now in power and remained true to a Party that has done a great deal for this riding and to a Member who will continue to improve his record, I hope, in the years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to read and listen to the Speech from the Throne, and to the subsequent economic statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and while analysing these two documents, I concentrated more particularly on the four following issues: international trade, regional economic expansion, unemployment and youth.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I intend to demonstrate that our friends opposite have unfortunately failed to remember the commitments they made during the election campaign.
If we analyse the commitments they made during the election campaign, and then what they produced in their budget speech or economic statement, we see two totally different worlds.
For instance, during the election campaign, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party said on March 14: We must become first class international traders. We must become reliable suppliers of quality goods and services at competitive prices. He also said we would have to step up the search for export markets.
And finally, several weeks later, what does he offer us? A cutback of $6.2 million for the Canadian Dairy Commission, of which $4 million had been set aside for exports. 1 know some of our hon. friends from Quebec on the Government side.. .1 bet this is only the first of a series of cutbacks that will affect our dairy industry. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that in the months to come, our hon. friends opposite who promised our farmers and especially our dairy producers the moon, are going to be very embarrassed if they let the Minister of Finance take care of the dairy program, especially in Quebec.
What else did they do to increase exports? They cut another $4 million, this time from the Export Development Program. The Canadian Commercial Corporation, also concerned with exports, will lose $5 million. In the fisheries industry, one of the problems is a lack of export markets, and there they have again cut $4 million.
Finally, they said they were going to increase the number of commercial attaches. That was one of those firm commitments by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney). So one of the first cutbacks he makes in the Department of External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, involves making sure that in Rio for instance, where we had four people in the commercial section, those four positions are cut.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the opposite of what they said throughout the election campaign and, worse still, they made a $3.1 million reduction there. And now, of course, one of the major campaign commitments of our friends on the other side, particularly those who have hog producers in their riding, was a promise to sell their meat, but how? We had Canagrex. Well, Mr. Speaker, the first thing they did was to eliminate Canagrex; they lied openly to the agricultural producers, so what are they going to tell them when they go back to their ridings? It is a fact that hog production in Quebec, for example, amounts to 150 per cent of the requirements, but the agency on which the producers were relying has been abolished by the Progressive Conservative Party. As our friends opposite
November 16, 1984

know full well, the CIDA aid program is one of our channels to export goods and services, but there again a cut of $180 million.
Mr. Speaker, here is a political party which had promised to increase export assistance, yet their first concrete step is to reduce direct and indirect export assistance by $216.6 million. That is like talking from both sides of their mouth, yet they have the nerve to keep on saying . . . The Minister for International Trade travels around the world to say that we are going to boost our exports, but what with? Speeches just are not good enough. The speeches and promises of our friends opposite will not accomplish anything, and exporters need help. International competition is fierce and the Prime Minister may smile all he wants and the Minister for International Trade may make speeches, but that is not going to sell our products on world markets. That is one of the examples I wanted to give, Mr. Speaker.
Regional economic development is another case, particularly in areas outside Montreal and Quebec City. I saw the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) a few moments ago and I am wondering how he can explain to the people of Frontenac that DREE funding has been reduced by $200 million. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how several members from rural areas such as those from the Eastern Townships will explain to their constituents, after having campaigned on tourism, that tourism has been cut from the Regional Industrial Expansion Program. Have they been lying to the people or has their memory failed them?
We know quite well that the cuts in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion affect all areas outside Montreal and Quebec City. Mr. Speaker, we know how badly many of our industries need restructuring and we are aware of the fact that some restructuring reviews have led to the saving of hundreds of jobs. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) should have known that some restructuring might be advisable in his own sphere of activity but he decided immediately to do away with the restructuring side of the Regional Industrial Expansion Program.
1 have referred to projects related to the tourist industry. I am anxious to see how the Hon. Member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mrs. Bertrand) will manage to meet her commitments with respect to the Sutton Ski Centre, the Bromont Ski Centre, the Owl's Head Ski Centre, which were counting on the tourist section of the Regional Industrial Development Program. I am anxious to see how the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) will manage to develop the Coaticook gorges. Although he had assumed specific commitments, Mr. Speaker, the first thing his government did was to abolish the tourist development section of the program, supposedly in a mood of consultation. Who was consulted? Which tourist interests were consulted about those cuts?
I would suggest that the levels of assistance have been lowered and, Mr. Speaker, since you also live in an area outside of Montreal, you know to what extent assistance from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion can be badly
The Address-Mr. Lapierre
needed. You have a specific case in your area, where government help is needed but now you should forget about that, Mr. Speaker, your should forget about any large amounts for companies such as Petromont. They can no longer afford to do that, and I know very well that kind of explanations the Government and the Hon. Members will have to provide to their industrial commissioners. Over the coming months and years, hopefully, the Hon. Members opposite will recall their commitments to the people. To interpret their mandate as a mandate to cut is a serious error in my view, Mr. Speaker. I reckon that over the forthcoming months and years it will be our duty, as members of the Opposition, to hold them to their commitments. And I hope that during the upcoming debates I will have the opportunity to elaborate on cuts that have been decided against the unemployed. I hope they will realize their error soon enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 4.40 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(4), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment. Therefore, the question is as follows:
Mr. James, seconded by Ms. Jacques, moves:
That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May It Please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Allmand moves, seconded by Mrs. Pepin:
That the following be added to the Address:
But this House regrets that your Advisors not only failed to make open government a high priority but also, in their actions, have sought to reverse the direction of previous administrations by severely restricting the availability of information on decision-making in government and by attempting to inhibit access to both the elected and non-elected participants in that process.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment 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:

November 16, 1984
The Address-Mr. Lapierre


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 12(3), the Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed. It being five o'clock, the recorded vote is deferred until Monday, November 19, 1984,	Elouse stands adjourned until Monday next, at eleven o'clock,
at six o'clock.	pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?	At 4.32 p.m. the House adjourned.


Monday, November 19, 1984