1984-11-19

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Allmand (p. 252).
Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be a problem. 1 am informed that the Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) had the floor, but since consideration of the amendment has been terminated, the Hon. Member can hardly speak a second time unless he has the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the Throne Speech debate to comment on the Government's agenda as well as to talk about what it plans to do and to outline some of those things that the Government does not mention.
As has been noted several times in the debate, the emphasis in the Throne Speech was on consensus and conciliation. While this is commendable in some respects, it also brings some of us some concern. For example, it was stated in the Throne Speech that:
Over time, mutual confidence and a sense of shared responsibility for our national economy must lead to consensus on even more basic issues: how to share the benefits of economic growth, how to share the burdens of economic adjustment, how to preserve the integrity of our unique natural environment, and how to ensure that the ideal of social justice is pursued through programs that meet contemporary needs and circumstances.
Consensus on issues such as these can take a very long time to develop. In the meantime, the unemployed and the working poor are bearing most of the burden and receiving very few of the benefits of technological change and the whole process of change in which we find ourselves.
A report put out two months ago by the National Anti-Poverty Organization points out that between 1981 and 1983 there has been a 22 per cent increase in the number of Canadians who must live below the poverty line. In 1981 there were 3.5 million Canadians living below the poverty line. By 1983 that had increased by some 800,000, to 4.3 million Canadians living below the poverty line.
The question that I think we in the House must address is: how long will these people have to wait while we develop a new
consensus? The thought which has occurred to me as 1 looked at some of the measures that the Government has taken is that perhaps the new consensus is already developing to the effect that it is necessary to have more poor people in order to keep wages down and keep Canadians from expecting too high a standard of living.
It is worth while spending a few minutes asking how we develop a consensus. For example, today we have a generally shared consensus in the House about medicare. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has referred to it as a sacred trust. However, that consensus on medicare did not always exist. That consensus did not exist 20 years ago when medicare in Saskatchewan was established over bitter opposition. It was because leaders like Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd and the CCF government of Saskatchewan were prepared to risk their political lives on the issue of medicare that medicare was established. Over the years, its value to the Canadian people has been proved, so that now it is generally regarded, even by the Prime Minister, as a sacred trust.
That consensus did not come by sitting around a round table and debating. There had to be leadership. As we work toward a new consensus, it is not enough for the Government to sit back on the sidelines and host summit conferences. It must take some action to ensure that the poor and unemployed, those at the lower end of the income scale, do not get all the burden of industrial change and none of the benefits.
The Throne Speech also stated that the generous co-operation of the provinces:
-is also needed to honour the commitment to Canada's aboriginal peoples contained in the Constitution Act of 1982. For these peoples, as for all Canadians, the high expectations that attended the act of patriation must not be disappointed.
There is no question that some of the provinces had a very mean-spirited approach to aboriginal rights in the last two constitutional conferences. There must be a more generous approach, but it is not enough for the Prime Minister to call for generous co-operation. If we are going to honour our commitments to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, then the federal Government must show leadership.
Where does the Government stand on constitutional entrenchment of the right of aboriginal peoples for self-government? Is it prepared to take an active advocacy role on behalf of aboriginal peoples? I believe that we all recognize that the new Government has a tremendous reservoir of popular support. Is it prepared to risk some of that support? Is it prepared to spend some of its popularity capital in an attempt to lead public opinion on this question of aboriginal rights? Is it prepared to put pressure on the provinces so they will act

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Manly
generously, or is it simply prepared to issue a nice call for the provinces to act generously in the hope they will respond?
[DOT] (U10)
I am concerned about the phrasing in this particular section. It talks about the commitment to Canada's aboriginal peoples which is contained in the Constitution Act of 1982. There is no mention in that reference to the fact that we are talking about aboriginal rights. It suggests that the commitment in the Constitution Act of 1982 was perhaps an act of generosity on the part of the Government of Canada at the time. There is no recognition that what we are dealing with here is a fundamental basic right of the Canadian people.
There is no mention in the Throne Speech of legislation respecting Indian self-government. In the last Parliament, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the government introduced such legislation. It fell far short of what was required, but at least such legislation was introduced. Now that subject seems to have dropped right off the agenda. I would remind the Government that in the last Parliament there was an all-Party committee. It looked at the entire question of Indian self-government and concluded that the only way in which the problems of the Indian people could be met was through Indian self-government.
It recognized that there were three approaches to Indian self-government, and that all should be followed. First, there was the constitutional entrenchment, about which I have already spoken. Second, there was the bilateral approach where the federal government deals directly with the governments of Indian first nations. Third, there was the legislative approach whereby the federal government would pass enabling legislation. There is no mention of this in the Throne Speech. Unless we begin to deal with this fundamental problem that affects Indian people from one end of Canada to the other, then we are ignoring one of the basic groups within Canadian society.
The speech promised the removal of discriminatory clauses in the Indian Act. Again, this is something that we in our Party welcome, and we look forward to seeing the legislation which the Government will table. This longstanding problem has to be solved. I hope that this Government does not do as the last government did, which was to wait until the last possible moment and then to try to jam through unsatisfactory legislation without giving the committee adequate time for discussion and without giving the Indian people most affected adequate time to make their presentation.
I hope that as the Government deals with discrimination in the Indian Act it will pay attention to what the Indian people say, both to the national Indian organizations and also to the Native Women's Association of Canada.
This past spring the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations have reached a certain consensus about how this problem should be approached and addressed. The previous government chose to ignore that consensus. I hope that the present Government is a little more sensitive.


Mr. McDermid:: No problem.


James Douglas Manly: While the Government talks about developing consensus in some areas, in other areas it is prepared to move ahead on its own without consultation and without consensus. Here, of course, I am talking about cut-backs and increases in taxes which, in effect, are taking money out of our communities and taking money out of circulation, which will have a depressing effect on the economy.
I want to point out that these cut-backs by and large have been motivated by ideology rather than by any clear plan. This was revealed last week on November 13 when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) asked the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) about cutting the Manufacturing Technology Institute in Winnipeg. When he asked what studies had been done, the Minister replied that there had been no studies of the impact and that the real issue was one of political philosophy. We would like to see political philosophy at least brought into some context with reality.
It is interesting that the book of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) entitled A New Direction for Canada talked about the needs of small businesses. In part it reads:
Keeping public sector research activities in tune with small firm needs, and the broader issue of rapid technology diffusion in the small business sector, are important subjects for discussion. We must examine the role of government-financed technology centres, and the possibility of industry-wide private-public sector research efforts.
There was no examination of the role of the centre in Winnipeg. It was simply cut.
Studies of the impact of these cuts were conducted for Cabinet. We want to see what those studies indicated in detail. We know they predicted that there would be job loss, but we do not know how much. The Minister of Finance said that it was "statistically insignificant". We would like to see those studies. We would like Canadians to see them so that they could judge for themselves whether or not they were statistically insignificant. We do not believe that they are insignificant, and we challenge the Government to release the studies and let Canadians decide. Last week Informetrica Limited indicated that, as a result of the Government's cut-backs,
50,000	jobs would be lost.
Some cuts primarily concern me. First I refer to the $200 million cut in the unemployment insurance fund through a series of what is euphemistically referred to as intensified interviews. This is a nice sounding phrase, but in practice it means that unemployed people, people on unemployment insurance, will be hassled and hounded from their entitlement by more regulations. Is this part of the Government's new consensus toward which it is working in terms of who will share the benefits and who will share the burdens? It seems to me the result is that the victims of unemployment will be sharing even more of the burden of unemployment.
There is also a cut of $175 million from the Industrial and Regional Development Program. Most of this comes from tier
November 19, 1984

1 communities. They will no longer be eligible for any assistance for establishing, expanding or modernizing manufacturing facilities. In British Columbia where there is the third highest unemployment rate in Canada, there is only one community designated as tier 3. Half of them are in tier 2 and the other half are in tier 1. We are not receiving our fair share of benefits under the program as it is presently constituted. By cutting back on the benefits available to tier 1, we will be discriminated against in doubly.
Then there is a $7.8 million cut-back from Indian Affairs, $5 million of which comes from capital funds. These funds are needed to help build schools and sewers. Over the last four years our committee looked at this, and representatives from all parties recognized the urgent need of Indian communities for infrastructure, sewers and water systems. We heard representation from one community after another about the need for new school buildings and how we were falling behind in that regard, yet the Government is cutting $5 million from capital funds.
The Government is cutting $400,000 from special needs for Indian communities like emergency assistance for communities after fires. The Government is cutting $350,000 from cultural grants that would go to Indian artists in order to sponsor Indian art displays. It is interesting to note that the Throne Speech merely gives lip service to art. Reading from page 7 of Hansard, the Throne Speech indicates:
As a country rich in human resources, Canada owes much to those who have dedicated themselves to cultural, artistic and athletic endeavour. In a variety of areas, my Government will be addressing itself to the challenge of encouraging those individuals who inspire Canadians to new levels of excellence.
What kind of encouragement is being given to Indian artists when there are these kinds of cut-backs to the funding of Indian art?
Over the last few years, Indian art has been a great expression of the Indian people and has helped them to move toward their rightful place in Canadian society. Art has helped Indians gain a new sense of their own dignity and their own place in the scheme of things. As well, Indian art has given non-Indians a better understanding of Indians. The same is true of Inuit art. We are now cutting back funding that would help further those endeavours. As well, we have seen cut-backs to the funding of other cultural agencies.
The Speech from the Throne does not address some of the vital areas of concern in our economy. Government members have pointed out that the Speech from the Throne is not meant to be a shopping list. That is fair enough. We are not looking for a shopping list. However, I would like to ask government members if forestry is simply one item on a shopping list. We have heard of a great deal of concern about the growing deficit in the financial situation. I would like to ask government members about the growing deficit in timber supply. The Government recognized this deficit during the election campaign and promised immediate action. Where is that action now? Where are the plans to create a full-fledged Forestry
The Address-Mr. Manly
Department with its own full Minister? It is not enough for forestry to be a poor cousin of agriculture.
We want to ask, where are the new programs for job creation? Where are the tens of thousands of jobs that were to be created as soon as this new Government was sworn into office?
In conclusion, I would simply like to urge government members to look to the Province of British Columbia with the hope that perhaps they can see the British Columbia experience as being a bad example. My father has said that even the worst of us can serve as a bad example. That is what has occurred in British Columbia today. In July, 1983, the British Columbia Government introduced a program of restraints and cut-backs emphasizing that these cut-backs were not introduced simply for the sake of cutting back but were introduced for the sake of recovery. Yet, since that program has been instituted, the economy has gone downhill. Investor confidence has gone down and unemployment has gone up. Now the deficit is rising.
It has been said by Santayana, I believe, that whoever will not learn from history is destined to repeat it. I hope that the Government is prepared to learn from the history of British Columbia so that all the people of Canada will not be condemned to repeat the tragic history of British Columbia, which has wasted its resources and, in the last year and a half, lost any possibility of recovery. The Government of British Columbia is now beginning to reconsider its approach. I urge the Government of Canada to reconsider its approach and, rather than bringing in cut-backs, bring in a positive program that will create jobs and ensure that the poor people of Canada receive the benefits and not only the burdens of technological change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I was most impressed with the new philosophy of the New Democratic Party. It seems to want to continue giving aid to those tier 1 areas in our country under the DRIE program and to continue the position of the former government of rewarding businesses by paying money out of the public Treasury to businesses that should, because of their location in the most prosperous parts of the country, be able to carry on by themselves. I was wondering if this was a new direction for the New Democratic Party whereby it would hand out more money to businesses-money which is paid to private companies from the Government Treasury-in areas where there is clearly less unemployment and good business activity. Is that the kind of issue that the New Democratic Party will push forward?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the Hon. Member, I would like to point out that at the present time British Columbia is not getting its fair share with the way the tier system is set up. British Columbia has the third highest level of unemployment. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who is a government member, complained

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Manly
last year about the way the tier designations were set up. He asked how long British Columbia would be required to wait and how high unemployment would have to rise before it received some justice from the program.
If I could cite some figures, 43 out of 46 areas in the Atlantic Provinces have been designated for tier 3 and tier 4. Those tiers receive the maximum benefit. In Quebec, 60 out of 76 areas are in tier 3 and tier 4. As I pointed out, only one out of 29 areas in British Columbia is in tier 3 and none is in tier 4. The rest are in tier 1 and tier 2. If there is a program which will provide help for businesses, it should be going to those areas where there is the highest unemployment. We would like to see the tier designation changed so that it would recognize the real rates of unemployment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the complaint is not so much against the cut but that the Hon. Member's constituency is not designated as an underprivileged, hard-up area which needs social assistance. I am surprised that the Hon. Member would say that, because it would seem to me that his constituency is in a rather prosperous part of British Columbia where the standard of existence is fairly high and people are reasonably well off. I am wondering if the Hon. Member feels that his constituency is so underprivileged that it should be designated in a tier 3 or tier 4 category?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out that we are suffering from extremely high unemployment in British Columbia, because the Government of British Columbia is following the same kind of repressive policies that the present Government is adopting. If this Government continues, the entire country will be in a tier 4 situation and will require maximum help.
I would like to see a tier designation system which recognizes the real rate of unemployment and makes help available to areas where there is unemployment and a program of industrial restructuring is required, such as the forest industry in British Columbia. I believe that British Columbia should get its fair share of help, which it is not receiving under the present program.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions which I would like to direct to the Hon. Member. In the last week of the last Parliament the Hon. Member, like I, suffered through some last-minute legislation, which was thrust on us, regarding the removal of discrimination against Indian women in amendments to the Indian Act. I want to ask the Hon. Member if the New Democratic Party supports the Assembly of First Nations and the Indian people at large with respect to their contention that they should have the say as to who should be members of their band?
[DOT] (M30)


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I believe that as the consensus
between the Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations developed last year, the approach was that the federal Government would have the responsibility for granting Indian status in terms of a general list. People would be eligible for federal Government assistance, but the access to actual membership within Indian bands would be the result of action taken by those bands themselves. I would support that position provided it is in accordance with non-discriminatory rules, so that what is acceptable to men is acceptable to women as well.
Yes, I believe that Indian first nations do have to have some control over their band membership. However, I also believe that the federal Government has a basic responsibility to make funding available to Indian first nations so that they can receive women and their children back into band membership without an increased financial burden.
I hope that when the federal Government introduces this legislation with respect to removing this discrimination, it will not forget that we have an obligation to make funding available so that the entire burden of the change is not put upon the Indian people themselves. It has been said very well that we should not put a dollar tag on justice. That applies to the Indian people as well, that they not hold Indian women up for ransom while waiting until the federal Government pays the appropriate amount of money. They are beginning to recognize that and have moved a long way in that respect, as I am sure the Hon. Member will recognize.
The opposite side of that coin, however, is that we in this House, the federal Government, should not put a dollar tag on justice. We should do everything we can to make sure that the financial resources are available to Indian communities so that they can receive women back into membership without adding to the burden of poverty which, as the Hon. Member knows, is already widespread in most Indian communities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) is rising on a question.


Mr. Fraser:: I have a comment and a question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the Hon. Member's remarks regarding forestry, I am sure the Hon. Member would want to point out that it was a Conservative Government in 1979-1980 that raised the level of the Canadian Forest Service by appointing an assistant deputy minister. The object of that exercise, of course, was to move to departmental status, and since September we have established a Ministry of Forestry, which is a dramatic change from the drift which had been taking place within the federal Government mix.
I always appreciate it when my hon. friend from British Columbia keeps pushing for the very legitimate needs of forestry. I commend him for that. However, I know he would want to recognize that this Party, unlike the former government, has recognized forestry and is moving along the lines which the Hon. Member would wish us to move.
I would ask the Hon. Member, first of all, whether he believes that the problem of the deficit must be addressed. Second, if we were to ask the Hon. Member where he would
November 19, 1984

make the restraint moves which would arrest the rising rate of direct deficit debt and also the very serious problem of the indirect debt, just exactly where would the Hon. Member start?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have a short answer from the Hon. Member on that question?


James Douglas Manly: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the subject of forestry. 1 do commend the Government for appointing a Minister of State for Forestry. However, we want to see a full Department which is responsible for forestry instead of its being a poor cousin to the Department of Agriculture and a poor cousin to the Department of the Environment, as it was in the previous government. I believe that forestry, as our number one industry in Canada, deserves a full Department, and I hope the Government will move in that direction very quickly.
With respect to the deficit, of course, we recognize that it is a problem. However, we believe that the fundamental need of Canadians right now is to be put back to work. That is where we thought the Conservatives were going during the election campaign. They were talking about, "jobs, jobs, jobs". They soft-pedalled the deficit. But now we do not hear anything about jobs; we hear about the deficit. We would like to hear a little more from the Government side about jobs.


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


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my first comment must be of congratulation to yourself. Just so that the record is clear, I am addressing the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, commonly known as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I have known you, Sir, for quite a number of years. I know what a significant role you have played in your province and how you have articulated the concerns and aspirations of your people. I know also of your outstanding achievements in the academic and legal fields. I wish you success, Sir, in your endeavours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I would also like to say that I was most impressed by the remark of the mover and seconder in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They are two very different people who happen to sit together in the House of Commons. One Hon. Member is from Montreal, and the other Hon. Member is from Sarnia. Sarnia reflects so well what is possible for Canada from a resource development point of view, and Montreal-Mercier is, in many ways, the end product of that. 1 happen to be very interested in harness racing and I used to go to Richelieu Raceway. 1 had to pass through the constituency of that young lady of 23 years of age. 1 know that the people of Montreal-Mercier are going to be well served by that Hon. Member in the days ahead.
I happen to have a very outstanding constituent in my riding. Sometimes she lives in my constituency and sometimes
The Address-Mr. Coates
she does not. She originally came from Springhill. Her name is Anne Murray. She has a very nice cottage compound in the Pugwash area of my constituency and she comes and visits with us. She won an award recently for a song about good news and bad news. Well, Sir, I do not know how anyone else feels on Monday morning, but I could hardly believe the news this morning. As a matter of fact, I could hardly believe the news I have heard over the last few days. First, we have a former Prime Minister, who, when he presided over the Liberal Party, watched it being decimated in the provinces until it reached a point where it did not hold a provincial government anywhere in this country. Second, he turned the Party over to another leader at the eleventh hour and watched him lead the Party to another degree of decimation which is hard to comprehend. We then hear that former Prime Minister announce that maybe if he had continued on as the leader of the Liberal Party, it would have won the election. On top of that, the present critic for external affairs is saying that it is too bad the Liberal Party did not select him. Well, he had every opportunity to be selected. He went to a leadership convention where it was decided that the present Leader was preferable. Then that critic goes on, in the footsteps of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, and says, "If I had been selected, things would have been a lot better for the Liberal Party". All I can say is that with friends like those the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has in the Liberal Party, he does not need any enemies.
If that is not bad enough, this outstanding internationalist, who set his Party up for almost total destruction, is telling the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who led the Progressive Conservative Party to the greatest victory in the history of this nation with the first national government since 1963 at least, that he had better watch the way he is operating. Well, I think I would prefer to have him advising his former Party than advising us, thank you very much.
We have difficult days ahead, Mr. Speaker. In a very courageous statement, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) told Canadians how it really is. There is no smoke and there are no mirrors. It is the real thing, and the Canadian people know it. That is why the Liberal Party sits in the House of Commons with over 100 seats less than they had in 1980. Through total fiscal and monetary irresponsibility, they have led this country into the mess we are in at the moment.
The previous speaker said that we are not talking about jobs. Everything we do at this moment in time is geared to jobs because, unless we get deficit reduction in place, there will be no jobs. All of the money that we take from the taxpayers will go to pay interest on monies borrowed in an attempt to maintain the deficit as it increases from the present $180 billion, to something like $400 billion owing. There is nothing we can do until we get that deficit under control. Working together, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) have given the signal to Canadians that we are going to put our financial house in order. Flowing from that will be the real, long-term jobs that

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Coates
Canadians aspire to and desire. We are going to ensure that they get them.
The President of the Treasury Board announced a reduction of $154 million in the defence budget. The Liberal Party felt that that was calamitous. The only useful thing that the Liberal Government did from an economic point of view was to reduce the rate of inflation in the country. As a result of that decrease in the rate of inflation and of more realistic purchases by officials in the National Defence Department, a saving of $154 million was effected without interfering in any way with present or future commitments which we have made. Therefore, the Canadian people need not be concerned about the $154 million deficit reduction which was announced by the President of the Treasury Board.
The Speech from the Throne refers to a comprehensive examination of the role of the defence forces in the strategic context of the 1980s. I am happy to say that examination is already under way. I shall be devoting a good deal of my time, as will officials of my Department, to doing what is necessary to ensure that the examination is thorough and that the result is unambiguous. I intend to ask for the co-operation of my colleagues and to draw on the resources of their Departments in this enterprise. That is not all. I shall also be seeking the expert advice and good counsel of individuals and organizations across the country in the pursuit of our objectives. The objective is clear, namely, to clarify the mandate of our military and to give them the resources they need to do their job.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if I were to say a few words about our point of departure in this examination. There may also be some interest in the sort of question which we will be addressing in the preparation of a paper which I would propose to table for discussion early next year, and which the Government will be answering, following discussion, in a white paper on defence.
One thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that the Government will not be approaching this examination as a means of determining how to do less for the collective defence. There is an unfortunate impression abroad that when a government reviews its position on defence, it is seeking ways to do less. That is not the Government's intention. That is not our way. Rather, we intend to determine how best to ensure that Canada does its fair share to preserve peace in freedom. Our aim is to ensure that Canada's Armed Forces are charged with doing what they can do to the greatest effect in the common defence. Our objective for the forces themselves is to ensure that they are then able to do what we ask of them.
On a number of occasions I have had meetings with the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine). I have had discussions with his Premier and with my officials. We are moving forward to eliminate the problem which exists at this moment in time with regard to Chatham. The Prime Minister made certain commitments prior to and during the election campaign with regard to Chatham. It is my intention to carry through on those commitments.
We should all be proud of the positive role played by our forces in the development of our great nation. We should be proud too of what they are attempting to do to help perserve the way of life that we share with our allies on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the course of the past month I have met with NATO Defence Ministers collectively and individually. In Washington I met with Defense Secretary Weinberger and in London 1 met with Defense Secretary Heseltine. 1 received the warmest tributes to the high standards of the Canadian Armed Forces. In all of my meetings with these and other Defence Ministers I affirmed the intention of the Government to maintain those standards, to continue real growth in Canada's defence expenditures, and to give the highest possible priority to increasing the effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces in carrying out our commitments within the alliance.
It is against this background of solidarity with our allies and determination to enlarge and improve our co-operation that we shall be conducting the examination of our situation. It is in the light of the need to strengthen our arms in the defence of our values and to strengthen our voice in allied councils that we will be planning for the future. The responsiveness of Canada's defence industrial base in accommodating the production needs of the Canadian forces and those of our allies in times of peace and emergency is a key element of national and collective security.
Interdependence in defence implies and requires interdependence in the economic basis of defence. Therefore, we will want to satisfy ourselves as to the vitality of our partnership with others in bilateral and multilateral defence research, development and production agreements and arrangements.
Beginning on December 3, a briefing team from the Department of Defense in the United States will be travelling across Canada to assist all those who are associated with defence procurement in Canada in finding ways in which they can participate to a greater degree than at the present time in the acquiring of contracts, either prime contracts or subcontracts, with the United States defense establishment firms. That will be of real benefit, not only to our defence industry in Canada, but to our over-all co-operation with the United States.
This is an example of the concrete proposals that flow from the type of meeting that were held with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States. It is what is called the bread and butter which stems from that type of meeting. It involves the actual jobs that people are talking about which could flow to the various companies in Canada through new defence procurement contracts. It is an indication of our commitment to what we have been proposing.
The agenda for these meetings is as follows: December 3, in Halifax at the Nova Scotian Hotel; December 5, at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal; December 7, at the Metropolitan Toronto Conference Centre in Toronto; December 10, in Vancouver at the Harbourside Holiday Inn; December 12, at the Westin Hotel in Calgary; December 13, at the Saskatoon Inn
November 19, 1984

