1984-11-15

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak for the second time within four House working days. Perhaps it augurs well that someone who sits in the very back row, the most elevated row in the Chamber, has the opportunity to address this Chamber. 1 reflect on the words spoken here one time by a friend of mine, Sean O'Sullivan, who was a Member sitting in the far reaches of this Chamber. He once said that any seat in the House of Commons is a good seat. This is a very special place and, as I sat here in silence before the Chamber began its session this morning in this almost cathedral-like setting, a place that carries still the imprint of earlier Canadians, 1 thought of famous distinguished Prime Ministers like Macdonald, Borden and Diefenbaker; but I thought equally of men and women who came from different parts of Canada to represent their constituents. Perhaps many, if not most, are now long forgotten, but in their time they came and spoke and through their words and actions helped to build this country and create a reality from nothing but a dream.
Sir, to be here on my own wings is very special. 1 have for a long time been around legislatures. My father, Robert J. Boyer, was for 17 years a member of the Ontario legislature. 1 worked in these precincts for Heward Grafftey when he was a Member of Parliament, and later for the Hon. Robert Stanfield when he was Leader of the Opposition. I also had a stint at Queen's Park working for the Attorney General of Ontario, Arthur Wishart. It was a great learning experience but now, as I say, to be able to come into this famous Canadian House of Commons and have my own seat from which to address other Members is a great honour and something that 1 will treasure for as long as I am sent here by the electors of Etobicoke- Lakeshore.
Indeed, Sir, I recall coming here with my late mother, Patricia M. Boyer, many years ago and sitting in the gallery. 1 guess at about age 12 I formed the dream that some day I, too, might sit in this Chamber. I just thank God that I live in a democratic country where we, men and women, have the freedom to follow our dreams. Through the democratic process, with help and perseverance, we can help make things happen in our political system.
1 am not the first person with the name Boyer to be in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. There was Louis-Alphonse Boyer who was born in Montreal in 1839. He was a lumber dealer and operated a model farm at St. Lambert. In fact, he was mayor of St. Lambert before being elected to this House in 1872. He was a Liberal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Boyer: Then came Gustave Benjamin Boyer. He was born in St. Laurent in 1871. He was a journalist and a public lecturer on agriculture for the Quebec Government. He was founder and editor of Echo de Vaudreuil and he was elected to this House of Commons in 1904. He, too, was a Liberal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Boyer: There was another Boyer, Arthur Boyer, who never made it to this Chamber, although he was a Senator in the other place. He was born in Montreal in 1851. He was president of La Canada publishing company and he too, as the Hon. Members opposite will be happy to hear, was a Liberal.
But now, Mr. Speaker, things are afoot in this country. Times are changing and I am very happy to stand in the House bearing that same name, not as a Liberal but as a Progressive Conservative-the first Boyer. This reflects the profound change in the country. It is a sign of the times. There is some question whether my name is pronounced "Boy-er" or "Boy-yea". I was born at Bracebridge in central Ontario and the other day-

-a CBC reporter asked me whether my name was pronounced "Boy-er" or "Boy-yea", and I answered that it was a perfectly good bilingual name for a bilingual country. Either language works with a name like mine.

By whatever name I am called, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure Hon. Members opposite will find many names to call me during the time I am here, I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It is an honour to represent the men and women of that riding and I shall treat their support for me as a trust.
On September 4 the government of this country was overthrown by lawful means. As I have written in one of my books, Political Rights, we Canadians too often take for granted the liberties and freedoms which we enjoy in this country and the

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Boyer
working of our democratic process. That we were able in this country to change the government by lawful and peaceful means is something we should not pass by too quickly without reflecting on what it tells about the degree of civilization and common understanding of orderly government that we have achieved in this country.
Turning to the Throne Speech itself, Mr. Speaker, it does set a clear course. It does contain strong themes. It shows that we are launched on a new era of national reconciliation, economic renewal and social justice. There are three principles that will govern all which the new Progressive Conservative does in the weeks, months and years ahead. It does not, as many Members of the Opposition have noted, contain a specific shopping list of item after item. Those who have wailed and complained and been concerned that some specific detail was omitted should not be alarmed. The Government needs, and Canadians want, a theme, a philosophy, a coherent approach, a blueprint for action, not just a hodge-podge of programs. The details will come in time. At the outset of this new Government, Mr. Speaker, it has been fundamental to say clearly that the course we are on is one of national reconciliation, economic renewal and social justice.
The financial statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) reflected many hard choices which had to be made. I campaigned on deficit reduction and therefore I applaud the approach taken in the financial statement of the Finance Minister. I also campaigned on jobs and I applaud the approach of the financial statement in that regard as well. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of silliness in the debate. Does anyone in Canada, including anyone in either of the Opposition Parties, honestly and sincerely believe that our Government does not want to create more jobs? Of course the Government wants to create jobs. The goal of everyone in the House is the same, to create jobs. The issue and the debate is on how to create them. Our answer is through economic recovery. That is one of the principles which will underpin the measures that will come before the House in the months ahead.
Before leaving the economic statement I would like to reiterate that in taking the tough approach which he has been forced to because of the size of the deficit, at the same time the Minister of Finance has demonstrated a great deal of compassion. The deficit will not be reduced on the backs of the poor, the seniors, or the unemployed. In fact, those groups are benefiting under the Finance Minister's program. The spouses' allowance will be extended to all widows and widowers aged 60 to 65. That is one of the issues upon which I campaigned in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Further, veterans' pensions will be improved. The sum of $1 billion will be set aside to create new jobs in 1985-86, not in make-work programs but in meaningful, long-term jobs.
[DOT] (MI5)
I have been in the House virtually every day and have listened with care to what Opposition Members and indeed Members of my own Party have said. I have been amazed to
hear the great concern expressed by the Liberals and New Democrats about what is the Government's number one priority. They want to know if it is deficit reduction, jobs or the status of women. It is talk such as that which leads me to believe that those Members believe that only one matter can receive priority attention from a government. In fact, we have 40 Ministers and incredible bench strength. We can deal with peace, employment, economic equality for women, tax reform, parliamentary reform, jobs and deficit reduction at the same time. This Government does not need to have a single focus and indeed it has not. We are planning to move on many fronts.
Universality of social programs is indeed a sacred trust. This has been the subject of some discussion in the debate so far. Our Party stands today as committed as it did when the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker set the course for our Party and said that the means test is "the meanest test of all". There will be no means test. The pensions that are available to seniors in this country stand intact and will remain intact.
The Throne Speech also carries into greater definition the number of themes on which I campaigned in the summer election of 1984. I would like to quote some. In material that was distributed in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I said:
Although Canada is the No. I country, there is much we can improve. There is unfairness and injustice here. There are special tax benefits for the wealthy and powerful. There are neglected people. There is still poverty. The language issue has been exploited for Liberal party partisan purposes. There are good Canadians working hard to improve themselves and their country but who are struggling to overcome problems and procedures which the bureaucratic mentality in Ottawa has imposed on them. There is a serious lack of national unity. There is too much emphasis on materialistic issues and we have overlooked the spiritual side of our existence, and those deeper values which unite us all in freedom as our brothers' keepers.
We must restore a proper sense of patriotism to this land. We must support the family-
Our religious institutions.
-and human dignity.
We must play a positive role for world development and pursue peace through strength.
The new Government stands astride the Canadian mainstream. Those who feel that the new Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) represents some kind of Reagan North or a Canadian version of the Thatcher approach in the United Kingdom mistake the knowledge and abiding traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party.
In the time ahead I will outline more about the theory and the philosophy of our Party. Today, I will refer only to a speech that I gave some 15 years ago at Sault Ste. Marie which was then reproduced on page 7 of The Globe and Mail. I stated at that time that our philosophy is based on the continual tension between its two fundamental traditions. On one side a basic foundation is the tradition of order and authority. It is this side which embraces peace, order and good government. The other foundation, equally important in supporting this philosophy, is the libertarian tradition. This is the side that embraces freedom and upholds freedom of the individual especially. Clearly, the philosophic superstructure built on traditions of stability and liberty is by definition
November 15, 1984

always at conflict with itself. There is always a creative tension between the two.
This is the true meaning of a Progressive Conservative philosophy. Those who are dumbfounded by the combination of progressivism with conservatism must be unaware of the inherent contradictions within human nature. They perhaps are the ones who have sought an overly simplistic solution through socialism or liberalism. But those who are aware that man implies contradictions look for a political philosophy that embraces this dichotomy. They will find it in Progressive Conservatism as long as we do not err too much in favour of either tradition. When we emphasize too much the tradition of authority and order, the philosophy becomes repressive. When we forget about the tradition of order and think only of the libertarian tradition, we become anarchists. A Progressive Conservative stands equally on both founding traditions: order with liberty, liberty with order. This provides our working framework within which issues can be debated and resolved.
The riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore is in so many respects like every other part of this country. On September 15 when Constable David Dunmore was shot and killed in our riding, this did not change but merely reinforced the attitude which most of my constituents and I share about the need to have the restoration in this country of capital punishment in cases where that is required. We have in this country a range of crimes from theft of a 25-cent newspaper all the way up to murder and assassination. We also have sanctions to fit those crimes ranging from small fines up to the most serious sanctions that can be applied. I think that in light of the time we have now had in Canada without capital punishment, this Parliament should consider in a free vote the restoration of capital punishment so that in cases where, after due process of law and trial before a jury, a person has been found guilty of first degree murder, a judge has the option to impose that sanction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Boyer: There is a great deal more I would like to say, Sir, and the temptation for any Member in his or her first speech is like making a Dagwood sandwich-, you are hungry, you are just at the fridge and you want all of it at once. I am sure though that in the time ahead there will be other opportunities.
Let me say that I shall represent the men and women of Etobicoke-Lakeshore with all my mental and physical energy as a supporter of the Brian Mulroney Progressive Conservative Government. 1 shall strive in every way possible to bring about a new era of reconciliation, of economic renewal and of social justice. Always 1 shall fight for fair shares to all and special privileges for none.
I come to this Thirty-third Parliament as the Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore with a heart that feels pride in Canada, with a spirit that is at once optimistic and tempered by realism, with ears to listen to all points of view expressed here,
The Address-Mr. Boyer
with a mind that 1 shall try to keep open to weigh the possibilities, the proposals, and the contending ideas brought before Parliament, and with a tongue to speak here not of personalities or of prejudice, but of policy and of principle.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?
[DOT] (M25)


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) reiterated the claim of most members on the Government side that jobs were a very high priority of that Party and of that Government. However, we note in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that he announced substantial cuts in funding for research, for forestry, for fisheries and for agriculture. These are three of the most basic industries which employ hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens. In all these fields we are in very tough competition with other countries. In the private sector these industries have been noteworthy for their failure to involve themselves or to do very much in the way of research. These cuts will mean lay-offs of hundreds, if not thousands, of permanent employees doing very important work for the people of Canada. They are permanent jobs of people who work for the federal Government.
How does the Hon. Member square his claim that the Government is committed to more jobs with these cuts and their effects on research?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is very important because it throws into sharp relief, for the benefit of the House and everyone listening to the debate, the fundamental difference between the approach of the New Democratic Party and the approach of the Progressive Conservative Party toward the issue of creating jobs in Canada. In fact, in a moment I will say something about the position of the Liberal Party.
Our view is that long-term and meaningful jobs have to come from the private sector. We cannot spend government money to create jobs in ways which are not authentic or indigenous and growing out of an organically strong economy. Our approach is to do all that we can to foster economic renewal in the private sector.
No one here for a moment is pretending that research and development is not important. We are asking a fundamental question: At this time in Canada's evolution, does the spending on that have to come from taxpayers, or can it not better come from those in the private sector who understand what is moving and motivating the complex operation of the world economy? They know where new research needs to be done and applied in the production of goods and services.
We have sent a very clear signal to the country. The debate so far on the part of the New Democratic Party is well grounded in the traditions of that Party. I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) the other day when he talked about limits to growth and the whole approach that we have to put absolute clamps

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Boyer
on the free enterprise economy because of the destruction it allegedly creates for the environment.
My view-and I think it is the view of our Party-is clearly that we can do more, including on environmental issues, with a dynamic, active economy than when matters are stagnant. Certainly the people who are the workers of the country, given that trade-off between jobs and environment, know their priority. We want to get the economy strong. We want to get the country into a high level of productivity. From that vantage point, we will be able to do a great deal more.
It does come to the point where somebody has to start asking hard questions. This brings us to the spokesmen for the Liberal Party and the distinction which is clear between our Party and the New Democratic Party. That is now uncertain when it comes to the Liberals, whose principal spokesman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), and leading spokesmen of that Party, have time and time again said that deficit reduction is important. Yet we have heard from so many individual members of the Liberal caucus who have stood up with a book and pointed and said: "Well, this has been cut, this has been pared, cuts, cuts, cuts". They are going in one direction when it seems that all of Canada and the new Government, which at long last is in phase with the mainstream of Canadian thinking, is going in the opposite direction.
The Liberals, who have been opposing all of these cuts no matter where they come from, reflect an attitude that is absolutely out of phase with the whole spirit that is now burgeoning in this country as we try to formulate the right blueprint for economic renewal. The Canadian people, who spoke so eloquently on September 4, continue in their eloquence to respond to pollsters and have now recorded their popular support for the Liberal Party, which is going in the opposite direction from this Government and the rest of the country, at an all-time low.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member serious when he says that he is concerned about the poor and underprivileged and that he will not do anything to hurt them? He supports the cuts that were announced the other night, one of which was for social housing in the amount of $9.6 million. Is he suggesting seriously that, if you cut that amount, it will be picked up by the private sector, that the private sector is going to finance housing at a loss? I am thinking of senior citizens, the handicapped people and the poor. Is the Hon. Member serious when he tells us that? How do we make up for that housing? The document put out by his own Government states:
These savings will be achieved through unit reductions and program modifications.
Is the Hon. Member telling us that this country can tolerate unit reductions in social housing for senior citizens, the handicapped people and the poor? Is that what he is telling us?


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks if I am serious. I have never been more serious about anything in my life. The volume with which the Hon. Member asked his
question, in spite of the fact that we have amplification equipment in this Chamber, reminds me of the preacher who wrote beside part of his text "argument weak, shout loud". Another metaphor is the inability of the Hon. Member to see the forest for the trees. He is looking at specific items here and there.
Let me ask him whether he and his Party were serious when they were telling the Canadian people that deficit reduction was fundamental to get this country back on the right track. If they believed that when they said it, how can they in conscience come and lament, protest and grieve over individual, specific cuts? The proposals that the Minister of Finance has announced for seniors, veterans and in other programs that will be coming forth will show that this Government does not lack for compassion. Indeed, compassion and a care for ordinary men and women of this country is right at the heart of the traditions of this country.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has not answered the question. I referred to a specific cut of $9.6 million for social housing. He has not answered that question. The reason I am upset is that I have some social housing projects in my riding. The people there are very concerned that these projects will be sold to the private sector and they will be thrown out on the street. That is why I am concerned. The Hon. Member is right, I am very upset. The Hon. Member said in his remarks that this is not Reagan North or Thatcher East. I would like him to tell us why it is not. It looks like we are going in that direction. People who are in social housing are very concerned that this will be thrown in the hands of the private sector. What those opposite are all saying is: Let the private sector do it.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose a question to the Hon. Member on a different tack. Perhaps he can explain this to me. I do not understand the Government's logic in making cuts to the budget of the National Research Council, the solar industry, wind and so on, on the mistaken assumption that they are somehow soft or leftish or something like that. Most of this money is being channelled through the NRC to private companies. The Government is going to cut all those private companies at a time when we are starting to take off in a real high technology area of the future. It must be that the Minister never really looked at what he was doing with these cuts.
I would ask the Hon. Member to comment from a different point of view, that is, on the very high-tech, logical, private sector approach that the Government seems to want to take. Why is it making these kinds of cuts? Does the Hon. Member really see any logic in the cuts? I do not see it there.


Patrick Boyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the logic is called elimination of the middle man. If the Hon. Member is telling me and this House that the private sector is benefiting from these funds and is interested in having those projects go ahead, then let us assume that that requirement, need and demand exist in the private sector and that if they cannot be on public funding, they will find funding elsewhere. There comes a point
November 15, 1984

when parliamentarians owe it to Canadians to say that year after year, decade after decade, a lot of good programs have been put together, each one of which on its own made some sense and seemed to be fulfilling a certain important role-and we have reached that point because we were sent here by the Canadian people to come here and fix it up. The Government must stand back and look at all the individual programs, as a package and say: "This represents the Government of Canada today; it is off track, it is out of phase". Of course, there will be difficulty when individual programs are cut or eliminated and the interest of some to protest is understandable.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders provide for a ten-minute period for questions and comments. It has now been 13 minutes, and I would therefore ask the Chair to apply the Standing Order as written.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is correct. The Chair tries to get as many questions as possible into this ten-minute period, and we had a question at the ninth minute, but in any event, the Hon. Member's remarks are well taken.
We shall now proceed with-

We will now resume debate.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter this debate. It is particularly interesting to follow the Member who has just spoken. He is an old friend from years past. His political philosophy has clearly somehow been misled somewhere along the road.
I want to begin, as any new Member should, by expressing a sense of gratitude to the people of Essex-Windsor for giving me the chance to serve as their spokesperson in this House of Commons and to bring before it some of the issues of concern and importance to them. I do so with a sense of considerable excitement about being part of the new era which this Parliament represents.
I should say, Mr. Speaker, that all of us new Members of Parliament are a bit like people tossed into the middle of the lake and told to start to swim. We are not quite sure yet which shore to swim toward. However, give us a few months and, along with the Hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), we will be raising difficult points of order and giving the Speaker a difficult time.
Today 1 would like to talk about the realities that we face in the economy of 1984. I would like to talk about the industrial policy challenges which I believe the Throne Speech has ignored. 1 want to talk about some of the wrong directions in industrial policy which I see being taken by the early initiatives of this Government.
When we speak of the realities of 1984 in Essex-Windsor and elsewhere in Canada, we must first speak about what we all went through in the last election campaign. I believe that I
The Address-Mr. Langdon
and my colleagues are here because the ordinary people of Essex-Windsor and of other parts of Canada wanted to make a strong statement of concern about what has been happening in this country as well as make a statement of hope for the future.
1 would like to describe to the House some of the people for whom I feel I particularly speak. I would like to describe the young man who lives in Essex, one of the small towns in my constituency. He is a graduate of university and had worked hard to put himself through school. He had looked for work for over nine months and met me at the door of his house with a profound sense of discouragement and demoralization.
1 would like to describe the young woman who lives in the Forest Glade suburb of Windsor. She met me on the street as she set out in her sixth month of looking for work in that city. She was still going out with a sense of determination to try to find a job but also with an increasing sense of desperation.
I would like to describe to the House the small businessman who lives in Amherstburg. He is someone who had made a living selling Canadian crafts and had employed five people. He found that the interest rates of the previous government had killed his business and at the same time killed his dreams.
Finally, I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I speak for pensioners who live in places like the Remington Park section of Windsor. I spoke to some pensioners in their back yard about the way that price increases and real decreases in pension levels had led to their facing a situation in which they did not even have the money to be able to afford trips to Toronto to see their grandson. These ordinary, hardworking Canadians are the people for whom this country should be working. They are the people who built this country and they are the people who, in 1984, are being victimized by the way in which this country's economic directions are being set.
At the moment, Mr. Speaker, unemployment statistics for Windsor show us that there are 14,000 people officially out of work. That is up from the 13,000 who were officially out of work a year ago. There are over 21,000 people on the rolls of the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission. The challenge for all of them and for all of us is to make our economy work again, to set right the economic mistakes of the past regime but also to respond to the emerging problems and challenges of the 21st century.
There are many aspects to the meeting of this task. As chairperson of the economic policy committee of the New Democratic Party caucus, I can say that we as a Party will be addressing a great many of those different aspects in the months ahead.
Today I wish to focus particularly on industrial policy and on the desperate need that we in Canada have today to build a solid industrial base-to provide jobs for the young, to give prosperity to small business and to give security to the old. Industrial policy does not mean government control or central planning or prejudice against the private sector. It means all of us working together in this small, open economy in a very difficult world environment, aiming to focus our scarce money

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Langdon
and bargaining power where we can use it in building an efficient, modern manufacturing sector that can meet our present needs and expand our exports and our jobs. In this kind of small economy, it means seeing that the Government plays an important role as the catalyst, just as is the case in Japan, Holland, Sweden and Italy.
What priorities do we see for this exercise of government leadership? First, we think there have been some interesting examples in this country in the last few years of business and labour working together to suggest new directions for particular sectors. One of the sectors in which this has been done most dramatically is the automobile sector.
I have with me today the report of the federal Task Force on Automotive Strategy for Canada. We feel that it is crucially important that the Government proceed on the recommendations of this task force, first because this is such a key sector in the Canadian economy, and second because it is a fascinating example of employers and workers getting together and working creatively to give us some sense of new direction. This is an excellent example of the kind of co-operation of which the Government has been speaking. It is also important to the jobs of the people not only of Essex-Windsor but of many different parts of the country. The automobile industry is no longer concentrated simply in Ontario but includes activities in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec and other provinces.
We feel that it is crucial to proceed on the recommendations of this task force report in the following way. First, we should set up the automotive council called for by the report. The previous government said a number of times that it intended to set up that council but it never in fact proceeded to do so. Second, we feel that the commitment of this report to Canadian content in the auto industry should be put into effect immediately. Third, we feel that the present import quotas on Japanese automobiles coming into this country should be maintained and strengthened as a bargaining tool to achieve that Canadian content goal. If all of this takes place, it is quite clear that we will be talking about creating 40,000 to 50,000 new jobs in this country.
Second, Mr. Speaker, we need a flexible financial framework to assist other industries as well as the automotive sector to modernize, to restructure and to expand into new product areas so that they can meet the difficult competition to be faced on the 1980s and the 1990s. As for ourselves as a Party, we believe that this requires a shift from the tax write-offs which have been the method of operation in the past. However, we also feel that the program for industrial and regional development which was adopted in the last Parliament was a useful initiative in the kind of direct interaction between government and the private sector that we need to reach our goals.
[DOT] (M50)
Third, we believe we need initiatives at the community level. Here I would like, Mr. Speaker, to endorse the initiatives which have been taken by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), to establish constituency
advisory boards for the Canada Works Program. Certainly in our constituency this will provide a useful way to receive community input on ideas and suggestions for the future.
Fourth, we believe there must be further efforts to expand certain key sectors in our economy, and we think here particularly of the machine manufacturing sector. The CDIC, which the Government now seems to be committed to winding up, was about to be used as a vehicle to do that in the case of mining machinery. We would seriously urge the Government to look again at the issue of selling Eldorado Nuclear Limited to see if it could not be used instead as a vehicle to help move us into the manufacturing of mining equipment here in Canada.
We are no longer talking, Mr. Speaker, about a clean slate on the Government side. It has started to take initiatives and those initiatives now must be judged. It seems to me that the initiatives that have been taken this past week in fact have taken this Government off in the wrong direction with respect to industrial policy. Nothing shows this more seriously than the cuts made in the industrial and regional development program for next year. Details have now been provided by the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) who has indicated that $525 million will be cut over the next three years for this program of partnership with the private sector.
The details of these cuts have now been given to us by the Minister and there are five key and dangerous program changes which have been made. First, no more modernization and expansion support will be provided to industries in half of this country, including the Cities of Toronto, Hamilton, Halifax, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Vercheres, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. All of these cities could previously receive help; it is now no longer possible with these changes. In short, Mr. Speaker, where the industry is, support will not be given. I feel that says dangerous things about the possibilities of modernization and expansion of our industrial base in this country.
Second, there will be no more help for business climate studies. We in Windsor, for instance, used such help to improve the response time for small tool and die makers who are aiming to adjust to new technological innovations. Cuts will hit other similar parts of the country.
Third, all tourism projects have been cut. I should tell Hon. Members of the Conservative caucus that many of these tourism projects are in important parts of the country which they now represent, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.
Fourth, all levels of support for anything have been cut throughout the country, by half for most projects, by one-third for projects which deal with innovations.
Fifth-and this is most crucial of all, in my view-every single restructuring project in the industrial sector has been cut out of possible support. That is where a firm wants to invest to adjust to changing competitive conditions or to produce new or more competitive products or services. That is
November 15, 1984

precisely the kind of thing we must do for the future, yet it is precisely that kind of project which can no longer be funded by IRDP. For example, over $60 million was given by the federal Government this past year to the new American Motors Corporation plant in the constituency of the Premier of Ontario. Such support will no longer be possible as a result of these changes.
In fact, the cuts for 1985-86 are fully one-third of planned expenditure. In the first nine months of the operation of this program, we find that 381 projects were established. These new rules brought in by the Minister would have cut out 69 of those projects, which amounts to over 41 per cent of total funds. At an average cost per job of some $9,500 per year, these $525 million in cuts, therefore, will cost this country
55.000	jobs over the next three years.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, there must be a political alternative to this kind of butchery. The New Democratic Party represents that political alternative, an alternative which aims not to damage the private sector but to provide partnership and leadership to the private sector in the future.


