1984-01-25

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly evident that today's Canadian consumer faces greater and greater disparities between the price of unleaded gasoline as opposed to leaded gasoline. The advent of the catalytic converter has substantially reduced the options available for consumers and, as a Member of Parliament, I fully intend to study this very serious situation. Since I no longer have a conflict of interest, being no longer in the gasoline business, it might be suggested to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that she could have a window on the oil industry if she were to consider buying a share in the "Freedom to Measure" retail outlet on Highway No. 7.
I am also deeply concerned about the authorized gas wars that have occurred from time to time in various municipalities across the country, creating disparities of some 50 cents per gallon between one municipality and the next, a few miles down the road.
With these kinds of obvious situations occurring in the oil industry, I do not think we need a costly commission to be appointed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to investigate whether there is any indication of price fixing by the major oil industries or whether there is a rip-off of the Canadian consumer in the difference in price between leaded and unleaded gasoline. So I am serving notice that what we need is remedial action, not-


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important economic and political issues in New Brunswick today is the situation at CFB Chatham. One would not, however, draw that conclusion from the
frivolous and banal remarks made in the House yesterday by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal.
My position, Mr. Speaker, is well known. It is on the record, both in New Brunswick and in Hansard. It has been, and will remain, consistent. Surprisingly enough, it does not differ substantially from that of the Government of New Brunswick, the Hatfield Government. I have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to assure a just and lasting solution. I am confident the remainder of the solution will be announced without undue delay, but I am just as sure that it will not come from Fundy-Royal.
Talk is cheap, Mr. Speaker, and cheap talk is even cheaper. It takes seriousness, effort, and dedication to achieve progress and beneficial results.
The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal demonstrated yesterday that his concern for the Miramichi and the welfare of its people is on a par with that of a mongoose for a cobra. His silly remarks are proof of the old adage that it is better to remain quiet and seem a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
*	*	4


PETRO-CANADA DRILLING OPERATIONS OFF COASTS OF AFRICA
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians agree that the extension of aid and financial assistance to deserving nations advances our status in the international community and may result in direct economic benefits; in short, there is a case to be made for foreign aid. However, the kind and extent of our assistance programs should be carefully monitored and assessed.
Here is a case in point. Petro-Canada, not content with its role in domestic energy exploration, wants to expand to the international scene. By way of masking Petro-Canada's expansionary propensity, their officers conspire with their superiors in Government, and create "Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation".
One of the selected assignments was to drill for oil off the coasts of two west African nations in an area almost certain to give rise to a dispute. Sure enough, the Petro-Canada drillship, leased from foreign interests, was buzzed by Soviet built jet fighters and boarded by Guinea Bissau troops who arrived in two gunboats. Petro-Canada, in defending this risky venture, said: "We were assured by neighbouring Senegal there would be no problem." Petro-Canada is either naively inexperienced,

January 25, 1984
or recklessly ambitious, or both, and thus has wasted millions of Canadian dollars.
Perhaps Senegal's officials would not be so trusting if they knew Petro-Canada was losing millions in East Coast exploration. But why should they care? Canadian taxes are paying for it.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when it was announced that Bell Helicopter would locate its plant in Quebec-the company and the Governments expect to invest more than $514 million-the Conservatives, through their industry, trade and commerce critic, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke (Mr. Wilson), attempted to belittle that investment by saying that it was too steep a price to pay to create jobs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are at it again, this time trying to find fault with the company for locating its plant in Quebec. That brings to mind the words of our Prime Minister when he said in the House last December 9: "When the more negative elements of reaction look for a place to go, they inevitably flock to the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the Party of those who are against".
Mr. Speaker, the approach of the Opposition consists in giving the people a blurred imagine of its program. Indeed, that investment will create 4,000 jobs in a leading sector over the next 20 years, yet Members opposite will stop at nothing to discredit the work done by the Government. Admittedly, the Conservatives do not want to hear that unemployment will go down in Canada as a result of the timely decisions of the Liberal Government.


FORESTRY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose in the House to make Canadians aware of the hundreds of thousands of their tax dollars that are being wasted by the Liberal Government through the continued existence of Loto-Canada. Today I want to bring the attention of the House to the miserly, penny-pinching, Scrooge-like mentality which the Government exhibits when it comes to spending money on something which is desperately needed, and that is forestry management and forestry renewal.
I and my New Democratic Party colleagues have stood in the House on many occasions to press the Government to spend more money on Canada's forests, and every time the
Minister of the Environment has a different excuse. The Government can throw nearly $1 million away on Loto-Canada, a Crown corporation which has no business being in operation, but it cannot find the money which is needed to restock our forest lands.
In the Summer of 1982 the federal Government announced the Forest Renewal Program, a shared-cost federal-provincial scheme to begin to replant millions of hectares of land left bare because of improper management. It was to be a $650 million project to revitalize our depleted forest stock. To date, agreements have been concluded with only Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Manitoba. British Columbia, a province which thrives when its forest industry is thriving, still has not concluded an agreement with the federal Government. The federal Government should stop gambling with the future of our forest industry, especially the forest industry of British Columbia, make a priority of negotiating an agreement with the Province of British Columbia, and do it quickly.


MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the icebreaker service on the middle and lower North Shore. Every year Logistec provides essential services and products to Blanc-Sablon, Harrington and the Saint-Augustin area, and we are invariably faced with the same problem: people get in touch with their Member of Parliament to have an icebreaker on twenty-four hours' notice to clear a path through the ice which piles up in the Strait of Belle Isle. Mr. Speaker, that is why I wish Logistec and the Canadian Coast Guard would make the necessary arrangements to send an icebreaker to clear the channel for ships, since that is the only winter supply line to those isolated communities. The fact is that roads are non-existent in many localities and that there are no airports either. I should think that instead of relying exclusively on the Member of Parliament, the people responsible would be better advised to make arrangements in advance. The situation has been the same for 20 years and, every time, nobody wants to assume responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, considering that the federal Government has been subsidizing local maritime transportation to the tune of $2.5 million over the past two years, I would urge the Minister of Transport to take appropriate action. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the ship delivers medical supplies for the local hospital as well as the food and the various commodities required to live through the period from January 15 to April 15.
January 25, 1984

Since that is an essential service, it is abnormal that the Member of Parliament be asked to intervene in every instance and that the village residents keep phoning him to get service. In my opinion, it is incumbent upon Logistec or the Department of Transport to make the appropriate arrangements to ensure good services to those communities.

[English\


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, last week I said that we can talk all we want about new ships, aircraft and the latest in tanks, but this equipment is only as effective as the men and women who man it. These men and women are made effective by training programs to improve and sustain their readiness. They can only be expected to respond to the system, however, if the system itself is both effective and safe.
Last week while conducting winter exercises at Round Lake, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was reported to have suffered some 60 injuries out of a total of 400 men who parachuted. At least two of the injuries were known to have been caused by tangled chutes. However, as yet there has been no explanation of how the other paratroopers were injured in the exercises. It is accepted by soldiers and civilians alike that military service requires a high degree of personal risk. Indeed, we ask our Armed Forces personnel to risk their lives for Canada in times of war. But do we also expect them to risk their lives in times of peace?
In view of the many injuries suffered by the Airborne Regiment at Round Lake, I would urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) to launch an immediate inquiry into the events at Round Lake, to determine how the injuries were caused and how to prevent exposing any of our military personnel to unnecessary danger in future training programs.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have recently become aware of a matter which is of great concern to me. Amendments made to the Income Tax Act contained in Bill C-139 have resulted in workmen's compensation payments being included in the calculation of income by Revenue Canada. These changes will allow those collecting workmen's compensation benefits to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, thus easing their financial burden when they reach the age of 65. However, as a result of these changes I feel that an unforeseen consequence has resulted which requires immediate attention.
Senior citizens who are receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's Allowance are now required to include their workmen's compensation payments as part of their income. As a result, their Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's Allowance are reduced accordingly. It might be contended that workmen's compensation payments are, in fact, income and, therefore, should be declared in the calculation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's Allowance. I feel it is important to remember that, if a person is receiving workmen's compensation, he or she is receiving exactly that, compensation for an injury. One must consider that the individuals with whom I am concerned are not only seniors, but are disabled in some other way as well. For many seniors, these changes have created undue hardship.
It is my hope that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will give every consideration to excluding senior citizens from the amendments which were included in Bill C-139.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, every once in a while an individual or a small group reaches out to touch our collective conscience. Such has been the case with a group of grade nine students from Souris, Manitoba. As part of a Social Studies class, these 17 students focused on current affairs. Understandably, they were distressed to learn about world tensions, and there developed within the group feelings of futility and helplessness.
They sent letters to world leaders, embassies, and federal and provincial politicians here in Canada. Their letter reads in part as follows: "At this stage, we see much we don't understand and feel much we cannot express." It goes on to say: "We ask you to join us in our endeavour. Why you? Because you hold a position of influence."
Those are not the kinds of words that will bring about agreement among superpowers on the complicated issues involved in bilateral nuclear disarmament. But certainly this simple plea for peace from a class of concerned young people strikes close to home. It is a reminder that our children are perhaps the best reason for us as parliamentarians to encourage any genuine effort to bring about world peace.
The letter ends by asking the recipients to join with the class on January 1 in the year 2001 to celebrate the gains made toward world peace. I intend to be there, and I sincerely hope there will be cause for celebration.

January 25, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue will be surprised to hear that I have a question for him. Will the Minister confirm that, even before the recent revelations regarding misdeeds in his Department, he had information which indicated a serious slippage in public support for his Department, and growing concern about the fairness with which the Department conducted its activities? If he will confirm that, will he tell the House to what does he attribute that slippage?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I was appointed Minister of National Revenue, like all other Cabinet Ministers I made enquiries among people who deal with the Department, including professionals, Members of the House and Members of the caucus of my Party, to find out what their concerns were with respect to the Department. I examined a number of studies and made a personal assessment of the comments I received, and I realized that there was some criticism of the Department. The Hon. Member is now asking me what could be causing the various complaints that are being made. The causes may be many and diverse, and I do not think the limited time available during oral Question Period would be sufficient to elaborate specifically on a set of causes that may have led to the various complaints being made about the Department.


PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN DEPARTMENT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer the Minister to a document produced by his Department called "A Research Report on the 1983 Survey of Tax Filing Behaviour and Attitudes Towards Revenue Canada Taxation", dated December, 1983. Will the Minister confirm this document shows a dramatic decrease in public confidence in his Department, particularly over the past two years, but most strikingly within the past year? The author of the report says that while these results may reflect fluctuations rather than real changes, they may have implications for the self-assessment basis of our tax system,
Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the official who prepared this report that, indeed, if this information is correct, confidence in the taxation system is falling off sufficiently to affect the whole basis of self-assessment on which we operate?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would care to read again some of my answers to his questions, in which I expressed my concern for maintaining our credibility with respect to the self-assessment system in Canada and also for maintaining, for the taxpayer, an image of justice and equity in the way our laws are administered.
In my answers to the Hon. Member this week, I made it clear that his nitpicking and narrow-minded approach was either undermining or helping to undermine the Department's credibility. By seeming to want to protect or deny the responsibility of the Department of National Revenue for collecting $3.5 billion in unpaid taxes, a situation that puts an additional burden on other taxpayers who have no choice, by doing so, he was undermining the system's credibility.
I wish that in his comments on Revenue Canada, the Hon. Member would consider the need to consolidate and strengthen the self-assessment system, which is excellent, while letting the Department continue to operate in an efficient and professional manner.


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Minister's answer. When the Minister blames Members on this side of the House for the low esteem in which Revenue Canada is being held, is he aware of the fact that the survey which is referred to here was conducted in May of last year, prior to any questions being raised in the House? If so, can the Minister tell the House once again whether he believes that the steady decrease in support for his Department prior to the recent revelations can in fact, as the official suggested, undermine the whole basis of self-assessment?
In an attempt to put an end to the cover-up that there has been with regard to the activities of his Department, will the Minister reconsider his refusal to give authorization to a select committee of Parliament to hold hearings on this matter and to make recommendations to Parliament on how changes can be made which will make the system more fair? Will the Minister reconsider his refusal to assure officials from his Department, who are prepared to come forward and testify about the problems within the Department, that there will be no reprisals?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is accusing the Department and myself of covering up the facts. I think the opposite is the case. I am thinking of last week's announcement that an independent study would be made by one person, backed by a company and a team of workers, to examine our concerns about service
January 25, 1984

to the public, the purpose being to strengthen public confidence in the self-assessment system, while the same group would also be asked to examine various practices. From the mandate the consultants were given, the Hon. Member may have realized how wide a range of administrative practices is covered in the Department, and this is certainly not consistent with wishing to cover up the facts, Mr. Speaker.
We are asking someone from outside, a professional, a firm of qualified professionals, to examine the Department's practices. My Deputy Minister is meeting Mr. Farlinger today to help him and to indicate resource persons in the Department whom he may need in conducting this study.
If the Hon. Member sees this as a way of covering up the facts, it is because he himself is blinded by his own partisanship, because the opposite is the case. We want an objective opinion, to help us improve the quality of service to the public and thus improve our contacts with the taxpayer, the ultimate purpose being to provide for the consolidation of this country's excellent tax system.


MINISTER'S REFERENCE TO &quot;TARGET OBJECTIVES&quot;
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. The threshold question which was asked was whether or not quotas in fact existed. In spite of the fact that the Minister denied it, I think it has been conclusively demonstrated that they have existed. The current question is whether they have been stopped or have merely gone underground, as I suspect they have, and as people within the Department have told me they have. It is within that context that I would like to ask the Minister my question.
On Monday when I asked him about quotas he said, as reported at page 642 of Hansard:
I think it is important to have target objectives in order to be able to measure efficiency and performance within the Department-
Would the Minister please tell me and other members of the House what he meant when he said, "I think it is important to have target objectives"? Is that a code word for quotas? What specifically do the words "target objectives" mean?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, here we have glaring proof that, in spite of their representations. Opposition Members simply do not care about our tax system, that they are not in the least interested in helping to enhance the reputation of our tax system in the eyes of the public and the taxpayers, nor in doing their share so that people by their confidence, may help to maintain a self-assessment system in Canada.
The first time the Hon. Member raised the issue, and I do not want to use a word to which he is allergic, whether physically or intellectually, he referred to a specific function of
Oral Questions
the Department, namely auditing. At that time, Mr. Speaker,
I stated that it was not the Department's policy to set any specific quota for moneys to be collected following an audit. This is not the policy of my Department and it has never been.
By resorting to a well-known method used by his sophistry-minded forebears, the Hon. Member is now trying to extend this concept to which he is allergic to all sorts of other functions. I would like him to consider the various operations involved in the Department and to tell me flatly which ones and which objectives he is opposed to. This would enable us to become more efficient and do a better job. As soon as he has determined that he is against productivity and performance within the Department of National Revenue, I shall be most happy to give specific answers to his questions.