in Saskatoon; and December 14, at the downtown Eloliday Inn in Winnipeg.
These meetings to be held across Canada will give all those in the business who are interested in defence procurement an opportunity to understand fully how they can obtain contracts from the United States to make jobs for Canadian in Canada as part of the over-all commitment between Canada and the United States in the field of defence.
However, we must always remember that industrial capacity and economic strength are only partial and imperfect indicators of our ability to serve the cause of peace and security. Our military worth as a partner and ally in the great enterprise to deter aggression and pursue the goal of arms limitations and control is measured in terms of the strength and effectiveness of our Armed Forces. The strength of our Armed Forces is measured in the men and women who can be deployed and in the quality and quantity of the equipment and supplies they have at any given time for their use.
1 worry that in the event of hostilities the Canadian Armed Forces might not be sufficiently manned and equipped to carry out the tasks expected of them. Modern warfare-more particularly the deterrents of actions leading to such warfare- demands well trained personnel and reliable, up to date equipment.
The United States strategic defence initiative will also attract our interest. As Hon. Members know, in March of last year, President Reagan unveiled an initiative which, if successful, would fundamentally change the strategic relationship from one of assured destruction to one of defence assisted assured survival. President Reagan called for people, not weapons, to be protected: weapons, not people, were to be threatened.
Dr. Ikle, the American Under-Secretary of Defense for policy, came to Ottawa two weeks ago to discuss strategic defence with me and officials from my Department. During his visit he gave me a most interesting account of the extensive research program on which the United States Government is now embarked to test the feasibility of ballistic missile defences. It is in the sense that the United States is attempting to remove the nuclear sword of Damocles which hangs over all our heads that this effort should be viewed. In all of its ramifications, it is a program of immense interest to my Department, and to Canada, and it is one which we shall want to follow closely in the years ahead.
The Government is determined to meet its responsibilities to the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces by providing them with the tools they need to carry out their commitments. We will be examining what further capital investment is required to allow timely replacement of obsolete equipment and installations. But we will not allow this to delay work on the replacement program itself. For example, we are making preparations now to enter into contracts with Canadian industry to carry out design definition studies for a second batch of Canadian patrol frigates. The purpose of these studies is to determine any changes needed to the detailed design for the first batch, and will permit the Government to move on to
The Address-Mr. Coates
decisions on proceeding with more new jobs as soon as possible.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, of course, we all listened with rapt attention and interest to the comments of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates), as a Member of longstanding and great experience in the House. We were looking forward to seeing which form of gymnastics he would take to explain the apparent and real contradiction between his comments and those of his colleagues in the economic ministries.
I am sad to say that our expectations were sadly disappointed, because I noticed that the defence used by the Minister was to pass very quickly by that very obvious problem he is facing. That problem is that the commitments which he, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and his Party made during the election have been thrown in the face of Canadians and have caused very severe disruption in the planning for the National Defence forces in this country, to say nothing of a major dereliction in the NATO commitments that were made.
I would like the Hon. Minister to speak to some of these contradictions. First, the budget commitment that was made on defence in the last February Budget recommended an expenditure of $9,533 billion on defence in 1985-86. The budget cuts announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will reduce that to $9.37 billion. It is the first time that there will be less than a real 3 per cent growth in defence commitments to NATO. This is from a Minister, a Prime Minister, a foreign Minister and a Government who crossed the country and went abroad saying to NATO allies, "We will do our part". Yet it is the first time since 1979 that we will fall below that 3 per cent real growth commitment.
I believe that the Minister of National Defence owes the House an explanation of how he could make such bald-faced commitments when he was overseas at NATO meetings when he knew full well the plan for major cuts in the expenditures of his Department and therefore knew that he could not, in any way, shape or form, live up to those commitments.
That is bad enough in itself, but let us look at what the Conservative Party said during the election. At that time the Hon. Minister said that beyond the 3 per cent growth there will be a real growth of 6 per cent in spending. We have seen what has happened.
During the election campaign the Leader of his Party said in Vancouver that he knew that the budget deficit would be $34 million. Meanwhile, he had members of his Party, such as the Hon. Minister of National Defence, making other commitments in other parts of the country. If we were not in the House of Commons, one could simply say that that was leaning away far from the truth.
That is the particular question which is really at the heart of this debate, because we believe that the mandate that was established by the Conservative Party was based on commitments like those made by people such as the Minister of National Defence. He crossed the country saying that they would spend more money to buy new uniforms and equipment and make all these changes. Yet the first major action on

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Coates
national defence in this country is a substantial reduction in the commitment. While the Minister is going ahead with a $100 million expenditure for new uniforms, at the same time he will be cutting back on equipment procedures. It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that that is a commitment on the A-based budget of the Department, so that over the next five years the actual loss of the Department of National Defence will be something like $770 million. It is not a one-time cut. It is an A-based cut which will reduce the floor upon which defence expenditures are made.
Credulity has its limits, but I thought we would have had some kind of apology. As the Prime Minister asked in the House, "When do we get the mea culpas?" I want to know when we will get an apology from the Minister of National Defence for having made these commitments in the election campaign before our NATO allies. His Minister of Finance pulled the rug out from under him. All he has left is to go back to his office to dye some uniforms blue. The Canadian forces cannot live up to their commitments in NATO and do not have the kind of equipment to which we have committed ourselves when we were in government.


Miss MacDonald:: You have to smile at that.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said I have been in the House for quite some time. I have. I have been in the House so long that I remember exactly how his Party emasculated the Armed Forces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: It does not make any difference how much the Hon. Member talks. When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry talks about his Party and what it did to the Armed Forces, the best evidence I can give to him is to tell him that 71 per cent of those in the Armed Forces voted for the Progressive Conservative Party.


Lloyd Axworthy: They won't next time.


Robert Carman Coates: Next time that figure will probably be 100 per cent. Uniforms do not cost $100 million. That is the trouble with the Hon. Member's statistics. The Prime Minister said during the election campaign that the uniforms would cost $36 million. The uniforms will cost $36 million.


Lloyd Axworthy: We know how much to trust your word.


Robert Carman Coates: That is the basic information my officials now give me.
We used to have in this House what we called Paul Martin's Bureau of Statistics. That is what the Hon. Member is coming up with again. The Liberals are the same old gang. They do not know anything about defence except that they emasculated it. They had no credibility internationally or anywhere else. We have credibility and we will maintain that credibility. We
will carry out our commitments. Long before the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board came down with their statements, I said to the Canadian people that we would have to carry out the commitments we made to our allies over a longer period of time. I made that statement and I made it very clear. Canadians understand. There may be a delay, for instance, in putting the additional 8,000 people in our Armed Forces in the three-year period-


Lloyd Axworthy: Another backing off.


Robert Carman Coates: -but over the life of this Government, we will get the job done, Mr. Speaker. It is important to go forward, not backward. That is where the Armed Forces were going when the Liberal Party was in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: May I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) with a short question, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is the new parliamentary democracy, is it?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a couple of quick questions.


Lloyd Axworthy: Muzzling the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has indicated there will be a cut-back of $154 million in the Department of National Defence. In view of the fact that over 80 per cent of our active personnel in the Armed Forces have served in no other uniform than the green uniform, and in view of the fact that there has been virtually no public discussion of this matter of changing uniforms, except perhaps in the naval element, and as my indication is that there is no real push for a change in colour in uniform for the air and ground elements, would the Minister at this time of restraint and cut-backs right across the board reconsider shelving that change of uniform for the time being and using what extra funds he may have to upgrade equipment on the sea, under the sea, on the ground, or in the air rather than spending money on a change of uniform which, at best, is only tokenism? For the past 16 years all three elements have served in the green uniform and every effort has been made to instil and increase support for those green uniforms.
Because in our spending on NATO commitments, on a per capita basis we are second only to the United States, what did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) mean in the Throne Speech when he said that, "We will now live up to our NATO
November 19, 1984

commitments"? This spending is extremely high, second to the US, considering our population and our financial resources.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Minister for a short answer, please.


Robert Carman Coates: I appreciate your concern about time, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: He wants to get out of here because he is so embarrassed.


Robert Carman Coates: It is Monday morning, obviously. I think I read in the newspaper that the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) announced, shortly after the government changed and I was appointed Minister of National Defence and said that there would be distinctive uniforms for the elements in the Armed Forces, that he supported that move. Now the Hon. Member is asking me to delay it. I want to give him the assurance that that will not be delayed. We are moving forward with distinctive uniforms for the three elements in the Armed Forces.
Second, I do not know where the Hon. Member's statistics come from, maybe from other members of his Party. I realize that the Hon. Member for Brant is rather supportive of our position in NATO, unlike other members of his Party who are opposed to it and who want us to leave, as with NORAD. I hope the Hon. Member can be a helpful guide to his colleagues as to where they are going. I want to say to the Hon. Member, however, that I do not believe we are second only to the United States in expenditures. Maybe we are second from the bottom.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are putting us there.


Robert Carman Coates: I think maybe only Luxembourg contributes less than Canada. That is the problem with the Liberal Party. They play this Paul Martin statistics game so that Canadians do not really know just exactly where we are. We will see that our commitments to NATO are honoured. As far as I know they are not being honoured at this point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now been completed. We shall continue with debate.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brant has a question of privilege.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the record straight. My response to a change in the colour of the uniforms came before the economic statement, not after it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He said that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) knows, that is not a question of privilege. We shall now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge Foothills (Mr. Thacker).
The Address-Mr. Thacker


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) just pointed out very clearly-a surprise to all of us-that there was quite a difference in the country after the economic statement because, for the first time, we had the truth revealed to Canadians so that they knew where this nation was. Changes have to be made. Some things will have to be delayed a few months, but before the end of this Government's term, Hon. Members will have quite a respect for those promises.


Lloyd Axworthy: What did you say during the election campaign?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I rise to support the Throne Speech which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, does set some genuine new directions for Canada. It sets forth a process that by April, 1985, will let Canadians know the absolute truth as to what the previous administration, in conjunction with its NDP allies, has done to this country.


Lloyd Axworthy: It will be right-wing, reactionary and backwards.


Blaine Allen Thacker: For the first time we have had an element of reality set forth in the Throne Speech that is truly refreshing.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is really progressive. All those training programs cut. It is good stuff.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It gives real hope to young people that they too will be able to play an active role in the country. If our predecessors during the 1920s, 1930s or 1940s had done to the nation what the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party did to the country in the last 15 years, we would not have the wealth, privilege and financial position we experience today. It is because they were prudent in their activities in public life that we have risen to be a powerful nation in the world. This was almost dissipated by the Liberal-NDP coalition. This is why they fill some seven rows across the way, and only seven rows. They were lucky to get that.
Before debating the Throne Speech in greater detail, I should like to congratulate you, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. I know the people of Edmonton North are proud of your accomplishments over many years. You bring great honour not only to yourself and your family but to the people of Edmonton North. I would say the same to the Speaker, the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), and to the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. I am sure the electorate of Vercheres is indeed proud of the high office to which their new Member has acceded. I say the same to the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest). It is truly great to see the institution of government having representatives from all across this grand country of ours. Your roles are absolutely indispensable to the public life of our country. It will take much of your time. I know you will not be able to serve your constituents in the same detail as you have before, but I am sure they will understand.

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Thacker
Also I congratulate all new Members sitting in the House today. After they have been here for a few months and a few years, they will come to love the country as you and I do, Mr. Speaker. They will see the great strength and capacity in being a civilized superpower in the world. I am sure they are beginning to appreciate just how difficult it is to be a Member of Parliament in Canada. They are beginning to realize how difficult it is to have two homes and never sure whether they are in one or the other. When they go to the closet to find a suit, they realize that it is in the closet in their riding, or vice versa. I am sure they are beginning to wane somewhat under the strain of long hours. The job of a Member of Parliament involves three or almost four full-time jobs-one being that of an ombudsman who solves many constituency problems. It is virtually a full-time job to be a Member in the House who has to participate in debates and to develop a feel for the life of Parliament, which in itself is a fascinating and exciting place to be. Of course it is a full-time job being a member of your own political Party and forming part of the political process and development of policy within that Party, as well as having to speak to Canadians across the land. Also I am sure they are beginning to appreciate that the number one problem with which we all struggle-and it will always be an ongoing problem-is the attempt to balance very honest and legitimate but different views of people.
When I came rolling in from Lethbridge-Foothills to stand in the caucus and in the House, I pointed out the views of the people in my riding, whether they were on bilingualism, metrication or capital punishment. I found that even members of my own Party, such as Members from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or Ontario, stood with an entirely different view. I realized that we were coming into a balancing act. There will be harsh words in the House, in our caucuses and among the Parties. However, this Parliament and its committees is the place where the balancing act has to take place. We should do battled here verbally; civilly if we can but we will do battle nonetheless. If we fail here, the people have no recourse but to go into the streets. Of the 160 countries in the world, about 130 have to settle their disputes on the streets without ultimate sovereignty lying with the people. This makes us realize what a fantastic place this is. There are only about 30 countries of the world wherein the true sovereignty lies with the people.
The election of 1984 was an incredible statement in favour of our way of life-true democracy. The people were able to achieve an enormous change. I realize that they were slow to reach the point of anger and that it took a lot, as the previous government showed. For 16 years it was able to fool some of the people all the time and all the people a little of the time. Finally, people realized that their basic sovereighty was a stake if they put the Liberals and the NDP back in for another term. They rose and went to the ballot box.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member be willing to correct the facts in what he just said? He said, "if they put the Liberals and the NDP back in" office. The Hon. Member knows quite clearly, while it is
his own rhetoric to throw the Liberals and the NDP into the same bed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order.


Cyril Keeper: Stick to the facts.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Again the NDP relies on these little legalisms that it has a separate Party. Canadians themselves know that it was the NDP which put the Liberals back in, that it likes those deficits-


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member should stick to the truth. The truth is that the New Democratic Party never has been, never will be, and is not in any coalition with the Liberal Party. Consequently, I think the Hon. Member should stick to the truth and stay with that kind of situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that the Hon. Member should be careful in what he is saying. I bring to his attention that that is debate, not a point of order.


Cyril Keeper: It is a question of truth.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I suppose most mistresses are always annoyed with the position they hold in society. They would rather be the wife, but a mistress they are and a mistress they shall remain, I am afraid.
I would like to set forth my own view. Perhaps it will offer some advice to new Members. I know they are working hard and will continue to do so. During all that hard work, they should continue to see government as a whole. They should sit in the House and learn its fascinating life. More than anything, the Throne Speech set forth that this was a time of reconciliation and reconstruction across the country. In order to achieve this, new Members would be well advised to spend a lot of time travelling, to use those very generous tickets which taxpayers provide. They should go to Newfoundland to get to know the people; they should go out to British Columbia to get to know the people. When they have done so, they will have seen the regions which send colleagues and other Members to the House. I assure them that their love for the country and Canadian people will grow immensely after having seen people in their own environments. Then they will understand what they say.
They will appreciate more and more that when a Member from Newfoundland stands, he or she speaks from the unique and dynamic cultural background which the people of Newfoundland have developed over hundreds of years. Likewise for us from the Prairies because, while we may be only the third generation, there was a great experiment on the Prairies when people came from many countries throughout the world. We were thrown together with different languages and different cultures. Initially we tried to protect our languages and cultures. When faced with a prairie winter, when it was 40 below and the wind was blowing the colour of eyes of your neighbour, their skin or the language they spoke did not
November 19, 1984

matter. We were locked into a battle against the elements. As a result, we were pulled together into a communal effort. Sons and daughters then naturally fell in love with each other and, as a result, the country was immensely enhanced.
The real advantage of travel is that one can no longer depersonalize the people of another region. When Hon. Members like myself travel home, they hear from a small part of their ridings, that 1 per cent or 2 per cent we call the bigots. It makes us shudder when we realize the extent to which they depersonalize people in other parts of the country. I think Hon. Members will find that their biggest job will be to speak out against the local myths and against that very small part of the population that we call bigots. I find even in my own riding that I am forever attending meetings at which I have to stand up and say: "No, I am sorry, you are simply wrong, my friend. Your view of the people of Ontario is wrong, your view of the people of Newfoundland is wrong". It is important for new Members to have the courage to be able to stand up to their own people and point out that they are wrong. They should have the courage to say: "I have been in other parts of the country. I know the people from Quebec and I know the people from Newfoundland. They are not as you describe them". Members will soon find that they will spend quite a bit of their time doing that.
The Throne Speech is the first of three new major changes in this country. It certainly sets a tone of civility and a tone of national reconstruction both economically and politically. That element of co-operation between the governments will pay off in the long run. The hard truth of the matter is that over the last 15 years, while we as a people and as elected Members have spent so much of our emotional energy and vitality fighting each other, whether it be federal-provincial, Francophone-Anglophone or East-West fights, the rest of the world has been passing us by. When we look now with fresh eyes at the international scene, we find that Asia is coming on strong with its high technology. If we do not get onstream, Mr. Speaker, we will be left behind for many, many years. Our children and grandchildren will not have the future we would want them to have.
The second major change forecast by the Throne Speech was the economic statement. I would like to begin my discussion of that statement by thanking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) because, for the first time, this country has been faced with an economic statement that is truly honest, truly frank and has the courage to ask the tough questions. The difference between a successful country and an unsuccessful country is that the successful country will face reality. For 15 years, we have been trying to deny the reality of the developing Third World. Third World countries have large populations and their literacy level is rising. These countries want to participate in world affairs and they will participate in world affairs. The previous government simply denied that fact and, as a result, Canadians are now paying the price.
The Address-Mr. Thacker
A classic example of this relates to the energy policy. When the OPEC nations put up the price of energy, different countries reacted in different ways. The Liberal regime that was running this country denied that reality and indicated that it would take taxpayers' dollars and continue to subsidize energy so that Canadians would not have to face reality. That indication sent signals to Canadians to continue to buy big cars and to the automobile manufacturing industry to continue to produce big cars. Initially, the same thing happened in the United States. Meanwhile, Japan, Germany and the other countries that followed that price increase turned their best brains to designing new cars that were more efficient and lighter. Eight years later, those countries are selling cars here in Canada and our automobile industry is on the ropes. Finally, we had to face the reality. Energy prices began to rise. Our scientists are just as bright as the scientists in those other countries, and our inventive genius is just as bright as the inventive genius in those other countries. Now North American cars are beginning to compete and will compete more and more.
The basic point I am trying to make is that the Government tried to deny the reality of the world. As a result, Canadians are worse off today. We are having to struggle from behind rather than being a leader. Another example of this deals with research and particularly with research in the agricultural sector. This country was once a world pacesetter and leader in developing new varieties and species of crops. As a result, we became an enormous exporter of those crops. During the last 15 years, however, under the Liberal regime, that research and development has dropped behind. How do we get caught up? We would like to have a plant breeders' rights statute implemented so that people can develop new varieties of crops again. Some Parties and church groups are opposed to the introduction of that statute. This is simply a way of condemning the country to being always behind in research and development. The Government has not put enough money into research and development and will not put enough money into research and development because it is in debt for so many other reasons.
The Minister of Finance performed a truly valuable service to this country. The next period of consultation between the federal and provincial governments and between business and labour will culminate next April in a real budget speech. At that time, the true direction of this country will be set and we will return to creating genuine wealth.
There is no doubt that the primary issue to be dealt with at this moment is the national debt and the deficit. If any of us need any further proof of that, we simply need to look at the statistics of a mere 10 years ago. In 1974-75, 16.6 per cent of our GNP was taken up by the net debt. A mere 10 years later, in 1984-85, that percentage rose from 16.6 per cent to 45.2 per cent of the GNP being taken up by the net debt. That tells us, Mr. Speaker, that the percentage is rising at a geometric rate.
Soon we will be no better off than the Third World countries, because the percentage of the tax revenue that goes to service the debt is the real bottom line issue. What is happening is that more and more of the results of the sweat and toil of our people is being taken off right at the top in order to pay