Mr. Nickerson:: 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party get its act together. The Leader of the Party is going around condemning the Hon. Member who has just spoken is a plea that the same so-called corporate welfare bums be given more and more money. I just wish, Sir, that those Hon. Members would get their act together and talk with one voice instead of several.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker 1 suspect it is typical for Hon. Members to pay somewhat less attention than they should to the speeches of new Members. However, I must say that what I was talking about is precisely the kind of approach which we, as a Party, have been advocating. It is an approach which says that any support provided to private sector industries must come with a commitment to certain numbers of jobs.
As the Hon. Member I am sure knows, that is precisely what happens in all Industrial and Regional Development Programs grants. Each company which receives such support must make a detailed commitment to the government of the kinds of jobs to be provided, where they will be and the training which is associated with them.
We have looked at this program and it has received our support and, indeed, it received the support of the Conservative Party as well when the Bill went through the House of Commons in the last Parliament. It would take us into partnership with the private sector, a partnership where we knew we would get results rather than the kind of partnership in some sort of dark paper bag, which happens when you hand out tax write-offs without any guarantee of a return.
In the first nine months of this program, as I stressed, some
35.000	jobs were established by the funding provided. I stress again that 41 per cent of that money could not have been given under the rules the Minister has now brought forward. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I stress to all members of the
The Address-Mr. Langdon
Conservative caucus that my constituency is not affected. Essex-Windsor remains one of those constituencies which will continue to receive grants under this program. But one half of this country, most of it represented by the Conservative Party which previously could see industry getting support for modernization, expansion and restructuring to meet the challenges of the future, will no longer be able to do so. I urge members of the Conservative caucus to make sure that at their next meeting they raise with their leadership the crucial and damaging cuts which are going to hit their people.
I might say the press release which detailed all these changes was given out on a Friday afternoon. When I worked in the Press Gallery we were particularly suspicious of press releases on Friday afternoons, especially before a long weekend. This was because they were Friday afternoon bad news press releases which would be ignored. I urge members of the Conservative caucus to look up the press release, look at the detailed changes in it, and see exactly how damaging to them and their communities these changes actually are. Perhaps then they will join me in some of the criticisms I am making instead of criticizing me.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his maiden speech and welcome him to the House. Obviously he has been here before, I guess sitting in that hallowed position up there in the Press Gallery. I was glad to see that he does agree with us in most areas.


Ms. Mitchell:: You were not listening either.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He does not listen too well, does he?


Gerry St. Germain: I was listening. That is the trouble with you Liberals; you never listen to us and that is why we have the problems we have in this country.
The Hon. Member points out that we have to make changes, and we agree. We made the changes that were required. I do not know the Hon. Member's background from a business point of view, but I think he will have to agree that the problem in this country is that there have been too many grants handed out by that crew over there that sits to his right. They have given the entire country away through grants, but we have brought back a sense of fiscal responsibility.
The reason there are no jobs is that we are suffering from high interest rates brought on by the Liberal Government's deficits. I would like the Hon. Member to address the problem in business, which is high interest rates. It is not a question of shortage of grants, it is a situation where interest rates are so high business cannot expand and create jobs. There is no point getting a 30 per cent grant if you are going to go broke anyway. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on why he does not concentrate on the real problem, that being high interest rates.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We have raised that for a whole year.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly delighted to have the Hon. Member's support for the NDP's strong fight

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Hicks
against high interest rates. 1 hope that at the same time as members of the Conservative caucus raise the details of these damaging IRDP cuts, they will also urge their Government to do something about high interest rates. Certainly at the moment real interest rates remain, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has stressed, at the highest levels we have ever seen in this country.
I also want to indicate strong agreement with the Hon. Member in his criticism of the previous regime. That regime in fact was responsible for the economic mess in which we find ourselves today. But we have to ask what is the direction to follow in dealing with that mess. 1 would express a very sincere and non-partisan sense of strong disappointment that this Government seems to have moved in the wrong direction. That direction does not build on potential partnership to restructure and modernize our economy in a way represented by the IRDP. Please, let us see a strong effort throughout this House to rebuild our economy rather than tear it down, as these changes by the Minister threaten for the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments is now over. We shall proceed with debate.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have waited 51 years for this very moment to rise in the House of Commons of Canada and address such an august body in my maiden speech. With your permission, I would like first of all to extend my sincere congratulations to you on your appointment, as well as to the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) on his election to the distinguished yet difficult position as Speaker of this assembly. I feel confident, as do my hon. colleagues, that he will do justice and honour to himself and this House.
1 would also like formally to express my heartiest congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) spoke most admirably and struck what I believe is the proper tone for this debate. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques), in her eloquence, did further justice to this debate in her remarks as seconder of that motion.
In addition to being very proud of having the opportunity to serve in this House, I am equally proud of being the Member of Parliament for Scarborough East. The riding came into existence in 1968 and is the most easterly riding in Metropolitan Toronto. 1 personally moved to that area nearly 40 years ago, and although my hon. colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), may slightly disagree, 1 must say that I have had the pleasurable experience of observing its development from farm land and narrow roads where my father and I regularly towed the milkman and the baker from the mud to what today is a modern suburban area. Scarborough is geographically compact compared to so many vast areas in Canada, but it has swelled to 100,000 people and is still growing very rapidly.
The City of Scarborough itself is the seventh largest city of Canada, as well as at present the fastest growing city in
Canada. In 1982 the city issued $244 million worth of building permits. In 1983 it issued $491 million worth of building permits, more than double that of the previous year. I can only surmise that for the remainder of 1984, and certainly for 1985, with a Conservative Government in Canada our expansion will increase even more dramatically.
The riding of Scarborough East is proud of some very unique and outstanding landmarks. The Scarborough bluffs rise over 200 feet from Lake Ontario and are not only world famous but have been studied by geologists for decades. My hon. colleagues from both coasts of Canada may also be surprised to know that some of the best salmon fishing in the world takes place off the shore of Scarborough East riding in Lake Ontario.
The Guild Inn is also world famous and has been honoured by the presence of countless heads of state and governments from many countries. Its grounds consist of over 90 acres on Lake Ontario. Its rooms and halls are alive with priceless sculptures, paintings and historical documents and antiques. Last year the Guild Inn celebrated its fiftieth anniversary.
A building in Scarborough East, Mr. Speaker, which strikes even closer to my own heart is Centenary Hospital. I have had the privilege of serving on its board of governors for the past five and one-half years and have thus been in a position to observe first hand the tremendous struggle which this hospital, and certainly many others like it, is having merely to survive each year let alone expand.
Centenary is a 520-bed hospital which serves a large geographical area. Unfortunately, the tremendous population increases in Scarborough, to which I alluded earlier, have made its facilities grossly inadequate and an expansion program is now under way. This is a $30 million expansion program at a hospital which is running into debt in each year of operation.
Its problem in raising money from the public is simple. Centenary Hospital is not famous, although that will be somewhat alleviated after my speech today. Centenary Hospital does not perform heart transplants or other rare and sensational procedures frequently noted by our ever vigilant news media. It merely heals the sick day in and day out without much of the publicity it deserves. As an example of its service to the community, Centenary Hospital had more than
18,000	admissions in its 1983-84 fiscal year and treated 64,600 cases in its emergency department. I stress these figures since I know that all of my hon. colleagues in the House who do not have a hospital in their riding will wish to return to their constituents and urge them to support Centenary Hospital's expansion fund.
I have attempted to provide a broad overview of Scarborough East, Mr. Speaker, because only in that way is it possible for all of us to perceive the relationship of these 100,000 individuals to the Throne Speech and subsequent financial statement being debated in the House.
November 15, 1984

Scarborough East enjoys the mosaic extending from thousands of young first home owners to thousands of senior citizens, all with one common thread of interest. They all have dreams of attaining different levels of success and comfort. Only last week these dreams became so much closer to reality for all of them after hearing the Speech from the Throne and the Hon. Minister's financial statement. They all have more confidence in both their country and their futures than they had just a few months ago.
The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, and most especially the subsequent financial statement, was an indicator to this nation. It was an indicator which will restore the confidence necessary to create the jobs we need and reduce the massive deficit which I am sure is the top priority in the mind of every Hon. Member in the House.
The $1 billion allocated for immediate job creation is certainly a welcome message to Canadians. However, of further importance is the attitude which has been established by the economic statement. That attitude is instilling confidence in the minds of businessmen across this country. It is the attitude of confidence, Mr. Speaker, which will, in reality, create even more jobs coast to coast. Companies which have been wallowing in uncertainty over the past few years will now invest in higher technological equipment. They will invest in the expansion of their plants where necessary, and the result will be jobs for thousands of Canadians.
I sincerely envy my hon. colleagues who are fluently bilingual in Canada's two official languages. I hope to become functionally bilingual during my next 16 years in the House.
It has troubled me greatly over the past few years that Quebec did not join with the other provinces of this great country in signing the constitutional accord of 1981. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of Quebec in the Constitution of Canada can and must be an attainable goal of our Government over the next four years. If the encouraging views and comments from the Premiers following Tuesday's First Ministers' conference with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is any indication of a new era in federal-provincial co-operation, I believe the Prime Minister will set in motion the necessary negotiations to achieve this undertaking. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues on both sides of the House to know that I will support the Government and do whatever I can to ensure that this necessary and vital aim is achieved during the lifetime of this Thirty-third Parliament.
My personal background has been in education for the past 31 years. For that reason, I am deeply interested in the youth of our country and their future. I am particularly pleased that the United Nations has declared 1985 to be International Youth Year whereby member countries from around the world are to place special emphasis on the role of youth in their respective countries. I am pleased further, Mr. Speaker, to announce that in an open letter to the young citizens of Scarborough dated July, 1984, the mayor stated the following:
On May 28, 1984, the council for the City of Scarborough, by special resolution, established the Scarborough International Youth Year Task Force to develop and co-ordinate this city's celebration and participation in the United
The Address-Mr. Allmand
Nations International Youth Year, participation, development, peace, 1985, for all youth ages 15 to 24.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, may I say I join with all of the constituents in Scarborough East in the sharing of a vision of Canada not unlike that held by Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. Macdonald had a vision and knew that this country could be great. We have come a long way. We have achieved greatness in many ways, but we have a long way still to go. Mr. Speaker, I pledge my support to help in every way possible, and to work with each and every Member in the House, for what is best for Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? Then we will proceed with debate.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, although we are technically debating the Speech from the Throne, it is fairly evident that the real document that we are discussing is the financial statement tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last Thursday evening. While the Speech from the Throne was a very bland and superficial document, the financial statement tabled by the Minister of Finance finally showed to the House and to the country the real intentions of the Conservative Government. This morning I will discuss both documents because it is essential that we discuss both documents together.
As I said, the Speech from the Throne is a bland and superficial document. It is filled with slogans and motherhood statements which very few people can disagree with. Who can be opposed to reconciliation, consultation or greater productivity? Who can be opposed to many of these goals and principles which were spoken of in the Speech from the Throne? I examined the Speech from the Throne very closely and found that there was really only one specific proposal for legislation in that document. That was with respect to the spouses' allowance. That is a good proposal and we will support it. Of course we will want to see the details, but in general that is a good proposal.
I recall during the election campaign when the Leader of the Conservative Party was talking about his program and what he would do if elected. He kept referring to certain matters as if he was not at all familiar with what had happened in the House. For example, he said several times that they would set up task forces whereby Members of Parliament would be able to participate in the process of government. Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament we had at least nine or ten task forces on very many subjects. I was the chairman of the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the Eighties. There was a task force on alternative energy. There was a task force on the problems of the handicapped. There was a special committee on pension reform. These special committees were similar to the task forces. These were special committees on Indian self-government and acid rain. This bright new idea of task forces which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has introduced is one which was very much with us in the last Parliament.

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Allmand
The first item mentioned in the Speech from the Throne that we are led to believe is a bright new idea is the establishment of a parliamentary task force on the reform of the House of Commons. I participated with members of the Conservative Party who did a very good job in a special committee that examined parliamentary reform for more than one year. We examined every aspect of parliamentary reform and tabled 10 reports, only one of which has been acted upon on a temporary basis. Many of us hope that those temporary measures will become permanent. But that was just one of those reports. That committee has already dealt with such matters as how to make Members of Parliament play a more independent role in the House and how to make committees more effective. Since there are so many conservative members, it appears that starting over with a new task force is only a means to occupy the time of Government members in makework projects.
I was a member of that special committee on parliamentary reform last year and I will therefore be pressing very strongly that the new committee begin by implementing those reports to which the Conservative members gave their unanimous support. Three of those Conservative members on that committee, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) and the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), were on that committee. I suggest that the Government House Leader and our House Leader (Mr. Gray) should develop a way to implement those unanimous reports so that the whole process need not begin again.
Let us examine other proposals announced in the Speech from the Throne. The Government announced that it was in favour of official languages and official language minorities. While that is laudable, it was a former Liberal government that set up the royal commission on official languages and, against great opposition from some members of the Conservative Party at that time, passed the Official Languages Act. It has been trying to fine-tune it for some years now. We are pleased that the Conservative Party with its new Leader now stands behind official languages. When it appears in the Speech from the Throne, it is almost like motherhood.
The new Government also stated in the Speech from the Throne that it wants a constitutional agreement with Quebec. We all want that. The original constitutional proposals put forward to the House by former Prime Minister Trudeau included such things as a veto for Quebec, which it always had and wanted. But that proposal was torpedoed not only by the Pequiste government in Quebec but by many of the provincial Conservative governments in this country. As a result, 1 believe that we have a weaker constitutional document, unfortunately, without Quebec. If we determine who was responsible for that, it certainly was not the previous Liberal government under Prime Minister Trudeau.
The Government then says that it will honour the commitment to Canada's aboriginal peoples as contained in the Constitution Act of 1982. The only commitment contained in the Constitution Act, 1982 is to hold two more conferences.
Why does the Speech from the Throne not mention a commitment to Indian self-government? Such a commitment was recommended in the unanimous report of the special committee to the House to which Conservative members gave unanimous support. As a matter of fact, a present member of the House was co-chairman of that special committee on Indian self-government which gave that unanimous report. The new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) has said that he favours Indian self-government and that this will be his goal. However, it was not mentioned at all in the Speech from the Throne.
The Government also stated that it believes in the legitimacy of the trade union movement. While we are pleased to hear that the Conservatives finally declared their belief in the legitimacy of the trade union movement and consultation with trade unions, it is simply another motherhood statement. The Throne Speech contains other such statements. It was a very bland and superficial document that did not tell us very much. It did not contain very much with which anybody could disagree.
However, it was the Thursday following the Throne Speech when we finally saw the true intentions of the Conservative Party. We finally saw the Tory colours being flown high and bright. The financial statement included a promise to cut expenditures by over $4 billion through the elimination of some programs altogether and a substantial cut-back of others.
It is traditional that the Throne Speech outline the proposals of the Government for the upcoming session. The Throne Speech, except for one item, was rather vague and superficial in that respect. The real intentions of the Government were shown in the financial statement.
There were many proposals that were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is well known that we compiled a list of all the promises that were made by the Conservative Party during the election. It amounted to 338 promises for a total of $4 billion. These promises were not all made on a national basis. Some where made in individual constituencies, like those made by the Conservative candidate in my constituency. Some promises were made to certain regions of the country in order to gain votes and cajole the people of those ridings. We saw very few steps to fulfil those promises in the Throne Speech. The issue of spouses' allowance is certainly one example. I approved of that policy. However, what happened to those 338 promises which amounted to $4 billion? When will the Government fulfil those promises?
The Government has said that when it came to power it discovered that it would not be able to implement those promises because the cupboard was bare. The Government stated last week that it has discovered that the deficit will be approximately $34 billion. During the election campaign the Prime Minister and his many candidates were saying that the situation was much worse and that the deficit would be $36 billion. They campaigned for election on the basis that the country's finances were in an awful mess, that the deficit was worse than they admitted it to be the other night. Yet they made those 338 promises that were worth $4 billion. That
November 15, 1984

figure of $4 billion was given by the Prime Minister toward the end of the election campaign. I suggest it is another sign of deceit for the Government to come before the House and the Canadian people and say that it discovered that the cupboard was bare. They knew the facts when they made their promises.
During the election campaign the Conservatives made promises in three categories. They made promises for change. I attended some five all-candidates' debates with my Conservative opponent and tried to pin him down on what he meant by change. Did he mean a return to the type of Toryism that we saw for a whole summer when the Conservative Party fought against the new Canadian flag, or when they fought against the Canadian Constitution and the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights? Does he mean a return to the time when they fought against medicare and the initial implementation of other programs? By change, did he mean a change to the past, to that kind of Conservatism?
We did not know what was meant until the financial statement last Thursday. We now know that it is a change to the Arthur Meighen Toryism of the 1920s, to the dismantlement bit by bit of the institutions that have been built up in this country. Although the Government announced $4.2 billion in cuts, it says that more are coming in the spring. We have finally discovered what sort of changes the Conservatives had in mind.
The Conservatives also promised that thousands of jobs would appear immediately after the election. We are now told that they do not have a specific plan at the moment for creating those jobs and that it must be developed in consultation with the provinces, trade unions and business. While that is understandable, why did they not say that before the election? At that time they gave the impression that they already had a plan for job creation. It is now apparent that they had no plan or blueprint for job creation, just a pious hope. Many people would like to see more jobs. I hope the Government is successful in devising a plan through consultation, and members of the Opposition will help in devising that plan.
1 hope that in these task forces, special committees and commissions we will have as much input, since we are elected Members of Parliament, as all other Members. They should be listened to but so should we.
The Conservatives made 338 promises which entail specific spending. In other words, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint Maurice (Mr. Chretien), often says, they were, unlike him, speaking out of both sides of their mouths at once. The Tories were going to cut the deficit and spend, by admission of the Prime Minister, approximately $4 billion on those promises.
With respect to the financial statement of the other evening, a previous debater from the Conservative Party said that the Government would not cut the deficit on the backs of the poor, just as we had said. We said we were interested in curtailing the deficit and doing something about it-
The Address-Mr. Allmand


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: It is on the record. As a matter of fact, we were accused just a minute ago of being in favour of that. We are in favour of that, Mr. Speaker, but not in the way the Tories have set out. I have forgotten which Hon. Member opposite repeated a minute ago that he did not want to cut the deficit on the backs of the poor or the unfortunate. When I asked him about the $9.6 million cut in social housing-and for anyone who does not know about social housing, it is housing for senior citizens, for our lower income families, for one-parent families, for mothers who have been abandoned and so on-what did we hear? How does the Hon. Member explain it? Certainly those are the unfortunate in our society. The Hon. Member said he would not support cuts that hurt them, but that procedure will hurt them.
Let us look at some of these cuts. I would like to have an explanation at some stage as to how these cuts will not hurt someone. Even the CBC has a $75 million cut. One might say that we do not really need the CBC that much. But I do not know how one can cut $75 million from the CBC budget without cutting jobs. I wonder if the Tories really believe that people who will be cut by the CBC will be picked up by the CTV network. That is a pious wish that they will be picked up by the CTV.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that what will happen is what happened when the Avro Arrow was cut. A lot of the technicians and a lot of the people from the CBC will go south of the border and will end up working for the ABC, NBC and CBS networks. That will be most unfortunate. The cultural agencies are also involved. We have the National Film Board, the National Arts Centre and the Canada Council. There are jobs in all those entities. People work in arts and culture.
I got a kick out of the Prime Minister during the leadership campaign. He continually referred to those who work in the "real world". His impression was that if you work in the private sector you were in the real world, but those in the public sector like, I suppose, teachers, nurses, and policemen were not in the "real world". They were in some make believe world. Their work was not as valuable as those who worked, let us say, at manufacturing cigarettes or hula hoops. Because they worked in the private sector, their work was real; but for those who work in the public sector as teachers, nurses, correctional officers and so on, their work was unreal. Then he stopped saying this. I guess somebody in his office told him to stop using that expression. However, his basic philosophy that was committed to that kind of thinking carried on because we saw it expressed in the financial document of the other night.
Let me continue with the cuts. I have mentioned social housing, which is $9.6 million. The program for residential rehabilitation assistance is cut $29.4 million. In the document we find the statement: "The planned level of activity will be reduced by 25 per cent". I do not know how many Members

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Allmand
are familiar with this program, but it was to upgrade dilapidated housing in communities, housing that was falling down. Instead of what happened in the past where we saw steam shovels and steam rollers destroying buildings to make room for parking lots, this program was to trying to rehabilitate and restore older housing. This program, however, will be cut by 25 per cent; $29.4 million. I do not know whether the private sector will pick that up for a profit motive, whether it will go into rehabilitation of older housing for those people living there now and not for a lot of trendy people who move into these areas.
I am reminded that my time is rapidly coming to a close.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: There is so much to be said on the subject, but I suppose I had better get to the final point I want to make.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I have tried to make many points with Government Members. We know we will not win many votes in this House, and I say this very seriously, but we do hope to win some of the debates and turn public opinion against what the Government is trying to do. We are hoping people will start to listen and really examine these cuts, and that Tory members will start hearing from their constituents about some of these things-about rehabilitation of old housing, about the cuts in the cultural agencies, about cuts in research and development and about cuts in social housing. Perhaps then the Government will then change its mind.
I will have to make another speech on another amendment to this Speech from the Throne, but now I want to move an amendment to the Speech from the Throne as follows: I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin); the following amendment:
That this House regrets that your advisors not only failed to make open government a high priority but also, in their actions, have sought to reverse the direction of previous administrations by severely restricting the availability of information on decision-making in government and by attempting to inhibit access to both the elected and non-elected participants in that process.
Let me refer briefly to some of the things that have happened in the restriction of information. Of course, we have had questions by the New Democratic Party and by our Leader about releasing the figures on jobs that would be lost as a result of the financial program brought in last Thursday. The Conservatives refused to give us that information.
We have other examples. We have the new chiefs of staff, the commissars, who are restricting the flow of information from their departments to Members of Parliament and to the press. We have orders from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that people in his department should not discuss matters of that department with the press. We have an individual in the Privy Council Office who had been giving some information and was told to shut up and not to talk to reporters any more. Then we have the Government Lobby declared out of bounds to reporters. For years and years, even under the previous Conservative government of Mr. Clark,
reporters were allowed in. Now for the first time no reporters are allowed in the Government Lobby. We have this excessive restriction on the flow of information. On the one hand the Government talks about consultation and consensus-making, yet the Government refuses to provide the Canadian people and members of this House with the information that is needed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made a very eloquent appeal for more support for social housing. Where was the Hon. Member in all the years when we had Liberal governments-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: -when such a small percentage of the funding provided by the federal Government for housing through Canada Mortgage and Housing was allocated for social housing, for senior citizens' housing, for public housing and for co-operative housing?
Would the Hon. Member comment upon the fact that in the most recent documents prepared by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the Liberal government there were proposals for cutting-I am relying upon my memory but I know that I am not far wrong-the allocation of funds for social and co-operative housing by 50 per cent? Where was the Hon. Member when those things were going on in the Liberal government?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member asked that question as he and 1 have known each other for a long time. He knows that 1 rose in my place many times and urged the then government to put more money into social housing. In fact, there were occasions when I voted against that government and voted with his Party.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Come over here.


William Warren Allmand: If the Hon. Member would like me to send him my speeches, I would be glad to do so. I was not satisfied with the amounts of money they were putting into social housing, but at least they were moving ahead. They were not moving backwards. It was not enough in my opinion but at least they were moving ahead. This time we are going backwards.
There may have been situations where, because of the rate of inflation and so on, increases in budget did not do as much as we wanted. However, never did my government bring in cutbacks of $9.6 million or cutbacks in rehabilitation as the present Government has done. The Hon. Member asked where I was. He knows darn well where I was. I used to sit across the way and made many speeches in this area.
November 15, 1984

He also referred to proposals by bureaucrats to cut programs. He is correct. When we were in government bureaucrats made proposals to cut. They tried to cut a social housing program in my constituency at least five times over the last 10 years. However, when it reached the political level, we said no.
I was able to maintain that program in my riding against what the bureaucrats were proposing by approaching the Minister face to face on several occasions and indicating that we should not do that. 1 hope some of the back-benchers on the Conservative side will take the same approach. I hope they will approach their Ministers and say: "That will hurt in my constituency; it will put people out on the street. Why don't you scrap that? Let's not go ahead with that ridiculous proposal".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) has a question.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, it is really a great day. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) used to belong to the NDP. It does not surprise me nor anyone in the House-


An Hon. Member:: He still belongs to it.


