1984-02-09

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when the first atomic bomb exploded in a New Mexico desert in 1945, life itself changed. Man gave himself the power of his own destruction. Never again would children be free from fear of the bomb. Never again would we parents be able to reassure them, nor to calm our own anxieties. A nuclear war would make no distinction between the sides of this House in which we sit, between right and wrong, between rich or poor, between east or west, north or south.
Nuclear weapons exist. They probably always will. And they work, with horrible efficiency. They threaten the very future of our species. We have no choice but to manage that risk. Never again can we put the task out of our minds; nor trivialize it; nor make it routine.
Nor dare we lose heart. Managing the threat of nuclear war is the primordial duty of both East and West. But Canadians are concerned that the superpowers may have become diverted from this elemental responsibility, that they may be too caught up in ideological competition, in endless measurements of parity, in trials of strength and will. Canadians also know it would be foolhardy to expect that animosity between East and West will somehow disappear this side of the point of no return. The experts would have us believe that the issues of nuclear war have become too complex for all but themselves. We are asked to entrust our fate to a handful of high priests of nuclear strategy and to the scientists who have taken us from atom bombs to thermonuclear warheads, from missiles with one warhead to missiles with ten or more, from weapons that deter to weapons that threaten the existence of us all.
Canadians, and people everywhere, believe their security has been diminished, not enhanced, by a generation of work spent on perfecting the theories and instruments of human annihilation. But technological push too often finds a sympathetic political pull. It is leaders who decide on defence budgets and research budgets. It is leaders who must direct. It is leaders who must assert their will for peace or science will devise ever more lethal weapons systems. Canadian security is at stake;
and Canada has earned the right to be heard, in peacetime and in war.
Thousands of Canadians fought and died in World Wars I and II that Canada had no hand in starting. We helped to shape the post-war world-at Bretton Woods where the World Bank was launched; and at Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco, where the United Nations organization was born. We advocated universal membership in the international community-when it was not always popular to do so, as Prime Minister Diefenbaker demonstrated with respect to Cuba; as Prime Ministers St. Laurent and Pearson demonstrated in helping newly independent states gain admission to the UN; and as our Government demonstrated in recognizing the People's Republic of China and its right to a seat on the UN Security Council.
Canada emerged from World War II as one of the very few nations with both technology and resources to build nuclear weapons. But we had seen the terrible nature of these weapons and their work. Successive governments, therefore, renounced this nuclear option, and applied Canadian skills to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In place of a national nuclear force, we joined with others in systems of collective security-in the UN, in NATO and in NORAD. Canada is a steadfast member of each of these three organizations. In the UN, we took the lead in peace-making and peace-keeping in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. In NATO, Canada is one of the few countries to maintain Alliance forces permanently outside its borders. In NORAD, we contribute an element of priceless value: the airspace above our vast land. The United States can design its own defences knowing that for 4,000 kilometres north of them, the land is occupied by a stable ally.
We take our commitments seriously. We have replaced our maritime patrol planes with the most advanced aircraft of their kind in the world. We have equipped our armoured units with the high-performance Leopard tank. We are phasing in sophisticated tactical and interceptor aircraft. We have launched a program to acquire new frigates. All of this is the most modern equipment available, all of it tasked to defensive purposes.
We decided in 1969 that it was no longer appropriate for the Canadian Armed Forces to be equipped with nuclear weapons. We announced our intention to phase these systems out in a manner fully consistent with our commitments to our allies and as quickly as equipment replacement permitted. By 1970 we had divested ourselves of the surface-to-surface Honest John rockets in Europe. By 1972 we had completed the conversion of Canadian aircraft in Europe from a nuclear

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
strike to a conventional attack role. Also by 1972 the Bomarc ground-to-air missiles based in Canada had been returned to the United States. We subsequently decided to replace the nuclear-equipped Genie Canada-based CF-lOls with state-of-the-art CF-18 interceptors. These CF-18s will carry out our air defence role more effectively with conventional armaments than the CF-101 could do with nuclear weaponry. This means that later this year we shall have rid ourselves of the last vestiges of nuclear weapons.
We have done more than look to our defences, Mr. Speaker. We have addressed the causes of insecurity and instability, particularly in the Third World. East-West and North-South are the four points of the political compass of our modern age. The problems of the South cannot be solved in the absence of progress on global security. Massive military expenditures are distorting economic policies and diverting resources away from global economic development. This in turn is worsening Third World instabilities that ensnare East and West and add to the insecurity of us all. Canadians, therefore, have earned the right to speak. They are telling us, the Members of this House, as people everywhere are telling their own leaders, that the danger is too near. They want their leaders to act, to accept their political responsibility, to work to reduce the nuclear threat.
Last fall I spoke of an ominous rhythm of crisis. I drew attention to the confluence of three potentially disastrous trends: the resort to force to settle disputes; the risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons; and the worsening state of East-West relations. I decided to practise what all seven leaders of the industrialized democracies had proclaimed last summer at Williamsburg: " .. . to devote our full political resources to reducing the threat of war". I decided to use Canada's influence to call international attention to the danger, to try to inject high-level political energy into East-West relations, to turn the trend line of crisis, to work at the crossroads of common interest between the two sides.
I proposed that the megaphones be put away, that an armistice be declared in the war of ideology and recrimination, that an end be made to manichaeism on both sides, that we exercise leadership and apply statecraft in East-West relations wich is the most important strategic relationship that we have.
Since last fall 1 have taken that message to Paris, The Hague, Brussels and Rome; to the Vatican, to Bonn, to London and to Zurich. I presented it in Tokyo and Dacca and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi; to Peking, to Washington and to the United Nations. I met with leaders in Prague, East Berlin and Bucharest, to ensure that our message was heard in the highest councils of the Warsaw Pact.
At each step along the way my message was straightforward. Canada was not looking for a seat at the superpower table. But our lives and our future were on that table, as were those of nine-tenths of the world's population living outside the United States and the Soviet Union. We all had a right and a
responsibility to involve ourselves, to press those at the table to remember their own humanity.
We proposed giving political impetus to the Stockholm Conference on measures to build confidence and reduce the risk of war in Europe. As many other East-West contacts collapsed, that conference took on importance even beyond its status as the only forum serving the Helsinki process of detente.
We insisted that both sides invest political efforts to stimulate the talks in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions. These MBFR talks are the key to achieving parity of conventional forces in central Europe and to raising the nuclear threshold, thereby diminishing reliance on early first use of nuclear weapons.
If I may make an aside, I want to insist that the MBFR talks are concerned with force reductions. They are not seeking equilibrium at a higher level; they are seeking equilibrium at a lower level. I have explained it many times so I cannot understand for the life of me why raising the nuclear threshold by balancing conventional forces is always interpreted by my critics as balancing at a higher level. Surely the purpose of MBFR reductions is to seek a balance at a lower level and therefore to raise the nuclear threshold that way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We also proposed meetings as soon as possible of the five nuclear powers so that a forum might be established wherein to negotiate global limits and, eventually, reductions to their nuclear arsenals.
We urged action to reinforce the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is in the interest of superpower, middle-power and micro-state alike. Yet as long as the five nuclear powers show little sign of initiating the reductions called for in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we run the grave risk of seeing nuclear weapons spread to new regions and old rivalries.
Above all, at each step along the way I have urged political leaders to commit themselves personally; to put peace at the top of their agenda; to exercise the political leadership that the current dangerous situation demanded; to restart the dialogue between East and West. I told President Reagan that the signals he was sending of American strength were being received in the East but that a message of peace was not getting through. I told leaders of Eastern Europe that the harsh rhetoric of their declarations had guaranteed rejection of the Warsaw Pact's more positive proposals, and there were some. Misperception and mistrust on both sides run deep but I believe we are beginning to see the signs of progress.
In Goa in November, 42 Commonwealth leaders strongly endorsed our efforts to restore political East-West dialogue and to promote negotiations among the nuclear weapons states.
In Brussels in December, NATO foreign ministers reached a consensus on several points I had argued strenuously during the past few years, particularly in a few NATO summits that
February 9, 1984

were held. They made a declaration which offered the East a balance and a constructive relationship. They made it clear that the West did not aspire to strategic superiority and the West respected the Soviet Union's legitimate security interests. These are statements out of Brussels in December, a meeting attended by the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), a meeting where he played an important role getting these points accepted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In accordance with our initiative, East and West have now agreed to resume the MBFR talks in Vienna on March 16, and they have agreed that foreign ministers should play a more active role in stimulating progress at those talks.
At our insistence, NATO foreign ministers participated early last month in the opening of the Stockholm Conference to underline the importance they attached to high-level political dialogue. The Warsaw Pact foreign ministers responded to this Western move and also went to Stockholm. Of special significance was the presence in Stockholm-and it would not have happened otherwise-of U.S. Secretary of State Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, who met for over five hours. Both also met with my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Broad political contact was thus re-established between the countries of East and West for the first time since the acrimonious conclusion of the Madrid Conference last September, in the shadow of the Korean airliner tragedy.
Even Prime Minister Thatcher has taken steps to improve contacts between East and West. Her visit to Budapest last week is a further signal of momentum in East-West dialogue-a determination to seek out areas of understanding between members of opposing alliances, and to promote a reassuring clarity about intentions.
In contrast to earlier statements, President Reagan twice last month signalled a constructive tone in American policy toward the U.S.S.R. The response from Moscow has been mixed-elements of tough rhetoric together with signs of a cautious readiness to reopen lines of communication.
I have, Mr. Speaker, just returned from consultations with the leaders of Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic and Romania. Those countries represent a middle-European geography, and a middle-power psychology, with long experience of East-West tensions.
Obviously they are closely allied to the Soviet Union. But their leadership, their influence and their identity are, in present circumstances, significant. I found, for example, a very positive response to my suggestion that the middle powers of each alliance could play a constructive part in reviving habits of consultation at the highest levels of East-West politics.
I gave them our Western perspective on the decline of detente, and on the importance of its renewal, and I listened to
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
their own. We talked about the mixture of signals between East and West, and about the need to go beyond an improvement in rhetoric toward acts and gestures to restore confidence and reduce tensions.
I return with several conclusions from my talks in Eastern Europe.
First, I was struck by the contrast between the cordial, reasonable, and non-ideological private talks, and the occasional blast of Warsaw Pact fundamentalism to which we were subjected in public. I believe this disparity underlines the importance of personal contact and private dialogue. To without that dialogue, both sides risk remaining prisoners of their own polemic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (U25)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Second, because we were able in our private talks to strip away much of the invective surrounding key issues, I believe we were able to begin a process of exposing areas of common interest. That process will take time, but I dare hope that a new level of maturity in East-West relations is within our grasp.
Third, if we are to reach that level of maturity, we shall have to grapple with difficult problems of misperception on both sides-blind spots and distortions, subjective errors of analysis or of judgment.
Few of my interlocutors, for example, seemed genuinely able to perceive, let alone concede, the gravity of the threat posed to western countries by the deployment of Soviet SS-20s. And for our part, I wondered whether we in the West had not significantly underestimated the full impact on the East of the combination of INF deployment with the harsh rhetoric of recent years.
It will be uphill work to gain a more accurate perception of each other and to gauge more accurately the consequences of our various words and deeds. From a confrontational deadlock, where INF deployment must continue and negotiations must be restored, only the "third rail" of political confidence and communication can ensure an early and constructive outcome.
In reflecting on these conclusions, and on the substance of my talks in Eastern and Western capitals alike, it is clear to me that areas of common interest are beginning to emerge. Let me suggest ten principles of a common bond between East and West:
(1)	Both sides agree that a nuclear war cannot be won.
(2)	Both sides agree that a nuclear war must never be fought.
(3)	Both sides wish to be free of the risk of accidental war or of surprise attack.
(4)	Both sides recognize the dangers inherent in destabilizing weapons.
(5)	Both sides understand the need for improved techniques of crisis management.

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
(6)	Both sides are conscious of the awesome consequences of being the first to use force against the other.
(7)	Both sides have an interest in increasing security while reducing the cost.
(8)	Both sides have an interest in avoiding the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, so-called horizontal proliferation.
(9)	Both sides have come to a guarded recognition of each other's legitimate security interests.
(10)	Both sides realize that their security strategies cannot be based on the assumed political or economic collapse of the other side.
As decalogues go, this may seem modest. But I wonder, in this period when there are positive signs of emergence from a time of crisis, whether there is not sound purpose in going back to basics, beginning again with a commitment to principles which can be shared, finding a place to start-surveying a little common ground on which to stand. Therefore, we intend to draw on these ten principles to develop elements of a common purpose among the leaders of both East and West.
I shall be writing to President Reagan and to President Andropov, to leaders of both alliances, and to other statesmen, to propose that these are principles upon which both sides can and should build, because there are points of agreement as well as disagreement. There is a way around the impasse of recent months. There are signs of promise and I believe that the trend line of crisis has turned.
As we look back on our work over the past four months and look to the months ahead, I am encouraged that we are beginning to see results. We sought to catalyse a dialogue between East and West, and that is happening. We sought to persuade both sides to tone down their rhetoric, and that has begun to happen.
1 sought to associate myself with like-minded leaders in several countries of the world. Many of them have begun, or continued, to make their own contribution to a reduction of tensions, to put forward their own proposals for arms control. My colleague the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have pursued the Canadian initiative in multilateral institutions, in bilateral relations, at special conferences and in dialogue with groups and individuals.
We have injected political energy into East-West relations; but political energy is not, by itself, enough. It must be nourished by imagination, fortified by persistence, and confirmed by action; by imagination to find new ideas, which break old deadlocks and address emerging dangers; by persistence to negotiate new agreements and to meet the challenge of technology; by action in the form even of small steps as evidence of good faith; by action on specific tasks, such as developing the means to verify arms control agreements, or in regularly scheduled consultations between East and West.

In the months ahead Canada will build on the progress so far achieved, to ensure that our ideas are further developed and implemented. We have no monopoly of proposals, nor do we expect them to gain acceptance overnight. What counts is that some, though by no means all, of the key East-West indicators show that their downward course has been arrested. My own personal contribution, though necessarily less intensive than in recent months, will definitely continue. After all, Mr. Speaker, sixteen countries plus the United Nations in three months is a pace that would be hard to sustain year-round, but I intend to go to Moscow, whenever circumstances permit. Our initiative will also be taken forward by my Cabinet colleagues, by our ambassadors abroad and by all Canadians who share our purposes.
Canada will play its part in the councils of the West, in bilateral talks, at multilateral meetings and conferences, in contacts with the Soviet Union and its allies.
We shall work vigorously for progress in the Stockholm Conference and the MBFR talks. If these talks bog down, Canada will endeavour to ensure that political leaders again take a personal hand in energizing them. Once the MBFR negotiations resume in March, it will be imperative that NATO respond to the proposal made last summer by the Warsaw Pact.
Following further consultations with our NATO allies, we shall in the course of the current session of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, circulate three proposals to gear down the momentum of new technology. We will thus give additional substance to the strategy of suffocation which I put forward in 1978. These proposals are: a ban on high-altitude anti-satellite systems; restrictions on the mobility of ICBMs; and improvements in the verifiability of future strategic weapons.
In the months leading up to next year's review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we shall continue to press both sides to keep the NPT bargain, for security is indivisible. If countries which do not now have nuclear weapons acquire them, then everyone's security is diminished.
The basis of the NPT bargain was that the nuclear powers would reduce their armaments in return for the non-nuclear powers not building their own, and that both would co-operate in sharing the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Thus, the current nuclear weapons states bear an immense responsibility in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
Consequently, we must also continue to press our proposal for a conference of the five nuclear weapons states. It is a concept whose logic is compelling. Those five nuclear powers are at the same time the permanent members of the Security Council. They have responsibilities as well as vetoes. That is why I asked the UN Secretary General, Mr. Perez du Cuellar, to explore and to promote confidential meetings of their
February 9, 1984

representatives in New York. In my talks with Premier Zhao in January, I found that the Chinese had, since my visit to Peking, begun to express a readiness to consider such contacts in New York without the pre-conditions they had raised before.
The idea will take hold slowly, to be sure, as new ideas do. But I believe that it will take hold. For example: accidents, miscalculation, crisis, systems failure-these are nuclear perils which all of the five powers must cope with, and which they have the responsibility to manage co-operatively. I suggest, therefore, that an early focus of five-power consultations should be crisis management, particularly the handling of nuclear weapons incidents, and the improvements of crisis communications. Among the five nuclear weapons states, the two super-powers have by far the largest arsenals. They bear a corresponding responsibility to apply the same genius to reducing their arms as they did to developing them. They must not let their views of each other's morality and legitimacy prevent an early resumption of arms control talks. It is vital that they resume negotiations on limiting and reducing intermediate range and strategic nuclear weapons.
This past decade the superpowers have not ratified a single significant arms control agreement. In the preceding decade they had ratified a dozen. Gestures are needed to lift the clouds of suspicion. A useful step would be for both sides to ratify an agreement which they observe already: the Threshold Test Ban Treaty.
Mr. Speaker, I have been giving considerable attention so far to five-power relationships, to the bilateral environment of the super-powers, to multilateral talks and conferences.
Much of our own contribution to this work is enhanced by the consultative process open to us in NATO. NATO is a significant forum for Canada, whether in terms of national policy, of collective security, or of basic approaches to East-West relations. When NATO was formed in 1949, Canada insisted that it be a political alliance, as well as a military one, and Canada continues on that basis loyally to maintain our long-standing commitment to NATO and to its policies. But all institutions tend, by their very nature, towards inertia unless their members give them energy and a renewed sense of direction.
Thus I was gratified that NATO ministers decided at their December meeting to commission a full review of the steps NATO can take to improve East-West relations. Canada had been urging such an approach at successive NATO summits.
MO)
The last such review, in 1967, took place at the initiative of Pierre Harmel, Foreign Minister of Belgium. Then, as now, there was a sense that things ought to change. There was a need for the Alliance to have a vision of the future, and a political strategy to achieve it. The document which resulted, known as "The Future Tasks of the Alliance", was a landmark
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
in NATO thinking. It came to terms, as in this period we must come to terms, with the need for a broad policy which governs, and gives purpose to, our military security.
The Harmel Report's most profound conclusions were:
1.	Military security and a policy of detente were not contradictory but complementary;
2.	Work towards a balanced reduction of military forces should be intensified, as well as efforts to overcome instability and insecurity;
3.	The world had changed since the formation of NATO in 1949, and that there was a need to look ahead-to gain sightlines on the future and to work along them; and
4.	Each member of the Alliance had a contribution to make, not in subordination to, but in consultation with, the other members of the Alliance.
Mr. Speaker, despite frequent setbacks, the results of that policy are impressive, especially when viewed from today's perspective: the inter-German settlements of the late sixties; the bilateral promotion of ties with the USSR by many Western countries, including my own visit in 1971; elements of rapprochement in the superpower relationship-and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975.
We need to approach the coming period with the same spirit of enquiry, the same creative diplomacy, the same forwardlooking vision.
The world has changed since 1967. We sense the shifts of power and psychology. East-West relations are far more complex than they were 17 years ago. There are competing trends of autarky, interaction, and interdependence, unforeseeable at that time.
It is essential that this new review chart a course for the Alliance to the end of this century. Canada will make its own contribution to the work, and abide by the results. I congratulate the current Belgian Foreign Minister, Leo Tindemans, for his part in launching the review. I welcome the incoming Secretary General, Lord Carrington-a man whose own ideas on East-West relations will inspire us with creativity and guide us with common-sense.
Mr. Speaker, NATO is an alliance of democracies. Open discussion and independent action are as important for us as they were for Harmel.
An alliance which fails to defend democracy in its councils will surely fail in its defence of democracy in the field. NATO summit meetings have a particular importance, and should be the senior level of responsible Alliance leadership and authentic debate. Prime Minister Thatcher and I discussed this point during her visit here last September. In my remarks after dinner in Toronto, I suggested that:
"-Canadians look upon NATO as the cornerstone of our defence policy. We do not wish to be silent partners, however. It is a political alliance, after all, and politicians like to discuss and even argue the issues. If we disagree from time to

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
time, and expend great effort in trying to resolve our differences, that is not a sign of weakness in the Alliance, but a sign of the strength which pervades a free association of independent countries".
Just as NATO's last policy framework emerged from the intellectual ferment and military turbulence of the 1960s, so should the next review take into account, if only as background, the full range of ideas now current about international security and the effects of nuclear arms. Many of these ideas are uncomfortable, incompatible, and awkward to entertain, but they are there, Mr. Speaker, and no conspiracy of silence will make them go away. Neither the Alliance, nor its member democracies, are built on blind faith. National support for defence policies-and for defence expenditures-cannot be sustained by political or strategic liturgy alone. Bridging the gap between accepted wisdom and public anxiety surely means an open examination of the intellectual territory now occupied by many critics-critics of every persuasion, I might add-of contemporary concepts and doctrines. 1 believe the new NATO review should reflect what I have been calling the need to bring statecraft and high politics to every level of the East-West system, and I suggest that the review will also have to cope, as Harmel did, with differences of perception among Alliance members, with European and North American perspectives, inconsistencies and ambiguities, and with inchoate doubts and aspirations on each side of the Atlantic.