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Thacker
interest on the debt. This money is being paid to people who already have wealth. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that if you had $1 million, there is no way you would invest it in a plant or business in this country, because you could sit back, lend it to the Government and receive an absolutely guaranteed rate of return with no risk. The rich are becoming fabulously rich.
When looking at the history of Third World countries, we find that often they went through the same process. All of the wealth was being concentrated into very few hands. There was a small group of people with immense wealth and a huge lower class with no wealth at all. That is what is happening in this country, and we must stop that.
I am always struck by the irony of comparing the New Democratic Party with the Progressive Conservative Party. I suspect that proportionately, more people of wealth belong to the PC Party than the NDP. Yet it is members of the PC Party who are saying that this concentration of wealth is wrong. They are saying that we must stop that deficit so that the rich, many of whom are members of the PC Party, cannot continue to become filthy rich. However, members of the NDP who claim to stand up for the poor, the old and disadvantaged are arguing for a larger deficit and do not seem to make the connection that that deficit hurts their people far more, particularly in the longrun, than does facing reality. I have always been struck by that irony.
We tried an experiment 200 years ago. Prior to that, we were all ruled by kings and decisions were made by a small bureaucracy. People were serfs on the land. We then tried a wonderful experiment of letting people own property individually. We let them work hard on their own land so that they could be better off and so that their children could be better off. In that 200 years, we in the western world have created a wealth that is unprecedented. Even the poor in our society today are better off than the kings, queens and monarchs were 250 years ago. Yet we have had an intrusion on that right to property and an instrusion on the right of a person to create a business and do well. Who is leading that challenge against the right to property? It is members of the NPD. When we wanted to have entrenched in the Constitution the right to individual ownership of property, they fought it. The Grits had accepted that amendment on a Friday-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The provincial Premiers fought, and they were all Tories. Come on now. Stick to the facts.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, we cannot get around the fact that members of the Conservative Party proposed an amendment to the Constitution which Members of the Liberal Party accepted on a Friday. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broad-bent) rose on Saturday and said that if we wanted his support on the Constitution, we should take out the right to property. Liberal Members returned on Monday and took out the amendment entrenching the right to property-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Property rights are provincial.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions and comments?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member earlier made the claim that the NDP is arguing for larger deficits. We are arguing that the burden should be fairly shared. The economic statement of the Government continues to put the financial burden on moderate and low-income people. If the Hon. Member wants very wealthy Canadians to share in the burden, when is his Government going to take concrete steps and bring in, for example, a minimum income tax, which his Leader indicated during the campaign the Party was interested in doing.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague opposite that there will be a more fair tax system. As he well knows, the so-called progressive income tax system captures less than 50 per cent of the tax revenues. In actual fact, over 50 per cent of the revenues which flow into the Consolidated Revenue Fund are from sales taxes and direct taxes on people, which is highly regressive and detrimental to the disadvantaged in Canada. Within the progressive income tax system itself, the deductions and exemptions accrue to the benefit of people with vast amounts of wealth, rather than those of moderate incomes. With respect to on this review, I am hoping that the Hon. Member will stand and say that we have to move, for example, in the area of family allowance. People receive direct family allowances, but the income tax system brings back less than 50 per cent of that expenditure, even for the highest wage earners. Perhaps something should be done in that area. If we look at the tax deduction under the Income Tax Act, people who are wealthy receive a reduction of $710, however, poor people cannot receive a deduction because they do not have taxable incomes. Surely we can move in that area. Why can we not have members of the NDP suggesting some of those things? I always hear them arguing against cuts, even the cuts proposed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). The NDP is fighting those individual cuts, but we have to start somewhere. I believe that in the document entitled: "A New Direction for Canada", the proper questions have been asked. I would like members of the NDP to respond to that document.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, I am provoked into making a small comment, because it happened, as this debate was taking place, that I was reading a background paper from the National Anti-Poverty Organization, which deals with many of the questions the Hon. Member has just raised. If the Hon. Member truly believes that doing away with universality is going to help the poor people in this country, he must deal with the fact that an organization such as NAPO, which represents those people, says that it would, in fact, hurt poor people more. Why is it that a group which stands up for poor people seems to take a contrary view to that of the Hon. Member?
Second, I believe a comment is required on the point raised with respect to the deficit. I think one has to ask the Hon. Member, where does he get the statistics that indicate it is the rich people in Canada who are benefiting from the deficit? As he well knows, the great bulk of the Canadian deficit is
November 19, 1984

financed through Canada savings bonds. As well, I am sure he knows that there is a limit of $25,000 on individual investments in Canada savings bonds. When we are talking about the deficit, we are talking about a system in which the savings of people, which would otherwise be lost to our society, are recycled through government into expenditures to keep the economy going. In order to make up for that fact, in Canada we have a personal savings rate which is at least 2.5 times that of the U.S. It is a very high savings rate which must be offset by governments in Canada. Without that, the unemployment rate would be significantly higher. As a result, four or five years in the future our deficit would be greater. My analysis and that of my Party about why the economic statement is moving in the wrong direction is not that it tries to reduce the deficit now, but that the actions being taken will lead to a much higher deficit in the future. Justice happened in Britain and the Netherlands when they followed the policy of tax increases and expenditure reductions to deal with their deficits.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter comments made by the Hon. Member, I would like to spend some time with him because they could very well be true. Four years in the future we could be in a worse situation. However, we know that the prior system-in which government borrowings got larger and larger and the government tried to redistribute the savings of Canadians-was not working. The deficit was growing larger and the amount of tax revenue required to service that debt was growing larger.
The real key is jobs. If we can change the climate in the country and improve investment so that rather than buying a Canada savings bond people will buy stocks in a company or invest money in a plant which is manufacturing a product that can be exported, Canadians will then have real jobs rather than temporary jobs. It is a great experiment. There is no guarantee that it will work. But if we can create the proper business climate to obtain investment, plants and jobs, 1 believe it will work.
With respect to universality, the Hon. Member indicated that he believes universality helps the poor. I do not know how that can be when statistics show that the welfare system benefits people who are richer and the deductions help them rather than the poor. I think the real objection is to the means test, which was brought in at a time when the tax system was not as sophisticated. I believe that it is possible to use the income tax system to redistribute money to people who are genuinely poor, rather than using the means test. 1 do not want to see my constituents, relatives or friends being required to sit before a bureaucrat to list their assets and debts and to explain how they live. None of us is interested in that. When we speak of getting away from universality, we are not talking about a debilitating and humiliating means test. However, we can use those creative measures which have developed since the 1930s, for example, the income tax system. 1 am sure, if we were to put our minds together, we could come up with something which would genuinely redistribute wealth to the poor and at the same time provide flexibility and creativity so that the
The Address-Mr. Thacker
people who want to take a risk will be adequately compensated.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member went through a long description of the economic plans of the Government to have massive consultations between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premiers, and to have an economic summit. It sounded as though the Government would not be bringing down a budget until late next spring. In the meantime, important commitments were made in the election campaign, especially with respect to the agricultural sector which is facing bankruptcies increasing from something like 400 this year to possibly 1,000 or 1,700 next year. The Conservative Party indicated in the election campaign that it was going to decrease interest rates to current day interest rates; that it was going to establish review boards for young farmers who are facing bankruptcy; and that there would be other initiatives, like those in the United States, where farmers have a "set aside" provision.
Does the Hon. Member really think it is fair to those producers of agriculture that they must wait through this fall, through this winter and perhaps until a budget in the spring until some action is taken? It seems to me there are urgent matters out there, yet there is no legislation on the Order Paper to deal with them. There are commitments made. It is not up to the Opposition to propose legislation; it is up to the Government. I believe the Government should bring in this legislation. It campaigned, on the issue of lowering interest rates, to have review committees. It seems to me that if we move expeditiously now, this legislation could be in place before Christmas to the benefit of the agricultural community which is facing such a difficult time. I would just like to ask the Hon. Member, why does the Government not do that instead of leaving everything until a budget next April or May, or whenever?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. friend from Algoma that the Government has moved, is moving, and will continue to move. It will do many things between now and the budget process in April. For example, the very first move of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was to go to Regina and commit the Government to $60 million in order to help the livestock producers who are in trouble because of the drought on the Prairies. That was fast action.


Lloyd Axworthy: That was our program, though.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That was already approved by the Treasury Board.


Blaine Allen Thacker: But if the Grits had been in power, we cannot be sure it would have happened, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I am sorry but the period for questions and answers has been terminated. Before I recognize the next speaker, there is a question of

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
privilege from the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Mr. McKinnon:: 1 intended this to be a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns an interjection by the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) with respect to Canada's position in NATO and our contributions toward defence. If I heard correctly, the Hon. Member said that Canada, on a per capita basis, was in second place. I believe he was supported by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) in that outburst. I would ask the Hon. Member if he could be more explicit and tell us where he got his reference. I am looking at The Military Balance for 1984-1985, which was received in the parliamentary Library as recently as three weeks ago. It shows the contributions and comparisons of defence expenditures for the nations of NATO. Under the heading "Dollars Per Capita (in American funds)" it shows Canada in tenth place. In total budget, Canada is shown in sixth place. In percentage of government spending, Canada is in ninth place. In percentage of the Gross National Product-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. That is not really a point of order. I recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) as the next speaker.


Mr. John V. Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratualting you on your appointment as Acting Speaker of the House of Commons. I have been most impressed with your firm deliberations and sense of fairness during the first two weeks of this Parliament. Hon. Members from both sides of this House have cause to be proud of their new Speaker. I wish you every success in discharging your new responsibilities.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the "Class of '84", my newly elected fellow Members of Parliament. As has been said, "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth". My congratulations as well to all of the re-elected Members of the House of Commons.
Before I begin my remarks, I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to the residents of York South-Weston for their expression of faith in my candidacy and for placing their trust and confidence in me on September 4. I am proud and honoured to be their Member of Parliament. I give to my constituents, Mr. Speaker, my solemn pledge that I will faithfully discharge my responsibilities with integrity, honesty and thoughtfulness. I will devote my full and complete energies to the task of working not only for the best interests of my constituents but for the best interests of Canadians from coast to coast. It has often been said that a Canadian can enjoy no higher honour than to be selected by his fellow citizens to represent them in this House of Commons. I wholeheartedly believe this to be true.
I feel a very special debt of gratitude to all of those who have devoted their time and energy and who have worked so very hard on my election campaign. I am here because of them and I shall always remember and cherish their generosity and friendship. Please permit me as well, Mr. Speaker, to thank
some very special people in my life, my family, especially my parents and sisters and brothers, for all their devotion, love and hard work.
I would also like to acknowledge my predecessor, the former Member of Parliament for York South-Weston, Mrs. Ursula Appolloni, who served the riding with distinction for ten years. Her work in Parliament reflected her deep commitment to our country. Many Hon. Members of this House will recall that York South-Weston was represented previous to Mrs. Appolloni by the former Leader of the New Democratic Party, the late David Lewis. There is little I can add to what has been said many times about Mr. Lewis's great contribution to Canada and to Parliament. Suffice it to say that I am honoured to continue the work of two distinguished and dedicated parliamentarians.
I understand it is traditional, Mr. Speaker, for a new Member of Parliament to describe the riding he or she represents for the benefit of Hon. Members. The riding of York South-Weston is an urban riding in the west part of Metropolitan Toronto. It can be described as a multicultural working class riding. The proportion of people who describe their country of origin as being other than British or French comprises 53 per cent of the population of York South-Weston. There is a significant Italian community in my riding of which I am a proud member. In fact, 11,000 of my constituents list Italian as their mother tongue. I might add at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian-Italian community is honoured to have elected to Parliament six Italian Canadians-five Liberals and a Conservative-the most ever in Canadian political history.
There are many nationalities from every corner of the globe in York South-Weston, including people from Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the sub-continent. There is as well a high proportion of new Canadians. Between 1965 and 1978 some 20,000 individuals from other countries decided to make their home within the boundaries of my riding. These new Canadians work side by side with the native born in companies such as Cooper Sports Equipment, Levy Brothers Machinery, Kodak of Canada, Canada Packers and Pepsi-Cola, to name just a few. Although there are cultural, linguistic and racial differences, both new and old Canadians regard Canada as the land of opportunity. Through their hard work and sacrifice they are determined to build a better life for themselves and their families.
My parents immigrated to Canada in the early 1950s and settled in Revelstoke, British Columbia, which happens to be my home town. For them, indeed, Canada was the land of opportunity. They worked hard, they sacrificed and they built a better life for themselves and for their seven children. Canada gave them the opportunity as it gave it to many other immigrants.
There are also many senior citizens in York South-Weston, people who have made this country what it is today. In our deliberations we must never forget the observation of historian Arnold Toynbee that a society's quality and durability can best be measured "by the respect and care given its elderly citi-
November 19, 1984

zens". One of the most ennobling duties of government is to ensure that the elderly are accorded the dignity and security they so richly deserve.
As one of the youngest Members of this House, I am a product of the 1960s and 1970s, an era which saw incredible upheaval and change: Vietnam, the "hippie movement', student demonstrations, Watergate, and political assassinations. It was also an era which witnessed a strong undercurrent of idealism. The Kennedys and Martin Luther King challenged humanity with a vision of decency and brotherhood which we have yet to realize. Their dreams must never die and our efforts for a better world must never cease. As John Kennedy said, "We are not here to curse the darkness but to light the candle that can guide us through the darkness to a safe and sane future".
Kennedy once described himself as an idealist without illusions. As part of a new generation of Liberals, I share these sentiments. Liberals understand the power of idealism and that government can and must be used as an instrument for moral progress. Government must be fair and compassionate. It must be quick to respond to the needy in society. It must be the protectorate of our democratic institutions and the advocate of individual rights and freedoms. Caring for the disadvantaged in our society, the sick, the disabled, the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, increasing opportunities for women and our young people and sharing with the less fortunate in our society is the Liberal legacy. This is the tradition of Canadian liberalism, a tradition fostered by Laurier and continued by King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau and now Turner. It has been this leadership, during this century, that has guided Canada to its place as one of the most humane and decent societies anywhere in the world.
But, Mr. Speaker, Liberals are also realists. We are pragmatists. We are without illusions as to what can and cannot be done by government. We understand that it is the individual who, through initiatives and sacrifice, is the source of our economic strength and the engine of growth. We, as Liberals, fight to correct abuses and injustices within our society. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We in the Liberal Party, now Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, intend to live by this philosophy over the course of the Thirty-third Parliament because we are the Party of reform.
The Speech from the Throne that began this Parliament is certainly a most important document. As Hon. Members opposite know only too well, a Conservative Government in this country is a rare bird indeed and one that seldom, if ever, learns to fly. Conservative Throne speeches, as a result, are such rare documents that Canadians had a right to expect much more from this one. Traditionally the Speech from the Throne affords a Government the opportunity to translate its election promises into a blueprint for legislative action.
If the recent Throne Speech is any indication, however, that tradition has suffered a serious setback. The Throne Speech repeated some of the Conservative election promises. It also
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
spoke of re-introducing many important Liberal initiatives from the last Parliament. However, it did not reveal any substantive description of how the Government intends to follow through on its campaign commitments.
I concede the fact that Throne Speeches are, by their very nature, general. But this document is so vague and contains so few specifics, that it truly lacks any substance or depth. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it gives Canadians a very poor reference point from which to judge Tory promises against Tory action. Tory action to date is diametrically opposed to Tory election promises. The Tories made many promises during the election campaign, a number of which were irresponsible, in my view.
There were to be tens of thousands of jobs just as soon as a new government was sworn in. Where are they? We are still waiting. There was to be an open and accessible government. Where is it? It is nowhere to be found. They promised hope to our young people. Instead, they exacerbated the despair and snuffed any light of hope that existed. The list of broken promises goes on and on.
It will soon become abundantly clear as the honeymoon fades that the Tories have hoodwinked the Canadian electorate. Canadians have been seriously jilted by the Conservative Party, and I would submit, Mr. Speaker, with fraudulent intent. In their thirst for power the Tories were either innocently naive or deliberately dishonest with Canadians. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the integrity of politicians is so often called into question?
The Throne Speech is virtually silent on how the Government actually intends to pursue solutions to Canada's problems. We are promised consultations, studies, task forces, talk and more talk, when what we need is action.
It is obvious from the Throne Speech that the Tories really do not know what they are doing. They really do not know what to do about our greatest problem, namely unemployment. Astonishingly, one of their first acts as a government was an economic statement that will have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, the unemployment roles. The Government must address the tragedy of unemployment and must do so quickly. The unemployed cannot wait for the off chance that the private sector will create much-needed jobs.
The Conservatives have put their blind faith in the free enterprise system and in the private sector creating jobs. Let us not forget that business is in business to create profit, not jobs. A corporation has no moral conscience to create jobs. It has no obligation to our unemployed. But government must and does have an obligation toward those who want to work but cannot.
Government is in business for people. We are not running a railroad. Government is not judged by its balance sheet, but rather by the way it treats its people, by the way it cares, and by its sense of justice. The Tory paranoia and pre-occupation with the deficit will only serve to create more serious hardships for those who have already suffered and for those who are less able to care for themselves. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Government must be fiscally responsible, but let it not be
350

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
morally irresponsible. Let us manage the deficit; let us not have the deficit manage us.
The question of unemployment and what the Government has done so far leads naturally into a further discussion of broken promises. One promise that tops the broken promises list and goes right to the heart of the new Government's credibility is the promise of open government. The Tory election campaign handbook says, "We will run an open, honest and accountable national Government". It adds that a new Tory Government would be "open to public scrutiny". The handbook says that Liberals have denied Canadians legitimate access to Government. It says that the Liberal Party has refused to release Government information, and it reports that Liberals have restricted access to Government records despite freedom of information legislation.
This Parliament is not yet three weeks old and already the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has publicly repudiated directions he had issued for open government when he was Prime Minister. A severe and totally unwarranted muzzle has been placed on public servants in their dealings with the press. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has warned colleagues that if they talk to journalists, their jobs could be in danger. Ministers' staffs are not responding to legitimate questions from reporters. There have been thwarted moves to suppress news releases from private organizations. If this is the "New Ottawa", I will take the old one any day. Parliament is truly becoming Orwell's Animal Farm under the Conservative Government.
Let us look at some of the other promises. During the election campaign the Prime Minister constantly praised Liberal social programs and medicare, calling them "a sacred trust" and pledging never to tamper with the concept of universality. Within days of this Parliament's opening, the backtracking started. Now he says all programs are under review.
The deficit is another case in point. During the election campaign, in August as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister said that the deficit was not an overriding priority. Because of the need to create jobs quickly, he could envision some increase in the deficit. Then he reversed himself in the Throne Speech by saying that an immediate and substantial cut would have to be made in the deficit in order to produce jobs. Now he is saying, based on a speech given in Toronto last week, that even if the deficit is cut, unemployment will remain high.
The question of broken promises is an important one, especially concerning the economy, but an even more important question was raised by an economic analyst in a recent column when he asked, "Does the Mulroney Government really know what it is doing?" I will leave that judgment to the Canadian public, Mr. Speaker.
Let us look at some of the other promises. In October the Secretary of State for External Affairs, repeating a campaign pledge, said at the United Nations that our Government intends to maintain Canada's commitment to reach by 1990 7 per cent of the Gross National Product in official development assistance. Several weeks thereafter, the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Wilson) embarrassed the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and embarrassed Canada, by saying that the commitment made by Mr. Clark would have to be deferred until 1995. This Government's right hand does not know what its other right hand is doing, Mr. Speaker.
What about some of the other election promises? During the election campaign the Tories cried crocodile tears for the unemployed youth of the country. In Pocket Politics, their campaign bible, the Tories said, "We believe that all levels of government and the private sector face a major task in resolving the tragic youth unemployment situation".


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Sunday afternoon was a time of mixed emotions. For 15 somewhat euphoric minutes, the Tiger Cats of Hamilton outmuscled, outclassed, and outplayed the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. Oh, that football were a 15-minute exercise! What was by any standard a glorious event, with the passage of time turned into a bit of a nightmare for some, but not all.
As the voices of the stout hearts from Hamilton grew silent, the exuberance of the Winnipeg faithful grew in intensity. The best of the West drove on and in, pushing aside the protesting warriors from the East, until at last, with one final blast, it ended.
After 22 years I suppose we in the steel city must steel ourselves, smile a bit bravely, pretend it does not hurt, and recall, as some sort of solace, that it is only a game. We want to congratulate, of course, the winners from Winnipeg, and say with as much conviction as possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Up until now we have been well within form, but when we get to congratulations we are leaving the form of statements under Standing Order 21.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I almost had to put that in. I want to say to the winners in Winnipeg: "Wait until next year!", and to Harold Ballard: "On with the Maple Leafs!"
November 19, 1984


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the Government's great urge to cut, cut, cut, it has once again forgotten about people needs and people concerns.
Just recently the Government announced the cancellation of a $58 million tax centre to be built in the city of North York. Government representatives were quoted as saying that it was part of a move to trim the construction budget. Well, it appeared that they used a machete to do their trimming.
This unfortunate trim means that the City of North York will lose $1 million in tax revenues. It will mean a loss of 3,000 jobs, 1,000 full-time and 2,000 part-time. It will also mean a loss of hundreds upon hundreds of jobs that would have been created in the construction sector. It means the loss for North York citizens of the many services that were to be theirs. The City had approved the rezoning of the 20-acre, 42,000 square foot complex. Everything was in place. However, in one fell swoop we lost jobs, services, and civic pride.
This is the sad reflection of an insensitive, unilateral, job losing cut-back that looks only at statistics rather than to the people behind those statistics.
I therefore ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) to reverse this unfortunate decision and give credibility to the expectations that he created for the Department of Revenue when he was in opposition.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in light of yet another police killing in Ontario last week, how long can we as legislators ignore this horror? Constable Miller's funeral is probably being held this very minute in Mathe-son, Ontario.
Are we behind our law enforcement officers, or not? Parliamentary waffling on this issue is a vote of non confidence for Canadian policemen. They spend every waking hour protecting us, yet we refuse to reciprocate.
Murder statistics in this country would be much higher were it not for great advances in medicine over recent years. In order to get a true picture of the occurrence of such crimes we must look closely at attempted murder statistics as well.
I am aware that there are two private Members' Bills in the works which advocate capital punishment. Instead, the Government should introduce a Bill allowing a free vote in the near future. This matter is far too important to put on the backburner.
I believe calling for a vote is a direct reflection of the public sentiment which is, after all, our mandate. Any confidence that we can give our policemen should be granted immediately. If the reconstitution of capital punishment saves the life of
just one policeman, we shall have fulfilled our duties as elected officials. We must end this political delinquence now.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, among those affected by the cuts announced by the Government are 84 people who will lose their jobs in the Canadian Wildlife Service, which employs 384 across the nation. This means a cut of almost 25 per cent. They are highly trained biologists, technicians, and office workers.
If these jobs are terminated next spring, urgent work on the environment will be abandoned. The affected projects include the study of toxics in the Great Lakes, the tracing of toxic contamination in gull eggs, the tracing of many forms of toxic contamination in wildlife habitat, the management of endangered species, the tracking of the movement of wildlife by way of radio collars, the effects of budworm spray on wildlife and songbirds, and many other projects. Does the Government expect these people to find employment within provincial government wildlife services and, if not, does it expect them to find employment abroad?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, for some time the Canadian footwear industry has been consistently seeking a comprehensive and effective period of import relief to allow it the time to invest in new emerging technologies. Consequently, reliable restraints on footwear imports will be needed for a full five-year period if the Canadian industry is to survive as a productive and efficient industry fulfilling its potential to maintain Canadian jobs.
The restraint programs since 1980 have all been for short periods, and very spasmodic. For example, there has been a temporary termination of the leather footwear quota for one year, followed by its restoration for two and one-half years, and now a 16-month extension. These periods have seriously impeded the progress of the footwear manufacturing industry when viewed in the context of the investment process.
The industry is looking for something that is tangible and concrete-a period of reliable footwear import restraint. Therefore I call upon the Government to address itself to this serious problem, and make a positive decision which would significantly help safeguard the thousands of jobs in the Canadian footwear industry which are now in danger of being lost.

November 19, 1984


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that Liberal Leader John Turner is flip-flopping on universality. In an interview on CTV's Question Period he stated: "The Liberal Party could rethink its commitment to universal social programs". Meanwhile, the Liberal health and welfare critic, Douglas Frith, was overheard on The Nation's Business pledging the Liberal Party to safeguard the universality of social programs at all costs.
Can the Liberals really believe it possible to take both sides on this crucial issue at the same time? Perhaps Turner's true blue colours are showing and he is envious of the accolades that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is reaping from mutual friends on Bay Street. Is it the Tweedledee and Tweedledum syndrome?
On the other hand, our new Conservative Prime Minister has been taking lessons in Liberal obfuscation. He is unwilling to deal honestly with the issues of universality, which are twofold. First, Canadians, including middle income Canadians, regard universal social programs as a right, not a charity. Second, sharing the cost of universality requires not just tinkering but a major reform of the income tax system so that the rich pay their fair share.
Obviously the Bay Street boys have both been studying Frank Scott's poem about Mackenzie King:
The height of his ambition Was to pile a Parliamentary Committee on a Royal Commission; to have "conscription if necessary But not necessarily conscription"-


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) may I remind Members of the practice in this House to refer to other Members by constituency and not by name. We are developing an unhappy new tradition of using names.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of grave concern to the people of Canada. Last Friday I was in my constituency office in Scarborough Centre and I met a gentleman aged 51, who recently lost his job. He told me of the anguish and frustration that he and his family are going through. He told me of his mortagage payments and his son's university tuition that he can no longer pay. He told me of his long, lost days searching for work, only to be turned away because of his age.
This gentleman is one of 138,000 unemployed Canadians between the ages of 45 and 55. I urge the Government to take action on this segment of the unemployed. While I applaud the current efforts to assist unemployed youth, we can never forget the vast number of older unemployed people who find it much harder to find work because of their age.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, today, a well-known Canadian citizen is appearing in criminal court for simple possession of marijuana. Let this case be a reminder to us of the thousands of Canadian citizens who have been forced to suffer the same treatment because of outdated legislation that makes this House look like the proverbial ostrich. I would therefore ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to put possession of marijuana on the agenda of the Federal-Provincial Conference on the Criminal Code, to be held on November 22nd and 23rd this year, and give Canada legislation that will bring it in step with the eighties.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, many Members are concerned with the Government's announcement abolishing the 1986 census. Apart from the many other issues that have been raised in the past is the question of lost jobs. Some 40,000 part-time jobs will be lost through cancelling the 1986 census, or approximately 5,800 person year equivalents.
The 1986 census was to cost $149 million and it had been in the planning stages for two years. Consultations have been held with several groups since 1982, including provincial Governments, ten federal Departments, academics, and business people. This census would have resulted in several new questions being asked, specifically on ethnic minorities and disabled people. The Government will not be able to institute any new affirmative action programs without the results of the census. This census should be re-instated immediately, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should change his plan to cancel the census, which cancellation some people have qualified in the last week as criminal.
November 19, 1984


CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE-1984 GREY CUP GAME-A WINNIPEG VIEWPOINT
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-Saint James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to report that we have had an end to a 22-year drought in our region in Manitoba, specifically Winnipeg.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Clement George Minaker: We were concerned in the first 15 minutes of that special occasion on Sunday when we spotted some 14 points to our eastern friends, but like good western lads we dug in our heels and showed that we did not want once again to be the best man rather than the groom. Our drought came to an end. I know, Mr. Speaker, that if I were allowed to congratulate the Winnipeg Blue Bombers I would do so, but, knowing that I cannot, 1 will not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 applaud the Hon. Member on his learning curve.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has told us through an interview with The Toronto Star, and I might add we are pleased that somebody over there is allowed to speak to the press, that any savings that might be derived from a review of family allowance and old age security would be applied to help the neediest members of our society and would, 1 believe 1 quote accurately, "absolutely not be used to reduce the deficit." I must say we are very pleased the Prime Minister made that statement. We are also pleased that he went on to say-


Mr. Lewis:: Question.


