1984-11-20

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks last night before the adjournment of the debate, I was quoting from the Bishops' statement which was issued on January 5, 1983. I was explaining to the House how the rhetoric then is similar to the rhetoric we hear now. For example, we hear that we must be more productive, that the private sector is the engine for economic growth and recovery, that we must make our private sector more competitive, and that the private sector must have a greater return on profits, that this is the key to economic recovery. The Bishops pointed out in their statement that at the same time working people, the unemployed, young people, and those people on fixed incomes are increasingly called upon to make the most sacrifices for economic recovery, but it is these people who suffer most from lay-offs, wage restraints and cut-backs in social services. The Bishops went on to state that yet there is no clear reason to believe that working people will ever really benefit from these and other sacrifices they are called to make. For even if companies recover and increase their profit margins, the additional revenues are likely to be reinvested in more labour-saving technology or exported to other countries, or spent on market speculation for luxury goods.
The Bishops and we in this Party endorse an alternate vision of how society can operate. Let me quote the following passage from the Bishops' statement:
There are, of course, alternative ways of looking at our industrial future and organizing our economy. This does not imply a halt to technological progress but rather a fundamental re-ordering of the basic values and priorities of economic development. An alternative economic vision, for example, could place priority on serving the basic needs of all people in this country, on the value of human labour, and an equitable distribution of wealth and power among people and regions. What would it mean to develop an alternative economic model that would place emphasis on-socially-useful forms of production; labour-intensive industries; the use of appropriate forms of technology; self-reliant models of economic development; community ownership and control of industries; new forms of worker management and ownership; and greater use of the renewable energy sources in industrial production?
Yet we see in the Speech from the Throne and in the economic statement exactly the opposite type of vision, Mr. Speaker. It is not a vision of self-sufficiency, because the Government cuts back on the home insulation program, and on research and development into alternate energy technologies.
These are regressive steps, steps that make us more dependent upon capital intensive, large scale energy projects. This removes the element of self-sufficiency and protection which individual Canadians can have.
We see again in the Speech from the Throne and in the financial statement the belief that only through catering to the large multinationals will Canada recover economically. This is a wrong vision, Mr. Speaker. It is a vision that has been tried in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Great Britain, Chile and in many other countries. It has proved to be a disaster for ordinary working people. I warn this Government that if it continues on this path it will destroy the economic and social fabric of Canada. This will result in poor people and working people having to rise up in anger against their plight.
This Government was given a tremendous mandate, a mandate for change. Canadians want to see a government develop and form new visions for economic development. They do not want to see Reagan economics as practised in the United States. They do not want to have the industrial and labour strife that has occurred in Great Britain.
I plead, therefore, with this Government to reverse its directions and to develop, on a co-operative basis, a new vision for Canada, a vision in which ordinary men and women can join, a vision based on fairness and equality for all.


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


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. I share the Hon. Member's concern that our technological development be accompanied by sufficient opportunity for human work. To supplement what the Hon. Member said, however, I would caution him that simply emphasizing the need for human labour is as bad as giving one's priority only to capital intensive development. If the Hon. Member has been in countries such as India, which I have had the privilege of visiting, he would see projects that involve much human labour. There are gangs of men and women making roads by hand, using hammers to break up stone for the road-bed. Such people know nothing else other than this dreary, almost animal-like kind of work. These people are the next in several generations of their families and clans committed to such labour. But one can go elsewhere in the great country of India and find that the level of life has been lifted, far above the kind of life 1 have just described, by technological development using large scale capital-intensive industries. What we in the western world are struggling to find is a balance which provides sufficient technological development and expansion to continue and indeed advance the standard of living and quality of life of Canadians and at the same time provide adequate employment opportunities.

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. de Jong

With all respect to the Bishops' statement, I have not found sufficient recognition of the need for this balance. They have served us well in calling us back from an unbalanced reliance upon technology, but I wish for a far greater recognition of the need for balance in their statement and in the Hon. Member's address.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a point. The fact is that the balance right now tips so much to the capital intensive side that there is very little recognition by industry or by government of that which the Bishops call appropriate forms of technology. In their statement, the Bishops said:
This does not imply a halt to technological progress but rather a fundamental re-ordering of the basic values and priorities of economic development.
I should like to give the Hon. Member one example in the energy field. If one invested the same amount of capital needed to build a nuclear reactor into home insulation, one would save more electricity than the nuclear power plant would ever produce. Home insulation is not capital intensive. It produces more work and it provides self-sufficiency for the consumer. The consumer would be no longer dependent upon the utility company and would no longer have to pay tremendous bills every month to pay off the cost of the nuclear power plant plus the interest on the debt.
Here are two different visions of development. We can go the nuclear route, which is capital intensive and environmentally questionable producing very expensive electricity; or we can go the route of home insulation and conservation. The same amount of money spent on the conservation side would surely bring much more benefit to ordinary people than going the nuclear route. Yet the Government in its statement slashes the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the program of developing alternate energies. Alternate energies can provide capital savings and produce greater self-sufficiency for the country, for communities, for individuals. The nuclear area, however, was never questioned or slashed in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
The nuclear industry has cost the country billions of dollars. Underutilized heavy water plants have had to shut down. Nuclear power plants have been decommissioned at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. However, the Minister of Finance never touched one cent of the money that we continue to pour into the nuclear industry. Surely the Hon, Member must recognize that the balance is leaning toward capital-intensive programs, not programs for alternatives and for appropriate technologies, which would be more beneficial to Canadians in terms of creating jobs and being less capital intensive.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, what the House needs to recognize and the nation needs to appreciate, as I believe most Canadians do, is that the Hon. Member has set up a false dichotomy between capital intensive and labour intensive projects, illustrated by his example of home insulation and
nuclear reactor hydro electric generators. This is not a dispute over ecology and conservation. It really is a matter of providing that adequate technological development take place in our society and in other parts of the world which have a greater need of it, and at the same time of not ignoring the vital human need for useful employment opportunities.
The stark fact in a great part of the world is that their need is for technology and the kind of advance that we have known in the western world. In terms of electrical energy, the fact is that we could have all the conservation and insulation in homes that we could wish, but we would still have a desperate need for electrical power to be generated in sufficient quantity to serve the massive requirements of our society for electrical power. We need both.
Our need is not necessarily for nuclear reactors. They are an alternative. Nonetheless, we need highly technological generative plants. Whether they should be nuclear powered or powered in some other way is another issue altogether. However, we simply cannot maintain the level of life that we have come to enjoy and expect in this country without adequate technological development. That will be as great a human need as the other.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. The question is what type of technological development. Technological development that benefits people, that reduces the cost of production, that is environmentally sound, that has some social use as well, or technological development that is really exploitive? Third World countries cannot afford nuclear reactors. It is a technology that is of very little use to them. What they need is appropriate technologies. Vertical turbines, wind, solar are the types of technologies that make the most sense, not only for Third World countries but for Canada and the rest of the industrialized world.
In his statement, the Minister of Finance goes the road of highly capital intensive megaproject forms of energy generation. He cuts the areas that I believe are our future: appropriate and small scale technologies, such as wind, solar and conservation. A mix of those technologies is the solution to our problem. That is how we will either generate or save more energy than the capital intensive nuclear route.
My criticism of the Government is that it continues along the same path that the Liberals have taken in all these years. It has not struck a new direction. If it cut the nuclear sector and if all the billions of dollars in subsidy that have gone to that sector were directed toward home insulation and alternate energy programs, I suggest to Members opposite that it would create tremendous political goodwill among the men and women of Canada. They would applaud this Government. They would realize that here is a Government with some new ideas, with a sense of new direction, not one that is tied and beholden to the financial interest. Unfortunately, it did not do that. Therefore, we must judge it not on its words and not on its wishes, even though I sympathize with what the Hon. Member is telling us. I think we are saying the same thing. He has to recognize that he is out of step with the wishes of his
November 20, 1984

Government. His Government is taking a different direction from the one he is talking about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time for questions and comments on the Hon. Member's speech is now over. We will now resume debate.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of York-Peel, it gives me great pleasure to be able to enter the debate today on the Speech from the Throne. It is a little over two weeks since Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada outlined the broad measures the new Government would be taking in this session. The measures announced in the Throne Speech symbolize, I would suggest, a new day for Canada. They symbolize indeed a watershed in this nation's history.
Canada has now joined the movement which preceded us in Europe, the United States and Asia. Those who have grasped the significance of this movement will understand that it is a movement in which the vitality of free enterprise will again be allowed to flourish in this country.
The new Progressive Conservative Government has committed itself to fostering economic growth. As the Minister responsible for regional industrial expansion, I and my Department have been given a tremendous responsibility in shaping the economic turnaround the Government has pledged to accomplish.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, since the Government took power some two months ago, we have been examining various government programs with a view to eliminating those that are no longer relevant and then fine-tuning those remaining to better serve Canadian needs. For example, the day after the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Wilson) economic statement was delivered in the House, we in our Department announced adjustments to the Industrial and Regional Development Program, adjustments designed to improve the program's efficiency, and focus assistance on innovation projects that will increase industrial productivity and help international competitiveness. They were designed to ensure that support is provided in areas of the country where it is most needed. We were able to do all of this, and we now anticipate that in the coming year, we will be expending 35 per cent more than was expended in this area in the current year. The acceptance of these changes by the business and working community of Canada convinced me that our new streamlined version has taken into account the concerns and priorities of Canadian business, and is one small step in the restoration of business confidence in Canada.
In announcing the changes to the Industrial and Regional Development Program, we have given instructions to give priority to those IRDP projects that emphasize R and D and the development of new projects and processes. We have asked that there be a targeting of funding to those areas of the country where it is needed most. At the same time, we have
The Address-Mr. Stevens
instructed the Department and particularly our regional offices to increase the non-monetary assistance that they provide to the Canadian business community. In this context, we intend to raise the profile of regional offices so that they become centres of information and assistance rather than simply centres for processing grant applications.
The regional offices have been directed to emphasize assistance to business and to industry in terms of expertise in identifying export opportunities and opportunities for import substitution. They will become centres for assistance in the fields of information, advice and co-ordination of various forms of support. To allow them to assume these added duties, we have streamlined the administration of IRDP by providing automatic eligibility for cases involving support under $100,000, provided the basis criteria are met. This is turn will reduce the bureaucratic burden and speed the processing of applications, thus relieving staff from much of the paperwork and allowing them to undertake more fruitful tasks for the business community.
The changes we have announced have the added benefit of reducing the forecast-and I emphasize the word "forecast"- expenditures of our Department by some $200 million a year in this and other programs, while at the same time maintaining the stated objectives of the Department that I have the honour to head at the present time.
Another area in which we will be active is industrial R and D, with a particular emphasis on the development side of that equation. Canadian industry must maintain its competitiveness on domestic and international markets by increasing its productivity and inproving, wherever possible, the quality of its products. Canadian firms must innovate if they are to remain competitive, grow and provide adequate employment opportunities in a world in which they are constantly being challenged by rapid technological advances from an expanding number of countries. One way of achieving this is for firms to make a far stronger commitment to research and development than ever before.
However, the ability to import technologies, apply and build on them is also of critical importance. Product, process and managerial innovations around the world are creating new products and reducing unit costs, yet there is considerable evidence that Canadian firms are slow to embrace and exploit them. We find a similar slowness in adapting Canadian research-in some areas research that is among the finest in the world-to the needs of Canadian industry.
Of course, this is not true of all industries. For example, I was recently asked to participate in the announcement by Northern Telecom of an $80 million commitment that company made to the development of new micro-chip technology. It is a development which will maintain Nortel's commanding lead in the world of digital communications.
Canada has no choice but to join the technological revolution to which I am referring. We must do so with vigour if we are to supply Canadians with the newest goods and services

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Stevens
and if we are to be a part of an increasingly competitive world market.
Not only must we have more research and, particularly, development-as well as acquire and build on technologies from abroad-we must also focus on accelerating the diffusion of these powerful new processes. I believe the way to encourage this is through better information exchange, technology transfer and demonstration. This is an area in which I see our regional offices taking a much more aggressive stance, in particular, with reference to our small and medium-sized businesses. Too often the day-to-day pressures of maintaining current production, meeting payrolls, and completing government forms diverts the management of small businesses from the task of investigating new and better ways of operating.
By becoming centres of information on new developments, the regional offices can provide a much needed interface between the Canadian research community whether at the university, private or governmental level, or in searching out on the international markets research-driven technologies which can assist Canadians to remain competitive. This supportive role of government Departments and agencies is one that all Canadian entrepreneurs will welcome. For too long they have been harassed by the paper burden, the duplication and the demands of big government, especially the type of big government that preceded this Government. All of those measures are in support of the central theme of this Government, which is to get government out of the business community's hair and let it get on with the task of undertaking new initiatives and providing new jobs for Canadians.
On October 30, we announced the new management and new mandate for the Canada Development Investment Corporation. The new management has been charged with the responsibility of privatizing the assets of CDIC as quickly as possible and consistent with the concern for value of the Canadian taxpayer's dollar. Sound management of the portfolio as well as protection of the workers' interests has been included in our direction. Many people have suggested that our desire to privatize the CDIC member companies was hastily conceived. I have been in this House since 1972 and have witnessed the growth of Crown corporations. At the time they were brought under the federal umbrella, it was generally said that it would only be for a limited duration and that they would be owned by the federal Government in the strict anticipation that they would be put back into the private sector. I find it almost beyond belief when those self same people today ask why we are moving so hastily with respect to the possibility of privatizing some Crown corporations, the same Crown corporations which they themselves have consistently maintained they intended to put back into the private sector.
On November 5 I announced the new management and new mandate for Fishery Products International, the Newfoundland fisheries conglomerate which is owned jointly by the federal Government, the Province of Newfoundland and the
Bank of Nova Scotia. The intention is to make that firm, which is vital to the economy of Newfoundland, economically viable through sound business management and eventually to return it once again to private enterprise. Returning these assets to the private sector is not only better for the firms and their workers in the long run, but I would suggest the action serves as a further signal to the business community that the Government places ultimate reliance on the private sector as the source of economic growth.
Further announcements can be expected regarding the approach of Government to the general subject of assistance and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. We intend to review the various support instruments which are available at the federal level to help small business, including the Federal Business Development Bank. We are well aware of the role played by small business in economic growth, particularly in the context of regional development, and of the fact that small and medium-sized businesses are by far the largest creators of new jobs in Canada. We will, therefore, take steps to ensure that federal support gives priority and is appropriate to the needs of this sector.
Another area of my portfolio in which I am taking action is in regard to the need to increase non-Canadian investment in Canada. In the near future there will be legislation which will provide long overdue changes to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It is our intention to transform FIRA into a positive agency for the encouragement of Canadian and nonCanadian investment so that investors throughout the world will get the message that Canada welcomes them and is willing to assist in their endeavours. The changes to FIRA will emphasize small business and will encourage partnership between Canadian and non-Canadian interests. No more will we hear the lament of investors who say that they tried but could not invest in Canada.
At the same time, we are convinced that by breaking down the barriers to international investment in Canada, we can once again convince Canadians to invest in their own country. As a Government, we are too painfully aware that Canadians are reluctant to invest in Canadian enterprises in spite of the fact that their level of savings is twice that of our American neighbours. A better investment climate will encourage Canadians to reverse this trend and once again invest in their own country, whether through direct investment or through joint venture with non-Canadian firms.
These changes, some of which will be immediate and some gradual, reflect the role of government vis-a-vis industry which underlines the Speech from the Throne. The role of government is not to take over but to support. The role of government is, first of all, to ensure an appropriate investment climate and then to act as a catalyst. The role of government is to intervene only where the achievement of national objectives is beyond the resources of the private sector.
It is difficult to forecast the future, but many of the studies which have measured the impact of the economic policies of the Government are truly optimistic. The policies put forth by the new Government are expected to increase employment
November 20, 1984