Canadians know the gravity of these issues. They know that Canada's power is limited and that we cannot force others to listen to us. But they also know that Canada has a role to play. That is why the Government is creating a defence and arms control institute: to help Canada and Canadians more fully contribute to advancing the debate on peace and security, and to shaping that debate.
Throughout my own personal efforts to subject the science of war to the art of politics, I have been sustained by the support of many Canadians and encouraged by their good wishes. I wish to thank them now, Mr. Speaker.

And in French, I also wish to thank the many people who wrote to me in French to give me words of encouragement and advice, and offer their prayers, and I wish to thank them very, very much for having wanted to take part in this action with us, with the Government and with Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
1 wish to assure those Canadians, as well as this House, that the work we have started will continue. The Government of Canada is committed to these purposes and will carry them forward.
However, we can carry them only so far without the collaboration of those who own and control nuclear weapons, because it is the nuclear powers, and above all the superpowers, who
bear the greatest responsibility. Let it be said of them in the future that this was the time when their political judgment controlled their technological genius, when their best interests served the common good. Let history survive that it may judge them generously.
Let it be said of other nations that they saw their own responsibility to work to reduce the threat of annihilation, to forgo nuclear weapons and to serve the purpose of durable peace.
And let it be said of Canada and of Canadians that we saw the crisis; that we did act; that we took risks; that we were loyal to our friends and open with our adversaries; that we lived up to our ideals; and that we have done what we could to lift the shadow of war.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we meet to discuss the momentous issue of peace at a time when humanity is faced with the alternatives of seeking a process to reduce international tension or creeping to the brink of nuclear devastation. There is no doubt that the world today is subjected to strains and tensions perhaps without precedent in modern history. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat curious and saddening that, while men and women meet in the spirit of amity at the Winter Olympics, some of their own political leaders ignore the majestic example set by our youth and speak instead of the imperatives of conflict which can only decimate that same generation.
Perhaps there is a lesson for all of us in the page of history which shows how, in earlier generations, war became inevitable only because so many persisted in the view that it necessarily must bo so. We must never succumb to the easy temptation to believe that war cannot be avoided, because we are at that point in our history where we will not survive a nuclear confrontation. Nor can we afford a conventional war which might lead to the ultimate countdown. There should be no illusions in that regard. A nuclear countdown at any time in the future means a countdown for all humanity. There are no exceptions and there are no safe havens.
We are here, as Canadians, to rededicate ourselves to the wearying road of compromise and negotiation in the search for a durable peace. We are here because we want to be, and we are here because we must.

We all dream for the day when nuclear weapons are banished from the earth. But nuclear weapons cannot be disin-vented. They are a terrifying reality which political leadership must seek to constrain. Yet a failure to incorporate a credible nuclear component within NATO's overall strategy would be an invitation to nuclear blackmail with consequences too terrible to contemplate, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned earlier.
February 9, 1984

So in this sense the real question before us is how can we best achieve policies which reduce the recourse to nuclear weapons in Europe and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, my party and I approach this most important question through three fundamental principles.
First, Canada's foreign policy should, in fact it should always, but especially on matters of grave importance internationally, rest on a bi-partisan search for consensus.
Second, the cornerstone of our security is NATO solidarity, and third, only through the strengthening of the non-nuclear deterrent can we reduce the present reliance on nuclear weapons.

If I may elaborate, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has spoken eloquently and well of the need for reducing East-West tension. We share this view. As I indicated last November 14 and many times since in the House, my Party and I have consistently wished him, as Prime Minister of Canada, well in all of his initiatives. The maintenance of peace is critical to every hope we have for Canada and to every dream we have for Canadians. We support the objectives of the Prime Minister's initiatives and welcome his report to Parliament on this important manner which has so preoccupied-and understandably so-his attention in recent months.
Until now-and I say this much more in sorrow than in anger-Parliament has had to glean its information from a political platform in Montreal where the Prime Minister elaborated on some proposals, and from the reception halls of Eastern Europe where some blanks were Filled in. We regret this disregard for Parliament. We regret that the Prime Minister, embarking on an honourable initiative, failed to equip himself in a way which would have given his initiative enormous additional credibility.
The missing dimension, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's approach has been a formal endorsation of his proposals and the inclusion of, perhaps, yet others equally valuable by all Members of this House of Commons, who deserve to be consulted on a regular and ongoing basis about such matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In my speech of December 4, I urged the Prime Minister to introduce such a resolution and 1 am sure that, had he done so, it would have gained the unanimous approval of every Member of this House of Commons. I assure him that if he chose to do so today, our endorsement of his proposals and initiatives would be no less enthusiastic. With such an endorsement-and I think it is important, Mr. Speaker-the Prime Minister could quite properly have dismissed as unworthy any suggestion about any partisan implication in such an approach. With such a mandate, the Prime Minister could have properly claimed the support of all Canadians from all Parties, in all regions of this country, for a worth while initiative.
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
I call upon the Prime Minister again. He indicated that it was his intention to undertake further trips. I wish him well in that, and I call upon the Prime Minister again to bring forward an appropriate resolution so that Members from all corners of this House may consider it and give him the kind of overwhelming endorsement which will help him along his way.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that such formal support of all Members for a peace initiative has other practical and positive consequences. As a reflection of the unanimous support of this House, all-Party, non-partisan delegations to disarmament conferences can and should, in the interests of Canada, provide dramatic and visual proof of the resolve of this House to sustain the Prime Minister in his initiatives.
Another practical extension of this formal, all-Party support should be a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to study existing areas of conflict which themselves may give rise to the utilization of nuclear weapons so feared by the Prime Minister, indeed by all thinking Canadians. While we may be preoccupied with nuclear catastrophe, as indeed we must, we should always remember that some four million soldiers are presently engaged in more than 35 armed conflicts. A quarter of the world's nations are currently caught up in such conflicts which have already claimed over five million lives.

Mr. Speaker, as the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) warned in reply to the throne speech on April 15, 1980 this decade "seems certain to be a period of virtually continuous regional instability" while, at the same time "relations between the superpowers are deteriorating." The events in Lebanon, South-East Asia and Central America underline the urgency to focus parliamentary attention on ways in which Canada can be a positive influence for conflict resolution. A call for the resumption of the INF disarmament talks in Geneva would be stronger if endorsed by this House. So would be the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) call, which he repeated today, for meetings of the world's five nuclear powers.
Nuclear non-proliferation has preoccupied Canadians for many years. I cannot help but recall the initiative taken by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, Howard Green, who was a member of the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, at the first session of the U.N. committee on disarmament in 1962 where he proposed the specific text of the draft declaration intended to ban nuclear weapons from outer space forever. With Parliament's encouragement, Canada could resume with renewed vigour this long-standing and leading role in promoting nuclear non-proliferation among those countries which now possess nuclear technology and those, Mr. Speaker, which have the potential of developing non-peaceful uses of such technology.

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Mulroney

I have not been a Member long, Mr. Speaker, but I am convinced that we need to restore this Chamber as an instrument for seeking national consensus on the challenge we face in foreign affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not everything need be defined in narrow partisan or adversarial politics. Indeed, in a very real sense, this Chamber and its instruments should be the centre for the promotion of arms control and disarmament programs here in Canada. New initiatives could be more ennobling and fewer still could bring more comfort to Canadians who regard this Chamber sometimes with bewilderment. This is an excellent occasion for the Prime Minister to initiate a process which will bring honour to this place and honour to those who serve it.
While I welcome with generosity the Prime Minister's support for a centre for disarmament, the same motive which caused him to introduce it in the first place, I would ask him to consider sending his proposals to a committee of this House. In that way interested groups and individuals throughout Canada may be heard. Indeed, the committee might recommend that such a disarmament centre report directly to Parliament, and that might be all to the good.
Canada has for many years taken pride in its ability to play the role of honest broker in world affairs. This is a valid and important role for Canada. The Prime Minister's initiative is, in my judgment, intended to be in this tradition, and for that reason I salute him today for this as I have had the occasion of doing elsewhere.
It is with some concern and absolutely no sense of partisanship, Mr. Speaker, that 1 note an apparent confusion, inadvertent or otherwise, in the Prime Minister's statements between, on the one hand, the role of an alliance member, and on the other some neutralist observer of international affairs. That confusion arises, I believe, from the Prime Minister's apparent willingness, without malice, to understate the value of some very important principles in the hope of making progress with his proposals for peace.
I tell you clearly, Mr. Speaker, we are a western nation, a member of NATO. We are committed to the ideals of individual and collective freedom. We are children of liberty and on these principles we cannot and shall not compromise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we as Canadians are prepared to accept neither the inexorable Finlandiza-tion of Europe, nor a neutralist Canada. We in the Western Alliance are prepared to defend ourselves against attempts to oppose alien and odious systems on us through the use of force or threats of force. There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing, that is bellicose in a suggestion that we view Soviet intentions realistically. Soviet policy in Europe has been animated by two clear aims: the preservation of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe, and the weakening of the Western
Alliance, especially the links between the United States and Europe. Political leadership on all sides of the House-it involves all of us-must be ever vigilant to avoid becoming a pawn in this Soviet strategy. That is why NATO should quite properly be the forum for our initiatives.
In Toronto last December, prior to the departure of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) for Brussels, I asked him to urge further consideration of the existing non-first-strike policy within the private councils of NATO foreign ministers. I recognize the sensitive nature of my urgings and I want to return to the substance of that in a moment. The forum of private NATO ministerial meetings is equally important. That is the forum in which to discuss fundamental NATO policy or any proposed changes thereto.
The Prime Minister, commenting on my Toronto remarks in the House last December 9, chided me for going as far as I did, saying it would be better if I reserved this kind of discussion for the NATO forum, which, he went on to say, "we are doing". I was, therefore, disturbed by two aspects of the Prime Minister's recent tour of Warsaw Pact capitals. [Translation]
First, while discussion within the councils of the Alliance is one thing, it is quite another matter to publicly-in the course of this tour of Warsaw pact countries-call into question the determination of NATO allies to carry out existing policies of the Alliance. There is a difference. As former French Prime Minister Barre pointed out, to do so is to undermine the foundation of security in Europe and the credibility on which collective security rests. Second, I was astonished to learn that the Prime Minister and Chairman Honecker of East Germany had agreed to establish a committee of officials and ministers "to work together to sort of identify the areas where we can agree."
Such consultation, without first communicating with this House, without prior communication, as far as I know, with our allies, outside the Alliance framework, can only lead to confusion and potential miscalculation.
The cornerstone of our security, Mr. Speaker, is NATO solidarity. But the Prime Minister's attitude as expressed last week in Davos and Eastern Europe is part of a pattern which, if I may say so, has characterized his Government's approach to defence and the Alliance.

In April, 1969 the Prime Minister unilaterally cut our NATO commitment very substantially saying that Canada had no foreign policy of any importance except that which flowed from NATO, and that this is a false perspective for any country. Under the Government defence spending as a percentage of GNP has been cut by 38 per cent. This is germane to the proposition. The policy of wilful neglect of our contribution to the collective security of the alliance has led to a situation in which Canada spends less per capita on defence
February 9, 1984

than any other NATO ally, with the exception of Luxembourg. We daily send our courageous military personnel out in obsolete equipment and ask them to carry out dangerous assignments. Canadians everywhere value the dedication and devotion of our Armed Forces and do not expect them, nor shall we ask them, to risk their lives in this type of equipment.
I say with sadness that this pattern of neglect, over 15 years, of the conventional deterrent has damaged our reputation for reliability among our allies. It has commensurately diminished our influence in the same councils. Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in setting out these facts and Canadians take no pride in acknowledging their accuracy. Some things must be said and these are among them today.
Such neglect of the conventional deterrent has contributed to an over-reliance on nuclear weapons. This is the tragedy. There is the genesis of the problem set out here today. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot echo support for NATO and consistently neglect, over a decade and a half, support for our Armed Forces. Our alliance commitments in the conventional area can and must be honoured. We cannot continue to flail at the nuclear umbrella and not be prepared to enhance the conventional deterrent. A determined effort must be made to reduce our present dependence on a possible early use of nuclear weapons by substantially improving the conventional component of our defence.

Mr. Speaker, while we cannot-at least in the foreseeable future-hope to escape from using nuclear weapons to deter aggression, we must make an energetic attempt to reduce NATO's present dependence on the early use of nuclear weapons, even as a deterrent. Efforts to improve the nonnuclear deterrent-and my words are almost identical to those used by the Prime Minister-as any right-thinking person will realize, are most urgently required and should be a task of high political priority in Canada and all other NATO countries. If we are not to sell our most cherished values short, we must accept the requirement of effective conventional forces. General Bernard Rogers, the present Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, stated in the summer of 1982, that major improvements in NATO's conventional forces were feasible at a modest price. These improvements, he said, would permit a shift from the present strategy requiring the early use of nuclear weapons to a strategy of "no early use of nuclear weapons." General Rogers estimated the cost to be approximately 1 per cent greater than the 3 per cent annual real increase which NATO agreed to in 1978. Rogers further pointed out that this 1 per cent annual increase in real terms is slightly more than $10 (U.S.) per man, woman and child throughout NATO.

A further report analysing these possibilities for moving away from NATO's present nuclear reliance was conducted by the prestigious European security study. Their report concludes that NATO's conventional forces could be strengthened
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
substantially at a total cost similar to that of the MX missile. Only after conventional defence improvements are in place could NATO ministers consider setting in motion a series of plans and programs which could ultimately reduce, as reduce they must, the recourse to nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances.
The enhanced Western conventional deterrent I have described should be designed to prevent the Warsaw Pact from achieving a rapid strategic success. As a result, arms control could be used as a means to introduce incentives which would help move nuclear forces away from provocative and destabilizing postures. We stand ready, Mr. Speaker, to accept this policy. We genuinely believe that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are prepared to accept this approach. A new Government will encourage this kind of action. Only by so doing can we help to eliminate, as we must, the threat of nuclear escalation.
It is my belief and that of my colleagues that minimizing the recourse to such weapons is a major step toward nuclear disarmament and security. But all of this is possible only through a consistent application of the three fundamental principles to which I referred; namely, that Canada's foreign policy should rest on a bipartisan search for consensus. This is a noble obligation of the Government and I again urge the Prime Minister never to forget that all Members of Parliament are interested in this process and ready at all times to contribute to the initiative. The second cornerstone of our security is the NATO framework; and finally, only through the strengthening of the non nuclear deterrent can we reduce the present reliance on nuclear weapons.
I urge the Government, I urge the Prime Minister and indeed all of us in the House to revitalize, among other things, public support for alliance security, because only through such support can the political cohesion of the alliance be maintained.
This does not in any way preclude initiatives by member nations that are consistent with the broad, general thrust of the political objectives of the alliance. It does not in any way preclude the kind of ongoing dialogue between governments that might, however modestly, make for a better day in the area of the search for a durable peace. But only through such support can the political cohesion and the integrity of this alliance be maintained, thereby leading, in my judgment, to the consideration, and hopefully the adoption, of those measures which lead to substantial reduction of nuclear weapons in Europe and throughout the world. We must walk the road to peace together.
I suppose I am like everyone in the Chamber and most people across Canada. I have three young children at home to whom I want to leave a world free of the threat of nuclear war. This would be the greatest gift that we could give to the children of mankind. But to succeed in this dream we must strive with greater resolve. We must negotiate with greater

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
sensitivity. We must speak with a softer voice but one that carries a more substantial message.
The challenge is overwhelming. It is at times frightening in itself. But as Browning so eloquently said, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing disarmament today and nuclear disarmament in particular, we are participating in some small way hopefully in the resolution of an issue that has engaged the fears and apprehensions and hopes of all of humanity for many of the most recent months.
Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) have made reference to the role that politicians have played or ought to be playing in the resolution of this profoundly important matter. I want to begin my comments today by saying that we in the House should be giving thanks to those to whom it belongs above all others. That is, we should be thanking the ordinary people of this country, men, women and children, who began not last fall or indeed last spring, but some two years ago outside of the House of Commons, to put the profoundly important question of nuclear disarmament on the political agenda of Canada.
I want to pay tribute to all those citizens who make up some 500 groups in our country, such as volunteer groups of medical practitioners, unskilled workers, veterans, both men and women, who took it upon themselves long ago, along with other groups in the world, to educate all politicians in order that we may exercise our responsibilities in dealing with the political policy-making role which must eventually be the means of resolving the problem.
In saying this, I want to pay particular tribute to members of my own caucus. I want to say to the Prime Minister that, like the Leader of the Opposition, I and my colleagues share completely in the stated goals that he established last fall before he embarked on his travels outside of our country. But I remind him and the people of our country that it was almost two years ago that the New Democratic Party put the same subject matter before the House of Commons, not simply for a debate but for a vote. Peace has been an issue of central concern to us not in recent days, weeks or months, but for years.
The Prime Minister, in travelling abroad, took with him four key proposals. There was the suggestion for a five-power nuclear conference. There was the suggestion that an effort be made to broaden the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Third, there was an attempt to get agreement on the notion that a balance of conventional forces in Europe be achieved at a lower level, not a higher level. Finally, there was the proposal that an agreement be reached on the banning of testing of anti-satellite weapons.
Although news reports would indicate that the Prime Minister failed to obtain substantial agreement on the specifics of these ideas, it would be a serious mistake for us to suggest, in
light of this, that the initiative taken by the Prime Minister was in any sense a failure itself. In my view, it is an important initiative not only for Canadians but for others in the world who are looking for a way out of the impasse of nuclear disarmament. It will have only been a failure, from our point of view, if we do not follow up with the appropriate steps which I believe flow from the matters that were raised in that important trip outside our country.
It is obvious that one of the results of the Prime Minister's trip was to force into the open a debate about some of the basic assumptions behind nuclear escalation. Such a debate in Canada, if it is both honest and thorough, can lead to a change in policy if certain assumptions are seen to be clearly erroneous.
To refuse to do this would mean that the initiative taken by the Prime Minister was at best wasted and at worst mischievous. The Government must now assume that the political focus in Canada does continue to include major efforts to bring about disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament. To this end the Government must ensure consistency in terms of its stated principles, on the one hand, and its actions here in Canada and abroad on the other.
I believe this can best be done by systematically pursuing for Canada an anti-nuclear weapons position in every conceivable aspect of our domestic, foreign and defence policies. I believe this can and should be done. I also believe that if we do this systematically here at home, we can influence other nations. Our motto, if I could suggest one, should be this. If we desire a non-nuclear world abroad, we must first achieve a completely non-nuclear Canada at home.

Mr. Speaker, Canada must make sure that the disarmament debate remains one of our main political concerns. We must do our utmost to foster disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament. To reach that goal, our principles must logically be translated into positive action. I firmly believe that we will be successful by standing up against nuclear weapons for Canada and for other countries. There can be no contradiction in our foreign and defence policies. Our example can influence others. The principle we have to endorse is simple: if we want a nuclear-free world, we in Canada must be prepared to respect that commitment.