Gerry St. Germain: As the Hon. Member points out, he still belongs to the NDP but sits with the Liberals. They have been bed partners for years and I guess they will continue in that vein.
However, I find it surprising that the Hon. Member would rise at this point and question our approach. From day one during the campaign his Leader and his Party continually said that we were not saying anything. Now he rises and says that we made 338 promises. We will carry out those 338 promises; however, we will phase them in and they will be carried out in a business-like manner. That is how this country will be run. Obviously it will be a shock to the Hon. Member because he does not know how to do this.


An Hon. Member:: A day doesn't go by when you don't break a promise.


Gerry St. Germain: Promises will be lived up to. However, the Liberals fought with everyone. They governed through confrontation. They governed through confrontation and cannot understand how people work through consultation and conciliation.
The Hon. Member appears to be knowledgeable and to know exactly what went on in the previous administration. He said that he wanted to wrestle the deficit; he wanted to reduce it. In 1980 they made that promise, and it was a blatant misrepresentation to Canadians because the deficit did not go down; it went up. What recommendations would he now make? The adjustments made by the present Government were made in a humane, understanding way, taking into consideration people first. Obviously the Hon. Member must have some recommendations; I am sure he would not rise
The Address-Mr. Allmand
otherwise. Where would he have performed the required cutbacks to wrestle the deficit which is destroying the country and bringing about high interest rates?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. friend. He and I, despite our differences in politics, are good friends. However, I want to correct him on his first point. I was never a member of the NDP. I was a member of the CCF. I had to leave that party when it became the NDP because I did not believe in its new philosophy. I found that there was more to satisfy me in the Liberal Party than in the NDP.
He talked about the 338 promises. He said that they will introduce them in due course. I hope we do not hold our breath. As a matter of fact, the reason I pointed them out to him was not because I wanted them to bring them all forward. Some of them are good, some of them are not so good. 1 referred to them because it points to the credibility of his Party. It made some 338 promises and on its own admission they totalled $4 billion. They also said during the campaign that the deficit was to be $36 billion; then they said that they cannot implement the promises because the cupboard was bare and so on.
With respect to confrontation, there was some confrontation during the last five or ten years. However, we must remember that there was a government elected in Quebec which had the explicit purpose at that time of splitting up the country. There was going to be confrontation. There was no way we would accept any of that. When there were other provinces which wanted to whittle away the federal authority, there was no way we would accept it. The initiatives for that confrontation did not come from the federal Government. The proposal for a referendum on sovereignty association did not come from us; it came from the Pequiste government in Quebec. We opposed it. We confronted it and we will always confront it.
In the Budget last Spring there was a program to deal with the deficit. First it was to eliminate waste and duplication, not whole programs if they were good ones. Also we wanted-and it is a goal shared by him and his Government-to do something about the unemployment rate. We believe in direct employment programs, not just in a private sector approach to it. Something had to be done about unemployment because the greatest cause of the increased deficit over the last few years, if the Hon. Member looks at the figures, has been the drain on the economy through unemployment insurance and programs to deal with unemployment. If we stimulate the economy to the extent that unemployment drops and employment rises, there will be a lesser drain on the spending of government and there will be more money paid into it through income taxes and so on.
We do not believe that the principal cause for the lack of business confidence is the size of the deficit. In Japan there is a higher percentage deficit of Gross National Product, yet it only has 2 per cent or 3 per cent unemployment and inflation rates. The real cause of the lack of business confidence lies elsewhere. It lies partly in national problems and in international problems. The cause is not some of the programs which were cut the other night.
254

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Plamondon


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate will now resume on the amendment.
The Hon. Member for Richelieu.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues of the Progressive Conservative Party, Hon. Members of the Opposition. First of all, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to the people of the riding of Richelieu, who supported me in such great numbers on election day.
Mr. Speaker, before getting to the main subject of my speech, I would like to say a few words about this vast riding of Richelieu. Some areas are very industrialized, and I am thinking of Sorel-Tracy and Pierreville, while fishing is important at Baie-du-Febvre, farming is the major source of income in Nicolet and the Becancour area is about to experience significant industrial development with the new Pechiney factory.
My riding also wanted a real change on September 4. People in my constituency were sick and tired of the lack of agricultural policies, the appalling uncontrolled frittering away of the La Prade Fund, the lack of measures to initiate genuine economic recovery by creating permanent jobs, and finally the lack of opportunities for our young people. That is why they rejected an aging government without a real policy, which was literally driving the country to ruin.
After Canadians made their decision, in the Speech from the Throne on November 5, the new Government set out the key policies it intends to pursue during its mandate.
The Throne Speech has shown all Canadians that the Government intends to live up to basic commitments made during the election campaign. It reflects the firm resolve of the caucus to end twenty years of petty quarrelling, which created divisions in our society that will be difficult to overcome. The centralist and paternalistic kind of federalism promoted by our hon. friends opposite during the past twenty years, thereby obstructing the legitimate aspirations of the provinces, is now dead and should be buried as deep as possible.
As far as Quebec is concerned, Denyse Amiot, a freelance journalist writing for the Canadian Legion-which certainly cannot be accused of having separatist leanings-said: The Liberals went so far in opposing any initiative taken by Quebec, whatever its merits, that they could no longer, without renouncing their own policies, retreat from an attitude which, after serving them well for a short time in 1980, finally became their downfall. They failed to understand the message voters were trying to give them. Only a few days before September 4, the Secretary of State gave another example of Liberal highhandedness when he tried to circumvent the Province by paying funds directly to Quebec universities. The result: the
presidents of the universities protested, and subsequently, the then Secretary of State, now become a symbol of this kind of arrogance, went down to defeat in his own riding.
A few months before, the fisheries industry in Quebec had been unilaterally declared to be under exclusive federal jurisdiction. The ensuing frustration and confrontation led to a drop in the number of landings, bankruptcies and widespread discontent. The result: all ridings where fishing is a major industry turned their backs on the Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now discuss a subject that is particularly important to the riding of Richelieu. I am referring to the fact that instead of negotiating in good faith with Quebec the redeployment of funds originally earmarked for the construction of the La Prade heavy water plant at Becancour, the Liberals decided to distribute these funds at will in the towns and villages of central Quebec. The result: all ridings in this area repudiated the Liberals, even if they had apparently benefited from their largesse.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of federalism was not Canadian federalism. It was a travesty of the spirit in which the fathers of the Canadian Confederation drafted the Constitution of 1867.
As for this Government, it has already clearly indicated in the past few days that there will be a complete change of direction. This has already been reflected in a noticeable detente in relations with the various provincial governments.
It is clear that our task will not be any easier as a result of twenty years of incompetence and a $34 billion deficit. However, despite this unfortunate state of affairs, we of the Progressive Conservative Party are facing the future with firm resolve and shall deal with the mistakes of the past.
In his economic statement, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated the only possible route, which is to reduce a debt that, today, has a stranglehold on Canadian money markets. Obviously, cutting the deficit will not be easy and some of our projects may have to be temporarily shelved. Members of the opposition can rest assured that I will have special thoughts for them every time that happens. Cutting the deficit means that choices must be made and priorities reconsidered. The economic statement of the Minister of Finance does give us an indication of what those priorities will be. Making that kind of choice is difficult and painful, but I am convinced that he will keep in mind the needs of a riding such as mine which the Liberals have neglected for over twenty years.
Indeed, the riding of Richelieu was once Quebec's metallurgical centre, but it had to cope with declining markets, not to mention the lack of research and development programs in metallurgy. Everyone can see that those vast regions, including Sorel-Tracy where 77 per cent of the industrial labour force works in metal processing and manufacturing plants, need
November 15, 1984

immediate help. Throughout the election campaign, the party and 1 said clearly that priority will be given to research and development. Hon. Members can appreciate that a developed country simply cannot look forward to a bright future unless its Government actively supports that vital but often neglected industry. That is why I want to repeat in the House that I will make every effort to secure the metallurgical research and development funding which my riding needs so badly.
Another concern expressed in my riding and in many others throughout Canada has to do with our Government's maritime transport policy and the creation of a merchant marine. As you may know, Sorel has long been famous for its shipyards, but unfortunately the situation has gone from bad to worse in the past ten years because there was no firm policy. All Canadian shipyards are now in that kind of predicament. The party and I are committed to steering Canada gradually towards a clear-cut marine transportation policy. Big though that challenge may be, I firmly believe that this Government will take action, unlike others before us which did little more than rest on their laurels. Again 1 say to Hon. Members that I am anxious to work actively in drafting that policy.
In a country where marine transportation has been completely ignored by Liberal Governments for more than thirty years, in a country where we still have some ships which were built before the Titanic, in a country where more than half of the ships registered in 1983 were at least twenty years old, in short, in a country where the fleet becomes less competitive and less safe every day, now is the time indeed to implement a policy designed to promote the shipbuilding industry in Canada rather than in foreign countries as was the case under the Liberals. Our party has stated clearly that it would support the gradual development of Canada's merchant marine by restoring economic confidence through tax credits.
Other solutions cannot be discounted, quite the opposite. For instance, by applying certain rules to the granting of subsidies under the Petroleum Incentives Program, we could probably promote a substantial recovery in the Canadian shipbuilding industry. Indeed, the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association did a good job of explaining the situation in a release dated February 24, 1984, where it was pointed out that four new foreign-built ships used for shipping steel were registered in Canada during the first months of 1984 under the previous Liberal administration. These four ships, with a total tonnage of 10,722 tons, serve the oil fields of the Eastern coastline. Three of them were built in South Korea and one in Norway. We must stop purchasing from other countries. Those four ships could have been built in Canada, which would have minimized the slowdown in shipbuilding activities in 1982 and 1983. Such imports will probably continue as long as low cost financing can be found abroad and as long as loopholes in existing Government policies have not been eliminated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but he may continue this afternoon.
It being one o'clock, I shall now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the 1984 Statutory Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. May I remind Hon. Members that, pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, something must be said about the early announcement made by the Government that Canadair and de Havilland are up for sale. I rise not only because de Havilland is in my constituency and affects thousands of jobs and surrounding businesses there but because there are dozens of Canadian suppliers for that company who are affected by a decision of the Government which can only be called ideological.
This is a Government that gave the impression during the election campaign that it had a great many of the answers to the questions of how to increase employment, how to strengthen Canadian culture, how to strengthen Canadian ownership, and so on. We have found through the Government's early announcements that it has no answers at all, other than to be nice, to seek consultation, to establish committees to investigate, and so on, except in one area. The only area in which the Government seems to have been prepared to proceed is the putting up of these two companies and others for sale. When we asked for them, we found that there were no studies done, no consultations, and no search for a consensus at all about whether or not these companies should be up for sale.
It is well known that the Liberal Party believes in a mixed economy. We have no ideological commitment to maintaining the aerospace industry in the public sector forever. However, we do have a commitment to maintain that industry. With that

November 15, 1984
point of view, I would like to raise with the Government and with Hon. Members of the House of Commons-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, since 1980 the oil and gas industry has been unable to make its full contribution to the Canadian economy. Declining investment in oil and gas activity has had a direct impact on Canadian energy, security, and employment levels.
Current pricing and fiscal policies have left the industry with inadequate returns. Incentive grants provided by the previous Government to encourage exploration in frontier areas introduced a bias and inefficiency to the exploration and development of Canada's energy resources.
Let us reward success rather than activity. This industry does not want special treatment. This industry wants the same treatment as other industries in Canada. It needs deregulation, a fair tax system, and the immediate removal of the 25 per cent back-in.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, cuts in the operating costs of CN ferry boats servicing Newfoundland as announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have caused CN Marine to announce a 15 per cent increase in rates charged for the Gulf ferry run. That means that, for a car and one adult, the fare to be charged on the North Sydney to Argentia run will jump to over $100 one way. This is the fare charged to get from one province to another.
The savings in coastal boat services included in a $16.1 million savings package announced by the Minister of Finance has caused a decision to be made to reduce the coastal boat service to Newfoundland and Labrador. The Government, on the one hand, is penalizing persons who wish to travel to and from Newfoundland but, on the other hand, a reduction of coastal boat service and an increase in rates can only be viewed as outrageous since this is the only method of transportation to and from some coastal communities.
To add insult to injury, the Premier of Newfoundland announced that he has to travel to Ottawa to find out what is going on. So much for co-operative federalism. Only co-operative Toryism has saved the Government from the total repudiation by the Premier of Newfoundland that it so justly deserves because of its post-election actions. I hope that the
Premier's knee-jerk obedience to his Tory superiors in Ottawa will soon end.



RESTORATION OF CUTS IN STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM URGED

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I read yesterday's speech by the Hon. Secretary of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) with great interest, and I congratulate her on her speech as well as on her important appointment. Clearly both of us are assigned to youth because we have each drunk at the fountain thereof.
I note that the Hon. Secretary of State has promised to be a spokesperson for young people. She has further stated that she believes "every youth must have all opportunities to fully develop his own potential, whether rich or poor, male or female, native or immigrant and so on". She appears therefore to recognize what her colleagues in the Cabinet do not, and that is that prosperity cannot be achieved without social justice. They are inseparable.
Therefore, I look forward to working with the Hon. Secretary of State as we speak for those represented on the Hill today, and youth generally, in urging the Government to act to obtain assured and adequate levels of funding for post-secondary education from both the federal and provincial Governments through the Established Programs Financing Act, rather than consultation to cut funding. We must ensure that federal student aid is adequate, that it encourages part-time studies, and that it helps overcome the particular barriers faced by the poor, by women, and by minorities. That will discourage the provinces from cutting their aid programs as B.C. has done. I hope, as well, that the Hon. Minister will speak for youth in fighting to have the cuts from the Canada Student Loans Program and Summer Canada restored.



PROSTITUTION


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a matter of concern to the people of Niagara Falls and one that I believe is also of concern to the people of Canada. I am referring to the subject of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The former Minister of Justice indicated that soliciting was not a national problem, but I can assure this House that it is a persistent and pressing problem to the people of Niagara Falls as well as to those of many other municipalities across the country.
Since the 1978 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, many municipalities have tried to deal with this problem but have had limited success because the previous Government failed, or refused, to act. I have already been requested by the downtown Board of Management for the City of Niagara Falls, and
November 15, 1984

others, to pursue a quick resolution to this problem. 1 was therefore very pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the new Government is prepared to act.
I would urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and my colleagues in the Thirty-third Parliament to move with all possible haste to bring in the legislative changes that are so badly needed. Prostitution as well as pornography represent a form of exploitation of women, exploitation that is unacceptable to the people of Niagara Falls and unacceptable to the people of Canada.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed to learn that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has hired William Mackness, vice-president and chief economist of the Bank of Nova Scotia, to be his special policy adviser. Mr. Mackness advises the elimination of the principle of universality of Old Age Security and family allowances in order to cut the federal deficit by an incredible 50 per cent. Such a sudden reduction in the deficit will not be felt by bankers like Mr. Mackness; rather, ordinary Canadians will pay for his policy ideas.
It is not surprising that this Government, while extolling the virtues of consultation, goes first to its friends in Canada's fourth largest bank for advice. What havoc will this Government wreak on social programs that benefit ordinary Canadians, in order to please its supporters in big business?
Members of the New Democratic Party fought long and hard for the right of Canadians to pensions and family allowances. We struggled for the principle of universality in these programs to prevent the indignity of a means test. I fear this Government wants to turn the clock back.
We are disappointed and frightened by the changing stand of the Tory Government on the question of universality. Once a sacred trust, universality is now under attack. In this appointment we see further evidence that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) reassurances on universality were just an election ploy. We ask for a degree of honesty in this Government that we did not see in the previous Liberal Government.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I congratulate the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Beatty) on his project to humanize the tax department. Of all the complaints I have to deal with in my riding, most concern tax issues, tax agencies, tax men and their attitudes. I hesitate to use the word "tactics", although others have.
The Minister has stated that by taking the tax department to the people not as an adversary but more as a counselling agency, it will encourage those who have been holding back to come out of the closet and pay their outstanding balances. I wholeheartedly agree with this approach and, as any parent knows, understanding will work far better than the big stick.
Changing the image of the tax department is a task that has long been put aside, perhaps deliberately. The Government has shown it has the determination and willingness to change rather than prolong a bad system merely because it is there.
This move has other positive aspects as well, not the least of which is the immediate employment of those seeking work. The Minister indicates some 380 person-years will be spent on this change. This indicates the Government's commitment and determination to follow through with the P.C. task force report recommending change to Revenue Canada. This shows the people of Canada that the Government is working for them rather than demanding that the people work for it.



VIA RAIL


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the people of New Brunswick and the Maritime region were heartened by the commitment of the Government to restore VIA Rails' Atlantic Limited. The elimination of the line was opposed by New Brunswickers and maritimers who had no desire to lose that efficient and popular link with Central Canada, nor the wish to see our tourism potential and regional mobility hindered. I am very pleased that the Government has recognized the value of the Atlantic Limited.
I would urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to move with speed in re-establishing this transportation system. The frustrations and inefficiency of the present service are well known and well documented. I wish to spare New Brunswickers, and all of those persons travelling throughout the Maritime region, the problems of poor scheduling, overbooking, wasted time, and unnecessary expense.
The reinstatement of the Edmundston to Moncton line was well received and I hope it will again be a permanent part of the VIA operations.
New Brunswickers realize and appreciate the Government is faced with the culmination of a decade and a half of fiscal mismanagement, extravagant waste, and irresponsibility. However, we hope that these factors will not deter the Government from returning to service, as soon as possible, a passenger rail line which never should have been abandoned.

November 15, 1984



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, new and would-be Canadians were shocked and disgusted when the Government more than doubled the citizenship application costs for adults, and more than tripled the application costs for minors. An average family of five will now have to pay $155 rather than the previous amount of $54. This unjustified increase is clearly a regressive and insensitive policy direction, one which will discourage rather than facilitate people's entry into the Canadian mainstream.
In its over zealous attempt to increase government revenues, the Conservative Government has abandoned the principle of compassion, undermined the spirit of multiculturalism, and has hit the very people who could least afford it. This policy, Mr. Speaker, is a sad reflection on a new Tory regime.
I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism to reverse this very unfortunate decision immediately and restore citizenship application costs to an affordable and fair level.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: 

COST OF ELECTRICITY IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Islanders pay the highest electrical rates in Canada,
about three times the national average. These electrical rates are detrimental to the economy of our province. Every person and every resource sector are at a distinct disadvantage when trying to compete in the marketplace. As an example, the national average cost of producing a litre of milk, based on farmers using 3,000 kilowatt hours of electricity, is 67 cents. The cost of producing that same litre of milk in Prince Edward Island is $1.41. That is a total of 74 cents above the national average.
Maritime Electric recently announced that, because of the increase in crude oil prices which was introduced in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), electrical rates will rise by 4 per cent.
Agricultural production must remain viable in order to ensure the economic security of all Island residents. How can this industry expect to remain viable unless the Government follows through on its promise to reduce the cost of electricity to the islanders? Instead of reducing costs to these people, the Government is raising them. The Government promised to support the farmers and residents of Prince Edward Island, and it is now time that those promises were kept.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of his Government's unfortunate handling of the case of Jonathan Mann, the Canadian journalist who is imprisoned by the Indian authorities. This is a case which has caused concern to Canadian journalists and even to the Foreign Correspondents Association in Washington.
Yesterday the Minister of External Relations said in the House:
Representations at the highest level have been made to India's Department of Foreign Affairs-
Yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying: "We cannot start the process of interfering with other countries in the application of their law". How does the Minister explain this contradiction? Why is he undermining his Minister for External Relations? Exactly what are the facts here? Why is the Minister acting less vigorously to protect the interests of a Canadian journalist than the French Government acted to protect the interests of the French journalist, Abouchar, and to get him released from Afghanistan?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Hon. Member for the precision of his question. Let me also take the opportunity to
November 15, 1984

say that in a scrum outside the House I indicated, as I should not have, that Mr. Mann had broken the law of India. He is in fact charged with breaking the law of India. I apologize to the House for that mistake.
In terms of the representations which are being made, they are extensive and are made on a regular basis, following the normal and accepted diplomatic procedures by our High Commissioner, and by way of a conversation between my Deputy Minister and the Acting High Commissioner of India to Canada. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the best judge of the effectiveness of the response of Canada to this question is Mr. Mann himself. Mr. Mann himself in recent conversations- yesterday-with our High Commission expresses himself as being highly pleased with the way in which the Government of Canada has responded to his situation.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has apologized for saying yesterday that Mr. Mann broke the law, therefore, in effect, presuming that he was guilty before he had his day in court. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs personally conveyed his apologies in that regard to the Indian High Commissioner? And has he instructed our High Commissioner in India to convey his apologies to the Indian authorities?
I ask the Minister this question because, if he does not do so, there is no way that the Canadian Government can get the Indian Government to take seriously anything it says because Mr. Mann stands convicted in the eyes of the Canadian Government and of the Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not done that, nor do I intend to. I can assure the House of Commons that the Government of India takes very seriously the representations which are being made by the Government of Canada.


DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS' RELATIONS WITH MEDIA
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if his seeming acquiescence in the detention of Mr. Mann by the Indian Government is linked to his own order gagging all of the officials of his Department-even the press officers who are paid to speak to the press-from speaking to the press and the public? This is in contradiction to the policy he himself issued when he was Prime Minister, which required openness on the part of officials. Is there a link here? In fact, is the Minister intending to apply his own gag order to himself?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. The elaboration, Mr. Speaker, is that if the Hon. Member is looking for the missing link, he should turn his eyes to himself.
Oral Questions


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Further to yesterday's question concerning the six political prisoners being held by the Afghan authorities, it seems the Minister misled the Member for Outremont and this House when she stated that no request had been made on behalf of these prisoners. According to the facts, six formal sponsorship requests for these prisoners were made in June of this year. The reference numbers are: R-l 1044 to R-l 1049.
Since she has privately admitted she was wrong, is the Minister prepared to make a public apology today for having misled this House?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member raised the question yesterday there were no names attached, and there had been several groups under consideration. I was speaking of one group and she was speaking of the other, and I very sincerely apologize to her for the fact that I did not clearly indicate the group that I was speaking about. However, having reviewed this situation, having looked at the group she later told me she was speaking about, 1 can certainly assure her that my predecessor had indeed said there would be applications provided to these people should they meet all the requirements, including medical requirements.
We have not been able to persuade the local authorities in a very inaccessible border area to allow medical examinations to take place. But we have asked for the co-operation of other countries in helping to have this done. We have asked for the co-operation of the International Red Cross, and we are very actively pursuing their case in the hope that they will eventually be brought to Canada.
[ Translation]


ADMISSION OF REFUGEES TO CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, Canada has already admitted several hundred Chilean refugees without medical certificates. Does the Minister's reply mean that the new Government has changed course and from now on intends to restrict entry into Canada of refugees especially those from totalitarian countries that are-

November 15, 1984
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member ready to ask a question? I am sorry, I heard a preamble at the beginning of her remarks and at the end I heard a question, and 1 am prepared to hear it again.


Lucie Pépin: Does the Minister's reply mean that the new Government has changed course and from now on intends to restrict entry into Canada of refugees especially those from totalitarian countries since these are the people who are persecuted the most?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, no, we have not changed our approach. These were the regulations that were laid down, particularly in the case of these six people, by my predecessor.


Mr. Nunziata:: That is two apologies. Who is next?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will know that we have been trying for many days to obtain the direct job impact of his Government's program cuts and tax increases. I am forced once again today to raise that issue, based on his comments last night at the Toronto Insurance Conference black tie dinner where he said, "our economic analysis suggests that this progam, from a quantitative viewpoint, does not impact negatively in terms of job creation in the country". Yet just two days ago his Minister of Finance stood in this House and said quite the contrary, that in 1986 there would be a marginal decrease in the number of jobs in the country as a result of the Government's policy. Would the Prime Minister explain who is it of the two who is really being straightforward with the House of Commons and the people of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 recollect, the Minister of Finance was not at variance with me in his response. He said the matter was statistically insignificant. That is consistent with exactly what I have been saying. As you know, employment in the next fiscal year will increase. Interest rates dropped today almost a quarter of a point further, inflation is at 3.8 per cent, and consumer confidence as expressed by the Conference Board this morning is rising dramatically. Those are good signs.