dramatically, to increase real growth and to increase productivity. Inflation and unemployment will be reduced, and there are positive indicators that the federal deficit and debt will fall. The key to these favourable impacts is the dual stimulation of business investment and the furthering of exports by Canadian firms. Together the two will help pull the Canadian economy back toward its potential.
The resources of government can be quite usefully employed in support of private sector growth, particularly in terms of export development, co-ordination of effort, achievement of consensus and provision of information. However, the resources of government should be employed to support private sector growth and not to compete with it.
We will not arrive at our objective overnight. There is no magic wand which can be used to reduce to zero the deficit we have inherited. There is no easy formula by which economic growth can be forced. To achieve national consensus on approaches to difficult and contentious issues will take much effort and considerable time. What is required is a consistent and persistent pursuit of agreed objectives, and I believe we have made a start in that direction. While work has already begun, lengthy and painstaking work and discussion is in front of us. However, I am confident that over the coming months the business community of Canada will come to realize that through sound fiscal management; through effective federal-provincial co-operation; through consultation with business and labour; and through consensus on major economic issues, the Government of Canada will do all that is possible to ensure the regeneration of private sector driven economic development in this country. In the process, the new business enterprises, as well as our existing enterprises in all regions, will not only survive but will thrive, thereby creating the employment and well-being which Canadians have a right to expect and which they were so obviously denied by a Liberal government which ruled this country for almost 16 years.
I am further confident that Hon. Members will be able to agree with me that when it comes to economic development, this Government, in the true sense of that phrase, means business.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statements of the Minister. I must say that this is perhaps the first time I have heard set out as clearly the economic direction the Government intends to take. Apparently, we are to use the resources of Canada to fatten the pockets of those who have much at the expense of those who have little.
I wonder if the Minister has considered the long-term implications of opening up Canada for unrestricted investment from wherever, at whatever time or in whatever sector the investor determines he or she might want to invest. Has the Minister seriously looked at what has happened in this country over the last 20 years? The overwhelming majority of private-sector corporations in Canada do little if any research and development here. They draw almost entirely on the research and development facilities of their parent corporations wherever they are located. In spite of the grant structure put in place by not only the Liberal Government that was here prior
The Address-Mr. Stevens
to the last election as well as the Government of Ontario and many other provinces, some of them Conservative, in spite of their attempts to hand over taxpayers' dollars in an effort to get research and development to be the focus of the multinational corporations, they failed on almost every single occasion.
[DOT] (M40)
What does the Minister believe he can offer that will get the major multinational corporations to locate their research and development facilities in Canada? What kind of guarantee is the Minister prepared to extract from those who are eager to extract from the Canadian economy, those who want to come in and invest, that there will be research and development facilities which will allow Canadians who have gone through the educational system to find employment in their chosen field?
Finally, how does the Minister reconcile the emphasis that he puts on research and development with his Government's actions? The Government, in its budget statement, slashed and cut, as is the Minister's penchant, in every single area of crucial importance in terms of research and development. How are we to believe that this Government has an overriding view of the importance of that particular element to the future of Canada when in fact the Government's own actions make it quite clear that it does not give a damn about research and development?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I could say first of all that I sense a slight glimmer of hope for him. I think there is some sadness in his tone as to what in fact occurred over the last 20 years. He is taking an earnest look at it now, and I hope he remembers how often his Party came to the rescue of the Liberals when they needed that help to keep them in power.
When he describes what has happened in the last 20 years, he is undoubtedly referring to the fact that 20 years ago we had fewer than 500,000 Canadians out of work. Now, partly because of the alliance between his Party and the Liberal Party, we have almost 1.5 million Canadians out of work. That, I say to the Hon. Member, is totally out of the question. It cannot be tolerated, and it is time that those government policies, aided and abetted over the bulk of those 20 years by him and by his Party, were changed to allow a healthier economy in Canada so that Canadians can once again get the jobs to which they are rightfully entitled.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I sense a glimmer of hope when he refers to the changes that we anticipate for the Foreign Investment Review Agency. He of course must recall that that agency has been in place since 1972, and that much of the deterred investment in Canada, much of what has been denied Canadians in the form of non-Canadian investment, could have gone into job-creation industries in this country. I think he has a tremendous, if you like, past which he has somehow to explain to the Canadian public with respect to his Party's support of so many of these previous initiatives.

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Stevens
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, after hearing the two opposition Parties demanding that spending and the deficit be maintained, I can only ask them: When will they learn the lesson? If deficits were the solution to our unemployment situation in Canada, we should be booming today instead of having 1.5 million Canadians out of work. So if we are making some earnest efforts to narrow that deficit, I would think he would be shouting hallelujah; at last someone is trying to get the economy back on a more satisfactory basis. Deficits have not worked. When are you fellows ever going to learn that?


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke glowingly about selling off the assets of CDC, and one of those assets is Eldorado Resources Limited. Does he really believe that he will be able to sell off a corporation like Eldorado Resources when the Government continues to give exemptions to the further processing of our uranium resource? There has been a policy in this country for some 10 years that we upgrade our uranium in Canada. The Government has gone to the expense of building a uranium refinery in Blind River and another one in Port Hope to upgrade these resources. That was done on the basis that the Canadian uranium being sold to the U.S. or West Germany or wherever would be processed in Canada. Now, as recently as in the last month and a half, the Government has given a further exemption to upgrading, and our refineries and upgrading facilities are operating at about one-third of capacity. Does the Hon. Minister really believe that you can ever sell off an industry which is operating at one-third capacity, and will he stop giving these exemptions to further upgrading in Canada, which is really taking jobs away from Canadians and giving them to workers in other countries?
The other question I wanted to put to the Hon. Minister concerned his reference to creating new business enterprises and getting the Government out of the business community's hair. There has been a policy in Canada for many years that the Department of National Revenue would give advance rulings on corporate mergers and partnerships. The Government withdrew that in October of this year after it came to power so that companies such as Algoma Steel and Tembec could not go ahead with important business developments. Why not clear that away? The Government has made some changes in the last week in that policy, but there are still three or four hurdles where the company has to make a proposal before a certain time and has to complete its deal by December 15. I think those requirements are unreasonable. If you are going to apply a grandfather clause to a policy like that, it should be wide open so that projects like the one by Algoma Steel can get under way. It would mean 700 jobs would be created and the Government would really be getting out of the business community's hair instead of creating this kind of interference in which the Government has been involved in the last couple of months.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) let me say that he touched on the possibility of selling Eldorado back to the private sector. I
know that most Liberals have a very pessimistic streak about them, but I can assure the Hon. Member that he would be most encouraged if he knew the interest being shown with respect to the possibility of acquiring or buying Eldorado itself. In due course I think we will be very pleased to be able to tell him what actually is transpiring with respect to the privatization of that company.
He also referred to the moratorium placed on tax rulings with respect to the setting up of certain partnerships. Again I am rather startled to hear the Hon. Member defend this process, which was a boondoggle that the former Liberal government allowed to continue. It became a tremendous rip-off. Brokers were making hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars simply on the flushing of funds through corporate entities. I am startled that the Hon. Member would suggest that we should not have drawn back and said that there has been enough and we must put a halt to what the previous government tolerated, for whatever reason. If he checks the facts, I believe he will find that that was a very prudent move on our part.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments is now over. We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this Throne Speech debate, coming as it does so closely after the wonderful rendition and readings from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). I am also pleased to be able to participate as a result of the judgment and wisdom of the electors in my constituency who have now elected me some five times in a row both provincially and federally. I know it was a matter of some deep interest to certain members of the Conservative Party, particularly the Leader. I am glad to be able to come back and share with my colleagues our notions about how the country should or should not be governed.
The Throne Speech is giving us an opportunity to finally flush the wolves out of the sheep's clothing. I know that using the word "wolf' is somewhat sensitive to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and I apologize for it. However, the fact is that we have been given the opportunity for the first time to shear away-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why are you shearing a wolf?


Lloyd Axworthy: We will find out more about the wolves in sheep's clothing this evening. We will leave that for the national television network to deal with.
My point is that we now have the opportunity in this debate clearly to come to grips with the differences between the rhetoric and the reality; between the honeycombed, wonderfully modulated, deeply versed words of change, confidence and consultation, and to what is really happening. It is totally different from all the public relations presentations we have heard since September 4.
November 20, 1984

We have heard much about the fact that the new Government is one that wants to restore confidence in the country. It is going about it in a very interesting fashion. First, it is doing so by breaking all the promises it made during the election campaign, so that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who expected those tens of thousands of jobs to come tumbling out of the system on September 5 are now finding that the reverse is taking place.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: Instead of tens of thousands of new jobs, the Government is cutting a minimum of 50,000 to 60,000 jobs as a result of its economic statement. Moreover, that is only what we can count at the present time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Jobs went up last month.


Mr. Fennell:: They will keep going up.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let me comment on that for a minute. The Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion stated that the Liberal Government was at fault in all the previous problems, but he gives us no credit for the fact that the interest rates have gone down because the inflation rate has gone down. Therefore, I suggest to the Hon. Minister that he should be consistent once in a while in his economic statements. I know that he is suffering after having been dethroned from his title of the great slasher of the Conservative Party by Mack the Knife over there. He is trying to regain his reputation, but I will tell him that compared with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of Industrial Economic Expansion is a piker. Compared with what the Minister of Finance is able to do, he does not even know how to go about slashing.
More important, we now have the opportunity to analyse clearly what the economic blueprint for this country will be. It is those expectations of growth and development with which we must really come to grips.
First, there is the question of the deficit. The Government believes it has been endowed with almost magical powers to cut the deficit. It believes that by cutting the deficit, all else will fall by the wayside and Canadians will be walking the streets of this country whistling and dancing because the deficit is being cut. I have not noticed too many people walking around whistling and dancing full of new confidence because of the Government's actions. In fact, it is quite the opposite. There are people in the villages, towns and cities of this country who are hurting deeply because of that cut. They are losing their employment and their opportunity for an economic future. They are losing an opportunity to develop their country as a result of the mindless slashing of programs without any consideration having been given to whether those programs have any importance in terms of economic growth.
The Government is not applying any industrial or sectoral strategy. It is simply implementing the same policies across the board. That is the situation which Canadians are facing.
Why is the deficit such an obsession with Members opposite and to our side? They say that it will stir new capital invest-
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
ment and revitalize the capital markets. We are well aware that the problem in Canada is not the shortage of capital but where that capital is being used. Almost 14 per cent of our disposable income is in private savings, yet, when one examines the economic statement, it contains absolutely nothing to stimulate the use of those savings for productive purposes. There is nothing in that statement to suggest how we could release that capital. Government borrowing is not pressing against the private capital market because that is not part of the economic system in Canada. Our problem is that the capital is not being allocated into useful, productive, industrial purposes. Yet there is nothing in the statement to provide for that.
The only tax measures that the Minister of Finance brought in were those which our Government introduced. He is simply picking up on those tax measures. The only valuable and constructive tax initiatives are those which were introduced last spring. Nothing else has been designed for the small business person in order to bring forward new capital, except for those measures which we introduced in our last budget.
The Government also states that the deficit will have an impact on interest rates. I suggest that that is simply woolgathering. I believe that any honest economic analyst in this country would recognize that our interest rates are very much conditioned by what takes place in the money markets in the United States.
There are some intelligent economists in the Tory caucus who were newly elected. They should tell their new Cabinet that it is the money markets in the United States which dictate our interest rates to a large degree. When the Prime Minister takes hollow credit for the fact that he is bringing down interest rates, he need only read the newspapers or financial papers to discover that interest rates are simply tracking the American money market as they have for a number of years. Why does the Government have this obsession? While it is cutting the deficit, it is not providing any strategy or blueprint to stimulate growth. It is only concerned with reduction. While we have always known that the Minister of Industrial Regional Expansion has a lot of nerve, we did not know that he was so full of bluff that he was prepared to tell the House that he is a believer in regional distribution. That has to be the greatest joke by far in this session.
The Government in its economic statement has introduced initiatives that add substantially higher costs to small business right across the country. There are close to $700 million in hidden taxes in that economic statement.
Who will be affected by the higher cost of transportation? It is people in the regions, the Atlantic, the North and the West, who must ship their goods and exports farther distances than those in other parts of Canada. Yet the price of gasoline is going up. The price of air cargo traffic is going up. The Government has added an additional tax to the business community in the outer regions of Canada where they can least afford it. That is an example of the Government's economic strategy.