I would like to spell out as clearly and as concisely as I can certain proposals on behalf of my Party that seem to us will move us in this direction. First, Canada should be among those nations supporting confidence-building measures that are both serious and balanced, and when we hear any of them, whatever their source, we ought not to hesitate to give our public support to them. One such example is Sweden's nuclear freeze resolution at the United Nations. This calls for a mutually verifiable freeze on the production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons. Support for this resolution, I would argue,
February 9, 1984

flows logically from everything the Prime Minister has said here today and, indeed, what he said before. Canada should indicate now that it will support that resolution at the United Nations.
Second, we should commit ourselves to spending on disarmament a much larger sum in terms of research and in terms of analysis than the Government has heretofore committed itself, and this should be a fixed and growing percentage of our defence budget.
Third, we should follow with concrete action the Prime Minister's stated objective of opposing the development of anti-satellite weapons. Specifically, because of our own involvement in the technology in this area this should entail the refusal by the Government of Canada to develop any satellite technology for any military purpose whatsoever. That, as the Prime Minister knows, would entail a real but specific change in policy. In addition, we should offer to join the international satellite monitoring agency proposed by the Government of France.
Fourth, and very important, we must openly declare our opposition to the first use of nuclear weapons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In my view, the Prime Minister was absolutely right to call into question the current NATO strategy which is grounded on the first-use principle. In so doing, I say he joins a growing number of people, including the Commander-in-Chief of the NATO forces himself who openly expressed skepticism and did not feel he was doing something inappropriate about the efficacy of such strategy. In addition, many Canadians, Americans and Europeans, including a group of Members of Parliament representing all Parties in the House of Commons, not long ago called this strategy openly into question.
I think it would be useful at sometime to talk about this in the House because although the Prime Minister made passing reference to it abroad, we have not had discussion here about why he personally had some doubts about it. I would like to hear the views of the Leader of the Opposition as well. I want to state as clearly as I can why I think this is an outmoded strategy.
At one time it could plausibly be argued that a first-use policy did serve as a military deterrent. However, this was true only for that period of time in history when the United States had overwhelming nuclear superiority. Now it would be simply ridiculous, if it were not so dangerous to all mankind, to maintain this strategy. I find it impossible to believe that the United States would launch its nuclear weapons in the face of a conventional attack in Europe. The Americans know full well that once the missiles are launched in Europe there will appear off the coast not far out of New York on one side of North America, and outside of San Francisco on the other side, Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons. They will be launched and if there is destruction in Europe or beyond Europe in the Soviet Union as a result of missiles launched by
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
the United States, there will be equal destruction in the United States as a result of missiles coming from Soviet sources.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the central reality that lies behind the open discussion, the open skepticism, the open debunking, of the first-use strategy currently maintained by NATO. Surely this strategy has one function only in the modern world now, and that is to serve as an excuse for spending even more money year after year on much more complex nuclear technology. Surely in the name of reason and the in the name of humanity it is time to call a halt to this kind of madness.
Since the Prime Minister began the debate abroad by making a few comments, I hope it is something that will be pursued, not only here in the House for the people of Canada, but also within the NATO councils themselves.
I come now to what I see as a logically related point for my final suggestion. This concerns Canada's decision on the Cruise missile test. Nothing better illustrates our potential for illogical folly, on the one hand, or confident consistency on the other, than does our approach to the Cruise.
In commencing my comments on the Cruise missile, I want to clear up a bit of history. No fewer than three Cabinet Ministers have said from time to time that the decision reached by the Government of Canada on the Cruise was related to a NATO commitment. This, Mr. Speaker, is false.
The decision to deploy missiles in Europe, the so-called two-track policy, was reached on December 12, 1979. This decision included the decision to deploy Pershing missiles and ground-launched Cruise missiles. Nothing was said about air-launched Cruise missiles. The decision reached by the Government of Canada concerned not missiles in Europe, not a ground-launched Cruise missile, but a missile to be developed in the northern part of our own land, to be used by Strategic Air Command bombers and launched from the air. They are two different kinds of missiles.
The purpose of the testing of these missiles, I repeat, is to provide a technically operational foundation for buttressing the United States strategic deterrent. This strategic deterrent strategy was described by the Prime Minister as being a form of scare tactic which is the logic of another age. The Prime Minister, who loves logical games, cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, be openly calling into question an outmoded deterrent strategy which he says belongs to the logic of another age, and at the same time head a Government which makes a decision about the development of a missile that is part and parcel of that same outmoded strategy.
I ask the Prime Minister to get serious about an important, concrete decision which could lend credibility to all that he has been doing in recent months. In my view, unless the Government gets serious and follows the path of its own logic, it can be appropriately dismissed by others.
As the House knows, the Government is committed to test the Cruise probably some time next month. It also knows that

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
the agreement signed by the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States permits Canada, after giving a year's notice, to cease the testing of any other missile.
1 ask the Prime Minister to pay attention to his own arguments which he used while he was in Europe, to give heed to his own expressed concern which we heard today, to follow the desires of the majority of Canadians and, in short, to send as soon as possible a notice to the United States which says that after the test that is now coming there will be no more tests of the Cruise missile in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I offer these suggestions on behalf of my Party. I urge the Government to take them up. Time is short. It is short for the Prime Minister's children. It is short for the children of the Leader of the Opposition. It is short for my boy and my girl. It is short for all the children of this planet. The time to act is now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps, if it pleases the other Parties, we could call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement that we call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Nielsen:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no speakers, the Chair has no option but to place the motion.


Some Hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: If no Hon. Members are seeking to be recognized, the Chair has no option.


Erik Nielsen: The Parliamentary Secretary asked-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair cannot observe any Hon. Members rising.


An Hon. Member:: Question.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think it was the anticipation of Hon. Members that the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) would continue until one o'clock. As a result speakers were arranged for the period between three o'clock and five o'clock. In that case, would it not be reasonable to call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: I asked for unanimous consent and distinctly heard a "No" voice. Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent. This House accordingly stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, when is the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) going to solve some of the problems that have been presented by PC Members on behalf of their constituents? Long statements of rationalization and excuses, and comments about procedures and practices, solve nothing, and only salt the wounds of the Canadian people.
Yesterday the Minister said: "This practice has been in existence for ten years." Well, if it was in existence for 20 years, that does not make it right. Why did the Minister not deal with the merits of the case?
In answer to the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), who was pleading for the handicapped and the sick, instead of dealing with the problems the Minister said that the taxes were based on a previous decision of the board and the board was going to review the decision. Is the board the Government of Canada? The decision is and was wrong. Why not change it now?
Again, there was the loss of a thousand dollars that was literally stolen from my constituents in Cochrane. The cheque, in payment of taxes, was cashed by Revenue Canada and then either lost, misplaced, or stolen. Revenue Canada then took the same amount out of their bank account. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) showed interest, but the Minister of National Revenue, instead of returning the money, talks about the file being destroyed, makes flimsy excuses that will not hold water, and lectures us on fairness and compassion. I say to this Minister and the Government, demonstrate some of that compassion, show some fairness, and return the money.

February 9, 1984



INCIDENCE OF BIRTH DEFECTS IN WEST TORONTO

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's Globe and Mail reports that a study commissioned by the City of Toronto in response to concerns which environmental groups had regarding health hazards to pregnant women living in the area of the junction triangle had indeed indicated a much higher incidence of incorrectible birth defects in the west end. The study does not indicate the cause of these defects, but speculates instead that they could be related to the mothers' national origins.
In view of the lack of consultation with the health department of the City of York, where the majority of these mothers live, and in view of the cavalier and even racist attitude shown to the mothers and to the unfortunate victims of this tragedy, I urge the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to initiate an immediate and in-depth inquiry into the abnormally high incidence of severe birth defects in West Toronto.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, it is none of your business, and equally, 1 fear, it is none of mine. Last summer $25 million was missing from CNR. Some called for an investigation by the Auditor General. CN Chairman Mr. Horner said that was "none of our business". He would not stand for an open audit because he feared "a loss of independence from political interference".
Canadair, a Government-owned jet jungle, blows $1.4 billion in a single year. As it is a Crown corporation, that loss is none of our business. Canadair has 22 vice-presidents for 2,400 employees. Each one of them cost taxpayers $600,000 in a single year, yet it is none of our business.
Then we have Petro-Canada, the national company that fills our television screens with ducks, geese, beavers, and maple leaves, taxing Canadians directly on income and indirectly with a fuel tax. It spent $1.7 billion to buy a Belgian oil company that cannot find oil, and the cost is none of our business. Petro-Canada owns the two highest skyscrapers in Calgary. The walls are 500 acres of marble cut in Finland and polished in Italy. The cost is none of our business. These temples salute nationalization, our national disease.
Government has hidden its costs in nearly 400 Crown corporations. Auditor General Kenneth Dye is correct- Canadians ought to demand that the books of every Crown corporation be opened. We must abolish them, or make them accountable. They are ours, so let's make them our business.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an altogether incredible situation.
Canadian Olympic Association President Roger Jackson is now in Sarajevo with his pals, while Paul Boivin of Saint-Lam-bert and Lynne Lacasse of Brossard are in Canada. Those two young people of my riding are members of our national ski team and yet, as a result of an unbelievable decision of the Canadian Olympic Association, which is the sole organization responsible for selecting the Olympic team, they have been left behind in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, considering that Canada will host the 1988 Olympic Games, that it could be represented by 14 alpine skiers, and that it has invested a lot of money in our young skiers and athletes, it seems to me that the interests of Canada as a whole would be better served if, instead of Canadian Olympic Association officials, we were to send to Sarajevo as many athletes as possible.



FISHERIES


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, economic and political circumstances have brought the B.C. commercial fishing industry to the brink of disaster. The Government must take full responsibility for this crisis because it is its mistaken policies that have brought the resource and the industry it supports to their knees. The policy of the New Democratic Party is totally different from that favoured by the Liberal-Conservative big business-oriented coalition. Our policy is based on the conviction that the B.C. fishing industry can grow, preserving the fish for future generations while generating jobs, food and exports for Canadians today.
Unlike the Liberals and Conservatives, we favour immediate relief for fishermen in the form of a fuel tax rebate and quick action to ensure the Canadian salmon now being taken by U.S. fishermen are harvested by our fleets. We want a halt to the high seas harvest of our fish by other Pacific nations. We are committed to at least a $200 million program of enhancement and rehabilitation of salmon streams. Above all, we are pledged to strong action to protect and expand productive fish habitat by the enforcement of existing legislation.

February 9, 1984



POLITICAL PARTIES


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) named a panel of party faithful to advise him on policy. Obviously he is starting to question the wisdom of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie) who believes that the people of Canada should be kept in the dark about where that Party stands on important issues.
One of those named to the advisory panel was D'Arcy McKeough, once a key cog in the Ontario "big blue machine" and now President of Union Gas. Within hours of his appointment, Mr. McKeough started giving his advice on fiscal and taxation matters. He recommended that the federal Government increase sales taxes, increase income taxes, cut tax incentives for job creation, slash benefits and programs for the poor and needy, and reduce family allowances.
One can only marvel at the hypocrisy and philosophical dexterity of a Party whose members on one hand have been professing such sympathy for Canadian taxpayers, yet on the other are proposing that they be taxed even more heavily and indiscriminately, and who plead for greater efforts on job creation, and then call for the slashing of job-creation programs. When will the Official Opposition come clean and tell the people where they really stand?



FINANCE


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the House on Tuesday the Prime Minister stated a falsehood regarding federal government job-creation programs. He said:
There are some provinces, such as Prince Edward Island, where more money has been spent in the Conservative ridings than in the Liberal ridings.
The exact opposite is the case, demonstrating once again that the Government is more preoccupied with porkbarrelling than with the plight of Canada's 1.5 million unemployed. The truth is that initial allocations under the Canada Works and LEAD Programs favour the two Liberal-held ridings over the two Conservative-held ridings in P.E.I. by a factor of five to one, though the actual unemployment levels in the four ridings are roughly comparable. Specifically, the Liberal ridings of Egmont and Cardigan together received $4,734,000, while the two Progressive Conservative ridings of Malpeque and Hillsborough combined received only $866,00 under the two programs in question.
I urge the Government to cease using taxpayers' money for partisan and political purposes at the expense of the unemployed not only in P.E.I. but in every province and region of the country.
[DOT] (MIO)
[ Translation]



INDUSTRY


Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I heard yesterday on television that the Kaiser Company, an American aliminium producer, is now considering opening a branch in Quebec. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to inform the people of the Lac-Saint-Jean constituency that this would seem to provide a very good opportunity for the Quebec Government during the negociations they will have with the Kaiser Company with a view to supplying the electricity which a new plant will require, to assess the chances of this company locating in the Lac-Saint-Jean constituency, which, like the rest of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, has suffered from job losses in the aluminium industry due to the fact that Alcan has to modernize its operations. The hundreds of jobs lost in this industry, which is of the utmost importance for our area which has been known as the aluminium capital of the world for over 50 years, have resulted in a serious social problem in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. I hope that after sending the Pechiney Company to Becancour, the Province will give due consideration to this project and try to negociate an agreement with the Kaiser Company to have them locate their plant in our area, where we have all the harbour facilities required, where natural gas is being brought to us by the Canadian Government, and where we have readily available a manpower that is extremely knowledgeable in the aluminium industry, so that we may have our share of these billions of dollars in economic fall-out from the aluminium industry in Quebec.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, a very serious problem is arising in the area of agricultural research funding. A slow leak is emptying western agriculture's research pail. It is now at the point where the new $2.7 million Lacombe Meat Laboratory in my riding will probably be without staff butchers until April, 1984, even though it was ready to begin operations on November 25, 1983.
In 1983 there were 3,545 full-time employees working in the area of agricultural research. Of this number over half are employed in Quebec and Ontario. Twenty-six agricultural research jobs in Alberta have been transferred out of the Prairies by Ottawa. These, combined with reductions over the last decade, bring the total to 78. With another two research stations opening in central Canada, this could mean many more research jobs and funding lost from the Prairies.
February 9, 1984

When 80 per cent of Canada's farmland is in the West and 60 per cent of agricultural foreign exchange is earned by exports from the West, it is only reasonable to ask that fairness and equity be put back into the system and these percentages be considered when making funding decisions. It is vitally important that significant funding and researchers be replaced in the western region. Otherwise we are left with new research facilities but no researchers to man the stations.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to interrupt the Hon. Member.



FINANCE


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my statement today deals with what appears to be another question of government use of public funds for patronage reasons. The Minister of Employment and Immigration awarded Alliance Community Services of Toronto $585,000. This public money was found in the Employment Development Branch of the Minister's Department.
On January 5 of this year the Alliance Community Services opened their doors in Toronto despite the objections of every major Italian-Canadian interest group.
The coalition against the grant included: the National Italian Congress; National Canadian Benevolent Corporation; Centre for Italian Culture and Education; the Italian Canadian Business and Professional Association, and the existing service groups such as Costi, which have been providing excellent services to the Italian-Canadian community for over 30 years.
Those in favour of giving the money were the Vice-President of the Eglinton-Lawrence Liberal Association and the VicePresident of the York West Liberal Assocation.
In addition to those outside groups who were opposed, it appears as though the Minister's own Department recommended against giving this $500,000 plus grant.
The question that arises in the minds of most of us is how the Minister reaches the conclusion that two or three Liberal hacks should take precedence over the majority view of those who are most concerned in the matter of providing services.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Oral Questions.
________________________________________1225
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I want to make it clear that no one in this Party is opposed to the legitimate use of federal job-creation moneys to create legitimate jobs. What we are concerned about is the slushing of millions of dollars of federal money into Liberal ridings across Canada.


Mr. Regan:: Baloney!


Thomas Edward Siddon: We call for an end to this kind of waste and favouritism.
Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm a CTV news report which alleges that Liberal ridings were favoured for funding under the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program in the same manner as they were under the Special Employment Initiatives Program? Also, will the Minister table today a riding by riding breakdown of the scrapped SRCPP funding that has been disbursed already?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would think that Members have access to that information with respect to the special recovery program. 1 remember a long time ago, when I was Minister of Transport, that all these things were done very, very openly, and communiques were issued in each instance. I cannot see how this could be hidden in any way, shape or form.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: Good old smiles and chuckles.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will be glad to ask my friend, the new Minister of Transport, to send copies of these announcements at the time they are made.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER FURNISH LIST OF APPROVED PROJECTS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the information contained in the January 26 leaked Cabinet document does not agree with the kind of limited information to which the Minister refers. In fact this information confirms that in the prairie provinces, with relatively the same population as Quebec, almost half as much funding has been made available through the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program than is the case in the Province of Quebec.
I also have a briefing note here that lays out the answers the Ministers are expected to give to us in order to divert the question. The question is simply this: recognizing that the Canadian Construction Association projects that less than

February 9, 1984
Oral Questions
2,000 jobs would be created this year from these millions of dollars of spending, and recognizing that these funds are all being dumped into Liberal ridings, will the Minister undertake today to present in the House a list, on a riding by riding basis, of where these multi-millions of dollars are being spent on the capital recovery projects?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think I have heard the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance say that there would be a list published of the different programs which are aimed at reducing the number of unemployed in Canada. My hon. friend falls into the trap which is often fallen into, which is to believe that all programs of the Government must apply similarly to all provinces of Canada. That is not possible. It happens, for example, that funds for support of the grain industry in the West cannot be given for the support of the grain industry in the East because there is not such a great industry in the East.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said not of the same magnitude; I did not say there was not any grain in the East.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is very learned.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The only way to judge these matters is to look, as Mr. Clark would say, at the totality of the picture and see how, as a whole, the money supplied by the Government for the reduction of unemployment is balanced from coast to coast.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The Minister of bafflegab!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to the grain stabilization payments and the Crow rate. He should be able to confirm that Cabinet is counting the Crow benefit as an offset to the money that ought legitimately to be coming to the western provinces in lieu of capital projects money. That is a well known fact in Cabinet.


CONTRACT FOR POST-BUDGET TELEVISION PRESENTATION
Thomas Edward Siddon: Finally, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that, rather than putting money into real job creation, his counterpart, the Minister for Economic Development, has spent over $40,000 to produce one television footage for February 19-immediately following the Budget-in which he is going to present new initiatives, probably those to be revealed in the Budget? A company called Media Alternatives has the contract for this. And will he confirm that this is only a small part of the Government's total commitment to publicity in support of the Capital Projects Program, an orientation concerned more with publicity than creating real, permanent, and lasting jobs for Canadians?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow the question as well as I could.
My English is reasonably good, but in this particular instance I could not follow it. Perhaps the Prime Minister did. He is more bilingual than I am. I am going to read the "blues" after Question Period and I will bring the matter to the attention of whatever Minister is involved in whatever matter was raised by the hon. gentleman.


COST OF SIGNS ADVERTISING PROJECTS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. In his absence, I will address it to the Prime Minister or to the Acting Prime Minister, whomever is doing the acting over there. I have a document here which was freely given to me by the Minister's top officials, and I note that up until September 23, 1983, in excess of $300,000 has been spent on signs advertising various SRCPP projects across the country. As an example, 164 four by eight foot signs were purchased at a cost of $1,343 each. That was not the erected cost; that was just for the signs.
We contacted sign painters across Canada, and the most expensive sign we could get a price on, a super deluxe model, cost $600. Can the Prime Minister, or the Acting Prime Minister, explain why the Government has wasted thousands of dollars, paying $1,350 a piece for signs which should cost no more than $600?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I try to follow the logic of the debate which has been put forward by the Hon. Members opposite for the past several days, I feel they are complaining that they do not know about the programs, that only Liberals know about them. We are publishing signs, expensive ones, so that the Opposition can catch up with what is going on.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I will not bother the Prime Minister with a supplementary question. I will ask someone who might have an answer. I remind the Prime Minister that there is a lot of difference between a $600 sign and a $1,350 sign. You are wasting money, Mac.


STUDY OF ADVERTISING'S EFFECTIVENESS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development confirm that a firm called D. W. Hartford and Associates Ltd. was employed by the Government to study the effectiveness of the SRCPP advertising campaign? In other words, is the Minister using taxpayers' money to study his own propaganda?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me apologize for not being here when the first series of questions was asked. I found it curious that the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta, who has one of the most significant projects in his own riding, at the Vancouver International Airport-

February 9, 1984


Mr. McDermid:: Which should rightfully come under the Department of Transport Estimates.