ECONOMIC PROSPECTS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated in Toronto that quantitatively there would be no particular change, yet he is saying these things cannot be measured. I seek clarification from him. Is he saying that as a result of the program cuts the Government has made,
and the fact that taxes have been increased, we can expect more investment to occur in Canada, more growth in the economy, and more jobs created? Is that essentially what the Prime Minister is saying?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that the old policies as articulated and defended by the alliance of Liberals and NDP over many years have resulted in abject failure. The new programs set out by the Minister of Finance, which are meeting with enthusiastic response across the country, will provide Canadians with the kinds of durable jobs on an ongoing basis that Canada requires. That is what we are saying.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION YOUTH-BUDGETARY CUTS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
At this very moment, while the Minister is sitting comfortably in his chair, nearly 1,000 students are waiting outside for an opportunity to express to the Government their concern about the budgetary cuts that will affect them. The House is aware that the Government intends to cut summer jobs, student loans and transfer payments for post-secondary education, and now nearly 1,000 students have been standing out in the cold, waiting to communicate a message to the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. I therefore wish to ask the Minister how he can justify refusing to meet with Canadian citizens who want to express their concerns to the Government and, instead, choosing to ignore this demonstration by young people who want to have a say in the debate on their future.


Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the important question and the important issue he raises. I want to assure him that I take very seriously the situation of Canadian students. He may know that last week, when the Canadian Federation of Students was here lobbying all caucuses, along with the Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration we met for an hour and a half to discuss the national concern for the Canada Student Loan Program and the funding concerns of Canadian universities. I assure the Hon. Member that I will be meeting with the provincial Ministers of Education in the near future, and I will be beginning the dialogue about the future of post-secondary education.
November 15, 1984

[Translation}


ST. VALENTINE'S DAY CONFERENCE-REQUEST THAT STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, if 1 understood the Minister correctly, to him only the national lobby groups are the legitimate representatives of the students.
Right now, there are about a thousand students out there the Minister is refusing to meet. His leader said this Government had to be generous, open and approachable. Could the Hon. Minister give the House the assurance that before any discussion takes place on cuts in funding for post-secondary education, student representatives will be consulted at the meeting on St. Valentine's Day?
In fact, could the Minister give the House the assurance that student representatives will be allowed to attend the meeting as observers, to ensure that their interests are being defended properly?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, possibly I should remind the Hon. Member, who was a Member on the government side of the House, that it was not this Party that unilaterally attacked post-secondary education with the six and five cuts that were imposed. It was not this Party which failed to consult the universities, students, administration or faculty. I assure him that I have already met with the administration, the CAUT, and the national student bodies, and we will continue with the process that the Prime Minister has mentioned.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. A minute ago he said again in the House that the program cuts and tax increases which the Minister of Finance brought in a number of days ago will lead to more jobs in the economy. Both he and the Minister of Finance have said that they will lead to more investment and growth.
My question is quite a serious one. Based on the actual experience of such a program applied to the Province of British Columbia, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to explain the following results to me. I will give him the figures with care, and ask him to treat the House seriously and answer the question. When Ministers of the Government of British Columbia brought in their budget they made a forecast of growth increase of 6 per cent. The result now is minus .1 per cent. They forecast an investment increase of 15 per cent, and the results are minus 5 per cent. Employment growth was forecast to be 4 per cent. The latest forecast is minus .9 per cent. Two days ago the Minister of Finance of British
Oral Questions
Columbia said that their deficit is now going to be larger than they expected. Why does the Prime Minister expect his program of cuts and tax increases will be good for Canada when it has been an unmitigated disaster for British Columbia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the facts as set out by my hon. friend. What is lacking in regard to the question addressed to a national Government capable of influencing fiscal and monetary policy in a real way is the intangible called confidence- investor confidence and consumer confidence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that the socialists do not understand the word "confidence", and with good reason. However, that is a very important factor in motivating the private sector toward the co-operation which we are now seeing between provincial Governments and between the private sector and the federal Government to create those jobs. It is the new climate of fairness, openness and co-operation that is going to bring about the jobs that we require.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVINCIAL ECONOMY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has talked about business confidence and I, for one, think that the notion has some relevance. However, the very group that he is appealing to, who are now saying that his program is wonderful, also said that Mr. Bennett's program was wonderful when it was first brought in, and they have changed their minds.
I would like the Prime Minister to comment on this. The other day the head of the Business Council of B.C. said, with regard to that program in B.C., that "the economy hasn't recovered". The president of the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, who liked the program before, has now seen the results and has said that "B.C. is heading for hell in a handbasket". He is advising his business clients to get out of the Province of British Columbia. Why should we listen to the Prime Minister when B.C. businessmen see the program as an unmitigated disaster?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have always been mystified as to why the NDP delights in being so morose. They take such pleasure in other people's difficulties. British Columbia has a totally resource-based economy. It did go through a recession largely induced by the actions of the Liberal Government, and they went through difficult times, as is widely known.
We are trying, as best we can, to put together the framework which will inspire confidence from the private sector, co-operation with trade unions, and co-operation with provincial and federal Governments to try to harmonize our initiatives to create the kinds of jobs that a strong and united Canada can create. That is what we are going to do.

November 15, 1984
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party and the people of Canada are not interested in being morose. We simply want some truth from the Government of Canada; that is all.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CHANGE ECONOMIC PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, businessmen, labour movements, women and senior citizens have opposed the program now in B.C. Every group in the B.C. community that has seen the results of the Conservative Government's national economic policy in action see it as not working. Therefore, why is the Prime Minister, who promised positive change, not prepared to look at the evidence and change his program now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why would the Hon. Member indulge in such specious reasoning when he knows full well that there is no resemblance between the program undertaken at a given time in British Columbia and the forward looking, positive, private sector oriented program now?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why is he so gloomy?


John Edward Broadbent: You should go on the stage.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Canadian people did not give him a mandate; they gave him a reprieve on September 4.
There is a mandate for change based on co-operative action with all of the players in our economy. It is based as well on the belief that the private sector, enhanced by thoughtful government action, can create the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we need. That is what we are going to do. We hope that you will co-operate in doing it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This summer, during his campaign, he promised the Canadian public that universality was "a sacred trust that would not be tampered with". Yet, within six weeks of assuming office, he broke that promise.
In last Friday's press conference the Prime Minister said that only bank presidents, all nine of them, should expect to have some cut in their family allowance cheques. However, in his own budget which was tabled here last Thursday evening, it states that Canadian families earning between $20,000 and
$30,000 a year, and that is the average Inco worker, can expect cuts in benefits to their children, and to their grandparent's pension cheques. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that average Canadian families earning between $20,000 and $30,000 a year will be subject to this review of social security?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if the Hon. Member could give us the page and read it out, because there were at least three serious, no doubt inadvertent, misstatements of fact in his question. The fact of the matter is that the Government has not tampered with universality and has not changed it.


Mr. Tobin:: Not yet.


Mr. Gagliano:: What happened to the sacred trust?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have not even considered going so far as the finance critic of the Liberal Party did. When he was running for the leadership of that Party he asked that they all be scrapped. So there should not be any great declarations of ideological purity coming from the other side. All we are trying to do is ask, in what we think is a mature way, without affecting the universal nature of medical care and without at any time having a means test, whether we cannot, as a mature society, explore ways in which we can put more dollars into the hands of those underprivileged in our society who need them most. That is the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OPERATION OF TAX SYSTEM
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, none of us in this Chamber would be opposed to review in that manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Why has the Government chosen to put the burden on the backs of the families of this country who earn between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, rather than on the banks and the people whom we have all talked about, who earn over $50,000 a year and have not paid their fair share of taxes? That is the question I would like the Prime Minister to answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As I think the hon. gentleman knows, the tax system operates in such a way that those in .higher brackets, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, receive less because of the operations of the tax system in many ways. However, in some programs they receive more than people who earn under $10,000. We are trying to get more money into the hands of people in this country who need it. That is the object of the exercise. I was delighted to see that the Hon. Member, speaking on behalf of all his colleagues, joins in this process of review.

November 15, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PIPELINES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Government has announced its decision to halt branch line construction on the Montreal-Quebec natural gas pipeline. This move will eliminate thousands of possible job opportunities for construction workers in the province of Quebec.
Could the Minister explain why this decision was made without consulting the communities concerned and without taking into account the commitments given by Progressive Conservative Party candidates during the recent election campaign?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my critic from the NDP, on his appointment. 1 look forward to a cordial relationship with him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: Of course his question deals with the issue of the Quebec laterals program which was not cancelled but deferred in the economic statement last week.
1 want to assure the Hon. Member that I met with the Quebec Minister of Energy last week before the cuts were announced to discuss the priorities of the Quebec Minister of Energy. The issue of the pipeline will be the subject of further discussion about when we can resume the timing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: As to that relationship, 1 assume that the Minister is speaking for herself.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, concerns getting information about jobs with respect to this pipeline and other topics. I have before me an affidavit sworn in 1977 by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in a law case against the Attorney General of Canada, suing the Government for information-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In the affidavit, it is said that-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Conservatives said to the court in their affidavit that their opposition in the House of Commons had been "frustrated and stultified" because they could not get information from the previous Government. Why is it wrong for us to ask for that information about unemployment and other matters that went to the Government?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, not only are the NDP morose, they are unfriendly in this case.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: I do not believe that that question was supplementary to the first one. I can only reassure him that the information that he requests about the deferring of the Quebec laterals program is in the economic statement and the material tabled by the President of the Treasury Board.


REQUEST THAT CHAMBORD-DOLBEAU PIPELINE BE COMPLETED
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but it does not deal with cuts.
Under the agreement for the construction of a lateral between Grand-Mere-Chambord-La Baie, there was a commitment of some $240 million. Since the productivity is excellent in our region, it seems that the costs will rise to some $210 million, a saving of $30 million. Can the Minister assure the House that those $30 million will be used to complete the Chambord-Dolbeau system? If it is not done now, it may never be completed.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Member for raising the issue. Again, as I said to the previous questioner, those laterals were deferred, not cancelled. 1 would also like to congratulate the utility for the work it has done to date. The project has proceeded on time and under budget. As I indicated earlier, the future timing of the laterals is under review.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He knows that under the previous administration's six and five

November 15, 1984
Oral Questions
program, CN Marine had prepared early this fall a request to Cabinet for a 4 per cent increase in its fare charges on the Gulf and ferry coastal boat system in Atlantic Canada. Would the Minister confirm that, subject to last Thursday's financial statement, this request to Cabinet for a 4 per cent increase in fares has been withdrawn and that a submission to Cabinet for an approximate 15 per cent increase has been prepared for implementation, subject to cabinet approval?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the Cabinet document of which the Member speaks. It is true that there is a proposal to increase the fares on ferry services up to 15 per cent. However, there is also allowance for a reduction of 10 per cent for those who are regular users. It will give CN Marine some flexibility in applying a new fare structure in order to generate some more revenue.


Brian Vincent Tobin: In any case it is an increase for everybody.


IMPACT ON TOURISM
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Government's stated commitment to tourism in Atlantic Canada, will the Minister tell the House if an analysis has been made by his Department or that of his colleague, the Minister of State for Tourism, to assess the negative impact on tourism in Atlantic Canada as a result of increasing rates to consumers by 300 per cent more than had been anticipated under the post six and five program?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is exaggerating the point. The fact of the matter is that there is a certain amount of flexibility that can be taken into consideration. I am sure that flexibility will be taken into account to reflect the considerations of the tourist industry. I will be meeting with my counterparts from the Atlantic provinces to discuss ways and means to implement those increases in a fair, orderly, and equitable manner.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I hope that my relationship with that Minister will be every bit as cordial as my relationship with my former nemesis in the House, the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was one of the few Liberals to depart this scene with honour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: My question concerns reports that the U.S. Government is cutting back on its acid rain research program while pretending to give the problem a high profile. Does she intend to look into this cut-back on the part of the American
Government? While doing so, would she also take steps to reverse the cancellation announced by the Minister of Finance of the Herring Gull Egg Project for the surveillance of toxic chemicals and wildlife in the Great Lakes, which is part of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with the United States, so that whatever protests she may make to the United States would have some credibility because we in Canada are doing our part with respect to the environment?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I hope indeed to have cordial relations with all Hon. Members. Ours is a cordial Government.
Like the Hon. Member, I have seen a news report of a labour union reference to the reduction by the United States of acid rain research funding. After I have reviewed the matter and determined whether this is a fact or simply a labour union strategy I will be in a position to answer.
With respect to the jobs that we have eliminated in research on certain aspects of wildlife, those cuts are rather minor, in view of the $27 million my department is still putting in toxicological research and the $150 million put in by the Canadian Government.


CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the cuts are not minimal. The Canadian Wildlife Service has been savaged by the Government. Does the Minister of the Environment intend to sit idly by and allow this inauspicious beginning to her career as Minister of the Environment by allowing the Minister of Finance to cut out the toxicology research centre, to savage the Canadian Wildlife Service, and basically to start out as the Minister of the Environment in a way that sends out completely wrong signals to people who are concerned about the environment? Will the Minister of the Environment speak to the Minister of Finance about the cuts which destroyed all the credibility that she ever had to begin with?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I am being subjected to the worst predictions because the credibility I have not been able to establish in this House so early in my mandate is already undermined, completely destroyed. Be that as it may!
The Hon. Member will be interested to learn that out of the 2,846 person-years involved in Ontario, including in the area of wildlife, 34 jobs have been eliminated. I would not that this is the end of the world.
November 15, 1984


BUDGETARY CUTS AFFECTING PHASE III OF NATURAL GAS PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy.
According to the press, the federal Government intends to make budgetary cuts affecting phase III of the natural gas project.
Could the Minister clarify her position on this subject, since the gas pipeline is of vital importance to our area, in terms of economic spinoffs and development?

Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, I think I have adequately explained that that project has been deferred, not cancelled. We will be looking at resuming some of that work when the economic conditions permit.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, whom I want to congratulate on becoming a Member of Cabinet, a Cabinet that says it is willing to consult.
I would like to ask the Minister why no consultations were held with the authorities of the City of Montreal when the Government decided to close the air safety office in Montreal.
Second, could the Hon. Minister inform the House whether this decision was made by Cabinet, with the approval of the Prime Minister, or whether the decision was made unilaterally and personally by the Minister of Transport?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the Hon. Member on his re-election? It was a squeaker, but it is nice to have him back.


Mr. MacKay:: Another week and he would have been gone.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Another week and he would have been gone, right.
In reply to the Hon. Member may I tell him that my colleague, the Minister of State for Transport, in fact had some discussions with the Board of Trade and others interested in this issue in the City of Montreal, before the decision was taken.
Oral Questions
In answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, of course the decision was made with the concurrence of Cabinet.


EFFECTS OF BUDGETARY CUTS ON MONTREAL
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. Since he has confirmed that the decision was made by Cabinet, is the Minister aware that his leader made a promise during the election campaign in Montreal, at Place Ville-marie, that he would make Montreal a metropolis again? In light of this promise, is the Minister prepared to review this decision which is at direct odds with the Prime Minister's objective, and also the cutback announced with respect to VIA Rail, which will result in a significant loss of jobs since the VIA Rail maintenance centre in Montreal will be scrapped in favour of the centre in Toronto?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to base the commitments of the Prime Minister on the interpretation of the Hon. Member, because there could be some variance in that, 1 am sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would not rely on either one of them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This issue was thought through very clearly. It is very plain that the logical place for the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is Ottawa-Hull, or the National Capital Region, from the basis of working with other Departments, such as the NRC, the RCMP, National Health and Welfare, and other flight organizations. From the standpoint of efficiency, economy, and effectiveness, it was felt that it was in the best interests of all concerned to re-establish the Safety Board here in the National Capital Region.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
First I would like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment in a field that is of great significance to this country.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party promised the cultural community that if it

November 15, 1984
Oral Questions
formed the government, it would maintain existing financial support at levels commensurate with increases in the cost of living. However, the economic statement shows cuts and reductions in the budgets of cultural organizations. These cuts are proportionally greater-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect to the Hon. Member, does she have a question, please?
[ Translation]


Lynn McDonald: Why is he asking this community, this sector of our economy, to accept these cuts? Why does he want an even larger proportion of people in the arts to live below the poverty line?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, following the statement on economic policy by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I informed the heads of the principal agencies or corporations connected with the Department of Communications of the objectives the Treasury Board has laid down for the future budget. These agencies and corporations are being asked to submit to the Department proposals commensurate with these objectives by the end of November.
in my forwarding letter I have asked these authorities to see to it that budgetary reductions or restrictions are applied mainly, if not exclusively, to the administration or organizational aspect of the arts, thus shielding the arts community itself from the impact of these budgetary restrictions.


ARTISTS' INCOME
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister give his assurance to the House, to this community, and indeed to all citizens to whom the promises were made, that there will not be cuts in actual living income to artists, and that, if the cut-backs cannot be made entirely in the domain of administration, those cut-backs will be rescinded?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, since in these discussions between agencies and departments we must mutually respect the other's jurisdiction,
I cannot, since I do not have the authority to do so, inform the House to what sector these budgetary restrictions will be applied. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that as soon as the programs or plans are submitted to me, I shall examine them very closely to ensure that Canada's arts community is not exposed to cutbacks owing to budgetary restrictions and that on the contrary, funding allocated for creative work and production is increased.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, November 14, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps if there are more Members who wish to congratulate Ministers, may I ask that they do it tomorrow so that we can simply use Question Period for questions and answers in future.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what are the plans of the Government House Leader respecting business of the House for the coming week?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to continue with the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne tomorrow, Monday an Tuesday, which will bring the debate to its conclusion. Tuesday will be the eighth and final day of the debate.
1 would like to designate next Wednesday as the first allotted day for the supply period ending on December 10, with the usual caveat that this line-up of business is subject to change in the event that circumstances, exigencies and priorities of the Government change.
Tomorrow I anticipate that the Striking Committee will report. There have been discussions among House Leaders and it has been agreed that the concurrence motion will be received tomorrow. There is an understanding among House Leaders that that concurrence report will be dealt with tomorrow and that there will be a maximum of one speaker per Party before the motion for concurrence is put to the House.
With respect to business of the House for Monday, there have been discussions among House Leaders concerning the procedural difficulty which we anticipate by virtue of the possibility of a deferred vote taking place at the end of that day. Accordingly, I ask the House for its unanimous consent to the following draft order:
That on Monday, November 19, 1984, notwithstanding any deferred division or divisions, if the Order of the Day for the consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne is called, the business to be considered shall be the motion of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton.
I think Mr. Speaker will find that there is an inclination on the part of the House to accept that as an order of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that there is unanimous consent.
November 15, 1984


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask my hon. friend whether he is ready to give us the business at the House for Thursday next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Government House Leader could answer that question in a moment. Either we treat these motions when they are put or I have to defer them to motions.
I will simply ask if there is unanimous consent to the suggestion and, there being unanimous consent, is it the will of the House that the matter relating to business of the House for Monday be adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. The Hon. Member for Windsor West asked a question concerning Thursday of next week. Perhaps the Government House Leader could answer it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am still considering the possibility of business. As the practice has developed, I should like to consult fully with my colleagues, the House Leaders, with respect to business. We did not have an opportunity to meet today. We meet on a daily basis, which is the joy of my existence; there is nothing more exciting than having an opportunity to discuss the future deliberations of the House with my colleagues. Seriously, I hope to consult with them and put forward a proposal with respect to the business of the House for the last two days of next week. I hope we can get on with the business of the House of Commons in an expeditious manner.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Government House Leader that there is still a couple of hours left; we could cram in a meeting today. Would he be in a position to indicate to the House whether the Government is intending to establish a committee to deal with the questions directly relating to women? He knows that I raised this question with him previously and he indicated that he was taking the matter under advisement. Since the Striking Committee will report tomorrow on the structure and composition of committees, I was wondering whether we might know something about that in advance of the report of the Striking Committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean), early on in our mandate raised with me this question concerning the very important suggestion of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I believe my colleague is in the process of considering a variety of options, which 1 am sure he will want to discuss with the critics in each Party. 1 know I speak on behalf of the Government and the Secretary of State when I say to the NDP House Leader that we appreciate his suggestion and that of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East last week. We consider this to be a very important topic. We want to ensure that whatever we do is done in the full spirit of consultation and to the best effect of parliamentary deliberations on matters relating to the women of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Plamondon Mr. Speaker: May 1 just say to the Hon. House Leaders that 1 allowed that question because it was in the tradition of a question by one of the Party House Leaders. However, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain put me in some difficulty. I should advise him of that because we ruled out a question of the same kind about 10 days ago as it was anticipatory. I let it go today because of the traditions of House Leaders, but I would ask him to consider what I said at that time about anticipatory matters.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to present to the House a petition on behalf of the residents of Stormont-Dundas. They, believe in the reinstatement of capital punishment for the conviction of first degree murder. Punishments are set to fit the crime and in cases of premeditated murder the supreme crime merits the supreme punishment.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Allmand (p. 252).
Louis Plamondon: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude the speech I began this morning and which I had to interrupt for the one o'clock adjournment, when I was talking about the merchant marine and the shipbuilding policy.
Since capital costs cannot be reduced through grants under the Petroleum Incentives Program, most oil companies lease tankers rather than have them built in Canada. It should be noted that our foreign competitors provide low cost financing and other direct or indirect grants, whereas the Canadian Government refunds up to 80 per cent of the applicable excise tax to the importer.
January imports are the last of a long and depressing list of foreign imports into Canada. Those four ships represent a loss of about $55 million for Canadian shipyards and related industries. In 1983, Canada imported 38 ships, for an over-all 198,743-ton capacity. That represents the largest number of

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
ships and the highest tonnage ever imported by Canada in a single year. The new shipbuilding government policy came into force last June 30, but there are still some loopholes-PIP grants, among others-which nullify the positive aspects of that policy.
The Government must earmark PIP grants exclusively for companies which buy their equipment in Canada or which maximize Canadian contents. That suggestion does not fly in the face of existing international trade agreements which we have signed since GATT Section 19 does authorize lifting special import barriers when a national industry is threatened.
Canada's shipbuilding industry is seriously threatened. Should we fail to make changes to boost that sector in Canada, then the very survival of our shipbuilding industry will be at stake.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude on that subject by saying that all my efforts will be directed towards the preparation of an effective merchant marine policy which will spell prosperity for our shipyards.
In another vein, I would be remiss if I failed to talk about those who have been most severely affected by twenty years of inertia-young Canadians. Twenty years during which the best the previous government could come up with to solve the unemployment problem was to make them even more dependent on a paternalistic and patronizing government which would force them to wait for handouts from their Liberal MP. Once they realized they had failed miserably, some former Liberal Ministers had the nerve to claim that they had been unable to correct the situation because of the lagging economy for which they were responsible in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am glad to belong to a government which has decided to create permanent jobs for young Canadians. It is now up to us to take action.
The constituents of Richelieu are also looking forward to a new federal-provincial agreement concerning the creation of industrial parks in the regions of Becancour, Nicolet and Sorel-Tracy.
In the agricultural sector, our producers are delighted to hear about the reform advocated in the Speech from the Throne, especially with respect to the legislative provisions designed to ease the transfer of family farms and others concerning the tax rebate on gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am grateful to you for allowing me to speak in this House and, in conclusion, I want to say again that, for me, it is a great honour to belong to this Government and, for the people of Richelieu, there is renewed hope to see workers walking proudly again, businessmen looking forward to the future, young people regaining their dignity, and the elderly knowing that they are secure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to say what an honour it is for me to participate in this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and to associate myself with the many others who have expressed sincere congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to a very high office, one which 1 know you will fulfil with all the distinction and honour that is customary to this enobled position.
I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, the Hon. Member for Vercheres (Mr. Danis); the Deputy Chairman of Committees, my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Papros-ki); as well as the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees, the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest).
Above all, I congratulate the mover and the seconder for their very distinct contribution in moving and seconding the Speech from the Throne. They certainly have distinguished themselves in an exemplary manner. They have not only brought pride to themselves, but indeed they have brought pride to their constituencies, to those who elected them, and they have certainly brought honour to their regions and districts. I must say it is very refreshing, after having been in this place for more than 16 years, to hear the eloquent words of the mover and seconder and the eloquent words of those who have spoken in this debate.
1 enjoyed with interest the person who spoke earlier about his conviction regarding the need for adequate policies to foster the gradual development of a merchant marine and the need to create an economy which would establish permanent job opportunities. It is encouraging to note that throughout this whole country we have people speaking in the Chamber who are echoing the same sentiments. The conviction and the clarity with which these new Members have spoken is indeed an inspiration to us all. They clearly have a lot to offer. 1 know that this will be one of the most productive Parliaments in the history of this country.
I also want to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the electors of Vegreville who have placed their confidence in me for the sixth consecutive time. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve the constituency of Vegreville. For those who may not be aware of where the constituency of Vegreville is, it is east of the City of Edmonton. The western boundary is within 20 miles of the City of Edmonton and the eastern boundary is the boundary of Saskatchewan and Alberta. 1 have the City of Lloydminster, which is shared with my colleague and good friend, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), who looks after the Saskatchewan side of Lloydminster. 1 try to look after the Alberta side.
Then there are some very important communities such as St. Paul, Wainwright, Vegreville, Vermilion and Elk Island Park. There is an army base at Wainwright. It is a very mixed economy, primarily agriculture and small industry. The energy
November 15, 1984

resource industry is very important. Essentially all the business activity is related to the activity surrounding agriculture, mixed farming, the energy sector and light industry.
The economic conditions are not healthy. The impact of the National Energy Program and the devastation that was heaped upon our part of the country as a result of the odious policies of the National Energy Program have inflicted irreparable harm. It will take a long time for many of those industries to recover. The small business sector directly associated with agriculture and the energy sector exists in an uncertain climate. There have been many bankruptcies, many failures.
In the farming community we have had our share of bankruptcies. Farm incomes are the lowest since 1938. Last year net farm income fell by roughly 40 per cent in western Canada. These issues clearly need addressing. I am pleased that the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement have gone some distance in addressing the concerns of agriculture.
We are an exporting nation, particularly with respect to our agricultural products. We are not a price setter, we are a price taker. Therefore, we must do everything we can to reduce the input costs of our agricultural products. We have addressed that by addressing fuel costs. Interest rates are coming down. That certainly is a very major cost component. We hope to address the issue of the chemicals we spray and the fertilizers we use. Those are very expensive input costs. We must do everything in our power to bring down the cost of farm inputs. Only in that way can we alleviate some of the cost-price squeeze pressures that are inflicted upon producers.
In listening to the debate up to this point, I find that there has been a lot of rhetoric floating around and very little substance flowing from the Opposition. What puzzles me is that they tend to forget that there was an election on September 4. There was an election where the Canadian people clearly voted for change, an election which gave the Progressive Conservative Party a clear national mandate to set this country on a different course. Yet we hear the same old rhetoric from the socialists and the same old rhetoric from the Liberals, all of which has been rejected by the Canadian people. Will they ever learn?
On September 4 Canadians voted not only against the Liberal government of the day. They voted for a Progressive Conservative alternative. There is no question about that. I might say that they voted against socialism. They voted against a brand of socialism that is depicted by those two Parties which sit close together mollycoddling. They have not changed and they will not change.
I see the former Member for Oshawa sitting in the gallery. The Hon. Michael Starr was a very distinguished Member who served this place with distinction and honour. He visited my office earlier today and reminded me that even the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) almost lost the election this time. His majority was cut from 12,000 to 2,000.
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
I suppose that if the election campaign would have lasted another week or so, we might have got him too.
Not only did the Canadian people vote against the Liberal government but they voted against the Liberal-NDP brand of socialism. They voted for something positive. There is no question about that.