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
The Conservatives declare that it is a national Government, with its members elected from across Canada. However, when one looks at the impact of the Government's initiatives, one sees that the cuts it has introduced are in those areas where the private sector is not strong. The Government says that its reliance on economic growth will be on the private sector. We do not argue with that view, because the private sector has been the engine of growth in our country for most of its history. However, it should also be recognized that ours is a mixed economy, because this country is not the same throughout. One cannot see all of Canada from the top floor of an insurance company or a bank in downtown Toronto. The fact is that in many parts of this country the ability of the private sector to provide jobs is very thin. In some places there is almost a non-existent private sector or one that does not have the same kind of critical, dynamic mass to create jobs.
The basic position of our Party, which we will continue to take, is that it is the responsibility of the federal Government to provide a balance within Confederation and to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are shared by all Canadians and not concentrated in one or two areas. That is the reason we react so severely to the kind of cut-backs brought forward by the Minister of Finance.
Let me speak for a moment about my own city. In one way it provides an interesting composite of the kind of stupidity in which this Government is engaging and the lack of sensitivity to regional economic development. We talk about the necessity for all parts of this country to share in the new information technology and how the basic industries, whether forestry, food processing or the textile and garment industry, can become competitive. The way is for them to apply new technology to their products in order to get costs down and to allow them to compete in foreign markets. We also know that new technology really is the breakthrough, the leading edge, for new economic growth across Canada. There has to be a Magna Carta for the application and distribution of high technology.
What do they do, Mr. Speaker? In my City of Winnipeg, the Tories cancelled the National Research Council lab for applied robotics. What would that lab have done? First, it would have enabled another region of the country to become a centre for first-class research in the very important area of artificial intelligence and robotics, which has its primary application to small business. It was not an esoteric academic group because the lab designed to provide a place for business, scientists, researchers and engineers who would come together to develop new techniques that could be applied to the garment trade, to mining, and to food processing. Therefore, it could enable those industries in western Canada and throughout Canada to acquire new technology and to apply it to their manufacturing and processing bases.
A building was already under construction. Equipment had been ordered. People had been hired and were already in the city. What does this Government do? It slashes, cuts and
eliminates that area. What has been the impact of this, Mr. Speaker? Four major manufacturers, two of which were American, already planning to come to Canada to set up new businesses in the City of Winnipeg because of the application of that research centre are now changing their minds. This is a government that says it believes in economic growth and says that it want to attract industry from other countries. This is a government that says it believes in fair and effective distribution. But by one stroke of the pen it has eliminated the economic future of Winnipeg. That is the kind of government we have. That is the reality and not the rhetoric that we are facing.
We have a government that does not give a damn about the regions. It does not give a damn about economic growth or regional distribution because it is obsessed by its own theology and so preoccupied with its religious catechism, which it has to recite every day as it appears before Rasputin of the North, otherwise known as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). Members of the Government have to repeat their loyalty oaths and their promises of silence and they have to say, "God bless the new catechism. Thou shalt not touch the private sector". What the Government has done in the meantime is to eliminate a very important investment designed primarily to work with the private sector to develop new technology and new robotics for future industrial growth in a major region of Canada.
How do you explain that, Mr. Speaker? How do you explain such silliness and insensitivity? This is a government that was going to consult and to confide in all Canadians. I did not find anybody in my City of Winnipeg, including probably the Members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, who were consulted about those cut-backs. If they were, they should hang their heads in shame for having been so insensitive and so disregarding of economic prospects. But this Government talked to nobody. It did not talk to the business community, the universities or the provincial governments. In fact, this Government denied every single one of the precepts, conditions and promises which it had made.
Let me speak about the question of confidence and consultation. I want to address my remarks to members of the Conservative Party who have been in their constituencies preaching this new theology. Let me ask them why it is that the President of the Food Products and Manufacturing Association, a very large industrial group in Canada, criticized the Government this morning for lack of consultation and lack of involvement when it made decisions relating to metric and to wheat pricing. Those people were not consulted. They were not involved nor were they asked for their opinion. This decision will result in higher costs and in major changes. Were they asked for their opinion or their judgment? Is this the new kind of consultation? Is this what we can now expect? Are we going to have Ministers of the Crown preaching from on high new sermons on consultation but going ahead and making decisions in total disregard and ignorance of the groups primarily affected by those decisions?

November 20, 1984
I think it is time Canadians began to understand that there is a government run by public relations hand-buts, but the reality is much harsher, more severe, and much more destructive of the economic prospects.
We should also look at the question of foreign investment. The Minister was proud. He said, "I have given new instructions to the management of CDIC to change and to privatize". But the Minister did not provide any discussion, any prescription about what the industrial impact of that privatization would be in the aerospace industry. He has given no guarantees about the question of foreign ownership of those Crown corporations.
I ask the Minister now, although he is engaged in important conversations-


Mr. Rodriguez:: And that is insulting.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is he prepared in this House, he was not prepared in his oral statement, to say that he will, in critical areas, such as aerospace, communications, uranium mining, put very clear conditions on whether foreign countries can buy major industries in those areas? There are enough Members in this House who are old enough and some of us who have read enough history, to remember the example of the Avro Arrow.


Mr. Benjamin:: And VIA Rail.


Lloyd Axworthy: Here we have on the chopping block two of the major aerospace companies, and the Minister is prepared to say, "I am selling them off to anybody. If the purchasers strip these companies, gut them and take the technology, move away, I do not care". That is the kind of industrial strategy at which we are looking. It is simply devoid of any concept of what we must do to make sure that there is a healthy aerospace industry in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, or Vancouver.


Mr. Caccia:: How about R and D?


Lloyd Axworthy: Then we have Teleglobe. We have the same kind of commitment that we are going to sell off Teleglobe, which is one of the major pioneers and leaders in international telecommunications. Will we have a foreign owner of our telecommunications satellite system? Will some sort of foreign private corporation dictate the use of that corporation and, therefore, cut Canadians off from any opportunity of maintaining any involvement in that very critical area of industrial development? The Minister has not said anything. He has covered up. This is the new open government that we have. Where is the Minister's statement and his opportunity to explain? I do not see it, Mr. Speaker.
Similarly, we have the Minister's statements about FIRA, that he is going to make major changes in foreign investment. What the Minister has not been prepared to say to Canadians-and again I pose a question to him that I hope he will get around to answering-is whether, in the changes he is proposing for FIRA, he will eliminate the test of significant economic benefits for Canada. In his changes, will the Minister elimi-
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
nate the ability of the Foreign Investment Review Agency to negotiate with proposed foreign purchasers of Canadian business what they intend to do in the provision of jobs, in the provision of new research and development, and in the provision of significant economic world mandates for Canadian business? I suspect not. 1 suspect the so-called open-door policy of that Minister who does not care about those kinds of requirements. He has not placed those conditions because if he had, he would have already said so. As a result, what we have is the prospect of a number of Canadian businesses that are beginning to advance and develop new technology and new products that can be purchased without any kind of restraint and deterrent immediately moving their research and technology south of the border or east or west of us, and Canada will once again become simply a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for the rest of the world. That is the kind of prospect we are facing.
The Minister talks about his commitment to small business. The Foreign Investment Review Agency has been protecting small business because we recognized that with the disparity in dollar value there is an immediate economic advantage for the American purchasers as a result of the value of their dollar. They could come in and take over almost all small businesses without any constraint.
We have a number of questions. I am simply saying that we have heard the rhetoric and now we are seeing the reality. Reality really requires that the Official Opposition provide clear alternatives. We want growth and we want jobs, but we do not want them at the expense of Canadian sovereignty, the regions of the country or the small business community, the victims of the economic statement. The Official Opposition will provide those alternatives and show Canadians that there is a better way to generate growth in Canada.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a comment, not so much to ask a question. Now that the Liberals are the Opposition, they will be resuming their economic nationalist stance. We will be hearing great things about the importance of FIRA, with no recollection of the fact that FIRA began to be weakened under the previous Liberal administration.
I do not often find myself, as I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) will attest, in a position to agree in most part with what he has to say, but with the exception of his very selective memory when it comes to FIRA. I agree with what he had to say about the manufacturing technology centre in Winnipeg and the utter stupidity demonstrated by the Government in cancelling that project.
Because I have the responsibility of looking into cuts in environmental services on the part of this Government, last night I thought I would take a look at the book of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) which he wrote a number of years ago entitled Where I Stand. I looked for any reference to the environmental dimension of our problems, either with respect to research, technology, economic strategy or whatever, something upon which I could hang a question in the House. I was

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
unable to find any reference or any acknowledgement that the problem existed. However, I found a statement by the Prime Minister concerning research and technology. It indicated that the budget for the NRC should be increased by at least 20 per cent, because it was one area where it made absolute sense to invest, particularly when it came to manufacturing technology. That was one area which required a lot of attention. However, what did we get? Instead of what the Prime Minister wrote in those days when he was trying to obtain the support of Canadians, we got the cancellation of an obviously worthy project. This is something which flies in the face of the need for research and development. It also flies in the face of what the Prime Minister promised prior to his election.
With the caveat that I think the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry displays a selective memory with respect to FIRA and the way in which the Liberals moved with respect to FIRA prior to the election, I think all Members of Parliament from Winnipeg should join in censuring the Government for that action. Not all Winnipeg MPs have done so, such as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Saint James (Mr. Minaker), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), and others. They have been absolutely silent while their own city has been savaged by this cut. It was the one chance that Winnipeg had to reverse the long-standing concentration of manufacturing and technology in eastern Canada. Those same people moaned for years about western Canada not having enough representation in Cabinet and in government, but they are absolutely silent when this happens to Winnipeg. I think that is disgraceful.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for his comments. His reference to the book of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) Where I Stand reminds me that the Prime Minister is very much like the man who cut down a redwood tree, then got up on the stump and made a speech about conservation. Again he is simply contradicting himself. In addition to the very savage cuts in the NRC, the elimination of the ongoing major research and development programs of environmental and atmospheric testing in Gimli and Churchill is equally disastrous. It will eliminate some 25 jobs. It will totally eliminate the opportunity for Canadians to be involved in high atmospheric research. More important, I discovered just this morning that it will eliminate a number of money-making contracts with the National Aeronautics Space Administration in the United States. It contracted that atmospheric group to conduct tests. The group was actually turning a profit, it was actually paying its way. The cancellation of a $5.8 million project will mean a loss of $22 million to the Canadian national account along with 85 jobs. That is what we call Tory economics. There is almost a religious catharsis in cutting something rather than endoring something, allowing it to grow, and nurturing it so that it becomes a useful product.
We are trying to say that we are no longer talking about economics or politics. We are now talking about theology or a cast and bound ideology which is satisfied more by the adherence to some remote and abstract theory, which they picked up
by reading books written by Margaret Thatcher or someone, than by looking at down-to-earth, practical realities in terms of what will make the country grow. That is what we are objecting to. When they reach the point of deciding upon an economic blueprint, they should look at what is practical and effective.
As far as FIRA is concerned, I point out to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill that in fact we made administrative reforms in FIRA which substantially cleared up the time necessary to service applications. There was a real complaint that they took too long. In 1983, as a result of administrative changes, we could turn around applications, some 70 per cent to 80 per cent of them in the first 45 to 60 days. We were able to say to someone applying that we could give them a proper and effective response. This did not eliminate a vital necessity, that is, the test of economic and significant benefit to Canadians. We used FIRA as a way of calling to account various proposed purchasers of Canadian business and negotiating with them. FIRA became a negotiating agency in order to ensure that we obtain world mandates, commitments on R and D, on purchasing and on job creation. That was the purpose of FIRA. We want that maintained. We need it as a continuing control agency. We do not want it eliminated, as the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) proposes.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I was fascinated during this debate by hearing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and many other members of his Party speaking about the economic answers which they seem to have. To my mind, they have extremely short memories. They do not seem to remember that the economic difficulties which we are now facing were created while they were in power and in government. They seem to have forgotten, for instance, the enormously high inflation rate of not so long ago. It was an inflation rate in double digit figures which reached in excess of 12 per cent. Their answer to that-those great solutions which they now say we should be following-was to raise interest rates. What did that do for the country? It created bankruptcies, both business and personal, such as we have never seen before. It created the unemployment which we have now, which is in excess of 11 per cent and reaching 1.5 million people. It created a situation where the industrial capacity of the country was operating at only about 65 per cent instead of 100 per cent. These were the great answers the Hon. Member and his Government gave to the country.
Apparently he is now suggesting that we should have more of the same sort of answers which created unemployment and reduced the standard of living in Canada from something like the third highest in the world to the thirteenth highest.
If the policies of the Hon. Member and his Government were so wonderful and answered all our economic problems, why has our standard of living slipped to where it has, and why do we now have 1.5 million unemployed people?
November 20, 1984


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it seems like old times now that we are getting questions about the policy of the Government. Let me try to reply very quickly to the Hon. Member.
First, 1 remind him that what we went through during the early part of the 1980s was something that was a world-wide phenomenon. He may have had his head in the sand during that period. Most of us were dealing with the fact that unemployment and high interest rates were effective in Europe, the United States, Great Britain, Canada and Japan. Every single industrial country was faced with the same problem. One cannot point to one Government and say it was the sole cause.
During that period of time, we were trying to get at the sources of the problem. We did achieve a substantial reduction in the inflation rate. The fact that we now have a 3.8 per cent inflation rate has nothing to do with the Conservative Government of the last two months. It is because of the six and five program that was introduced 18 months ago. We brought that inflation rate down. You are fortunate enough to be the beneficiaries of it.


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


Hon. G. S. Gerry Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to make my inaugural address in this House on the occasion of the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This is particularly so because I have the honour to hold a new portfolio, that of Minister of State for Forestry, which was created by our Government and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in recognition of the enormous importance of the forestry sector in our economy.
It is just as important to me, however, to be here fulfilling my more immediate responsibilities as a Member of Parliament for Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada's most dynamic port city. I want at this time to thank the citizens who supported me in Saint John for the confidence they have placed in me over six elections in the last 13 years, one municipal, four provincial, and, most recently, for a convincing win on September 4.
The City of Saint John is one of eastern Canada's major industrial centres, boasting a population of over 100,000 people, mainly of British, Irish, Scottish and French descent. Our city was the first incorporated city in Canada. Next year we will be celebrating our 200th anniversary. A meeting, by way of coincidence, will be held this week to commemorate the first provincial Cabinet meeting which was held in Saint John on November 22, 1784. To mark that particular event, the Government of New Brunswick's present executive council will meet in our city on Thursday of this week to commemorate this important date in our nation's history.
Saint John is, first and foremost, a port city. It is also an important industrial city with major industries such as Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. Ltd., a large brush and broom factory, one of the largest in the British Common-
The Address-Mr. Merrithew
wealth, an oil refinery, two pulp and paper mills, and a growing number of small and medium-sized businesses.
The people of Saint John are also very proud of our city's efforts to modernize the downtown core. This venerable city recently initiated a major facelift built around the now famous Market Square complex, which includes a new trade and industry centre, an office complex and a library and, of course, very attractive common areas. Those people who have not chosen to have a convention there are certainly welcome to come and experience our Saint John hospitality.
Despite its age, the city and its people are modern and forward-looking. The people of Saint John are by tradition entrepreneurs, willing to accept the challenge of the marketplace, looking for opportunities to create and to prosper. It is a community that was, of course, positioned to feel very directly the hardships of the recent recession. Dependent on the marketplace, vulnerable to the disasters affecting international trade, the people of Saint John suffered through all of the economy's failures over the past five years.
They also suffered through the paralysis of federalism which prevented national solutions to national problems. As a provincial Minister of Commerce and Development for six years and later as Minister of Natural Resources of the Province, I was forced to witness the long, bitter battles of businessmen faced with crippling interest rates and sagging markets.
Believe me, I saw firsthand the impact of bankruptcy and unemployment on Canadians as they realized that their dreams for the future would have to be postponed or forgotten. Like every Canadian, especially those of us with children, I worry about the effects that economic uncertainty and unemployment might have on the next generation. As Minister, I turned around to find only slogans and arrogance at the federal level. There was no sense of national crisis, only jealous protection of what they called their turf.
Like every Canadian, I recognize the human waste behind the statistics of alcoholism, crime and suicide. I know that the first duty of any government must be to restore a sense of purpose and hope to individual Canadians. I am proud that our Government has signalled in its Throne Speech its intention to rebuild that confidence and to balance major programs. On the one hand, the Government will give Canadians the freedom to invest and to build. On the other hand, the disadvantaged will be protected through our social programs.