Donald James Johnston: -has the extraordinary gall to stand up and criticize the program.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Minister replying to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it has been very much a part of the program to ensure that Canadians appreciate the benefits of the recovery which was announced in the Budget of the Minister of Finance last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The whole purpose of the program was to fill in that investment vacuum which, unfortunately, is still present in the private sector.
As we see construction sites springing up across this country from coast to coast-


John Carnell Crosbie: A grab bag of pork.


Donald James Johnston: -and when we see institutes like the Maritime Forestry Research Institute in the riding of the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury, let us hope that the private sector will be encouraged and stimulated to make investments to take advantage of the recovery-


John Horton McDermid: Bribe it with its own money.


Donald James Johnston: -which the Government has done so much at this point to bring about through this program, and the other recovery aspects of the April Budget.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister is aware that a year ago, under supreme pressure from his ministerial Advisory Committee, he indicated that the Pearse Report was behind the committee, and they would go on from there. Despite that confirmation, the Minister's Department is still coming up with proposals for vessel quotas, area licences, transferability of licences, and the privatization of the resource. In view of the total opposition to those concepts in the fishing industry, could the Minister indicate whom he is listening to in his consultations? Which fishermen are advocating a decimation of their industry in a situation where we could get into real estate transactions on the high seas and on British Columbia's watersheds?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is really out of touch because yesterday I did meet in Ottawa with over 100 fishermen from the Pacific Coast. They were unable to meet with
Oral Questions
Members of the provincial legislature in British Columbia and had to come to Ottawa to meet with their Members of Parliament. It was a very friendly and constructive meeting. They were so happy with that meeting that they proposed we have another meeting in Vancouver this weekend, and I have readily accepted that suggestion.
As I have told them, I am at this moment preparing a document for consideration by Cabinet. In order to be sure that I have not forgotten any option or issue, I have put before them a list of the whole spectrum of issues which are facing the Pacific fisheries, and I can report to Hon. Members that they agree I have not forgotten any of the different issues and options that will be considered in due course by Cabinet.


Edward Allan Miller: The Minister will be aware that his ministerial Advisory Committee has been meeting for a year, and the recommendations his Department has been putting forward to that committee have resulted in 125 fishermen coming from B.C. to reject the proposals which have been made by his Department.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE REPORTS AND DEPARTMENTAL PAPERS
Edward Allan Miller: A decision of the Fisheries and Forestry Committee was made this morning, after discussing issues with the same fishermen, to travel to British Columbia and again hear Firsthand from British Columbia fishermen. As well as meeting with his ministerial Advisory Committee this coming week, and with the Fishermen's Survival Coalition, is the Minister now prepared to table in the House of Commons the last options paper which his Department has prepared, the Pearse report, the Cruickshank report, and any other documents which might help the Fisheries and Forestry Committee to deal in an honest and open way with that fisheries crisis, so that we can bring some recommendations back to the Minister as well?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, all those documents, of course, are public, and it is up to the committee, and its steering committee, to make whatever decision they want. I am not going to dictate the agenda of the parliamentary committee. I have too much respect for my fellow Members of Parliament.


Edward Allan Miller: The Minister knows that we have been attempting to have these documents tabled in the House for some time so that the committee can deal with them. They have to be tabled before we can officially deal with those documents.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE LEGISLATION
Edward Allan Miller: In view of the concern that the B.C. fishing industry has, including the communities dependent on that industry, and businessmen and service industries, rather than bringing about major changes in the fishing industry in British Columbia through a one-day debate, as he did in the East Coast fishery under Bill C-138, will the

February 9, 1984
Oral Questions
Minister be prepared to table legislation so that we can deal with major changes of policy, so that we can protect the livelihood of British Columbia fishermen and their communities, and reflect the views of those communities rather than of the Minister, his advisers, and his Department?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, 1 would answer that by saying, not necessarily legislation, but if necessary. I do not want to commit myself to one option in preference to another.


THE BUDGET
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the arrangements for the presentation of the Budget Speech next week. The Minister of Finance wishes to lock up the press permanently, but in this case he suggested they be locked up before his speech in order to study the budget documents and that they be kept in the lockup for at least one hour thereafter, or until his speech to the House is concluded. The Press Gallery has rightly refused to accept this blatant attempt at censore-ship and news management.
I ask the Minister if new proposals are going to be made to the Press Gallery by the Department of Finance which will permit them to study the Budget documents, properly and release them, just as they were released on December 19, 1979, to report to and interpret for the Canadian people, or is the press to be prevented from properly reporting the coming Budget of February 15?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the Press Gallery about the arrangements which have been proposed. Full facilities will be made available for the Press Gallery to ensure that the Canadian people receive the maximum information about the Budget in the most expeditious and efficient way possible.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. It is hard to know whether the theme song of the Government is "Roll out the pork-barrel", or "I'm going to wash the press right out of my hair". There have been no arrangements made with the Press Gallery with respect to proper coverage of the budget speech which permits them to see the documents ahead of time. The Minister wants them to sign a document saying they will report nothing until he has transgressed upon the time of the Canadian people for one hour.
Perhaps I should ask this of the Prime Minister because he is well known for his warm relationship with the press. Will the Prime Minister intervene and direct his officials and the Minister to let the press out at eight o'clock, or whatever the hour is that the Minister starts his speech, so they can properly report the fantastic exploits of his Government as documented in the budget speech?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it the Opposition agrees with the idea of a lockup of the press, otherwise they would be complaining, as always, that there is a budget leak, and we obviously cannot give the budget documents to anyone before the budget hour.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is one now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, he agrees with the principle of the lockup, and I guess the rest of the matter is how long should it last. Therefore, his virtuous indignation about locking up and freedom of speech is just a matter of quantity, not quality.


John Carnell Crosbie: There has already been a leak. Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Peterborough.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


John Carnell Crosbie: 
NATIONAL REVENUE
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. We now have a system in Canada which allows Revenue Canada to consider a taxpayer guilty without a trial and then, with the Minister's blessing, proceed to garnishee salaries, seize bank accounts of children, seniors and the handicapped, and lock up businesses, without a trial. How does the Minister of Revenue justify the principle of guilty until proven innocent, which is against the most basic principles on which our whole Canadian system is founded?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to the fact that a taxpayer who has received a notice of assessment from the Department must pay even though he may have filed a notice of objection or decided to bring the matter before the court.
I would urge the Hon. Member to re-examine the provisions of the act which stipulate that the Minister must collect the taxes once an assessment notice has been issued, notwithstanding any notice of objection or appeal. Still, the Hon. Member will be glad to know that the practice of the Department is to
February 9, 1984

accept the guarantee of a third party, thus making it possible for a taxpayer not to pay anything, even after receiving a notice of assessment from the Department and deciding to appeal or file a notice of objection pursuant to the provisions of the act.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, that will be of little consolation to the many businesses across the country which have had their doors closed and employees laid off because they could not find such a third party. It is a lot easier for the Government to find the money than it is for the private sector today.


TAXPAYERS- COSTS IN APPEALING ASSESSMENTS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. There are in Toronto a couple of small independent dealers who have their backs to the wall because they were counting on getting $42,000 from the federal Government which a judge had awarded them for costs. The Government has the right to withhold the $42,000 pending many years of appeal. The Government can hold up payment of this money because it can afford lawyers and transcripts of trials, whereas the small independent, indeed the home-maker, cannot afford that expense because they do not have taxpayer dollars. What does the Minister say about this double standard we now have in Canada involving the Government versus the little guy?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to the Hon. Member that the Income Tax Act provisions are extremely strict, precisely to maintain the fairness of Canada's tax system. I should like to remind him as well that when we have special cases, for instance a company or an individual in a precarious financial situation, we review each case with a view to reaching an agreement to enable the company or the individual to get back on its or his feet and pay the taxes within a mutually acceptable period of time and thus preserve the fairness of the system under which income taxes are paid to Revenue Canada.
I think that the Hon. Member, perhaps on the basis of one or two isolated cases, grossly exaggerates the situation. Should he have specific cases to bring to my attention, I can give him every assurance that we will look into the particular circumstances he will explain to us and that the Department is quite prepared to give any company or individual an opportunity to pay the taxes owing within reasonable limits, while, at the same time, enabling the party concerned to remain financially solvent.
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree with me that allocation of job-creation funds by his Government appears to be a function of Liberal survival, not human need, and that neither opposition MPs nor civil servants are consulted in some programs? For example, would the Prime Minister look into the program in Giffard, a suburb of Quebec City, where $300,000 was given to a judo club without, we understand, the Civil Service even approving it?


Mr. Duclos:: That's wrong!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot from across the aisle these past weeks about the Minister not involving himself and his Department. Now I hear that the civil servants are not involved enough. I do not make any sense out of that logic, Mr. Speaker.


METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING FUNDS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase the question in a more personal way. Perhaps the Prime Minister could help me understand, as someone who favours job creation and Government involvement but who sees a job creation program, sections of it-not the Canada Works which is fair-where opposition MPs are not consulted and the bureaucracy is not consulted. We gave examples of Senator Argue's $4 million slush fund in Saskatchewan, an example from Toronto, and now an example from Quebec City. Is this really fair and equitable? Is this a decent way of having a real job-creation fund in our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is citing specific examples. He mentioned Saskatchewan yesterday and I said I would look into it and ask the Minister. Now he has mentioned one in Quebec City. These are specific cases and I do not know about them, Mr. Speaker. I do know that the last Budget put something like $4.8 billion into job creation of various kinds. Some of this was used to build infrastructure, some for direct job creation, and some for retraining.
As I said a few days ago, 15 Departments or so are involved in the spending of these funds. The Minister for External Relations quite correctly said earlier that one would have to look at the use of these very considerable funds and see if they were spent inequitably across the country or if they were indeed spent to create jobs by direct job creation, retraining, or by infrastructure projects. I do not have them all in my head. If the Hon. Member wants to put questions on the Order

February 9, 1984
Oral Questions
Paper or give notice, I will take note of the particular cases he brings forward and see if they indeed appear justified or not.
Returning to my earlier answer, I fail to understand the idea that Senator Argue, who is a member of the Cabinet, would not have some authority in spending these funds. It is the Government's mandate to make sure that the moneys are spent. Most of the time we need the help of the Civil Service. If a case is so clear that it can be dealt with directly, I do not see anything obnoxious in that, providing it is done with the objective of the law and the Budget in mind, which is to create jobs in a fair way.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Many Canadian women and children are living in difficult situations because the courts are not enforcing maintenance orders against husbands. Can the Minister say whether any progress is being made in his consultations with the provinces on this matter?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend indicated in her question, there is a fair share of provincial responsibility in this matter. It would not be telling any secrets out of court to indicate that in recent years the provinces have not been very forthcoming with respect to proposals to end the problem. As far as the federal Government is concerned, it is prepared to accept in principle the notion of a national register of divorce orders and other ancillary orders, such as maintenance, custody, and other provincial orders. As a result of discussions between Deputy Attorneys General in the last two days, I believe considerable progress has been made in moving in this direction.
I would like to pay particular tribute to my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, for helping to break the logjam. I think the logjam has been broken. Within some months we will perhaps be able to look forward to the establishment of such a program.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the fact that there have been as many killings and stabbings in the federal penitentiaries in the Kingston area during the first month of this year as there were in the whole of last year. Custodial officers, rehabilitative agencies, and the crown prosecutor of Frontenac County all claim the situation is out of control. What assurance is there to anyone in the system, or indeed in the community, that this increasing violence is going to be contained?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. lady that I am very concerned about the situation in the penitentiaries in the Kingston area. A short time ago I asked to have a special inquiry established within the Correctional Service of Canada, through the normal mechanisms. That special inquiry will, hopefully, begin within the next few days. I have just approved the terms of reference in the last week.
I am looking forward to a very intensive study being done of the causes of disorder in such institutions to try to get to the bottom of the situation and see if it is possible, in places where very dangerous people are incarcerated for very long periods of time, to reduce the number of violent incidents that have been occurring.


NATURE OF VIOLENCE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Solicitor General indicate whether this inquiry will have included in its terms of reference any assessment of the changing nature of violence within the penitentiary system? I am sure he is aware of that. Is that assessment included? If not, will he take a look at the terms of reference again to see that it is included?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon. Member what she means by "changing nature of violence" within the institutions. That will be one of the matters that will be looked into. I would not want to put as a premise of the inquiry that there is a change in the nature of the violence in the institutions.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Nova Scotia's fishing industry has now been restructured without the federal Government holding controlling interest as planned by the architect of the Kirby Commission, who was rewarded for his efforts with a seat in the Senate. What effect will the restructuring change in Nova Scotia have relative to the over-all Atlantic fisheries restructuring program, especially as the plan relates to the scallop fleet based at Riverport, Nova Scotia? At Riverport two ships have already been sold, and the balance of the fleet is now in doubt. Will the Minister inform us about that particular situation?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the decision of Cabinet has been to find new private investors. It was only when the private investors failed to come forward that the Government of Nova Scotia, the Government of Canada, and the Bank of Nova Scotia made the agreement in Port Hawkesbury last September. It was only in December
February 9, 1984

that some minority shareholders decided to put forward an initiative. They knew for over a year of the problems of nationalization, but up until then they suspended making any gesture. The reason the private sector proposal succeeded is that the federal Government helped them improve their offer and convinced the bank to accept their proposal. We have played the most important role in having the private sector solution accepted by the banks.
As for the scallop fleet, the agreement which has been reached between all the different parties is that part of that fleet will belong to the Newfoundland company. The jobs will be based in Nova Scotia, as they have been in the past. Conversely, the Nova Scotia company will have several plants in Newfoundland and will be creating jobs in Newfoundland. Both companies will have assets in each province.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer.


SALT FISH MARKETS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister and is in regard to another area. Due to the decrease in Canada's share of the world salt fish markets, which are seriously depressed at present, fishermen have diverted their catches to the fresh fish market in New England, thereby creating a pricing problem for all fish. Is the Minister aware of this situation? If so, what steps, if any, is he planning to take to improve markets for Canada's salt fish in order to diversify our marketing opportunities and assist our Fishing industry through this difficult economic period?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking what I am ready to do to improve the markets for salt cod. I am very proud to report to the Hon. Member that recently I led a delegation of businessmen to Portugal. Due to our representations, and my insistance, Portugal has decided, for the First time, to consider Canada as its major source for imports of salt cod. Fifty-five per cent of its domestic needs will be filled by Canada. This is really a breakthrough.


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Flealth and Welfare. As the Minister knows, the National Council on Welfare issued a report entitled "Sixty-Five and Older", which affirms what we have known for some period of time. It is that 60 per cent of all elderly women who live alone are living in poverty, in so much as they qualify on the GIS. While the report reminds us of that, the Minister has known for the last three or four
Oral Questions
years-as long as I have been here-that that condition exists. Will the Minister advise the House what she intends to do to alleviate that poverty of those single elderly women, both in the short term and the long term?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the best as possible, as soon as possible.


Neil Young: That is not a satisfactory answer at all, and it will be of no comfort to those women who are looking for some help in this rather serious situation.


REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF CANADA PENSION PLAN
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Pension Reform and the Minister have indicated in the past that what is really needed is an expansion of the Canada-Que-bec Pension Plan so that those elderly Canadians can be assured a fair share of Canada's wealth. I will ask the Minister again when she will come to the House to give us a timetable that she intends to follow in order to bring an improvement to the public pension plan system, so that those elderly Canadians who need help the most will receive it.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is referring speciFically to the report of the parliamentary task force, as he seems to be in his second question, I think he knows that this is being studied by the Government. We intend, as we have always said, to proceed as rapidly as possible.


INCIDENCE OF BIRTH DEFECTS IN WEST TORONTO
Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She is aware of the report in today's Globe and Mail of a high incidence of incorrectible birth defects in West Toronto. Has her Department any data to substantiate the findings, and in view of the dangerously speculative nature of the conclusions will her Department conduct its own investigation into this very tragic phenomenon?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, a priori, when a study of a health nature concludes that there is a race basis for any of its findings, we are, if I may say, doubly careful. We have not received the data on that from the Ontario Ministry of Health. We requested it today. I will make a point of carefully studying the exact way the study was conducted, the size of the sampling and the exact geographic area, to see if the conclusions are valid or not.

February 9, 1984
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


SUBCOMMITTEE STUDY OF SEXUALLY ABUSIVE BROADCASTING
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that a special subcommittee on sexually abusive broadcasting went into limbo at the conclusion of the last session of Parliament on December 6, and since I can assure the President of the Privy Council that every member of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture wants to see that subcommittee reactivated at once, would he give his commitment to the House to deal with whatever technicality is necessary to get that subcommittee, which is so very important to many Canadians, back into action?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I take due note of the representations made by the Hon. Member. He understands that the committee is master of its own decisions.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In 1981, Emergency Planning Canada published a booklet entitled "Eleven Steps to Survival". In the booklet there is advice on how to avoid the effects of nuclear bomb explosions, including the advice which says "a fall-out shelter is the best way to protect you and your family". Is it government advice and policy that every Canadian should have a fall-out shelter and emergency supplies in the event of a nuclear catastrophe?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that booklet was issued by Emergency Planning Canada. That comes under the responsibility of the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West.


Gary Michael Gurbin: A supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member bear in mind the numbers on his side who are seeking to be recognized?


PROTECTION AGAINST NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. I would like him to answer the first question I asked of the Minister of National Defence. Is it government advice and policy that every Canadian have a fall-out shelter to protect them against a nuclear catastrophe? If that is not his policy, how would he rationalize the provision of fall-out shelters and the expensive special measures that have been taken to protect a very elite and special group within Governments and the Civil Service in the event of a nuclear explosion?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government of Canada is to provide Canadians with the best protection possible in all situations of major disasters in the country, obviously including a nuclear disaster.
I have said before that it is unlikely that many Canadians would survive a catastrophic nuclear disaster. That is why we believe it is even more important to support those like the Prime Minister of Canada who are trying their best to make sure that the great powers sit down together and talk about disarmament. That is the best defence possible. But that does not prevent us from trying to bring the best protection possible to the country for those, if any, who would survive a catastrophic nuclear disaster.


FINANCE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will recall that a couple of days ago we were raising the issue of the special employment initiatives projects. My office has been phoning Manpower offices across the country during the last couple of days to find out information about it. No one returns our calls. In fact we have discovered that there was a telex sent after Question Period on Tuesday, telling people to refer matters to the Minister's office only. It smacks of a cover-up. Was the Prime Minister involved in the decision to send that telex, or were officials from the Prime Minister's office involved in the decision to send that telex?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I hear of that alleged telex. Once again, I put to the Hon. Member my same sense of astonishment. They want the Ministers to be involved. When the Ministers are involved, they complain. They blame the Minister of National Revenue for not involving himself enough, and they blame other Ministers for involving themselves too much. I do not understand the track of mind that is being followed.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. He will be aware that we have raised the question of the phoney NEPS testing of mail certified delivery that has been used to give the impression to the public that mail in Canada is delivered on time. He may be aware that another testing
February 9, 1984

system has now been instituted. Is he aware that that testing system is just as unrealistic, improper, as easily followed and easily distorted as the NEPS system?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a point of debate since the Canada Post Corporation officials consider that their mail quality control system was tested by independent firms from outside the corporation and that it was found valid, not only by these independent firms, but also by postal users who were asked to participate in the control process.
The Hon. Member is entitled not to believe in the effectiveness of the system, but that is a point of debate between the Canada Post Corporation and himself.