Mr. de Jong:: The election is over; tell us what you are going to do. Come on, tell us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There will be lots of opportunity to do that. I think it is very important to set the record straight. The Canadian people voted against a Party which left a legacy of broken promises and hidden agendas. We know what the legacy of that Party was. It was crippling interest rates, massive unemployment, burdensome debt and a weak Canadian dollar. It was a Party which killed the entrepreneurial and creative spirit of Canadians. That is perhaps the biggest disaster that was inflicted on Canada by the alliance of those two Parties. Those two Parties destroyed investor and business confidence. They turned optimism into despair and anxiety. As a matter of fact, their legacy is a legacy of heartbreaks and broken dreams, a legacy of business bankruptcies and farm bankruptcies.
It is amazing that members of the NDP get so irritated. They know that they were a part of this action. They were a part of the action taken on the NEP.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: How were we part of it? Name one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I will name one right now. Members of the NDP across the way supported the National Energy Program.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Nonsense! That is not true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is absolutely true.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a lie.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It cost the people of Ontario 90,000-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister should not lie to this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that he should not use the term that he just used, if I heard him correctly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to withdraw the word "lie" because it is unparliamentary and replace it by saying that the Minister obviously knows, if he follows the votes, that we did not vote for the National Energy Program. He is a sensible and good Minister and an honourable man. He should not mislead the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would like to recall to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway that, first, the

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
House does appreciate the fact that he has substituted the word, and second, that his point is not a point of order. The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) was making a speech and I would ask him to resume.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange that they get so irritated over there. The truth always hurts. The National Energy Program which the NDP supported cost Ontario 90,000-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We did not support the NEP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I misheard the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). Once again I think he said that the New Democratic Party supported the National Energy Program when in fact, on every single vote regarding the National Energy Program, members of the NDP voted against it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There again we see the hypocrisy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Of course, this is a point of disagreement; I would not think it would be a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we again see the hypocrisy of the gang over there. They have not changed and they never will. The fact of the matter is that the National Energy Program, which was supported by members of the New Democratic Party, cost the Ontario economy-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister is deliberately misleading this House. He has been told and he knows very well-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I believe the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway once again used an expression that may be unparliamentary. Does the Hon. Member wish to-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, Mr. Speaker. The truth is the truth. He is misleading the House. We never supported the National Energy Program. He knows that very well. He can check the record. He is deliberately misleading the House. Perhaps the Minister is prepared to temper his remarks. He is an honourable man. He knows that I was the energy critic for three years. He knows that I know about the votes. I think he is an honourable man. There are plenty of other targets that may be used against us. Why does he not use the real ones? If he is prepared to temper his remarks, I will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I understand very well that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway disagrees with the remarks. He has made his case quite clear on that point. However, I would also like to recall that the expression used by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway is not permitted in this House and is considered unparliamentary. Taking into account the fact that his point was sufficiently made and that the Hon. Member has been very well understood up until now, I would once again reiterate the
demand I have just made and ask the Hon. Member to please re-state the phrase.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to change the phrase by saying that he has perhaps inadvertently misled the House. 1 expect that the Minister will do the honourable thing and recognize that we did not support the National Energy Program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Chair feels very much obliged to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is acknowledging the fact that members of his Party have just done another flip-flop, then I will temper my remarks accordingly. However, the fact of the matter is that according to a recent study done by the Ontario Government, 90,000 jobs were allegedly lost as a result of this odious measure, the National Energy Program, and 70,000 jobs were lost in the Province of Alberta. It affected many other regions. It affected our balance of payments. It created a massive outflow of Canadian investment capital and destroyed generations of entrepreneurs and businessmen. There is no question about that. I am really happy to note that members of the NDP now recognize that it was a bad measure.
Those were some of the things that the people voted against in the last election. They also voted against a government which really divided this country. The National Energy Program was one issue which divided the country. The people also voted against a government which proclaimed that federalism was dead and said that it was not a workable unit. It pitted region against region, West against East, business against labour. The bitterness and strains of acrimony were clearly reflected in the outcome of the election that was held on September 4.
I could speak of the hidden agenda of the Liberal Party, which included the National Energy Program. I could discuss the unilateral way in which it wished to amend the Constitution, an action which again was supported by members of the New Democratic Party. They were going to treat western Canadian provinces as second-class provinces. Members of the NDP cannot weasel out of that one. Those were things that were never talked about during the 1980 election campaign. There was never any mention of the dismantling of VIA and of the dismantling of the Crow rate during the 1980 election campaign. Not a word was uttered. Therefore, we had that massive rejection.
As well, Canadians voted for a new government under the dynamic leadership of the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), a man who must be the most exciting political figure in Canada today. There is no question about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Prime Minister was able to put together a team that is competent and compassionate, one which came forward with sensible policies and was able to
November 15, 1984

capitalize on the reservoir of goodwill, talent and character of the Canadian people. And so Canadians supported us because we committed ourselves to putting the economic house in order; to attacking the economic problems on two fronts; and to bringing fiscal responsibility back into the realm of good management. We committed ourselves to creating a climate of confidence for both the consumer and business, a climate of investor confidence and a climate of growth where ingenuity, initiative, creativity and the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians can once again be unleashed. We committed ourselves to tackle the unemployment problem, not simply by creating more government programs but by encouraging the private sector to create those permanent jobs. We committed ourselves to addressing the interest rate problem.
We talked during the course of the election campaign of the four pillars; the need to address the interest rate problem; the need to address the training and re-training problem; the need for new technology; and the concentration on research and development and on trade, because this country as a nation must trade to survive. Thirty-five per cent of our Gross National Product is dependent upon international trade. We talked about scaling down the scope and size of government. We talked about building upon our natural strengths and revitalizing those basic industries which have carried us through good times and bad.
What are those basic industries? One is agriculture. This country has the potential of being a superpower in agriculture. Even today agriculture is a $19 billion annual megaproject. When we consider that 40 per cent of our economic activity is related to the agri-food business, 18 per cent of our labour force, that we generate $5 million worth of exports, and yet individual farmers are hurting, we see that we must do something to help that particular sector. We are doing that by addressing the cost-input side.
The energy sector is another tremendous engine of economic growth and activity. The CPA has indicated that there are at least 300,000 new jobs which could be created by revitalizing the energy sector. There is the potential of 100,000 jobs in the petro-chemical industry alone through to the year 1990.
There is also the importance of the forest industry. It is a $27 billion annual industry which has $11 billion worth of exports. We must concentrate and ensure that that is a viable and vibrant industry. The fisheries industry is another one of our natural strengths, $3 billion worth. Mining has $12.2 billion worth of economic activity. Tourism is worth $17 billion. We must, therefore, provide a better deal and framework for these industries in order that they may continue to grow and to generate the kind of new wealth which we need in this country.
Yes, Canadians voted for those kinds of programs and they voted for new ideas and new solutions. They also voted for a new way of governing through the process of consultation, co-operation and working together; renewing our political and economic partnership; and working through consultation and
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski co-operation rather than confrontation and alienation. Yet today we hear the same misleading rubbish from my friends in the New Democratic Party which we heard throughout the election campaign.
I heard the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who said the other day that our Government has done nothing for agriculture. Let me go through a litany of things which have been done since this Government assumed office. On October 1, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), together with his provincial counterparts, announced a $60 million federal-provincial drought assistance program for western Canadian farmers. On November 5, the Minister of Agriculture announced a suspension of farm foreclosures by the Farm Credit Corporation until January 15. It is a very distressing situation, and this decision gives us time to analyse the situation to see what we can do in a very constructive and meaningful way. On November 2, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), announced a $123 million payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. This is something for which this Party has long campaigned. Over a year, $123 million, for a total of $223 million, has been paid out.
Initial prices for barley have been raised from $2.39 to $2.72. On October 26, I announced the freezing of the seaway tolls, which were scheduled for an 8 per cent to 10 per cent increase. This will be a saving of some $2 million for the farmers of western Canada. In the economic statement there was the removal of the 9 per cent sales tax, the discontinuance of the collection of the federal excise tax of $1.5 cents a litre- the 9 per cent sales tax is three cents a litre-and relief from the increase in the petroleum compensation charge. All this amounts to a total reduction of 6.3 cents a litre for farmers, fishermen and people engaged in the forestry industry. That is almost 28 cents a gallon, Mr. Speaker, and these guys across the way say we have done nothing for the farmer. Well, if we have done nothing for the farmer, let us take it away, and then we will hear the yelping and screaming coming from over there, because those Hon. Members do not know what they are talking about.
Furthermore, with respect to capital gains-


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Charest):: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and things of that nature, those are items which are going to be referred to and dealt with.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, while avoiding rhetoric, I would like to ask the Minister if he will finally get around to talking about his own Department, which got hit for $288 million in cut-backs, which is additional to $32.5 million which farmers are going to have to pay in user fees. I remind the Minister of how he spoke against the Honourable Otto Lang's user pay program. He was one of the leading spokesmen against it.

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
Elowever, let me go to a matter about which the Minister at that time was the most prominent spokesman, certainly in the Opposition. I hope the Minister who said on September 13 last year:
1 have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that on the basis of our candid assessment this country is clearly not ready for the dismantlement of the Crow.
He went on to say:
-the goal of our amendments will be to maintain the existing Crow rate for the producers of Canada-
And guaranteed in its present statutory form until at least 1985-86. The Minister went on further to say:
We are of the opinion that on the evidence that has been presented to this committee it is clearly in the best interest of the producer to retain the Crow.
Would the Minister mind reporting to the House about the position and policy of his Party which concerns his Department, and tell us if he is going to put the Crow rate freeze on? And will he make it retroactive to August 1st last?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question, although it was sort of convoluted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I just quoted the Minister. If that is convoluted, tough.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, that was not the policy which was stated during the last election campaign, and the Hon. Member knows that. So he should not try to mislead, distort and manipulate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are too sensitive.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, the Minister is not sensitive at all.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, he is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, certainly not. I have ten minutes. I can take more time. I am trying to handle as many questions as I possibly can.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have a thin skin.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I do not have a thin skin, either.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The position of our Party was that the Government would freeze existing freight rates paid by producers from any further increase pending the results of the legislation's review mechanism and the producers' ability to pay. The stated freight rate at that time was the one which was announced on April 27, 1984, which was set for the 1984-85 crop year.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with respect to the railways. The Minister will know very well of my concern, which is shared with a great many others, with respect to the issue of cabooseless trains. I hope he will be following up the request of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) with respect to holding
hearings, not only in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Moncton and Ottawa, but also in those other cities in which the Minister himself earlier requested the CRTC to hold hearings.
My question pertains, Mr. Speaker, to a comment made by the President of the CNR with respect to the future possibilities of manufacturing programs at the CN shops in Transcona. The President of the CNR, Dr. LeClair, is reported to have said that the construction of coal cars there-and the Minister will remember this program-was an accident and that it was a one time occurrence and not likely to recur. Does the Minister know, first of all, that it was not a one-time occurrence? There was a wood chip program there and at least one other manufacturing program, so it is not a one-time occurrence. Those of us concerned about Transcona did not understand that it was an accident; we thought it was a new step forward in manufacturing for western Canada where this kind of work could be done on site. Is the Minister taking an interest in this and will he try to ensure that manufacturing possibilities are indeed distributed fairly across the country and that Transcona will continue to be taken into consideration as the site for future programs of this nature.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I think it is fair to say, with respect to the hearings on the pre-testing of the cabooseless trains, that that was an initiative taken by myself and my colleagues, and I appreciate the support of the Members opposite. I just want to make it very clear that the initiative was taken by myself and by Members on this side. There have been requests for additional hearings and I have communicated that request to the CTC and await its response.
Regarding the second part of the question, I have to confess that I am not familiar with the statement to which the Hon. Member referred. I would be very pleased to look into that matter and take the Hon. Member's submission as a representation. I can tell him that because CN is a national railroad system owned by the people of Canada, it is important that the contracts for supplies, materials and equipment should be reflected in a purchasing plan which will take into consideration all regions of the country, and the Transcona shop should not be excluded.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question regarding shipping, although I know he comes from an inland riding. He will recall that his former short-lived Government had some fairly positive proposals to do something about Canadian shipping. I would like to know whether he and his Government have any plans or suggestions that would help to stimulate Canadian shipping. In addition, what are his views on a Canadian merchant marine?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a matter of fact, we have a number of initiatives to stimulate the shipbuilding industry, and part of the rationalization for the upgrading of the eastern ferry system involves very intricately the acquisition of new vessels. There will be four new vessels coming on stream, one of which
November 15, 1984

is already built. They will, among other things, provide more capacity, faster service, greater flexibility and, equally important, provide the shipyards with some needed activity.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about western shipyards?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As far as the West is concerned, naturally we will not overlook the West. As I said, this Government has representation from all regions of the country and we are reminded of the regional strengths and opportunities every week when we meet in caucus. Being a westerner I would certainly not want to overlook the West.
Notwithstanding the fact that I come from an inland part of Canada, I am very interested in marine activities and have always been. I am one who personally favours the gradual redevelopment of a deep sea fleet. There are some difficulties in that and there are different schools of thought on the subject, but we are going to have the benefit of a task force which is going to be bringing down some recommendations. I hope that when that is presented, perhaps the Government will be able to respond with a policy paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There are only a few seconds left in the question and comment period, so I will recognize now the next speaker in the debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating you, Sir, and all your colleagues in the chair on your appointment in this new Parliament. 1 want to say how pleased 1 am to be back here and especially to be sitting straight across from my good friend, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). For most of the last 16 years we have sat on the same side of the table in committee and the same side of the House here. However, now that he is over there, I expected that when he got up to speak in this debate he would have something to say about what is going on in his Department; not what is being done with it or for it but what is being done to it. 1 was hoping we would hear some explanation about the, as I add them up, $288 million worth of cut-backs in his Department. I would like to have had an explanation as to what the Government's plans are regarding branch lines. Does this mean it is just delaying rehabilitation or does it mean it cancelled rehabilitation?
1 would also like an explanation about more user-pay charges. My colleague, the hon. gentleman from Vegreville, led the criticism in this House of a former Minister of Transport who inaugurated user-pay. We had a continuation of that policy under the short-lived Tory Government in 1979, and we have a continuation of Liberal policy under this Government now. User-pay means another $34 million in airline taxes. The Minister carefully tried to get himself off the hook on the Crow rate. I should remind the House, Mr. Speaker, for those who were not here at the time, that the Minister, as transport critic for the Conservative Party, took something like 40 minutes to make a major policy statement last September 13 dealing with one of his amendments to Bill C-155. He laid it on the line and made it very clear where his Party stood on that legislation and what his Party would do with it when it
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
got a chance. He was unequivocal about his partisan stand on it. He said, "The goal will be to maintain the existing Crow rate for the producers of Canada and at least ensure that it is guaranteed in the present statutory form until the review process is completed in 1985-1986". The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) was sitting there that night. He heard him. I will call him to be one of my witnesses. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) will also bear witness, as will everyone else who was there that night. The Minister made a superb presentation on why the statutory grain rate should be kept for western grain producers. Too bad he was not as superb today, or anywhere close to being superb.
I also want to say that this Government has more first priorities than anyone I have ever heard of or seen in the years I have been here or anywhere else. I have heard all kinds of statements and press releases for the last number of months about first priorities and sacred trusts. There was a first priority on unemployment. It was a sacred trust. Then it turned out there was another first priority and sacred trust in reducing the deficit. There were other first priorities such as women's rights and aboriginal rights. Members opposite have a lot of first priorities. They are still trying to figure out which ones should be first, although I think they decided that last Thursday night. The first priority for them is the deficit. Well, Mr. Speaker, a deficit is a debt.


Mr. Fraser:: This one is a growing debt.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One acquires debt for positive and constructive reasons. You acquire a debt to buy a home, a tractor, a combine, a fishing boat or some nets. You acquire a debt to expand your business. In the acquiring of those debts people go to work. Any part of a deficit which is acquired for those things, whether by individuals, a private company or a government, is a positive and self-liquidating debt. Any debt or deficit acquired for productive purposes is a positive debt. The Government should stop being so hypnotized by that part of the deficit.
If you reduce the deficit, you automatically increase unemployment. The measures announced last Thursday night are going to increase unemployment. We can argue about whether it will cost 20,000 or 100,000 jobs, but it is going to increase unemployment, especially if you reduce deficits for positive investments in our economy which create jobs.
A major portion of the $93 million that is paid to VIA Rail is for the implementation of projects promised in the past seven years, new transcontinental passenger equipment which would put people to work in Thunder Bay, Trenton, Sydney or at Bombardier at La Pocatiere outside of Montreal. It would put people to work for something which is needed by the nation, which is the responsibility of the national Government. The private sector is not involved in operating VIA Rail. The private sector would be involved in building new equipment for VIA Rail, which puts people to work, but the Government cuts

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
back on that kind of legitimate increase in deficit for the constructive purpose of creating jobs.
I did not originate the idea, Mr. Speaker, but let me remind the House that by bringing unemployment down to 7 per cent or 7.5 per cent, the deficit would be wiped out in three years or less. Let us not worry about chickens and eggs. 1 submit that to borrow now for positive investments in things that are the responsibility of the public sector, whether shipyards, railroad passenger trains or a host of other things, would create jobs. Mr. Speaker, when you invest borrowings in productive increases in our economy, you put people to work and keep business busy. They pay taxes and you liquidate the borrowings. Being a simple, ordinary country boy, that has always made sense to me.
Reducing deficits as carried on by this Government and the late unlamented Liberal government has increased unemployment. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it, and it was not the NDP that came up with those figures.
1 think the matter of interest rates is at square one. It would be dumb for a businessman to borrow money at 12 per cent, 13 per cent or 14 per cent to expand his business, increase his inventory or re-equip his plant. He would be dumb to borrow money at those rates. Why should small and middle-sized businesses borrow money? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and all the rest of them over there talk about confidence. Well, confidence does not make jobs. You cannot eat it, you cannot borrow it, and you cannot lend it. If you lower interest rates, Mr. Speaker, those who are willing to borrow and invest will have the confidence to do it. Farmers and fishermen who have to borrow in order to survive are borrowing at rates of interest which will ruin them. It will ruin them because the price they get for their produce is below their cost of production. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia can tell you about that in spades. Yet his Government compounds the felony.
We should put a handle on interest rates. We should not worry about increasing the deficit for productive purposes. In that way, most of the deficit would not go to pay interest on old debts; the deficit would be for productive purposes. At the end of World War II the national deficit was three times as high as it is now in real dollars. With a high rate of production and employment during the 1950s, we got rid of the entire deficit.
The other problem is the paranoia of the Members of the Government and the members of the financial institutions about the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the American dollar. Mr. Speaker, as the man said in Gone With The Wind, "Scarlett, frankly I don't give a damn". Who cares? What does it matter what our dollar is worth compared to the American dollar? The question is what our dollar is worth to us here and what it is doing for us here. To be perfectly honest, I would not mind if it went down some more compared to the American dollar, because that is great for grain sales, as the Hon. Member for Assiniboia can tell you. It is great for potash and forestry sales. It is great for the tourism business and the fishing industry. It makes our imports a little
more expensive, but then maybe more of our manufacturers will have more sales.
But the people from the financial institutions in our country are running around wringing their hands saying how terrible it is that our dollar is down compared to the American dollar. Well, what the hell, it is down compared to the Fiji dollar, the Pango Pango dollar, and I do not know what other dollars. It may be up compared to the British pound. It may be up or down compared to any currency. It is like the fellow who asked his friend how his brother was and his friend replied, "Compared to what"?
The Government must get over that nonsense and do what Louis St. Laurent did after World War II and what John Diefenbaker did. We did it for only a year or two at a time and three or four years during the war. We did not give a damn what our dollar was worth compared to the American dollar. We pegged the dollar and the interest rates. We put on foreign exchange controls. By that I am not referring to the $200 or $300 that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) might spend on a weekend in the United States.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you jealous because I have not invited you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, you have not invited me to go with you yet.
If they get over that nonsense and do our thing, they will find that there are billions of dollars of investment capital available to Canada from Canadians and from foreign investors. For many years we have brought in billions of dollars of foreign capital for investment in this country, but it was not ownership capital, it was loan capital. A classic example is the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. In eight years it borrowed over $600 million, almost all of which came from New York, Switzerland, or somewhere else outside of Canada. It was foreign capital. We brought electricity to 60,000 farms and every town, village and hamlet in the province. The experts said it could not be done. We increased our generating capacity. We paid off those loans and we own the Power Corporation. That was mostly done with foreign investment, Mr. Speaker.
The investment from outside of our borders does not have to be equity or ownership investment. We had enough of that under the Liberal government. At one point, our economy was almost 90 per cent owned outside of our borders and we were not masters in our own house. I am not anti-American, I like my relatives, but I do not want all my relatives moving into my house, with me having to pay the mortgage and live in the garage.
The Government should take the first step to reduce interest rates and not worry about any borrowings or deficits which are productive and put people to work in areas that are the responsibility of the Government. I believe that the Government will find that would restore the confidence of the private investor. Lower interest rates would mean that tens of thou-
November 15, 1984

sands of people would borrow money to build a new home or repair their existing homes.
Every city in this country has long waiting lists for senior citizens homes and chronic care beds, but the Government is more concerned with reducing the deficit. Thousands of people could be put to work in this area to meet a genuine need that is the responsibility of the entire public. Instead, the Government sits here like the Liberals did with their nineteenth century concepts on how to solve problems. They sound like R.B. Bennett, Herbert Hoover and Mackenzie King all over again. Why should we not declare a state of national economic emergency and challenge the nation at every level including the private sector, the agricultural industry and the trade union movement to take action as we did during the Second World War? We have done it before and it can be done again.
It is not necessary to sit here and worry about what is happening with the American economy. I am not concerned about what is happening with the American economy. I am concerned about what we do with our economy. History has shown that we can take care of our own affairs. The Government should not simply cut deficits for the sake of cutting deficits just to please the head of the Bank of Canada or any other bank. I am not concerned about how they feel. In fact, I would rather that they felt worse, because whenever they feel bad usually most of the country is working.