Mr. Speaker, the themes of the Throne Speech are as welcome as birds in spring, especially when we hear the words reconciliation, consensus, economic renewal and social justice. These are themes that were forgotten by an entire generation of Canadians, and will now provide the key to a new era of government.

The Fathers of Confederation knew very well what they were doing when they designed our country. They built a state which functions only when Canadians work together. When they fight each other, as they have for the past decade, it

[ Translation]
There again, industries based on Canadian forestry products and also our efforts in forest management will provide jobs for thousands of young people during our mandate. Few job creation programs are as valuable or as cost-efficient as those which hire young people to plant and manage our forests. [English]
Few job-creation programs are as valuable or as cost-efficient as those which hire young people to plant and manage our forests. A sector experiencing such profound change is the ideal place for creative entrepreneurs to capture a niche in the new marketplace.
The Throne Speech also made extensive reference to social justice. The opportunity for economic prosperity is a key aspect of social justice. We see the sustained utilization of the natural resources of Indian lands as an opportunity for native Canadians to develop a self-sufficient industry and employment on federal reserve land.
Many experts have calculated that Canada's forest reserves could be sustained and expanded for a relatively small investment. If only a quarter of the tax revenues produced annually by the forest sector were returned to the resource in planting, management and protection, we would be equipped to take advantage of the expanding market opportunities predicted by Canadian and international agencies. However, to get that investment, Canadians must understand its importance. They must place it in the context of transportation, education and health care as being a major ingredient of the Canadian standard of living.
The Liberal Government threw up its hands at the primary industries and particularly at the forestry sector. It said that it was a provincial matter. It is not a provincial matter, Mr. Speaker. It is a shared problem legally, morally and economically. The excuse for idleness was that old refrain: "The provinces will not allow us to move in this field". That is nonsense. As someone who was there on the other side of the table just a few months ago, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces are not against federal activity in forestry; they welcome it. They never have been against it. What they are against and have every right to oppose is the old pattern of federal involvement in which Ottawa would make all the decisions and take all the credit.
One entire section of the Throne Speech deals with Canada's success on the international stage. As Minister of State for Forestry, no question could be of greater interest to me and, I am sure, to the people of British Columbia, New Brunswick and other areas which do a great deal of exporting of forestry products.
Canada is an exporting nation. Her biggest export is forest products which earn more in foreign exchange earnings than oil, minerals, fish and agricultural exports combined. Protecting our access to these markets, opening up new market opportunities and adapting to changing customer demands are the great challenges for the Canadian economy. The federal Government will have a role in facing these challenges.
The Address-Mr. Merrithew
The Throne Speech is not a laundry list of specific promises; it is a statement of general intentions and philosophical commitments to action. As the mandate proceeds, we will introduce legislation and programs to live up to the promises our Party made during the recent election campaign as far as the depleted resources of the federal Government will allow. Even more important, we will ensure that the themes of this Throne Speech, social justice, co-operation and internationalism, are a constant characteristic of Canadian life.
As a Minister of this Government, I look forward to the next few years with excitement. As the Minister responsible for the forestry sector, I envision a period of challenge but also one of rewards and satisfaction. As a representative of Saint John, I see the Throne Speech as being the first step taken by a government which will serve my city, my Province and my country very well.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Ministry of State for Forestry. There are a few questions I would like to put to him in light of what he said and in light of what went on during the election campaign. On page 49 of the PC campaign handbook it reads:
We will establish a new Department of Forestry at the federal level.
That has not yet been done. There were also some interesting comments in the PC campaign handbook which indicated that the Liberal Government presided over a "decade of neglect", bringing us "within sight of a national disaster".
During the campaign I found it interesting that the Tories campaigned throughout my province on the promise of a $1.2 billion five-year rescue program. I would like to find out whether that was factual and whether it is supported by the new Minister. The Tories also promised that they would provide $300 million a year in federal funds for British Columbia. That is somewhat in line with what the University of British Columbia Department of Forestry concluded is required to deal with the Not Satisfactorily Restocked lands in British Columbia, which now comprise several million hectares. UBC estimated that it would cost $660 million a year over the next five years to deal with the NSR lands in British Columbia.
As the Minister knows, the Premier of British Columbia has offered only $60 million a year for the Canada-BC Reforestation Agreement. That agreement would not, in any way, deal with the NSR lands. It would marginally deal with insect infestation, fire suppression and other programs which are automatically required every year. I would like the Minister to comment on what has happened in B.C.
Last year an agreement could not be reached at $130 million a year, and B.C. received an $11 million agreement. As the Minister knows, that is less than what was spent on Section 38 jobs in my constituency. It was a real tragedy that a better agreement could not have been reached. I would like to know what level of agreement the Minister sees as acceptable for

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Merrithew
British Columbia. Is it $660 million a year, jointly split between Ottawa and Victoria, as proposed by UBC? Or is it something less than that? If it is less than that, I would like to know what the Tory promise was about during the election campaign-the promise of a $1.2 billion five-year rescue program which would provide $300 million in federal funds per year over five years. I intend to speak to my constituents about those Tory campaign promises, and compare them with what the Minister says in the House.
Outside of that, I am pleased to see that the government side has taken the need for a Ministry of Forestry more seriously than did the Liberals. It is the largest industry in Canada. One Canadian in ten is involved in that industry. However, over the last two decades we have seen less than five cents out of every federal dollar, brought in in terms of federal forestry-industry related taxation, going back to the industry, either for nurseries or for any kind of silvaculture-related activity. Under the Tory Government of 1979 that level of expenditure dropped. I would like the Minister to comment on that. It raised alarm among many professional foresters in the country because they did not know in which direction the Tories intended to go during that particular year. More money was spent by the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) on forestry projects outside Canada than was spent inside Canada. I would like to know if the Minister intends to continue that kind of approach.
The final point which I would like the Minister to respond to is this. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is going to create a department of forestry-which I certainly support and I know the Minister supports-why would he take it from the Department of the Environment and put it under the Department of Agriculture? I know it sent a signal to the forest companies that the Tories would take a softer posture in terms of pesticide and herbicide applications. One of the key reasons for permitting forestry to move from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Agriculture is to get rid of environmentalists who are too interested in safety and health and who are opposed to spraying the forests. I would like the Minister to explain why forestry will move from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Agriculture. Why will it not simply remain under the Department of the Environment until such time as a Bill can be introduced to create the Ministry? That was only done once under the Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker in 1960. For a very brief period of time Canada had a Ministry of Forestry. However, since 1966 the Department has been downgraded in the number of its staff, its budget and its over-all access to Cabinet funds.
Could the Minister tell us what are the specifics and what he feels is a reasonable and realizable five-year rescue program? We know what was in the Tory campaign handbook, but we do not know what is in his mind. Could he tell us what there is for British Columbia? We were promised during the election campaign that $300 million a year would be made available. Is that true or is that false? What level of expenditure does the Minister feel is realistic? It is five cents out of a
dollar now. Does he feel it should be raised to 20 cents, 30 cents or 50 cents? I think Canadians would like to know what the signal is. How soon does the Minister anticipate a full ministry and a separate department? Most Canadians who know anything about the industry will support that.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member spoke of his concerns, as have other Members from British Columbia as well as members of all Parties. The platform on which a Party campaigns is not for a one-year period, or a two-month period, but one which covers a five-year mandate. Things can be done and will be done by a government that is concerned about forestry. The Government will spend those dollars as dollars become available. The very fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Party saw fit to establish the Ministry of State for Forestry is a very good indication, because it provided for the industry a clear signal that the Government is interested in Canada's largest industry. If nothing else, it will provide to the industry the assurance that someone in Cabinet will be speaking for the industry.
With regard to the mandate which has been given to me as Minister and to the Ministry of State for Forestry, the Prime Minister did what he could under the legislative authority which was before him. At this time there is no legislation in place to establish a full department. Over the intervening years I am sure that the Government will be dealing with such issues as what the Government should be doing for the industry, the kind of organization it should have, and how it can best effect what it wants to do for the industry. That will come in due course. In fact, it is under review at the present time.
The five-year rescue program is one in which I totally believe. I served for two years as the Minister of Forestry and the Minister of Natural Resources in the Province of New Brunswick, as well as serving for six years as the Minister of Commerce and Development. During that time I worked very closely with the forest industry. For once, I think the industry, the Government, labour and all provincial governments realize that perhaps in the past what needed to be done to ensure that there would be a forest industry for our children and our grandchildren was neglected.
The kind of dedication which was expressed in the election campaign and the intentions which we have expressed as to what needs to be done is a realistic goal. The extent to which we will be able to achieve that goal is another matter. Through no fault of our own, we have inherited a fiscal and financial situation that is deplorable, to say the least. However, we will take steps, in conjunction with the provinces, to put into place the programs which are needed.
In the two months I have been Minister I have met with the majority of my provincial counterparts to discuss the kind of programs they desire. I have signed an agreement with the Province of Alberta. As well, last week I signed a $150 million agreement with the Province of Ontario. In that agreement we attempted to deal with the aims and the needs of the industry in Ontario. The aims and needs of the industry vary from province to province, and we respect the right of the provinces
November 20, 1984

to express their individual views. I have met with Mr. Water-land and his staff on several occasions regarding the B.C. agreement. I agree that there is a very definite need for a new program. That Province did not take advantage of a modernization program, which many other provinces undertook, in terms of pulp and paper modernization. British Columbia chose to go the route of forestry regeneration, new silvaculture activities, research and development and so on. It is my intention to sign an agreement with that province as soon as possible. I cannot at this point in time give the exact date for that. However, we are dealing with it at the present time in the Regional Development Committee. I can only state that I will fight on behalf of the people, and certainly on behalf of the industries, in British Columbia for a fair and equitable portion of the funds which are available.
The Hon. Member did mention the move of forestry from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Agriculture. I can tell the Hon. Member that I was not privy to the kind of discussion and thought which went into the decision made by the Prime Minister. I can, however, assure the Hon. Member that it was not done because the federal Government thought the industry would find it a lot easier to work within the Department of Agriculture because of its registration function and review of pesticides and herbicides. That is not the indication at all. I believe it does fit in the way in which we are trying to portray the industry, not as people who attend the land, but people who farm the land-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Hon. Minister to please conclude his remarks.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. In the next few months and few years, Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal with the issue of forestry, to be a strong voice for that sector of the economy around the Cabinet table. I very much regret what happened over the 1970s to the Canadian Forestry Service, at which time its staff, and, therefore, its activities were cut almost in half. That was regrettable, it was very wrong, and I certainly hope it will not happen now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall now proceed with debate. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I see that it is close to one o'clock. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being unanimous consent, I will call it one o'clock. It being one o'clock, the House shall stand adjourned until two o'clock.
At 12.52 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers with dreams of conserving energy and improving their homes emerged as the big losers after the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) took the axe to many programs. Of particular concern to me and my constituents is the reduction in funds for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. This very worth-while program was instituted for home owners and land owners who wanted to improve their properties.
This cut of approximately 50 per cent in RRAP funding affects not only home owners in my constituency but will have an equally devastating effect on small contractors, 50 per cent to 60 per cent of whom will go out of business. The building supply dealers will be no less affected. If there are no repairs to be done, there is no need for building supplies. These cut-backs are continued evidence of the uncaring attitude of the Government toward the poorer regions of the country. This action must be stopped.



FORESTRY


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in the recent election campaign the Conservative Party promised: "We will establish a new Department of Forestry at the federal level". This will be found at page 49 of the PC Handbook. This promise has been broken. In fact all that has occurred is the appointment of a Minister of State in the Department of Agriculture.
One Canadian in 10 is directly or indirectly employed in forestry, Canada's largest industry. According to Richard Herring, the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of forestry, funding for the new Ministry would have to double to at least $300 million to live up to some Conservative promises made during the election. Not one thin dime has been added to forestry expenditures by the new Tory Government.
Under Prime Minister Joe Clark and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, of every dollar raised by the federal Government in forestry-related taxation, less than 5 cents was returned to the sector for replanting, silviculture, marketing, and R and D.
During the election the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that a PC Government would initiate a five-year

November 20, 1984
forest rescue program, a "massive co-operative effort to save this vital element of our national heritage and national economy". According to the PC campaign manual the Liberals, and Joe Clark, presided over a "decade of neglect", bringing us "within sight of a national disaster".
Right across Canada, Mr. Speaker, voters are awakening to the fact that the forests and the environment are at the bottom of the list when it comes to support by right-wing politicians. In British Columbia, Bill Bennett proposes to spend $60 million on forestry when the UBC Department of Forestry calculates the need at $660 million per year.
Canadians have been tragically misled and misinformed by the-