Donald James Johnston: -that medicare would not be subject to that review. Would the Prime Minister here in this House confirm that commitment for us? Will he also confirm that the review will not tamper with the transfer of payments to the provinces for post-secondary education, so necessary, and for Canada Assistance Plan payments, so that these constituencies can proceed with the certainty of their sources of financing?
Oral Questions


Mr. Crosbie:: In other words, don't do what you did.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the previous Government unilaterally tampered, without consultation, with those kinds of programs, 1 want to give the Hon. Member the assurance that we will not repeat his sin in that regard. The Hon. Member so disturbed members of his Party and the Canadian public with his remarkable statements about doing away with universality and other things, during his Party's leadership campaign, that I felt it appropriate to put it right on the record that we are interested in helping those people who genuinely need help in our society, and that is what we are going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I think we are all pleased if that is to be taken as a confirmation, Mr. Speaker. With respect to some of the other gratuitous and unfounded remarks, I think I should reply in another forum, because I am not the recipient of questions but the poser of questions.


FINANCE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question now is for the Minister of Finance. He has told us in his economic statement that he intends to reduce projected levels of expenditure by $10 billion to $15 billion by the end of the decade. We have heard from the Prime Minister that certain areas have been circumscribed as a sacred trust. We also know that defence is to be increased and foreign aid will not be decreased, and so on. Without raising taxes, which the Minister of Finance has told us is not the way to go, and with these areas which are protected, where does he see, in general terms, not in specific terms, his being able to obtain cuts in the order of magnitude of $10 billion to $15 billion before the end of this decade?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would look at the agenda paper it would be quite clear to him that in chapter 4 there is a very good statement on the broad range of programs that we can consider, and the broad range would be addressing a number of specific areas. I want to assure the Hon. Member that the whole question of deficit reduction is not going to be met just simply by cutting expenditures. There is a very important common element of economic growth which will be directed to reducing the deficit, and that is going to be a very important part of the policy of this Government.


GOVERNMENT DEFICIT-DEPARTMENTAL PROJECTIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Final supplementary.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would also be pleased, as members of my Party

November 19, 1984
Oral Questions
would, and of this caucus, if there were some evidence of the projected economic growth. The 3.4 per cent which was seen to the end of the decade-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I rise with great respect to say to the Hon. Member that if I do not cut off preambles on a third supplementary question, I will be in some difficulty cutting off preambles on others later in the Question Period. I would ask him, as a leader of the House, to put his question.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister produce and table in the House before the end of this week-he did not do this with respect to jobs-for public scrutiny, the underlying assumptions with respect to the economic analysis of his Department which justify a discrepancy of $9 billion between the February projections and the November projections as early as the year 1985-86? Indeed, this would go a long way toward achieving a deficit reduction of $10 billion by the end of the decade. I think it important that that data be tabled in the House for public scrutiny at the earliest possible date.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will look at my statement and at the agenda paper, all the information is clearly there. The assumptions are there, and there is a reconciliation between the February figures and the November figures. I said to the Leader of the Opposition that I would be happy to appear, and to have my officials appear before a committee of the House to discuss this, provided, of course, that he also gave the officials the freedom to table and to explain the assumptions and figures which were given to him in July when he became Prime Minister.


Donald James Johnston: Table them.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last Friday his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, issued a news release in which he set forth the names of an advisory committee to aid him in the Task Force on Program Review. That committee was to advise and participate in the over-all review of government programs. I want to commend the eminently qualified committee members, and those organizations mentioned, for having provided private sector input to the Government.
While the individuals appointed are of high calibre, this extremely blue chip committee is not representative of our country. Would the Prime Minister explain why this powerful committee has no female member, no Francophone, no representative of any organization representing students, senior citizens, farmers, native people, the disabled, the environment, or the arts? Indeed, except for one member, all members of the
committee have been chosen from Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto; there is not one westerner on it.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, since this question-


Mr. Gauthier:: Look at that.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Have you cleared it with yourself?


Erik Nielsen: -concerns a responsibility the Prime Minister has devolved upon me, I make so bold as to answer it. Unlike the approach of the previous Government-the process of handpicking and selecting only those who will be favourable to government and produce reports that government wants and likes-we have gone the democratic way and have invited nine nationally based organizations thus far to participate in the work of the Task Force on Program Review. Those organizations themselves, including the CFL and CLC, which I am sure will be delighted to learn that the Leader of the Opposition refers to them as blue chip organizations, selected their own designates to sit on the advisory committee, and they themselves selected their own chairman. The building is far from complete, but because there are some, for whatever reason, in the country who believe that we should be more forthcoming with information, last Friday's press release was an effort to bring the Opposition and the people of Canada up to speed on the progress we have been making thus far. The dimensions which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned will be eventually included.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am glad that we flushed the bird out of his cover. I am also glad that we have his undertaking that this committee, representative of big business, labour, and the independent business organization, will be broadened to include the group I mentioned.


REQUEST THAT ADVISORY GROUP APPEAR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the committee will be allowed, after checking with him, to appear before the appropriate parliamentary committee, so that Hon. Members of the House could have the benefit of the factors upon which the advice is rendered and will have a public revelation of what the committee gives by way of advice to the Deputy Prime Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that very interesting and constructive suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition will be taken under consideration.
November 19, 1984


THE ECONOMY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. The Government announced its targets for deficit reduction in its economic statement but continues to keep secret the impact and the effects of its statement on the numbers of persons who will lose their jobs due to it.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to provide for the House of Commons the projected targets, both in terms of job creation and in terms of unemployment reduction, which the Government has set in order to provide the necessary jobs for the 1.5 million people who are presently unemployed and for the other 50,000-or however many there are-who will become unemployed as a result of the economic direction the Government is taking?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister gave the main thrusts in his economic statement. I think the Hon. Member would agree that the first action which we took was but one variable that will come together with a series of others pursuant to consultations with trade unions, the private sector, and the provinces. The full budgetary documents that will be brought down by the Minister in the spring, which will be the first full opportunity we will have to deal with the kinds of specifics the Hon. Member wishes, will be made available at that time.


JOB CREATION-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that at some time in the spring the analysis might well be completed and that he, or the Government, will be prepared to make the targets known. The problem is that we have about 1.5 million people who are unemployed. The Prime Minister said during the campaign that he and his Government, if elected, would be able to create tens of thousands of jobs. I ask the Prime Minister on behalf of those people, many of whom do not collect unemployment insurance or do not qualify for public assistance, when they can expect to see the benefits of the program which the Prime Minister touted around the country as being the way toward an economic Utopia.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I never at any time suggested that there would be an economic Utopia. I indicated across the country that the new Government would be confronted with grave economic problems, and that was true. However, in point of fact, since the election and the swearing in of the new Government, even though the improvements have been modest they are there-
32,000	new jobs were created, interest rates have dropped to record levels, and inflation is at a record low. Those are the beginnings of the kinds of things which can be accomplished by working together.
Presence in Gallery GOVERNMENT POSITION


Ian Deans: At the rate of 32,000 jobs per month, it would take the better part of five years to achieve the numbers of jobs we might require to meet the existing numbers of unemployed persons. Does the Prime Minister suggest to those 1.5 million people that they must wait until after the next election in order to see the jobs necessary for them to find work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have made no such suggestion, and the Hon. Member knows that is-


Ian Deans: At 32,000 a month.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the Hon. Member will accept 32,000 a month, for openers that would be pretty good. Let me put it this way. It is 32,000 people, 32,000 heads of households who are back at work today who were not at work when we came in, and that is a major accomplishment. As a Member of this House, he should be proud of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that we have a number of visitors in our Gallery today, including the Hon. Gordon Dirks, Minister of Social Services for the Province of Saskatchewan-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -the new Commander-in-Chief of Norad, General Robert T. Herres-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -and, dear to my heart, the members of the Canadian National Culinary Team, winners of the World Championship of the Nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benjamin:: Send them to the Parliamentary Restaurant.


Mr. Speaker:: The comment about the Parliamentary Restaurant was heard.



November 19, 1984
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


IMPACT OF ECONOMIC STATEMENT
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. First, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cum-berland-Colchester on his appointment as Minister of National Defence. I would also like to offer my condolences to him because of the ambush job that the Minister of Finance did on him in his economic statement.
The Minister of National Defence has been quoted as saying that if the money is not there to keep the promises that the Conservative Party made to the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian people during the last election campaign, then it will have to be found. I appreciate that statement. I will back him up 100 per cent on that. How does the Minister explain the announcement in the economic statement by the Minister of Finance that the Defence budget will be cut by $154 million, while at the same time saying that Canada's commitment to NATO can be maintained, particularly at a time when he and his colleagues have been saying over and over again that Canada's commitment to NATO is not being maintained?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke how pleased I am that he among his colleagues was selected to be the critic for National Defence. He has had a continuing commitment to our defence forces, even though he has represented a Party that forgot its commitments over and over again. I want to give him the assurance, as I did in my speech this morning, that the so-called cuts in the Defence budget were indications of a reduction in the costs of purchasing equipment because the rate of inflation came down, the only achievement that his people had anything to do with during the four years they were there. We will move forward on the commitment we have given to the Canadian people in relation to our commitments to both NORAD and NATO. He can rest assured that, by the time this Government has completed its first term in office, everybody in the world will understand that Canadians keep their commitments to their defence alliances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN COMMITMENT TO NATO
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I appreciate the Minister's remarks about me. It was the type of answer that I expected him to come forward with at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: No, no. Question please.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: How does the Minister justify the statement in the Expenditure and Program Review document by the President of the Treasury Board which states that "these savings can be realized while maintaining Canada's commitment to NATO"? Surely their own government document infers that Canada has been keeping its commitment to NATO all along, while the Conservative Party statements have been to the contrary. There is a conflict between the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board. Will he explain that to us?


Robert Carman Coates: 
INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since the Government will not release what the Finance Department's economic model shows will result from its cuts, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion with respect to one program which has been cut. The Industrial and Regional Development program has had $525 million in cuts. We estimate that they will result in 41 per cent of the grants that would have been given in the first nine months not being possible. Is the Government aware that one consequence of these $525 million in cuts will be 55,000 jobs lost to Canadians? Will the Minister release any studies which were carried out on which his decision to change the categories in this program was based? Canadians have a right to know why these changes were made.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, and as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, I congratulate him on his new role as critic of my Department. I can only add, in response directly to his question, in which he refers to
55,000	jobs being lost, that the facts are that we are expending under IRDP grants in the coming year 35 per cent more than in the current year. Only a socialist could reason that that means a loss of jobs in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: I am perhaps a socialist, but I am also a mathematician. The Minister indicated in his statement that he was cutting the amount for that program by 35 per cent. Either the cuts are real, in which case it is $175 million less-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With great respect, does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?
November 19, 1984


CONSULTATION QUERY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. His Government has promised to consult Canadians with respect to key policy changes. Will he inform the House which Canadians he consulted with respect to these cuts which will affect so many communities across the country?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, it is a contradiction of fact to state that a mathematician can be a socialist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What about Bertrand Russell?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Minister like to answer the question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In direct response to the Hon. Member's supplementary, he indicated that I had said there was a 35 per cent reduction in the funding. It is a 35 per cent increase in the funding next year compared to this year. In my book, that will help create jobs for Canadians.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Transport. In view of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission's report of the inquiry into the on-time performance of VIA Rail has indicated that no other railway in the industrialized world entrusts mainline services to a fleet of locomotives as old, outdated and obsolete as VIA does; in view of the fact that VIA lost some one million passengers between the years 1982 and 1983; and in view of the fact that in spite of the recent reductions and cuts we are still subsidizing VIA to the extent of $600 million per year, will the Minister tell us what plans, if any, he and/or the Department has for improving both VIA Rail's performance and its financial track record?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that the investment plan for VIA Rail has not been cut but will be spread over a longer period of time. The amounts earmarked for improving the VIA Rail fleet will stand, and we intend to use these to improve the service criticized by the Transport Commission. However, I think the Hon. Member should give this Government a chance to make its own assessment before speaking of VIA Rail in this way.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General my question is directed to his Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of published reports concerning sentencing practices of Ontario courts. Figures contained in The Globe and Mail last week indicated that the number of people from Ontario sentenced to federal prisons during the past two years grew twice as fast as the national average. An official from the Correctional Service of Canada was quoted as saying that this large and recent influx is putting a serious strain on the federal penal system.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House when the Minister first became aware of this situation? Second, can he tell us what action, if any, is being taken to address this problem? Third, has the Minister discussed this matter with his provincial counterpart? Finally, can the Minister give the House an assurance that Ontario's sentencing practices of handing down longer prison terms are not a result of overcrowding in provincial institutions and a deliberate attempt to direct the overflow to federal penitentiaries?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer that encyclopaedic question. The Hon. Member may not be aware of the fact that there has been-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Please do not interrupt me. I get rattled.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I get rattled when faced with the rats, Mr. Speaker.
A sentencing commission has been appointed and is headed by Mr. Justice Sinclair. Hopefully that commission will be reporting within the next two years on the principles that should govern sentencing in Canada, in order to try to avoid differences across the country, including Ontario. The matter brought forward by the Hon. Member is certainly under consideration and is being dealt with.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, seeing that there is so little to rattle in the can, I can understand why the Minister can get rattled so easily.


STUDY OF ONTARIO PRACTICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a great deal of speculation as to why this Ontario influx is taking place. Is the Minister prepared to release the details of any study done by his Department so that the causes of this phenomenon can be understood and a solution sought among all interested groups?

November 19, 1984
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it may well be that there are more bad guys in Ontario than there are elsewhere.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The tier system for the Regional Industrial Expansion Program continues to discriminate against British Columbia, a province which has an unemployment rate of 15.1 per cent, the third highest in Canada. While 43 out of 46 areas in the Atlantic provinces have been designated tiers 3 and 4, the tiers which receive maximum help, and 60 out of 76 areas in Quebec have been designated as tiers 3 and 4, only one area out of 29 in British Columbia has been designated tier 3. Will the Minister make changes to the tier designation formula in order to give adequate recognition to actual rates of unemployment, so that British Columbia will get its fair share under this program?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member I would like first to indicate to him that we find most distressing the present unemployment level that exists in British Columbia. He will be pleased to know that this Friday I will be meeting with British Columbia governmental officials with a view to signing a new Economic Regional Development Agreement between the federal Government and the Province of British Columbia. This agreement will undoubtedly have subagreements following it that will hopefully relieve some of the unemployment to which the Hon. Member is referring.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, any help that the Minister can give to the repressive Government of British Columbia would be most welcome.


FUNDING FOR PROGRAM
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is not willing to change the tier designation formula, is he at least willing to reconsider his plan to cut $525 million from Tier 1 communities over the next three years? Under the present system, British Columbia is being discriminated against in two ways. First, it is given the low tier designations and, second, it is not receiving the benefits from Tier 1 designation. Will the Minister reconsider?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again in reply to the Hon. Member, I would indicate that the reduction to which he refers is one which is not a reduction to the present year's expenditures.
Next year, the present year's expenditures will rise by the 35 per cent indicated.
I can assure the Hon. Member that, with respect to the designation of tiers, these are always under review and are dependent upon the data that we receive from Statistics Canada. If there are data with respect to the unemployment situation to confirm that tier designations should be adjusted, we, of course, will do so without any delay.


IMMIGRATION
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is it correct that the Immigration Department recently issued a policy directive which will prohibit potential immigrants from having legal or non-legal counsel present during preliminary interviews at Canadian points of entry? Why was this policy directive issued? What has been the past practice of the Department with regard to allowing counsel in this situation?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in policy whatsoever. When people enter this country they meet first with persons who interview everyone entering the country. If, for any reason, these people are passed on to a second stage of interview, they are then allowed to retain counsel. There has been no change from the practices that formerly existed.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment to that important position. In answer to a question last Tuesday the Minister stated that the decisions which were announced by the Minister of Finance were discussed fully with senior officials at the National Research Council. The Secretary-General of the NRC was later in the week reported as saying that the decisions about what program cuts would be made to fulfil the budget reduction were made by the Government, not the agency. Can the Minister explain this discrepancy, and will he admit that the cuts were made blindly without a proper regard to their effect?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Laurier on his appointment. In response to his question, I must indicate that he is, of course, incorrect. Indeed, we sought advice from senior officials of the National
November 19, 1984

Research Council as to areas of higher and lesser priority. Then, given a certain desire to contribute to the general exercise of restraint which is so necessary, as pointed out by the Minister of Finance, the final decisions were taken by the Government.


REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF BUDGET REDUCTION
David Berger: How can an intelligent decision be made when workers are told not to speak with reporters and discouraged from going to their MPs?
My supplementary question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology is this: As the health and safety of millions of Canadians and the protection of our environment are at stake, will he suspend the reduction and allow a parliamentary committee to meet publicly with officials of the NRC to study whether the cuts could be implemented in a more appropriate fashion?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it was the habit of the previous Government to study problems to death.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The people of Canada have chosen a Government which would act and take the necessary initiatives.
There were no instructions given to any of my officials not to speak to the press. Indeed, there was a key spokesman appointed, and when asked whether officials could approach their Members of Parliament, which was one of the questions discussed in the press, the employees of my Ministry were told that they should be free to do as they wished.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last week I asked the Minister whether she would reconsider the cancellation of the Herring Gull Egg Program which monitors the levels of toxins in the Great Lakes. Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider the seriousness of the cut-back and to reflect on the wide variety of concern expressed by many people about how serious a mistake it is on her part? Is she willing to reconsider the cancellation of this program for the sake of the health of Canadians?
If she is not willing to reconsider for that reason, will she reconsider it in view of the fact that this constitutes part of an agreement with the United States with respect to Great Lakes water quality and that we should be doing this, if not for our own sake, for the sake of our credibility with the Americans? It is hard to imagine offending the environmental sensitivity of
Oral Questions
the American Government, but this Government has succeeded.
[Translation)


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I said last week that if the cuts affecting these biologists were putting the lives of Canadians at risk, I would of course be prepared to review these cutbacks. However, I also said that was not the case at the present time, and I can inform my hon. friend that we still have 78 people working on monitoring toxic material in the Great Lakes, that we are constantly evaluating the quality of water, sediment and precipitation, and that other ministers as well have an ongoing interest in animal and water toxicology.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I find it incredible that the Minister can play down the seriousness of this matter.


MINISTER'S VIEW
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister had an opportunity to review the remarks made by her colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, in which he set up a false dichotomy between a healthy industrial economy and environmental issues as being merely service issues? That is the problem as I see it with the Government. Will the Minister undertake to review the remarks made by the Minister of State for Science and Technology and tell the House whether it is also her view of environmental issues?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware and I have the assurance that the cuts I proposed in the Department, after consulting with departmental officials, were submitted to and analyzed before all Members of Cabinet, and we are all agreed on the general issues.


CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE-FUTURE OF EMPLOYEES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and express good wishes to the Minister of the Environment on her assignment. I would like to focus the attention of the Minister on the announcement which was made 10 days ago by the Minister of Finance, that one of our finest services, the Canadian Wildlife Service, will be cut by 25 per cent in its strength. This will mean the laying off by next spring of some highly trained biologists, technicians, and office workers, who are presently engaged in studies regarding toxics in the Great Lakes and the toxic contamination in gull eggs, the management of endangered species, the impact of lobbying practices on wildlife, and the impact of wildlife on forestry, just to name a few. Could the Minister inform the House where these fine Canadians will find employment and

November 19, 1984
Oral Questions
what will happen to the projects in which they are engaged at the present time?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for his kind words and in turn, I would like to offer him my best wishes on his re-election.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wildlife Service still has 300 employees and a budget of $19.8 million. I do not think the cutbacks we have made will adversely affect the survival of this program.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Members are congratulating others on their new appointments, and I would indicate that this is the Minister's first opportunity to answer a question in the House. She will know in taking over the portfolio that the former Minister was supposed to have established a committee to study trust companies, insurance companies, banks, security dealers and so on, with respect to new legislation. Did that committee in fact exist? If it did exist, will it be making a report to this House?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. I am pleased to report that there is a private sector group which has been examining the issue at the instigation of the former Minister. This committee is not and, as far as I can understand, was never intended to report to the House. It is commenting on papers which were put together by the Department of Finance, and in due course, as soon as possible, an over-all report will be published and presented to the House. I will be happy to report on that later.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last week, the Canexel company in Gatineau announced that it would be closing down on February 14, thus putting about 200 employees out of work. During the election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party talked a great deal about job creation. In view of the impending situation in Gatineau, I would like to know what the federal Government
intends to do about the possibility of keeping this factory open and saving 200 jobs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that we are aware of the problem and are taking every possible action to improve the present situation. For instance, we are prepared to set up a committee with the employer and employees and to consider training, mobility and adjustment programs for all employees concerned.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on Friday, November 16, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I must also, however, advise the House that there is some doubt in my mind as to the acceptability of this petition. Citation 688(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
Aliens, not resident in Canada, have no right to petition Parliament.
The precedents in our practice are not as decisive as they are in other jurisdictions. While I must report today on the form of the said petition-I am required to do so in fact by the rules of the House-I wish to advise the House that I am entering a caveat on the propriety of certain signatures of non-Canadian citizens pending further study on the matter.


Mr. Cassidy:: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 submitted this petition, and since the overwhelming number of signatories to the petition are in fact Canadian citizens, indicating that they-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The very reason that 1 indicated I was raising a caveat on the matter and wished to study it further is precisely the point the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is making. I wish to advise both him and Hon. Members of the House that I do not propose to make a ruling today ruling the petition out. However, I do want to make it clear to the Hon. Member-and I know it is a serious petition for him as well as for others-that there are traditions about who can and who cannot petition the House of Commons. In the past, Speakers have ruled that petitions containing any names other than Canadian are simply not receivable. It is for that reason that I am reserving a judgment until I look at the precedents further.
I will be making some comment on it later.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre on a point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will make representations privately. However, surely, when thousands of
November 19, 1984

Canadians sign a petition, their petition should not be struck down because it happened to be-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is an experienced member of legislatures. He knows that once I have indicated I intend to think about a matter-and he may wish to make private representations to me-it is simply improper to rise to discuss that matter. The Hon. Member knows that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House, in both official languages, a copy of Report No. 23 of the Law Reform Commission on questioning suspects. I ask that the report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


IMMIGRATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the annual report on future levels of immigration. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(4), this report is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-206, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 take great pleasure in introducing a Bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the death sentence. This Bill, when passed, will impose the death sentence on any adult who deliberately plans and kills another
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
human being and is found guilty of so doing beyond a reasonable doubt.