MEANING OF PHRASE &quot;TARGET OBJECTIVES&quot;
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Minister has echo chambers between his ears, but obviously there is a lack of communication here. I specifically asked the Minister to tell me and other members of the House what he meant by his words, "I think it is important to have target objectives in order to be able to measure efficiency and performance within the Department. . ." What does he mean by "target objectives"? Does he mean quotas? If he does not mean quotas, what precisely does he mean?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, what I mean by target objectives, is the same as what you can find in any dictionary. I believe that it is important for a Department such as this one and any other department that, for each operation according to its specific nature, performance objectives be set on the national level, as well as in the district offices and in each branch, in accordance with the nature of the work being done, and also of the various-
Mr. Speaker, you can see how uninterested the Hon. Member is and how spurious his questions are; he does not even bother to listen. I see him asking his colleague what kind of questions he should ask. He should take into account the nature of the various branches of the Department, and also the quality and level of work done by each individual or group of individuals working in each of these branches.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It also concerns target objectives. The Government has been using figures of
300,000	and 400,000 new jobs having been created in the economy over the course of the last 12 months.

January 25, 1984
Oral Questions
Based on the reviews undertaken by the Department of Finance, the Department of Employment and Immigration, and by the various independent agencies that have reported to the Minister in a number of different ways, can he tell us what kind of target we can anticipate for the coming 12 months for the creation of new jobs?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that, in the year 1983, of the seven major industrial nations only two had a decline in unemployment. These were the United States and Canada. There were only two countries out of seven, and Canada was one of the two countries that reduced unemployment.
As far as the forecasts for next year are concerned, I have indicated to my hon. friend that these are part of budget plans and budget papers. I hope that when the budget papers are released he will find satisfaction in what he will read at that particular time. I am not in a position today to reveal those figures.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED BEREFT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. It is not reasonable to assume with all of the economic recovery that could possibly take place in the next 12 months that we could in any way imagine creating 1.3 million new jobs in Canada. Therefore, whatever the target figure turns out to be, it will be somewhat less than the total number of people who are presently unemployed. How does the Minister propose those people can live, pay their rents, pay their mortgages, and buy the food they need for their families, if they are to be left unemployed and without unemployment insurance benefits?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the validity of the first statement made by the Hon. Member. I appreciate his realism that there is no way this country will be able to create 1.5 million jobs in the space of 12 months. I am sure he regrets it, and I regret it. We have taken steps to create as many jobs as fast as we can. Once more, we have been creating jobs in Canada faster than any other industrial country. I hope we will keep that record in 1984.
As far as the problem the Hon. Member raises is concerned, he knows that through the recession Canada, of all countries, is the one country that has best kept the social safety nets, whether they be unemployment insurance, social assistance, special help and so forth for people who have difficulty paying mortgages-you name it. Most other countries, in fact practically all other countries, did cut the social benefits and the social safety nets during the recession. This country and this Government made sure that the safety nets were maintained, and we intend to do so again in 1984.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can debate all he wants about the statistical information and what has been done by other countries over and against what we were able to accomplish. The fact is there will be tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians who, during the course of the next 12 months, will find themselves without the benefit of unemployment insurance payments, without a job and, therefore, without the necessary income to maintain themselves and their families. What precisely does the Government propose to do to ensure that those people, who through no fault of their own find themselves in economic jeopardy, will share, at least in some way, in the so-called economic recovery in which business is now sharing?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I can add to what I have already said, namely, that of all the world's industrialized countries, Canada alone has maintained its social security system and has, in fact, improved it during the recession and since.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the next Budget will not make any cuts in the social security measures available to Canadians, and that if they can be improved, we shall continue to improve them. I understand the Hon. Member's concerns. I see his comments as an attempt to urge me to make any improvements I possibly can in the measures that provide Canadians in need with the support they require to be able to cope with their present difficulties and to go back to a steady, paying job. That is the objective the Government, I myself and all my colleagues are pursuing with the greatest possible energy.
I hope that the measures we shall be proposing will have the support of the Hon. Member, since the measures we implemented during the past year have proved to be effective, at least in protecting those Canadians in this country who are in greatest need.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. A leaked Treasury Board report completed in May last year indicates $125 million a year was overpaid in wages and salaries because of misclassification. Treasury Board officials admit that since 1978 this problem has been getting progressively worse. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us why the problem of misclassification has been allowed to increase, particularly through the period of six and five?
January 25, 1984


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there was a study carried out on the initiative of Treasury Board. It was certainly found there was a problem with respect to misclassification in a sample of 500 positions. One should not necessarily want to extrapolate across the entire Public Service exactly the conclusion which my hon. friend has suggested. This is the second study of its kind. The first one was carried out in 1978. Corrective measures were undertaken at that time, and this study indicates that further steps have to be taken.
Treasury Board has already been in contact with Departments with respect to these specific instances of misclassification to have them corrected. We are working on other corrective measures. Once they are considered by my colleagues in Treasury Board, I hope to have some positive announcements to bring forward.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the report says that the statistics are accurate to within 4.5 per cent 95 per cent of the time.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORTS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister what has been done to correct the classification creep? What has been done in response to the Auditor General's 1983 report on this problem, and what has been done about the Auditor General's 1982 report that said "performance review and appraisal in the Government was unsatisfactory"? Is the problem a behavioural one within the system, or are we dealing with Liberal leaders saying one thing and then doing another?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my answer with a response to a point raised by my hon. friend in his first question. I am informed that the study about which we are talking refers to positions that were classified largely prior to the six and five program. I do not think it indicates a problem with respect to anything developing after the six and five program.
With regard to corrective measures, I have already said that, as a result of this study, further measures added to those that were implemented after 1978 are being worked on and I hope to have them in place very soon. The specific instances of misclassification are being corrected in individual Departments.
Regarding my hon. friend's comments about the Auditor General's report, it is interesting to note that some 96 per cent of classifications in the federal Government is done within Departments and by Departments, and yet the Auditor General's report has suggested that a lot of our central control systems should be further dismantled and more should be delegated to Departments. I think Hon. Members, including my hon. friend, who is very concerned about these issues, and I share his concern, should think carefully about taking seriously that kind of suggestion in view of the kinds of problems this Treasury Board initiative seems to be disclosing.
Oral Questions SEARCH AND RESCUE


WINTER DRILLING ON GRAND BANKS-AVAILABILITY OF RESCUE HELICOPTERS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister is aware that the Newfoundland Government's ban on winter drilling on the Grand Banks is due to take effect today. He also knows the ban implementation was postponed in order to give the Minister time to respond to the Newfoundland Government's request for search and rescue helicopters to be deployed in either St. John's or Argentia. Does the Minister intend to request his colleague, the Minister of Defence, to deploy the search and rescue helicopters to St. John's or Argentia, or does he intend to respect the ban on winter drilling? Worse still, does he intend to continue to play Russian roulette with the lives of hundreds of offshore workers?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that last fall there was a discussion between the officials of different Departments in Ottawa, the provincial Government's officials, and the industry. They have developed new plans for security, and new plans for search and rescue. All the things were agreed to at that time. Instructions were given. The plans are there.
I am informed by the Minister of National Defence, who is the Minister in charge of search and rescue, that in the judgment of the people involved in that field the available services are as good as possible. The industry and different officials of different Departments agreed to the plans last Fall. The search and rescue facilities are better this year than last year, as are safety conditions on the rigs.
If the provincial Minister wants to give orders and threaten people, he can do so. However, we are aware of the fact that it will always be dangerous to go to sea. Either we ban drilling and fishing, or we live with those realities. When one goes to sea, there is always some risk. We are ensuring that the risks are as limited as possible. I am informed that there have been improvements in search and rescue security. The people who are there can stay if they want. If they want to listen to the capricious orders of the provincial Minister, it is up to them.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister is badly misinformed and he is playing politics with the lives of people. Those are the facts.


REQUEST THAT HELICOPTERS BE STATIONED AT ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence who has the line responsibility here. Yesterday an inter-church committee on the social impact of resource development, representing all denominations in Newfoundland, telexed the Minister requesting additional search and rescue helicopters in

January 25, 1984
Oral Questions
St, John's, at least from January to March, to protect the lives of Canadians working on oil rigs on the Grand Banks. The Minister also knows that the Cross report referred to the fact that the Halifax search and rescue region has constantly referred to the fact that it is unable to satisfy search and rescue responsibilities to the limit of its jurisdiction, for example, the Grand Banks.
If anything happens out there, the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, will have to share the responsibility. Will he agree to the request of the Government of Newfoundland, the inter-church committee, and other concerned people, to deploy search and rescue helicopters in St. John's, or Argentia? He knows that last year during an emergency it took 19 hours to get search and rescue helicopters to St. John's.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I have listened quite carefully to the question posed by the Hon. Member to my colleague, the Minister of Energy. I agree with the reply which was given by the Minister of Energy.
1 quite understand the concern of the hon. gentleman. I fully recognize that we have the responsibility and, as lead Minister, I have the responsibility to provide for any distress situation.
I have taken great care to inform myself and to receive an evaluation of the present deployment of search and rescue facilities on the East Coast. I have been advised-and I am satisfied-that the facilities presently in place are deployed to the best standards which have been recognized. Indeed, last Fall, as the Hon. Minister of Energy indicated, there was an agreement by the provinces and the industry that the deployment of the facilities for search and rescue, that is, the dedicated facilities, was satisfactory and complemented quite well the secondary search and rescue facilities available on the East Coast.


EDUCATION
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who,
I hope, will give a more articulate reply than the one we just heard. Is the Minister aware that the post-secondary education system is fast becoming a preserve of the rich with, for example, in British Columbia tuition fees rising 33 per cent this year, enrollments being sharply curtailed, student financial aid being very sharply restricted, and the provincial Government not even passing on to the universities and colleges what little increase in funds the federal Government has provided?
In view of these trends and the difficulty the federal and provincial Governments are having in re-establishing the Established Programs Financing, will the Minister consider
the enormous urgency of the crisis and urge his colleagues the necessity of establishing a national task force representative not only of both levels of government but of the institutions concerned-the faculty and the students-to address the crisis before the principle of accessibility is totally eroded?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the Hon. Member that the Canadian Government has assumed its full responsibility by financing a major share of post-secondary education in Canada. In the previous session, this House did allocate sizeable amounts, increasing student assistance by more than $60 million. The situation described by the Hon. Member is peculiar to British Columbia.
We have already expressed to the British Columbia Minister our concern that the funds be transferred indeed to the students. As to renewing post-secondary education financing, we are now drafting a series of proposals to the provinces which would ensure us that the funds voted by the Parliament of Canada to support post-secondary education are really used by those for whom they are meant.


REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY FUND TO ASSIST UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. He has said that accessibility is a fundamental right, and that it is a concern of the federal Government that the principle of accessibility shall not be eroded. Yet, every day it is being eroded. It is not enough for him simply to put the blame on the provinces.
In view of the fact that there is not yet an agreement, that the two levels of government seem unable to reach an agreement, and that the students are the ones who are suffering, will the Minister not therefore establish in the meantime an emergency fund expressly for universities and colleges, not for other purposes, before the crisis deepens?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, the situation as described by the Hon. Member is essentially due to the moves and policies of the Government of British Columbia, and those policies were condemned by this side of the House. I did so myself when during the National University Week I was given the opportunity to remind Canadians of the importance of strengthening post-secondary education in Canada.
As for what should be done during the forthcoming months,
I am happy to inform the Hon. Member that I have been in touch with the Chairman of the Council of Education Ministers and have informed him of the intention of the Canadian Government to open negotiations with the provincial Governments as soon as possible to make sure that the next genera-
January 25, 1984

tion of transfer payments to the Provinces for post-secondary education will meet the objectives already enacted and supported by Parliament, namely accessibility. However, I remind the Hon. Member that the Canadian Constitution does not empower Parliament to directly force upon the Provinces any stiff conditions as to the use that should be made of funds in the educational sector. It is up to the Provinces to define their own priorities.
However, in the context of our negotiations, it is our objective to ensure that the principle of accessibility will be maintained as much as possible.


CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State. Perhaps it is appropriate on Robbie Burns Day to raise questions of historical value. I am referring to the bicentennial celebrations in the Province of New Brunswick, and to the celebrations in our neighbouring la belle province with the tall ships, and the 450th celebration at Gaspe of the arrival of Jacques Cartier. My question relates to the plans of the Secretary of State with regard to the celebrations for the 200th anniversary of New Brunswick. Will he tell the House just exactly what his Department will be doing, specifically with regard to financial contributions?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to be brief, if possible.


Serge Joyal: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we welcomed the New Brunswick Government's request to contribute on a proportionate basis to the financing of their bicentennial celebrations. The Canadian Government will therefore provide $2.6 million for the celebrations, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes to the citizens of New Brunswick on the 200th anniversary of the Province to be celebrated during the upcoming months.


Mr. Howie:: I thank the Secretary of State for his expression of good will to those of us in New Brunswick.


FINANCE
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that the Atlantic Provinces have reached their full revenue
Oral Questions
potential based upon a slender private sector tax base and heavy reliance on transfer payments from Ottawa. Despite severe restraint measures, the Atlantic Provinces face a three-quarters of a billion dollar shortfall in income this year, with heavy current account deficits, and the implications that go with it. Will the Minister tell the House if the matter was raised at the recent Finance Ministers' meeting, or if it will be raised in subsequent meetings, and what solutions does he propose?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the matter was indeed raised at the last meeting with my provincial colleagues in December. More recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with the New Brunswick Minister of Finance on this very issue. It is true that the Atlantic Provinces face serious problems in terms of balancing their books. It may be of small consolation to them to know that I have very serious problems of the same nature. Therefore, we certainly did commiserate.
As to particular solutions, the Hon. Member knows of the large number of transfer payments and transfer programs in operation, beginning with equalization, as well as the programs under the direction of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Also, through revisions of the Gross National Product, we have been able to increase significantly our transfers to the provinces in the areas of health and education this year.
Obviously there are no immediate short-term solutions. Solutions must arise from economic growth all across the country, particularly in the Atlantic Provinces, trying to work out difficulties in the fisheries area. My hon. friend knows of the great work done by the federal Minister of Fisheries in that regard in the last while, as well as in the area of mining, offshore exploration and forestry. We are trying to address these issues in a co-operative way, but obviously we still face very difficult problems.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INITIATE NEW GRANTS PROGRAM
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. Since the desperate financial position can have disastrous repercussions for Canadians living in the Atlantic Provinces, has the Minister considered initiating measures similar to the Atlantic Provinces' adjustment grants until effective new development measures can be initiated to expand the tax base and thus reduce the need for federal assistance?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance for New Brunswick put forward a number of proposals. I promised that I would examine them. Knowing as he does the difficult financial circumstances that the federal Government is in, I obviously cannot indicate to my hon. friend that there are great amounts of money available. We are examining all possible alternatives, taking into account our own situation which, in many respects, is sometimes more

January 25, 1984
Oral Questions
difficult than that of some of the Atlantic Provinces concerned.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Mines. I want first to congratulate him on his appointment to this important portfolio. I know that he has been briefed by his Department officials and by his colleagues. Possibly he would like to take this opportunity to tell the House what fresh ideas or new initiatives he will bring to his portfolio in terms of direction to alleviate the serious situation in which the industry finds itself, where tens of thousands of Canadians are under-employed because the industry is only working at 50 per cent capacity.