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



ABORTION


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, many people in my riding are very disturbed about the acquittal of Dr. Henry Morgentaler. By telephone and letter, over 800 individuals have contacted both myself and a provincial Member whose riding overlaps mine. On the basis of much scientific, medical, and ethical information, I believe that human life begins with conception and must be protected by the law.
The jury selection process in the trial was very disturbing to many Canadians. If we applied that procedure to this House, then many Members would be disqualified from hearing some issues. To some, the acquittal was a victory for lawlessness since Dr. Morgentaler never denied that he broke the law. The role of a jury is to determine innocence or guilt based on the law and the evidence provided during the trial. Surely it is for this House, not a jury, to decide what our laws will be.
I respectfully urge the Minister to address the issue of abortion during the term of this, the Thirty-third Parliament. If the study finds that a foetus is a human being, which I am confident it will, then we must protect that defenceless life with all the power and full weight of the law.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concern and that of many Canadians about the limit for income tax purposes on contributions to registered pension plans.
Individuals are limited to a maximum of $3,500 in contributions as far as income tax deductibility is concerned. This limit has remained unchanged since 1976, through a period when significant increases in the Consumer Price Index have eroded
the real dollar value of contributions and of the limit itself. Further, it has remained unchanged when other tax deductions were indexed to the Consumer Price Index. Therefore I call upon the Government to take an equitable position on this serious problem and soon bring forth the necessary legislation to correct this injustice.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, in her fanatical desire to satisfy the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), is instituting some illogical measures. She says that those people receiving weather information other than through the media, will be charged for this service. This will stop people from calling the weather office, Mr. Speaker, people like fishermen who need frequent updates on ever changing weather patterns.
She also says that she will work with the telephone company. Well, everyone knows that the telephone company is not permitted to act as a collection agency, even for the Minister of the Environment. This will not increase revenue to the Department, but it will stop people from calling the weather forecast office.
The Minister also said that guided tours will be replaced by self-guided and volunteer-guided tours in national parks. What is a self-guided tour? Is the Minister going to erect a sign saying "Seek and ye shall find", or "Enter at your own risk"? Or is this an excuse to beef up search and rescue? The Minister is clearly fishing beyond her quota, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Government has come up with a novel way to create employment. Rather than create jobs to put Canadians back to work, the Government is hiring 700 enforcement officers to police the Unemployment Insurance Act. During the election campaign the position of the Conservative Party was crystal clear-no quotas in Revenue Canada, and fair dealing with the public. Now that it is safely in power the Government has somersaulted and will demonstrate its toughness by punishing the unemployed and by bringing in the goon squad. Believe it or not, the cost of this harrassment is $30 million per year, Mr. Speaker. Is this increase in the power of the state the kind of creative job creation Canadians can expect from this Government?
The Government's approach to economic problems is to punish the victims of unemployment, rather than come up with solutions. If there is unemployment, blame the unemployed. If we need more tax revenue, tax the poor and give loopholes to
November 20, 1984

the wealthy. I suggest that the Government transfer the $30 million to the Canada Works Program and get the Government off the backs of the people.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
OPPOSITION TO CN/CP APPLICATION FOR TELEPHONE SERVICE DEREGULATION
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it is as a firm believer in fair competition that I stand today to speak against the CN/CP Telecommunications application now under consideration by the CRTC. If it is approved, CNCP will hook into existing BC Tel and Bell Canada equipment in order to provide competitively priced long distance telephone service between major urban areas in Ontario, Quebec, and B.C. That would reduce revenue to the Telecom system, revenue shared by the Manitoba Telephone System and used to subsidize local service rates. If CNCP were willing to meet the less lucrative service and investment commitments which companies such as MTS must meet, then that would be a quite different story. But such is not the case, and that is why the application does not constitute fair competition.
In addition, a recent study supports the view that telephone deregulation could adversely affect the cost and level of local service in outlying areas. In recent weeks well over 600 people in my constituency have expressed to me in writing their opposition to the CNCP application. Many are seniors on fixed incomes who cannot afford to pay substantially more for basic telephone service.
While I recognize that the CRTC is presently considering the application, as the elected representative for Brandon-Souris I must express my personal opposition to this proposal.



EXTERNAL AID


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, a quarter century ago Africa was self sufficient in food supplies. Today, Ethiopia and 21 other countries in Africa are in danger of being overridden by the apocalyptic horseman of famine.
Their immediate hope lies in the kind of massive aid which, under the lead of the Government, Canada is sending Ethiopia. But their long term hope requires another kind of aid; leadership in advancing scientific agriculture, developing technology, and building infrastructures.
If the need of the West is to humanize our technology, the need of Africa is to technologize its humanity.
Here is a service opportunity for Canadians with knowledge and skills to offer. Through such programs as CUSO and
CESO, Canadians have already made an impressive contribution to the world's needs. We can now make an even greater contribution by creating a partnership of Government and voluntary agencies, a partnership to recruit and maintain an army dedicated to peace.
Canada can be proud of its Armed Forces and what they have done for peace. Can we now think of unarmed forces that Canada can send abroad to offer life to people facing death?
Canadians have made an inspiring response to the Government's appeal for money and goods in the past two weeks. They will respond just as readily if their country calls them to offer their skills and knowledge.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the present Government claims it is creating a climate of confidence for businessmen so that they will invest in the Canadian economy. How can the Government create a climate of confidence when the first thing it did upon coming to power was to increase the very sales tax it had criticized so severely under the previous Government? It then immediately proceeded to raise the price of gas and unemployment insurance premiums. All these tax increases have raised the direct production costs of Canadian businesses, thus reducing their ability to compete on international markets and automatically involving the loss of thousands of jobs. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to create thousands of jobs as soon as his Cabinet was sworn in. Mr. Speaker, to this day we have seen only employment cutbacks, involving at least 50,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister misled the Canadian people?



FINANCE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to draw to the attention of Members of Parliament the provision for indexing set out in the supplementary information tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8 last. The index for next year's increases in tax is 4.6 per cent and, as a consequence, there is a reduction in federal tax revenues of over $1 billion, and in provincial revenues of over $375 million.
This might not be much of a benefit if the true rate of inflation were in fact 4.6 per cent, but Members will know that the inflation rate is now only 3.4 per cent year over year, and is much less than 2 per cent in the last months. Indeed, there

November 20, 1984
Oral Questions
would be no inflation at all if it were not for increases in taxes and charges by Crown corporations.
The effect, then, of the 4.6 per cent index is to assist Canadians substantially. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a policy of the Conservative Party to leave people with their own money because that will stimulate employment better than anything else.
Members should report this significant reduction in tax to their constituents as an indication of the first benefit they are receiving from the Progressive Conservative Government.



RESEARCH


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is with grave concern for the future of Canada's potential involvement in space research, and for the subsequent and immediate effect on Churchill, Gimli, and Winnipeg, that I rise today.
In its economic statement the Government announced the closure of the research program in Churchill and Gimli. It has certainly killed the future of ionospheric research in that area, which will create a real danger to future employment in this field. Those scientists who wish to pursue their involvement in this field, now and in the future, will be forced to leave our country.
A further loss of revenue will occur when NASA scientists are forced to withdraw their current and potential use of the Churchill research range.
The cost to dismantle and remove the facility is an additional $10 million to the Government of Canada. These are the immediate costs and revenue losses to the people of Canada. The cost to our future and our young people is completely unknown, and the Government should reverse its decision.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It appears that the Government has developed an extraordinary obsession for secrecy. In fact it is elevating the phrase "no comment'' to an art form. Just listen to the headlines about this keyhole administration. "It is secrecy time". "Paranoia starks Parliament Hill".

For diplomats, mum will definitely be the word.

"Tories keep us in the dark"; "The Great Stone Wall"; "Finance Minister refuses to release information on social program cuts".
Why is there this frosty silence? Why has he thrown a cloak of secrecy over his administration?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my right hon. friend interprets it that way because-


Mr. Gauthier:: It is the press.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -I would like to give him and the House, in response to his entirely legitimate concern, the assurance that that was certainly not my intention nor that of the Government.
I want to indicate that we, as a new Government, came in with much to try to accomplish in a brief period of time. This required some degree of co-ordination.
It was brought to my attention by Mr. John Ferguson, at a press conference that I held last week, that guidelines did exist in the past and the question was whether they applied. I indicated that I would be happy to review them, which I am in the process of doing. Hopefully at a press conference this coming Friday I can impart to the press guidelines that will be reasonable and proper, and which ensure access to the press and availability of information for the Opposition and us all.
There was no intent at any time to curtail the legitimate flow of information. It was an attempt by me to bring a modest degree of order to a new situation. We hope that when I am able to deliver the guidelines that Mr. Ferguson was properly seeking, they will clarify and improve the situation, to the satisfaction of my right hon. friend.


John Napier Turner: That is a very seductive answer.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in helping the Prime Minister to come to a final decision, I want to remind him of his words in Kingston on August 12 when he said:
If the Canadian people see fit to give us their trust, we will always give them ours. That means an end to the obsession with secrecy. Secrecy in government ... is an addiction; the more the Government can have of it, the more it wants of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: There may be another addiction at play, the addiction of power. However, I ask the Prime Minister to contrast the actions of his Government to date with those very eloquent words, and will he issue a fiat to his Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, to fulfil that promise which was made in Kingston? Will he lift this
November 20, 1984

veil of secrecy, and turn on the lights in the corridors of power?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the understandable wishes of my right hon. friend, I could not issue a fiat to the Deputy Prime Minister privately because, as he knows, it would be leaked to the papers immediately. It is the garrulous dimension of his personality that I find most attractive.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am delighted that my right hon. friend referred to my Kingston speech, because I thought it was one of my better speeches.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The thoughts raised in that speech were indeed serious. They speak to some of the most important concerns that we all have. Even though I suppose I am somewhat like the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and do not always agree with what is written in the papers, there can be no doubt of the right of the press to know, and that the press constitutes an indispensable cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy. We want to enhance that.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of great concern to us. Not just the press but especially the Canadian people have a right to know this Government's response and reaction.
May I perhaps ask a final question, futile though it may be?
What is the Prime Minister trying to hide?

What is the Prime Minister trying to hide?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Nothing. [English]
Nothing, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT DIRECTIVE ISSUED TO EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICIALS BE RESCINDED
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, since the Right Hon. Prime Minister seems to be feeling very mellow this afternoon in the House, could he perhaps do something positive today and order his Secretary of State for External Affairs who has put a humiliating gag on his department's officials, to remove this gag immediately, until such
Oral Questions
time as new guidelines have been set by the new Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should comment on this guideline in the near future. I can inform the Hon. Member that I expect to be able to do so at the next press conference I intend to call this Friday at the latest. The Hon. Member has raised an important question which deserves a complete answer, and 1 expect to be able to give him all the details very shortly.


THE PRESS GALLERY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an assurance from the Prime Minister concerning this gag order which is making officials in External Affairs a joke around the world today. The impression has been created that they cannot talk to anyone, even over cocktails.
Does the Right Hon. Prime Minister subscribe to the view of his Secretary of State for External Affairs that anyone who criticizes the Government, reporters such as Geoff Simpson, Doug Fisher, and others, are members of the establishment? I hope he will say to Doug Fisher: "Doug, baby, you have come a long way from Thunder Bay to be part of the establishment today".


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see why anyone would want to criticize this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With reference to the names raised, and indeed to all members of the Press Gallery, I view with respect their necessary, indeed indispensable, occupation of legitimate criticism of the Government and the Opposition-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No; the Opposition do that themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and I commend them. This Government will conduct itself in such a manner as to facilitate and not inhibit their work in any way.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Lift the gag.


JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CABINET DOCUMENTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the Liberals are putting gag orders on one another.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 20, 1984
Oral Questions


Svend Johannes Robinson: My question is for the Prime Minister. When in opposition the Prime Minister's Party, through the late Walter Baker, promised that a top priority, a fundamental government priority, was amendments to access to information legislation, permitting full judicial review of all disputed documents, including cabinet documents. Indeed, such a provision was included in previous Conservative legislation on access to information. Why is it that the Prime Minister's Government is now breaking this fundamental commitment that was made by his Party through Walter Baker?
Why, in turn, has the Prime Minister adopted the Liberal policy of secrecy and of refusing to trust the courts with cabinet documents?


Mr. Nystrom:: Leader.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Do you have to consult Erik before opening your mouth?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, who has long been involved and interested in this whole area of access to information, and who served on the committee, he will know that we have just now referred the question of the operation of the access to information legislation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This committee will have a wide-ranging ability to look into the operation of the legislation and to make recommendations with respect to that legislation. I invite the Hon. Member to make his representations, as I do all Members, to that committee, and I am sure they will receive the attention they deserve.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice. Would he explain to this House his statement that the cabinet system of government would crumble if judges were allowed to examine cabinet documents? Why is it that he and his Government have turned their backs on the fundamental commitment that was made by Walter Baker to allow full judicial review of all cabinet documents? How is this going to result in the crumbling of cabinet government in this country?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the whole system, and the hon. gentleman, might crumble if we opened up Privy Council confidences.


Ian Deans: That was pretty kookie.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Am I to be allowed to answer the question, Mr. Speaker? We are not even allowed to answer questions in the House, and you ask about access to information!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: It is not our fault. Speak to your Leader.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the press about the case of the Auditor General versus Petrofina Petro-Canada and the Government of Canada. I said the issue there was that we could not agree to give the Auditor General access to confidences of the Privy Council in that particular instance; one, because there is a commitment that we will not go into the documents and cabinet confidences of previous administrations, including that of the Leader of the Opposition and of the administration of Mr. Trudeau, which was a little longer than that of the last Leader of the Liberal Party; two, because it would be wrong for the Auditor General to have access to those confidences. They are not necessary, in our view, for him to carry out his auditing functions properly.
That is not to say, and I never said, that judges should be prevented from having access to certain documents. That is another issue. As a matter of fact, in a great blow for liberty, I just instructed the Department of Justice not to go forward with an appeal in the Ternette case. The hon. gentleman should be congratulating me for a great step forward.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: My final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister might care to recall the speech he made in Kingston and explain why it is that behaviour which was totally unacceptable, then, according to the Prime Minister, that is, the refusal to disclose the documents requested by the Auditor General, is suddenly acceptable now? Why is his Government refusing, and continuing to stonewall the Auditor General in his pursuit of information concerning the expenditure of millions of taxpayers' dollars? Why is there continued stonewalling and secrecy? Why the breach of another sacred trust by this Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice has just indicated, I think the information being sought can properly be segregated into categories. One apparently is with respect to an attempt by the Auditor General, prior to our coming to office, to seek out information that is contained only in classified cabinet documents or memoranda. I undertook, on behalf of this administration, not to ferret about in the documents of previous administrations, as has been done before me. But for information that is requested there is a proper channel for me to secure it through the Clerk of the Privy Council. I think that is proper, that Cabinet be able to function under the British parliamentary system in that way.
With regard to the second part of the information being sought, which is basically the same kind of information, we are
November 20, 1984

trying to help the Auditor General secure all of the information possible. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Justice and myself are very much committed to ensuring that all information available to the Government of Canada, excluding that which has been for good reason covered by the reference I have just explained, will be made available to allow the Auditor General to put a spotlight on the transaction. Apparently we had a little difficulty in finding the proper formula, because it was an unusual kind of request. I hope we will be able to satisfy all requests by the Auditor General so that this information can be made available to Canadians and to the Parliament of Canada.