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

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House Leaders of each of the Parties. I believe you will find that there will be a disposition to accept unanimously the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs shall have permanently referred to it all annual reports made to Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Privacy Act and section 72 of the Access to Information Act; and
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to:
1.	Consider every report prepared under section 72 of the Access to Information Act and of the Privacy Act;
2.	Undertake, on a permanent basis, a review pursuant to subsection 75(1) of the Access to Information Act and of the Privacy Act. of the administration of those Acts; and
3.	Undertake, within three years of their coming into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Access to Information Act and of the Privacy Act pursuant to subsection 75(2) of each of the said Acts.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent for its introduction?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the matter be adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Allmand (p. 252).
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as 1 indicated before the luncheon adjournment, during the election campaign the Tories cried crocodile tears for the unemployed youth of this country. In Pocket Politics, their campaign bible, the Conservatives said, "We believe that all levels of Government and the private sector face a major task in resolving the tragic youth unemployment situation". But what does that Party do when it resumes power, Mr. Speaker? It cuts the Canada Summer Works Program which

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. O'Neil
provides thousands of summer jobs to students. It cuts the young worker's exchange program. These and other program cuts will have a devastating effect on the unemployed young of our nation. Pity the young without hope for they will have nothing to inherit.
What is worse is that we are not even told of the effect of the economic statement on unemployment because of the Government's penchant for secrecy and surreptitious government. What is it afraid of and what is it hiding? I call on the Government, Mr. Speaker, to come clean with Canadians and to put its cards on the table.
We are not here to fight old battles or to settle old scores. Our duty is clear. We must forge ahead with vision and commitment to build a strong and united Canada, a just, equitable, decent and civilized society.
What will be the role of the Liberal Party in this process? As Her Majesty's Official Opposition, we intend to be vigorous, competent and constructive. We will fight hard for the individual and the disadvantaged in our society. We intend to examine thoroughly all government proposals. As my Leader has already stated, we will support legislation when support is warranted, we will amend when amendment will serve to improve, and we will oppose when opposition is necessary. We will seek to correct errors of omission and commission in legislation and, in due course, we will outline policy alternatives and new directions. Unlike the pseudo opposition to the left, we are not fettered by dogma, we do not live in the past, and we are prepared to change for a better future.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I put the Government on notice that the Liberal Party is but on a short sabbatical. While in opposition, we will rejuvenate, we will rebuild, and we will regain the support and confidence of Canadians. We will earn the right to be re-elected. Let me remind Hon. Members opposite that political defeat is as transient as political success.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member? If not, we shall resume debate.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your appointment to such a prestigious post. The manner in which you have discharged your duties today confirms the wisdom of your appointment.
I also wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. All previous speakers have spoken well. They have enlightened me about their parts of Canada. From the other speakers I have learned something about our West Coast, our Prairies, the North, and central Canada. Today I will be telling the House and other Canadians something about my riding in Atlantic Canada.
The differences among our regions have struck me, Mr. Speaker, but I have been more impressed by our common commitment to Canada and to the development of all our regions. It is a striking feature of our Confederation that we as
Canadians accept a sharing of our national wealth. We as Canadians are prepared to share our wealth with each other and to share our wealth with the world. Canada's generous aid to Ethiopia is a fine example of this commitment to the underdeveloped world.
Many national policies are possible because we share a commitment to all Canadians. Atlantic Canadians are among the recipients of these benefits. Such programs are viewed as equitable and in the interests of all Canadians. It is therefore not prudent to suggest that such economic sharing has been done at the expense of one region more than another. In our short history there has been give and take by all Canadians. As Canadians we also hold political and social equality as a high priority. Canada is truly a country which permits each Canadian the opportunity to achieve its greatest political office, that of Prime Minister.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is of a humble but honourable background. Notwithstanding this, he has achieved the highest political office in this land. A humble beginning was no bar, geography was no bar, nor were race and religion. That is a great compliment to our society and our system of government. Yet I agree, Mr. Speaker, there is much more to be done before we can boast of total equality of opportunity.
The election of our Prime Minister with the greatest parliamentary majority in the history of the country is a tribute to him as a man. I am proud of our Prime Minister. He is providing the sound leadership Canadians have not received in decades but have so dearly wanted. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have a special reason to be proud. Canada's eighteenth Prime Minister is a graduate of St. Francis Xavier University, a distinguished institution situated in my riding.
My constituents, Mr. Speaker, are representative of many cultures: Irish, Scottish, English, Dutch, native and Acadian, to name only some. In an effort to better represent my Acadian constituents I have begun the process of learning the French language. My next major statement to this House will be in both official languages.
We in Cape Breton Highlands-Canso are a people of basic values. We are people close to the land and the sea. The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso have a history of social service, having supported missions around the world and the training of Third World leaders on the principles of co-operatives at the Coady International Institute. We have a history of supporting our neighbours, not only next door, but across the world's oceans. Sharing is very much a value we hold.
The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso regard the family as a most valued institution. I resist the urging to describe our values as traditional. To some that reference connotes a lack of worldliness. In light of the value we place on the family, it should come as no surprise, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso value the life of unborn children. It is no surprise that my constituents strongly support legislation and programs that recognize the rights of unborn Canadians. These are values, Mr. Speaker, that I share. These are values that I am honoured to express for the people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. We regard the extent
November 19, 1984

of support for the handicapped, the elderly, the infirm and the defenceless as evidence of the real progress of our society.
The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso are independent. We are ordinary Canadians. We are proud to be led by the only Party in Canada that represents the ordinary Canadian. The Prime Minister and I have been honoured with the greatest PC vote ever in the history of Cape Breton High-lands-Canso. For this vote I am most grateful and I thank my constituents. My riding was represented just a few short months ago by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr. MacEachen. He served his constituents and all Canadians with distinction. On behalf of the people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso it is appropriate that I acknowledge the contribution of Senator MacEachen and thank him for his years of service.
Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is a geographical, cultural and economic mosaic. It includes an important fishing industry with deep sea fleets sailing from Canso and Petit de Grat. These deep sea fishermen leave their families for a week or more to harvest the sea's bounty. It is hard work. These are independent persons who spend more of their adult lives at sea than on land. At the present time, they are struggling to make ends meet.
Many other constituents are hard working inshore fishermen who are also striving to meet the problems of their industry and to earn a living. These men are entrepreneurs. They own their boats. They risk their lives to make a living to provide for their families. These people talk straight. The people I represent need no education to identify hardship.
The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso have distinguished themselves as the best pulp and paper workers in this country and among the best woodsmen in Canada.
The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso enjoy one of the best public school systems in the world. Cape Breton Highlands-Canso is an area known for incomparable hospitality. This reputation greatly contributes to growth in our tourism industry. That is one reason, Mr. Speaker, that the Cabot Trail is one of Canada's leading tourist attractions. It is also a natural beauty surpassing in appeal any other attraction in Canada. The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso have distinguished themselves as tradesmen, small businessmen and farmers. We view offshore oil and gas development as an opportunity and are working hard to realize its potential.
Despite these strengths, Mr. Speaker, we have been plagued by successive years of high unemployment and outward migration. In the thirties, forties and fifties, Nova Scotians left to seek employment in the United States and Ontario. Later they left for western Canada. Today we find there is no place to go. It is, as never before, imperative that our strengths be fully developed, that we strive for self-sufficiency, and that we achieve self-sufficiency.
On a daily basis my office deals with requests from many constituents looking for employment. These are people with families, children and spouses and with bills they cannot pay. That is why I ran for office and why they elected me, Mr. The Address-Mr. O'Neil
Speaker. These people want jobs, and I am pleased that the Government has made job creation its priority.
On September 4, I was elected on a platform which called for the rejection of short-term make-work projects as an answer to unemployment. The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso have rejected make-work projects as a long-term solution. They want permanent, meaningful jobs. I am confident that the new Government can meet that challenge. Indeed, it has already begun the task.
In its Throne Speech, the Government identified our new approach. We are committed to getting this country moving quickly to achieve a new era of national reconciliation, to moving quickly to economic renewal, and to attaining greater levels of social justice.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on his Cabinet selection. Nova Scotia's two Cabinet representatives, the Hon. Robert Coates and the Hon. Elmer Mackay, are distinguished parliamentarians and Nova Scotians. I am honoured to be here with them.
I have met with the Hon. Flora MacDonald, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She has displayed an openness and empathy that was more than I could have anticipated. It is clear to all Canadians that she is a leader. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on his appointment of the Hon. Sinclair Stevens as the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In our meetings, he too has displayed a driving commitment to developing areas most in need of economic activity. The Hon. Pat Carney, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has displayed a true commitment to East Coast energy development. The Hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Fraser) has also shown himself to be interested in solving the serious problems of the East Coast fishery. As Canadians, we are most fortunate to have such talented individuals willing to serve us.
I have heard members of the Opposition complain that Cape Breton has no private sector economy. That is why the previous government was defeated. It was the previous government that left that legacy. I know that the people of that area of Canada can develop a self-sustaining economy. We in the Progressive Conservative Party have confidence in the people of Cape Breton Highlands Canso. We have begun the process of attaining that result.
Our Government has established a new Ministry of Forestry, headed by a distinguished New Brunswick Member, the Hon. Gerald Merrithew. This appointment reflects our Government's decision to enhance the development of a renewable resource. It will mean long-term benefits for the people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. Our Government has established a new Ministry of Tourism headed by another distinguished Maritime Member, the Hon. Tom McMillan of Prince Edward Island. This commitment by our Government will result in a more rational development and orderly marketing of our tourism resources. That decision will result in an increased growth in our tourism sector.

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. O'Neil
Our Government has started the process of reducing our huge budgetary deficit. The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso realize that long-term economic security cannot be achieved simply by spending government money. Decisions to invest must have a rational business basis. My constituents know this better than any other group of Canadians because of the failure of northern Nova Scotia to establish a stronger economic base despite the input of large sums of government money.
The Prime Minister has confirmed the commitment of our Government to assist the needy. Ours is a government that is compassionate. The Throne Speech outlined the Government's commitment to the elderly, the disabled, the poor, to reducing inequality between the sexes, and to the preservation of our health care system. The Prime Minister has announced action on spousal allowances and veterans' benefits.
I am proud to be a Progressive Conservative. Our Party believes in sound management and compassionate leadership. I am proud to be led by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He will be remembered as the Canadian leader who turned this country around and as a Prime Minister with the courage to lead.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the new Member on his speech in the House today. However, I also want to say that it is my understanding that it is the practice in the House not to refer to Members by their names but rather by their constituencies. I think we should follow that practice in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is perfectly right. I was aware of it but the Hon. Member is a new Member in the House and not the only one to do so in his first speech. The comment by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is well taken and should be noted by other new Members in the House.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his first speech. He indicated that he had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). I assume that his conversation would have dealt with concerns for industrial development in the Cape Breton area. Would the Hon. Member give us his views on how industrial development in that particular area would be encouraged?
Second, would he address himself to an issue which concerns our Party? In the program changes that have been announced by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, there has been an elimination of three categories of support for industrial and regional development program grants in constituencies such as the Hon. Member's. There has been the elimination of support for tourism projects, for restructuring projects, and for business climate studies.
I suggest that these projects would be of particular importance to the steel and coal industry in Nova Scotia and particularly Cape Breton. As the New Democratic Party critic for industrial regional development, I would be very interested
in the Hon. Member's reaction to the steps taken by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. With respect to my ideas for industrial development in my constituency, I believe that a basic principle to be followed is, first to develop our indigenous resources to their full potential. In the case of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, that will require that we stabilize our fishing industry, and that we fully take advantage of our marketing opportunities and fully develop our forestry sector. We have a very large and successful pulp and paper company. We must do everything possible to protect our renewable resources in forestry and the fishery.
The Hon. Member knows that the Government has established a separate Ministry of Forestry. Part of its function will be to protect our forests.
Our agricultural industry must also be protected because it too is a renewable resource. These sectors provide permanent jobs on which people must rely.
With respect to new industry, we have a magnificent harbour in the Strait of Canso. I am looking at possibilities for developing that harbour, but I must say that it is not my personal philosophy that industries should be established there only for the sake of creating jobs if they must also be grossly subsidized.
With respect to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, let me say that I am very pleased with the objectives and the steps taken by the new Minister. His goal is for stable, long-term benefits for my area of the country as well as the area which the Hon. Member represents. I am sure he will deal directly with the Minister if he has particular questions with respect to Essex-Windsor. I have full confidence in the Minister, and 1 believe he has good programs and ideas to bring forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions or comments, we shall proceed with debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the new women parlimentari-ans who have joined us in the House. I wish them well and I hope that we can work together to voice the many concerns of our sisters across Canada.
Canadians from all provinces voted for a change in government in the hope that it would be a change for a better future for themselves and their children. They want a government they can trust and one with promises that it will keep. They want an end to secrecy, patronage and privileges for the rich.
The Progressive Conservatives come to government at a time when there are 1.5 million Canadians jobless, and technological change will displace many more. We have 4 million poor people, including increasing numbers of children. Young people have few opportunities for jobs or for further education. Women continue to be denied full equality. Added to increas-
November 19, 1984

ing economic insecurity and family stress, Canadians live under the fear of a nuclear holocaust and the anxiety that their government is doing very little to prevent this.
Will the new government policies as outlined in the Speech from the Throne improve the health, economic, and social well-being of Canadians, particularly Canadian women? As my party's critic for health and welfare and the status of women I wish to highlight our concerns in these three areas.
First, I want to thank the residents of Vancouver East for their very strong support during the last election. I must say I am very pleased to represent them in the House of Commons. I regret to say that the Speech from the Throne unfortunately does not show many benefits for the people of Vancouver East. People in my riding need jobs desperately and a more secure future for their children. This they have not been promised in the Throne Speech.
The unemployed are told to wait by the Conservatives until the private sector develops confidence, and then by some sort of magic new jobs are going to appear. Unemployment insurance meanwhile is going to be tightened and social housing units will be cut back. Grants from the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) are going to be cut and universal social programs are threatened. If in addition to this students who cannot afford the increased fees of colleges and post-secondary education and who have no job prospects should know that this new government has cut $5 million from student loans. It has also terminated Canada Summer Works.
I am particularly saddened, coming from Vancouver East which has a very large number of immigrants settling in the neighbourhoods, that we will now welcome new Canadians with increased fees for Canadian citizenship, for immigration processing and even to obtain visas and passports.
I want now to concentrate on government proposals as they affect women and also as they affect the area of health and welfare.
First, let me deal with women. Despite the platitudes that I note in a press release put out by the Secretary of State, who, Mr. Speaker, you will recall was belatedly given the responsibility for the status of women, the new government shows a remarkable lack of awareness of the major concerns affecting women in Canada. Let me quote from the Economic Council of Canada's study entitled, "The Occupational Diversification of Women in the Labour Market":
-only 23 per cent of "traditional male occupations" are held by women, in spite of the fact that they make up 42 per cent of the labour force, and only 8.4 per cent of women in the labour force earned over $20,000, compared to 36.5 per cent of men in 1980.
The study notes that until governments take some concrete steps to improve the position of women, "There persists an under-utilization of talent and resources that, while it affects women the most, penalizes Canadian society as a whole."
The Throne Speech mentioned no economic development targeted to women. We are very concerned about that. There was no mention of job creation programs, training programs, or even affirmative action within the existence of Canada
The Address-Ms. Mitchell
Works projects, something which has been lacking until now. Despite election promises, there was no commitment to mandatory affirmative action and no plans to enforce the current law to which surely we should be adhering for equal pay for work of equal value.
I might mention also a matter about which I was concerned in the last House, namely, the conditon in which many parttime workers, most of whom are women, find themselves and the need for prorated benefits for part-time workers. There was nothing mentioned about that.
Women are demanding substantive changes that will improve their lot. I do not think when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) mentions that he is going to appoint more women to high places that he really understands what we mean by affirmative action and by equal pay for work of equal value. We will look forward indeed to the recommendations of Judge Abella, which I believe will be coming forward tomorrow.
We are very concerned that $9.8 million will be chopped from the grants of the Secretary of State. This is the main source of funding for women's groups, for women's centres, for immigrant and native women as well as for many other very important programs. We will be questioning the Minister to find out just what impact this cut will have on women's programs.
We will support the Government's decision to extend the spouses allowance to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65. I am glad the Hon. Stanley Knowles is with us in the House to hear this because it was he who for years pushed not only for increases for widows and widowers but for all people in the age group 60 to 65 who are unemployed. He was particularly concerned that these benefits not be based on marital status which is, in effect, discriminatory.
I want to mention the question of day-care also. The Prime Minister has called for a Parliamentary task force on day-care. I cannot understand why it is necessary to delay action in the whole field of daycare, action that is desperately needed for children of working parents. There has been a very active task force on daycare which has been working over the last few months which I understand will be making recommendations in the very near future. There are also excellent reports from the Canada Day-care Advocacy Association, which association consists of experts in this field. What all these groups want and I am sure what all parents want is action so they will have decent affordable day-care available to them in their communities. Too many children are being cared for in very risky situations.
I urge the Minister to consider the model day-care bill which was prepared and sent to him last week by the provincial Minister of Community Services for Manitoba. I believe that that Minister sent copies to all her provincial counterparts. I hope this bill will be studied very seriously.
We believe the federal government should take an active role immediately in providing direct funding for day-care centres as was proposed by the advocacy group. We think this should be direct funding, very similar to the way funding is

November 19, 1984
The Address-Ms. Mitchell
provided through education and for health services, although directly to the centres would be a first step toward universal daycare. Surely children should have higher priority than the purchase of new uniforms for a generation of military personnel who have long accepted integration. I find that this kind of absorption with the past instead of with the future may be a symbol of this Tory government, and this concerns me.
The government should take steps to remove abortion from the Criminal Code. The Morgentaler case has already illustrated once again how obsolete this legislation is. It is certainly long past time, and I think public opinion in Canada supports the fact that women should be allowed to make this decision themselves. It is a very personal decision. It should not be something that we as Parliamentarians or the legal system interferes with.
There are many recommendations relating to justice as it affects women, Mr. Speaker. We agree that these Bills, which were Bills largely on the books before the last session ended, should be brought forward, particularly reforms to help with the control of pornography. This is a deep concern to almost everyone in Canada. Also we require a new Divorce Act which would provide protection in terms of the care of children. We also think that early action on the Badgley report regarding child abuse, and on the Abella report is top priority. We are glad to know that the Government will be considering these reports.
Of course Canadian women are very concerned about the whole question of health. We will expect the Government to implement the Canada Health Act as it has promised. I am sure this will be an important and difficult challenge for the new Minister, in view of the fact that undoubtedly he will be battling, despite the intention of co-operation, strong resistance from Conservative provinces in implementing health care provisions.
Also we welcome the mention in the Speech from the Throne that the federal Government will provide assistance to community-based health services. I think this is very important. There are many ways our health dollar could be used more effectively. Certainly one way would be to apply medicare and to develop community health clinics which employ more paraprofessionals, nurses and other health care practitioners. We look forward to hearing more about these proposals in committee.
The most shocking revelation of the new Government is its intention to redesign universal social programs, particularly Old Age Security and family allowance, despite the promise of the Prime Minister that universality was sacrosanct. This will come down very hard on the view of Canadians who expected the Prime Minister to keep his promises. One of the first things he proposes is a review of these programs, with very provocative questions, indicating that they are considering a targeting of programs and the development of a means test approach with benefits only to those with the greatest need. If this happens, it is unlikely to increase programs in that respect.
The document, A New Direction for Canada, indicates several possible changes. We hope very much that any debate will involve the people directly affected, as well as Canadians from the middle class who feel very strongly that it is their right to have universal medicare, health services, old age pensions and family allowances. That group pays most heavily for these programs through their tax system and certainly expects to retain some benefits.
Surely it goes without saying that a bank manager earning over $500,000 per year should be taxed back for old age pensions or family allowances. The Prime Minister raised this point with me in the House the other day. However, let us not be fooled by the suggestion of tax reforms in a Mickey Mouse sort of way. The Prime Minister should have said-and this should have been indicated in the Throne Speech-that Canadians demand major reform in the tax system and that the regressive tax system which allows wealthy people to pay little or no tax at all places the burden of the tax load on middle income Canadians. We believe-and I thought the Prime Minister supported out Leader's position on this during the election campaign-that upper income Canadians should pay a minimum of 20 per cent of their income in tax. If we had this money, we could beef up family allowances for families most in need and we could continue to maintain social programs for middle income Canadians.
I am very concerned that the Tories will follow the Liberal lead. We saw this happening in the six and five program where they really chopped into family allowance programs. Senior citizens vote; they have a very strong block of votes, which every political party knows. Let us face it, kids do not vote. Thus, when governments want to chop something, it is the family allowances and children's programs which are the most in jeopardy. I am concerned that these are the programs which will face the chopper. Of course we will oppose it.
I should like to refer to some excepts from a statement by the National Council on Welfare in 1983 entitled "Family Allowances For All". In part it read;
We see no compelling reason at the present time to change the family allowance program .. . From an equity point of view, it makes far more sense to cut the regressive children's tax exemption rather than tamper with the progressive family allowance-
Universal family allowances recognize the value our society places on childrearing. They constitute a modest but significant source of independent income for mothers, especially for those who work full-time in the home; ending universal payment of family allowances would simply widen the economic gap that persists between men and women. By stimulating consumer spending, family allowances help create and sustain employment; more jobs might be lost than gained if funds were diverted from family allowances to direct job creation schemes that provide only temporary work-
The most compelling argument in favour of universal family allowances is the role they play as part of the foundation of Canada's social security system.
It continued:
The abandonment of universal family allowances would threaten other universal programs and, in time, weaken public support for necessary improvements to selective programs designed for those in need. In the end, poor people could lose most from a retreat from universality.
November 19, 1984

This group has considerable expertise in this matter. I hope the Minister and the committee which will look at cut-backs and will study that report thoroughly.
The Government's review of social programs should not only review the cost of programs but the conditions in which families are living in Canada. Most of us know that the cost of raising children has risen phenomenally. It is very difficult for families with several children to meet those costs today. Family allowances help in this regard.
The impact of financial stress on families with young children is very great. There are many single parents, particularly mothers raising children on their own, with very marginal incomes who go on welfare because of their children. They do not have any other basic security. If it were possible to have increased family benefits for those children, many single parents would be given the option to work, and to ensure that their children have the total family income which is needed.
I urge the Government to consider an increase in family allowances to help families stay together and to help marginal earners remain off welfare. This would ensure that the next generation has the nourishment and opportunity they need for healthy development.
I do not know how many Hon. Members realize that most family allowance cheques these days for families in the lower income group go toward basic food. In most cases those families also have to line up at food banks at the end of the month. This is disgraceful in Canada.
Finally, I remind the Government that true economic renewal and social justice require a fulfilment of the rights of all Canadians. The rights of Canadians cover many different areas; the right to a decent job, to adequate incomes for those who cannot work, to affordable housing which is being ignored by the Government, and to universal health care which should include more health promotion or prevention of illness. We need more, not less, post-secondary educational programs to help prepare our youth for a rapidly changing future, a future in which they have very little hope of obtaining employment.
Economic and social recovery must go hand in hand. The best way to maintain and improve social programs is to put people back to work. We will certainly be stressing job creation. It will save on unemployment insurance as well as increase Government income from taxes. A reform of our tax system, as I said earlier, is overdue and absolutely essential so that higher income Canadians pay a much fairer share of the cost of our universal programs. Reduced interest rates would also help.
Canadians, especially, Canadian women, will not tolerate a return to a pre-depression system which treats people as charity cases, dependent on food banks and private charity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. She spoke at length about the present family allow-
The Address-Ms. Mitchell
ance system. I agree with her that it needs changing. Would she look at the fact that presently under the Income Tax Act there are four separate ways in our transfer system that we help families. The first is the deduction for children of $710. Then there is a youth allowance as they become older. That deduction is worth more to those earning high incomes than to those earning small incomes. To a person with no taxable income, the deduction is worthless.
Second, there is the family allowance which she spoke about of roughly $30 a month. In addition, there is the $367 this year, rising to $384 next year, for the child tax credit. I point out to her that the child tax credit, while income tested, is a lump sum payment. A lot of that lump sum payment winds up going to tax discounters.
Lastly, there is an allowance of $2,000 for those who must use daycare. The $2,000 allowance from taxable income is worth a great deal to someone in a 50 per cent bracket who sends their kids to private school, but not worth a darn to a woman who has no taxable income or a family with no taxable income.
Would she and her Party agree that this system of assistance to families with children should be totally reviewed so that we can ensure that the money is paid to those who need it and not to those who do not need it? Does she agree that we should look after the needy, not the greedy? Does she agree that rather than go after the family allowance program alone that we should go after all of these programs together to make sure that the money is channelled where it is needed most?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who used to sit near me on this side of the House, and I have had discussions on this before. I agree with his analysis of the family benefit programs. Certainly the child tax deduction is very regressive, as is the daycare deduction. Both those programs benefit people who pay taxes. We certainly agree that they are regressive and that perhaps there needs to be a review of them.
On the child tax credit, I would also agree. The National Anti-Poverty Group has appealed to us on different occasions. Because poor families are desperate for that money, they cannot wait until the end of the year. Therefore, they often go to people who will buy the tax credit from them and charge them very unfair amounts.
Our concern is that in doing this review, and in possibly making changes to some of these programs, the family allowance program will suffer. That is why I stressed it particularly in my remarks. It is the basic program. It is the program that recognizes that children belong to all of us. I do not have any children, but I am delighted to pay my taxes to pay for your children and to have benefits that will go to all families, particularly to recognize the value of children.
We must also keep in mind that if we had a progressive tax system generally, this would automatically be taxed back. It is very nice for the wives of some of the gentlemen sitting in this House to get a cheque in their own name. For many of them it is the only cheque they get in their own name.