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his congratulations and for his question. I certainly intend to give my undivided attention to this important portfolio. There is some recovery. The prospects are not absolutely brilliant, but recovery is under way. With regard to certain minerals, the prospects are good.
I will want to work with both the companies and the unions in devising policies for the Government of Canada in the future. There are a series of negotiated agreements being considered with the provinces. Already I have met with some provincial Ministers, and I intend to meet with others. Over the next year we will certainly be working hard to make the mining industry in Canada as productive as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Before granting a supplementary, the Chair would point out that it is almost impossible to answer a very broad general question of this nature within Question Period. Will the Hon. Member be specific in his supplementary?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very specific question, but the Minister is new and I wanted to give him an opportunity to be as broad as possible.


PROPOSALS MADE TO MINISTER S COLLEAGUES
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, tying in to an answer we just received from the Minister of Finance, has the Minister made any specific proposals to his colleagues that could be reflected in the Budget that will be coming forward next month?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has misgivings about a question of this nature, as to what has been proposed by one Minister to colleagues within the framework of Cabinet. Bearing in mind there are a number of Members on this side seeking to be recognized, the Chair is trying hard to apportion time as best it can. The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. What action does he plan to take considering the fact that his commissioned study, which was the subject of a press conference in Winnipeg this week, has been criticized for not having recommended affirmative action in the media's portrayal of visible minorities? How concerned is the Minister with the quote by Don Ferguson, the CBC regional director, that "Networks would be courting financial disaster if their programming was so regulated"?


Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the study in question was not commissioned by the Ministry of State for Multiculturalism. It was a grant given to a professor at the University of Winnipeg last year. He released the result, as he was able to do and was appropriate to do, this week, but it had no official sanction of the Department of Multiculturalism. With respect to the second part of the question, it is inappropriate for me to comment, given the fact that a parliamentary committee is now preparing its report on this very sensitive subject.


USE OF VISIBLE MINORITIES IN ADVERTISING COMMERCIALS
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's Department has had a marketing study. This is in conjunction with both the multiculturalism directorate and the advertising advisory board. The study found that there is no difference in attitudes of whites and non-whites toward commercials that may be attributed to the presence of visible minorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Laverne Lewycky: In the light of that study and the comment by the CBC regional director in Winnipeg, does the Minister share the viewpoint that advertisers will not buy commercial spots-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Gaspe.


DISASTERS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council.
On December 12, I asked him about the possibility of the Government of Canada providing assistance in eastern Canada, more specifically in the Gaspe Peninsula, to disaster victims who suffered losses as a result of the storm on December 7.
January 25, 1984

Could the Minister inform the House whether he has received an official request from the Province of Quebec under the program for financial assistance in case of natural disasters, and whether the Government of Canada intends to intervene in this case by making contributions on humanitarian grounds?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, our program for providing financial assistance in case of natural disasters applies only when a request has been made by the province concerned. In this particular case, I have not yet received a request from the Province of Quebec, but if I do, I can assure the Hon. Member that it will be given very serious consideration.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. The CTV program W-5, aired last Sunday, revealed that Transport Canada's safety standards with respect to aircraft tire inspections and the cleaning of runways of rubber contamination were below acceptable safety standards. Has the Minister discussed this with his officials and, if so, what action is he going to take? Second, is he satisfied with the answers that were given by Transport Canada officials, since it appears that the officials were confused both about the standards that were in place in Transport Canada and the method in which they were being applied?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some interesting discussions with officials concerning the findings brought forward during the program. As in many cases, I think there are differing points of view on what is an applicable standard. 1 think particularly of the case of the testing of retread tires on airplanes. There are very effective methods of doing this. We have met with the airlines to determine that their present methods give a strong guarantee of safety in this area. I would point out to the Hon. Member that I hope to be in a position within the next day or two to make a public announcement about the results of the discussions that we have had. I hope he can contain his anxiety and interest until that time, and then we can have a good discussion about the matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important that the Minister make a clear statement in order to remove any doubts.
Oral Questions


HAZARD POSED BY AIRPORT RAVINE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the program also pointed out that the accident which was referred to that took place in June, 1978, at the end of runway 24L, could have been avoided if the ravine had been removed, or at least sloped. It is the considered opinion of those engaged in the aviation industry that this represents a hazard wherein an accident is about to happen at any time. Could the Minister explain why, after five and a half years, no action or no plan of repair is being contemplated, either for the removal of the ravine or at least for the sloping of it, which would remove that hazardous situation?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to respond to the Hon. Member for Vegreville by asking why he did not do it when he was Minister of Transport.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You were impatient.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that the particular condition of the runway is one that meets all international standards set out by ICAO. It is a fully equipped and full length runway. If we were to extend construction out over the ravine it would obviously have very major and environmental impacts in that area. However, we are looking at those aspects of the matter and, as I said to the Hon. Member, from the discussions I have had I will be in a position to make some response to this within the next day or two.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. In the view of many Canadians it is an absolute disgrace that many fine young Canadians, who have worked many hours, many months, and many years, to achieve the international Olympic standards, have succeeded, and then have been turned down by the COA. Will the Minister tell the House that the three alpine and the three cross-country skiers who met these standards and were not selected for the teams will in fact be selected, and that he will encourage them to do so?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House that we share exactly the concerns as were voiced by the Hon. Member and that we plan to tell the National Olympic Committee and the Canadian Olympic Association that we cannot understand either why there will not be greater participation of our young amateur athletes to provide them with some experience seeing we shall be hosting the games in 1988. The provincial and federal Governments have been very actively involved

January 25, 1984
Ora! Questions
in the development of amateur sports, and we cannot understand why our young athletes who have been in training for hours on end are not given a chance to participate and why the standards have been raised. If this were done on the international level, half the athletes who will be in Sarajevo would not qualify for the Olympic Games.
My provincial colleagues and myself have decided this morning to send a telegram to the Chairman of the Canadian Olympic Association asking him to reconsider this ruling and add another 10 to 12 promising athletes for 1988.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one, directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister knows that last year on one occasion it took certain search and rescue helicopters fully 19 hours to reach St. John's. Is the Minister satisfied with a 19 hour time lag when lives are at stake in the Atlantic? Will he tell us why he will not station search and rescue helicopters in St. John's in Winter to save lives offshore?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the question of the time that it takes for resources to get to any distress point is a result as well of the time of notification when we received or when the operation control centre received the request for assistance. I would be pleased to provide the Right Hon. gentleman with a full briefing on the search and rescue capacity on the East Coast. I might point out to him as well that we have done a study, and there have been a number of studies, to review the capacity. We are satisfied that the resources are deployed in the most competent way. We are also satisfied that we are meeting our obligations under the SAR program that we have announced. I would be pleased to do anything within my particular competence to inform the right Hon. gentleman relating to the facilities that we have in place.


SAFETY OF OFFSHORE OIL RIG WORKERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says he is conducting studies. There were 84 lives lost in the Ocean Ranger episode two years ago. If helicopters had been based at St. John's, some of those lives could have been saved. There are 500 people whose lives are in jeopardy offshore. Why is the Minister putting those lives at risk? Why will he not station helicopters at St. John's in winter?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. gentleman knows that there is a commission presently studying the events involving the Ocean Ranger. We have reviewed the facilities that we have in place. I can only repeat what I said initially, and what has been said
by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There was a meeting involving all interested parties, including the Ministry of Energy, my Department, the provincial Government, and the industry. There was an agreement that the facilities that had been identified were satisfactory. The industry itself has increased its own capacity and has provided an additional helicopter in St. John's.


James Aloysius McGrath: They do not have the trained personnel.


Mr. Blais:: At the time they agreed that was satisfactory. In terms of deploying resources in St. John's and Argentia, the Hon. Member for St. John's East will advise the Right Hon. gentleman that, in terms of weather, in terms of ability to deploy the present resources in Gander, this is much more conducive to being able to reach any point of difficulty or any point of distress than any deployment either within Argentia or St. John's.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, January 24, 1984, meet the requirements of the standing orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) does not meet the requirements of the standing orders as to form.
 * *
[ Translation]



POINT OF ORDER


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to Standing Order 18(3). Normally, our Question Period should end by 3 p.m. We make plans accordingly. Hon. Ministers have business to attend to. Many of us, who come to the House every day for the Question Period, would like to be able to count on the strict application of our Standing Order in order to leave at 3 p.m. to attend to other duties.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has brought this matter to the attention of the Chair. I think Members of the House will observe that very rarely have we gone more than two minutes beyond three o'clock.
May I call to the attention of Hon. Members who have asked questions the fact that when a question is long and the supplementaries are long, then the answers are long. When it takes 10 minutes for a single questioner and six, seven or eight minutes for subsequent questioners, it is simply not possible to
January 25, 1984

accommodate those Hon. Members who are trying to be recognized. The Chair is doing its level best to accommodate the maximum number of Members.
The Chair serves notice that there have been preambles that are too long and that citing from a document on a supplementary question is contrary to the rules. These procedures are making it very difficult for the Chair to be fair to other Hon. Members. Replies are sometimes long also. Long questions bring long replies. I am simply calling to the attention of Hon. Members that a little more discipline would make it much easier for the Chair to observe the Standing Order, which was very properly brought to the attention of the Chair by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that it does not lie within the competence of the Government House Leader to be lecturing the Chair on the manner in-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has the floor. The Chair is listening attentively to what he is saying and will remember every word he says.


Erik Nielsen: I will sleep better at night, Mr. Speaker, knowing that you are paying that degree of attention to my words. I was about to say, on the manner in which the Chair conducts itself, that there are times when, through no fault of any one of us, we exceed the time allowed for the Question Period. In my view, the Chair acted very properly. I endorse the adjuration of the Chair that we should shorten the questions. That would make for a more lively Question Period if we did that. However, I also say that there is a certain deliberateness about the length of the answers which come in reply to even some of the shortest possible questions. I am sure, however, the Chair will handle that with the impartiality which we all expect and with which we know he functions in the chair.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate respectfully to you that referring the Chair to a specific Standing Order, or to any other reference, in pleading a case is perfectly acceptable in the House. It is not lecturing the Chair to invoke a certain Standing Order. It is the same case in the courts. My hon. colleague has been a lawyer for a long time. He should know better. I am sure that my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, every time he goes into Small Claims Court in Saskatchewan does exactly the same thing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is aware of the procedures of the House. The Chair, frankly, was hoping in the period ahead that, by informal discussions with Hon. Members and by working together, we can all learn to respect each other and operate with mutual confidence.
Introduction of Bills


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the suggestion by the President of the Privy Council that I practise in the Small Claims Court. Let me say that to him that is an appeal court.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition presented by at least 50 constituents from my riding, primarily from Port Colborne and Wainfleet. The petition of the undersigned residents in Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the Electoral Boundaries Commission failed to give adequate attention to geographical and historical factors when planning the redistribution within Erie riding, thus resulting in a most inconvenient division of the town of Fort Erie and rendering unrecognizable a riding newly created in 1979, in which the federal representative has nurtured a sense of community and cohesiveness since that time. Therefore the petitioners ask that decision to alter the riding of Erie be reconsidered.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray that your Honourable House will accept the aforementioned recommendation.


CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE ACT
Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-ll, intituled "An Act to amend the Currency and Exchange Act".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Stevens

Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, intituled "An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977".


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 24, 1984, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to his Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate today, I felt it might be appropriate to make first at least some brief reference to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) indicated last night in his remarks. Then perhaps I would like to go on to deal with the serious omissions which I felt were in the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In short, I believe it would be fair to say that with much of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said last night most Hon. Members of this House would not disagree. He went to some length to outline the background of the various peace overtures and attempts which have been made by him or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to the ongoing negotiations between the East and West with respect, for example, to questions of disarmament and all of the related matters.
All in this House, and I would venture to say all in this land, agree with the thrust which is being outlined. The Minister referred specifically to the speech given by the Prime Minister on October 27 in Guelph in which the Prime Minister outlined what he felt were the significant thrusts which he would like to pursue for reasons on which I am not completely clear. The Minister chose not to refer to the Montreal speech on November 13 which elaborated on the points raised in Guelph and, perhaps, in much more succinct and clear terms set out exactly what the Prime Minister was seeking to achieve. In the remarks, though, which were given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last night, I was rather surprised-and of course this has also been the custom of the Prime Minister- that no reference was made to where virtually all of the Prime Minister's ideas have come from. You will find, Mr. Speaker, if you are a student of the ongoing discussions with respect to disarmament, that virtually everything the Prime Minister has said to date, certainly in the sense of setting out specific points
of what he would like to see done, was set out in the program of action in the final document of the United Nations special session on disarmament which was adopted in 1978.
I could take you step by step through the five points in the Montreal speech, or perhaps the four points to which they seem to be condensed, and show you paragraph by paragraph where a similar thought, in some cases almost the identical terminology, is in the final document prepared at those United Nations discussions in 1978. To cite two or three examples of what I am referring to, we find that this "Program for Action" recommended that what they call the nuclear weapons states get together and meet. Paragraph 53 urged that the process of nuclear disarmament "be expedited by the urgent and vigorous pursuit to a successful conclusion of ongoing negotiations and the urgent initiation of further negotiations among the nuclear weapons states."
As you will recall, in the early 1970s a series of initiatives were undertaken in an attempt to reach some type of negotiating conference of the five nations, but unfortunately at that time they failed following what appeared to be a rather bitter rivalry between the two nations of China and the Soviet Union. Again referring to the final document, you will note that paragraphs 65 to 71 deal with the whole question of nuclear non-proliferation in much the same terms as the Prime Minister had dealt with that question in his speeches. Paragraph 82 of the final document refers to the mutual and balanced reduction talks. I think again you will find that essentially what the Prime Minister has outlined is all there for the reading. Dealing with the question of suffocation, which the Prime Minister spoke about to the United Nations in May, 1978, you will find that that concept was largely caught in the final document in paragraphs 50 and 51.
I am suggesting this, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important to bear in mind that the will has been there, not just in Canada or the western world but throughout the world generally, to try to solve the ongoing dispute currently preventing a meaningful arms reduction and, hopefully, some type of agreement on nuclear disarmament. 1 say that because I do not think it is really a question for debate in the House; it is agreed to. What I think should be of greater concern to Members is what we can do effectively to achieve those goals.
Perhaps it would have been helpful if the Prime Minister, and certainly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, had taken us into their confidence yesterday and indicated in more specific terms what were the steps that they thought may bring about the miracle. Or perhaps they might have acceded to the simple request that we have made for some time to refer that issue to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of this House so that the various aspects of this whole question could be properly dealt with, witnesses could be heard and, in short, each Member of the House could then have a meaningful input into the ongoing discussions and dialogue not only as Members but as citizens of one of the most important western democracies.
January 25, 1984