SECTORAL FREE TRADE PROPOSAL
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, yesterday the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects introduced a very important discussion on the issue of free trade. Yet, at the same time, a member of the Prime Minister's staff, Mr. MacMillan, dismissed the option of free trade in a speech even though various Cabinet Ministers, including the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion last night on television, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, endorsed the notion of sectoral free trade.
Could the Prime Minister indicate whether the Government, as a policy, has abandoned negotiations with the United States on matters of sectoral free trade in a number of very critical sectors, like urban transportation and agricultural equipment? Could he indicate who in his Government is speaking on the very vital question of trade-which of the three or four Ministers who have spoken on it, or will it be his personal policy adviser?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the paper submitted by the Minister of Finance clearly indicated, it is a vital sector for public consideration and debate. It is presently being reviewed not only by Cabinet and caucus. I had the pleasure of listening to the Hon. Member last night on television express his views on the issue. I learned a great deal from them. They are at substantial variance with those of his Party, but I thought it was a great contribution to the debate.
In this important areas we are presently evolving a policy which will be announced pursuant to thorough consideration by Cabinet. As the Hon. Member knows, Cabinet speaks for the Government in these important areas.


Lloyd Axworthy: As the Prime Minister knows, in our Party we are always encouraging free and open discussion. That is the hallmark of liberalism.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: I am afraid the Prime Minister did not answer the question.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER'S POLICY ADVISER NOT MAKE STATEMENTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have a statement from a very important member of the Prime Minister's Office dismissing the idea of sectoral free trade at a time when we are in negotiations. We also have a circumstance where the United States has already undertaken open hearings on how Canadian protective barriers would inhibit any free trade area.
First, will the Prime Minister's policy adviser no longer make statements on this vital issue so that we do not confuse the issue? Second, will we have an opportunity to debate the free trade issue in Parliament? Third, will we also have an opportunity very soon to begin examining the way in which the United States has protective barriers to Canadian trade in that country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable spectacle. The Member is suggesting that I throw a veil of secrecy over my policy adviser.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would have thought that consistency would require openness and people speaking out. Mr. MacMillan, with all his remarkable talents, is not the spokesman for the Government. He was delivering himself of a personal and informed view which will be put into the mix with the opinion of others in the House and elsewhere. I hope we will come out at an early moment with an appropriate response to the query raised by my hon. friend that will be beneficial to Canada in terms of job creation and our longer term trading future.


REQUEST THAT COMMISSION BE DISBANDED
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the same question. It is apparent that there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion between, on the one hand, the chairman of the royal commission who says that we must make a leap of faith into the area of free trade, and a senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister on the other. In this matter there can only be one decision-either we go ahead with the discussions or not. Given that it is costing millions of dollars to pay for this royal commission, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the royal commission to report its findings to date, disband it, and save public money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand the Hon. Member's outrage.


Ian Deans: You are?

November 20, 1984
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: What we have is a former Minister of Finance, who is chairman of a royal commission, delivering himself of what I understood was a personal view at a conference in New York. I read it along with the Hon. Member. I did not conclude that Mr. Macdonald was trying to pre-empt or anticipate the definitive conclusions of his colleagues. It was clearly stipulated to be a personal view on the one hand. On the other hand, Mr. MacMillan, the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry, and many others, have different views on this vital matter, which will form the object of a discussion paper. We hope there will be debate in the House to obtain the benefit of the views, experience and knowledge of Hon. Members on all sides of the House of Commons so that we can design and implement a trade policy which will create new jobs and new wealth for Canadians. That is what we would like.


COSTS OF COMMISSION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that his House Leader at the time the royal commission was established indicated that the money which was to be spent would have been better spent assisting those on UIC to extend their benefit period, or perhaps assisting those in need of family allowance, with some kind of indexing? Does he not now feel that all that money may well have been wasted, given that the decision which will be taken by the royal commission was pre-empted by a senior policy adviser who claims that the Government is not likely to proceed with sectoral free trade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would not necessarily disagree with the view held by the House Leader if it was expressed many months ago. The royal commission has been under way for a considerable period of time. Indeed it has been a costly royal commission. It may very well be that, upon reflection, even my hon. friends, were they still in government, would have decided to do something different.
However, we were confronted with a situation where the royal commission was just about to report. It will, very soon. We felt that it was prudent and proper in the circumstances that we receive the benefit of whatever extensive work has been done, and not chop it off eleven-twelfths of the way. Hopefully we will receive some value for the very substantial amount of money expended in this area.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport.
Whereas the Government of Quebec has decided to abolish tolls on the Province's expressways and a start has already been made with dismantling toll booths, and since the Champlain Bridge, which is federal property, is the only federal toll bridge in Canada-I am referring to the bridge between Montreal Island and the South Shore-could the Minister inform this House as soon as possible of his policy on the Champlain Bridge toll?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Quebec Government has decided to abolish tolls on Quebec highways. That is the Quebec Government's decision and it is not for us to comment. On the other hand, it is also true that considering the present state of our finances, we cannot afford to spend $6 million in addition to the $3 million we are spending already on the Champlain Bridge. However, we are prepared to consider other options should the financial situation improve.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister announced plans to admit between 85,000 and 90,000 immigrants to Canada for 1985. This is a reduction of 5,000 to
10,000,	including a reduction in the family category to 45,000. Considering the Minister and her Leader forecast improvements in the economy and increases in jobs in 1985, would she explain why she targeted for immigration reductions, particularly reductions in the family class category?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the past two years immigration has been below the projections that were announced annually by the Liberal Government. In the consultations that took place with the provinces and with a number of groups over a period of months during this year as to what the level should be for 1985, it was felt that the announced level was far more realistic.
I also said yesterday that I am very concerned about the immigration trends in this country, that we are not satisfied with what is happening. It is for that reason we have announced a full review of immigration policy. We will, therefore, be looking at immigration levels in the light of what the country really needs.


Mr. Allmand:: I should remind the Minister that there were reviews, by W. G. Robinson in 1983, and a complete review and overhaul in 1976.
November 20, 1984


SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION FEES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the financial statement made by the Minister of Finance on November 8, the Minister announced plans to raise $4.4 million by charging fees for immigration applications and social insurance numbers. Can the Minister tell us the exact fee she has in mind for immigration applicants? Will the fee be the same for all categories, including refugees?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there will be no fee for refugees. I would like to advise the Hon. Member and all other Hon. Members that the fee schedule is still being worked out. As soon as it is, he will be advised of that fact.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who, in his economic statement, projected that the economy would move in a particular direction over the next two years. By the day, starting off with the Conference Board, Informetrica, and the World Bank's trendicator, more and more projection houses are suggesting that the exact opposite is going to occur. Instead of moving in the direction as projected, we will be moving in another direction. The Minister refers to the necessity of building investor confidence. He knows that confidence will depend on stability and consistency, and on how people view the next number of months and the next number of years. Will the Minister explain to the people of Canada, through this House, how confidence is going to be built, when the Government marches to one drummer and the rest of Canada marches to another?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member will be quite aware that there are a number of points of view on the direction of the economy. The point of view that I expressed in my financial statement the other day was very close to the consensus view of something like 25 different economists in the country. There are always others like the Conference Board who will be out of step with that consensus. They have, however, been coming back closer to the consensus of the 25 other forecasters.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister refers to the 25 out of 80,000 economists who agree with the direction. Perhaps we should be paying some attention to the others.


INTEREST RATE POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The assumption in the economic statement is based on the fact of a decrease in the deficit of the United States and a consequent reduction in
Oral Questions
interest rates. In the last couple of days, we hear from the projection houses in the United States-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a little bit unfair to the Member. Others today have been pushing supplementaries with preambles. We have started that practice again. I am sorry to rise when the Hon. Member is speaking but today we have got longer and longer and longer. I would, therefore, ask the Member please go to a question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If things go wrong in the United States, will the Minister indicate to the House whether a "made-in-Canada" interest rate policy is part of the contingency plan that he has?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been asking, both in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments, for a "made-in-Canada" interest rate policy. I should say to him that I believe, as do many other expert observers of the financial scene, that the "made-in-Canada" interest rate policy that his Party would propose is totally impractical and totally unworkable. We have felt that we can get more independence in our interest rate policy if we strengthen the economy. That is the basic direction of the agenda paper and the economic statement that I put out a week and one-half ago.


COSTS OF ELECTRICITY IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with an election promise that the Prime Minister made in May, 1984, to the people of Prince Edward Island when at that time he pledged that he would, if elected, reduce energy costs to Prince Edward islanders. That was reiterated by his Party's candidates in the election campaign in Hillsborough, Malpeque, Cardigan, and Egmont. Three months have gone by since this campaign pledge was made. We still do not see any reduction in energy rates. When can Prince Edward islanders expect a decrease in electricity cost?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward islanders waited 20 years under the Liberals and got no satisfaction. After two months, they are starting to get some satisfaction under us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I had a meeting with Premier Lee on this matter, I met with the Premier to review matters in which we might be helpful. The Minister of Energy held conversations in this regard with her counterpart vis-a-vis Prince Edward Island. I hope that we will be able to advise the Hon. Member and the House pursuant to these consultations.

November 20, 1984
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY FROM PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister initiate a meeting with the Premier of New Brunswick, the Premier of Prince Edward Island, and the newborn Canadian Premier of Quebec? The problem is trying to get electricity from Quebec to Prince Edward Island, transmitted through New Brunswick. Will he initiate a meeting immediately so that the problem can be solved of getting cheap electrical energy from Quebec to Prince Edward Island, transmitting it through New Brunswick at cost?


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member putting a question, but normally it is not necessary to put it twice.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friend that it is a very important matter for Prince Edward Island where power rates are so high that they preclude the possibility of attracting industry. The energy component almost obviates the attractiveness of the Island to these investors. I thank the Hon. Member for raising this matter. It is very important. I understand there have been discussions among Premiers in this area. I have, both in writing and verbally, raised this with Premier Lee. I hope to be able to do so with the other Premiers affected, at an early moment. I share the concern raised by the Hon. Member. There is a strong element of unfairness when the energy component costs are so high that they prevent the building of industry.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the nuclear industry in Canada. Given the Progressive Conservative commitment to open government, to accountability of Crown corporations, to reviewing areas of significant government spending, and to respecting public opinion, can the Minister tell us whether the new Government intends to initiate a full parliamentary inquiry into all aspects of the nuclear industry in Canada, as the Progressive Conservative Government in 1979 intended to do?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the commitment made in 1979 to have a task force or parliamentary committee look into the nuclear industry. When I meet with the officials of AECL, which I will be doing in the next two weeks or so, I will discuss that option with them to see if it is still a valid arena in which to discuss the problems which our nuclear industry faces.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would hope that the Minister would not be taking her orders from AECL in this respect.


INDUSTRY'S ACCOUNTABILITY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister again whether she will consider initiating a full parliamentary inquiry into the nuclear industry so that we can have some accountability from that industry with respect to the nuclear energy future that was imposed upon Canadians by the former Liberal administration. I would urge her to do that.
[DOT] (M50)


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I was giving consideration to reviving that concept. However, I wish to point out that there are a great many players in the nuclear game. One of the things I would do before taking it to our House Leader is find out whether or not the industry, in New Brunswick, Ontario or wherever, would find it a useful arena in which to have discussions.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is not just the industry you should consult.


Pat Carney: Yes, there is a need to find out if that is a useful role to play. Otherwise, the problems may perhaps lie more in the marketing area.

[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Transport). First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister on his decision to meet with groups from the Laurentian area and especially those with concerns about transportation issues. There was a sizeable delegation from Argenteuil-Papineau which made representations to the Minister on two important priorities for the region. My question is: Now that he has had a meeting with the Quebec Minister of Transport on final construction of Highway 50, could the Minister inform the House what transpired at the meeting he had with the Quebec Transport Minister?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we discussed the highway issue with Mr. Leonard- that is correct. However, the federal-provincial agreement on highways in Quebec expired in March 1984 and has yet to be renewed. If and when the agreement is renewed, we can then discuss with the Province, which after all is responsible for highways, what to do about the highway to which the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau is referring.

November 20, 1984 [English]


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. There is an emergency situation facing many agricultural producers today, in western Canada and other parts of the country, because of high bank interest rates on loans. Such is the situation being faced by a producer in Kisbey, Saskatchewan, and one in Choiceland, Saskatchewan, who contacted my office today. As well, during the election campaign, the Government made a commitment to provide additional funding in order to write down existing bank loans to current-day interest rates. In view of those facts, is the Government prepared to move immediately on the commitment made in the election campaign to reduce interest rates on existing bank loans?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question of the Hon. Member. I am very much aware of the very serious problem that exists in the agricultural community. On the other hand, I think we do not wish to over-emphasize the problem.
I have indicated in the House before that we are working with our provincial counterparts. I have met with them all. I am in the process of holding discussions with people from traditional lending agencies.
At the moment, we have under suspension the farm bankruptcies and foreclosures of the FCC. Indeed, that is the only area in which we have legislative authority to do so. I met with my provincial counterparts a couple of weeks ago and we are looking at three or four options. One of the options mentioned by the Hon. Member is an option that is being studied at the moment.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister justify this lack of action when the recent report of the Farm Credit Corporation indicated that 1,700 agricultural producers are facing total financial collapse this coming winter and when the Government, in its own campaign literature, indicated that it would be prepared to write down these farm loans to current-day interest rates? It does not seem to me that that depends upon the provincial Premiers. It depends upon the Government, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture acting now.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Hon. Member should take that position. Indeed, we have not been waiting. We must recognize that write-downs require legislative changes to the Farm Credit Corporation Act.
We have put the bankruptcies into suspension. We have provided some $60 million to western Canada for the drought. We have provided the $123 million final payment from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. The Minister of Finance
Oral Questions
gave a break to the food producers of the country to the extent of at least $100 million.
I do not think that we have waited. I do not think that we have ignored the problem. I think that we have acted appropriately, and have acted within our legislative authority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POTATO MARKETING IN EASTERN CANADA-DISCONTINUANCE OF COMMISSION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. After 12 years of reorganizational studies and discussions of marketing proposals for the eastern Canadian potato industry, a commission of inquiry under Judge Carter was established to investigate the many charges and allegations of wrongdoing and exploitation in that industry. Since the Minister has apparently felt that the inquiry's very existence and its ability to subpoena witnesses is a threat to the existing establishment in the potato industry, can he tell the House how he has aided the potato farmer by stopping this inquiry?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, no one is more anxious to improve the marketing conditions in eastern Canada than I. I am certainly very well aware of the problems which exist there.
If the Hon. Member really knows about the problems in the industry, I think he will recognize that that industry has been studied to death. I can tell the Hon. Member that I have had conversations with all of my provincial counterparts in eastern Canada and they have given me their advice with reference to the advantages and disadvantages of continuing the Carter Commission. It was obvious that the bottom line was that the Carter Commission was probably going nowhere. What is the use of using public funds to study that industry again if the political will is not there?
What will happen is that the submissions that have been made to the Carter Commission will be turned over to the National Farm Products Marketing Council. The Council will update its 1981-82 study. We will get that information-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


FUTURE PLAN
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has turned the information over to the National Farm Products Marketing Council, can he tell us what alternative plan will be put before the producers of eastern Canada? Will there be a marketing proposal put forward for those producers in both eastern and western Canada so that a plan may be decided upon in the near future?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the logical approach would be to let the National Farm Products Marketing Council have an opportu-

November 20, 1984
Oral Questions
nity to update its submission. I would then want to have an opportunity to talk to my provincial counterparts and then provide an opportunity for my hon. colleague to make his own views known.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister has announced that $200 million will be saved through intensified interviews with unemployment insurance recipients. Since the average UIC payment in Canada is $155.88 per week, and since the average period for drawing unemployment insurance benefits is 26 weeks, then in order to save $200 million the Minister would have to knock 50,000 people off the UIC rolls. How many extra staff members will the Minister's Department hire to persecute, prosecute, or prevent these 50,000 people from drawing unemployment insurance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Hon. Member thinks, the objective of claimant interviews is to ensure that we are doing everything that we possibly can to help people find jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 would like to give an example of this to the Hon. Member. Just the other day the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that there were 170,000 jobs that were going unfilled. We want to find out where those jobs are, and we want to match them to those people who are unemployed so that they will be put back to work again. That will reduce the amount of money that is being paid out of the unemployment insurance fund.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question. I wanted to know the number of people who would make up "Flora's heroes".