November 19, 1984
The Address-Ms. Mitchell
I am not against some reforms. Elowever, I want to stress over and over again that we believe the basic universal family allowance program is the most important program. As I said earlier, it recognizes the middle income earners. I can tell the new Government that if it is going to take away all benefits from that group, then politically it will be in real hot water. That is a little bit of advice.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, I always listen very intently and with great interest to any of these discussions, and to the speakers from the New Democratic Party on this critical question. I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) whether she realizes that a lot of the inequities in the welfare and social contract system have to do with the fact that Canadians are sometimes deprived because of where they live. Poor people living in isolated areas of the country, for example on remote Indian reserves, are suffering because of the universality system.
The Department of Indian Affairs has a statutory requirement not to make any welfare payments that would exceed those paid in the provinces. I always like people who haven't any children lecturing me, one who has four children, or people who have never run a business telling me how to run my business. Has the Hon. Member not realized that it is because of the universality, because of the very nature of the system, that poor people are being deprived?
The Hon. Member says that higher income Canadians should pay more. I would like to pay more, but I would like to know that it will get to the right place. My ability to pay more is limited by the fact that I am already paying for something that the Government wants to give me back. Rather than paying more, I would like to have the choice of saying "Don't pay me my old age pension and don't pay me my family allowance." I will gladly contribute because nobody has a monopoly on a social conscience. However, we want to know that what we are giving goes to the right place, that it is not skimmed away by some bureaucracy, or whatever.
I would like the Hon. Member, who comes from British Columbia, to tell me what the solution would be for my people in Fort Ware, for instance, where the cost of living is four times what it is in Vancouver, or in some of the isolated communities up and down the coast.
The old age pension cheque is the same because it is universal. The family allowance cheque is the same because it is universal. By the 12th or 15th of the month, these people go hungry. I am not overstating that. We have malnutrition and starvation on some of these Indian reserves because of the universality of the system. That is a problem. How do you overcome that?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the Hon. Member that people in remote areas, and particularly those on Indian reserves, are suffering desperately from poverty. This certainly must be a very major concern. What I think the Hon. Member is doing is confusing the concept of universal family allowances or old age pensions with basic social assistance programs.


Frank Oberle: It is the same thing.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: No, it is not the same thing. The basic social assistance plan is administered under the Canada Assistance Plan. It is 50 per cent provincial and 50 per cent federal responsibility. In the case of native people, there is a special federal responsibility for those on reserves. It is a basic raising of those rates and some adjustment for remote areas that is required.
In some cities, the cost of housing is much higher than in others. There should be an adjustment for a more flexible housing allowance. That is where the solution has to come from in order to meet the basic needs for food and shelter for these people.


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


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Sir, and the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) on your appointments, and to express my personal confidence in you and your office. I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques), the mover and seconder respectively of the address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. In particular, I would like to commend them for their eloquent and sincere addresses.
As a new Member of Parliament, I am sure that I can speak on behalf of all new Members in thanking the veteran Members of Parliament on both sides of the House for the assistance they have provided us in these first few weeks. I know many of my colleagues would agree that the sheer volume of information that has been thrust upon us has made us feel much like we are trying to paddle a canoe up a waterfall without a paddle.
Having the opportunity to present my maiden speech in the House so early in my parliamentary career is both difficult and exhilarating. The institution of Parliament is steeped in history. However, it was not until the division bells rang and I walked through the curtains behind me into the House for the first time that I realized the gravity of my new responsibility fully. For me personally, it was a time for deep reflection.
On September 4, our Party was given a mandate for change; not just a change in Government but a change in the nature of the relationship between Government and the people. 1 am deeply honoured to be part of the new Government and to meet this new challenge.
I represent the Riding of Etobicoke North which is geographically situated in the Northwest corner of Metropolitan Toronto. I am proud of the fact that I am the first local resident of my community ever to represent our riding in the House of Commons. I have lived in the riding for 26 years. It is where I have made my home, founded my business and raised my children.
November 19, 1984

I have a deep sense of commitment to the people of Etobicoke North who placed their confidence in me. For that I thank them. They can be assured that I will work diligently and effectively on their behalf because I look forward to representing them from the government benches for many, many years to come.
The name "Toby Cook" appeared on the maps of early Upper Canada and it referred to the rivers and land now known as Etobicoke. Toby Cook was a mispronunciation of the Indian word meaning "the place where the alders grow". Although the Constituency of Etobicoke North has only been in existence since 1979, the communities of Thistletown, Rex-dale and Albion which largely make up the riding have long and deep histories. These villages were first settled in the early 19th century by the Queen's Simcoe Rangers and the United Empire Loyalists.
Today in Etobicoke North we have a cross-section of people from all ethnic, religious and socio-economic backgrounds. The diverse blend of ethnic groups adds to the flavour of our community. In a sense, Etobicoke North could be viewed as a replica of the larger Canadian ethnic mosaic. Many of the residents are new Canadians, just as the United Empire Loyalists were 150 years before them.
If I had to describe my constituency in one word, it would be the word "mixture". As I have mentioned, we are blessed with an ethnic as well as a socio-economic mixture. Businesses in our community are quite diverse and range from small single proprietorships to primary industries, from small construction firms to advanced high-tech industries active in research and development. There is even a balance between single-family homes and apartments.
When I first moved to Etobicoke North, farms, orchards and cow fields were the predominant features. Today our community offers the residents a variety of social services and recreational facilities. There is everything from bachhi courts to the new Woodbine race track. Perhaps in the very near future, Hon. Members will be able to refer to Etobicoke North as the home of the dome. Although Etobicoke North is primarily an urban riding, it still contains two farms.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have given our Party a mandate for change. The Throne Speech has provided our Government with a blueprint for that change. The people of Etobicoke North join with me in applauding the Government for its sensible, honest approach in dealing with Canada's truly difficult and complex problems. The Speech from the Throne addresses those issues of concern that have been voiced to me throughout the course of the recent election campaign, including economic growth, social issues and legal reform.
Etobicoke North is no different from any other urban industrialized riding in that the recent recession has caused unemployment. Many factors contributed to the recession and to the corresponding rise in the unemployment rate. Personally, I see no merit in dwelling on the past. The Throne Speech spoke in very positive tones with new approaches to dealing with the issues. The past is the past; what concerns us is the
The Address-Mr. Pennock
future and the best security for one's future lies with a steady job. However, the key to long-term job creation is economic renewal.
On Thursday, November 8, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) put before the House an economic statement which outlined the Government's economic agenda. The responses I have received from my constituents thus far indicate their strong support of the Government's initiatives, particularly with respect to its approach to fiscal responsibility. The people of Etobicoke North recognize the necessity of tough policy during tough times. They have tightened their belts and expect the Government to do the same. They know that through responsible Government, renewed growth and prosperity in the future is achievable.
The problems facing our youth today go beyond the economic ones. During the election campaign I promised my constituents that I would create a local task force adopting a similar approach to that contained in the Throne Speech. The idea was to bring together local businessmen, educators, labour representatives, youth groups and representatives of the three levels of Government to discuss long-term job opportunities in a spirit of consultation and co-operation. We must work in a harmonious environment with the provincial Governments to ensure that our educational system is training young Canadians for jobs that will be in existence 5, 10 and 20 years into the future.
The private sector forecasts its employment and technical requirements in advance. Only through co-operation with that sector will we avoid the unfortunate situation that is occurring today, a situation in which young people have been or will be trained for jobs that do not or will not exist.
The fact that the Throne Speech equally addressed social as well as economic issues serves to reaffirm to the Canadian people the Government's commitment to the maintenance of our social programs. The Canada of today is not the Canada of 20 years ago. Alterations in the economic and social fabric of our country have created new circumstances. My constituents applaud the Government's commitment to positive action in dealing with these new circumstances. I would like to deal briefly with some of these circumstances.
Issues that concern women are very important to me personally. My wife has always been my partner; first in marriage, then in business and now in politics. I also have two teenage daughters and, like all fathers, I wish to ensure that they have the opportunity to attain their goals, whatever those goals may be. Today, because of economic conditions, technological changes and a desire for personal advancement, women have become a more integral part of every sector of the work force.
I am proud that our Government has reaffirmed its position of favouring equality for women in all sectors of society. The principle of equal pay for work of equal value remains a cornerstone of the Government's social policy. As well, I am pleased that the Government intends to place greater emphasis on employment opportunities for women in the public sector.

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Gerin
In Etobicoke North, as in the rest of Canada, we have witnessed a significant rise in the number of single-parent families. The issue of daycare is, therefore, becoming increasingly important to us. It is encouraging that the Government has proposed the creation of a Parliamentary Task Force to study the future of daycare. Undoubtedly, positive solutions will be proposed to effectively deal with this important issue.
Seniors' issues are as well vital to my constituency. More than 18 per cent of the population of Etobicoke North is over the age of 60. There are several large senior citizens' developments in the riding. We must ensure that those Canadians receive sufficient benefits in their retirement. I am pleased to report to my constituents that positive action in this direction is forthcoming in the Government's proposed legislation to extend the income-tested Spouses Allowance to those aged 60 to 64, and as well, in the legislation to enhance the financial situation of veterans.
The Government has shown its progressive nature through the proposals put forth in the Throne Speech which dealt with legal reforms. It has only been within the last 10 years that the Government and agencies have made positive steps toward aiding those individuals who, tragically, have become the victims of crime. It is a most unfortunate situation when a society spends much of its taxpayers' dollars incarcerating criminals and only a fraction on aiding and assisting the victims of crime. I am pleased that the Government intends to work in conjunction with the provinces toward developing policies designed to provide more assistance to those who have fallen victim to crime.
I am also pleased that impaired driving will be addressed. The issue of impaired driving has received much publicity in recent years and is a truly vital concern. One only has to speak to the parents of a victim of an impaired driver to realize the importance and gravity of this issue. My constituents are no strangers to this problem. The programs to reduce impaired driving, now being used by police forces all across Canada, were initiated in Etobicoke North. However, government legislation is not the only means by which to curtail impaired driving. Equally as important is education. Through education we can teach our children the dangers of such actions.
In conclusion, I would like to add a few personal comments. As I look around the House and see my colleagues, I am filled with confidence and hope. With some of them 1 have become good friends. I look forward with anticipation to working closely with them all. But, what I see most is tremendous potential; potential that I am confident will translate into success. Why am I confident? Because Canada is a country which is truly blessed. We have enormous potential for development, not only with respect to our natural resources, but, more importantly, with our human resources. It is individual Canadians who are the key to our future. No doubt there will be difficult times ahead. Everyone will have to pull
together and contribute. I believe that our Government has set a fine example.
To be very honest, this is a totally new experience for me. I have much to learn, but 1 believe I have something to offer. I am excited by the prospect of being a member of the team which will put Canada back on track. Under the leadership of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), Canada will once again become a great and prosperous nation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). Question or comment.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) for speaking so eloquently to women's issues.

I want to tell him how proud I am to be a member of the caucus with enlightened people such as himself. I would also like to assure the House that a combination of men like the Hon. Member and the 19 women who have been elected to the Government of Canada will ensure that the women of Canada make the progress for which they have been waiting for a very long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions or comments, we shall continue the debate. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin).


Mr. Frangois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to take part in the debate. 1 suppose you realize what it means to rise in the House of Commons for the first time, even if one has been pleading cases in court for many years.
I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. I know you personally, and I am sure that you will perform your new duties with great skill and competence. From my seat, which is quite near the Chair, I can see it is not always easy to bring down impartial rulings, and I am sure you will perform your new duties with consummate skill.
On this occasion, I would also like to say a few words about the work done by my predecessor in the House, Mr. Claude Tessier, who was the Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead for ten years. During that time, he worked very hard, both in the House and in his riding, in a riding that, I must say, is not an easy one.
The riding of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead has 65 different municipalities, and for the benefit of my Western friends, I should explain that this means 65 different mayors. Whenever the Government launches a program like Canada Works, for instance, 65 mayors, often responsible for very small communities, each want a piece of the pie, in other words, their own program for their own municipality.
November 19, 1984

This very large riding-130 miles long by 50 miles wide- borders on six other federal ridings. To give Hon. Members an idea where my riding is located, to the west and north it borders on the ridings of Brome-Missisquoi, Shefford, Sherbrooke, Richmond-Wolfe, Frontenac and Beauce, while to the south and east, it borders on three U.S. states, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Obviously, a riding of this size can be a problem, especially where travelling is concerned. It takes me longer to travel across to the other end of my riding than to go to Montreal, which is already a fair distance. It is easier for me to go skiing in the Laurentians than to go to Woburn. My predecessor weathered these problems as well as he could, and he also gave me a few tips for dealing with them after I was elected. I now realize that the entire country has the same problems. In Canada, these are problems we have to live with. It is so often a matter of distance, whether we are thinking in the geographic sense, and that of course is clear to everyone, or about economic and political "distances".
For instance, when the previous Government had a majority in the House, but hardly any Members from the West, it could not govern the country in a way that would be accepted by all Canadians. Only a truly national Government, a Government representing all parts of Canada, can govern this country. It is the only way to overcome the political distances that separate Canadians and tell Canadians: All parties in Canada are represented .. . The only way to avoid friction, to avoid the problems we have had for years, the only way to prevent the West from saying: I am not represented. Or Quebec from saying: We were not there when the decisions were being made. The distance problem is also present in the economic sphere. We have cities like Toronto and Montreal that are economically far stronger than the towns in my riding. We must constantly try to overcome these distances and do so in any way we can. We have to live with it, but we also have to overcome it, in the same way we live with and overcome the rigours of winter. If we refuse to overcome these distances, we might as well all go south and live where the sun shines all year. This is important. Within each government program, there should be room for the most sparsely populated areas or those furthest from the urban centres, such as my riding, across the border from Maine. These areas should be considered a part of Canada on the same basis as other areas and be given the same opportunities enjoyed by Canadians in Montreal or Toronto. However, I am confident that the Progressive Conservative Government will give us programs that will overcome these differences, that will help small municipalities like Lac-Megantic or Woburn or Lac-Drolet to overcome the problems facing them every day. Industries located 100, 150 or 200 miles from Montreal, far from the markets, are going to find it harder to provide jobs for local people. If we do not make an effort to provide those jobs, to give them that extra opportunity, those people are going to
The Address-Mr. Gerin
react like some Quebecers and some people in Western Canada have reacted, to express their disappointment and frustration. Today, however, the same people are encouraged by the fact that a Progressive Conservative Government is in power, and by the new programs the Government wants to introduce. These people have confidence once again, and I believe they have reason to be confident.
My riding, which has a population of a little over 80,000 is 15 per cent English-speaking, reflecting a duality that has always existed in Canada. In the Eastern Townships, the two communities have always lived in harmony. The riding has always had a number of English-speaking citizens, like my birthplace, Coaticook, where at one time, there were as many Anglophones as Francophones. We live quite happily together, sharing each other's culture and enjoying the best of both worlds.
Because of the riding's excellent geographical location, we have made representations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) asking him to restore the VIA Rail link, not in order to give one specific community its own rail service but to restore the Halifax-Montreal route, the Atlantic route, which would be a tremendous importance to the development of our area, the Beauce, Megantic, Frontenac and Sherbrooke. We also made representations aimed at upgrading the Sherbrooke airport, not to make it possible for the Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead to fly instead of driving his car to be in attendance in the House, but to spur real regional development.
We certainly hope that the government will react positively, if only because those measures were promised during the election campaign. We are quite confident that they will be translated into specific projects in the coming months. That would help the region fight against an unemployment rate of 14.4 per cent and go a long way toward convincing those Canadian citizens that they are not as far removed from the decision centres as geographical distances might at first lead them to believe. I think that the people of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead did get the message we gave them during the election campaign, a message of hope and a message of renewal.
Last Saturday, two days ago, I attended a meeting of a group of people from my riding and I explained to them the economic problems with which the government has to cope.
I am referring to the rather difficult problems left behind by the previous government. Those problems would surely have created more unemployment and might even have led the country to bankruptcy.
Last week, I listened to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) about the Speech from the Throne, when he said that he had nothing against it and that, much to his surprise, he agreed with it. I commend him for saying that because it does him credit. He has been a Member of this House for

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
many years, so he can appreciate the problems he has left us with.
The same thing goes for other Members from the Montreal region. I heard a few who kept saying that the Speech from the Throne had a new and worthwhile approach and that we ought to steer in the direction indicated.
The issue of universality is one which, I believe, people understand quite well in the sense that they know it has to be debated, that such a debate is not necessarily a new step but rather part of the normal evolution or review of the system which should have occurred perhaps a few years ago, instead of just allowing the country to sink into a total indebtedness of more than $190 billion.
People agree, I think, not so much that the less fortunate should have less money, but that there should be a redistribution which is more equitable and more in line with the country's aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this motion calling upon the House to concur in the Speech from the Throne, as it incorporates all the principles for which 1 have been fighting for the past 20 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member?

If not, we shall resume debate.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. I would like, first of all, to congratulate you, Sir, on the position you hold. I would like to congratulate as well all those who hold office. I may say that so far the House has witnessed the toughness, the firmness and yet the sensibility with which you have governed. We appreciate that. I would also like to congratulate the mover and seconder on their addresses in reply to the Speech from the Throne and, indeed, all Hon. Members who have participated in this debate, particularly those who have addressed the House for the first time.
1 want to thank those who have seen fit to elect me to this House for the fifth time, Mr. Speaker, and to tell them that I appreciate the confidence they have shown in me. 1 will certainly do my best to see that I serve them to the best of my ability, as 1 have in the past.
I would like to direct some comments to the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, as well as to the economic statement which followed it. The central message seems to be that private enterprise is the engine of the economy and that it must be put front and centre. 1 have no quarrel with that particular philosophy. Second, and more specifically, it is said that the deficit must be reduced. Again, I have no quarrel in principle with that particular philosophy. However, it is the application which bothers me, Mr. Speaker. I believe the question is; if that is the direction in which the Government wants to move, is it moving in that direction in an evenhanded and fair way? From what I have seen, Mr. Speaker, of the effects of the
Throne Speech and of the economic statement, it seems to me that the people in Atlantic Canada and in my riding will be particularly hard hit by certain economic measures. I would like to point out what they are.
Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the province from which 1 come has the highest unemployment rate in the country and the highest cost of living. Historically we have been heavily dependent on transfer payments. Over $200 million a year goes into the Newfoundland economy by way of unemployment insurance. That is the second largest contributor to the provincial economy. I point that out, Mr. Speaker, not because 1 am proud of the fact, and not because I am satisfied with that situation. 1 point that out to indicate that sudden and massive change in transfer payments, in unemployment insurance, is going to have a negative effect on the economy of our province.
In the economic statement we were told that the Government was going to increase premiums, which indeed is a raise in taxes. At the same time people would be cut off the rolls and benefits would be cut. The reason given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for that situation was that people did not look hard enough for jobs. That is the interpretation of what he said. Therefore, he is cutting down on unemployment insurance.
1 would like to tell the Minister of Finance and the other people on that side of the House that there are 8,000 Newfoundlanders in Fort McMurray, Alberta, who went there to look for jobs. They are in Faro in the Yukon, they are in Thompson, and they are even in Tuktoyaktuk. How far do we have to go to look for jobs, Mr. Speaker? Do we have to swim the Pacific to Japan to look for jobs? What must we do to prove to the Minister of Finance and the Government that Newfoundlanders really do want work? The reason given by the Minister of Finance for changing the unemployment insurance system is that people were not looking hard enough for jobs. In my province at the present time there are no alternatives and people are doing their best. They go anywhere in this country where they can find employment. 1 know that the Minister of Finance is a fair and honourable man. 1 just think that he does not quite understand the situation in that province and in the Atlantic area generally.
The Minister assumes that the private sector will create those jobs if the safety net that we have created for unemployed people is changed in some way. What is the evidence of that and what is the motivation? We have had tax breaks in the Atlantic provinces before. In spite of the programs that we have had in the past we have had difficulty attracting capital and creating those jobs. No one was more diligent in that than this Party when we formed the Government of Canada. A constant, considered, important and paramount plank in our platform was always regional development. It seems to me that we have somehow lost sight of that objective.
November 19, 1984