I say all this because I feel it should not be forgotten that while the Minister refers to the remarks of the Prime Minister made in Guelph on October 27, on exactly the same date in Concord, only a few miles away from Guelph, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) set out his position with respect to the question of peace and how we can achieve meaningful disarmament.
Let me remind Members of what he said that evening. He said he felt there should be a program to continue the Canadian and other initiatives aimed at improving the atmosphere of dialogue-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but for the sake of decorum I would like to appeal to Hon. Members who wish to have conversations with their colleagues in the House to please be seated and do it in a subdued way so as not to detract from the Hon. Member who has the floor.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On October 27 the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, first of all, that he felt the Canadian initiatives and others in improving the atmosphere for dialogue between East and West must continue. He said that there should be a reference, as I mentioned a moment ago, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Thirdly, he felt that Canada should resume its role in promoting nuclear nonproliferation among those countries which now possess nuclear technology and which have the potential of developing nonpeaceful uses of such technology. Again, he called on the Soviet Union to return to the INF disarmament talks in Geneva, failing which he recommended that consideration be given to seeking a new forum under which all disarmament talks can take place. He also called upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to go further in the no first strike policy by urging that it be considered at a future meeting of NATO.
I was a little surprised to find out last night, Mr. Speaker, that this has not yet been done, but he called for the appointment of an ambassador for disarmament with adequate funds and sufficient personnel to enable him to encourage the disarmament discussions now going on at the United Nations and to play a meaningful role in this whole question of disarmament. In that respect, Members will recall that when I asked the simple question of the Minister last night as to whether such an ambassador had been appointed, he surprised me, frankly, by saying, no, that is still a vacant position. It surprises me because if you read the last Throne Speech in 1980, you will find that that office was specifically one of the things this Government cited as being such an important step ahead in the name of disarmament, and now we find, as we debate the new Throne Speech, that they have to admit that, while the office at one time was filled, it is currently vacant.
The Leader of the Opposition said that there should be an all-Party delegation at the highest level sent to all forums for discussion of disarmament issues. Again the suggestion was raised that there should be encouragement, both at the UN
The Address-Mr. Stevens
and regionally, to restrict the transfer of conventional arms, especially in areas of current conflict.
I mention this only to put into perspective the debate in which we are now engaged. But let me emphasize the omissions last night. This is the first time this Minister has spoken during this session of Parliament. We have not heard in the House from the Minister in any formal way, other than in response to questions, since September 12. I would have thought, for example, that we would have been told the Government's current position with respect to that tragic shooting down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 early in September. What about the compensation? What about the next of kin who have received nothing to date? Is it enough for the Government to indicate that the grand claim could amount to $2.1 million and then have to admit that the Soviets have not even accepted the claim and will not even negotiate? We know there were discussions in Stockholm with Mr. Gromyko. We have not heard what the Soviet replies were. Is it enough for the Minister to quote in the House, as he did on September 12, our ambassador to the United Nations who said:
[DOT] <1530)
The deliberate in-flight destruction of this civilian, unarmed, easily identifiable passenger aircraft by sophisticated fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union, no matter where it occurred, is nothing short of murder.
Is it sufficient to call it murder, as he did on September 12? On January 25 we find it is not even included as a reference in the Minister's remarks to the House.
I would like to touch on this other question again. What is the government's current position with respect to Grenada? At the time that that intervention occurred, very pompous statements were made. The Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) said:
After a period of time, the facts of life are accepted and recognition is given.
That is before he knew of the intervention. That is when he wanted, presumably, to give recognition to the coup group which had murdered so many and which had seized power through violence. On October 27 the Prime Minister made the comment that he did not know why the invasion was necessary. What is the Government's current position? Does it now believe that some type of intervention was necessary? Does it propose to give some financial help, aid, or assistance in the form of trade to that island? Does it intend to help Grenada go down the democratic route? Or is it going to sit back and let those comments that are on the record remain as the apparent policy of the Government with respect to that important incident in our hemisphere?
I would like to touch on another subject. We have had great concern among certain of our people in Canada, especially the Jewish community, with respect to certain comments made by this Minister while he was in the Middle East. Most of us are familiar with the anxiety that those comments triggered. Let us not use words of others; let us use the words of a Member of the House, the Hon. Member for Eglinton Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille). In a statement he said:

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Stevens
Why then has our Department of External Affairs not moved ... and demanded the withdrawal of Syria and the PLO? Why is the double standard now once again applied against Israel? Condescending statements are made castigating Israel for its presence in Lebanon, and calling upon Israel to withdraw unilaterally from Lebanon. Madam Speaker, such an unfair, unrealistic, and bankrupt policy is a disgrace.
With those words on the record of a supporter of this Minister you would have thought that yesterday evening the Minister would have seized the opportunity to state once and for all what the Government's policy is with respect to the matter to which the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence was referring. His supporters are concerned. Many Members of this House are concerned. Yet we find this Minister chooses to make no comment. It is not only that he did not state a policy initiative or make a reference to these matters last night, but there has not been a policy stated by this Government with respect to foreign affairs since 1970. That policy was drafted in the silly sixties. We now find that in the dramatic and realistic eighties we are living with a policy that presumably was conceived in those silly sixties.
That brings me to another omission yesterday. External Affairs, as it is now structured, has an extremely important element, which is trade. There was no mention of trade. Yet we find that a special committee of the House dealing with Canada's trade challenge, in its report on a National Trading Corporation in June 1981 pointed out that every $1 billion in additional exports, especially in the manufacturing field, generates 42,700 jobs. In many ways, Mr. Speaker, the secret to reducing the unemployment of this country is to be found in trade, especially in manufactured goods and the export thereof. This is where this Government is letting us down. Last night the Minister did not even refer to that subject. In that omission alone, Mr. Speaker, I think the Government deserves to lose the confidence of the House. To that end I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Address be amended by adding the following words:
"This House regrets to inform Your Excellency that your Ministers have failed to proposed measures that would result in lasting and equitable solutions to the hardships imposed by the high level of chronic unemployment that is being experienced in all regions of Canada as a consequence of years of economic mismanagement by your Ministers."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A period of ten minutes is now provided for questions and comments.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the Hon. Member for York Peel. He was refreshing our memory about the points that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) had made in his speech at about the same time as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was speaking in Guelph. He caused some confusion at the time by requesting that a non first strike policy should be considered by the Western Alliance. Since the Member reiterated that phrase in exactly the same language I used, would he tell us today whether in fact his Leader meant that we in the Western Alliance should consider a no first use policy?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, there is a very short answer to that. No, we mean exactly what we say, which is, to direct our Secretary of State for External Affairs to go further in the non
first strike policy by urging consideration of such a policy by NATO.


Pauline Jewett: Confusion reigned at the time because the Conservative finance critic who was their external affairs critic did say that there was not a non first strike policy already in place in NATO and had been for some time. Indeed, as the sophisticated students of this matter know, there is a substantial difference between the two. Therefore, what the Leader meant was no first use.
Is the Hon. Member telling me that he does not know what NATO policies are now and is asking NATO to consider a policy which it already has?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it shows you how much tunnel vision some of these representatives of socialist international tend to have. Surely if there is a substantially agreed to non first strike policy by most nations in NATO, does that mean that it cannot be considered, looked into and discussed? That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition was hoping to achieve by asking the Minister to raise the question at NATO so that, if the Hon. Member is completely right that the non first strike policy is already agreed to by most nations, it can be reconfirmed as a policy at the NATO level.


Pauline Jewett: That has confused things even more. Apparently the Member does not know what non first strike is all about in the Article. Since the present critic for finance, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, said that what was really meant was no first use, will someone, perhaps in a subsequent speech, assure the House that the Conservatives do in fact know the fundamental difference between non first strike and no first use? If they do not make it clear-obviously the Member who just had the floor is not able to do so-it really makes it almost impossible for the rest of us in the House to know where that Party stands and where the Leader of the Opposition stands.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the only confusion is in the mind of the Hon. Member who has asked the question. On October 27, we referred to non first strike, and that is what we referred to today and what we will be referring to tomorrow.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question regarding human rights abuses by the Communists, particularly in Russia. As we know, over the last thirty or forty years they have killed 83 million people. We have seen some recent examples in Afghanistan of human rights atrocities where the Communists fly over small villages and towns in Afghanistan and drop toys to the children in the streets. The children pick up these toys, which are actually explosives. I have seen pictures of Afghan children with their hands blown off by these devious Communists.
Would my colleague at any time suggested unilateral disarmament? Would he trust the Communists with any kind of unilateral disarmament or would you watch them very, very closely with a jaundiced eye?
January 25, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 should remind Hon. Members that their comments should be addressed to the Chair at all times.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 thank my colleague for the question. I was not aware of the incident to which he referred as having occurred in Afghanistan.
I can say that in meeting with the Chinese Premier and foreign Minister Wu while they were in Canada, I was most impressed with how much they emphasized the atrocities which have been taking place in Kampuchea and indeed in Afghanistan at the hands of what they felt were purely Soviet troops. If one wants a quick perspective on that entire area 1 certainly believe the Chinese are very well equipped to give chapter and verse on what they feel is happening and should not be allowed to happen.
With respect to the question of unilateral disarmament, I think that history would show that any nation that has tended to disarm quickly in the hope that its rival or possible enemy will also disarm, has always been disappointed.
Over the Christmas period I had an opportunity to read two works of history, and I found it remarkable that at the turn of the 1800s Napoleon used exactly the same argument we often hear today, that is, "Let us lay down our arms in the name of peace". At that time Britain responded by reducing its defence budget by 70 per cent and it mothballed much of its fleet. We know what happened. It was not until Waterloo that Napoleon was eventually stopped.
Hitler used exactly the same terminology of "let us have peace". He always made it clear that he would be willing to disarm if only the other side would disarm. Unfortunately, most of the western world did exactly that, leading up to 1939, and we know the struggle that ensued.
1 would say that the program which has worked for 38 years in keeping the world out of a major war should be continued at least until we have a better solution. That program consists of maintaining reasonable deterrents in the face of a militant enemy.


Mr. Murphy:: I have a short question for the member for York-Peel. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia talked about human rights in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. I think that is a concern we all share, that human rights must be respected
everywhere.
Would the Hon. Member for York-Peel explain the Conservative policy on human rights for the black population in South Africa?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again 1 would invite the Hon. Member to read many of the things we have said with respect to the situation in South Africa. 1 can tell him that this Party does not in any way countenance apartheid. We fell that it is foreign to the way of life that we enjoy and would like to see others in the world enjoy.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I was actually rising to ask a question but since the time for questions has expired I will lead into the
The Address-Mr. Roberts
subject which I wanted to discuss today, and that is, employment problems within Canada. The generation of employment is the most serious challenge which the Canadian economy faces. It is not an easy challenge to which to respond. The structural problems and the international situation which lead to unemployment in our country are not likely to be resolved easily.
As Members of the House are aware, there are no easy, quick-fix solutions to the problems which we face.
In discussing employment creation I will necessarily deal with statistics and sometimes use bureaucratic jargon. But none of us in the House, certainly not on this side and certainly not I, underestimate the human tragedy and suffering to which those statistics provide a faceless visage. Unemployment is an extraordinary human waste, a traumatic tragedy for the individuals who suffer it. It is also an extraordinary economic waste in our society, the failure to use our productive human capacity.
Today I believe I owe it to the House to review the progress that we have made in creating jobs in Canada and to give some sense of the future as the Government sees it in terms of job-creation. While there are some grounds for optimism for the future, there are certainly no grounds for smug satisfaction at the progress we have made or, indeed, at the progress we are likely to make over the year to come.
I would like to start by reminding the House what our overall strategy is to job-creation. Our response to this challenge is not simply one that lies with my Department or the Commission of Employment and Immigration. Our policies are not the whole response to the unemployment problems in Canada. They are, rather, part of the response, one of the component elements of the employment creation strategy which this Government pursues. If one were to put very simply what the substance, the foundation of our strategy is, it would be this. It is a belief in the private sector as a motor force for job-creation; the belief that the long-term permanent jobs which Canadians need are likely to be produced by the initiative of entrepreneurs, by the private sector in our society. Therefore, the overall approach which the Government is taking is to try to help establish the conditions of economic recovery and to strengthen the context which will enable the private sector to undertake that job creating work. There are two essential bases to the Government's approach so far, two overall bases to its approach. The first of those is the restraint policy which the Government has followed. Scorned by the Opposition and some commentators when it was introduced, the six and five program, it was argued, could not possibly succeed. We stuck with that program and it has succeeded. It has been an important element in reducing the pressures on inflation within Canada. It has given us the restraint to bring Canada into a more competitive situation internationally. It has made consumers in Canada better off than they otherwise would have been. But it is sometimes forgotten that the success of the six and five program has also assisted the workers in our economy.

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Roberts
As a result of the six and five, as a result of the decline in inflationary pressures, real wages in Canada increased by 2.7 per cent in the first nine months of 1983. The restraint program was one of the components of creating a context for economic growth and the jobs that economic growth will bring.
The second major basis of the Government's effort to provide a supportive context to private sector activity was found in the budget brought in by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), last April, a budget which contained $2.5 billion in tax changes designed to encourage entrepreneurs, small business and business generally to revive, to make the investments and to undertake the activity which would provide jobs in our economy. Those two elements, a policy of restraint led by the Government, the six and five policy, coupled with the budgetary incentives, were designed to assist the private sector to do what we think it is capable of, and that is, to generate jobs within the Canadian economy. But we recognized that it would take time before those two efforts had their full impact. First, the restraint that led to restraint of wages and a more competitive position for the Canadian economy and second, the budget with its incentives for job-creation. We recognized they were not going to be instantaneous impacts and that it would take time for those efforts to be felt within the economy.
Therefore, we brought forward some short-term programs designed to provide job-creation impetus while those two major measures strengthened and took on their full impact. The first of those was the NEED Program. The NEED Program has been extraordinarily successful in leading to the expenditure of federal Government funds in co-operation with other levels of Government and in co-operation with the private sector to create jobs in the Canadian economy. As a result of expenditures by the federal Government of something like $470 million, over $1.2 billion of investment activity was generated in the Canadian economy. The private sector and other levels of Government joined with their funds, the funds that we have put to this purpose with the intent of creating jobs, and indeed something like 90,000 jobs in the Canadian economy were created by the NEED Program.
The second major program with a short-term impact in job-creation was the special recovery program. It brought forward a variety of projects to something like the value of $2.4 billion from the longer term calendar of government construction, to have them done last year and this year to assist economic recovery now, to help create jobs now. There are about 283 construction and procurement projects under the special recovery program, projects in resource development, research and training facilities, tourism and development, shipbuilding and transportation infrastructures, over 80 per cent of which will be started by the end of this month creating economic recovery and jobs.
What was the impact? How successful were we with those measures which were brought forward by the Government, both the overall ones and the more specific short-term one-shot programs? In 1983 we did have some recovery. The Gross National Product rose by 6 per cent, which is 1 per cent over
the OECD average. Generally it is believed the prospects are strong for growth in Canada. I know Members of the House are familiar with the Conference Board's predictions for Canada over the last few days, but it is perhaps important to stress that those predictions are not consistent with or typical of those being made generally by economic analysts. Both the OECD and the United States Conference Board have indicated that they expect Canada to be a growth leader among nations over the next year.
I will refer Hon. Members, for instance, to a synthesis of leading economic forecasters, which was published at the end of 1983. This synthesis indicates there is an expectation that national growth, real growth, excluding inflation in 1984 in the Canadian economy, will be 4.6 per cent. There is an indication that inflation will be held under 6 per cent, to 5.5 per cent. There is an indication that the number of employed in Canada will increase by about 3 per cent, and an expectation that the unemployment figure will drop by about 1 per cent over 1984. Those figures come from the column written by the financial commentator Jack McArthur in The Toronto Star for January 1, 1984. Clearly that expected drop in employment is significant and welcome. But just as clearly the persistence of unemployment is still a great challenge to us. I do think that employment creation is probably a better criterion for assessment of our success or our lack of success than the unemployment figure itself. It is a paradox but it is nevertheless true that with the growing strength of the Canadian economy we will attract back into the labour force many Canadians who, at the time of the recession, had left it or had not entered it. The pace of economic recovery will not necessarily be reflected fully in unemployment figures, given this re-entry. In some ways, I believe the job-creation figures are a stronger indication of how successful our economic recovery is in generating jobs. Then on that basis there is an indication over the last year of considerable success. The number of jobs created in Canada, seasonally adjusted in 1983, was 378,000, something like an increase of 3.7 per cent in employment. To break it down a little bit for reasons I will touch on later, the increase in employment for females in Canada throughout 1983 was
5.4	per cent, for males 3.6 per cent, but for young people only
1.4	per cent. I want to underline that because it indicates in statistical form the reason the Government has decided to give its top priority to employment creation, the generation of jobs, for young people.
The employment creation rate has been quite high during the second half of 1983. For instance, our employment growth rate stood at 5 per cent, which is the same as it has been in the United States, and nearly double the OECD average.
I would like to review what we have done within the Employment and Immigration Commission and in my Department. As I said earlier, our activities take place in the context of the overall strategy of the Government which is dependent upon economic recovery and the efforts of the private sector to create jobs. The programs in the Employment and Immigration Commission are in effect targeted to problems of special importance. Our belief is that in an overall sense it is economic
January 25, 1984