CONSULTATION QUERY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister, in the spirit of co-operative federalism, consulted with the provincial Ministers of Welfare to find out if they are willing to accept this extra burden on the welfare rolls of the provinces?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, where the Hon. Member and I differ is that we do not agree that there will be an additional burden on the welfare rolls. I want to reassure him that we are aware of the regional difficulties with respect to employment
in this country, and where there are no jobs available, obviously people will continue to receive unemployment insurance benefits. It was for that reason that we entered into a direct job-creation program at the beginning of our term, worth some $430 million, which will provide jobs for 70,000 Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
*****


Mr. Speaker:: Members may want to examine today's Question Period. They will discover that the lengths of questions and answers today were the longest since the beginning of the session. I say this because I am in some difficulty. I suggest to Members who are asking questions that they should recognize the difficulty of the Speaker in policing the length of an answer if a question is long. I have the sense that the House wants the Question Period to work well and to work quickly, but I require the assistance of the House for that purpose.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, I informed the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on Friday, November 16, 1984, met the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. I also informed the House that there was some doubt in my mind as to the acceptability of this petition since it contained signatures from non-Canadian citizens not resident in Canada, and I referred to Citation 668(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
On reviewing the Canadian and British precedents, I found no clear answer to the admissability or non-admissability of a petition which is signed by Canadian citizens and, at the same time, by non-Canadian citizens not resident in Canada. In October, 1983, Madam Speaker Sauve ruled that a petition signed by American citizens was not receivable. That petition was signed exclusively by American citizens. Our precedents on petitions relating to Private Bills indicate that petitions from foreigners have been accepted, from time to time, when the subject matter related to legislation or an area of jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament.
Accordingly, since I could find no clear direction in our practice and procedure, and so that those Canadian citizens who signed the said petition not be denied their ancient right to petition the House of Commons, and since this is the first time this issue has arisen in this Parliament, I ask the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre be received by unanimous consent. I also suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization give early consideration to the presentation of petitions, since this is not the first time that the Chair has raised issues related to this procedure.
November 20, 1984

Introduction of Bills


ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND PRIVACY
[Stage Direction]
May I seek the unanimous consent of the House for this proposal?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is consent, the petition is so received.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the business of the House for the last two days of this week. I have had the benefit of consultations with House Leaders of the Opposition Parties and I would like to advise the House that it is my intention to call the following business for Thursday and Friday.
On Thursday, November 22, the first item of business will be the consideration of the six Ways and Means motions relating to the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. The second order of business will be Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. The third item to be dealt with on Thursday will be a motion to establish the task force on the reform of the House of Commons. It is anticipated that this motion, which is outlined in the Speech from the Throne, will be called immediately following Routine Proceedings. If time remains following the debate on the motion to establish the task force, the House will then conclude consideration of Bill C-4. If Bill C-4 has been passed at all stages, the House will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Saltfish Act.
With respect to the business of the House on Friday, November 23, I would like to announce that I am designating this day as the second allotted day of the current supply period. I think it is also fair for me to indicate, with respect to Bill C-4 and Bill C-6, that notwithstanding the fact that the second reading motion involves reference to the standing committees of this House, there will be a disposition on the part of all Parties to have those Bills dealt with at all stages on the floor of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling in both official languages two copies of a report entitled "Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report".


TABLING OF REPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General I am pleased to table the access to information and privacy report for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), in both official languages. This report should be referred, pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, I am sure, knows that we can apply the rules of the House.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 44 constituents in the riding of Simcoe North and other places in Ontario calling for changes in regard to Canada's policy on nuclear arms.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present a petition to this House on behalf of the undersigned residents of Canada, many from the constituency of Prince Albert, who are deeply concerned about Canada's role in the nuclear arms race. The petitioners call upon Parliament to refuse the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada, to declare Canada a nuclear-weapons-free zone and that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs and to ensure prosperity through peace.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to change the boundaries of the national capital of Canada so as to include the city of Hull and any other area that the Canadian Parliament could designate in the future. A capital
414

November 20, 1984
Introduction of Bills
is not only the seat of government, it is also the symbol of the strength and unity of a country as well as the image of the nation throughout the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



AIRPORTS


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: for leave to introduce Bill C-208, an Act respecting the international airport at Ottawa.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to rename the International Airport at Ottawa the International Airport of Ottawa-Hull as it serves the region of the Canadian capital located in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



EXECUTION OF MASS MURDERERS ACT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-209, an Act respecting the execution of mass murderers.


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, I have great pleasure in moving the first reading of a Bill which, when passed, will bring about the execution of mass murderer, Clifford Robert Olson. Unless he is executed, Clifford Olson will be paroled some day and will then be a threat to every child who lives near him. We have no right to subject our boys and girls to such a threat.


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


[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.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the office of Speaker of this House. Since this is my return to the House of Commons after four years of toiling in the field of Nickel Belt, I feel I should thank all the workers on this Hill, such as the messengers, the bus drivers and all of those who responded to my return with a very warm welcome. I would also like to thank Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have so warmly welcomed me as a representative of the people of Nickel Belt. I must not forget the people of Nickel Belt who saw fit to return me to the House of Commons as their Member of Parliament. I say to them that I will do as I pledged on election night. I will work as hard as I possibly can to represent them in a fair, just and open manner.
In the four years I spent in the field in Nickel Beit, I had the opportunity to be associated with young people in my profession of teaching. It was very important to me because I had the opportunity to really see from the grass roots how young people view politics and politicians and how they view the House of Commons. I felt moved to speak in this debate because it is seldom we have an election, followed by a Throne Speech, followed by a mini-budget. When one event is superimposed on another, one gets a picture. Something which struck me about this whole process over the last three weeks is that the election campaign, the Throne Speech and what
November 20, 1984

followed had to do with credibility, and today young people are rather incredulous about politics and politicians. In the election campaign, these young people hear one thing, then the Government outlines what it intends to do over the next four years in what is called the Throne Speech, and then, of course, we have the economic statement, which is the reality. The young people see there is much to be desired. There seems to be a "slip between the cup and the lip" in that loose lips prevailed during the election campaign, and once the Tories received the majority they wanted, lo and behold, it did not matter any more. Now they have the prize. They are sitting over there, they are sitting over here, they are sitting to the right and they are sitting to the left.
What was the big issue of the election campaign? It was, "Jobs, jobs, jobs". But we have the reality of the Tories now that they have their 211 seats. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was secretly delighted that finally the Liberals were turned out of office. I had hoped that a new dawning was taking place and that finally we were going to go into a period where what a government said in the election and what was done in fact would restore confidence in and the credibility of practising politicians and politics in general. But lo and behold, what was "jobs, jobs, jobs" during the election campaign, is not "jobs, jobs, jobs" any longer. It has become "cuts, cuts, cuts".
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) very clearly outlined that the priority was jobs. However, what was said about jobs in the Thone Speech? I quote:
My Government views unemployment as Canada's most debilitating problem and most critical national challenge.
That is one sentence, Mr. Speaker. What happened in the time between spring and fall? Obviously there were whisperings in the ears of those who now have power, and those whisperings were Roland Frazee of the Royal Bank, and the John Bullochs of Bay Street who have the ears, and I would say some other part of the anatomy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Those are the louder voices, Mr. Speaker. Those are the voices which count. I do not know of any working class people in this country with whom the Minister of Finance consulted before he brought down his financial statement. I do not know with which working class group the Prime Minister consulted before he brought down the Throne Speech. Those people were not consulted.
Young people are looking for credibility, Mr. Speaker, and they do not see it in this Government. This Government has a new fixation, and that is the deficit. This Government is transfixed like a cobra by a flute player. It is transfixed with the idea of a deficit. However, that is not what was being said during the election campaign. The deficit was not the big concern at that time. The Prime Minister said on July 10 in Ottawa, when he was seeking to be elected, "All of our policies are designed to create jobs. There is a cost in everything and I indicated there is a short-term cost to get the economy moving again". In Vancouver on August 24 he said, "Clearly there can be no drastic reduction in the deficit until interest rates are
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
lowered and the country gets back to work. Massive cuts now would guarantee a recession".
What happened, Mr. Speaker? Why is there this great fixation with the deficit? I feel that fixation comes from the boys on Bay Street. It is obvious that the Prime Minister is more concerned with what his friends on Bay Street have to say about the deficit and it is to those voices he listens. During the election campaign he agreed on television with the Leader of our Party that there ought to be a minimum tax. But was there anything about a minimum tax on the wealthy in the Throne Speech? You bet your bottom dollar there was not! The Prime Minister is going to fight this deficit on the backs of the working people and on the backs of the unemployed. Yet the banks of this country are the wealthiest in the world. At a time when we have an inflation rate of 3 per cent, they are lending money at 14 per cent, 15 per cent and 18 per cent. They are raking the money in. Are they contributing to the reduction of the deficit of this country?
What about the conglomerates in this country, the concentration of power? John Bullock should be more concerned about the concentration of corporate power in this country than about trying to give people jobs at less than the minimum wage, and then suggesting that the Government should prop it up to the provincial minimum wage. At the same time, the Government hires 700 members of a goon squad to come in and harass people on unemployment insurance. The victims are being blamed for problems they have not caused but of which they are the victims.
The cynicism of Canadians about politics and politicians is brought on by that kind of doubletalk, Mr. Speaker. During the campaign you say one thing, and when you are in power you say and do something else. There has to be some sort of consistency in politics and politicians. The people of Canada turfed out someone who did a lot to tear down the credibility of politicians. We had the spectacle of Pierre Trudeau running against wage controls in 1974 which had been proposed by Robert Stanfield. Once he was elected with a majority in 1974, he brought in wage controls. Another example is the 18 cent a gallon excise tax. Sure, we introduced the subamendment which brought the Clark Government down. Of course we did. They had a responsibility to govern and they flubbed it. But then the Liberals ran a whole campaign against an 18 cent a gallon excise tax, and once they were in power, the tax far exceeded 18 cents. Try 54 cents.
We hoped that we had put all that behind us when Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals were tossed out of office, but what we have here is the building anew of a dynasty of incredibility. That is not healthy for Canada and for young Canadians.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the example of British Columbia. Now there is another gang, the Social Credit Government. They went after the deficit. It is amazing that the phrases and the words in their Budget of 1983 are very similar to what we have heard here. I just want to quote some of the phrases, and you tell me if you have heard them before.

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
For example: "Unless expenditure restraint is embraced in a major way, recovery could be very sluggish. In fact, it could falter or even collapse". Another statement: "The strategy for British Columbia is clear. Only by focusing on restraint and productivity can the public and private sectors return to the basic reality that prosperity must be earned." Or: "It is essential to recognize that this is not restraint for the sake of restraint, it is restraint for recovery, for a return to earned prosperity." Or: "The Budget provides what is needed to contain the size and burden of government so the private sector will have the climate needed to ensure our fragile recovery gains momentum." That is what they were saying when they attacked the budget. Those were their phrases and sentences. It is very reminiscent of what we have heard here in the last three weeks or so.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did it work?


John R. Rodriguez: Well, has it worked? Here is the economic analysis of British Columbia, the 1985 outlook. It says that real output will decline by about .5 per cent this year. Retail sales fell for the third consecutive year in 1983, and they are expected to decline another .3 per cent in 1984. Although the volume of production in these industries has grown to exceed pre-recession levels, employment and profits have not. It goes on and on. We do not have to look south of the border or to Margaret Thatcher's Government. We do not have to go outside Canada; we can look right here at a home-grown Conservative-Socred Government in British Columbia. There is a hybrid right out there. As a matter of fact, this Government cannot wipe its hands clean of that Socred Government because it was members of the Ontario big blue machine that went out there to help Bill Bennett get elected in British Columbia. Pat Kinsella is one of the big blue machine cogs over here.


Mr. McDermid:: You should be so lucky to have them.


Mr. Manly:: Then they help these guys.


John R. Rodriguez: Then they help the Tories across the way. Very good point.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have seen an example of how the deficit is being attacked. We have seen it in Canada, in British Columbia. We have seen the dismal results. Why do we keep repeating the mistakes? Why do we keep doing the same things over and over which will only exacerbate unemployment in this country?
Another area of credibility deals with social programs. During the campaign, the Prime Minister said that universality of social programs was a sacred trust. He said it would not be violated. Now all of a sudden everything is under review. He is going to review the social programs of this country. And who does he hire to help the Cabinet Ministers decide on recommendations for social programs? Why, that darling of the Chatham Chamber of Commerce, Darcy McKeough.


John Horton McDermid: Great Canadian.


John R. Rodriguez: Darcy McKeough is absolutely opposed to the universality of social programs. So we have this kind of incestuous Tory relationship. We do now know who is doing what to whom in that group. I do not know what Darcy McKeough is being paid. I am sure it is very restrained wage. But here is the hachet man from the Ontario Tories who is going to help this Government decide on the universality of social programs.
Another area covered by the Speech from the Throne and the budget statement was justice. Justice for the unemployed. To listen to these Tories across the way talk about unemployment you would think that the unemployed are just sort of numbers. They do not really care about the unemployed.


John Horton McDermid: No, no. That is the way you treat them.