FINANCE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that Canada Works grants are not given on the basis of Liberal Party politics. The other day my office received an envelope addressed to me, containing a letter to Mr. Ken Jones, President of the Liberal Association, White Rock, B.C. It reads in part:
To keep you informed of the intent and progress of this program I am sending you a copy of the grant proposal and program brochure. I am also enclosing in this mailing a two page description of the Canada Works proposal we have submitted ... If I can be of any help in providing further information on these programs, please feel free to call me-
If Liberal Party politics has nothing to do with Canada Works Programs, why is it necessary on the part of the applicants to lobby the President of the Liberal Association?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have to swallow twice in order to understand the sense of such a question.
Our business as Members of Parliament and as politicians is to get our constituents and the people of Canada to look for the programs in the Budget, in departmental agencies or in various policies put forward by the Government. That is why people on this side of the House, Members of Parliament, diligently write this kind of letter so that constituents know that there are funds available, that there are retraining programs available, that there are unemployment programs available, or that there is a medicare program. We do our job on this side. We even buy signs so that people know about things. We even take out advertising so the people can know about them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of the House


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have heard ad nauseam allegations from that side of the House about cover-up, about the people having a right to know, about this Government keeping everything in hiding, and when we tell our constituents about the programs of the Government, about the benefits of the Budget, we find this kind of question. I am amazed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table the financial statements of the Parliamentary Restaurant-which I would call to the attention of Hon. Members are not a laughing matter-together with the Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, February 8, 1984 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader what the business will be for tomorrow and for next Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, if he can take us that far?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will commence debate on Bill C-9. The back-up Bill is Bill C-10. On Monday we will, if need be, resume debate on Bill C-9, the back-up Bill still being Bill C-10. Tuesday will be an Opposition day and I hereby designate next Tuesday as an Opposition day.
On Wednesday, depending upon the hour of the Budget, the time of the speech on the Budget, we will resume debate on either Bill C-9 or Bill C-10, in that order. Next Thursday will be the first day of debate on the Budget.
In so far as the hour of the Budget is concerned, I understand that the preference of the Opposition is to allow the Minister of Finance to deliver his speech in the evening,

February 9, 1984
The Governor General-Designate
around eight o'clock, I suppose. I have mentioned that to the Minister of Finance. He is considering it and will be in a position to make his announcement tomorrow after Question Period.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the House Leader for that information. He is aware, as all of us are, that the traditional hour for the delivery of the Budget is eight o'clock in the evening, but because of our provisional rules, when the last Budget was delivered it, of course, had to receive the consent of the House. I say to the Government House Leader now so it might assist his planning that we on this side are pleased to consent in advance to the Budget being delivered at eight o'clock next Wednesday evening.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this offer of co-operation. But we must also weigh the old traditions against the new spirit of parliamentary reform and the elimination of night sittings. On the other hand, I said earlier that we are very flexible. I want however, to hear from the Minister of Finance. If the Budget is not to be delivered at eight o'clock, we will not need consent to have the speech at three o'clock after Question Period. As I said previously, the Minister of Finance will make his decision between now and tomorrow and he will be informing this House of it at about noon tomorrow.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give consent at the moment until I hear exactly what the Minister of Finance has in mind. In discussing the matter with my colleagues, we are not absolutely clear yet why we would want to have the Budget delivered at eight o'clock at night, although we did discuss it, I admit to that.


Erik Nielsen: It has always been at eight o'clock at night.


Ian Deans: Therefore, I would like to hear some reason that we ought to have the Budget delivered at 8 p.m. rather than during the normal sitting hours of the House.


Erik Nielsen: It has always been at eight o'clock at night.


Mr. Speaker:: Three Hon. Members have given me notice of matters. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans, and the Minister of Labour, I believe, who wants to make a statement.


THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-DESIGNATE
[Stage Direction]
EXPRESSION OF GOOD WISHES TO HON. JEANNE SAUVfe
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to you for permitting me to express a concern which I am sure is shared by every Member of this House of Commons. We have been deeply concerned for a long time about the health of our former Speaker, Madam Jeanne Sauve. We are sorry about the ill health she suffered here and the ill health she has suffered since being appointed Governor General-designate. We were very pleased
to hear the report from the CBC last evening to the effect that good progress is being made and that there is now hope that very soon her health will be fully restored.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We welcome the report of the CBC, we welcome the news here. We wish to do everything we can for her to help her achieve good health. We wish her the very best. God bless her.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of the entire House of Commons, I will be pleased to transmit these good wishes to Madam Sauve.


FINANCE
Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period yesterday and even today, the NPD Members for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) yesterday, and for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) today, have suggested that a grant given in my constituency to a recreational organization from the Giffard sector in the City of Beauport was awarded without the required authorizations from the Job Creation Branch of the Department of Employment and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deny as forcefully as possible such falsehoods as are being peddled by these Members.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his statement. I must say that he did not have a genuine question of privilege, but rather a point of order. However, he has made his statement and I know that all of us have understood what he said.
The Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet).


PRIVILEGE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the remarks made last Monday by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) concerning the alleged misconduct of a Canada Post officer which resulted in what the Hon. Member called "an attempt to inhibit my freedom of speech in this chamber". Those words can be found on page 1102 of Hansard.
The main thrust of the Hon. Member's intervention dealt with the allegation that he had been threatened by an official of Canada Post. I promised, if you recall, to look into this
February 9, 1984

matter and report to the House at the earliest opportunity. I have done that, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to share my findings with you and Hon. Members today.
First, I have discovered that the Hon. Member for Peace River at no time had talked directly with the officer of Canada Post. The matter raised by the Hon. Member is based entirely on conversations between the Member's assistant and the officer at Canada Post. In other words, the allegations of the Hon. Member are based on the interpretation of his assistant of a conversation with an officer of Canada Post.
I have personally been in communication with this officer and have been assured that at no time during the conversation were any threats made which could have conceivably inhibited the Hon. Member from performing his role as a spokesman of the Official Opposition or which could deny co-operation from Canada Post.
I can testify that the officer in question has worked in the President's office for two years and deals with requests and inquiries from MPs on both sides of the House, Senators and the general public. Not once in those two years has this officer's professionalism been questioned in what is often a difficult and demanding position. To be described by the Hon. Member for Peace River as being abusive, threatening to a Member of Parliament, unco-operative to the point of being obstructive and showing contempt for Parliament-all of these accusations on hearsay because, I repeat, the Member never spoke directly with the officer in question-is in my view undeserved and unwarranted.
I honestly think, in light of the explanation I have received, that there is absolutely no ground to the allegation of the Hon. Member for Peace River that his privilege as a parliamentarian has been breached.
In closing, as Minister responsible for Canada Post I can assure the Hon. Member and all other Hon. Members opposite that they will continue to have the fullest co-operation from Canada Post, particularly the Hon. Member in his duty as critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and other Members as they make representations from time to time on behalf of their constituents.


Erik Nielsen: On this point, Mr. Speaker, you will recall when the matter was first raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) that I suggested to the Chair the prudent course to follow might well be for the Minister to make inquiries and report back to the House, which he has now done. I would suggest to the Chair that the prudent course we might now follow, in view of the Minister's explanation, is to allow the Hon. Member for Peace River an opportunity to study, when Hansard is printed tomorrow, the response of the Minister. If at all necessary after that study, we may or may not deal with the matter again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), with his usal reasonableness, has made an eminently sensible suggestion. I am happy to accept it.
Point of Order-Mr. Duclos


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Sincerely, it is a reasonable suggestion.


FINANCE
Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, 1 seek your guidance. A while ago I raised a point of order and you did not allow me to correct unfounded allegations made by a Member of the New Democratic Party. I would like to know why I was not given the opportunity to correct fully those false allegations.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member rose; it was not on a question of privilege, nor indeed did he suggest that it was a question of privilege. It was hardly a point of order. It is a matter of debate. The Hon. Member said that he categorically denied the accusations. The Chair very carefully did not interrupt until he had put some very clear statements on the record. He was entitled to set the facts straight.
I think the Hansard record will disclose that the Hon. Member categorically denied the accusations and said that they were false. I presume he would repeat that. In the circumstances, the Chair would hope that this obvious difference between Hon. Members, which is not unique, might now be left in abeyance. The Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) will have a chance to examine Hansard. He may well want to raise the matter in some other form or some other way before the House or before one of the committees.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: On the same point of order, I was accused of making an allegation, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at Hansard on page-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to please tell me whether he is rising on a question of privilege or raising a point of order. What does he want to do?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans has suggested that I said something.


Mr. Speaker:: No, at this point the Chair would like to proceed.

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Pelletier



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which was signed by 281 people from the federal riding of Yorkton-Melville. It concerns opposition to the testing of the Cruise missile. Perhaps it is appropriate that one should table this petition today after the excellent speeches we heard in the House this morning. Their concern arises out of the fact that we are doing this because we are meeting a request of the United States administration, not a request of NATO.
Wherefore the undersigned call upon the Government of Canada to permit a free vote in the House of Commons in order that Members of Parliament from all Parties may vote according to their beliefs on the Cruise missile testing issue and not in accordance with Party lines.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate my two colleagues who moved and seconded the motion on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, I also wish to offer our new Governor General Designate, Mrs. Sauve, my best wishes for a speedy recovery, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said today, and I hope we shall see her again very soon.
Mr. Speaker, during this short speech I would like to touch on four subjects, namely, cartography, the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, a regional economic summit in the Eastern Townships and the creation of a Ministry of Youth.
Mr. Speaker, the announcement about cartography made by the Hon. Jean Chretien, on January 30 this year was received with great satisfaction in Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships, especially since the people of Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships have been waiting seven years for this project to materialize. I shall not go into the details of the matter which caused me many sleepless nights and kept me very busy, but I would like to thank my colleagues from the Eastern Townships-the local ministers who supervised this project-and I
am referring to the Member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), and especially the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, for their tireless dedication to this plan and for the understanding they showed for the wishes of the people of Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships and the work they have done.
Mr. Speaker, although this announcement does not necessarily guarantee economic development over the next few decades, it will provide our region with an element that will be very important to its industrial restructuration. Cartography, as I imagine most people will know, is a high technology industry, and the Cartography Institute to be located in our area within the next few years will be one of the most advanced of its kind in the world. About 100 cartographers will relocate from the National Capital to the Eastern Townships, while more than 300 cartographers will be recruited in Sherbrooke which may provide some interesting openings for graduates of our local educational establishments. Investments of over $75 million, the purchase of ultra modern equipment and an annual wage bill of more than $15 million means that the Cartography Institute will become one of the major employers and industries in my riding.
In the months to come, we shall be informing people, through the various service clubs, about the Cartography Institute and what it will mean for Sherbrooke. An information centre will be opened shortly, and also a recruiting centre, where accommodation leased on a temporary basis will be available to train future cartographers. One of the most interesting aspects of the announcement made by Mr. Chretien last week is the relationship that will be established between the new Institute and the University of Sherbrooke and Bishop's University, because of the proximity of these two institutions of higher learning. The new Cartography Institute will thus be able to establish useful contacts with various faculties, including the Faculty of Arts, through the Department of Geography, the Faculty of Applied Sciences and the Faculty of Natural Sciences. This co-operative relationship with our local institutions will benefit our universities, university students, professors, research scientists and future cartographers.
Mr. Speaker, this project has been the most important one I have worked for in the course of my political career. I am very pleased with the announcement and I appreciate the perseverance of the Government and the Ministers with whom I discussed the project, and the Government's firm resolve, from the outset, to pursue its excellent program for decentralizing federal services to the provinces. The transfer of cartography to Sherbrooke marks the end of the second and final phase of the Government's decentralization plan. Personally, I am convinced that I am echoing the wishes of the great majority of Sherbrooke and Eastern Townships residents when I say that the site of the future building of the mapping branch will be chosen at the earliest possible time and that construction of the new facilities will begin in the very near future.
February 9, 1984

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, the creation of which was announced by the Prime Minister of Canada on October 26, 1981. The CIRB's mandate was to help restructure, consolidate and modernize the textile and clothing industries, to renew the economic base of communities heavily dependent on those industries and most likely to be affected by the gradual liberalization of world trade. With that in mind, a regional industrial renewal program spread over two years at least was established to make it possible to reach those specific goals. None of the seven designated regions of Canada was able to benefit from the program during the first year because that is the time it took to recruit a competent work group to analyze the various files, carry out surveys in various sectors and, of course, complete expert studies in order to draw up industrial strategies for each of the seven Canadian regions selected.
In the case of the Sherbrooke-Magog region, that study was not made public until November 24, 1982, when the Gaucher Pringle consulting firm unveiled its economic analysis of the Sherbrooke-Magog region and recommended an industrial renewal strategy based on the development and promotion of high technology industries in the fields of microelectronics, metal and plastic processing, and medicine related undertakings. In other words, the designated regions did benefit from the program-although during barely one year rather than two-and in fact it has been only ten months or so since our regions have been in a position to avail themselves of this special program.
There are obvious advantages accruing from the CIRB program as compared with the new Industrial and Regional Development Program. These advantages are as follows: The groundwork done by the officials of ITC-DREE is concerned with all Canadian Provinces, while the studies made by CIRB officials is concerned only with the seven designated regions, namely Cornwall, Hawkesbury, Trois-Rivieres, Shawinigan, Victoriaville and Plessisville, Valleyfield, Drummondville and Sherbrooke-Magog. Indeed, the Federal Government is making a more generous contribution under the CIRB program than under the IRDP, as the former allows for grants to be made for the purchase of industrial land and for the payment of pre-production costs and joint services, while the second provides assistance merely for capital expenditures and equipment costs when an investment project is being considered. The CIRB program also covers a more interesting field of intervention since grant offers may be made to business concerns, which would not be the case with IRDP.
The CIRB Board of Directors, which have full jurisdiction over offers for the implementation of projects, make their decisions very quickly, and this, of course, is much more convenient for the industries than the methods used under the IRDP. This was the case for the Tie Communications Company and Travenol, which set up plants in Sherbrooke recently.
Finally, a payment may be made by the CIRB with less than 25 per cent of the assets being required, while, under the new program developed by the Department, no payment may
The Address-Mr. Pelletier
be made until 30 days after commercial operations have started. For certain projects, this means very high additional interest costs in cases where several months elapse between the acquisition of the equipment, its installation and the beginning of production.
Since the CIRB regional program was implemented on April 8, 1982, the Sherbrooke-Magog area has had about twenty industrial projects accepted, which could create nearly 700 jobs and generate over 55 million dollars in investment, a remarkale achievement in view of the present economic situation. These projects partially compensate for the 1,300 jobs lost in Sherbrooke and Magog during the last two years in the textile, clothing and shoe industries.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, the City of Sherbrooke and the City of Magog are asking the Canadian Government to maintain for at least another two years their designation as special CIRB zones so that the industrial renewal efforts can be kept up in areas so dependent upon the textile, clothing and shoe industries, which have suffered more than others from the permanent job losses in this sector during the last two years.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on January 24, I stated the following in this House:
Together with my colleagues from the Eastern Townships, we urge the Canadian Government to consider as soon as possible a request submitted by the City of Sherbrooke and the City of Magog to have this outstanding program, which has helped our region to make remarkable progress in a period of economic difficulty, extended for at least two years.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the Minister in charge is now in the House. I know that he is listening closely to what I say. To support my case even more, I point out that the editor of La Tribune recently published an article entitled "CIRB better than Lotto 6/49". He said, and I quote:
If the CIRB program were extended for a few years, other major industries, such as Tie Communications, could locate in the region and give it an orientation which, by its very nature, would incite other electronics companies to settle here.
I recently received a letter which was sent to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It came from the Chairman of the Sherbrooke Chamber of Commerce, who said the following:
The efforts of the various economic agents in the Sherbrooke and Magog areas in the last two years were beginning to pay big dividends with the implementation of the CIRB program. We fear that cancellation of this program could greatly reduce the impact and the results of these efforts. We hope that you will give special attention to our request and that the extension of the CIRB program will be announced shortly. With this in mind, Mr. Prime Minister, we shall be happy to welcome you in Sherbrooke to make this announcement.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Government will consider this legitimate request from our area to maintain an excellent program which, according to all local economic agents, is certainly the best program that has been developed by the Federal Government in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to say a few words about the Regional Economic Summit to be held in Sherbrooke, probably next November. I should like first of all to refer to remarks which I made in this House on November 7, 1981 and in which I suggested a regional economic summit, and I quote:
1238

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Pelletier
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a good way to co-ordinate the economic policies that I mentioned earlier, would be to hold an economic conference on the area in question. At the first stage, we could hold a meeting in Sherbrooke, and at the second stage extend it to the whole region and in this manner we could exercise a greater pressure on the different levels of governments.
Let us first agree on the priorities, the directions at the Sherbrooke level, let us examine the specifics of action. When this is done, we can invite the greater area of the Eastern Townships to join us in a common development effort, because the economic development of the Sherbrooke area is very closely linked to that of the Eastern Townships, and vice versa. That economic summit, in addition to enabling us to see what the situation is and determine the directions to follow, will also enable us to establish the major priorities for the area over the next few years. 1 submit that this is essential. In the last few years, we had economic summits in our area on the textile, footwear and furniture industries, therefore an economic summit would enable us to know the state of all industries in Sherbrooke and give us the opportunity to decide on the direction we want to follow for our area.
Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 1983, the Parti Quebecois' Eastern Township Caucus in a press conference announced that an economic summit would be held towards the end of 1984. And after announcing that summit, the president of the Council of P.Q. MLAs for the Eastern Townships during that press conference recalled, among other things, the origins and the reason for the economic summits, the formula for which, she said, had been developed by the Quebec Government and successfully tried in a number of regions.
Mr. Speaker, in November 1983 I received a letter from the Minister responsible for the area, the Honourable Raynald Frechette. In that letter, dated November 11, 1983, he said: "For your information, I would like to indicate that the members of that Committee", he was referring to the Steering Committee of that economic summit, "will be elective representatives, businessmen, people with decision power in their areas, people with recognized impact in their community."
He proposed in particular that the Steering Committee of that economic summit should include 28 persons from the region. In a letter I sent him in early January, I humbly submitted two proposals: First, that Members of Parliament for the area have two seats, and second, that members of the National Assembly also have two seats. But unfortunately, that was not accepted, and he recently wrote and I quote: "The 24 members at that meeting reviewed the proposals included in your letter, and after discussion unanimously decided to accept neither of the two proposals."
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state, concerning that Regional Economic Summit, that Members of Parliament for the Eastern Townships will be represented, because we are given one seat. My regret, however, is that as things now stand, the Regional PQ Caucus of MLA for the Eastern Townships would have two seats, and the four Liberal Members in the National Assembly have not been invited.
It seems to me that they could have copied what was done in other Quebec regions, for instance in the area of my colleague for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) who was co-chairman, with a Minister from the National Assembly, at the De Lanaudiere Economic Summit. And all participating MPs and MLAs took part in the discussions at that Economic Summit. For instance, the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), who is not a Liberal, and the Hon. Member for Terrebonne, as elected
representatives of the area, took part in their Economic Summit. Currently, Liberal Members of the National Assembly for the Eastern Townships are not invited. It is my hope, since we are at the early organizing stage of that Economic Summit, that Members of the Steering Committee will look at that aspect and ensure that all elected representatives for the Eastern Townships, whatever the level of Government, either MLAs or MPs also are invited to take part at that year-end Summit. For my part, I want to assure the organizers of that summit that federal members from Eastern Quebec will be there, that they will participate actively and that we will co-operate as much as we can in order to make a true success of this crucial economic summit.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch very briefly on an issue which in my view is certainly the most serious in Canada right now, that is unemployment, especially among youth. I recognize at the outset that the youth unemployment problem in Canada is not any easier to cope with than in any other country, and that the situation in this regard is still more dramatic in other areas of Canada than in my region. Youth unemployment is a social tragedy in Canada. We cannot allow these great talents to be lost in forced inactivity and anxiety about the future. For our country, for the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, energies lost today could be very costly if we do not endeavour right now to do everything possible in order to alleviate the situation and help young people who are looking for jobs, who want to work but cannot do so because of the present situation of the economy and also in many cases because of the very structure of the labour force.
At this point, I would like to extend special thanks to the Cabinet for having created a Ministry of State for Youth. Obviously, the Department of Youth will not solve all problems related to unemployment among young Canadians; however, this department will certainly help young people organize themselves and make representations to the government about programs that should be extended or created for them. Every week we have a great number of young people coming to our riding offices to ask us to do everything that we can in order to solve the problem of unemployment which affects them more severely than other segment of the population.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I still have four pages of my speech left, but unfortunately, I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allocated to him has expired. Questions and comments.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke express his concerns about unemployment. For the record, I wonder if he would indicate the extent of his concern. This week, in Ottawa, a large number of fishermen from the West Coast of British Columbia attempted to lobby him. Would he be prepared to state in the House whether he received that lobby and whether he made any commitment to contact the Minister or make any presentation in the House concerning the plight of the fishermen? An
February 9, 1984