recovery in the private sector which will create jobs. Nevertheless, we recognize that there are areas of special concern which require specific and concentrated attention by the Government. That is the responsibility of my Department. It is that which we have undertaken over the past year.
I remind the House particularly that last year we consolidated more than a dozen job-creation programs into four key initiatives. Our idea was not only to economize but to facilitate the administration of the programs and improve their delivery. Altogether the costs of these programs in 1984-85 will be $1.1 billion, roughly similar to what they were last year, and we expect that they will produce something like 269,000 employment opportunities.
I will not go into any great detail on each of these programs. However, I would like to stress that two of them-the Career Access Program and the Youth Job Corps Program-are almost exclusively aimed at Canada's unemployed youth. Through these two programs, operating through a system of wage subsidies to the private sector, young men and women will receive on-the-job training in skills known to be in demand in the job market as well as vital work experience. For many it will mean that all-important first ever job. With their newly acquired experience they will be better qualified to find permanent work.
Another job-creation program, Canada Works, is essentially designed to provide temporary employment in times of economic slump or of temporary disruptions in the labour market caused by, for example, plant shutdowns. The fourth program is the LEAD Program, the Local Employment and Assistance Development Program. Its efforts and resources are directed at communities with chronically high levels of unemployment. To qualify for LEAD funding, projects must support local development plans and priorities and lead to economic growth in the community.
In addition to these programs, which are expected to result in over 600,000 new employment opportunities over a two-year period, the Government will spend another $1 billion this year on national training programs. In essence, these two major initiatives are designed to prepare Canadian men and women to take advantage of opportunities resulting from sustained economic recovery. While we cannot predict with absolute precision just how many jobs will be required in a given time in a given industry in different parts of the country requiring this or that particular skill, we know that we face a future labour market vastly different from anything we have known in the past. Constantly changing technology will produce new products, new processes, new systems and new demands. Hopefully this will mean a replacement of old, obsolete jobs with new ones requiring new skills.
This is one of the reasons the Government attaches high priority to the development of a long-term human resources development strategy. We must establish an equilibrium between the future demands of the labour market and the skilled men and women to meet that need.
The Address-Mr. Roberts
One of the keys to our future success in doing this will be the ability we show in projecting our employment needs several years down the line. To do this, to help in this endeavour, we have developed the Canadian Occupational Projection System, usually known as COPS. This computerized system represents a promising example of what can be achieved through collaboration between the public and private sectors. Although it is not a magic machine, it will serve us well in analyzing trends, patterns and markets. With additional data from other sources, we believe we will be able to come up with a reasonably clear picture of what the future job market will look like and, therefore, how best to fill its needs.
I should mention another initiative which will help us do this as well, that is, the establishment of the Labour Market Research Institute which we are funding. It is directed by the Business Council on National Issues and the Canadian Labour Congress. It will make the same attempt to better define or to provide better precision for future job opportunities by working from the shop floor up to define what those opportunities will be.
As I mentioned earlier, there has been some shift of emphasis or focus in our job-creation activities in the Employment and Immigration Commission. That reflects our dominant concern. The statistics which I cited earlier reflect the reason for that concern-creating jobs for young people in the Canadian economy. It was with that in mind that we announced in the Speech from the Throne our dedication to provide new funding to support employment creation generally and to support young people particularly. We announced the addition of $400 million of new funding, of which $266 million will be directly oriented toward job-creation programs that aid young people. We expect as a result of those expenditures that something like 124,000 Canadians will receive jobs they would not otherwise have and 87,500 young people will receive jobs they would not otherwise have had.
I would like to give some indication of the breakdown of those funding expenditures. We have announced that we will be adding $100 million to the Career Access Program, the program which provides job subsidies to private employers for the creation of jobs for new entrants into the labour force. We expect close to 35,000 additional participants as a result of that increased funding in those programs. We will provide $25 million in funding to co-operate with the voluntary sector in Canada to create jobs through Section 38 of the unemployment insurance program. That $25 million of new funds we are allocating for what purpose will draw out from the unemployment insurance fund $60 million, making a total of $85 million available for job creation through voluntary services using the unemployment insurance fund and Section 38.
As most Hon. Members know, we have expanded the Canada Works Program by the addition of another $100 million. We have also added another $35 million to the Section 38 program for unemployment insurance which will deal with private sector opportunities. We expect that that $35 million will in turn pull out another $84 million from the unemployment insurance fund. Also we announced the devotion of $35

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Roberts
million to the Environment 2000 Program and have increased the basic funding of the Summer Canada Program by another $70 million.
I see Mr. Speaker indicating that my time is running short. Therefore I will emphasize only one last point. I spoke of the increase by $400 million overall for job creation and of the $266 million for young people, which will lead to 124,000 new participants. I must emphasize for the sake of accuracy that that is in addition to the already dedicated budget for those purposes and that, therefore, the overall effect, looking ahead to 1984-85, is that there will be something like well over
500,000	Canadians taking advantage of our job-creation and training program and indeed something like four million Canadians using the employment services we will provide. Overall, something like more than 300,000 young people will be involved in our job-creation and training programs and close to 2,400,000 of them will be using our employment services. Either or these is a substantial contribution to the problems of unemployment in our society.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to have a wealth of statistical information at hand. Could he comment a little further in that light and tell us whether or not the criteria have been developed for the $300 million in the special employment initiatives fund? Could he tell us what the criteria will be, when Hon. Members of the House will be aware of them and how we might have access to them?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I have the precise criteria at hand. The criteria have been developed for the program. This question was raised before the parliamentary committee. A letter has been prepared-and I signed it earlier today-to the committee Chairman indicating what the criteria are. I had hoped to do that a little earlier but my health over the last two days has had me out of the office. The criteria have been forwarded to the committee clerk as promised. I assume they will be available to Members tomorrow or the day after.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take the House into his confidence and extend the courtesy of circulating that criteria to Members' offices? I appreciate the Minister's response. It did pose a bit of a difficult problem. If he will consider circulating the criteria to Hon. Members' offices, it would be appreciated. It would be helpful. The Minister has some statistics. Of the 283 special recovery projects, how many of them are in ridings held by sitting Liberal Members of Parliament?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, my understanding of the process is that the letter goes to the clerk of the committee and is automatically distributed to the Members.


J. Michael Forrestall: I mean to all Hon. Members.


John (Moody) Roberts: I can undertake to have that happen or suggest that they read the committee report. I will respond to the Hon. Member's concern.
As far as the second part of his question is concerned, I cannot reply in a specific way. I can say generally that these projects are all across the country. There is a whole variety of them west of Winnipeg. To the best of my recollection we, unfortunately, have very few Members of Parliament from there. Looking at those projects, I do not think he will find there has been an extraordinary bias in favour of one part of the country or another.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question concerning the constituency advisory councils which at one time were acceptable to the Ministry-not in his day-for advising Members and the officials as to the acceptability or otherwise of applications under one or another of the variety of programs that his Ministry has developed. Can he explain why he no longer accepts constituency advisory councils? I had set one up. I was told in very clear terms that if I did not show up for the meeting, his officials would not show up either. I was upset by that particular comment in a telephone conversation. I hope that the man was speaking a little bit out of turn. Because the constituency advisory councils are drawn from people who live in the riding 24 hours of the day, 30 or 31 days of the month, whereas unfortunately I am not able to do that, they are much better able to advise on applications than even I might do.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the specific instance the Hon. Member referred to was in my time or before it. If it was in my time, I would like to get the detail from him and find out what happened. I would say generally that I will be reviewing the question of an advisory council. Speaking personally, as a Member I found the advisory council process to be very useful. I am not sure that I should impose it on Members, but it might well be desirable to give them the option of establishing one. That is something I propose to review after this year's experience, which is my first year's experience in this portfolio. I take it we are referring to the constituency allocation portion of the Canada Works Program, which is not the whole program. It seems there is a lot of sense in Members establishing an advisory council for a variety of reasons. I did that and I found it very useful. This is something I will be reviewing. I am interested to have the Hon. Member's representations on it.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, the economic performance of a country is in part measured by statistics on unemployment and job creation. In Question Period today, the Minister of Finance again cited statistics which had to do with comparing Canada to other countries in terms of the number of jobs being created. Disregarding the value and the effectiveness of some of the programs which the Minister enumerated in his speech, does he agree that many of the numbers in the statistics with regard to jobs that have been created as they relate to his program really relate to temporary jobs? In some cases, some of the 400,000 jobs that have been
January 25, 1984

created are jobs that have been created several times. They are recycled jobs. In some cases they last for only six or eight weeks. Does the Minister have any statistics that would truly reflect the permanent jobs that have been created in the public or private sector so that we can have a clear picture and more precise statistics when comparing our performance with that of other industrial countries?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Hon. Member's interpretation of the statistics. As I said in my speech, I believe that the best criterion in terms of gauging economic performance is the overall job creation. As I said, seasonally adjusted, that is up 378,000. That means that, seasonally adjusted, there were 378,000 more jobs at the end of 1983 than there were at the beginning of it. That is not a temporary in-and-out phenomenon. At the end of that period, we were that much further ahead than we had been the year before. That would be my first comment to him.
Second, there are those-and I do not mean this personally in relation to the Hon. Member-who denigrate the creation of short-term jobs. Obviously we prefer to have longer term permanent jobs than short-term jobs. Nevertheless, the establishment of short-term jobs is extraordinarily important, particularly because, as the statistics which I read indicate, the primary problem with job-creation in Canada at the present time is with first-time entrants into the labour force. That short-term job is tremendously important for these first-time entrants. It gives them experience, a passport if you like, which makes it much easier to get employment downstream. The most important barrier for young people entering the labour force for the first time is not having job experience. It would be wrong to denigrate the creation of short-term jobs in the Canadian economy. That is very important. Having admitted that, I do not think the Hon. Member has interpreted properly the statistics which I presented, and I have tried to explain to him the reason.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to a Government program which comes under the Minister's portfolio, the work-sharing program. As the Minister is aware, miners in Thompson, Manitoba benefited from the work-sharing programs last year. The workers in that area are more than grateful that the program was in place. However, they have expressed a concern to me. Now that they are back at work and are facing a summer shutdown, which will probably cost the Government more money, the company is having workers working overtime and extra shifts almost on a continuous basis. Since so much of the taxpayers' money was used to help the company maintain a smaller work force and since more taxpayers' money will be used this summer when the workers are again laid off, when the Government is negotiating programs in the future with corporations such as Inco, will it look at the use of overtime before and after these workers go on work-sharing programs?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct that work sharing has been a successful and popular program in Ottawa, not work sharing that is imposed by the
The Address-Mr. Dick
Government but work sharing that is voluntarily accepted by the workers and management and with which we assist.
I was not aware of the specific case which the Hon. Member has drawn to my attention. I would like to familiarize myself with the details of it before I make a response. I promise that I will be in touch with him to reply in more detail than I feel able to do at the moment.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is of interest that we have had a discourse on job creation and unemployment in the youth area, because that is the very topic I want to discuss today.
The Government has made some bold and flamboyant claims. A large proportion of the Government's job-creation expenditures will go to unemployed youth. As was brought out by my colleagues in questions to the Government, we see that the Government prefers to talk about the number of jobs created. Mr. Speaker, we have known for 10 years that this means job placements. A job may last for two weeks, then that person could be placed in another job a month later for two weeks and a month later in still another job. According to the statistics, that person would have three jobs. But these are job placements, Mr. Speaker, and not full-time employment opportunities.
In the Throne Speech the Government used one word which gave me some encouragement when it said that these programs would be delivered more "effectively". The Government has not been very effective in delivering its programs to date. It now hopes to assist young Canadians to acquire new skills. There is talk about the Career Access Program which this Party has endorsed and which is one of the more successful programs. The Province of Ontario was the first to enter into job subsidy programs and we are glad that the federal Government has finally copied its initiative.
The Government has appointed a Minister of State for Youth. I would point out that in 1979 this Party proposed a youth secretariat. We hope that this will not become an overblown bureaucracy but will be an effective, small, efficient group of people working in that Ministry to expedite the Government's various youth programs.
There are probably 150 youth programs within the federal Government, spread over 22 or 23 different departments or agencies. There is no single booklet or place where these have ever been pulled together so that information on all of them can be handed through a young person showing what the youth programs do for them. When I was youth critic for this Party some years ago I pulled these programs together. In 1979 I found out that the Government had 167 programs in 22 different Departments and agencies and spent $775 million on them. But there was no co-ordination, Mr. Speaker. I think it is regrettable that the Government does not pull them all together, and I certainly hope that will be a first priority of the Ministry of State for Youth.
By and large all these programs encourage employment. I express it that way because a number of them are bursary
734