Let us look at the major industries in my province at the present time. We are told that the offshore holds a great deal of promise. I think that is probably true. Obviously an agreement is imminent. One was talked about and negotiated when the present Government was the Opposition. I hope that that agreement comes to fruition soon. If it is a good agreement for Newfoundland and for Canada my Party and I will support it. However, if that agreement comes into effect and Hibernia does start until maybe in 1989 or 1990, given the world price for oil and all the other factors that have to be considered in starting a commercial development, how soon will those new jobs come? What do we do until then? Even if Hibernia comes into existence it is not going to solve all our employment problems.
Let us turn to a second economic mainstay which may be the most important one for my province; that is the fishery. Fishery Products International is one of the largest companies in the world. It was created when we formed the Government of Canada. I think that company must be given time. That company and that industry is struggling, not just in Atlantic Canada, but all across the country. The marketplace is not sound at the present time. Therefore, our main industry in the province is still struggling.
The inshore fishery which is very important to my constituency in particular has had a particularly bad year. The fish just did not come ashore. No Government, of whatever political stripe, can ensure that. Hundreds of fishermen, through no fault of their own, are not going to be able to get the numer of weeks necessary to qualify for benefits this year. Given that fact, I submit that now is not the time to change the system. Now is the time to do what was done before; that is, put special programs in place to help those fishermen who will not receive those benefits, through no fault of their own.
Instead of tightening up on unemployment insurance it seems to me that we have to ensure that that net is in place. However, there has been a toughening of unemployment insurance and, as far as the fishery is concerned, these other measures had been taken. Capital projects which were to proceed, such the Smokes on the Labrador coast, have been cancelled. The Government is going to cut out the advertising program that was put in place to advertise fish products abroad. Insurance is going to be privatized. I wonder how many companies are going to get into the business of insuring inshore fishermen, their nets, gear and boats. So far there has not been much interest shown. That is why the Government is involved in those activities, because the private sector has not responded. Maybe we will find companies all across Canada suddenly insuring longliners, but I wonder and worry about that. If it does not happen there is going to be a severe burden on inshore fishermen.
Berthage fees are going to be doubled at a time when the fishery has had a particular bad year. Fishermen are going to have to pay more for maps and weather forecasts. All of these may seem insignificant to a large business, but when they are added as a burden to a small inshore fishermen, a small businessman, they add up to a very heavy burden indeed. That
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
kind of measure is not going to create jobs in a struggling industry. Rather, it hits the little guy when he is down and needs a hand up. It is going to put massive economic pressure on those who can least afford it.
With regard to the forestry industry, in spite of the fact that our mills in the province are now in good hands and that modernization is underway, technology in and of itself is going to mean a loss of jobs. While the situation is stable in the forest industry, which is the third economic mainstay of the province, jobs have been lost. I do not foresee in the immediate future where those new jobs are going to be created. Yet, we are told that the forestry centre which was to be put in Corner Brook is going to be cancelled. That would have been an alternative for employment in that particular west coast area.
There is evidence in the Speech from the Throne and in the economic statement particularly, Mr. Speaker, that the people in the Atlantic and the North are the forgotten people. I would like to talk about the North for a minute. Consider what has happened to the people up there. The cost of gasoline has gone up. The airport tax has gone up. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that air travel into the North is not an alternative, it is not luxury. It is the only way in and out. I do not know if the Government understands that, but when you live in that particular area the only way you can get out of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Labrador is by air. If you increase the cost of gasoline and airport taxes it will place an additional burden on people who already experience the highest cost of living in the country.
As a matter of fact, those measures which have been taken are exactly the measures which the Canadian Transport Commission recommended against last week. In one of the best reports issued by the Canadian Transport Commission it said that to do away with airport taxes and fuel taxes would give the people in the North a break which they deserve and require if they are going to continue to live in the North. If we continue to put that kind of burden on people in the North it will depopulate northern Canada.
What else was done as far as the North was concerned? The moratorium on the taxation of northern benefits which had been put in place is only there for a year. It was my understanding that northern benefits would not be taxed indefinitely, for the foreseeable future, and I understood that to mean for all time. Many of us fought that issue very hard and I can say that we will continue to fight it. The Minister of Finance said this would last only one year, and then he will review it. He said there is a possibility that northern benefits could be taxed at the end of this year. I give notice that I will fight that as hard in the future as I have in the past, because if such a measure were implemented it would depopulate the north, an area that we need to build up.
Let me talk about the plight of the youth. It is a serious situation all across the country, but particularly in the Atlantic area. In Newfoundland, 50 per cent of all eligible young people are unemployed. In the meantime, a mere $27 million is

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
allocated to youth employment as opposed to the $100 million that had been promised by this Party when we formed the Government of Canada. Moreover, there have been cuts in the industrial training allowance.
Let me give a small example of what that means to a northern community. The radio station in Nain, Labrador, and Inuit community, was depending on that industrial training allowance to employ trainees to operate a radio station for the whole of the northern Labrador coast in the Inuit language. If those industrial training programs are cut, then that project will have to be cancelled. It is a very important project for their communication purposes and the development of their area and society. That is an example of the effect it will have.
I wonder how many members of the Opposition realize those effects when they put those programs in place? We do not know what further cuts there will be. For example, we do not know about the transfer payments for education. What will happen to the Established Programs Financing? We already know that all of the money that goes to the provinces does not get to the universities, into education and to the students. We know that the provincial governments can use that money for paving roads, or whatever they want. If the EPF is cut further, the universities and post-secondary institutions will find themselves hardpressed, and I submit that the students will be carrying the burden in the final analysis. They will not only be carrying an educational burden but a financial one as well. We do not know what further cuts are coming but we do know that young people have seen an immediate cut to systems which they had taken for granted for job-creation.
I have said that I have no quarrel with the idea of giving priority to the private sector. I have no quarrel with cutting the deficit. However, when one embarks on such a policy, one must take regional differences into account. This country is not the same everywhere. Downtown Toronto and Labrador are two entirely different regions. The Government does not consider regional differences when it applies one policy right across the country.
We on this side gave a high priority to regional development. Now I hardly hear it mentioned. It is as if the Atlantic and the North do not exist. It is as if they are the forgotten people in this country. I have not heard any provincial premiers from the Atlantic say anything about the economic statement. Have any Government Members from the Atlantic Provinces said anything about it? Were they consulted and was there advice taken? If they were consulted they could not have been listened to. Either way they stand condemned.
I hope that I am wrong but I believe this budget will be a severe burden on the people in the extreme regions of this country, particularly in the Atlantic and in the North. It will be a long cold winter for those people. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and people in the North will come to fully understand this winter the meaning of the old saying, "Tory times are hard times".


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, first I must congratulate the Hon. Member for his fifth election. That is shocking news, indeed, but we must congratulate him for that.
When he finished his remarks he said that he hoped he is wrong. I am raising right now to tell him that he does not have to wait any longer for that hope to be fulfilled. He is wrong. He was wrong in just about everything he said during his comments.
He said that he had no quarrel with cutting the deficit, and then spent 20 minutes opposing in every way he could every suggested cut to the deficit. If the Hon. Gentleman has no quarrel with cutting the deficit, why is he quarreling with it? Why is he on his feet bringing forward all these objections if he does not quarrel with cutting the deficit?
The hon. gentleman tut-tutted about transfer of payments for education. There has been no suggestion by the Government whatsoever that transfer payments for post-secondary education to the provinces will be cut. As a matter of fact, the hon. gentleman was a minister in the government that, several years ago, put a ceiling on transfer payments to the provinces for education, contrary to agreements with the provinces. Now the hon. gentleman, the "Uriah Heap" of 1984, gets up and wrings his hands over some problem there will be with transfer payments for education when the hon. gentleman's government did exactly that by imposing a 6 and 5 per cent ceiling. The honourable "Uriah" should not come into the House and heap this kind of hypocrisy before Members of the House. He is saying "Please don't do what we did". I can convey the message to him that we will not do what he did.
The hon. gentleman weeps about northern benefits. He was a member of a government that announced it was eliminating the tax allowance for northern benefits given to people who live in the North. That government only changed it after the Opposition in the House sent out an outraged howl and the people of the North added their voices to it. Therefore we are glad to have him aboard and we know now that he is opposed to taxation in the North. We hope to have him on our side fighting for the cause of not letting that happen.
I did not hear a word from the hon. gentleman about the spouses' allowance. We did not hear him say that he was opposed to the increase in spouses' allowance this year that we are implementing for single persons in Canada between the ages of 60 and 64. They are primarily women who desperately need the assistance they will get this year, to the tune of $200 million, from the Government by way of an improved spouses' allowance.
We did not hear a word from the hon. gentleman about the veterans who will receive increased benefits this year as a result of the increase of $22 million with respect to veterans' benefits.
We heard the hon. gentleman complaining that a forestry centre would not be moved from St. John's to Corner Brook. Of course, there was a unanimous report recommending that it not be moved from St. John's. Further, the hon. gentleman forgot to say that partly as a result of this Government's
November 19, 1984

efforts the Kruger firm is going ahead to take over the Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill so that it will continue to operate in Corner Brook. I suggest that a living, breathing operating pulp and paper mill is 100 times better than having a forestry centre located in the community, any day of the year, any year of the century, any century of the world's history since recorded time began.
The hon. gentleman did not say a word about the fact that we are helping the fishermen, farmers, miners and loggers of this country by giving them relief with respect to the payment of gasoline tax. We are eliminating 12 cents to 14 cents a gallon of the gasoline tax. That is approximately two cents a litre, I believe-1 am like the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). Whatever it is, nothing could be sweeter than to measure in the litre. We are removing the fishermen's burden of 14 cents a gallon or three cents a litre of federal sales tax for gasoline. Did 1 hear the hon. gentleman say that?
That adds up to far more than the petty annoyances he mentioned. He alleged that berthing fees would increase and they would have to pay to get the weather forecast. What twaddle! One needs only to turn on the radio to listen to a free weather forecast on any channel. Very few people will have to pay any more for weather information.
The hon. gentleman forgot to tell his constituents about the tax reductions we are bringing in on taxes that that the hon. gentleman increased over the last five years. Remember, they were elected in 1980-


Mr. Allmand:: A point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: They do not like to hear the truth.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to remind the House of Standing Order 35-1 just had it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker, it is Standing Order 35(2)(b). This is one of the new provisional standing orders which provides for the ten-minute period following the twenty-minute speeches. It reads; in part:
-ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I did not see any other Members rising. I felt if the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was going to comment and take up the ten minutes, I should stop him very shortly anyway and allow the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) to answer or rebut the comment. But I do not recall seeing other Members rising. They are entitled to speak, and if I see them I will definitely recognize them.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Address-Mr. Rompkey


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response and the comments you made on my point of order. But this is a very serious point. These are provisional standing orders that are being tried in this House. We introduced the ten-minute debating period after twenty-minute speeches so that Members could ask questions and make brief comments, as the rule states. I think, as a matter of precedent, your ruling is very important. If Members are allowed to carry on and make full speeches after twenty-minute speeches, we will violate this provisional rule. I think it is important for the Chair to give direction on that ten-minute period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have already made a ruling on it. I see the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) rising. Is it to ask a question?


Mr. de Jong:: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) would like to give an answer?


John Carnell Crosbie: Could I get to my question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) put his question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What does the hon. gentleman think about the fact that the cupboard was bare respecting the unemployment and Canada Works funds when we got into office? We devoted, I think, a further $480 million to a Canada Works program that is coming into effect November and December this year, including additional funding under section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act? Did that happen to slip the Hon. Member's mind or would he like to congratulate us on doing what we can to overcome the worst effects of unemployment in districts like his own this year? The Hon. Member's own district, by the way, is going to get $3 million from that program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: Yes, my own district is going to get $3 million, Mr. Speaker. It got almost $3 million last year because Canada Works is a program that was brought in by this party when we were the government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: The use of Section 38 was a use of the Unemployment Insurance Act, a creative and imaginative use brought in by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he was the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Those program are not Tory programs. They are Liberal programs being continued. I welcome them and I hope they continue.

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
I ask the Hon. Member not to talk to me about the bare cupboard. As far as the deficit cuts are concerned, Mr. Speaker, yes 1 agree with them. But I am saying to the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) that the Conservatives are going about that in the wrong way. The Conservatives are cutting the wrong things. If the Hon. Member for St. John's West is prepared to stand up in Newfoundland and defend the cutting of unemployment insurance and to defend all the other cuts, I would like him to come to my riding, because if he does I will be in for a sixth term, Mr. Speaker. I hope he will come and defend what the Government has done.
As far as northern allowances are concerned, it was this government in the last measure taken that said there would be no taxation on northern benefits. That was a definitive statement. That is the situation. It was not the opposition that put up a fight. It was those of us from the North who said to the government of the day, "This is what you must do." And we were listened to-


John Carnell Crosbie: Who was the government?


Bill Rompkey: -unlike members from the Atlantic area who were not listened to in this budget and in this Throne Speech.


John Carnell Crosbie: You were the government. You were a minister in the government. You were speaking to yourself.


Bill Rompkey: People in the Atlantic area are the forgotten people. As far as the forestry centre in Corner Brook is concerned, the Hon. Member says, "yes, we have the Kruger Mill going". The agreement for the Kruger Mill was signed when we were the Government of Canada. Like a lot of other agreements, ribbon-cuttings, and press conferences, the Conservatives are taking credit now for things that were done when we were the Government of Canada. The money that was put into the Kruger Mill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allocated for questions and comments is now expired.

The ten-minute period has concluded. Let me say to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) that in future if he would like to be recognized I would very much appreciate it if he would rise as soon as the speaker has finished. I will then recognize him.


William Warren Allmand: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no requirement that Members rise immediately after a speaker has finished speaking. I was only prompted to ask my question after hearing the question put by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). I think that is my right. If he had not taken so much time I would have had time to put my question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would now recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney).


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friends and colleagues, the Hon. Member for Sarnia Lambton (Mr. James) and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques) on their excellent beginnings to this debate. I would also like to congratulate all new Members on both sides of the House on their election and to say to them and to all Members of this House how proud I am to be part of the Thirty-third Parliament of Canada. I am well aware that the honour of being here is a privilege that has to be earned every day. I am grateful to the electors of Ottawa West for the confidence they expressed in me in such overwhelming numbers on September 4.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, as a long-time resident of Ottawa, Ottawa West is an interesting and exciting community. It is an attractive community, so attractive in fact that I am pleased to say several Members of this House and one or two Cabinet Ministers reside in Ottawa West while they are in the capital.
Ottawa West comprises an area of about 26 square kilometres in the west end of the City of Ottawa. The eastern part of the riding is visible from the windows of the Government Lobby directly behind me. The riding follows the historic Ottawa River along the beautiful and well-travelled Ottawa River Parkway to the Ottawa-Nepean boundary in the west and then south to Baseline Road and east to the Central Experimental Farm, the only farm in my riding. I have the honour of having as the only farmer in my riding the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
Ottawa West is a largely residential riding which boasts a population of approximately 90,000 and a labour force, as of the last census, of 48,520 people.
Many of my constituents are in the Public Service of Canada; many are in the commercial and business industries, particularly in the high technology sector. I will have more to say about the Public Service and high technology later.
English is the language most frequently spoken in the homes of my constituency. It is spoken by about 86.5 per cent of the people.

French is the language spoken in 7.4 per cent of the homes in Ottawa West; in 6 per cent of the homes in my riding, a language other than French or English is spoken, and 26 per cent of the population speak both French and English.

In terms of formal education 14.5 per cent of Ottawa West residents, aged 15 and older in 1981, had a university degree.
I am particularly honoured to represent Ottawa West in this House because it has been represented by so many capable members in the past and, indeed, by several prominent figures in Canadian history, including two distinguished Prime Ministers of Canada. Both Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Robert Borden represented my area under its former name of Carle-ton. So did George Drew when he was here as Leader of Her
November 19, 1984

Majesty's Loyal Opposition. More recently, the Hon. Dick Bell, for many years national director of the Progressive Conservative Party and later a distinguished Minister in the Diefenbaker Cabinet, represented Ottawa West. Mr. Bell is still a leading figure of the legal community in the City of Ottawa and was a partner of that distinguished servant of the House, the late Hon. Walter Baker who I was proud to call my friend.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Bruce Daubney: I would be remiss if I did not mention as well my immediate predecessor as Member of Parliament for Ottawa West and yours, Mr. Speaker, as Speaker of the House, the Hon. Lloyd Francis, who was the only Liberal to have ever been elected in Ottawa West. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Francis upon his appointment as Ambassador to Portugal and wish both him and Mrs. Francis well in their important new duties.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Bruce Daubney: As all Hon. Members appreciate, it is always a pleasure to note a constituent's achievement.
I mentioned earlier that many of my constituents are public servants. I myself was a public servant for three years until my election. In fact, I was the only federal public servant elected to the Chamber on September 4. I am also proud to say that my great-grandfather was a public servant in this city in the late 1800s and the early years of this century. Indeed, one of the highlights of the election campaign for me on a personal level was encountering a constituent in his 90s who had worked with my great-grandfather in the Ottawa post office before World War I.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said on a number of occasions, we have a good Public Service in Canada. In most cases public servants are a dedicated, hardworking group of people who have oftentimes been the subject of abuse that might better have been directed in the past at their political masters. Public servants like all Canadians are people who care about their jobs, their families and their country. They are people with the education and the experience to make a valuable contribution to the public life of Canada, not just on the job but outside their work as well. In my view they are people who have the right to expect that they will be treated equally under the Constitution. This is why during the campaign I made a commitment to push for an extension of political rights and freedom of expression for public servants.
The Public Service Employment Act, enacted by the House in 1967, establishes some very restrictive and narrow rules on political activity by public servants. The Public Service Commission in February of this year issued guidelines on political activities which in my opinion went beyond the scope and intent of the Act in extending restrictions on such activities even further.
The Address-Mr. Dauhnev

I will therefore recommend to my colleagues that a special parliamentary committee be struck to draft a piece of legislation with the following objectives: first, to give political rights to public servants as recommended in the D'Avignon Commission report and, second, to indicate to all public servants in clear and precise terms to what extent they are allowed to participate in the political process, regardless of the category they fit in on the basis of the D'Avignon report.

I mentioned earlier that many of my constituents work in the high-tech industry. In fact, Ottawa West is home to several high-tech companies as well as to the Ontario Centre for Micro-electronics. Ottawa West has a large stake in the success of high technology industries. A good proportion of the new private sector jobs we need in Ottawa may come from these industries-from communications, laser, aerospace or other high level technologies, the same technology which other Canadian communities need if they are to prosper.
There is more at stake here than just the creation of new jobs in the high-tech sector itself. The fact is that Canada's economic health rests on the increased productivity of existing industries. To survive in the world we have to sell what we produce, and we can only do that by drastically increasing the productivity of our mature industries-the industries where there are jobs for more than just scientists and engineers.
I am talking about our forestry, agriculture, mining, petrochemical, textile, shoe, steel and automobile industries-the areas where there are large numbers of jobs at stake. The problem we face here is that we cannot match many of our Third World competitors in these areas in terms of wages. I am referring to countries such as Mexico, Taiwan or Brazil where the lessons of competitive international economics have been learned well, countries where labour-intensive industries are productive and thriving.
It is obvious that we cannot hope to compete internationally on the basis of labour costs. We can only compete, we can only keep our existing jobs and create new jobs if we can increase our productivity or if we can produce innovative products at a price people want. This means developing new technology, creating new high-tech industries and learning how to integrate new technology with our existing industries, to help us produce better products more cheaply than before in our existing industries. We should not think for a moment that only blue collar jobs are at stake here. We have all seen the vulnerability of the scientific and engineering community to staff cut-backs.
Because of the small investment required for equipment and high labour costs involved in office work, a number of U.S., Canadian, Japanese and Australian companies have already begun exporting data processing clerical work to Third World countries. Labour costs are less. These countries can acquire data processing technologies cheaply and they can produce high quality work. The concept of the offshore office has been born, and one more brick in the wall of our economic compla-

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. Daubnev
cency has tumbled to the harsh demands of international competition.
The loss of jobs is a problem, but the loss of our complacency can only be good for us. We have to learn from our competitors. We have to encourage new technological development, and we have to plan very carefully for the integration of new technologies into our existing industries.
The Japanese have demonstrated how useful and how necessary social consensus is for the introduction of new technology to society. Their social and cultural patterns cannot and should not necessarily be duplicated here, but we need co-operation between all sectors of our community if we are to make some of the difficult economic and technological decisions which are necessary for economic growth. That is one of the key messages of the Government's Throne Speech and economic statement-consensus and co-operation.
I was happy to see the appointment of my friend and colleague, the Elon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), as Minister of State for Science and Technology. For the first time in many years we have a Minister devoted solely to this fundamentally important sector of our economy. Technological innovation does not come from wishful thinking. It comes from the creation of an economic environment which rewards risk and rewards research.
The Speech from the Throne and the economic statement clearly lay the groundwork for the creation of an economic environment that will stimulate confidence and encourage Canadians to take the risks which research and development involve. There is a long pay-back period on research and development. Investors, entrepreneurs and scientists need to know that government is serious about long-term growth before they will invest in research and development.
There has been a lack of confidence in the country bred in part by the poorly co-ordinated and recklessly expensive projects of the previous administration. In my opinion this has been the prime inhibitor to greater research and development in the past. In fact, the shamful statistic is that Canada spends less on R and D as a percentage of our Gross National Product than any country in the western world except Iceland.
The fact that our Government has shown that it means business on the deficit has already had a positive influence on business confidence in this country and abroad. I am confident that Canada can look forward to increased investment in research and development, increased productivity and increased competitiveness for Canadian industry. As a result we can look forward to more jobs for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on many aspects of the Member's speech, but I will focus on the area of political rights for people working in the Public Service of Canada. I appreciate very much that the Hon. Member has
indicated that he personally favours giving political rights to people working for the public service and that they should not be forced to continue with the kind of restrictions that now exist, restrictions which have existed since 1966, and which were reinforced by the directives sent by the Public Service Commission to all members of the public service during the months of February to July this summer.
The Hon. Member did not comment, however, on the specific promises that were made by his leader, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and by the Conservative Party during the course of the summer election campaign. Perhaps he recalls that in response to questionnaires from the Professional Institute, and also from the Public Service Alliance, that the promise was made that a Progressive Conservative Government would in fact set up a parliamentary task force or parliamentary committee and would assign that committee the job of looking into the question of political rights of public service workers with a view to taking early action.
While the Conservatives in the campaign did not say specifically what they intended to do, they made it very clear that they felt that most people working for the public service should have political rights. My question is whether the Hon. Member recalls that promise. I presume from his statement that he supports that action. Has he pressed the Government to in fact set up the committee which was promised? Can he give us a report, as a backbencher from the Government side, as to when that will likely take place?


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), my neighbour, for his question. I, of course, am aware of our position during the campaign. It is one that I support, as is clear from my remarks. It is one that I as a private Member will continue to work toward achieving.
In answer to one of the Hon. Member's subquestions, I have had discussions with certain Members of the Cabinet. I am confident that this question of political rights of public servants will be one that will form the subject matter of negotiations in due course between Treasury Board and various Government unions. As I said, I will certainly press for a parliamentary committee to investigate further. 1 think the D'Avignon Committee, which reported a few years ago, has gone a long way toward recommendations which in my view would be acceptable and workable. They are ones that I would be prepared to recommend to my colleagues on the front benches.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member. I think I made clear that certainly my Party has felt for a long time that these political rights should be given to people who work for the Public Service of Canada. My colleague from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has on several occasions brought forward Private Members' Bills for debate. In fact, that was the only occasion on which this matter was raised in the previous Parliament between 1980 and 1984.
November 19, 1984

I mention that because when the Liberals were in opposition in 1980, prior to that election, they made the same promises as the Progressive Conservatives made this summer. That is why people in the public service and in the public service unions may rightly be forgiven for being just a bit jaundiced about what is there, although it is my impression that the Conservatives were perhaps more intent on acting than the Liberals had been.
I am disturbed, however, to see that this is now going to be a matter of negotiation and discussion. It is a matter that, if not acted upon early, may well get either forgotten or may get bound up in bureaucratic boondoggles or hornwaggles and not get acted upon. I would just ask the Hon. Member to join with me in pressing the now absent President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to see that the parliamentary committee be set up before Christmas with a specific view to maintaining a momentum on this issue. If the momentum does not exist, I fear in fact that the action that both he and I would like to see will not be taken in the life of this Parliament.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre that I will do what I can to ensure that the momentum is in fact not lost on this issue. He will appreciate, of course, that I am not in a position to make any commitment on the part of the Government. However, I can assure him that I have a real personal interest in this issue. I know that many of my constituents do as well. I recognize that the principles involved are not black and white. We are balancing two essential principles here. One is the impartiality and neutrality of the public service which, of course, must be maintained. The other is the right of individual public servants to freedom of expression and political activity.
This is not an easy question. It is probably fair to say it is not one on which there is any consensus on this side of the House, and probably not on the other side either. As an Ottawa area member and a former public servant, I assure the Hon. Member that I will continue to press for this. I hope, with him and other members from the Ottawa area and other interested members from across the country, that this matter can be referred to a parliamentary committee in the very near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As there are no more questions or comments, I will now recognize the next speaker.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in the House for the first time. I am very proud of the fact that I am here at last, after all the attempts made during most of the last
decade.
I would like to thank the people of Gatineau who have given me a mandate of which I am proud. I would also like to tell them that I do not intend to waste a single minute of my time and that I am going to take advantage of this opportunity to
The Address-Mrs. Mailly
get Gatineau the development it needs, as a riding that has tremendous potential but has been terribly neglected, especially during the last twenty or thirty years.
Gatineau was one of the ridings of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Although 1 have great respect for that great French-Canadian who put his mark on our history, I must say I am proud of the fact that I managed to win the riding for my Party, at a time when this country needs people with the courage to change its course and guide it in a direction that will help develop its great potential.
Mr. Speaker, this Government is accused of being vague in the throne speech, despite the fact that it contains the broad outlines of the new direction this Government wishes to take in administering the country. Heaven knows, planning and direction are something this country needs very badly! Too many ad hoc programs! Too many solutions based on political reasons, have adversely affected development and our ability to provide economic solutions.