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the Hon. Member has never met a bottom line or a payroll. I doubt very much if there is anyone on that side who has met a payroll. It is quite obvious from their type of rhetoric. That is the kind of irresponsibility one gets from people like that.


Mr. Althouse:: You never borrowed money when you were in business?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I did, and I met a payroll too.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: So have we.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member talked about user pay. I take it from his comments that he is implying that the public Treasury should pay an increased share of the costs of transportation relative to what is being paid today.
I ask him in all honesty if he could enlighten me as to how he would handle, for example, the cost recovery in the Canadian air transport administration, which was at 58 per cent in 1980 and is now down to 34.4 per cent. How would he handle the marine sector, which has a cost recovery of roughly 26 per cent; the surface transport, at 17 per cent; CN Marine, at 19 per cent; VIA, at 23 per cent; and the Coast Guard, at one per cent?
I am not trying to belittle the point. I want to get a forthright answer from the Hon. Member, because the fact is that the percentage of cost recovery is on a continual decline and worsening. Does he not consider it to be a responsible
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
move to do everything we can to reverse that trend by getting greater productivity, efficiency and utilization on the one hand while looking at the options of increased support from the users of those systems?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions of my friend. I will endeavour to answer each one specifically, beginning with ferry services. I have always believed, as has my Party, that the ferry service is part and parcel of our national highway and rail system. If it were logical to charge tolls for a ferry system, it would be equally logical to have tolls for the use of part or all of the Trans-Canada Highway. Those ferry services should be considered part of the road network.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about the recovery on the Trans-Canada?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know if we have ever had full cost recovery on the Trans-Canada Highway, or any other road for that matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: But 19 per cent?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It seems to me that something which is a full public responsibility should be shared by the entire nation through our tax system. We all share in the cost, whether we use it or not.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are you saying there should be no tolls?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I say that the ferry services should be toll free because they are part and parcel of our highway system. That is not a new idea on my part and does not happen to be part of some socialist ideology.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why did B.C. not do it when the Hon. Member's Party was in government?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is a good question. Many of us asked them why they bothered raising the fares.
With respect to airports, if there was full cost recovery or the cost of recovery was substantially increased, what would that do to the users, particularly small users? If there was full cost recovery, we might as well make the airlines build, maintain and operate the airports. However, I do not think that there would be very many airlines in business.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is 58 per cent too high?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not think it should go any higher.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is now 34 per cent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: At 58 per cent, not only will the airport tax increase, airlines will have to increase fares, because they will not give that money to the Government without trying to recover it. Therefore, it is self defeating. It is either an essential public service or it is not. If the Government does not see it as an essential public service, it should go for broke for a 100 per cent cost recovery and make the users pay the entire shot. At the same time, let the truckers and bus companies

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
build and maintain their own right-of-way. They would then be in an equal fight with the railroads and the airlines. Of course, the taxpayers have already built and maintained the airports for the airlines.
The fact of the matter is that every mode of transportation, going back to the invention of the wheel, has always been subsidized.
We have the situation where governments are hypnotized by user pay to the extent where these cease to be a public utility and become examples to be compared with private enterprise. It would be illogical for private enterprise to buy out the ferry business unless it operated only once a year, otherwise it would go broke.
The same situation is true for airports or highways. They would go broke without applying tolls to recover those costs, plus a reasonable return on their investment. This cannot be done in areas that are properly and logically a public responsibility as a public utility.
The nation has never objected to deficits. I have not heard the voters in an uproar-except editorial writers-about a post office deficit or a deficit on ferry services. These are things which everyone must use directly or indirectly. If it were logical to apply tolls for these services, there should be tolls on pedestrians because they walk up and down the sidewalks for nothing and the ratepayers pay the property taxes to build the sidewalks. Why not have a toll of 25 cents for every six blocks? It would be logical if we are considering tolls as a means to achieving full cost recovery of public utilities for public use.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about full cost recovery. The Hon. Member has said, yes, there should be selective cost recovery. He said there should not be any tolls on ferry services, notwithstanding the fact that his own NDP government in B.C. did not choose that particular route. I would like to get some idea from the Hon. Member what he considers to be a fair and reasonable cost recovery. As I said in the case of the Canadian air transport administration, in 1980 there was a 58.1 per cent cost recovery. That has now gone down to 34.4 per cent.
Can I ask the Hon. Member whether he considers 58 per cent too high, too low, or just right? Does he consider 34 per cent too high or too low? Or does he consider that it should be less than that or more than that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the costs should be any more than they are now. The Minister's additional $34 million for an air tax is that much more for consumers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On taxpayers. If the consumer is not going to pick it up, the taxpayers will.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Again, Mr. Speaker, transportation is something we all have to use both directly and indirectly. I repeat my argument. I am sure that if you slapped $5 a year on every taxpayer in Canada just for that one thing, you would probably have more money left over in the operation of airports.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is the magic figure?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We used to have no airport tax.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: We used to have no airports.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Now it is up to over $23, and it is going to go up to $30. We used to have no airport tax. In real dollars the deficit was no worse then when there was no airport tax than it is now. What has it accomplished? I suppose it provided some additional money for Ministers of Transport to make some airport improvements. There is no doubt about the fact that that is what they did. However, I would have taken the amount out of general tax revenue and used that money.


Mr. Dick:: The deficit.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You would let the poor little pensioner pay.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would charge a fee to people owning executive jets, to private airline charter companies, and to scheduled airlines. I would charge them a fee. Anybody who rented space in my building or in my house I would charge rent, the same as I would charge people for renting space in an airport. Even now the Minister is trying to drive a Canadian car rental company into bankruptcy with the kinds of regulations and policy he is following. But I am not talking about the latter. If you rent space in the building, of course, you charge for it. But that would not anyway near begin to cover the cost of the operation of a modern airport. I believe that continually raising the user fee is self-defeating.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is 34 per cent too high or too low?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would say, leave it where it is, Mr. Speaker. I would say, this far and no further. Leave it at 34 per cent cost recovery. The Minister can get the money. Everybody uses airlines one way or another. The Minister will get the money back some other way which will be more fair and equitable instead of picking on each sector in his Department.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are going to charge the pensioner.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And the pensioners, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is going to raise the airport tax from $23 to $30 for the pensioners. This is fine for those who are rich and can afford to travel. But what do you do when a whole family has to attend the funeral of another family member, or an old age pensioner-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.
November 15, 1984



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Auditor General-Auditor's access to Crown corporations; the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin)- Transport-Ferry services in Atlantic Canada. (b) Government subsidies; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission-Long distance telephone hearings, (b) Telecommunications policy-Request for Committee review.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Allmand, (p. 252).
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my first comments are to you and to your colleagues in the chair. I want to wish you well to thank you for the positions you have taken and for the dignity that you bring to the Chamber. Our best wishes go with you.
I also want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the residents of the riding of Provencher for re-electing me to this House of Commons. It is an a honour that is afforded very few people. I think all of us are humbled by the fact that we receive that confidence from our fellow citizens.
It is important to understand, as we start this thirty-third Parliament, that Canadians gave this Government a mandate, a mandate for change, to change that which was not working but to change it with fairness, equity and sensitivity. That will be the central theme of my contribution to this debate.
My colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) has outlined for those of us who come from rural Canada the advantages that have already been given to the farming community in terms of initiatives, prior to this House being opened and subsequently. Those of us in rural Canada are very much aware that we cannot isolate the farm community from the rest of our population. I would suggest also to our urban friends that it is important, as we take stock of what is happening in the farm community, that we build on the strengths that have been created largely by private and personal initiative. But we must be cognizant of what is happening in the farming community, because if the farming community does not only survive, grow and strengthen, all society will suffer. One cannot isolate what is happening on the farms today in rural Canada from the general well-being of the country.
The Address-Mr. J. Epp
I am pleased by the initiatives that have been taken, especially in the area of fuel costs. No matter how good a manager might be in a farming situation, he or she cannot do anything about reducing the price of fuel that farmers need for the production of food. I heartily commend the initiatives taken Thursday last.
It is also important that the basic industries that form the backbone of Canada, such as mining, pulp and paper, industries that are represented in my riding and which also form a vital part of the economic well-being of other parts of the country, show strength and growth. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the change we were asked to make and the mandate we were given are important. There is an important hallmark that I want to point out with respect to the responsibilities I have taken as Minister of National Health and Welfare. Let me outline them. Yes, Canadians have voted for change. We want to bring about that change in the manner in which I have just described. But I do not believe that Canadians have voted for revolution, that is, to revolutionize everything that they have come to hold dear or which they feel is part of the social fabric of the country. I want to address that as well.
The Government has now committed itself formally in the Speech from the Throne and again in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to an approach and to principles that we articulated in the election campaign. The first principle is that of consultation. In contrast to the ways of the past, we believe that Canadians have the right and obligation to be involved in the determination of public policy. We are not afraid, we are not worried, and we are not concerned about what Canadians will say in that determination of public policy. In fact, we welcome it. If we were content simply to manage the affairs of national government, then consultation would not be so important. But we are not content merely to manage. We want to move ahead, and that requires the involvement of Canadians and the governments they elect.
The second principle is that of co-operation. It would be fine if everyone were agreed on where we should go and, as a result of that consultation, we would know exactly where we should go. In the challenges which are before our country, implementing change and moving ahead will require more than agreement. It will take joint action, joint initiative and a pooling of our resources. Despite the partisan nature of the House of Commons, I trust that this will be the character of the House. I also trust that such will be the character of federal-provincial relations. I especially want to emphasize that such must be the pattern if our economy is to be renewed and developed.
The third principle is building upon what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has called "the genius of Canada". It is the farmer, the man or woman running a small business, or the entrepreneur who has a vision or a dream who provide jobs in the country. It is the family and commitment to community which guarantee stability in our social fabric. It is my role as Minister of National Health and Welfare to put forward signals and initiatives which will strengthen the role of the

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. J. Epp
family and give it more prominence in society than I feel it has been given before.
The Government must at all times turn to Canadians in their homes, at their jobs and at their leisure for our source of inspiration and creativity, because it is that creativity which builds nations. I take real satisfaction as a Manitoban and as a Member of the House in finding a commitment to these vital principles in the Speech from the Throne. I know that my commitment and that of my colleagues in Government to work with all provincial governments, including my own, is real. We are optimistic about the first steps.
The strategy of encouraging investment and private sector job creation is practical. Though others might feel that we over-emphasize it from time to time, there is no question that in past years, either inadvertently or directly, there has been a downgrading of the importance of the private sector. That must be changed.
As I want to address the House today on issues within the Department of National Health and Welfare, I should like to take a moment to express publicly that I feel I am most fortunate as Minister in having the Parliamentary Secretary whom the Prime Minister appointed, the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand). She not only has compassion, she comes with much experience having lived and contributed to the public sector in her province. 1 am most fortunate in the fact that she is working with me.
The determination within our social programs to guard stability and fairness in our social policy is genuine and non-negotiable. 1 repeat that, to guard stability and fairness in our social policy is genuine and the views that it is not negotiable is shared by all Members of the House. Those are the underlying principles which must be met as to whether or not social policy should be part of our larger social fabric.
My remarks are devoted to certain aspects of the social policy of the Government and of Canadians generally. It is by now a truism that we in Canada have a social system of which Canadians are proud and with which most Canadians are secure. No fair Canadian would deny that all Parties in the House have contributed to the design and the creation of this system-the Liberal Party in office, the New Democratic Party in Opposition and our Party in both roles. I return to the first Bill passed by the Defienbaker government which addressed social policy or to the first Bill, which the administration of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) passed in 1979, that is, the extension of the spousal allowance. As Hon. Members will know, in the present Speech from the Throne there is a further step in the area of pension reform for widows and widowers. That being the Canadian record, no fair Canadian would claim that we have finished the job. Those who say that we must not tamper with the social system are not only arguing against eroding our social system-and that is not my intention in any way, shape or form-but too often are falling into the trap where they argue against improving the social system. That is important. If the job is unfinished, the debate about social policy is unfinished. If there is more to be done, this Parliament must
get on with the job of furthering that act. This is what the Minister of Finance had in mind when he said the following in the House a week ago:
-we must ensure that growth will be for the benefit of all Canadians and that the costs of change will not fall on those least able to bear them. To provide this assurance, we must make certain that those who really require social assistance receive it. We must also ensure that our social support systems encourage self-reliance rather than create a dependency on government.
It would be foolishness or dishonesty, or possibly both, to suggest that we can more effectively meet the needs of the most disadvantaged without giving a thought to the source of resources or the best means of putting those resources in their hands. Such a careful look at the design of social programs has as much to do with good social policy at any time as it does with husbanding resources in a time of economic crisis.
Going back into the history of the development of social policy in the country, in the postwar period legislators were concerned that if changes were not made, we might sink back or slide back into a depressed economy such as we had experienced in the 1930s. It has been built up gradually and carefully, but always one has had to keep in mind the fact that good social policy is best protected when there is economic growth. Too often, I would suggest, the two solitudes in society have tried to separate that-those who put stress on the economy on the one hand arguing the economic factors and those on the social policy side stressing that side. While that is natural-and I understand it-the time has come that both groups and both views are melded so that we can develop further coverage in social policy.
I can only assume that this is what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) had in mind when he said in the leadership race for the Liberal Party that he would reduce the federal deficit by some $15 billion in seven years. I assume that a concern with equity and with effectiveness of taxpayers' dollars is what motivated the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) to argue the very same during the leadership contest when he said that a re-examination had to take place.
Canadians are understandably and justifiably concerned with any debate on the comprehensiveness of social programs or the level of resources committed to them. I believe it would be helpful to reaffirm what the Government has said in this regard. First, the Government talked about a review of two of our social policy programs, that is, the child benefit system and the elderly benefit system. Today in Question Period I was pleased to note that the spokesman on social policy for the Official Opposition said in his question that he supported a review. I welcome not only his comments but also his input.
Second, these systems were designed to support all Canadians who fall into the categories of having children, that is in the case of the family benefits program, or those who are over the age of 65.
The third principle behind the design of our programs has always been that the benefits of these programs should be
November 15, 1984

greatest for those most in need and lowest for those least in need. Surely no Member of the House of Commons and no fair Canadian would argue that principle. I can tell the House categorically that those principles are inviolate. Our goal is not to abolish or erode anything. It is to improve the progressivity of what is already in place.
All the talk I have heard in the last few days has been about universality. To describe what the debate should focus on, let me offer two possible definitions of universality with which 1 think most Members of the House would be familiar. One definition might be that all social program should be available to everyone, regardless of need. The defenders of that defini-ton, if there are any, must realize that they are not defending universality since no such thing presently exists. The guaranteed income supplement and the spousal allowance are two programs that are not universal, but available to those who meet certain tests.
Another definition of universality might see our social programs providing the same level of after-tax benefit to all recipients. Defenders of that definition must surely realize that there is no such thing as universality to meet that definition. The progressive tax system, which is not open to serious question so far as I know, ensures that benefits are taxed at a higher rate for high income earners than for low and middle income earners. There as well the definition needs clarification. I say tangentially that the present Leader of the Opposition has taken certain steps with regard to the progressivity of the tax system, so I do not have to outline that for Liberal Members opposite.
Canadians, therefore, have never had a version of universality in which the theory and the reality are absolutely the same. For example, the old age exemption in the income tax system and the child exemption are theoretically universal, but in fact benefit only those with enough income to pay taxes. Those obviously who are below the taxable income level do not benefit.
When one looks at the program, obviously care has to be taken. There are Canadians who have planned their future. They are retired, close to retirement or hope to retire. They would fit one of those three categories. There has been a commitment made by the people of Canada through subsequent governments that those plans remain in place. It is for that reason that I say I have no intention of eroding that social contract.
Surely there can be only one workable definition of universality that is also consistent with the principle of fairness, that is, that all individuals in the group designated for assistance should receive benefits. At the same time, however, the value of those benefits should surely be greatest for those with the greatest need and least for those whose needs are the least.
I say to the House, and I am simply repeating what the Prime Minister said, that we do not contemplate means tests. I think the definition of a means test is best brought to mind when one recalls the time when we had those types of tests in the country. They were described not as a means test, but the meanest test. That obviously is not progressive social policy.
The Address-Mr. J. Epp
We are contemplating no trade-off between social and fiscal responsibility. I can give no better proof than what appeared in the Agenda for Economic Renewal, and I quote:
Social responsibility dictates that wherever possible, and to a greater extent than is the case today, scarce resources should be diverted to those in greatest need. Fiscal responsibility suggests that Government expenditures must be allocated to provide immediate employment opportunities and better ensure sustained growth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member's time is up. Questions or comments?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister. I congratulate him on his new post. He certainly showed today that at least he is a philosopher. What most people would like to know is, what will be the practical application of this philosophy?
My first question goes back to the point that he made with regard to strengthening the role of the family. Is he in favour of maintaining and also increasing family allowances, particularly in view of the great increase in Canada of single parents, many of them mothers raising children on their own with very low incomes, very often on welfare, and the number of marginal income families with children? Also, there are the millions of people who are unemployed who have children. That is my first question.
The second question has to do with benefits for older people. I am very glad to see the Hon. Stanley Knowles in the Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Minister will recall that for many, many years Mr. Knowles advocated pension reform, particularly for those in the 60 to 65 age group. We support the idea of increasing benefits for widows and widowers in this group. As Mr. Knowles often asked, why should this be based on marital status? I asked the Minister whether this is only being targeted to married people or those who were formerly married. What about single people, particularly single older women in the 60 to 65 age group who are suffering greatly in this country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. From philosophy I was obviously going to go to practical expressions of what we intend to do. If the Hon. Member has read the Throne Speech, which I am sure she has done every night because it is good reading, she will know about the initiatives on the spousal allowance which we intend to bring forward. I take from her comments that the New Democratic Party is going to support that Bill. I thank her for that initiative.
We are addressing the very question that she put forward, and I thank her for the question. The gist of the first question had to do with family allowances and family benefits, the total family benefits package. We have to look at family allowances, the tax exemption per child as well as the child tax credit. If I understood the question correctly, the bias or the tilting that

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. J. Epp
the Hon. Member demonstrated was for granting it to those more in need than to those who do not need it nearly as badly.
That is the gist of the debate. That is what I was trying to put forward to the Hon. Member and to Canadians. Surely it is within our imagination that, having those resources and having those considerations, we can only benefit the family by strengthening the family position by looking at the program at the present time, taking a look at if it were to be changed, which families would benefit and which income group would benefit most. That is the kind of debate and review to which we look forward. I also look forward to receiving the Hon. Member's input.
With regard to the reference she made respecting a Manitoban, Mr. Knowles, who is sitting at the table today, all of us from Manitoba take pride in the contribution that he has made to public life.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We have had pension reform discussions for 10 years now. I hope that during this Parliament we can move the discussion to the point of the practical. As I said earlier, we have built our benefit system step by step, 1 think carefully, trying to respond to need.
We can see what we have not done by taking a look at the task force report on pension reform. What we must do is to give either more incentives, more encouragement or a combination of the two so that Canadians will invest more of their own resources for their retirement period. Surely that is a responsible step for this Parliament to take today for the future of Canada.
When looking at the demographics of the group of Canadians who are over 65 today and looking at the possible numbers of Canadians who will be over the age of 65 by the turn of the century, a time when some of us might be approaching that age ourselves, it is important for us to note that the numbers will grow dramatically, and obviously with that the dependency factor grows. We must address that today. We cannot wait to address it 10 years from now when we suddenly have a situation on our hands which is hard to handle. Let us do it today. That is why we are putting these considerations quite openly on the table. Let us have that review. Once having had that review, which I do not think need be all that long, let us close the books and get on with the best social policy we can put together.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on two issues and put a question to the Minister. I have heard two western Ministers speak on oil and energy. If those Ministers would take a close look at what was said in the Throne Speech and the economic statement, they would see that they did not give the oil industry anything except for a change in the threshold of the PGRT from $250,000 to $500,000. Basically, however, they really did not give the industry much of anything.
Perhaps it takes a member of the New Democratic party to say this, but it is interesting to note that no one has picked up on the fact that the Government has not really got off the backs of the industry. It has made some promises for the future about world prices but it did not give the industry anything. It just took more taxes from the consumers. I simply want to make that point after having heard these Ministers say how great the Government will be for the oil industry in the West.
I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). A man who was 62 years of age came to my office last Saturday. He was a real estate agent until he went blind in one eye. He is now going blind in the other. He has to go to the food bank in Vancouver along with a great many other people because he does not receive enough money. I would like to ask the Minister if there is a food bank in the City of Winnipeg. Where does the Minister stand on the question of food banks? Does he believe that Canada should continue to have food banks? I ask this seriously. Is that the kind of private sector welfare that the Minister believes we need, or does the Minister believe we should do away with food banks and replace them with adequate pensions from the Government?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it almost goes without saying that my responsibility, which I am sure is shared by everyone in the House, is to see that we have an economic climate in which people will receive pensions which will allow them to live in dignity. I really do not know why that must be re-stated. I would think that that was a given, to me at least, it is a given.
If I could draw from my background just a bit, I would say something else to the Hon. Member. I do not think we serve people by placing every reliance on the state. Let me be practical. I am not defending poverty, but some of the best service that has been given to those who are less fortunate than you and I, Mr. Speaker, has been given by voluntary organizations, churches, service clubs and ordinary Canadians who have used those vehicles to help their fellow man. I do not discourage that; I laud it. That does not take away any of our responsibilities as public people for improving the public pension system.
Let us not deprecate the work of ordinary Canadians. Although I am a Minister of the Crown, I do not believe that the state does a better job than the individual. The stage changes; the individual can show compassion. Individuals show love to others; the state sets up programs. While I accept that the two must be meshed, let us not ever work under the assumption that one can work without the other. When looking at social policy, let us never forget that compassionate component in society, because the state can never replace it totally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. 1 call on the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) to make her speech.


Mrs. Finestone:: Is the Hon. Minister finished?
November 15, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The 10-minute period for questions and answers has expired.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will change directions. Perhaps if the Hon. Minister stays, we could have that exchange later. Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of the House of Commons, I am honoured to have this opportunity to address the House as we debate the Speech from the Throne. As I begin my tenure, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the electors of Mount Royal for placing their trust in me.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to add my personal congratulations and sincere best wishes to you on your new responsibilities. Yours will not be an easy task but you will have the confidence and respect of all Members here. I also wish to pay a special tribute to the other 26 women elected to this Parliament. Ours is the largest number ever elected in Canadian history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: Our numbers have confirmed a more acceptable and nobler meaning to the cliche, "a woman's place is in the house". I wish us all wise counsel in this House as we add our particular perspectives to those of our partners.
In speaking of a woman's place in this House, let me congratulate the Government upon its selection of a delightful young woman as the seconder to the Speech from the Throne. As well, let me offer my felicitations to the mover.
In a sense, the riding of Mount Royal needs no introduction in the House. It has a long and honourable history of sending outstanding Members to this Parliament. In the last 35 years, two men have sat in this Chamber on behalf of the people of Mount Royal. Alan MacNaughton was the Member from 1949 to 1965. He sat in your chair for three years, Mr. Speaker, and served with great distinction. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal prior to the last election was, of course, well known to all Canadians. He was the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, one of the outstanding Canadians of this century. His passion for Canada, its unity, its diversity and its future, was matched only by his passion for world peace and stability. With this tradition and legacy of leadership from Mount Royal, I am both humbled and challenged by the prospect of succeeding representatives such as these two outstanding Canadians.
My riding mirrors much of what is great in this country. The riding is composed of four sectors: Cote St. Luc, the Towns of Mount Royal and Hampstead and parts of the Montreal Districts of Snowdon and Cote-des-Neiges. About
88,000	people make their homes there, and one out of every five is over the age of 65. The Hon. Minister can understand my concern.
The major cultural group in Mount Royal is Jewish, accounting for 48 per cent of the riding. We are indeed proud that our riding is almost 60 per cent bilingual and is enriched by many diverse ethnocultural communities, weaving a wonderful multicultural tapestry. As for mother tongue, 52 per
The Address-Mrs. Finestone
cent are English while 21 per cent are French. As for ethnic origin, people from the four corners of the world, from the Caribbean Islands, Chile, South Africa, southeast Asia, the Middle East and Europe, all make their homes here.
In the best of Canadian traditions, cultural pluralism and social commitment are at the forefront in Mount Royal. Human rights here and throughout the world are a major concern for the members of this well-informed and generous community.