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Dick
programs, scholarship programs and so on, to assist in giving new skills to the people who qualify so that they can find a job in the future.
I want to go into the problem of youth unemployment in some detail, Mr. Speaker. It has been a problem in Canada for several years. There are long-term dangers that Canada's newest entrants into the labour force, still forming their initial attitudes to work, will be frustrated and turned off by bleak employment prospects are obvious. The Government's approach has been to put in place an impressive list-and I emphasize the word "list"-of band-aid and stop-gap programs. Rather than a list-which does not create jobs-we require well designed, integrated and meaningful programs put in place by a well co-ordinated administration, not a bureaucratic maze. When the Government has referred to youth unemployment in the past, it has characterized it as unusually high or temporary. Even in the last two or three years it has changed that, but still reflects on it always as something that it is wrestling with and indicates that soon it will not be the problem it is today. Sometimes it talks about and blames what it refers to as the sudden increase in participation rate.
The Government is misleading the Canadian people rather than accepting blame for its own ineptness. If the Government read its own figures it would realize that the problem has been growing steadily for the past 10 years. The present situation was predictable, but the Government ignored it until the crisis came. It pretended that the problem would solve itself in the near future.
Let us go back to the middle 1970s. In December, 1973, the unemployment rate among those aged 14 to 24 was 9.7 per cent; today it is 18.7 per cent. In December, 1974, that 9.7 per cent had gone to 10.6 per cent; by 1975 it had gone to 12.5 per cent; by 1976 it had gone to 13.4 per cent; and by 1977 it had gone to 15.2 per cent. So it has been an increasing problem all through the seventies. When the Government saw the problem increasing, why did it not have its other eye on Statistics Canada the demographic studies of which showed those people who at that stage were between five and nine years of age, between 10 and 14 or between 15 and 19? The figures showed a big bulge of young people who would be coming into the work force in five to ten years. The Government should have realized then that there would be a problem in the years ahead. The problem has existed and it is still there.
Unfortunately, since those days, when you take inflation into account, the Government has reduced the amount of money it has spent on summer programs and on youth programs in total.
After some 15 years, the Government's mismanagement of the economy has forced other people to think of other things that are needed. If this Party has the opportunity to form the Government, I hope it will take steps to stabilize the economy and provide meaningful, short-term job-creation programs. I say meaningful, short-term job-creation programs because so many of the job-creation programs that the Government institutes are meaningless. People are on the job but they do not know what they are doing. Basically, it is an excuse to get a
pay-cheque which, after 20 weeks, will put them back on unemployment insurance benefits. But there are ways of running meaningful, short-term job-creation programs, Mr. Speaker.
I agree that the short-term job-creation programs will be government sponsored and initiated. But they will differ from those of the present Government because they will be of productive use to the community at large and will create long-term benefits. I believe we can have short-term job-creation programs that will give skills to people and will assist society as a whole. I believe this can be done without causing a serious drain on our resources. At the same time we must look at the long term, and I urge the Government to do so.
I want to touch on a number of things that I have talked about over the years and throw them out as ideas which might be taken up by any party, as long as something meaningful is done. Usually a program for Winter Works or Summer Works is announced two or three months in advance, giving how much is going to be spent. I think a declaration of that nature, giving such short lead time, does not allow for the proper planning and staging of impressive works programs. I remember the five-year Winter Works program, for example, which the Diefenbaker Government introduced-not that the Diefen-baker Government was the end all and be all but it had some good ideas in those days. Perhaps a municipal capital works program could be set up whereby the Government would give certain funds to a municipality over and above those which were already existing from federal and provincial grants.
A municipality could apply to set up a municipally-owned capital works project within its jurisdiction, such as community centres, arenas, water treatment facilities, fresh water supply services, sewage treatment facilities and/or sewage service facilities, roads, sidewalks and so on. The Government would have to give some money for the materials as well as the labour costs over and above those already covered. However, the important thing about this would be, in my view, that government could insist, for environmental reasons, that the first project would be for, as an example, a sewage system, in order to make sure the municipality was adequately covered in that area. If the municipality was already supplied with appropriate sewage treatment facilities, then it could apply for other projects. Why not, indeed, make a stipulation that 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the jobs created must be for those who are under 25 years or 26 years of age? One would, for instance, employ three apprentice electricians and one journeyman electrician who would be teaching those apprentices the job and those young people would be given a skill. The same could be done for draughtsmen, surveyors, carpenters, pipefitters, whatever job description there may be. There would have to be a certain ratio of those learning the skill, of course, as compared to the senior craftsmen under whose auspices they would be doing the work. I would encourage some thinking along those lines, considering that this would be a type of short-term, job-creation program designed to encourage our young people
January 25, 1984

to learn skills so that we would have the benefit of those skills in a few years.
When I say "short-term" I think of up to five years that this federal program would be in place, with a certain budget, perhaps $350 million or $500 million per year, whatever the amount may be. That, of course, has to be discussed with the various government levels. This would give the lead time for proper planning.
As it now stands, a municipality could apply under this coming summer's work program, for example, to create a park. It ends up creating a park, but it does not budget for the operational funds to maintain that park so it becomes overgrown. Three years down the road it must apply for another grant to create the same park which is already overgrown from the time of the first grant. That is the type of mindless thinking which goes into some of these programs.
Back in 1978-79 I encouraged setting up an environmental and community service youth program. 1 had envisaged that perhaps 25,000 or 30,000 young people might be set up in a program such as this, where 50 per cent of them would be under programs specifically designated by municipalities, local governments and, perhaps, provincial governments. The other 50 per cent would be under programs specifically designated by the federal Government. One area in particular I was thinking of at that stage was encouraging more reforestation. Unfortunately, there has been no planning in that regard. A reforestation program has been announced but there are no seedlings to plant. That does create a problem, but I suppose the young people will be out digging the trenches this spring, which will be covered over by winter and will have to be dug out the following year. That is the kind of mindless job-creation work which seems to be happenings.
We must plan ahead. We must do a lot more reforestation in this country. We have come to the end of our economically accessible forests. Ten per cent of our work force works in pulp and paper or related industries. We have been very shortsighted in not providing for the future. It is the young people, by the way, who will not have jobs in those industries because of the lack of foresight of governments not only of today but in the last 10, 20 and 30 years.
1 feel we should have a program involving the environment. We should clean up riverbeds and river courses. We could have some community programs in that respect and there should be an emphasis on building for our future.
Young people today do not have much of a chance to get going. They spend a lot of money getting educated. They have to borrow money and they do not have an opportunity to pay it off. Perhaps we should give young people a $5,000 personal income tax deduction, or holiday, in any one year within two years of finishing their education, or before their thirty-first birthday, whichever comes first. They might use that money to buy the tools they need for their trade, to pay off bills incurred in going to university, or to establish themselves in some way, rather than stringing it out over a longer period of time. It may get our young people into the mainstream more quickly so that
The Address-Mr. Dick
they can become generally productive consumers, and it is consumers who buy most of the products we make.
I have also thought there should be something like a youth opportunity fund where the Government might set up something like the Federal Business Development Bank with $50 million or $100 million and let local people who have been executives in business, union officials and professionals who are presently retired, assist in guiding young people who cannot find venture capital, but have great ideas in borrowing from that fund, to set up new ventures. The Province of Ontario did this in the late 1970s and it was fantastically successful. It gave a student $1,000 or $1,500 at the beginning of the summer to spend in setting up and creating his own job. Some of these young people were able to pay the money back. Some of them failed. Others quit school because they had set up such a successful venture that they wanted to keep it on as their full-time job.
There is a lot of ability in our young people, and I believe we should give them some encouragement. I know it is impossible for them to go down to their friendly chartered bank or any other traditional lending institution to borrow money. Unless they have rich relatives they just cannot get started. Therefore, I would encourage government to think of giving a little encouragement to our young people in this way.
I believe we should make a concentrated effort to try to persuade the industries, trade unions, provinces and the educational system, along with the federal Government, to once and for all create an appropriate Canadian apprenticeship program, more along the lines of the European system where all aspects of a trade are co-ordinated. Rather than if you are a bread baker you can run the bread sheer, you should be able to take accounting in case you want to open up your own bakery store.
I have a number of other ideas. I do not believe we have appropriately dealt with true and meaningful job creation. I do not believe this Government has been as attentive as it could have been to long-term goals. It has been attentive only to short-term, political goals.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a subamendment to the amendment of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and add after the word "Ministers" these words:
-and their insistence upon fighting inflation by deliberately throwing hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work.
My subamendment is seconded by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before proceeding with debate may I be allowed to remind Hon. Members of Standing Order 15(3), the rule of decorum:
When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair-
It occasionally happens that Hon. Members forget that very important rule. To bend, stoop or otherwise cross between the Member who has the floor and the Chair remains unaccept-

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Gourd
able, so I invite Hon. Members to pay special attention to that particular rule.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: That is going to be a good speech!


Robert Gourd: -I shall, if I may, take a few moments to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House. I am sure that with the wisdom and experience gained during the previous session, you will perform your task with exceptional competence.
I also wish to congratulate my colleague, the Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) who moved the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and the Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde), who seconded the motion.
Mr. Speaker, to me the Speech from the Throne was extremely important. First of all, we saw that, above party concerns, our Prime Minister has one concern that is worldwide, and that is peace in this world of ours. I am proud to be associated with a Government that wants peace for the peoples of this earth.

Unfortunately, one of the most interesting and promising points in the speech has gone almost unnoticed in the English media. I would like to bring the attention of my English speaking friends to the Government's undertaking to revise, at last, our antiquated Copyright Act. It has been repeated many times that our Copyright Act was adopted in 1924 at a time when modern technologies for the creation and distribution of works of authors were virtually unknown. Even in those days our Act was a copy of the 1911 British legislation. That is 1911, Mr. Speaker, before the advent of talking movies, let alone television, cable distribution, satellites, photocopying, home recording devices and video rental shops. This was before authors began to express themselves through jazz, electro-acoustic music, computer graphics and transcent performances.
As early as 1953, Mr. Speaker, it was understood that the Copyright Act was no longer meeting the challenge of creation in modern times. The Ilsley Roal Commission of Inquiry was set up and reported on needed modifications in 1956, but none of the recommendations was implemented save for Canada joining the Universal Copyright Convention.
The Economic Council of Canada in 1971 also reported on how the Copyright Act should be amended. Nothing came out of the report. In 1977, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada published an exhaustive series of recommendations by Messrs. Keyes and Brunet. These recommendations have resulted in nothing concrete. In 1980, I again tried to bring into focus the impossible situation of creative Canadians by suggesting a special fiscal treatment for their benefits. Since 1924, however, in spite of numerous calls for help, hundreds of briefs, demonstrations in front of this very Parliament, in spite of urgent recommendations from the Applebaum-Hebert
Committee, nothing has changed. Meanwhile, our authors create works that are not adequately protected by copyright, or when their works are protected the protection is so limited in some cases that it is virtually useless.
Cable distributors exploit works without paying a cent to their authors. Composers still receive two cents per record sold. Music is performed in concert for less than one hundredth the price that would be paid for the same performance in any European country. Governments, schools and libraries throughout the land steal the works of authors by photocopying them or taping them without any remuneration at all.
This situation could not go on. Like the fairy tale, we were killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Publishers, record producers and film and video producers are going out of business because they have no control over the manner in which their products are exploited today. Authors, deprived of sources of income, become taxi drivers or run restaurants. Painters hide their works to create an artificial "shortage".
It was therefore high time the Government acted responsibly and concerned itself with the lot of the creative elements in our society. Obviously, what is basically and urgently needed here is a revision of the Copyright Act. The Government is to be congratulated for having understood this, especially since it is a difficult and still rather obscure area which may not seem terribly important to the average citizen. Personally, I am very happy the Government had the courage to decide, even without obvious public support, to settle one of the basic problems of our Canadian culture.
By announcing that it intended to revise the Copyright Act, the Government showed that it was still able to set objectives that will result in benefits for generations of Canadians. Such leadership is to be praised, but at the same time, the Government should be warned against thinking the problem is the same for authors and artists. For artists, including performing artists, the best protection is a good contract. The prudent artist can easily protect himself every time a contract has to be signed, and it very seldom happens that an artist's performance can be exploited without his permission. Authors, on the other hand, rarely sign contracts. As soon as an author's work is known to the public, it can be used without the author ever being consulted. The author's only protection is provided by the Copyright Act, and today, that protection is simply not enough.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I recall that last week in the House, the Communications and Culture critic, the tiny perfect mayor-imagine, Mr. Speaker, the tiny perfect mayor finally discovers artists and attacks the Government! But where was this critic in 1979, Mr. Speaker, when I was making my first speech in the House and asked, on that occasion, that the Copyright Act be revised? At that time, that same tiny
January 25, 1984

perfect mayor of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, was a Member of Cabinet and, of course, for that Government, artists did not exist.
Today they are raising hell because that is the thing to do. They do so because the artists have just discovered that our Tory friends might enhance their political profile if they were to take up the cudgels for Canadian artists. That is just fine, but where were they in 1980 when I introduced that kind of motion in the House and, as a Party, they spoke against my motion? And soon, in a matter of days, the tiny perfect Mayor of Toronto will take the floor and again urge the Government to come to the rescue of our artists. What did he do on that earlier occasion?
Mr. Speaker, I could speak for hours to this subject which is of some concern to me, but I think, I would rather tell the House about the positive aspects of the Speech from the Throne. There are a number of priorities. Earlier this afternoon, our colleague spoke about the role of the new Department of Youth. I am convinced that the new Minister of State (Youth) already has the situation under control and that she knows very well how to fend for herself.
Mr. Speaker, there is one subject about which I would like to be more precise. Everyone is talking about the advent of the aerospace industry in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau. Now that Bell Helicopter has decided to build a plant at Mirabel, we will see the creation of 3,000 jobs and a major investment by the federal Government. The aerospace industry has opted for Mirabel as a result of the dynamism of the federal Government. Of course, we already have another company at Mirabel, Pierre Robin aircraft, a small company whose background has never made the headlines and which many people have not even heard of, but still, Mr. Speaker, as evidence of the dynamism of the people of Lachute, in 1983 they bought 53.6 per cent of the shares of that company because, come what may, they want to make it prosperous.
So, at both ends of Mirabel, Lachute at the entrance of Mirabel and Saint-Janvier at the other end, we have two aerospace industries. The riding of Argenteuil-Papineau is in the midst of an economic recovery, and that is due to the dynamism of the present Liberal Government. The Government of 1979 simply cannot take any credit for that.
Mr. Speaker, this brings up another very interesting issue, namely Mirabel. This House is probably aware of the interest I have had and still have in this matter. Today, we hear about Mirabel 15 years later and about Mirabel in 15 years from now.
What has become of Mirabel? Mr. Speaker, I did everything in my power to have the lands which had been expropriated, sold back to their former owners, and the Department of Transport has now discovered that these lands cannot easily be returned to their original use. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the words of the President of the Canada
The Address-Mr. Gourd
Lands Company, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer, and I quote: "Our ultimate objective is to normalize the situation, namely by giving back to the people access to homeownership, by handing over free of charge all recreational areas to the local governments and by transferring the ownership of the industrial lands to the municipalities except for the industrial park which is directly or indirectly related to airport activities and which will continue to be managed by the company and which will be promoted in co-operation with the industrial commissions of the area."
That is what the federal Government and the Canada Lands Company want, namely to normalize the situation.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine that after having bellowed that the Province had been raped by the federal Government, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Garon, whose name in French reminds me of his very person, stated in a television interview that he was cutting off farm loans to the Mirabel farmers who wanted to buy back their lands. It is a shame! I am frustrated to discover that it is impossible to deal with the PQ Government, whose only purpose is the separation and the isolation of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, while we, at the federal level, are trying to give back to the farmers the opportunity to resume the farming operations they have always enjoyed, because they were of course renting these lands, the separatist PQ Government and its Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Garon no longer want to do so and are cutting off farm loans. At the same time, the PQ Government is spending public money bringing the federal Government before the courts.
I find the objectives of the federal Government, and especially of the Canada Lands Company, a lot more high-minded. The major accomplishment of this company, as I was saying earlier, is certainly the Bell Helicopter project, which represents an investment of $514 million and 3,000 jobs created directly. That is the recovery made possible by the federal Government. That is the recovery made possible by the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, I could mention other problems. I can give the case of PICA, the famous industrial park in Mirabel. Once more, I quote from the statements of the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer, who said: I reassert categorically the fact that the Canada Lands Company has indeed offered Bell Helicopter the possibility of locating in PICA. However, Bell preferred locating along the Laurentian expressway.
I should note by the way that the final site is located to the south-west of the Saint-Janvier interchange in Mirabel.
Mr. Speaker, why did Bell Helicopter refuse the PICA site? It is simply because there is no way to get there. An amount of $12 million has been invested in the infrastructure of the industrial park, but the provincial Government does not care the least and refuses to build a road. We often hear: Why do you not develop this ghost park? Mr. Speaker, there is no road.