We needed to have a new direction in our country. We needed to lay out the foundation for this new direction. It is very difficult to turn the Queen Mary around just by wishing so. You have to plan it. You have to make sure you know where you are going. You have to announce to the various technicians and experts, even to the engineroom, that you are going to change direction with this enormous equipment.
There is a similarity between what we have attempted to do as a new government, because the mess that we were left with by the previous administration and its previous administration and its previous administration is not something that can be changed overnight. Therefore, I would quarrel with the approach that has been taken by the Opposition, that in our Speech from the Throne there is nothing but generalities and pipe dreams and that there is nothing substantial.
On the contrary, the throne speech defines the structural problems of our economy which, for instance, have prevented us from providing for the lean years. Because of the enormous debt load, we did not have the flexibility required to act when, for instance, the economy of our biggest trading partner, the United States, was under pressure and buyers on the other side were unable to place the orders we needed to keep our factories going. Because we did not have the requisite flexibility, every time the U.S. elephant sneezed, we had no choice but to jump.
We must build this flexibility into our relations with our neighbour to the south who has a tremendous influence on our lives. While building this flexibility, we also want to ensure our country's sovereignty. We want to be able to make independent decisions to promote our growth and deal with the problems that occur from time to time. We cannot have equal

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Mailly
growth, because there are too many factors involved, and therefore we need this flexibility in order to cope with the rainy days.
In the Speech from the Throne, we gave a clear picture of how we are going to obtain the flexibility we need to cope with the lean years. We also discussed a new approach to consultations with the provinces. My Government's management of federal-provincial relations will pursue three basic objectives: to harmonize policies of our two orders of government, to ensure respect for their jurisdictions, and to end unnecessary and costly duplication. These are not just words but very definite goals. There is a good example of all this in my constituency today, where Canexel, a CIP factory, has just received an order to close down by February 14. As soon as I heard the factory was going to close, I got in touch with the mayor of the City of Gatineau, with the Liberal Member of the National Assembly for Gatineau, with the president of the Societe d'amenagement de 1'Outaouais and with people in the riding who I knew were very much motivated to protect employment in the riding. I did not say: Well, why should I want to work together with the provincial Liberal Member? He might get all the credit, so I should leave him out of it. I did not say: Well, as far as the Societe d'amenagement de l'Outaouais is concerned, they have a pequist government and we do not agree on the constitutional issue, so why should I want to work with people who do not share my opinions? No, I said to myself: Our objective is to save 250 jobs at Canexel. That is why we got to work right away. Tomorrow we are having meetings with officials from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, to bring together potential buyers and experts from the federal and provincial development services, to make sure that the decisions we want to make will be both favourable to Gatineau and not detrimental to the area where the factory was to be transferred. So this is all very concrete. When we say consultation, we mean consultation.
My Government is also committed to ensuring that the equality of both official languages is respected in fact as it is in law.

Most people are in favour of bilingualism in Canada. The problem arises from the methods which are used to establish the bilingualism of the country. There is also a great deal of fear in those Canadians who live in certain regions of the country and who have not the advantage of living with people who speak a language other than English, except perhaps some European languages. They have been used to hearing people from Europe speaking various languages, but perhaps have not been exposed to North American French-speaking people. There is a great deal of fear.
I feel that if the previous administration made a mistake in its bilingualism policy, it was in not considering that when we want to have something adopted which deals with emotions, culture and attitudes, the first thing we must do is remove the fear which will be the greatest obstacle to making progress.
That is why I am very pleased that my Party and the Government have realized that we must push bilingualism, but on the other hand that we must address ourselves to the legitimate fears of a great many people who are unfamiliar with life in a dual-language society. This is why it is a very important part of the Speech from the Throne.

We want to respect the equality of both languages. There is also reference to the methods that will be used to make all Canadians, whatever their mother tongue, aware of the importance of bilingualism in Canada in terms of justice, intrinsic value and the cultural wealth it represents. The constitutional agreement will remain incomplete as long as Quebec is not part of an accord. While their main responsibility is to achieve economic renewal the Ministers will work to create the conditions that will make possible the achievement of the prime objective.
Furthermore, this Government is committed not only to reconciliation but also to creating an economic consensus. Here again, creating a consensus is not a vague statement. It is a very practical statement. For instance, if we do not start the consultation process, we will never develop the solutions we need to deal with our very complex problems. We must have balanced development in the regions. We must also stop the duplication of efforts by provincial and federal governments because we no longer have the tremendous growth we experienced in the sixties. It is therefore imperative that we maximize the funds earmarked for economic development. That consensus is absolutely essential. There can be no progress without it.
Not only will the next summit seek to achieve a consensus but it will also gather under one roof spokespersons for consumers, women, native people, businessmen, unions and government officials. We will then have the wide variety of consultations needed to choose policies that will reflect real conditions in all regions as well as the country's real economic situation. As soon as the situation improves, we will be in a position to implement all the necessary programs or changes.
I am convinced that throwing lots of money left and right to score points or impress people will not solve our problems. On the contrary, I believe that the reason why Canada finds itself in this predicament is that this method has been used too often. They wanted to impress people instead of sitting down in a way which some people who like to show off would describe as being less dramatic and less ostentatious, but such methods will be far more constructive, competent and effective to solve the problems.
Perhaps there will be other summits on increased productivity. Everybody knows that we must increase productivity. When we talk about productivity, we do not mean that people ought to work harder and that they are lazy; no, we mean that the machinery is obsolete, that markets are not properly studied, that some products are simply left on the shelf. That is what productivity is all about, it is a lot more than simply telling people that they have to work much harder during their
November 19, 1984

working hours. I even think that this last problem is disappearing gradually and that our efforts should be aimed at modernizing the equipment and coming to grips with the latest technology. Speaking of the latest technology, we in the Outaouais region are still lagging behind the technological breakthrough. That is why I made it a point during the election campaign to tell the people that I would make sure that the Outaouais residents, French- and English-speaking alike, will very soon be part of that technological breakthrough.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about social justice, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. The role of women in all spheres of Canadian society and the equality which they rightfully claim are indeed the most significant development in recent years. True equality between men and women stems from economic equality. That is why I decided to join the Progressive Conservative Party in the first place. I came to the conclusion that, without economic equality, women can dream all they want about social equality, but they will never achieve it.
I knew that there can not possibly be economic equality unless Canada's economy is strong, and that the government in office must have the courage to make the necessary changes to spur the kind of economic growth which I, as a woman, as well as my sisters and my grandchildren-I have a son, so perhaps I will have granddaughters some day-need if ever we are to have that equality. This is why I believe that the efforts already made by our Government and by our Prime Minister, a true leader, are not only valuable, but essential to ensure women's equality.
Indeed, you will be asked to consider a number of important legislative measures, including removal of the discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act, certain amendments to the Divorce Act, and measures to control pornography and sexually abusive broadcasting.
It is also time to recognize the responsibility we all share for those of our fellow-citizens who suffer from physical and mental disabilities and this is why the throne speech also gave priority to this issue.
In addition, there will be a comprehensive overhaul of the Canadian pension system, particularly such matters as portability, vesting, survivors' benefits and pension coverage of women. These are very complex issues which require consideration if we want economic progress for women. As we all know, an astounding proportion, something like 60 percent, of women over age 65 live below the poverty line. Many of these women find themselves in that situation either because they have spent their lives bringing up their children and taking care of their husbands or because they have held jobs which provided no pensions or only a very meager one. If we want equality for women, it is therefore essential to overhaul our
The Address-Mrs. Mailly
pension system. It is also essential for men because our society has changed. There is now much more mobility than before, and we must have even more because workers have to go where the jobs are and Canadians must be able to move anywhere in Canada, wherever job opportunities are, because it would be sheer deception on our part if we were to believe that a country as vast and diversified as ours could one day be evenly and equally developed. Mobility is therefore essential, and without pension portability, we cannot have the necessary flexibility to guarantee that unemployment will be eliminated or at least reduced to a rate which our society can absorb thanks to temporary assistance programs.
Canada owes much to those who have dedicated themselves to cultural, artistic and athletic endeavour. The throne speech says that the Government will address itself to this issue. However, it must be understood that we are in the middle of an economic crisis and that we are trying to give a new economic direction to our country. Unfortunately, priorities must be set and areas such as culture, the arts and athletics may not receive as much attention at the beginning of our mandate as unemployment and job creation. This is normal because we really must pay more attention to the jobless, many of whom are now on welfare, than to other matters; even though these issues, such as culture, arts, fitness and competition, are very important to us, we shall have to wait a while before we can find the necessary funds to provide assistance in these areas. On the other hand, there is a lot we can do which does not require grants or enormous amounts of money. For instance, we can review the tax system to make sure that artists are not penalized because of their way of life which is different from that of people who work for wages.
There is much to do if we are to make existing rules more flexible and simplify the tax system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her remarks in commenting on the Speech from the Throne the Hon. Member repeated what many Members, as well as the Leader of her Party, have stated, that it was not possible to put forward in the Speech from the Throne the many items which were promised during the election campaign, because after September 4 they found that the finances of the Government were in such a terrible state. The Hon. Member used the argument that the cupboard was bare. My question to her is very simple and straightforward. Is she not aware that during the election campaign her Leader and many Conservative candidates said that the country was in a terrible financial situation? As a matter of fact, they said that the deficit was between $36 billion and $37 billion. Despite the fact that they said the deficit was going to be between $36 billion and $37
382

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Mailly
billion, they made over 300 promises which the Leader of her Party estimated would cost approximately $4 billion.
The other night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that the deficit this year would be approximately $34 billion. However, the Hon. Member and many of her colleagues are using the excuse that they cannot move forward with many of the election campaign promises because of the financial situation. How can they say that they cannot move ahead with those promises because the deficit is now $34 billion-according to the Minister of Finance-when during the election campaign promises were made when they said the deficit would be between $36 billion and $37 billion?


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer that question. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech today that one of the problems we wanted to address in the Speech from the Throne was the structural problems in the economy. Those problems have been neglected for many decades.
One of the structural problems is the growth of the debt which we discovered once we were in government and could look at the books. We did discover, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said, that there had been great waste. We had to wait until September 17, when our ministers could get a look at the books, to find out how big a waste. That is number one.
Number two is that the debt was growing at an even greater and alarming rate than we had anticipated. When we were talking about $36 billion, $34 billion or $35 billion, we were talking about the year 1984-85. We could see only the tip of the iceberg. I believe the Hon. Minister of Finance made it very clear in his statement that it was the shock of seeing the direction which the debt was taking, compared to the growth that could be possible, that made him decide if we did not stop adding to the debt now, three or four years in the future we would be in even greater trouble, and we would never have the freedom to address the problems. Not only that, we would not be able to do anything about the 1.5 million unemployed people.
The last thing I would like to say about the promises made during the election campaign is that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made it very clear that we would not keep all of those promises in the first 15 minutes or the first 15 days of government. We are only in the third month of our first mandate. I believe the Hon. Member would enjoy waiting around and seeing this unfold. He will be quite surprised to see how many of those "so-called promises"-which are actually only solutions to problems which had been created by the Hon. Member's own Government-are going to come up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Another brief question. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


William Warren Allmand: I am not used to getting that much applause from the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member did not answer the question as to why they made-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I listened to the Hon. Member very peacefully and quietly. She did not say why the Conservatives made over 300 promises amounting to $4 billion when they knew that the situation was serious. She did not answer that question. However, let me ask the Hon. Member this. She said, "We are going to deal with the deficit, the structural problem, by cutting out waste". Is she telling this House that over $9 million which is being cut from the budget for social housing is waste? There was the even bigger cut the other night from the amount for the rehabilitation for old housing in older districts of our city. Is she saying that was waste?


Claudy Mailly: No!


William Warren Allmand: Is she saying that the cut to the foreign aid budget was due to waste; that the cut of $5 million from the student loan budget was due to waste? I would like to hear the answer to that. I would like to hear her tell us clearly and simply if that is really waste they are cutting from the budget.


Claudy Mailly: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, those were not the wastes I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that we are stuck with this enormous debt which is growing like a balloon and we have to do something. We have to take the measures with the courage you did not have in order to do it yourself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claudy Mailly: We could have done as your Government did in 1980 and announced to the world that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I wish the Hon. Member would address the Chair.


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


Claudy Mailly: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it was precisely because the Government of the hon. gentleman did not have the courage to address these problems that we wound up with them. We had to look at all of the programs. We had to be equitable in the way we were going to distribute this bad news. And this was because of the fact that the Hon. Member's Government never did have the courage to look at any bad news. Even in 1980, Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member's Government was re-elected, after saying all had gone to rack and ruin, it did not have the
November 19, 1984

courage to change one iota in the direction in which it had been going.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That will be all for
questions and comments. I recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, like all other Hon. Members of the House, I wish to extend to you my warmest congratulations on your appointment as Acting Speaker. I know that you will fulfil that position with honour, grace and fairness to all Hon. Members of the House. My personal congratulations to you, Sir. My congratulations as well to our new Government. Certainly, it received a very impressive mandate during the last federal election. There are many new Hon. Members in the House, as well as some older Hon. Members, and on a personal level, we wish them well.
There was no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the message which the people of Canada gave during the last federal election was very clear. They were tired of the type of runaround they had received from the previous Liberal administration. I believe they were tired of double talk and mismanagement. Over-all, there was a sense that we had a Government in Ottawa which was essentially a Government of crisis management, a Government that did not know what to do nor did it have any idea of where to lead the country. The people of Canada on election day felt that a major change was needed. Even though this new Government has only been in power for less than three months, we are still anxiously awaiting that new direction.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Speech from the Throne and to the economic statement, that what we are experiencing is just a continuation of the old, perhaps accelerated a little bit. There is no doubt that we are living in very difficult times. There are tremendous social, economic and technological changes. There is a general sense of insecurity in the land. Young people do not know the type of future with which they will be faced. Workers today do not know whether the job they are doing will be around a year or two years from now. Older folks who are on the verge of retiring are not certain whether their pensions or meagre savings will suffice to provide for decent shelter and food in the coming years. There is a tremendous sense of insecurity. There is also a sense that the traditional solutions and answers will not solve the problem which most of the world is facing today.
Let us look at some contradictions, Mr. Speaker. We have high unemployment, a high deficit, and at the same time, generally, over the last number of years, cut-backs in government services. In terms of traditional economics, Mr. Speaker, that just does not make sense. Generally, during periods when there are deficits, it means the Government is injecting more money into the economy in order to generate more economic activity and growth. Therefore, you should not have unemployment. However, we have deficits and unemployment occurring
The Address-Mr. de Jong
at the same time. Normally, one does not have cut-backs in government services and programs and deficits at the same time. But again, Mr. Speaker, we find that we are receiving from the Tory Government what we received from the previous Liberal Government, ongoing cut-backs to government programs while, in fact, the deficit has increased. Something just does not make sense, Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt that cutting the deficit is an important item which must be addressed. I understand that between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of public revenues-in other words, the moneys which Government takes in in terms of taxes, fees and so forth-goes to pay off our debt. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable. Any person trying to balance his books at home knows that one cannot operate a household when one has to pay out 30 per cent of one's income to pay off past debts. No person can live that way and no country, either.
The types of solutions we have been hearing from Hon. Members of the Government just do not make sense to us. They have trotted out the slogan that Canadians are living beyond their means, that government programs and expenditures, particularly in the social area, are bloated. They say "We have been too good to the Canadian people. There are too many of these rich social welfare programs". But, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the programs we have in Canada and compare them with the programs in most western European countries, we come off pretty badly in that comparison. There are countries in western Europe, Mr. Speaker, with a fraction of the resources we have, which are able to offer their old people, their unemployed and disabled, much better economic security. So when I hear the slogans that we have been living beyond our means, all I can say, Mr. Speaker, is, that is hogwash.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the reason we have this high deficit is that Governments have not been collecting the revenue they should have. It is not that we have been overspending but we have not been collecting the revenues which should be going into the public coffers. Look at the figures, Mr. Speaker, which show that we have some $18 billion in corporate tax loopholes. That is $18 billion which normally should have gone into the public coffers but which have not because of tax breaks. The banks of this country pay less taxes than all of the clerks who work for them. Look at all of the uncollected taxes.
The Government did make an attempt in the financial statement to collect some of the revenue. It hopes to collect some $400 million of the $4.5 billion that everyone agrees is owed to the Government. Approximately $1.6 billion of the uncollected taxes are owed by the corporate sector. I would suggest that a fair number of those corporations are large multinational corporations which have not paid the taxes which they and the Government both agree are owed to the public purse. Yet the Government is content to collect only $400 million of these taxes. That just does not make sense to me, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to balance our books in the country, which is important to do, we must look at the revenue

November 19, 1984
The Address-Mr. de Jong
side rather than just the expenditure side. I am afraid the Government really believes that Canadians are living beyond their means.
We have heard the same type of rhetoric in the Province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. The irony there is that since we elected a Conservative Government in 1982 the deficit in the Province of Saskatchewan is now, on an accumulated basis, around $1 billion. That is larger than all of the previous deficits in the history of Saskatchewan. The Conservatives in Saskatchewan have been able to accomplish this while at the same time cutting social programs, education, highway construction programs and capital programs, and selling off our resources and Grown corporations.
One must wonder how the Tories have been able to increase the deficit while giving the rhetoric of reducing deficits. They have been able to create the largest deficit in the history of Saskatchewan while at the same time cutting social and human programs. They have been able to do it because they have given so many rich tax write-offs, particularly to the oil industry, that now we in the Province of Saskatchewan find ourselves with a debt of some $1 billion which we and our children must pay off in the years to come.
That is crazy economic thinking that originates in the Chicago School of Economics. Dr. Friedman is the great exponent of that. It is called the trickle-down theory and it is basically the notion that if you feed the horse a lot of oats, eventually the sparrow will get some. If you give the corporate sector a lot of tax breaks and special incentives, eventually this will get spent in new capital production and eventually we will have more employment and all these extra profits will find their way into the economy. Therefore people will have more dollars in order to buy the goods and services which they need. Well, Mr. Speaker, as has been illustrated in Saskatchewan, in British Columbia, in Great Britain and in Chile, where this experiment has been carried out to its greatest degree, we have found that massive unemployment, disinflation and economic chaos have resulted. It is a theory which just does not work.
The other area which we must address, Mr. Speaker, is that of interest rates and a "made-in-Canada" interest rate policy. Unfortunately, there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne or the financial statement which would indicate that the Government is prepared to set an independent course to determine a "made-in-Canada" interest rate policy. The previous Liberal administration told us in the New Democratic Party that we were whistling in the wind on this subject. They said that it was impossible to have a "made-in-Canada" interest rate policy. We in this Party, Mr. Speaker, maintain that we can. It is not surprising that when representatives of the provinces met in Nova Scotia this summer they called upon whatever Party formed the new Government to implement a "made-in-Canada" interest rate policy?
Interest rates are high. They have dropped marginally in the last little while but the real interest rate stands at a historic high. Normally interest rates are two points above the inflation rate. We have an inflation rate of approximately 4 per cent. Why are interest rates not at 6 per cent? I am even willing to
concede 7 per cent, Mr. Speaker. At 7 per cent our deficit would be manageable. At 7 per cent young people could afford to buy a house or a car, to start farming or fishing. Seven per cent would be a reasonable interest rate and we would see some economic activity occurring in this country.
Interest rates are not at 7 per cent for essentially one reason: the American deficit. The American Government's deficit is now so high that total U.S. savings are hardly able to meet the interest on their deficit. Their deficit is so high in large part because of the arms race. The arms race is sucking the capital out of this world. It is destroying the economies, not only of the western world, but I would venture to say of the eastern socialist world as well. The $1 trillion that the world pours into armaments, into the death machine, is economically bankrupting this world.
The capital needs of the American Government are so high that in order to service its debts it must attract capital from Canada, western Europe and the rest of the world. The only way in which they can do that is with a strong American dollar and a high interest rate in the United States. Therefore, in order for us to maintain some of the capital at home we must jack up our interest rate. So it goes, Mr. Speaker. It continues to get jacked up and the people who benefit are the bankers and the international financiers. They are having a great time, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not about time that we had a Government in this country with the political determination to say we are not going to play that game again, we are not going to be blackmailed, we are going to develop an independent interest rate policy in this country, and we are going to keep the capital at home in this country? Is it not about time that we had a Government with the political guts to tell our banks and the multinationals that the profits made in this country will be kept in this country for this year? The Government should impose exchange controls and stop capital from being sent to wherever it is felt that profits can be increased and optimized. It is about time that the bankers and the large corporate sector of the country exhibited some responsibility to the economy and the well being of this country. However, Mr. Speaker, we are not hearing any of that from this new Government.
In preparing my remarks I went through some of the old files and I came upon a document which I think is still very relevant today. It is the Bishops' statement which was brought out on January 5, 1983. They talk in terms of present strategy. In January of 1983 the major concern was inflation. Here are some of the things they said:
There is a very real danger that these same structural and moral problems are present in Canada's strategies for economic recovery. As recent economic policy statements reveal, the primary objective is to restore profitability and competitiveness in certain Canadian industries and provide more favourable conditions for private investment in the country.
That sounds very similar to the rhetoric we are hearing from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and all of the other Government Members so far. The statement continues:
The private sector is to be the "engine" for economic recovery. To achieve these goals, inflation-
November 19, 1984

The Address
Messrs.
In this case it is the deficit.
-is put forth as the number one problem. The causes of inflation are seen as workers' wages, government spending, and low productivity rather than monopoly control of prices.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 12(3) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment.
Mr. James, seconded by Ms. Jacques, moves:
That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May I r Please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Allmand, seconded by Mrs. Pepin moves:
That the following be added to the Address:
But this House regrets that your advisors not only failed to make open government a high priority but also, in their actions, have sought to reverse the direction of previous administrations by severely restricting the availability of information on decision-making in government and by attempting to inhibit access to both the elected and non-elected participants in that process.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. At 6.25 p.m. the House adjourned.

Tuesday, November 20, 1984