Internationally, the respect of the Canadian Government for human rights has been expressed in many ways; in its assistance to political refugees in Central America and to those suffering from famine in Ethiopia; in its support for Soviet Jewry; and in its support for the security of Israel. It is our voice as well in the United Nations. It is my sincere hope that the new Government maintains and enhances these vital initiatives in support of international human rights.
At home our concerns with human rights have been just as strong. Here our concerns with the rights and opportunities of individuals have properly focused on two groups of society of particular importance to my constituents and myself, women and youth. This focus must continue. There must be a continuity of purpose and action. In recent weeks, government Ministers have repeatedly talked of "sending new signals" to different groups in our society; signals to the private sector; to labour, to the Americans; to our NATO Allies; and to the world with respect to peace. I want to look to this Throne Speech to see what signals the Government is sending to the women, to the youth of Canada and to the cultural communities.
The evolution of the role of women in Canada, their growing awareness, strength and constructive action is most important. I am pleased to see that the apparent willingness of the Government to address the concerns of women is manifest. However, I must warn the Government that Canadian women-and men-will not be satisfied with words alone. Only three things are needed to follow up on the rhetoric of the Throne Speech, action, action and action. Under the Liberal government women have made great progress. This Government has a really tough act to follow.

Women can and must become full partners in our society both economically and socially. They will reach that goal not only through legislative changes, but also through changes in attitude on the part of the Canadian people and the business sector.
However, economic independence is the very basis of women's equality. We challenge the Government to follow in the footsteps of the previous Liberal Government and at least keep up the pace at which it defended the rights of women.

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Finestone

Change, Mr. Speaker, must begin at the very centre of government decision-making, in Cabinet's own Priorities and Planning Committee. It seems incongruous that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is not a bona fide Member who participates directly in the discussions and decisions of this key group. The Government risks the charge that its attention to the significant concerns of Canadian women is little more than tokenism, for it excludes them from the heart of policy-making.
Thus far, the gaps between campaign promises and the reality of the Throne Speech are troubling, Mr. Speaker. First, employment; the promise was for mandatory affirmative action in the public sector and for implementing equal pay for work of equal value. The promise was for contract compliance in the case of companies seeking federal government contracts. The Throne Speech now tells us that the reality is further study of equal pay for work of equal value. The reality is silence on contract compliance.
Second, child care is a basic right for women in their struggle for economic independence. It is a cornerstone of their right to work. The Government has sent a confused and alarming message to Canadian women in its overly cautious decision to send these questions to a parliamentary committee when the recommendations of an independent childcare task force are to be tabled this December. Before trying to reinvent the wheel and waste public monies, this parliamentary committee should examine the reports available from these experts whose work on the childcare task force is about to be ended, and then make the decision as to whether it really needs to continue the study.
[ Translation]
Third, there is the crucial issue of the pension system. Must I remind this Government that only one third of Canadian working women have a pension plan? Will they be added to the poorest group in our population, women aged over 65? The necessary studies and consultations have already taken place under the previous Government. What Canadien women ask this Government is that it act now.

Fourth, the concern about pornography is a matter of urgency. When the Fraser report is tabled, swift action by Government must follow. Similarly with the important Badg-ley Commission report on sexual abuse of children in Canada. We must work with the courts, the provinces, and with medical and community groups to prevent child abuse. There are helpful steps to take at once, sending a signal of hope.
Fifth, we should not forget single elderly women. Community responsibility, which was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, gives reference to community-based health care, which is a genuinely laudable notion. The Government should assure elderly citizens of appropriate financial, social and medical care so that they can remain in their homes, continuing to be active and contributing members of society. Do not
tamper with the universality of certain programs which form the base of their sense of security.
[ Translation]
In this regard, the decision of the Government to extend the survivor's allowance to widows and widowers aged between 60 and 64 is a step in the right direction. However, the fact remains that the Government should have a more comprehensive view. Such a proposal discriminates against single senior citizens. Among them are 200,000 women who would not be eligible to pension before the age of 65.

These are the women's issues which were addressed in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. I regret to say that the signal to women in the Throne Speech is a "blue alert". What has the Government really told us it would do? It will re-examine the concept of equal pay for work of equal value; back off on affirmative action; procrastinate on contract compliance; study rather than act on child care; discuss rather than act on pension reform; take no major action in agriculture which affects so many farm women; cut $9.6 million in social housing. These things are all crucial to the life of millions of Canadians, particularly Canadian women, be they single parents, those with large families or the elderly. These are not encouraging signals, Mr. Speaker. This really is a Government of broken promises.
What signals is the Government sending to the young? It does not give them the crucial hope of pursuing their studies or finding a good job to see them through this winter and the forthcoming summer. It gives them a Minister of State for Youth who is responsible for furthering the International Year of Youth and has only the power to advocate in their interests, in other words, a Minister who cannot protect their potential for jobs now. Where is this Government's promise of jobs, jobs, jobs? The Government abolishes the Summer Canada Program and freezes the level of Canada student loans to save $5 million. Among other cuts, it eliminates totally the Young Workers' Exchange Program, which I find particularly ironic in this International Year of Youth. The discussion paper on training announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), by which she hopes to promote consultation with the provinces, may develop a good long-term plan. Nonetheless, this must not constrain short-term action and direct job creation to avoid a very bleak winter.
Besides providing direct job creation programs, the previous Government made major strides in the area of training. For all its talk of giving hope to Canadians, this Government offers obscure promises in some dim future. To ignore the immediate needs of unemployed youth is short-sighted and a mockery. This is not the change they voted for.
While my official position is that of critic for women and youth, I cannot let this moment pass without a comment on our cultural minorities. The Canadian idea is complex. It is our native people, it is French and English. It is the wealth of cultures that more recent Canadians have brought us. To this
November 15, 1984

wealth the Speech from the Throne gives a dismissive nod in three lines. There was no promise to reintroduce the Multi-cul-turalism Act. Cultures in exile from their home soil need nurturing. This Government does not seem to feel this. If the Government does not perform, it will let Canada's rich cultural tapestry grow threadbare, and we really must fight this.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Government has acknowledged that the legitimate concerns of women and young people deserve a place at the top of the national agenda. However, I am disappointed, as are so many, that it has failed to follow up on the acknowledgement with any evidence of immediate action. The Government has sent the signal all right; it has sent an alarm signal that said "stop" to all those efforts under-way to remove the barriers and to extend an opportunity for women and young people. For this reason the Throne Speech has fallen short of expectations of Canadians for change. In the months ahead we will demand more than signals. We will expect action; action on contract compliance, affirmative action, pension reform, child care, pornography, prevention of family violence as well as the reintroduction of the Bills on divorce and multiculturalism, on jobs, education and training for youth. Along with my colleagues I plan to be the "porte-parole" of the grass roots in this House.
[ Translation]
We are warning the Government because we take its goodwill for granted. However, we make the firm commitment to remind the Government constructively of its promises to the Canadian people. We want priority to be given to the urgent needs of all Canadians, to their economic and social rights. We shall give prompt support to any constructive legislative proposal.

Women's issues and youth issues cannot be dealt with in isolation from larger economic and social decisions. Rather, they must run to the very core of what governmental decision making is all about. Will that constant awareness prevail at senior levels of government? Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members: We will be vigilant in seeing that it does prevail in order to uphold a tradition of social action and commitment that speaks to the very best of Canada and Canadians.


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


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for her excellent maiden speech and also for her very important position as critic responsible for the status of women in her Party.
I would like to ask her if she is familiar with the proposal made particularly by some of the women parliamentarians in this House in the last Parliament. This was supported by many women's organizations across the country. The proposal was to establish a standing committee of the House of Commons which would be responsible for the status of women. Our Party initiated that proposal some time ago and it was supported by
The Address-Mrs. Finestone
some Progressive Conservatives in the last Parliament. Unfortunately, it was obstructed by the that Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
We saw this committe as being tri-partite with an equal balance in its representation from all Parties so it would not be a partisan kind of decision making. It would the watchdog of all legislation as to its effect on women. It would look at women's programs under the Secretary of State and groups such as the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It would be generally concerned with the place where a network of women across the country could report.
Does the Hon. Member now support this porposal and will her Party support it?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. Her reputation for interest in women's issues and for her commitment and involvement in this House precedes her.
As to the question, I must say I heard the Hon. Member make that recommendation the other day. My immediate reaction was; My goodness, what a marvellous idea. Then I sat back and thought for a few minutes. I cannot give a concrete response but I can tell the Hon. Member what my thoughts were. I place this before her and I would be happy to speak with her later.
Women have lived for a very long time in isolation from the mainstream of decision making. We have fought long and hard for equal representation as partners in today's society. We are finally making it. We are now 26 in this House. Every issue which touches humanity, our concern, are men and women issues. Therefore it is my feeling that, when it comes to the legislative process, I personally-I cannot speak for my colleagues because I have not discussed it with them-wish to sit with my partner, the man in my life, the men with whom I live, the men who are going to share the society which we will build, to make what would seem to be the best decision for society as a whole.
This does not in any way, in my view, remove the need for a concerted effort on the part of women in a separate kind of place to look at the issues. If the Hon. Member is saying to me, let us have a standing committee, I would say no, because the tendency in society is then to dump everything there that concerns women. I do not want to isolate women in that way. What happens to them touches the whole world.
If we want to vet all legislation coming through covering farmers, fisher ladies and fishermen, all legislation, then yes, but in an unofficial way, then I would be happy to join her and on that I might agree with her. I think in a sense I have made a decision while talking to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Hon. Member for her election to the House of Commons and to congratulate the people of Mount Royal on the dramatic improvement in the representation that they receive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Finestone


Benno Friesen: We would have welcomed her to this House ten or fifteen years ago if she had come here then. I might add that the former Prime Minister said last night-and I thank my friend here for reminding me-that if the members of the Liberal Party cannot stop their sniping, he might be tempted to come back. I want to ask the Hon. Member if there is a secret arrangement made for her to step aside. He has been known to try to shuffle off the stage before and then change his mind. Is there a secret arrangement between the former Prime Minister and the Member that maybe he will come back and plague us again?
Finally, I would like to add my agreement to the point of view that she has just expressed. Sometimes there are questions in my mind as to why people who call themselves part of the women's movement want, on the one hand, to decry the historical ghettoization of women, and then, on the other hand, want to create another ghetto for them. I compliment the Member on the insight which she has provided on that particular issue.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his observations. The next time I speak with Mr. Trudeau I will have an exchange with him with regard to what the Hon. Member had to say. I have the feeling that he will stay where he is, by his choice.
1 would like to take advantage of this opportunity, if I may, to comment on the Hon. Member's observation with regard to what is the perceived women's movement. I would like to suggest that anyone who calls herself a feminist is really someone who is concerned with the best interests of her daughter, her sister, or the people around her with whom he or she lives. As the mother or father of daughters I am sure you can understand that. If you are to give equal education and equal training, you therefore want to give equal opportunity, and you therefore would expect them to get an equal salary, work under equal conditions and be subject to equal promotion. That is their right and their choice. If you want to enjoy the joys of grandparenthood, as I do, you want to know that your grandchildren are going to have that equal right to choice.
I am blessed with four sons, one of whom is in the Gallery, and 1 am delighted to note that. Some of my sons have chosen to marry, some have not. Some of my daughters-in-law have chosen to have children, some have not. Some choose to pursue a career, some do not. However, all these women and these men qualify as femininsts. When I told my father he was a feminist, he nearly fainted. Then, when he acknowledged that he wanted me to complete medical studies, he also realized he was a feminist. I hope that that answers somewhat the Hon. Member's observations as to who and what a feminist is, or who belongs to the movement that promotes women.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), and I would just
like the Hon. Member to take note of the fact that there are only two minutes remaining.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I was a little disturbed, though, when she said that the Government is not doing anything for women in the Speech from the Throne. I do not know whether there are any bankruptices and receiverships in Mount Royal, but during my lifetime 1 have seen people kicked off farms and out of their homes. That is hardest on the women. They are the ones who take it the hardest. It is tough on the men and the kids, but it is really heartbreaking for the women.
In that connection, I want to say that the Government is doing the ultimate thing because if we continue to increase the deficit, increase expenses, not pay our bills and live on borrowed money, the time will come when this country will go into bankruptcy the same as other countries have. So what this Government is doing is really the greatest thing for women, because we are going to save them that agony and pain which would come when and if Canada went into bankruptcy. We are determined it will not go into bankruptcy, and with our program it will not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. She only has two minutes remaining.


Sheila Finestone: First of all I would like to say that I was trying to be very serious and as non partisan as possible, and 1 really resent the Hon. Member politicising my remarks.
Second, I would like the Hon. Member to know that 1 did not fully describe Mount Royal, but I come from a most fascinating riding. I pointed out that over 20 per cent of the people are over 65. By the way, over 20 per cent of the people in Mount Royal live below the poverty line, so we are not so- [Translation]
-privileged, as you have said.

Third, I would like to point out that the heartbreak for women would be if the Government did not carry through on the promises which, if the Hon. Member had listened to my speech he would have known, were sincerely meant. 1 look forward to the Government's bringing forward the kind of propositions and laws which will enable women to reach the equality which we want for our daughters and for ourselves.


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you and your staff on your new appointments. I am sure the people in Sherbrooke are delighted with the decision made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
I would like to say a few words about the two Hon. Members who spoke before, and first of all I would like to congratulate the Hon. Minister of National Health and Wei-
November 15, 1984

fare (Mr. Epp), the Member for Provencher, on his clear and concise statement, and also the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on her balanced and sincere comments that were certainly worth listening to.
"La Beauce" has chosen me as its elected representative, and I therefore wish to express my gratitude to the people in my riding and thank my constituents for their confidence and trust. 1 can assure them that I shall perform my duties to the best of my ability. I intend to be fair and to help everyone in my riding, irrespective of their past political affiliations. It is a great honour for a citizen to be elected to the Parliament of his country.
It is the first time I have had the honour of addressing this House, and with its Members, both experienced parliamentarians and those who are new to this Chamber, I intend to behave with the dignity that befits a Member of Parliament. I have the privilege of being the first Progressive Conservative Member to be elected in Beauce in exactly 100 years. I wish to pay special tribute to all parliamentarians who in the past have taken up the cause of the people of Beauce in this House. The people of Beauce have pride, dignity and courage, and I intend to be an effective and also demanding spokesman in defending their interests.
Mr. Speaker, the federal riding of Beauce is quite large, covering 4,215 square kilometers. At the last census it had a population of 82,000. There are about 55 towns. The geography of this area is quite distinct from that of other ridings in Quebec and reflects the warmth of its people. The economy is based on agriculture, forestry and a host of small industries. In Quebec, my riding is described as a paradise for small- and medium-sized businesses. A diversified economic base has helped this area to avoid industrial concentration in one specific sector, and the attendant risks. The energy and creativity of the people in this area have helped to create what is referred to as the "miracle beauceron". Mr. Speaker, these people nevertheless have problems and sometimes have to go to the Government for assistance. However, their attitude is best described by the following saying: God helps those who help themselves. The people of Beauce are often referred to as the Japanese of Quebec. We are indeed honoured!
In Quebec, there are two kinds of people: those who are Beauceron and those who would like to be. In the House, we have Progressive Conservatives and a couple of others who would like to be Progressive Conservatives. If only the rest of the country had the same vitality we find in the people of Beauce, the same spirit of entrepreneurship shown by our business people, our skilled and conscientious workers and our 3,700 productive farmers, the same desire to compete with regions that have a lot more resources!
I am sure the former President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was thinking of people like the people of Beauce when he told the Americans:
The Address-Mr. Bernier
"Don't ask what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country". Agriculture is vital. It was Canada's first, and for many years, chief economic lever. Today, although farmers are fewer in number, they have learned to produce bigger and better harvests.

Generally, "la Beauce" is a rural area that is rather well structured. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will have to understand the farmers in my constituency. I trust him to do this.
"La Beauce" is also a world-renowned maple-sugar area. The maple-sugar industry is extremely successful there. Indeed, our maple syrup production accounts for 30 per cent of the world market. However, that industry will have to be subsidized as far as the processing, marketing and export of that seasonal product are concerned. Also, good forest management could help the economic growth of this area.
The Hon. Member for Beauce, like 170 other Conservative Members, does not yet have the privilege of being a Minister. But I would like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that in our party there are no backbenchers, no rank and file Members, but Members of Parliament who already have a prime role to play in Government decisions. Our action will be a positive one. In the Conservative caucus, Hon. Members can get action on issues. Our views will be respected. We belong to a great political party, an open and generous party where co-operation is felt between French- and English-speaking Members, a truly national party.
Let me say also that this country has a role to play on the world scene, and we will make an international contribution. The position upheld by this Government concerning monetary, food and technical assistance to the victims of drought in Ethiopia has been a great joy to me. The Right Hon. Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Hon. Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) have set up a national aid committee for that country. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that Third World countries which soon will include three quarters of the population, will also obtain financial help, because, according to the findings of the Commission on International Development under the chairmanship of Mr. Willy Brandt in 1980, the global income is shared unequally between the various nations, and there is a wide gap between industrialized and poor, developing countries. Per capita income is 32 times greater and the average life expectancy is thirteen years longer in richer countries than in Third World countries. The gap between nations and peoples has reached such proportions that it is seriously endangering the global economy. It is one of the major factors that make the global crisis more acute and affect the political climate.
286

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Bernier

Shortly before his death, the great American scientist, Robert Oppenheimer, said that when the vast numbers of people living today on the verge of famine and utter hopelessness become aware of what their situation is and what our situation is, "I am afraid to think what will happen".
I want to stress that social and economic development in the Third World is not only a condition for the prosperity of the industrialized nations, it is an irreversible movement.
In its Throne Speech the Conservative Government traced the broad outline of the action it plans to take. We will not hesitate to innovate as the session continues. We are responsible for the future of the country's economy. We are discarding outworn dogmas and we intend to pursue a new strategy of national development that will free Canada's economy from the dead end in which it is currently trapped. The new economic order will ensure prosperous and continuing development.

Therefore, we must adopt a new perspective and do away with those old-fashioned ideas in order to grasp the spirit of an ever changing world.
The often bitter comments of our friends opposite will not hinder our efforts and prevent Government Members from thinking, acting and carrying out our great objectives for the well-being of every Canadian.
The former government, in fighting inflation through restrictive monetary and budgetary means, slowed down the economic growth during the last decade to an average rate of 2.3 per cent. Because of this, unemployment had reached a critical level when we came into power.
As Peter Drucker, the eminent journalist of the Wall Street Journal, says in his book "Towards A New Economy": "We must acknowledge the need to go back to making difficult choices. Politicians must deal with a number of difficult structural and political choices, hence the need for proceeding with budgetary cutbacks."
Here are the questions the Government must ask itself. "What percentage of the national income should be transferred from producers to non-producers, in other words, from those who create employment and those who depend on the State? What limits should be set on public spending? What percentage of national income can be allocated to funds available for remuneration of employment rather than capital, without increasing unemployment and economic depression? What tax bonuses and financial stimuli are necessary to build the requisite capital?" Our Government is demonstrating great courage and determination because .. . "These are not popular questions. Any answer is bound to lead to controversy, and there is a risk involved because it is a constant reminder that there is a price to pay for everything. It is a matter of facing up to reality and the need to make choices. Economics has
again become a sinister science, a science of limits, risks and choices. This was in fact the opinion of the famous economist, John Maynard Keynes: "It is not enough to understand new ideas. We must also escape the old ones that have extended their ramifications in every nook and cranny of our minds."
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the fact that from now on, a new vision of the world will be necessary, a global and system-oriented vision, because every economy is dependent on other countries. The need for a new vision is particularly great in view of the close and increasing interdependence of the world's countries in their economic and financing activities. As a result of this interdependence, the problems of a single country become international problems, and their solution must therefore be solved within the international context.
For instance, developing countries are in great need of our goods and services, and industrialized countries, like Canada, will need these countries more and more in order to operate at full production capacity, which will help us fight unemployment.
It would be useful to consider some of the new ideas set forth by Professor Angelo Angelopoulos of the Academy of Athens, in his book "A World Employment Plan", which contains a foreword by the Nobel Prize winner Lawrence Klein.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the Conservative Government is on the right track. If they take a closer look at the Throne Speech and last week's economic statement by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I am sure Canadians will appreciate the proposed measures.
My constituents in Beauce will never suffer financially as a result of the decisions made by this Progressive Conservative Government. We shall protect programs and vested rights. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has explained to Canadians the precarious economic situation of this country and, as a first step, proposed a plan to restructure our expenditures, a plan that has already been endorsed by the vast majority of Canadians. By creating a new climate of confidence across Canada, this plan will promote productive investment which will bring the growth rate of our economy up to 3.4 per cent by 1990.
We are committed to building a national consensus. The economic summit will determine our objectives, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister said. In Beauce, I shall try to encourage and support investors, those who create jobs and are prepared to take investment risks for the benefit of the community.
The Speech from the Throne also refers to a new responsiveness of the Government vis-a-vis the provinces. I am particularly pleased with the co-operation offered to Quebec. Quebecers have felt frustrated as a result of a long period of difficult
November 15, 1984

negotiations with Ottawa. Since September 4, a day of national liberation, the results have been swift and effective. The federal machine is no longer set to seek confrontation and jurisdictional disputes. Harmony is the order of the day, Mr. Speaker. Personally, I am convinced that the leader of our Party and the leader of this Government has had a great deal to do with it. His talents as a mediator, his flexibility and his desire to put an end to these federal-provincial quarrels have been an important factor in creating this new climate.
Mr. Speaker, together we are starting a new era, and these men and women who form our new Government deserve the confidence and support of Canadians. I live in and represent a marvellous part of the country: "la Beauce". I shall be making a constant effort to help my constituents. I shall defend their claims and try protect their vested rights and fulfil my mandate with fairness, equity and common sense.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Beauce wishes to thank you for your attention and assure you of his co-operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech? The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: First, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on his maiden speech. I know he comes from the Beauce area, one of the most prosperous in Canada, with a good many expanding industries. With that in mind, I would like to ask him a question related to a sentence which appears at page 2 of A New Direction for Canada. It reads that the government, meaning the former government, has all too often hampered rather than helped change by protecting, at taxpayers' expense, those enterprises which have been too slow to increase productivity or unable to seize new market opportunities. I want to ask him which industries the government had in mind when stating that? Which industries too often were protected by the previous government?


Gilles Bernier: I thank the Hon. Member. I will surely have an opportunity to consider that question and to provide an answer, perhaps with figures. I think that the business community is indeed quite satisfied to see this government in office and it has faith in us. As to the documents referred to by the Hon. Member, I must say that I did not have time to read them all, but I have faith in the people who wrote them and contributed to the preparation of new policies which the Canadian people will surely endorse. I am not the financial expert of the government, of course, and I have nothing to do with job creation.
However, I will answer those questions after I am given a few responsibilities. It is unfortunate that the Minister responsible is not in the House, but I hope the question will be forwarded to him tomorrow morning.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the new
Member.
The Address-Mr. Bernier
This is the first time I hear the new Member from Quebec, a Conservative. Hopefully the Hon. Member will give me an answer. During the Quebec referendum, three or four years ago, did he support the yes or the no option? Would he like the Province of Quebec to have the right of veto if there is agreement between Canada and his province?


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member heard only one Conservative Member since the beginning of this session. Naturally, I deplore the fact that some Members are too often away from the House for long periods of time, because several of my colleagues, almost ten, have already made a speech in this debate on the Address. Perhaps the first thing to do would be to improve the climate in the House, because the interest shown by some elected Members is often minimal.
In answer to the question, I voted yes in the referendum. I was even a vice-president in my riding, and I am glad to say so because at that time in Quebec-fortunately, the situation is altogether different now-we were in a state of never-ending confrontation with the federal government then in office and we were aware of what we were doing when we voted yes. We were not asking for the independence of Quebec, quite the contrary, we wanted to have the power to negotiate and I think that, with the advent of a Conservative government, we can forget about the past and still not feel any regret about what we did then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has a question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member or, for that matter, the Hon. Member who has just raised the issue are aware of this, but there was, if I remember well, at least one Member of his own caucus who was also very active on the 'yes' side during the referendum campaign.