extremely large problem with respect to unemployment is going to develop as a result of the Government's approach to this matter. Would he be able to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before allowing the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke to comment on that question, 1 must once again, as 1 have previously, draw to the Hon. Member's attention that questions and comments must relate to the specific matters raised in an Hon. Member's speech. I appreciate that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is touching generally on the question of unemployment, but he specifically raises an issue which was not touched upon in the speech of the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke. However, I will allow the question in this instance.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe 1 can tell the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) that I in fact met with a delegation of fishermen from British Columbia yesterday. They were in my office for about half an hour. We discussed the whole issue. I told them that I would talk with the Minister about the problem they raised. I have read the different pieces of information they sent to me previous to their visit. The meeting was very cordial. I told them, having worked with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) when he was the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and as the Chairman of the Committee on Regional Economic Expansion, 1 feel that the Minister is surely one of the most openminded Ministers I know. 1 told them that the question of the B.C. fisheries was very much discussed in our caucus, and that their representations could not but help resolve the problem. I am not saying it will be resolved to the satisfaction of all, but one thing is sure, their message was heard by government Members and will definitely be passed on to the Minister.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have just a comment on that. I certainly wish to express my appreciation as a Member of Parliament from the West Coast for the Hon. Member's attention to this matter. There were some Hon. Members whose time schedule did not permit this to happen. However, certainly, I, as a Member from that area, appreciate the time and energy which the Hon. Member opposite spent on this matter and I respect his assurance that he will attempt to keep this matter foremost and will honour the commitments he made to this group.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I cannot help but make an additional comment to the one I made previously. This is obviously a case of the introduction of a totally new subject matter into the debate, having nothing at all to do with previous Hon. Member's speech. In the future, I will be more careful before allowing responses to that type of question. Debate.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend the few minutes I have at my disposal to talk about a subject which 1 believe is very important to the fabric of our country. Some months ago I was appointed by our Leader to
The Address-Mr. Murta
take on the responsibility of spokesperson on multiculturalism for the Conservative Party. I found it to be a wonderful experience, Mr. Speaker, travelling across the country and meeting with various individuals and groups from all different ethnic and cultural communities. In doing so, I personally have made a lot of new friends I would not have known otherwise.
I would like to say to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, that one of the greatest strengths of this country is our diversity, the fact that most of us come from some place else. We bring this diversity not only to the House of Commons but, more important, to the country itself. It gives us the kind of quality and flavour which Canada is known for throughout most of the world. We come from many lands. We have different backgrounds, different languages, different customs, different colours, and while that makes us individual, it also makes us strong. When we have learned to work together, to respect each other, to truly understand each other, we become truly strong and in that context, Mr. Speaker, we become truly Canadians.
The Canadian people generally look to their Government for leadership. They view their Government in most cases as a reflection of themselves, and in some cases a reflection of their own particular communities. In this context, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the whole question of multiculturalism and how far we have come in that area since 1971. As we all know, the Department of Multiculturalism was set up in 1971 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). However, it surprised me as I travelled across the country and talked with people to find that there is still a remarkable lack of awareness within the general population as to the goals and objectives of the Department of Multiculturalism, even after some 13 years. What appears to have happened, Mr. Speaker, under successive Governments, mainly Liberal Governments, since 1971 is that the whole thrust of multiculturalism has been relegated to tokenism, mainly because it has not been a priority of Government, although it has been given lip service. More important, Mr. Speaker, it has not been given an adequate budget.
As most of us know, the Ministry of State for Multiculturalism is part of the Department of the Secretary of State. The budget of the Department of the Secretary of State, not including the funds and grants it gives, is between $200 million and $300 million. Multiculturalism, of course, is tucked into the Department of the Secretary of State. It started off with a budget of around $10 million, and the projected budget for the coming year will be in the neighbourhood of $18 million to $20 million. Because the budget of the Department of Multiculturalism is so small, and because that Department is included in the larger Department of the Secretary of State, it is a forgotten sector and has been a forgotten sector within the Government itself. As a result of that, people across the country-and I believe rightfully so-feel that the whole area of multiculturalism, and the eight million to ten million people other than English and French, have been relegated to the area of tokenism primarily for votes at election time.
In effect, what one hears as one crosses the country is that the ethnic cultural community in Canada is wooed a few

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Murta
months before election time-and we are seeing some of that at the present time-and it is largely, although not completely, forgotten a few months after the election is over. This viewpoint is repeated over and over again, Mr. Speaker, as one talks with various people across the country. The present Directorate of the Department of Multiculturalism is generally viewed as too political. The feeling is that what is needed is a department which deals with multicultural issues in a committed and meaningful way. The present directorate does not do that.
The Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker, must change its ways, and not only for demographic reasons. I mentioned the size of the multicultural community we are dealing with. From a demographic point of view, it is one-third of the total population of Canada. We must ensure that a comprehensive multicultural policy is accorded the national status it deserves. Canadians of every heritage have a right to expect no less from their federal Government. Canadians of various ethno-cultural backgrounds want to participate in a meaningful way at all levels of society. They do not at present and they feel they are blocked from moving into the senior levels of the private sector or of government, whether it be agencies, Departments or Crown corporations. They feel cheated of their rightful place in Canada. We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that Canadians of every race, colour, religion and cultural heritage should have an equal opportunity to achieve their full potential in any area of endeavour they might choose. That has to be one of the basic points of a multicultural policy in this country. We must promote tolerance and respect for those who share various cultural heritages and values. That is not always done.
Multiculturalism is not a concept thought up by bureaucrats and sociologists. It is a central fact of Canadian life. One third of all Canadians have neither a French nor an English heritage, but recognition of this fact has been very grudging. Cultural communities are not adequately represented in the senior Public Service, on boards, commissions or Crown corporations. There is an almost complete absence of visible minority individuals at senior levels of all aspects of Canadian life. Government insensitivity to a new cultural reality in Canada has gone unnoticed for too long. This is not going to be allowed to continue.
The Present Government's lack of commitment is shown by the repeated denial of requests for a Ministry of Multiculturalism with an independent budget. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are going to change this when we form the next government. Canadians from all backgrounds are going to be asked to particpate more vigorously at all levels of government, because in many cases it is government which has to lead the way and show the rest of the country what is fair and equitable. If we as government, responsible for the taxpayers' money and responsible for managing the affairs of this country, cannot be fair and objective, then we certainly have no room to criticize anyone else for doing the same thing.
Some people have become cynical because of what they perceive to be political manipulation. The Liberal Government sees multiculturalism as a political tool and not a social reality. That must change. Multiculturalism has to be looked at as a social reality, not something through which to garner votes. A full Ministry of Multiculturalism must be implemented so the Minister can have the same input around the Cabinet table, so Government can be sensitized to the needs of this large community. Equal opportunity must become a way of life and a central tenet of government policy. Any and all barriers to full participation by members of any particular heritage group must be removed. All cultural communities must be made welcome in the political process. We must make all Canadians aware of their contribution to our country by members of the various cultural communities. We must make government agencies and policymakers aware of the particular needs and aspirations of the cultural communities.
Something which comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Employment and Immigration and its regulations which affect these communities across the country. Most important, the cultural communities must be brought into the decision-making process and given the opportunity to compete on an equal basis with all Canadians. All anyone can ask for is to be able to compete on an equal basis with all Canadians. We should tighten up the Criminal Code concerning racial discrimination. The visible minorities must be allowed a greater role in the media in the portrayal of their community on television. There is much evidence to indicate that the visible minorities in this country really have no part to play in the media, hence the feeling of alienation, discrimination and isolation. We could and should make it as easy as possible for new Canadians to integrate into Canadian society. The integration must take place and the facilities must be there and made available.
Coupled with all this, Mr. Speaker, is the unique problem many immigrant women have in not only learning the language but, if they are a single parent, in caring for a child while they go out to earn a living. These special problems and special needs must be addressed. Having conferences and paying lip-service to the problem is not enough. We must look to strengthening the Human Rights Act in the area of discrimination and dissemination of hate literature. We as parliamentarians can strengthen that Act. The Government should look to hiring and training counsellors in dealing with the special problems of the visible minority community, people with a sensitivity which is not always displayed by those who have to deal with the public. We could also use Governor in Council appointments to increase the number of visible minorities on federal boards and commissions if they are qualified. That is all anyone asks for. But it is not happening in a sufficient number of cases. We could work with the provincial Governments to help sensitize the public school system to demonstrate tolerance, something not always there at the present time. The federal bureaucracy, through a new ministry, could accomplish many of these things I have mentioned.
February 9, 1984

In summary, Mr. Speaker, Canada is viewed as a great, fair and open country. People of all backgrounds, languages, colour and religion want to come here because we are viewed as being as fair and open as a country possibly can be. We have that quality, Mr. Speaker, because we are made up of many parts. We are diversified but we are still Canadians. We want to retain the best of our own culture and language, but we also want to be Canadian. We have achieved that. We can do much more by starting not to pay only political lip-service to the question of multiculturalism, but rather by dealing with it in a way in which we would deal with most other aspects of life, that is, dealing with it on a rational, objective and fair basis and bringing people of various backgrounds with various ideas into the centre of the decision-making process. That would not only be good for our organizations, boards and Parliament, but it would be good for Canada and every community in this country.


Mr. Hudecki:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement first and then ask a question. I know the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) well enough to know that he would not want to leave the impression, which he is leaving, as to the contribution the policy of multiculturalism is making. In my own riding many of the suggestions he has put forward have materialized. In my riding there is a central office in which there is a very adequate library staffed by a person knowledgeable in a number of cultures. It focuses on people of various ethnic origins. There are satellite offices in which counselling is carried out to help people with income tax and immigration problems. There are a number of courses at the local schools which are subsidized under the multicultural plan which reinforce various language studies. Annually there is a festival in which various multicultural groups are able to manifest the products of their hard work and cultural achievements. Until recently there was a very adequate newspaper published which was quite widely distributed. It contained pertinent information concerning various groups. That included the Afro-Car-ribean group, the various Eastern European groups and so on. One of the problems is that there is not necessarily great growth because so many of these people later become integrated into the society as a whole.
What areas did the Member cover in his investigation? If a riding is not adequately represented, multi-culturalism is not properly expressed and the policy not properly utilized, it is a reflection of a shortcoming in the Member representing that riding.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member, who is a very good personal friend of mine, by saying that many of the things to which he has alluded, of course, take place throughout various parts of the country. In Manitoba we have Folklorama, which is a large multicultural festival which takes place during the summer. In Manitoba we also have the International Centre, which is doing a fabulous job in terms of education and help for new immigrants to the country. We as Canadians have found that the question of
The Address-Mr. Evans
multi-cultural functions, such as songs and dances, are really not now an issue at all. It happens every year and is good for Canada and the people who are involved.
As I speak with various ethno-cultural groups across the country I am finding that they want more than the songs and dances which we have traditionally been talking about. There is necessity for more than language training for new Canadians arriving in this country. The multicultural community in this country wants a greater say in the operations of Canada. In total they make up about 30 to 35 per cent of our total population. They are telling me that, provided they are qualified and have the ability and mobility, they want to assume a rightful place in the management of this country. In effect they are saying they have grown up, matured and want to be like everyone else. Mr. Speaker, on boards and agencies in this country, which the Government sets up, people of visible minorities are not present. It is the sensitization that we lack. My contention is that if a full ministry were introduced and funded properly it would be able to do that and would have a very positive impact in this country.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the House on many occasions about economic matters because I had some responsibility in the past in that area and also because it is an area of great interest to me. I have tried to make some contribution to my constituents and the people of Canada in that area. Today I would like to follow up on the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) speech. I have been very impressed with the initiatives which the Prime Minister has taken, as all Members of the House have been, as was expressed today by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). It is a matter of non-partisan concern of the highest order that we look at the current world situation and, as a country, encourage our Leaders to do as much as possible.
I would like to address the question of what we as Canadians can do to prevent the increasing threat of nuclear war. I believe that the Prime Minister's peace initiative has demonstrated to citizens of this country, and indeed to world leaders abroad, the seriousness of the present situation and has put forward some concrete steps which must be taken to reduce the uncertainty of the present political climate. We must think in terms other than personal security and human survival. We must think in terms of the quality of life in the world and what it would mean to that quality of life if we could eliminate the arms race and reduce the threat of nuclear and other arms. It is clear that we could alleviate many of the world's economic and social problems if we could divert the vast wealth that is being spent annually on the arms race, and nuclear armaments in particular, to other more productive purposes.
The amount spent on nuclear and conventional arms this and last year is somewhere in the range of $700 billion. Obviously this money could be used more productively and certainly less destructively, both in the developed and undeveloped world. In nations like Canada, the money could be used for industrial restructuring that we all know is needed,

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Evans
job creation and training programs for which our young people are certainly in dire need, for housing and the war on poverty. All of this could be done in our country.
In underdeveloped countries, these funds could be used to raise the world's poor above the poverty level. In those terms alone we should be looking actively at ways of de-escalating the arms race. We can be speaking in terms other than the world threat that nuclear arms present to us.
Canada has been a prominent and a very active participant in many international efforts for arms control and I believe we must continue to build on our record. That is certainly what the Prime Minister's initiative is intended to do.
As the Prime Minister stated at the first United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1978, Canada was the first nation in the post-war period with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so. The Prime Minister mentioned that in his speech today. We were the first nuclear armed country which chose to divest itself of nuclear weapons and we have maintained a non-nuclear role for our United Nations forces in Europe and our NATO forces as well.
Canada has been active in its support for a comprehensive test ban treaty, an extended non-proliferation treaty and steps to prevent the militarization of space. These are all matters which the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech this morning. Our participation in negotiations on arms control and disarmament in such international forums as the United Nations General Assembly, U.N. committees and NATO has demonstrated our commitment to peace and security in an interdependent world.
However, the past few years have witnessed a significant deterioration in the international political climate. The recent deployment of the Pershing II and Cruise missiles in Europe, as part of NATO's two track response to the deployment of the Soviet Union's SS-20s and more recently their more advanced missiles, has greatly exacerbated East-West tensions. We have since witnessed the suspension of high level political dialogue between the superpowers on issues of arms control and disarmament, as demonstrated by the breakdown of the INF and START negotiations, as well as the MBFR talks. The only sign of political discussion on these issues is the Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe, which commenced in Stockholm at the end of January.
The Prime Minister, among others, has called for politicization of these talks, and righfully so. As a result, the conference provided an opportunity for foreign ministers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and neutral and non-aligned countries to resume negotiations and rebuild international confidence. I know that we all have a great hope that these discussions will lead to a fruitful conclusion.
It is in this increasingly unstable international environment that the Prime Minister's peace initiative must be placed. In lauching his initiative, the Prime Minister has called for a "third rail of high level political energy to speed the course of
agreement", and I have noted today that certain of the nuclear disarmament groups in Canada have swung on side and are now supporting the Prime Minister's third rail initiative.
At the Williamsburg Summit in 1983, the leaders of the Western industrialized nations stated:
We commit ourselves to devote our full political resources to reducing the threat of war. We have a vision of a world in which the shadow of war has been lifted from all mankind, and we are determined to pursue that vision.
The Prime Minister, as one of the participants of the Summit, has indeed taken concrete political action to this end. The Canadian peace plan also demonstrates the need for the leaders of middle powers, not simply the two superpowers or the five nuclear armed powers, to become inolved in the search for peace.
Since 1945, the world has witnessed a terrifying proliferation of nuclear arms with increased capacity for destruction. After the first atomic bomb we have seen the development of thermo nuclear weapons, ICBM fleets, submarine-launched Cruise missiles, independently targeted multiple warheads, and if we do not stop this chain of destruction we will soon see antisatellite systems in space.
While technical capabilities have increased, I do not think that there has been a concomitant development in the political purpose governing the development and use of these weapons. It seems that nuclear strategists have been able to divorce successfully nuclear military strategy from both political objectives and social reality to the point where they find it possible to discuss the concept of a winnable or protracted nuclear war.
There is no such thing as escalation dominance. Unless we succeed in de-escalating world tensions and stopping the momentum of the arms race, we will not see escalation dominance but rather, mutually assured destruction-apocalypse now.
As the Prime Minister has stated, "casting a fresh linkage of military strategy with, and subordinate to"-which is very important-"strong political purpose must become the highest priority of East and West alike".
Robert McNamara, the former U.S. Secretary of Defence, has written an article in which he expresses similar concerns. He asserts in fact that nuclear weapons can serve no military purpose at all except to deter one's opponents from using them. He questions whether there is any issue, any conflict which could possibly justify the use of nuclear weapons in a confrontation. I confess that I cannot conceive of any situation which would warrant such a response, and I believe that any military or defence strategies pursued must take these factors into account.
As a member of the NATO Alliance, Canada recognizes the legitimate security needs of our allies. We must ensure that steps are taken to safeguard our collective security but that these steps do not in fact end up endangering it.
Throughout history, it seems, war is not solely the response of nations reacting to a direct and present danger. Often, military preparedness itself leads to war. Given the lack of
February 9, 1984

confidence, the mistrust that exists today, we must strive to ensure that the lower nuclear threshold and increased potential for destruction that exist today do not and never will result in the deployment of nuclear weapons in a super-power confrontation.
It was with great interest and perhaps with some degree of coincidence that last night on the PBS television system in the United States, on Bill Moyers' program A Walk Through the Twentieth Century, he discussed how weapons development has changed the face of the world and the concept and notion of war. He mentioned that, indeed, the man who has given us the Nobel Peace Prize was the man who invented dynamite, with the notion at that time that dynamite had such horrendous potential for destruction that it would never be used but would be a force to stop and end war.
Carrying on into the early 1900s, we saw the change that has taken place in the concept of war just in the last half century. Prior to the invention of the machine-gun, war was thought to be a chivalrous activity in which combatants alone were involved and killing took place between military forces of combatants in which civilians were not involved.
The invention and application of the machine-gun was the beginning of the depersonalization of war. He showed how the application of the machine-gun changed the notion of war from being a chivalrous act-which it never was-to one where an individual using a piece of mechanized equipment could literally kill thousands of people without seeing their faces, knowing their names or realizing what they stood for or were trying to achieve.
As the machine-gun depersonalized war, the next stage in the evolution of depersonalization during the First World War was the application of the second element of destruction, namely, the submarine and the use of that submarine in the sinking of civilian vessels, such as the Lusitania where over 1,000 men, women and children, all non-combatants, were killed by the use of a torpedo, with no other purpose in terms of the impact that it might have on the war. Civilians were killed indiscriminately by a piece of mechanized equipment. That piece of equipment was thought to be of such horrible destructive power that it would never be used and that it would bring an end to war.
The third phase to war was the invention and the application of the airplane. That really brought about the ultimate depersonalization of war in the last part of the First World War and certainly later in the Second World War. Literally millions and millions of human beings were destroyed, civilians, noncombatants, by the application of a high technology item.
When we think the First World War was called the war to end all wars and then think of what happened during the Second World War when millions of people died at the hands of machines manned by individual who had no concept, no notion, of the terrible force which they unleashed on human beings, they were simply using a piece of equipment, it seems to me that that program brought home even more forcefully
The Address-Mr. Evans
the futility of looking for the ultimate weapon to end all war. There is no such weapon, Mr. Speaker. There is no weapon that will end the terrible destruction of war. It just makes it more terrible indeed. By depersonalizing war it removes, as the Prime Minister was trying to say in a much more deep historical sense, the element of politics from war, because we do not confront individuals in a battle situation any longer; we confront machines and the machines confront people. That depersonalization has made the risks of all-out war much, much higher than ever before.
It was pointed out that the Second World War was the first war in which more civilians were killed than combatants. In the First World War the numbers were about even. In the Second World War, 16 million combatants were killed and 34 million civilians were killed. The estimates of a third World War in the ludicrous context of a limited nuclear war would be somewhere in the range of 300 million or more killed, over 90 per cent of whom would be civilians. These would be people with no interest in the war, no desire for war, just innocent victims of a nonsensical approach of trying to solve the world's problems.
It is unacceptable. All of us in the House believe it is unacceptable. It seems to me we have to devote every effort we can to ensuring that that never comes about. It might be thought that each weapon advance-we are seeing it now and we are hearing about it and with it the testing of additional weapons, will take us to a high level of deterrence. But it does not. It does not take us to a higher level of deterrence. Contrary to the fervent belief of inventors and the fervent belief of those who would escalate the arms race, each advance has not put an end to war. It has only made war increasingly more terrible, to the point now that if we use just the limited number of weapons we have, we could virtually ensure the destruction of mankind, ensure the destruction of life on earth as we know it. The lunacy of this has gone far beyond the point to which we should have ever let it go in the first place.
The vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, the growing hostility of the superpowers and a deep understanding of history have prompted the Prime Minister to put forth proposals designed to avert such a threat. In his visits with world leaders, East and West alike, he has received support for his efforts. He has called for the establishment of a global forum for negotiations which will include the five nuclear powers and an extension and strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The initiative has included suggestions for raising the nuclear threshold in Europe through a mutually acceptable balance of conventional forces at reduced levels. Other proposals include the suffocation of the development of new weapons systems, a ban on anti-satellite systems in space, and improved verification procedures, including mobility restrictions on ICBMs. Perhaps most important, the Prime Minister has emphasized the need for an injection of political will, to bring back once again political control over the system, because the essence of politics is human interaction. That, it seems to me, is the historical evolution that has occurred over the years since the early