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Gourd
My colleague the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who is the official Public Works critic could also tell you about the struggle in which he was involved at one time. I am convinced that all problems would finally be solved if highway 13 was built. But no, they would rather institute legal proceedings and reduce the aid to farmers by withdrawing farm credit.
Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to co-operate with a separatist government in Quebec. However, I can see the day when the Liberals hold office and I am convinced that with Robert Bourassa as a leader we will see changes in the Quebec economy. I am pleased to see that the constituency of Argen-teuil-Papineau has always proudly elected Liberals who knew how to defend their interests.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think that this outline 1 have just given should not be overlooked. Before concluding, I want to say how proud I am of the Throne Speech, a speech which gives new impetus to the economy and I am convinced that the next budget soon to be tabled if the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) decides to curtail his trips abroad will be an excellent one and that my constituents in Argenteuil-Papi-neau will benefit from the economic recovery and a lower unemployment rate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In French this time, I should like to call the attention of the House to a breach of decorum. A little while ago, as the Hon. Member for Argen-teuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) was speaking, one of our colleagues crossed between the Chair and that Member. This is simply not allowed, first under our Standing Orders, and second under a long tradition. And to support what I am saying, I should like to refer Hon. Members to Citation 298 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, which states, and I quote:
Members may sit in their respective places with their heads covered, but when they desire to speak, they must rise and remove their hats.
This, of course, is outdated.
They are not to cross between the Chair and a Member who is speaking or between the Chair and the Table, or between the Chair and the Mace when the Mace is taken off the Table by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
That is clear and simple. Yet, from past experience, I can say that this rule of decorum has been broken very often, perhaps on a daily basis.
Therefore I urge Hon. Members to act more in accordance with this rule of decorum, not necessarily out of consideration for the occupant of the Chair, but out of consideration for the Hon. Member who has the floor and who certainly deserves the House's full attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or remarks?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, last week I attended the Stockholm Conference. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) kindly invited a member of the Official Opposition as well as a member of this Party to join him at that conference. I know that I speak also for the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who has not spoken in this debate, in assuring the Minister of our appreciation for this invitation. The full title of the conference is, Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe.
One of the reasons it was and continues to be such an important conference is that it is the only "game in town". At present there are no other fora where members of the Western Nato Alliance, members of the Warsaw Pact and neutral and non-aligned countries are meeting.
The INF talks, the START talks and the MBFR negotiations have broken off. As well, the United Nations itself is not in session. Therefore, the very fact that the Stockholm conference is taking place and was attended during its first week by the foreign ministers of all 35 participating countries gives it an even greater significance than it would otherwise have had.
Although the Minister mentioned only two of the participating groups yesterday-the NATO countries and the Warsaw Pact countries-there was also a very important third group, in some ways the most important, which is the group of neutral and non-aligned countries. I suggest that that group was led by Sweden not only because of the conference taking place there but because of the tremendous weight and influence of the Prime Minister of Sweden, Olof Palme.
The title of the conference is somewhat deceptive because there was not, in fact, very much talk about disarmament. Those talks will come later on since the conference will continue for almost three years. At this particular meeting the primary purpose was to develop what are called confidence and security building measures and generally to discuss the state of the world and the nuclear peril. No ministers who spoke addressed the overwhelming subject of what we will do about the nuclear peril and whether we will ever really seriously look not simply at controlling nuclear and other arms but abolishing them.
There is a very interesting two-part series in the New Yorker magazine written by Jonathan Schell, the author of The Fate of the Earth, in the issues of January 2 and January 9. I urge all Hon. Members, particularly those in the Government, to read those articles because Schell was not talking simply about the reduction of arms but their abolition. He evolves a fascinating new theory of deterrence once nuclear arms are abolished.
When delegates were talking both publicly and privately about such very important matters as giving advance information of troop movements in Europe, having smaller numbers of troop movements covered in that advance information and having neutral military observers of such activities and so on, I occasionally had the feeling that, as important as all these
January 25, 1984

things are, one was almost watching a group of boys-since all of the foreign ministers and most of the delegates were men- sitting under a mushroom cloud moving toy soldiers and tanks. It was not a reassuring feeling.
The women were outside the conference in peace and disarmament groups. These included women from Greenham Common with whom I had a most interesting conversation. There were many other peace groups, predominantly women, who were pressing for the discussion to take on some sense of urgency on the matter of disarmament and that it not be put off, as it apparently will be, for two years.
One of my hopes and expectations was not only to see some movement in thought and action toward disarmament, but also to be assured that Canada's peace efforts, which are at the moment embodied in the efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), were known, understood and appreciated and that we would be encouraged to have the Prime Minister continue them.
My expectations and hopes. It was dashed. No one made any mention in the formal speeches of the Prime Minister's initiative and no one in private conversations made any mention of them either. 1 got wondering why this was the case since we are very interested in them and most Canadian journalists are too. I talked about this at some length with the Swedish Prime Minister and with others.
I think the reason the Prime Minister's peace initiative was not discussed, was not referred to, unless one referred to it first in private conversation, is that as far as other NATO countries are concerned they have also been taking a great many initiatives-not so well publicized in their countries as the Prime Minister's has been in Canada-a great. Indeed, the Federal Republic of Germany was the country that was chiefly responsible for the presence of political ministers at the Stockholm conference. It was the Federal Republic of Germany which was chiefly responsible for encouraging Secretary of State Shultz to attend the conference, a very important initiative. Other members of NATO have taken other initiatives. For example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is going to Hungary this week, which is one of the reasons our Prime Minister is not going there. I could name many more initiatives. This peace initiative is not something that is simply being carried on by the Canadian Prime Minister. On the contrary, there is a good deal of feeling that the initiatives taken by others within the NATO Alliance have been having more effect and are, therefore, the subject of more discussion.
On the part of the Warsaw Pact countries there is the fairly strong attitude, and 1 think a justified one as well, about Canadian policy and Canadian actions. For instance, our policy on the testing of the Cruise missile and our votes at the United Nations against nuclear freeze resolutions, and so on, all of which pretty well follow the majority of NATO countries, have placed Canada fairly clearly in the eyes of the Warsaw Pact nations on one side of the issues. This is also to some extent the attitude existing among the neutral and
The Address-Ms. Jewett
non-aligned countries that Canada is not by any means neutral and non-aligned, and to take an initiative of this kind vis-a-vis both superpowers and both alliances is much, much more difficult when one is a member of one Alliance. I think that clearly makes sense.
When one listens to the contributions of the neutral and non-aligned countries, Sweden, Austria, Yugoslavia and so on, at the Stockholm conference, one became very aware that what they were talking about is not military security-and security is almost invariably in the eyes of NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries military security-but a common security; not security in a narrow sense for each nation but security for all. Canada has not thrust herself in that direction, and probably cannot given the present Government's policies, policies which would be followed by the Conservative Party if it were in power.
For an individual, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) or whomever, to take a personal initiative that is not backed up by his own Government's policies is fruitless. I am very sorry to say that but it is fruitless. How much, much more could have been accomplished had this Government, or the Conservative Government when it was in power, taken the steps to show the world that Canada was going to move through its own actions toward disarmament and peace. We could have also perhaps even influenced other countries if we had shown more independence, particularly on matters like the testing of a new generation of nuclear weapons. If we had said: "No, our traditions have been non-nuclear; we are going to stick with them and we are not going to participate in the escalation of the nuclear arms race", that would have had, as I talked to many Europeans, an enormous effect. Or instead of simply reiterating constantly that all the NATO partners were following a two-track policy, if we had looked a little more honestly at what was really happening, particularly at American policy under President Reagan, we would have had more effect.
The Minister yesterday reiterated that after Williamsburg the two-track policy-that is, the possibility of the deployment of nuclear missiles along with continued negotiations for arms reduction-was still the policy being followed by all NATO partners. In fact, the Minister did not mention that it was President Reagan himself who immediately after Williamsburg made it quite clear that he did not see any point in further negotiations or discussions until deployment had taken place. That was just as clear as clear could be. Then the Soviets said: "No, discussions must continue and we will not continue them after deployment", making that very clear. Canada could have spoken up then and said that the two-tracks must both be followed and one cannot postpone genuine negotiations until after deployment. But we did not do that, Mr. Speaker. That means we are regarded as subservient to whatever administration happens to be in power in the United States.

The Address-Mr. Deniger
We do not have to criticize and should not criticize every act of the United States; of course not. We must equally point out where the Soviets are deceiving us. But we have to look at both sides and have a relative degree of independence in order to do so. This is what we do not have. This is why the mission of the Prime Minister is not discussed and is not taken seriously. A personal mission, no matter how important the person may be at home, will not be taken seriously abroad when the actions of the Government that person leads are so contrary to the goals and to the words he espouses. If Canada does not begin now- because it is never too late-to pursue policies which will bring about genuine and complete disarmament, then Canada will not be listened to tomorrow any more than it was last week.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question following on what she has just said. Does she really believe that the Communists of Moscow whose avowed object is world domination will ever completely disarm? Does she really believe they would?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whether the Hon. Member is right about the avowed purposes of the regime in Moscow.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Of course that is their purpose.


Pauline Jewett: All I know is that it has been very unsuccessful so far, beginning with China and going through several other countries, in failing to impress them with its right to dominate them. It has failed. It failed with Egypt and the Sudan. It has failed, failed and failed. I do not think that is in their minds too much right now.
The chances of having complete nuclear disarmament are as great or as little on one side as the other. May I just add that there was a feeling at the conference that if only the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were not there or did not exist, agreement could be brought about on disarmament and the concept of a common security instead of many individual nation states' security could be realized. However, that is not the way in which the world map is drawn, we have to deal with both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. When I say, "we have to'', I mean that we have to have our voices heard. I say to the Hon. Member that our voices must be heard by both and directed to both because they are equally engaged in this nuclear peril. We and all smaller nations are concerned with the peril and want to share in seeing that it does not come about.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for La Prairie.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today in the House, this special place that is the guarantor of our parliamentary democracy. I am particularly delighted to be taking part in the traditional debate following the reading of the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, this long awaited speech was given several weeks before Parliament adjourned for the holidays. It
also marked the end of a parliamentary session that was unprecedented for the number and variety of its achievement.
The Throne Speech also announced the beginning of a new period in which what we had started would be pursued unremittingly. The list of Bills passed during this First Session of the Thirty-Second Parliament ending on November 30 last year is impressive, Mr. Speaker, and I therefore have no intention of enumerating all these achievements. However, I would like to mention that the past few years have shown once again that when governing a country, we parliamentarians often have choices to make that are not always easy.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, despite the difficulties arising from the worldwide recession which severely affected Canadians as well, I believe the Government has been both creative and courageous. Mr. Speaker, our humanitarian instincts have never failed us, at a time when it would have been so easy to turn away from our social responsibilities. I would rather not think of what a Conservative Government would have done during a recession. I can imagine what the historic annals of Canada, commemorating our time and our Government, would be like if they had to describe the beginning of this decade under a Conservative Government.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, what a nightmare, what a disaster it would have been to have the Conservatives during a depression! It would have been back to the law of the jungle or survival of the fittest. It is only a fantasy, Mr. Speaker, but it makes me shiver, and I hope with all my heart that, as the Prime Minister said in his Address, a Conservative Government will never come to power in this country, and especially not during a recession, because they would form a government of multinationals. A Government by abdication. That is the kind of government the Members opposite are offering us, Mr. Speaker. They are abdicating their responsibilities. They are the kind of people who give in-they have no backbone.
Mr. Speaker, let us take the case of medicare for instance. We must never deny the have-nots the availability of medical treatment whatever differences we may have with the provinces, we must not give in on this, because over the last year those differences widened to such an extent that the new Canada Health Act was introduced to clarify the aims of the Medicare Program. Because medicare is a right, rather than a privilege.
Throughout the debate, the Progressive Conservatives remained silent. But suddenly, Mr. Speaker, some day in December, they looked at a survey-I will come back to this- and decided they would support the proposal put forward by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In my view, that survey examplifies and clearly and unequivocally reflects the two trends that exist on policy matters within Tory ranks. First, there is the Leader of the Opposition's outlook. Clearly it is unimaginative, its thrust being to antagonize no one. So before taking a firm position on
January 25, 1984