Gilles Bernier: If the Hon. Member would kindly remind me of the question that was put at the referendum, I should be delighted to give him another answer to that question this afternoon. So, go ahead with the referendum question as it was formulated four or five years ago, and I will gladly answer it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Had the Hon. Member for Beauce completed his remarks? Fine. The Hon. Member for Bourassa has a question.


Mr. Rossi:: Only a comment, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) referred to the quorum in the House, for I have just counted 21 or 22 Conservative Members out of a possible 212.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to remind Hon. Members that they should refrain from mentioning the presence or absence of their colleagues in the House. This applies to all Hon. Members. I believe this is the third time something like

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Taylor
this has occurred over the past two days. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to continue that line. I asked the Hon. Member, not to make cheap political points, as I normally try not to do. I genuinely wanted to know for my own interest as a western Member about the change in Quebec. I appreciate what he said. It was very interesting. However, can the Hon. Member answer the second part of my question? Does he see an accord with the Province of Quebec which will incorporate the veto over constitutional change by the Province of Quebec?
[ Translation]


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been discussed and it will be discussed further, especially at the First Ministers' Conference. At that time, our own views will certainly be heard and we shall be happy to keep you informed about our decisions. As for the veto, I believe that each of us will be asked for his opinion since the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party is so big, so generous and so open. However, I believe that the fact that the Premiers led by Mr. Levesque for Quebec, came here to Ottawa yesterday, says a lot about the decision that the Progressive Conservative Party will have to make about what Quebec wants from the federal Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has a question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is a point of order rather than a question, Mr. Speaker.
A while ago, you told the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) that we should not refer to the number of Members present in the House. I wonder whether you would reconsider because to my knowledge no provision in the Standing Orders forbids us to comment on the number of Members present as long as there is no call for quorum. At such a time, you would have to make a decision. Personally I believe that we can say that there are 20, 25, 30 or 40 Members present. I know of no rule which forbids this, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take note of the comment made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I should however remind him that the rulings of the Chair are not subject to appeal.

Is the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) seeking the floor on a question?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: No, Mr. Speaker, on debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any further questions? If not, then we shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to take part in the Throne Speech debate, particularly this year because the Speech from the Throne will have tremendous significance in Canada for years to come. When I was in Opposition, it was nice to speak to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne because it provides a wide scope and I could deal with almost any topic. However, today 1 will confine my remarks to the underlying theme of the Throne Speech.
I am quite amazed by some of the things I have heard from the Liberal Opposition, particularly its outcry about our trying to reduce the deficit or public debt. The people in my country-


Mr. Keeper:: Our country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Your country, which country is that?


Gordon Edward Taylor: -think that the deficit is the number one priority today. They believe that if we do not get control of our debt, we will go into bankruptcy. If we go into bankruptcy, all this nice talk about social services will simply be useless. Unless we have productivity in the country, we do not have any social services. Bankruptcy would eliminate social services. We do not want to eliminate social services. 1 have heard the Liberal Members say they want universality, whatever they mean by that. I suppose they mean that everybody wants everything they can get.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Your Leader said that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Whatever universality means, I will take their meaning for it. They say they want universality, and then at the same time they say we should continue borrowing. They say that we should borrow ourselves out of debt. They are doing away with social services. The aged, the veterans and the widows who depend upon social services are not dumb, to use street language. They know that social services depend upon the productivity of the country.
This Government is determined to increase productivity. The more we increase productivity, the better social services we can give to our people. It is as simple as that.
The Liberals borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. They kept up social services with borrowed money. Generations to come will now have to pay interest on it for many, many years; today we are paying $1 out of every $3. How wonderful it would be if we could give that $1, instead of to the money-mongers of the world, to the hard-pressed widows who have three or four children to look after, to the farmer who will lose his farm or to senior citizens, the crippled or mentally retarded. These are the people for whom we have compassion. We are determined that the sick, incapacitated and mentally disturbed will receive the best in this country. Our Leader will ensure that they get the best because we are reducing the
November 15, 1984

deficit. Then we will be able to increase our productivity and provide more social services all the way around.
Those Hon. Members talk about borrowing themselves out of debt, which is what some other countries in the world tried to do. I ask them to stop and think where they are going and what they are doing to the country. No wonder there is such a handful of Members in the NDP and Liberal Party. Canadians were sick and tired of their borrowing themselves out of debt. They know that it cannot be done. They might as well try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Let us see anyone do it. It cannot be done. The NDP has been trying to do it for years. The Liberal Party tried to do it all the years it was over here. What happened? We paid more and more interest, so that now there is a legacy of debt around the neck of every baby born in the country. Every baby boy is born with a $6,000 of debt, brought about by the Liberals and supported by the NDP.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the Hon. Member knows that he is using sexist language and discriminating against baby girls when he makes statements like that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will talk about discrimination, Mr. Speaker. The NDP and the Liberals are the ones who discriminate against baby girls, because baby girls are being bom with a debt of $6,000 around their necks too. We are the ones who are looking after the baby girls, the baby boys, the mentally retarded, the crippled and the aged. We intend to do it. The policies in our economic statement and in the Speech from the Throne will increase productivity and jobs and will give us greater amounts of money to provide social services to those who need them, not to those who do not need them.
The people of Canada saw the light at the end of the tunnel. They put their X beside the names of 211 members of the Progressive Conservative Party because they wanted change. They wanted a new government and a new look at things. They wanted to do away with borrowing ourselves out of debt. They wanted us to start paying our bills like any respectable family.
1 cannot understand the philosophy of the NDP and the Liberal Party. They think they can continue borrowing, borrowing, borrowing. That cannot be done by individuals. They would get to the point where they would lose their homes, their farms, everything. We cannot borrow ourselves out of debt, and we will not try. We will increase productivity. We will have more work for people. We will pay our debts and eventually be rid of that deficit or public debt. That is the heritage we want to give the boys and girls, the men and women of the country. Our Leader has a vision. Progressive Conservatists have a vision of a new country, working together from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the forty-ninth parallel to the Arctic, with everyone of all colours and creeds happy. It will be a buoyant economy in which we share what we have with the helpless of the world. I admire this philosophy.
I would like to deal with one or two local problems. I was absolutely amazed at how the Liberal Government, month after month, did nothing about the importation of beef. It did
The Address-Mr. Taylor
nothing. It just sat on whatever it sits on and did nothing for eight months. Look at the amount of beef that came into the country in the meantime, 145.1 million pounds of beef, mostly from Ireland. It did not come in on a fair market basis. It was subsidized to the point of 38.5 cents per pound by the Irish Government. This subsidy came out of the pockets of the poor Irish people in order that this beef could be dumped into Canada.
Our Government sat here and took it. What did that do to our industry? It almost destroyed our cattle industry. What did it do to our neighbours to the south and to Australia which should have had a share of that quota? We have built up a terrible record.
The Americans have every right to say that we want to export into the United States, but we will not allow imports of U.S. beef into Canada. No, we let it all be dumped in at a subsidized rate. It hurt our industry and hurt our best neighbours, the United States and Australia.
What machinery did the Government have to deal with this? They cannot say that nothing could be done. Several of the Members of this Party spoke to the Government when we were on that side of the House. We urged the Government to do something under the anti-dumping legislation. The then Government did not do a thing until August when the then Minister of Agriculture saw the light. He said that something had to be done because we were destroying our relationship with our good neighbours as well as destroying the cattle industry in Canada. That is what we were doing. He went to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and asked them to look at the situation.
Let me deal for a moment with the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. Many people do not know that we have this tribunal or the Anti-Dumping Act. That Act was passed in 1969 for the sole purpose of keeping our industries from being ruined by subsidized products from other countries. That is why the Act was established. It takes into account a number of factors, including a share of the market profits, prices, export performance, productivity and employment. It takes in all of those things. Linally, after eight months, the Minister referred it to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. Who is on the Anti-Dumping Tribunal? I have to tell you because it is important that Members know who they are. The Chairman is Robert Bertrand, the Vice-Chairman is Howard Perrigo. The Members are Raynald Guay, A. L. Bissonnette and Margaret R. Prentis. They could appoint as many as six. I do not know any one of them personally, so I do not speak personally. I am speaking about the principle.
If that tribunal had said, yes, it is hurting our industry in Canada, it is hurting our relations, hurting our employment, hurting our cattle industry and hurting our markets, then the Deputy Minister could have imposed a penalty on the beef being imported from Ireland to the amount that it was being subsidized, namely, 38.5 cents a pound. If that had happened,

November 15, 1984
The Address-Mr. Taylor
there would be no imports. They would have stopped immediately.
That is what the Liberal Government should have done. That Government let it go on and on until the whole quota was taken up. At that point our new Government was left helpless. The quota has been used up.
This PC Government will not permit that to happen again. Never will that happen again. I cannot understand how the Anti-Dumping Tribunal could say that this was not injuring the cattle industry in Canada, not injuring our markets and not injuring our relationships. As far as I am concerned, that Anti-Dumping Tribunal should be thrown out. They did not do their job. When they said there was no injury done by the dumping of that beef into Canada, they were not doing their job. If I had the say, they would be out of there right away. I would put somebody in there who understands the different industries of this country.
As a result of imports and a few other things, such as drought and grasshoppers, the cattle industry across Canada is in pretty bad shape. In my own province, in my constituency, the cattle industry is pretty worried, as are many grain farmers, because the drought stopped the wheat, rye and barley from growing. It stopped the growth of feed. Our cattlemen have no feed. Governments are now coming to their aid. Our Minister signed an agreement to provide some help. Help is forthcoming.
If Members opposite do not think that grasshoppers can do a lot of damage, they should have been in southern Alberta this summer. When I was electioneering, the front of my car was completely green with grasshoppers. When I was a kid, I liked to find green grasshoppers. I always caught bigger fish with green grasshoppers. This year you would not have had to hunt for them. There were millions of them. They even attacked a house. They would eat a garden in no time at all. They came almost like a cloud. Don't laugh, people had to move out of their houses. As a result, the cattle industry is in bad shape.
This money will help. They will have enough money to buy feed for 40 to 60 days. However, these cattle will have to be fed for 100 to 120 days. What will happen? They will have to sell some of their cattle. Normally, they would have to pay income tax on the sale of the cattle.
I have a suggestion for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). Along with making proper use of the Anti-Dumping Act, and because of the terrible situation on the farms in southern Alberta, the recommendation of the cattle industry should be accepted. If a farmer has to sell some cattle in order to feed the rest, he should have a deferral of taxes on that income. They do not suggest a forgiveness, but a deferral. Cattlemen are not asking for forgiveness, they are simply asking for a deferral. In two or three years when the situation returns to normal, they will be able to buy back their cattle and pay their taxes.
Cattlemen are independent. They want to pay their way. They want to build this country. However, they do not like to be destroyed by beef being dumped into this country.


An Hon. Member:: What about grasshoppers?


Gordon Edward Taylor: We can handle grasshoppers and we can handle a Liberal Government too. We handled it just the way we handled the grasshoppers, by wiping them out. We had to use poison on the grasshoppers. The people put the Liberals out where they should be. If the people knew all the facts, there would not be one Liberal sitting over there.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture to look at this tax deferral. Let us give our farmers a chance to help themselves. Defer their taxes for two or three years until the situation returns to normal. Then they will pay their taxes. They will be able again to contribute. Their herds will be back to full strength. They will help build this country the way this Government wants industry to build it. Hundreds of thousands of small independent entrepreneurs will be making their own decisions. That is what will build Canada.
That is the way this Government is tackling the problem right from the grass roots. It is not using band-aids, not at all. We are taking out what is bad and building from the grass roots up. In that way, we will help our entrepreneurs. Productivity is what our Leader has in mind. When we have great productivity, we will have great social services. The crippled, the lame, the senior citizens and the widows will not have to worry. They will receive better treatment from us than they ever received under a Liberal Government.
I see it is six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock Mr. Speaker?



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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised because I was told that I would be the third on the list tonight. However, I am ready to proceed.
On November 13, I addressed a question to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse). I pointed out to him that the CRTC was considering an application made by the CN-CP Telecommunications System to permit them to enter into the long distance telephone business. I asked the Minister whether he would consider suggesting to the CRTC that it should not
November 15, 1984

issue any statement on this application until a telecommunications policy had been set by the Government. To my amazement, the Minister refused to agree to that suggestion.
I say that I was amazed because on August 17 of this year, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) addressed a telegram to the Telecommunications Workers Union of British Columbia in which he said the following:
The Progressive Conservative federal caucus has been examining and consulting widely on the serious implications of this application. We have identified as the first problem the absence of a comprehensive telecommunication policy for Canada, within which this question could be fairly assessed.
We believe that the first step must be the development of a comprehensive policy which includes a clear understanding of consumer needs, historical relationships, technological opportunities, and impact on federally and provin-cially-regulated telephone services.
He went on to say:
In the absence of a clear federal policy, including any vision of how future consumer and business needs and opportunities should be balanced in Canada, it will be difficult for the CRTC to assess the application for de-regulation of long distance telephone services, in hearings scheduled for autumn, without a policy framework.
That is precisely what I was urging the Minister to do. I did so because we know from studies which have been done that if CN-CP Telecommunications is permitted to enter into long distance service in competition with the existing telephone systems, like Bell Canada in Ontario and Quebec, B.C. Tel in British Columbia, the three publicly-owned provincial systems in the prairie provinces and the systems in Atlantic Canada,
600,000	users across the country would give up their telephones, because telephone rates would increase by between 70 per cent and 125 per cent. Many people would find it extremely difficult to absorb that increase. The winners would be the large corporations of the country, the major users of long distance service. The banks, insurance companies and other large corporations use the telephone system frequently and even daily. They would be the real gainers.
I suggest that it is wrong for the CRTC to proceed for another reason. Under our legislation, the CRTC has the right to monitor and set rates for Bell Canada, which services Ontario and Quebec, and for B.C. Tel, which services the Province of British Columbia. However, it does not have the legal right to set the rates for the systems which service Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Yet, Mr. Speaker, these three provinces now benefit from this present system. These three provinces with their telephone systems receive a large part of their revenue from the long distance calls which are made not only from within their provinces but from calls, for example, from British Columbia to Toronto or Montreal. If those calls provide a profit for the telephone system, those profits are shared with all of the systems, and the prairie provinces receive a large part of their revenue from those long distance calls. Because of the money they receive from long distance calls, they have been able to keep the rates as low as possible for the ordinary home owner, the farmer and the small business person. For that reason they have had almost 97 per cent usage among potential telephone customers.
Adjournment Debate
If CN-CP is permitted to enter into the business in competition with the existing system, naturally it will get part of the business and, naturally, the existing systems will have to reduce their long distance rates to compete. Revenues will go down and the losses suffered will have to be made up by increasing the rates to the present user.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, with what the Prime Minister said when he was the Leader of the Opposition, that this question should not be settled at this time by the CRTC but should be a policy decision by the Government. I know the legislation says that the CRTC has the authority and responsibility for dealing with the application. I am not suggesting that it should not deal with it. I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that it ought not to release its decision until the Government has worked out a telecommunications policy.
It may be that when the Government does that, Mr. Speaker, many people in Parliament and groups and organizations outside of Parliament will disagree with the telecommunications policy of the Government. However, that policy will have been established by a Government which is elected by the people and not by a quasi judicial agency which, in my view, has not the right to make that kind of decision. And the CRTC will be doing that, Mr. Speaker, if it permits the CN-CP Telecommunications to enter into the long distance telephone business.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to discuss the issue of interexchange competition and the proceedings being conducted by the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission on this matter. As the Hon. Member will know, considerable debate has been generated in connection with this proceeding and there exists a great deal of confusion with respect to the issues which are now being considered by the Commission. For example, some parties believe that a decision by the Commission in favour of CN-CP Telecommunications would result in a U.S.-style deregulation and the introduction of local measured service. On the contrary, CN-CP contends that it is prepared to pay compensation for the use of telephone company facilities which would be used to offset increases in local rates.
In the course of the proceedings there have been various estimates made regarding increases in local telephone rates. Similar estimates relate to the number of people who would be forced to drop off the network-give up their telephone-if local rates were to be increased. Most of these estimates are based on experience in the United States.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there is no application before the Commission to provide local measured service or to deregulate telephone rates. In the United States there are a number of factors simultaneously at play which are affecting telephone rates in that country. For example, the break up of the Bell system has resulted in a massive restructuring of the telephone network. It has also resulted in the need to develop new regulatory and costing procedures. These

November 15, 1984
Adjournment Debate
factors and others are generally referred to as "deregulation". However, most of the U.S. telecommunications sector remains subject to regulation.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that our proximity to the United States can often expose us to the effects of that country's policies. Over the years we have learned to develop unique Canadian solutions to deal with such eventualities. The proceeding that is underway before the CRTC is part of that process. The proponents and opponents of the CN-CP proposal have submitted evidence to support their points of view. There is also the opportunity for cross-examination. Out of this orderly but time-consuming process will come a solid factual record, based on which the CRTC will render its decision on the merits of the CN-CP case. The Government, in developing its policies for the telecommunications sector, will draw on that information base as well.
The telephone network has served Canadians in all walks of life for more than 30 years. In the past 20 years, it has become much more than a telephone system. The network now connects computers, terminals, and word processors on a worldwide basis. It is now more than ever an indispensable tool of modern business. At the same time, the policies and regulations applying to the industry are rooted in the past.
It is therefore appropriate that the Government should review telecommunications policy. The Department of Communications is currently engaged in this task. Public submissions have been received, and discussions are being held with interested parties. The CRTC hearings will also provide an important input to the Department's review.
The Government is fully aware of the importance of the telephone service to Canadians and is very mindful of the social benefits which they derive from it. Therefore, while the Government is of the view that Canada's telecommunications system and the regulatory structure must undergo adjustments in order to respond to changing needs and new requirements, it is also firmly committed to preserving affordable, universally available telephone service in all regions of Canada.


MARINE TRANSPORT-FERRY SERVICES IN ATLANTIC CANADA. (B) GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, over the last two days I have had an opportunity to address questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) regarding the $37 million in cuts announced Thursday last by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) affecting the Department of Transport, and in particular the gulf ferry services of Atlantic Canada.
The people of Atlantic Canada regard the ferry services in their province, particularly those in Newfoundland and P.E.I., both island provinces, as an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. When we are talking about gulf transport, whether it be between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, or North Sydney and Argentia, between P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, we are
not talking about an alternate means of transportation or the scenic route by the sea. For the average Canadian living in those island provinces, and for the average small businessman operating in those island provinces, we are talking about the only economically viable means of moving goods and people for the people of Atlantic Canada.
The Minister today admitted in this House that the increase proposed by CN to Cabinet will be triple that submitted as of early September. That is an increase of 15 per cent to be imposed in the next few weeks, versus an increase proposed as part of the proposed mandatory six and five program of 4 per cent. The Minister told us that we should not feel too badly; after all the Government is going to put a new ferry on the service which will be much better. It is called the Caribou. I beg to inform the Minister that the Caribou has been under construction for a year. This is nothing new. There are an additional two boats coming into service and they have been underway, as the Parliamentary Secretary nods his head knowingly, for the last couple of years as well, in terms of planning. So you cannot justify 15 per cent cost increases simply on the basis that we are going to have new vessels which are more efficient, bigger and therefore, folks, you are getting a better service and you should pay more.
The fact is that when one looks at the increased cost to users of the facilities currently offered anywhere in this country by Crown corporations in the transport business, nowhere else in Canada other than Atlantic Canada are increases of the magnitude of 15 per cent being imposed. The Minister has indicated that we should not worry, that the rate is 15 per cent but that for regular users there is going to be a discount, and it will only be 5 per cent or 6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what a regular user is.
Will the discount apply to small business people who use the ferry services, not to move luxury items up the Labrador coast or on the south coast of Newfoundland or between P.E.I. and Nova Scotia or Nova Scotia and Newfoundland or New Brunswick and P.E.I., but to move basic foodstuffs, the basic necessities?
Will the additional freight charges which I am told will also be in the order of 15 per cent, apply to food and to those companies which bring their supplies in by way of ferry or gulf boat service? If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, not only are consumers in Atlantic Canada going to be asked to pay 15 per cent more when they avail of CN Marine, because they are not regular users, but they are going to be asked to pay 15 per cent more on the transportation portion of the cost of a tin of spaghetti, a loaf of bread, eggs, or fresh milk, every time they go to the supermarket. Mr. Speaker, for those island provinces in particular, that would be totally unacceptable. That will set up two systems of citizenship in this country.
There is another matter about which I am very concerned. Over the last day I have had the opportunity to speak to union representatives of railway workers and people working on the Gulf and Coastal Ferry Services and the employees of those
November 15, 1984

agencies. To this point they have not been consulted. The Parliamentary Secretary comes from Atlantic Canada and knows about the 25 per cent levels of unemployment in North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques. Perhaps he can tell us what the job loss will be. Perhaps he can tell us when the Minister will get around, in this new age of consultation and co-operation, to discussing this with the people most directly affected by cutbacks and rate increases. How many jobs are going to be lost? What frequency of service is going to be introduced? What kind of reductions are going to be imposed?
In closing I would like to say that I am pleased with the choice of the gentleman who has been named as Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). He is a very knowledgeable man. There is no one in the Government Party who can hold a candle to the kind of experience and knowledge that he has in this field. I want to wish him every good luck in his duties. Over these last few years I have heard him speak eloquently about the regional sense of frustration and the resulting disunity in western Canada. The seeds for that kind of divisiveness exist in Atlantic Canada. They exist in particular when actions are taken without consultation and without regard to the kind of hardships they can impose, in particular on people in island provinces who have no alternate means of transportation to resort to.
1 have had the pleasure of knowing the Parliamentary Secretary since 1980 and I know that he will ensure that the Minister has an Atlantic view. I hope he will begin today by telling the House and the people of Atlantic Canada that he is going to ensure that food and basic necessities being moved on those ferries and on the gulf run will not be subject to a 15 per cent increase which is a double tax on everyone in Atlantic Canada. I hope he will tell me as well that either himself or his Minister will begin tomorrow to consult the people who will be affected first and perhaps most; the employees of CN Marine in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no question that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is probably the most knowledgeable man in this Chamber and one of the most knowledgeable men in Canada with respect to transport matters in this country. I can assure the Hon. Member that he does have an Atlantic view.
Ferry and coastal services in Atlantic Canada constitute an area of very substantial federal Government expenditures. It constitutes $178 million to $180 million, not including some
Adjournment Debate
$13 million to $14 million invested in CN Marine this year to support its current program of new facilities and the construction of the Motor Vessel Caribou.. The users of these services contribute in fares and tariffs about 22 per cent of the over-all costs.
The Government has made decisions which will reduce substantially its expenditures in 1985-86 and beyond, while at the same time increasing the efficiency of the services through the provision of new and more productive vessels and support facilities.
The modernization of the Newfoundland ferry and coastal fleet will improve service to passengers and freight customers through the introduction of fewer but larger and faster vessels. Changes in rates and levels of service in the CN Marine Altantic ferry network will be implemented following consultation with regional interest groups and others affected.
Users of all the services will be asked to contribute more to the costs in order to reduce the burden on all Canadian taxpayers for services provided. Government officials will therefore be discussing with the operators measures that can be taken to increase their revenues by 15 per cent, effective April 1, next year. Frequent users of the services, as the Member has pointed out, will also be afforded an opportunity to apply for reduced fares. Hopefully, after consultation, these matters will improve what the Hon. Member was talking about.
An increase of 15 per cent in CN Marine rates would represent four one-thousandths of a cent per pound for a tractor trailer with a 40,000 pound payload travelling in these services. I have used the Prince Edward Island service as an example. We will assess the ability of CN Marine's St. John-Digby ferry service, and the Hon. Member has raised this, to handle truck traffic diverted from the Bluenose during the winter months. Until the fall of 1985, the Bluenose service will operate year-round between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and Bar Harbour, Maine. Afterward, it will operate for six months a year in the tourist season as a money saving measure.
The addition of modern ferry vessels on the Newfoundland Gulf and Coastal Service will have an extremely positive impact on the people of our particular part of the country.
I see the gentleman at the Mace, so I will conclude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6:18 p.m. the House adjourned.

Friday, November 16, 1984