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Evans
1900s. We have increasingly not only depoliticized the whole military and industrial structure but we have depoliticized the notion, the concept, of war, and that has to be undone.
When Lester B. Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, he stated that in a nuclear age, nations must choose between peace and extinction. Never in the course of human history has the choice been as stark as it is today. It is only when we recognize that nuclear weapons are not like other weapons in any way, shape or form, that we can begin to act upon the choice which has to be made. Nuclear weapons cannot be used to achieve strategic political goals; their only role is to provide a secure and effective deterrent, and that can only be done as we reduce their use and their availability to zero, combined with an enhanced role for conventional forces. I believe the United States and the Soviet Union will have to realize that there is no alternative to peaceful coexistence on this planet.
In closing I would like to quote again from the United Nations First Special Session on Disarmament in 1978. The passage reads:
Removing the threat of a world war-a nuclear war-is the most acute and urgent task of the present day. Mankind is confronted with a choice: we must halt the arms race and proceed to disarmament or face annihilation.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, that was a very important speech made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). In my comments I would like to endorse the efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in any effort that can bring this globe closer to peace. However, I have some problems. Would the Hon. Member address the following three areas? It is very difficult for anyone to accept as serious and sincere a peace initiative when there is a hint of hypocrisy in it, when the Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in the House, approve testing of the Cruise missile in Canada in light of the fact that the Prime Minister at a special conference on disarmament advocated a suffocation mechanism that would prohibit the testing of such a weapon by any nation. It is difficult to comprehend that hypocrisy.
Second, the Liberals and Conservatives joined together to stop a vote on a motion to make Canada a nuclear free zone. The import of that motion would have been that we as a country would have stopped building components for nuclear weapons systems, which would in fact have given us greater credibility in an international context.
There has been an appeal by middle nations to have the Prime Minister and this country become involved in the Central American conflict in such a way that we could provide greater aid to those nations which need assistance, such as Nicaragua, and that we could use our influence in a stronger and more effective way to bring the combatants to the bargaining table in El Salvador. Yet the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada appear to want to provide material which can be used by the armed forces of nations that are creating or escalating the conflict in Central America.
Why are we testing the Cruise missile when we know that hypocrisy erodes our credibility in the world? Why are we continuing to make components for nuclear weapons? Why are Canadians not far more extensively involved in Central America to create some peace and stability there through negotiations and effective aid to nations which require it?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, let me try to address myself to those three questions. First, with regard to Cruise missile testing, I think all of us would much prefer that there be no more development of nuclear weapons of any kind or nuclear weapons delivery systems, which is what this particular case is. However, I think we have to look at it from the perspective that if there is to be an ability for us and the Prime Minister to play a role in the negotiations and to have credibility with our NATO allies, as well as establishing credibility with those in the Eastern Bloc, we have to be considered as, and seen to be, a stable partner in the NATO alliance. It is in that context that the Cruise decision has to be seen. Without a decision of that nature, it would be very difficult for the Prime Minister to have made the gains he has made with our western allies, or if we were seen as less than a full partner in the Western Alliance.
At the same time the Prime Minister has made overtures toward the East, supported by people in the House, which make him a credible spokesman on that side of the Iron Curtain as well. It is a fine balancing act. I truly believe that the Cruise missile testing position was a critical element in maintaining or establishing that fine balance. It placed the Prime Minister in the position to undertake the kinds of initiatives he has undertaken up to this point and which, hopefully, he will undertake in the future with great success. That has more to say about the Cruise missile decision than anything else that has been said in the House in the past.
With regard to a nuclear free zone, that motion was a Private Member's motion. Indeed, we wanted to have that motion debated in the House of Commons. In fact, we had to give unanimous consent to allow it to be debated, and we gave it. However, at the time we gave unanimous consent there was no debate. No one stood up to debate the issues. It would seem to me that it would be rather foolish for Hon. Members of the House, with a piece of paper in front of them, to vote in favour of something when the mover of the motion did not rise to explain what the motion was all about or what he wanted to do. The mover of the motion sat on his hands in the corner and did not rise. It was an immediate vote without any debate or discussion. It was not unreasonable, when the mover would not even debate his own motion, simply to vote against it.
I might add that there is another motion-and I think it is in the form of a Bill-which says almost precisely the same thing, on the Order Paper. When that motion comes before us in Private Members' Hour, I hope we will have a chance to debate the issues and we will not have a situation where individual Members do not rise to debate it. Turning to Central America-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
February 9, 1984


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, if 1 heard the Hon. Member correctly, toward the end of his speech I either heard some brave new words or some arrant nonsense. I thought I heard the Member say that we should seek to depoliticize the concept of war. I wonder whether he has thought about what that means, or did he mean that we should depoliticize the concept of peace? I am not sure what he had in mind. It is really a strange collection of thoughts. I do not think wars are fought for anything but political reasons.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has totally misinterpreted or misunderstood what I said. In fact it was just the opposite. 1 said that we had to repoliticize because, as I said in my speech, the advent of machines of war have removed the political element from war in the sense of politics being the resolution of problems between human beings. With the mechanization of war, the resolution of problems does not come down to a face to face issue of resolving the difficulties. It comes down simply to throwing massive elements of destruction back and forth between groups of people who know nothing about each other. That is what I meant, that it had been depoliticized by machine elements of war over the years to the ultimate extreme where we now have the capability of throwing one piece of equipment and destroying millions of people in a megasecond. That is total depoliticization of the concept of conflict resolution. We have to repoliticize it so that we start to resolve these conflicts by human interaction and by reason rather than through the application of mechanical means of destruction and death.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciated the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). He almost dealt with my third question, which I think is vitally important. I wonder whether unanimous consent might be given to allow him one more minute in which to finish his answer on Central America.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary has another minute and a half in which to respond, if he so pleases.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will be very honest and frank with the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I am not as fully apprised of the Government's activities and positions in various elements of Central America as perhaps I would like to be or as perhaps he is. It certainly seems to me, from my understanding of discussions I have had with the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), that our position as a Government is to try to reduce the tensions, to not provide arms to combatants in those countries, and to put that position forward to the United States and others who are supplying weapons to those combatants. Certainly from my understanding that is the approach the Government has put forward. Perhaps we could be doing more. Certianly I would very much appreciate hearing debate, as I have in the past, on what we could do in Central America.
I know the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) has a great deal of experience in that area. I have enjoyed and
The Address-Mr. St. Germain appreciated some of his comments about his travels. Also I know that an all-Party committee of three Members of the House went down there to look at the situation during our last recess. I admit that my education has to be greatly enhanced in that area, but my understanding of Government policy is that it is not as inconsistent with the Hon. Member's desires as perhaps his question would have led some Members of the House to believe.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my maiden speech, it is a great honour to rise in the House today and respond to the Speech from the Throne. Just over four months ago, I had the privilege of being led into the House by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). That day is one I will never forget.
In representing Mission-Port Moody, I follow in the steps of a Fine man, a conscientious, hard-working Member of Parliament. His efforts and his dedication to the people of Mission-Port Moody and Canada represent to me a great challenge and a real incentive to work hard. Mark Rose and I certainly do not share the same political philosophy, but we do share the same concerns, concern over the massive and devastating unemployment in Mission-Port Moody and the rest of Canada, and concern over the neglect our area has suffered in recent years.
I want to tell you about my riding of Mission-Port Moody, Mr. Speaker, so that all Members of the House can understand not only the plight of our area but the tremendous potential that it has as well.
My riding of Mission-Port Moody is a beautiful part of the British Columbia lower mainland on the north shore of the Fraser River. Most of the 120,000 people in my riding live in communities along the Fraser River running from Port Moddy, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Whonnock, Ruskin, Mission, Deroche, right out to Harrison Mills.
From the suburdan residential area of Port Coquitlam to the famed Sasquatch-inhabited forests of Harrison Valley, the people of Mission-Port Moody share the same patriotism for their nation and the same hopes and dreams for their families as the rest of Canadians. Our area is blessed with the natural beauty and bountiful resources that British Columbia is so well known for, but we are also plagued with unemployment and hardship that is gripping our nation. Unemployment is the single greatest issue concerning the people of Mission-Port Moody. It was that issue that dominated the by-election campaign following which I was elected. It is this issue that is in the mind of every citizen in my riding today.
Hopes have been dashed and dreams have been stifled because of unemployment. Discontent is growing and anger is in the feeling and in the hearts of my constituents. They are angry, not at me. They are angry at the Government opposite because they know that Government intervention, economic mismanagement and corrupt neglect have led to our current difficulties. However, their anger has fired their resolve to

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. St. Germain bring about change. They want to end the instability. They want to stop the corruption. They want to repair the damage and restore the confidence in our system of government.
That is why I am in this House. On August 29 the people of Mission-Port Moody demonstrated their desire for change. In fact, the momentum for change right across Canada started in Mission-Port Moody on August 29. Canadians are no longer willing to sacrifice opportunity. They realize the potential that is ours and they are going to rid our nation of the Government that has prevented us from realizing that potential.
The potential of Mission-Port Moody lies in the resource industries that have traditionally created the prosperity in Canada-forestry, fishing and farming. These are also industries which have been hardest hit over the last three years. The Government opposite has simply ignored these vital sectors. Instead of making important decisions to preserve our fish stocks, to replant our forests and to allow our farmers to continue farming, the Government has allowed neglect to drive these resource industries into difficulty. The Throne Speech perpetuates the Government's attitude of neglect toward the important resource-based industries. This speech, which is supposedly the Government's blueprint for the future, merely pays lip-service to the resource industries that built our country, generated our wealth and created our high standard of living.
About the dying Pacific fishery, this Government says that the problems of this industry require attention; nothing more specific. There is nothing to offer any hope to the fishermen of my riding, who met at a conference last month to plan a way to survive. Meanwhile, the Pearse Commission report, be it good or bad, gathers dust on a shelf as the Government refuses to make any decisions on Dr. Pearse's recommendations. Their only decision is the decision to continue ignoring the plight of West Coast fishermen.
The same is true of the forest industry, which is so vital to the riding of Mission-Port Moody and to all Canadians. Forestry is by far the most significant employer in my area. There are 45 sawmills. The lumber mills, shingle and shake mills, seedling nurseries and other private sector service industries create the jobs and generate the wealth in my riding, and they are spread right across the country.
Surely the Government knows that our forests must be farmed, and not mined. Forestry is our most important renewable resource, yet we have not been renewing our forests for future generations. Unplanted areas are swiftly overtaking our forests. New forests are not being planted because the Government opposite cannot reach agreement with the provinces to spend federal dollars on what is clearly a national as well as a provincial resource. If Canada's greatest farm, our natural forests, are not managed and harvested properly and replanted immediately, we will see our forest industry die.
There was mention in the Throne Speech of a conservation corps that will be involved in forestry renewal, but what about the $130 million promised to the provinces last year by the Minister responsible for the Canadian forestry service? Where has that money gone? Has it gone into a slush fund? It has
disappeared. Only 4 per cent of forest revenues are required to do a proper job of forest renewal. Replanting the backlogged areas would create 100,000 jobs. This would enable the forest industry to prosper in future years and to continue providing the kind of wealth that allows Canada to maintain a high standard of living.
At the same time this Government should be making a real commitment to research and development in the wood products field. If we are to realize the full potential of our forests, we must find less expensive ways to produce more from a single log. There are signs that Canada's plywood industry is becoming an antiquated industry. The cost of producing veneer plywood is too high. The waste involved in milling a log is also an area of concern. This is a reality. The plywood industry will be gone, and we have no replacement for it. New technology can provide us with the ingenuity to utilize traditional wood wastes and produce chipboards, resin-based hardboards and other wood products that can replace plywood and other costly traditional products. If we do not adapt new technologies to our resource industries and if we do not apply new methods of production to the processing and upgrading of these resources, we will see these industries die a slow death. If our forest industry dies, the resulting number of unemployed will be in the hundreds of thousands. The effects will be felt from one coast to another. This is the reality the Government opposite refuses to recognize.
We must ask why this Government has ignored the resource-based industries of western Canada. Why has it attacked the oil and gas industry? Why has it neglected the forest industry? Why has it mismanaged the West Coast fisheries industry? The answer, Mr. Speaker, lies in the Government's attitude toward Canada. Canada is one nation where success is promoted through our freedom to realize our individual hopes and dreams. Unity is not something a government can impose; it is something we all must work to achieve. That is what Canada is all about. Canadians, in whatever part of the country they live, want to be treated fairly. They want to have the same opportunities and the same chances. They are united behind the common goal that our pioneering forefathers dreamed of-the goal of survival in a harsh land and success from hard work.
We united out of necessity. A confederation exists because each region of this nation has something to offer. Each region offers opportunities. Each region offers resources. That is Canada-a confederation of regions, not a coalition of special interest groups.
The Government looks at Canada as a nation of different special groups. Each region or special interest group is treated differently by the Government, according entirely to political expediency. Interests are manipulated. Some regions are catered to, others are ignored, all in the name of success at the polls. Nationally unity is an abstract concept that the Government attempts to impose when all else fails.
February 9, 1984

The Speech from the Throne provides further evidence of the Government's destructive attitude. The Government makes overtures to virtually every special interest group in the country. Small promises here and smaller promises there, all based on one objective-political expediency.
There are promises of studies, grants for studies and grants for studying grants for studies. This is the Government's answer to Canada's problems. Study the problem and maybe it will go away. And, if it does not, then identify a special group interested in the problem and fund it so it becomes dependent on you and then it can no longer make the problem public.
These are not answers, Mr. Speaker. These are tactics- tactics aimed at perpetuating the life of an arrogant, uncaring, incompetent, destructive government.
The Government talks in the Throne Speech about starting to build on our regional strengths. How can it be serious, Mr. Speaker? This is the same group of wreckers that destroyed federal-provincial relations. It was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who declared that co-operative federalism was dead. Now, in a last ditch attempt to restore its political credibility, the Government opposite talks about resurrecting co-operative federalism. It promises in the Throne Speech to launch a new era of federal-provincial planning and consultation. This is just another one of its hollow promises-promises it does not keep, promises on which it backtracks.
The people of Mission-Port Moody do not want special treatment. They do not want to be catered to like some special interest group. They do not want Liberal Government handouts or giant bailouts. They just want to be treated with a degree of fairness and equity. They want to be represented in the House and in the other place by responsive individuals who are committed to fostering national unity, encouraging growth and development and promoting freedom and prosperity.
The people of Mission-Port Moody, like all the people of Canada, want a government to deliver a Speech from the Throne that makes commitments and not hollow promises. They want a commitment to restore confidence in our national economy. They want to see an incentive-based tax system that encourages investments and risk taking. They want the real engine of growth, the private sector, to be given half a chance. They want the bureaucratic barriers and blockades removed so that small businesses, the champions of job creation, can provide permanent full-time jobs.
Canadians want a government that will encourage research and development by offering tax incentives to businesses. They want to see new technologies adapted to our resource-based industries and our manufacturing industries to increase productivity and enhance quality. They want to see a government that rewards hard work and sacrifice, instead of taxing success and redistributing wealth. They want to see a government that will maintain our precious health care system, rather than a government that attempts to undermine the system by reneging on its commitments. They want to see a government that provides opportunities for our young people through quality education in the vocational and technical disciplines as well as the academic ones.
Canadians in every part of our country want a government that offers some hope, Mr. Speaker. How can the people of
The Address-Mr. St. Germain
Mission-Port Moody or the people of any other area of Canada have hope if 1.5 million people do not have jobs? And how, Mr. Speaker, can people have jobs if the Government of the day is intent on controlling every aspect of our economy?
Our history has shown that if Canadians are given a free hand, they have the will and they have the way to achieve important goals. I talked earlier about our inherent desire to maintain our unity through a commitment to success and achievement. This success, this achievement, has been a national success achieved by the regions of our country, in the regions of our country, by the people of those regions. The regions are strong Mr. Speaker, but so is the desire to work together as Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a descendant of the two founding races of our great country, and I am particularly proud of my French Canadian origins. Although I have not spoken French for over 30 years, I venture to say a few words in this House in a language which means a lot to me. I have witnessed the strength of national unity in the community where I lived. Having lived in a French Canadian community outside Quebec, I have had many opportunities to realize that success transcends cultural and linguistic barriers. I have seen a nation put aside their regional interests and work together as Canadians to build and develop our country. As a Progressive Conservative member, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work towards reaching an agreement with Quebec and Manitoba in order to protect the rights of linguistic minorities and our two official languages and thus build a truly bilingual country.

Canadians have an identity, and as individuals they have strong ideals and values. They do not want their lives controlled by government or their ideals established by one political philosophy. They do not want a group of pseudointellectuals to instruct them on how our nation should evolve. They know that these elitist intellectuals cannot tell them what to read or what to watch on the media.
I have faith, Mr. Speaker, in Canadians. I have faith in our nation as one united country from ocean to ocean. I know that Canadians will find a way to restore prosperity in Canada. I only hope that it happens soon, because people are suffering.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Members opposite look at the words in the Speech from the Throne and ask themselves what hope these words offer, as the grips of winter take over our great land, to those millions of Canadians who have not had the opportunity to earn a living in months or whose families are suffering because a father, a brother, a sister or a mother, have exhausted their unemployment benefits?
Let those Members opposite and the Government, which is largely responsible for the plight of the jobless, reflect in silence during this very crucial time.