any matter, what do they do? They call for a survey. And on the basis of that survey, they make a decision. Mr. Speaker, this is not the kind of leadership that Canadians expect, it is not the leadership that will attract people in 1984. Of course, there is the other outlook, that of the former Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for St. John West (Mr. Crosbie). That outlook, Mr. Speaker, is subjected to the rule of silence, because in a report published in Maclean's magazine 1983, not so long ago as you surely remember, the former Minister of Finance suggested that, if their policies were known, if they were published, they would never get elected. So, their second philosophy is that of the Hon. Member for St. John West, the former Minister of Finance. Consequently since they wont speak their minds surveys win the day. And as we already knew, surveys favour medicare. This is why out of the blue, the Tories developed a liking for medicare. They had marked time, they had wobbled, and suddenly, to quote Dave Todd who had this to say in the Citizen on December 15, 1983:
It took 48 years of royal commissions and a major act of political will to give Canadians a national medicare system. It took 48 hours for the federal Conservatives to endorse the Trudeau Government's Canada Health Act.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a fact. I can hardly wait to hear them put up convincing arguments in favour of universal access to Medicare, to see them fight for universal access to health care which has been one of the priorities of Members of the Fiberal Party and which must indeed remain the underlying principle of our social policy. I am not at all sure that the Progressive Conservatives are sincere, and that is why I think-and 1 am saying this to my colleagues on the Government benches-that we will have to put up a strong fight in the weeks and months ahead to prevent the destruction of one of our best social programs.
Mr. Speaker, are we going to allow one kind of medical care for the poor and another for the rich? Or, as Mr. Jean Pare wrote in last September's issue of the magazine Actualite, a Cadillac-type medical care and a Fada-type medical care? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. That would be the easy way out, it would amount to discarding a social contract whose human dimensions call for utmost consideration. Medicare is the most outstanding example of a collective effort whereby the rich help the poor and where the cost of medical and hospital care is paid by all Canadians so that everyone is entitled to the same quality of service. That, in my view, amounts to fulfilling our social responsibilities. It is not merely, as the Feader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) said, "an obligation to show tenderness". Our first and foremost obligation, Mr. Speaker, is to stand by our convictions to the end. Even at that, Mr. Speaker, one must have some convictions to start with, and in that regard, of course, the Progressive Conservative Party is far from meeting the expectations of Hon. Members of this
The Address-Mr. Deniger
House and of all Canadians. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition did not leave any doubt about that the day after the Throne Speech, when he had a golden opportunity to show his convictions and to express his policies. He had at his disposal the best forum he could ever dream of, the House of Commons, with live television coverage on every channel bringing his words directly into each and every Canadian home. What did he do, Mr. Speaker? He merely chose to tell stories, to give us trite remarks. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if I had had such an opportunity, I would not have wasted it and Canadians would have known once and for all what I was made of! They know now that the Hon. Member is a great storyteller, but that is about all. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time the Canadian people learn exactly what it is all about, and they will recognize that this Government went all the way and made every effort in order to meet its goals during a difficult period, in these times of recession. We know how difficult it is to conciliate both social and economic considerations. We have heard endless criticism about the size of the deficit. Yet, how do you preserve what has been achieved while at the same time helping those most hard hit by the recession and also finding money to create jobs and stimulate the economy? And all this, without raising expenditures? In the depths of the recession, Mr. Speaker, we could not lower the deficit because this would have had the effect of worsening the impact of the recession on the poor. A choice had to be made. We chose the lesser of two evils, we chose to come to the aid of individual Canadians. However, as soon as the situation improved, and we know that it is getting better every day, the Government hastened to introduce economic policies aimed at curbing inflation, restraining Government expenditures and of course, in turn, reducing the size of the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the 6 and 5 per cent policy was introduced. And with all due deference to my colleagues opposite, it has been a real success. The people support that policy and they probably want it to continue. The Minister of Finance will probably tell us about that on February 15.
With the tabling of the budget last April, the foundations of an economic recovery were laid. It was a long term strategy to restore confidence and create a good climate for recovery. A consultation process was launched with the main protagonists in business, organized labour, the co-operative sector and political quarters and it is specifically such a process which enabled us to introduce a budget which everybody welcomed and more important, which made Canada's record the envy of the free world in 1983. Mr. Speaker, we have gone a long way on the road to a national economic recovery, and the private sector is now in a better position to make investments. But in spite of a constant improvement of financial conditions, there still remains a lot to be done before Canada recovers from all the losses incurred during the recession.
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely to keep up these efforts entered upon in 1983, following the budget and the implementation of

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Deniger
a difficult wage policy, that this policy will be maintained in the budget to be brought down next February 15 by the Minister of Finance. Once on our way, we must not lose ground, and it is for this reason that 1 look forward to an excellent and compassionate budget from the Minister of Finance next month.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I applaud the many proposals contained in the Speech from the Throne which consolidate what has already been undertaken. Emphasis has been placed on consolidating the industrial infrastructure, stimulating investment, increasing productivity and promoting co-operation between the Government, the private sector and labour.
Mr. Speaker, when 1 look back on the year 1983 and consider the encouraging economic outlook for 1984, I cannot understand the chronic pessimism and negativism of the Members opposite. It seems to me that we must feel happy when we get up in the morning and learn that the inflation rate in Canada is lower than 5 per cent and the bank rate of the Bank of Canada is under 10 per cent. Mr. Speaker, for the Members opposite, such good news is bad news. What sort of government would they form?
When I was in the Opposition and interest rates were going up often as a result of the Government Opposite's policies, I certainly did not rejoice, although I knew that during the Question Period, I would be in a position to stuff my questions with all sorts of statistics. However, I was saddened. Now, it would seem that the Hon. Members Opposite are delighted when inflation and interest rates rise, because they expect to make some political gains out of it. What sort of Government would we have if we had the misfortune to see them assume power?
The Opposition is blaming us for each and every ill and burden we are faced with; yet, who is responsible for controling inflation? Who has brought down interest rates? Who has created again an atmosphere of confidence and persuaded businessmen to invest and consumers to spend? Who has helped our economy to recover faster than expected? It is our party, Mr. Speaker, and certainly not theirs. This Government has certainly overcome most of the obstacles. And it is clearly our Government, which has shown Canada the way to the 21st Century by offering more funds and tax incentives in the area of reasearch and development, so that Canadian technology may successfully meet the challenge of the technological revolution. Moreover, in spite of the recession, the Government has tried to increase Canada's trade potential. That is why we undertook for instance, Mr. Speaker, as you know, of course, to substantially change one of our sacrosanct institutions in Canada, that is the Crow rate.
The old freight rate for grain had resulted in a gradual deterioration of our railway system in Western Canada. No one would deny it. And thanks to the legislation that was passed by Parliament last fall, we will now have an infrastructure, we will have railway lines that will actually enable
Western farmers to increase their production and, in so doing, increase the shipments through the port of Vancouver, which seems once again to upset the Members Opposite who often do not want to hear good news unless they announce it themselves in their ridings, once they are in power. Good heavens, that will take time!
Well then, Hon. Members will be pleased to know that from now on, Western farmers will be able to increase their crops. In so doing, they will increase their shipments by railway and, at the same time, increase the traffic through the port of Vancouver. As a result, the Canadian economy will pick up again even more and foreign trade will increase. It would take a clever man, Mr. Speaker, to understand the position of Hon. Members opposite on the Crow legislation.
Let us keep in mind what their position was, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the former Minister of Transport, said at the time, if my memory serves me right, that the difference between the Opposition and the party in power was a mere technicality. What a technicality, Mr. Speaker, when the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, states openly in committee that what he wants actually is the status quo, a three-year moratorium.
Why? Because a choice had to be made. It is not easy to make a choice but to govern is to choose. The Hon. Member was not prepared to do so when he was in power. How could I believe that Hon. Members opposite would be prepared to do so if, heaven forbid, they should come into power? They would not be able to make a choice because beside being a negativist party the Conservatives are strictly an opposition party.
As a matter of fact, they have mastered the art of skating around issues or, more exactly, of changing their mind ever so often depending on which way the wind is blowing. Yet people should be able to know the positions and policies of the various political parties at the federal level. They deserve at least that much consideration on the part of their representatives.
We have to recognize that the Official Opposition loves to deal with unclear issues and that this Government in waiting has no vision. A political group such as this which constantly changes its mind and shifts positions does not represent in my opinion a valid alternative and is in no position to criticize everything.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that time is running out. I would have liked to speak about air traffic control, a subject that is dear to my heart but, with your permission I might go back to it during a debate on transport. In closing, I should like to say that the Canadian people, obviously, are looking for substantial and concrete policies and we find that the Hon. Opposition Leader can only come in every day with vague and nebulous motions. He is in for a few surprises as was mentioned in the editorial of the Edmonton Journal in its December 30 issue and I quote:
January 25, 1984

[DOT] (W40)

It may come as a shock to Mr. Mulroney but voters still consider what a candidate has to say. In this case they want to know what kind of brain lies behind the baritone.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be really disappointed when they will find out that there is nothing-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the short time available does not enable me to correct the mass of inaccuracies that the Hon. Member made in his speech but I want to deal with one or two of them.
He said that all of a sudden the Conservatives have discovered medicare. We had medicare programs in Conservative provinces before the Government ever thought of it. Yes, we discussed the matter in caucus; that shows that our Leader is a leader, not a dictator. He wants to know what the people of Canada think. The Hon. Member is so used to a dictator as Leader of his Party that he forgets what leadership is. Leadership reflects the thinking of the people.
The Hon. Member did not tell us that the Liberal Government offered 50 per cent of the cost of medicare and threatened the Province of Alberta-I know that because I was in government then-that it would be denied any money from Ottawa if it did not replace the MSI with medicare. It was real dictatorship.
In spite of what the Minister says, now they are paying Alberta 24 per cent of the cost of medicare. Even with the tax transfer agreement, which is the Alberta people's money, they only pay 34 per cent. Put that in your hat and chew that for a while. Maybe that should make you shiver when you talk about shivering-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In principle, the Hon. Member is addressing his remarks to the Chair and I do not wear a hat.

The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) on a point of order.


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the rules allow the Hon. Member to make comments, but I understand these should be very brief.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The difficulty facing the Chair in the present circumstances is that only one Hon. Member has asked to be recognized in order to put a question or make comments.
I presume the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is just about to conclude his comments.
I did not see any other Member rise, which explains why I am perhaps a little more generous than I would be if, for instance, there had been four.
The Address-Mr. Deniger

I therefore invite the Hon. Member to come to some conclusion.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take advantage of the rules of the House but my comments were completely legal. The Hon. Member said that he shivers to think what the PCs would do with medicare. I want to tell Hon. Members of the House that the greatest threat to medicare in Canada today is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). She is willing to play politics with the health of the people of Canada. The PCs would not do that, I can assure you.
There are a lot of other things that I would like to tell the Hon. Member that he does not seem to know, and if nobody else asks questions I should like to have another chance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger).


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, 1 must tell you that I was really surprised to hear the remarks made by my colleague.
First of all, when he speaks of leadership, it is clear he sees our leader as a dictator. This is because our leader is a man of conviction, who knows which course he wants to take and who is not bankrupt of ideas and policies as is the case with his leader.
When he compares a real leader with a man who pretends to be one, who conducts polls to know what course to take, who puts in his Cabinet Members who refuse to make their views known to make sure they are elected, surely, the Hon. Member opposite must be kidding if he calls that leadership.
And as for the threat to medicare, I could not believe it when I heard the Hon. Member opposite, and I had to check with my colleague from Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau). I will tell him that the real threat to our medical system is by no means the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). Nonsense! The real threat rather comes from your Conservative premiers, your friends and Conservative Members of Parliament. Not from the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! Hon. Members are reminded that they are supposed to speak to the Chair and not directly to Members opposite.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if no one else wants to make a comment I should like to make another one. The Hon. Member did not answer my question about why the Government is cutting down on percentages but then wonders why the provinces cannot continue to handle medicare. I do not think any sensible person in Canada wants sick people to have to pay for a doctor or hospital. That is provided for by a PC Government

January 25, 1984
The Address-Mr. Deniger
in Alberta. The poor do not have to pay; they are given an exemption and those who have the money pay.
The 34 per cent of the cost of medicare in Alberta comes through the tax transfer agreement. When the Minister says that the federal Government is paying 50 per cent of the cost of medicare, that is baloney. If it paid 50 per cent there would not be all these problems.
The Hon. Member undertook to speak for the western grain growers, saying that they would grow more wheat. The former Minister of Transport for this Party-who is not the old Minister of Transport, as the Hon. Member said-was the best Minister of Transport this country has ever had. He moved that the rates be frozen for three years because the grain farmers do not have the money to pay the increased freight rate. They suffered a loss in 1982 and in 1981. Where does he think the farmers will get the money, out of a hat? Farmers are having a rough time in western Canada. I do not like to hear anyone running them down or building up a dream world for them. They will pay their way. We must make sure they get the wherewithal to pay their way and that is why we wanted the freeze. We should take another look at the whole Crow Bill that the Government has thrust on the people of Canada.
I should like to say a few things on the national energy policy but my time is up.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, when I hear my colleague opposite refer to the Western farmers, I can only make a parallel with the poor Quebec farmers in the days of Duplessis, the man who wanted to keep the farms small and not allow them to develop or reach their true potential and who wanted to prevent them from expanding and prospering as they should have. It is of this I am reminded when I hear those comments from the Member opposite.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to remind you that for the Liberals, the basic philosophy of their party is to make sure that those with low incomes and the poorest among Canadians have the same privileges and enjoy the same social benefits as the others. I simply shudder when I hear the Hon. Member opposite say that he is in favour of user fees, which would force low-income people to pay extra money even before they can get medical treatment; this is what the Hon. Member is telling us, while we, Liberals, are convinced that people are entitled to these services. This is the main purpose of our policy as well as the greatest achievement of this Government, and if the Members opposite dare to question it, what will happen if ever they are elected to power?


Frank Oberle: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but be amused by the fact that our friends across the aisle persistently lament their perception that the new Leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney) and, indeed, the people who speak for the Party in the House, are not announcing in detail the policies which will be taken into the next election. I am amused by the fact that they become so upset and excited over this phenomenon.
1 can understand their frustration because they have nothing to attack. However, they should rejoice. They can go home to their ridings and tell their constituents: "Look, the Opposition wants to be the Government but does not have any policy". As the Hon. Member well knows, there are two things which should be remembered. The people of Canada should be totally aware of the policies of this particular Government which the people, particularly those in central Canada, eastern Canada and Quebec, insisted on electing in 1980. The people should be aware of the policies of the Government they elected. The Government which inflicted the pain and misery upon them is now devoid of any new policies and ideas. This is what those Hon. Members opposite are trying to cover up. In addition to that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), but we are running out of time. I will allow a brief comment.


An Hon. Member:: We are not finished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is not a matter of not having finished. We are running out of time.


An Hon. Member:: We still have 10 minutes for comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No.


Frank Oberle: I rise on a point of order. The time has either expired or it has not expired. If the time has expired, you cannot give the Hon. Member any additional time. I had another point to make and you cut me off. The time has either expired or it has not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River to put a question or a comment. However, in all fairness-and this is the normal courtesy-the Chair, in its wisdom, feels that the Hon. Member should be given a brief period to respond. I do not expect the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) to carry on for two minutes. I will allow him about 30 seconds, and that will close the period.
[ Translation]


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My colleague for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) knows fully well I did not suggest in my speech there were opposition members who had no policy, no answers. What I did say is that those who had, as the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) for example, did not dare make them known, because they realize that knowing Canadians would never elect them!


An Hon. Member:: Right on.
January 25, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is the end of the question period. Debate.


Mr. McCuish:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might consider it as being six o'clock and give me an opportunity to address the House tomorrow?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed to call it six o'clock?

Is the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) rising on a point of order?


André Maltais: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Address-Mr. Deniger


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Manicouagan.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I think since we have five minutes left, perhaps I may take this opportunity to comment on a few points that were raised by the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. No, that is not possible. The House has agreed to call it six o'clock. If the House does not agree-

It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 26, 1984