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. St. Germain


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order! The speech of the Hon. Member will be followed by a 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) on a maiden speech, which, in spite of some differences in philosophy, proposals and analysis, was a pleasure to listen to. It was well delivered, apart from matters of political philosophy. I appreciate his kind remarks with respect to his predecessor, in this House, Mr. Mark Rose, and the acknowledgement that the area he serves, as did Mr. Rose, is in great need of solutions from the Government and other agencies across the country.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do have one question in particular. I agree with much of what the Hon. Member said, and with many of his criticisms and descriptions of the problems with which his community as well as my own is faced with respect to the forest products industry. However, I found it somewhat odd for one with a professed Conservative philosophy to almost suggest by his criticism that we need overt government action in order to have the private sector, which certainly dominates in the forest products industry, convert to manufacturing such products as waferboard, particleboard, chipboard, and so on. These technologies are in place in many parts of North America. They have been singularly absent from the forest products industry in British Columbia. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that it requires government intervention or particular government assistance in order to get the private sector to do what the marketplace, as well as our changing resource base which was brought about by years of mismanagement, has been demanding of it? Is the Hon. Member suggesting that it is up to the Government to solve this problem when the private sector which he glorifies, and which, certainly, has a role to play, has been so unable or unwilling to build the kind of manufacturing plants which both the market and the resource so badly need?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, when I speak of the progress which is being made in these particular areas, the knowledge which I gained was through the private sector, from visiting all the various industries within that particular area, the chemical plants, and so on. What I am saying is that, like most of my compatriots here in the Official Opposition, I do not advocate government intervention. However, what we do advocate is special incentives for research and development. That is happening in other parts of North America. That is why research is taking place there. All we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we want the incentives in place so that we can develop our own technologies and not have to rely on others.
We are working with the mills in my area, Mr. Speaker, the ones I had contact with, to make sure the research and development, as far as fire-retardant shingles, for example, are
concerned is proceeding, but these are not necessarily all major mill operations. These are small operators, Mr. Speaker, who are struggling to survive, given the last two years of recession. All I am advocating is that we create incentives so that these people can defer some of their taxes, take some of their dollars and use them as a form of incentive to go into research and development. That is really what we are asking for. None of the business people in Mission-Port Moody, Mr. Speaker, want any handouts or bailouts. All we want is a chance to operate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the address of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain). I congratulate him on his address. I would like to make a comment and then have the Hon. Member comment on what I have to say. I believe there is a place for Government, and free enterprise believes that also. One place is research and development and another is to assist in the location of markets. If the Government would expend its energies in locating markets and in research and development, the industry would follow through, at least that has been my experience. I wonder if that fits in with the philosophy of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank both Hon. Members for their compliments and for giving me the opportunity to reply to their questions. Logically, without research and development and without new technology we are going nowhere in this country. This is why our economy is where it is today. Definitely we must assist the small organizations in pursuing and acquiring other markets because, Mr. Speaker, if we do not, they will surely die. Given the recession which has taken place in the last two years in the lumber industry, it is amazing how they have maintained the life they have left in them. Government benefits greatly from the taxes which are generated from these industries when they are buoyant. However, when they are oppressed as they are now, and suffering from the recession which has just recently taken place, it is highly unlikely that, without some form of assistance which would benefit all Canadians, they would be able to survive.

Mr. Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion: Mr. Speaker, before putting my two questions to the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) I would like to express my deep disappointment. I have kept an eye on the Hon. Member since he came into this House over four months ago and he seemed to me to be a rather likeable fellow. Now I have to realize that he has immediately acquired the conservative tendency to negative criticism. I am rather disappointed with his attitude throughout his speech. He waited four months before giving his maiden speech and from now on he will probably remain silent. Still, I am rather disappointed.
I would like to ask him, for example, when he refers to tax incentives, how he thinks he could convince some companies to undertake new projects through tax incentives. Indeed, I do
February 9, 1984

not think that tax incentives can really help hard pressed companies.
When he refers to research and development, we agree with his option. However, he should tell us how this should be done. We are concerned because any increase in research and development will result in higher unemployment. Hon. Members opposite are the first to tell us that the unemployment rate is too high in Canada.
I would like him to deal with this problem, while we have to promote advanced technology and no one on this side of the House would deny it, we realize that this kind of development displaces people. Some machines used for forestry work, for example, take the place of 20 or 30 men; in logging camps where there used to be 200 men, they have been replaced by 25 equipment operators.
So, what does he intend to do to solve the problem of those people who will lose their jobs because of high tech? In conclusion, I would ask him to explain what he meant with regard to the forest industry, which was the main theme of his speech, when he condemned the federal government for doing nothing. First of all, is he aware that the forest industry comes under the jurisdiction-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. 1 must interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. The ten-minute period allowed for questions and comments has expired. We go back to the debate-


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) on his maiden speech here in the House of Commons and to share his kind words about his predecessor, to whom I often referred as a real rose and whose friendship I enjoyed in my short time here in the House. 1 also want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on the first occasion I have had to speak since you have been elevated to the position you now occupy, to congratulate you on your elevation and wish you well.
In reflecting upon the contents of the Speech from the Throne, I think it correctly addresses some of the concerns my constituents have for the securing of peace and, of course, prosperity. I will have some comments on the issue of world peace, Mr. Speaker, but suffice it to say that today we as Members of Parliament, indeed as Canadians, were treated to a debate, or better still a statement of policy, issued by the three political Parties that now occupy the House of Commons. We heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), from the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I thought all the speeches were eloquent, but in particular, perhaps because of my biases, the Prime Minister's speech and, more important, the initiatives he has taken in the
The Address-Mr. Dingwall
last number of months to try to inject some political energy into this very important issue. We have seen his initiatives in visiting other countries and debating and discussing this issue with world leaders, both privately as well as at various conferences. There is the role that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has played in initiating and organizing some of these events. We also have the Prime Minister's address to the United Nations. This demonstration of political will is extremely important and I think Canadians generally, regardless of political affiliation or historical political beliefs, are coming to understand that the securing of world peace is a goal shared by all Canadians. I think we wish our Prime Minister well in the many months ahead in trying to achieve a better dialogue between the East and the West.
Security of prosperity, Mr. Speaker, is also of real concern to the constituents I represent. The Speech from the Throne had a number of measures, only some of which 1 will refer to. In particular, Mr. Speaker, the one which I believe is of great importance to the people I represent is that of medicare. Much has been said and much will be said about medicare, but to me medicare is the real cornerstone of the Canadian fabric. It is nice to be able to go to any part of Canada and receive medical services, unlike other countries. My constituents, whether a steel worker, a miner, a nurse, a teacher, or a professional, have all come to understand and appreciate the money that Governments, both federal and provincial, have given for medicare. I think they share the goals and objectives contained in the new Canada Health Act. Yes, there will be debate concerning the changing of a sentence, indeed a paragraph, of the new Act, but I think overall the pith and substance is something that my constituents will approve overwhelmingly.
The Speech from the Throne talks about a partnership of business, government, labour and the Canadian people. That is very important if we are to obtain the goal of security of prosperity. Governments, whether federal, provincial or municipal, cannot create economic wealth in this country to provide the thousands of jobs so desperately needed. They must act in co-operation with all levels of government, as well as business and labour. We cannot afford the luxury of saying it is the provinces' fault. Labour cannot afford the luxury of saying, "Well, it is business". Likewise, business cannot afford the luxury of saying that the problems could be eradicated if only labour would be more co-operative. That easy way out, Mr. Speaker, is a luxury that Members of Parliament and the Canadian people will not allow to go on any longer. There must be the will by governments of all persuasion, in all regions, there must be the will by labour, organized and unorganized, there must be the will by business, both big and small, to address the issues affecting Canadians in every region of this country.
From a regional point of view, Mr. Speaker, you could argue that one region has benefited more than another. But the 1.5 million unemployed just want a job so that they can have the amenities many of us take for granted.
The Speech from the Throne also made reference to pensions for the elderly. I do not know if there is a Member in this

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Dingwall
House who would oppose allocating more money for the elderly. I do not think there would be a Member here who would oppose an increase in the GIS. The elderly are those Canadians who have suffered time and time again, some having gone through two world wars. I think it only appropriate that my Government, in the remaining months, if you will, or years of our mandate, should lend emphasis to expediting additional income for those Canadians in need. I welcome, as do my constituents, additional income for those Canadians.
The Speech from the Throne has several other aspects, Mr. Speaker. It made reference to the restructuring of the fisheries and to the energy policy in Canada. The restructuring of the fisheries in Atlantic Canada is important not only in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but indeed in all of Atlantic Canada. I think the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) and the regional Minister from those Provinces have done well with their counterparts in the provincial Governments. In consultation with the fishermen and their organizations and with various groups of interested parties they have concluded agreements, which some Members may not fully appreciate or endorse, but it is a start, a renewal of an industry basic to developing and promoting the economy in Atlantic Canada. If the fisheries are not successful, the economy in Atlantic Canada will be wiped out completely.
Much has been said about the energy policy, some of it by the Leader of the Official Opposition in various speeches which I will not go into. In Calgary he makes one speech. He makes another speech when he is in Nova Scotia. When he is in Montreal he takes on another issue. The energy policies of this Governmeent, Mr. Speaker, have added substantially to the benefits of Atlantic Canadians and my constituents. If it were not for the agreement and understanding between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada with regard to offshore, the economy of Nova Scotia would be completely depressed.
The Premier of that Province has no political affiliation with our Government. In fact, he is more blue than most Members on that side of the House. It is he and the present provincial Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who have gone around the Province of Nova Scotia and alluded there to the benefits that the national energy policy has bestowed upon the people of Atlantic Canada. I believe it would be safe to say that in excess of $2 billion has gone into the economy of Atlantic Canada as a result of the national energy policy.
The Speech from the Throne goes on to make reference to the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. This Department, I trust, will be able to co-ordinate the efforts and to address industrial expansion in the various regions of Canada in a very comprehensive way. I have some concerns about that, Mr. Speaker, which have been voiced by other Members, both in committee and here in the House of Commons. I will be watching very carefully how the developments in the various regions take place. I will be watching with a careful eye to make sure that the goals and aspirations which
were previously those of DRIE are re-established and put forward more vigorously in Atlantic Canada. If that is not forthcoming, I will not pontificate as do Members opposite. We will change that policy and that Department. Liberals are not like Tories. Tories talk a lot but do very little. They talk about social programs, defence and balancing the budget. In one part of the country, whatever the audience may be, they argue they are going to maintain social programs. In another part of the country they say that national defence ought to be a priority and therefore we must increase our expenditures. In still another part of the country they talk about balancing the budget. How does one maintain the social programs which this Government has put into place and made so effective and popular among the masses, increase substantially the budget of the Department of National Defence to God knows how many billions of dollars, and at the same time balance the budget?


Arnold John Malone: By calling an election.


David Charles Dingwall: That is what I would call the Tory voodoo type of economics, Mr. Speaker. They are not well thought out but they are talked about a lot. The Conservative Party has a word for every constituency and region in the country. It is whatever they want to hear. Unlike the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, they are there by themselves. In Calgary, the Leader of the Official Opposition talked about no back-in provisions in the national energy policy and no more PIP grants. He went to Halifax, Nova Scotia and had a different story to tell. He is probably only there for a few more months because we will get rid of him in the next general election, no doubt about that. He tells the press there that he does not want to make a comment on that right now. I suppose he says to the Conservatives in that part of Atlantic Canada that the PIP grants are great. It is a policy which goes back and forth.
There is a great deal more that I would like to say. I would like to make reference specifically to the new Ministry of Youth. I am happy that the Government has taken this initiative. I would think Members opposite would probably want to applaud the Government. However, in their usual state of flux and with their usual negative posturing, they do not want to believe for a moment that there are policies and ministries created to work toward the positive aspects of the youth of our country. It is very important that on February 6 the new Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) said the following in a speech:
I shall certainly need the co-operation of one and all, as I entertain no illusions that the means at my disposal will alone have some magical power to solve all the problems of young Canadians. Yet I shall muster all the determination I am credited-or blamed-to possess, to carry out this mandate; I intend to promote any approach likely to improve the lot of young people, to facilitate their access to all the resources that are available now and, in general, to act as the catalyst for a brighter future increasingly within their reach.
I believe that statement by the new Minister of State for Youth is extremely important, not only for this generation but for generations to come. 1985 will be the International Year of Youth and Canadians from across the country, particularly young Canadians, will want to participate in that very impor-
February 9, 1984

tant year. We, as politicians in Government and Opposition, have to address in debate and committee, on the political hustings, if you will, the issues that face the young people of this country.
Unemployment is at a cancerous rate, Mr. Speaker. Issues of education are also very important. The family unit too is extremely important. These are all issues affecting the young people of this country. I am confident that this new Ministry, particularly with the spirit and enthusiasm that the new Minister has shown in providing leadership in this portfolio, will address many of these issues and that action will take place shortly thereafter. I hope Members of the Opposition who are shouting across the way will be serious and will put forward their suggestions in a reasonable and sensible way so that we can have a real dialogue on some of those major issues. When it is the Party of doom and gloom, what else can one expect from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
I have learned during my short term-


Arnold John Malone: No, you haven't.


David Charles Dingwall: -as a Member of Parliament-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary but his time has expired.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member had a great deal to say about fisheries and peace. With respect to West Coast fisheries, why can West Coast fishermen and communities not receive the same kind of consideration that was given on the East Coast, such as the agreements, consultation and the funding which he mentioned?
I would like to point out several areas where his Government could perhaps do something constructive. The first is the protection of the resource base. Second, the Government should provide an effective consultative process without the unilateral action mode it has used. Third, it could do something constructive about the fleet reduction and fleet restructuring program. The fourth point is that government administered costs, such as energy costs and interest rates, have been driving up the costs for fishermen. Fishermen are being driven out at every turn by rising government costs. The fifth point is that intergovernmental relations are so poor in that region that the federal Government does not operate effectively in enforcing the laws that exist. The sixth area of concern is the protection of the economic base of fishing-dependent coastal communities. The Department is ready to write off those communities. Finally, there is a reign of terror against fishermen on the West Coast by chartered banks, which are seizing their vessels and their homes and squeezing the guarantors. I recently called this to the attention of the Government, but as yet there has been no action.
If I provide the Hon. Member with correspondence showing that banks are in fact terrorizing fishermen, denying them civil rights and access to forms of remedy, would he be prepared to approach the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister
The Address-Mr. Cook
of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), to determine if at least in this one area in which the banks are driving these people into the ground something could be done? Would he be prepared to join with me and other Members on this side to try to convince the Minister of Finance to take some action to limit the action being taken by the most powerful organization in this country against the fishermen?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member stated that he would like to see some equal sharing, if you will, of the benefits. He talked about the restructuring in Atlantic Canada and his concern about the fishery on the West Coast. 1 want to say to him quite clearly that the Government has taken much action with regard to the fishermen on the West Coast. Need I remind him of the inflation rate, which has been brought down substantially as a result of our six and five program? Is he willing to stand in his place and say that it has had no effect on fishermen in his constituency or on the West Coast? Does he want to say that interest rates, which have been substantially reduced, in fact halved, have had no effect on the fishermen in Atlantic Canada as well as on the West Coast? The answer is very obvious yes, they have had a very positive effect on the fishermen on the West Coast.
The Hon. Member asks what I would do if he were to provide me with certain correspondence. I share similar concerns with him about banks or financial institutions terrorizing individuals, as he says. But I would like to see that documentation. I have also had some instances where this has happened with my constituents. But we found redress in a number of ways by bringing it to the attention of the various authorities within the various banking communities.
Yes, I would be prepared to look at the matter raised. I will take it under advisement to see what I can do subsequently, because I am not aware of all the details contained therein.
Finally, the Hon. Member asked if our Government will take certain specific actions with respect to the West Coast fishery. Just yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans provided an opportunity for the Fishermen's coalition to meet with him and to present their views. I think he said very effectively in the House on a number of occasions that he will give serious consideration to their suggestions. Hopefully, action will take place shortly thereafter.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, as this eighth day of debate on the Throne Speech comes to a close, I would like to say a few words about Throne Speeches in general and this one in particular. Speeches from the Throne are somewhat like the streets of Hades. They are filled with good intentions.
When I read a Throne Speech that is cynically written, with the view that none of its proposals will ever take place, I find it to be a despicable act by any government. There is no Member in the House, no one in the press gallery or anyone else, who would suggest that it is anything but a charade of eight days of speeches that have been made here. The Throne Speech was

February 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Cook
an attempt to fool all of the people all of the time, but it does not work.
It would have been more realistic if the Governor General, when introducing the Throne Speech, had said that since the Government can remain in power for a year at most, even though its mandate ends on February 18, 1984, by tradition, it is proposing these last few measures which it will attempt to achieve. But the Government did not do that. It brought in a Throne Speech which contained ten years of possible legislation. As one of the members of the press gallery stated, after hearing the Throne Speech, "If dogs and cats had a vote, there would have been something in there for the dogs and cats as well".
We all realize that a throne is basically nothing more than ministerial ventriloquism. If one were to read earlier Throne Speeches to see the promises, undertakings and philosophies contained therein and then review them a few years later, it would be found that very few of those goals were achieved.
A Throne Speech is essentially a futile exercise. In my view, spending eight days debating the Throne Speech in the House of Commons is a waste of the taxpayers' dollars and a waste of the time of the House of Commons, which could be used for better purposes in terms of accomplishing something for Canadians.
At present we have at least seven reports on parliamentary reform. I doubt that any of these reports addresses the concept of an eight day Throne Speech debate. The reason is that these eight days of debate provide an opportunity for many backbench Members to make speeches and provide material for their householders. I suggest that the various speeches could be called "hyperbole for householders". That is the effect of these eight days of debate. I find that offensive as well.
I came here to work for the people of North Vancouver-Bur-naby. I do the best I can. I did not come here to listen to self-serving, self-satisfying and self-deceiving members of the Government Party attempting to justify the unjustifiable. I came here to help do something for the country.
I suggest that anyone who watches the House of Commons debates regularly on television would find, by this time, such a Throne Speech debate quite unacceptable. In such a debate the rule of relevancy disappears entirely. There has been very little relevancy to the Throne Speech in most of the speeches from all sides during the eight-day period. I also find that rather unfortunate. A debate in the House should be relevant to the subject. The Throne Speech is not. Soon we will spend another six days doing exactly the same thing in the budget debate where the rule of relevancy will be totally ignored by practically every speaker on every side. Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I do not criticize only the Government for this. I criticize all Members of the House of Commons, including myself. Surely to goodness, with the intelligence on all sides of the House something could be done where we do not waste half a month on this kind of useless exercise. Unfortunately, much as I would like Members on the Government side to hear what is said by the Opposition, I would also like them to consider it carefully. When things are presented
to the Government that make sense, have the opposition be given credit for it and see that what it is is done for the benefit of the Canadian people. But that never takes place. I honestly have yet to find an occasion when any speech delivered in this House of Commons has had any effect on the Government side at all, or frankly has been listened to with any degree of respect or silence. A little heckling is in order. That merely adds to the sparkle, the salt and pepper of a speech. But not to listen, not to hear, not to consider because the speech did not come from the Government benches, is a terrible offence to the Canadian people who sent us here and whom all of us collectively represent.
I will take the last two minutes to point out a couple of things I totally deplore which are relevant to the discussion on the Throne Speech. The Throne Speech is one of the most cynical things I have ever seen, totally cynical.
We have 1.5 million Canadians out of work, a 50 per cent increase since the Government took office four years ago. There are over 500,000 Canadian youths unemployed and with no hope of employment. In British Columbia the unemployment rate today is over 14 per cent. Our national unemployment rate, which is perhaps the severest indictment of all against this particular Government, will remain at over 12 per cent this year. Over 600,000 Canadians, 65 years of age or older, are living in poverty. A Government that can stay in office and can go past its four-year mandate with those kinds of statistics facing it is not a Government that deserves to remain in office. It is not a Government that deserves to have the right to make laws and to operate this country. I only hope the Canadian people realize just how miserable, sad, bad and devoid of ideas this Government is, as those of us here who have to work opposite know.
Time is running out and I say only to the Canadian people who may have followed this debate that if this does not give them proof enough why these rascals should be thrown out, then perhaps people do deserve the Government they get, but nobody deserves this present Government.
May I call it 5.45 p.m., Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(5), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it carried?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Forrestall:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Carried on division.
February 9, 1984

Motion (Mr. Burghardt) agreed to.


Yvon Pinard: That the Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry but I was in the lobby. I heard the Chair say that the motion was carried on division. I heard the Chair say, "Carried on division". Am I confirmed in that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Yes.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we are happy the motion is carried, but quite frankly we thought it was carried, period. It was after you said "carried" that somebody shouted, "On division".


Some Hon. Members:: No.
The Address-Mr. Cook


Yvon Pinard: If the Opposition wants a recorded division, we are ready to have one, but we are happy the motion is carried. It is because I took it for granted that the motion was carried that I was able to move the motion I just moved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair heard "on division", and I remember saying as occupant of the chair that the motion was carried on division. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council?


Erik Nielsen: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Carried on division.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being 5.50 p.m., this House stands ajourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 10, 1984