John R. Rodriguez: They do not really care, not when they bring in something so chintzy, cheap and chiselling as the financial statement which attacks programs designed to relieve unemployment in this country. As I sat in my office yesterday, I read a letter from a constituent. She writes that her letter concerns her husband. He is a hard-working man who will try any kind of work available, as we can see by the attached resume. He is a proud man who wants to support his wife and six-month-old son. He has been trying to get a job since December, 1983 with no success. He worked for eight weeks in our community, but when the Government workers supervising the project noticed that he was 27 years old, they laid him off. He was too old for the project. He is too old for all the youth projects and too young for the middle-aged programs. What can he do? He will work at anything, anywhere, as long as the pay and benefits are reasonable. He will even go out of town or out of province for work. He has an opportunity for employment, but it will not come through until April of 1985. What should he do until then? He and his wife could manage if he could receive unemployment insurance, but he only has eight weeks of employment so he cannot even apply for that. They do not want welfare, he wants to work. His wife is working at the moment, but she will be laid off very shortly. They asked me to see what I could do to help them.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that Ministers get removed from the realities of unemployment. They do not get to see the realities of unemployment. I know they are good people at heart and if they saw this reality they would understand. However, they are mistaken. Their idea of putting people to work is by tightening the unemployment screws and whipping them so that they will manage to find jobs which do not exist.
If the Government is sincerely interested in creating employment I suggest that there are three sectors in Canada which have potential for creating much employment. First, there is the forestry industry. Second, there is the fishing industry. The third is the transportation industry. These are sectors in which the Government should be running up another deficit-I suggest a $30 billion deficit-to put people back to work. If there was a war tomorrow the Government would find another $30
November 20, 1984

billion to $50 billion. During the Second World War the Government of Canada ran a deficit of some $80 billion in 1984 dollars.
In fact, if the vast majority of Canadians could be put back to work the Government could save $76 billion. The Government could make a substantial saving by putting people back to work through stimulating the economy in those areas which provide the best opportunity for work.
The constituency I represent is a regionally disparaged area. We have been suffering this circumstance under successive Liberal and Conservative governments since Confederation. We want a better deal. We want an industrial strategy that speaks directly to the question of eliminating regional disparity. We want a government that is more concerned with devising means to bring down unemployment with goals for creating employment rather than setting targets to cut deficits. If this were done I believe that those of us in areas of the country which need an industrial strategy and employment would be much better off, by working and maintaining our dignity in our community.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, it surprises me that the Hon. Member would criticize the Liberal Government for its programs when, in 1980, his Party voted with them, as he stated in his remarks today.


James Ross Fulton: It was 1979.


Gerry St. Germain: It was 1979 but you continued in 1980. You have been bed partners with them for so long that there is no difference.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You voted with them more than anybody else.


Gerry St. Germain: I do not know the Hon. Member's background but he advocates not only leaving the deficit alone but adding $30 billion to it.
I can tell the House where the jobs have gone. Small businesses have been destroyed by high interest rates that have been brought on by the deficit. The Hon. Member opposite is advocating more of this.
The major concern of every economist and anyone who knows anything about business is high interest rates. The Hon. Member stands in his place and advocates escalating the deficit. I would like him to explain that.
Furthermore, he said that he advocates throwing more money into job-creation programs that are merely band-aid programs. Their bed partners, the Liberals, have been doing this for four years. What has this accomplished? We have one of the highest levels of unemployment in the western world.
The Hon. Member talked about the unemployment which the people of his area are suffering. He should visit Mission-Port Moody to see what unemployment is like as a result of the devastating deficit and irresponsible government.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to enlighten him. If he were to
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
examine the records-I recognize he has only been here a short time-he will notice that the Conservative Party voted with the Liberals more often during that minority period, 1979 to 1980.
Second, while I am not endorsing what Ronald Reagan has done in the United States, the fact is that he increased the deficit in the United States. While our Party would never agree to increasing the deficit in defence spending, and does not applaud President Reagan for doing so, it is an example of a conservative president-the arch conservative of conservatives-in the most powerful nation in the world being unconcerned about the deficit. He went on a spending spree in defence spending. The United States has an unemployment rate of 7 per cent that we would be quite happy with here.


John Horton McDermid: That is on defence spending. Do you support that?


John R. Rodriguez: We have not suggested throwing money at make-work projects. It has long been our belief that the central bank in this country, which is controlled by the Government, ought to set the interest rates. Interest rates should be related to the inflation rate, but we have an inflation rate of 3 per cent and an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. That is shameful but the Hon. Member supports that. It is no wonder that the Canadian banks are the richest in the world. We should establish an industrial strategy which deals with interest rates.
I am sure that the Hon. Member's constituency is comparable with mine. We have problems in attracting secondary industry to our area. The deterrents include transportation costs, the availability of power and the accessibility of capital. There should be an industrial strategy developed with the federal and provincial governments-the Ontario government in my case-to ensure that we have the means to attract industries to those areas which only have one industry at this time. As well, there should be deterrents to keep industries away from highly developed areas such as the Golden Horseshoe, where the environment will not be able to sustain the millions of people estimated to be living there by the year 2000. There should be a two-pronged industrial strategy.
We agree that it is necessary to lower interest rates, but it should not be left to some magical downward flow from heaven. We believe the Government has the responsibility to lower interest rates and should exercise that responsibility.


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


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to welcome the Hon. Member back to the House after a long absence. I do not know if that will be completely advisable in the long run. The Hon. Member was also interested in summer employment for students. What are the prospects for next summer?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member asked that question. Nickel Belt has one major employer, International Nickel, and a minor employer, Falcon-

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
bridge. In the past, the children of the employees of those companies looked for jobs within the company. Since those companies have been facing some difficulty, those jobs have not been available for the students. Those students need some employment in order to go to post-secondary institutions.
I was hurt and indeed angry that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has eliminated Summer Canada. It was a direct job-creation program for the summer so that students could use their creativity and energy at jobs in areas where there is only one industry. That was very important for the students, because without that employment they either have to leave the area and get the jobs which Mr. Bulloch might have, paying less than minimum wage or close to it, and they will not be able to save for their education costs, or they end up borrowing from OSAP. They have to borrow with the government being the surety on those loans. Of course, when they graduate there is no chance of a job, and then the government sends out its collectors to start collecting the money the students owe.
I find that the elimination of Summer Canada was really a low blow, not maybe to Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg, Brampton-where Brampton Billy lives-but to areas that are single industry areas, for instance, to northern Ontario, eastern Canada, Newfoundland, northern parts of British Columbia and to the Prairie provinces. This Government has been cheap, chintzy, and chiselling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is one minute left. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).


John Horton McDermid: I will make my question and comment short, Mr. Speaker. I thought I would never say I wanted to see the former member for Nickel Belt back in this House, but after the speech the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt made today I wish she were back.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would you like to know where we wish you were?


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member has been very critical of the committee that has been established by this Government. It has labour representation, and has been supported by the Canadian Federation of Labour. The committee chose its own chairman. I was surprised the Hon. Member did not mention in his speech when he criticized the committee that one of the members was from the Canadian Federation of Labour and does support it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is always good for this Government to have its tokenism. The trade union movement in this country represents some 38 per cent of the workers.


John Horton McDermid: Fifty-five per cent voted for the Tories.


John R. Rodriguez: As I said 38 per cent of the workers in this country is unionized. How much of that committee is made up
of trade unionists-how many? Two out of how many? It is two out of 20, Mr. Speaker. Who is the Hon. Member kidding? We will have a made-in-Chatham proposal.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, nonsense-the Hon. Member- [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allocated for questions and comments has expired and we shall continue the debate with the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan).


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak during the Throne Speech debate. I would like to thank my constituents for re-electing me to this House. I can assure them I will do everything I possibly can to act in their best interests.
I would not like to speak so much about the document itself, because the Speech from the Throne is very vague on any kind of specifics. It seems the Throne Speech gave a more or less two-part scenario. First, we had the speech itself on Monday afternoon, November 5, which appeared to be a preamble for the second document, the economic and fiscal statement which was brought down November 8. It seems in the latter document we are getting a very good idea of what the Government is thinking and what its attitude is toward the Canadian people.
The Government is certainly saying at the present time that reducing the deficit is first and foremost in the Government's thinking. I do not disagree that reducing the deficit is extremely important. But, while we have to look at the economic health of the country, we cannot completely forget about the social fibre and the fibre of the Canadian people. I think in that regard we must look at what this means to low income and unemployed Canadians.
The Government has reduced the industrial and regional development plan by $175 million, and other industrial incentive programs by $25 million. This is an extremely important indication of exactly what the Government is doing. The Government seems to be an elitist government, Mr. Speaker.
As I have mentioned, reducing the deficit is important, but there are many Canadians who cannot continue in the way we expect Canadians to be able to live if this Government's policies are followed to the letter. The Government says it wants to increase employment through private sector and public job opportunities. In areas such as mine, there is no private sector, and the public sector has reduced its employment level by over 5,000 jobs in the last 10 years. What are we going to do, are we going to talk about engines for growth or what our objectives are for five years hence? What is going to happen to those people who do not have jobs now, this year, next year, let alone in five years time? There has to be concern for the individual. That is extremely important.
November 20, 1984

In my constituency the Government has cancelled a $2.1 million program which was the decentralization of the income security office, a move from Halifax to Sydney. This was an office with a potential of 75 to 85 jobs. These jobs were coming from an area in Nova Scotia which certainly needs jobs-everybody needs jobs-an area with one of the lower unemployment rates in the country, and the jobs were going to an area in my constituency which has, by Manpower's own admission, an unemployment rate of over 30 per cent. This decentralization was planned, the leasehold accommodation was renovated at a cost of $400,000, and over $1 million has already been spent on this decentralization from Halifax to Sydney. People were trained. People were taken from other jobs. People gave up other jobs. They stopped looking. They turned down other job opportunities to be part of the work force of Incomes Security that was going to be operating in the City of Sydney.
What kind of treatment is that for people? What kind of way is that to treat Canadians? Not only are these people unemployed, not only can they not get back the jobs they had, not only will they not have the other job opportunities they turned down, but, because there is the possibility lurking that decentralization will go ahead when the government changes again in four years time, the people who worked for Incomes Security in Halifax who now have other jobs will not go back to the Income Security office when it re-opens in Halifax. This means more retraining. You have to take other people and retrain them for the office when it re-opens in Halifax. What sense does that make?
There is also an unemployment factor that results. The people who would have had the jobs in Sydney, a higher unemployment area, are unemployed. Without the economic stimulus in this area which this office could provide the natural economic spin-offs are no longer present.
What is the reason for this cancellation Mr. Speaker? The reason is political, of course. There is a political ideology at the back of this particular decision. It is important to look at what is being done. This Government is denying areas, such as mine, job opportunities and the chance to develop themselves.
If there is to be growth in the private sector or in the public sector, you either have people who will voluntarily choose to locate in these sectors, or the Government has to provide directives in the placing of companies in these regions. Which will it be? If the Government is asking for jobs to be created through the public and private sectors then it has to create an economic environment which will be conducive to this happening in areas of regional disparity.
What is happening? Nothing. What has been planned in these areas is now being cancelled. Initiative for regional development is being removed by the Government. The services have to be there. Subsidies to VIA Rail are being cut back. CN Marine is a vital link in Atlantic Canada between various provinces. It has been cut back substantially. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is now saying that
The Address-Mr. MacLellan
there will be a reduction of 300 jobs in the next five years. This will be in addition to the 1,000 jobs lost in my area alone. When the Government is asked where these 300 jobs will come from it cannot tell us. It is really promoting a name in the hat economic policy. It says that 300 jobs will be cut back but it cannot tell us from where. It is not saying that the subsidy of $6 million provided to a private sector shipper, Atlantic Container Express, to operate direct water service between Montreal and Newfoundland will not be renewed when it expires at the end of March. We have the possibility of a subsidy to a private shipper to ship between Montreal and Newfoundland at the same time as a complaint about the subsidy to CN Marine, which is higher because of the subsidy being paid to the private sector. In both cases there is a higher subsidy through this name-in-the-hat economic policy of the Department of Transport. Also the Government indicated that the capital investment program for dredging will be cancelled.
In addition to cutting back jobs and destroying potential for economic growth, which is time consuming enough, it is now saying that the people in these areas who are undergoing severe economic hardship will now be faced with a social housing budget reduced by $9.6 million and a Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program reduced by 25 per cent. These people have to maintain their homes. They are on low incomes, are unemployed, and some are senior citizens. Not only will there be reduced employment in low-income areas, but these people will be told that they will be unable to maintain their homes during the period of time when the Government says it is vehemently searching for job opportunities. Not only will there be an erosion of economic possibilities, there will also be an erosion of infrastructure and social and residential aspects in these particular areas.
What about students? The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) realizes that students need summer work, yet she cancelled the $85 million Summer Canada program. She said that would be replaced but she does not say how; she did not say by how much or when. Even now students are looking for summer jobs. The Government says that jobs have to be created through the private and public sectors. Now it is telling students in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere in the country that if their parents are not wealthy, and they cannot obtain jobs through the private and public sector, then they cannot return to college. What kind of way is that to treat university students? What kind of investment in the future of our country is that? To make it worse, the Canada Student Loans Program has been reduced by $5 million. A program must be put forward for students who are now faced with the next academic year without the prospects of the employment they enjoyed for this academic year.
The Government indicated in the economic statement that it will commit an extra $1 billion to job opportunities through the private and public sectors. At the same time it reduced the employment assistance entitlement by $200 million. It is also reducing the mobility program of CECI by $2.8 million. The Government is not only saying that Canadians cannot work, but they cannot fix their homes or maintain the infrastructures

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. MacLellan
in their communities. Even if they find jobs in other parts of Canada they probably cannot go to them.
Where will people be able to turn? Where is the engine for growth about which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has been talking? The engine for growth will be rusted to the tracks if something is not done soon for people in the country who need assistance and cannot find it through the programs of the Government. Where do they turn? From where will these job opportunities come? Will they come from manufacturing? As has been previously stated, the manufacturing sector has been hard hit by the recent recession. A tremendous amount of pressure is being put on it by banks which want their loans repaid. The manufacturing sector feels that in order to compete it must modernize and bring its business more in line with the competitive practices which are prevalent internationally at the present time.
We must turn to the resource and service sectors of the country. Again this leads to the engine for growth advocated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister said that she would not make major energy decisions until she felt the world price had stabilized. What does she consider to be stability in the world price? When will we have these important decisions? Atlantic Canada is waiting daily for some news of what position she will take on offshore oil and gas. Frontier exploration is at a standstill. Up to 30 per cent of the wells involved in frontier oil and gas exploration agreements may never be drilled. The pace of exploration on Crown-owned frontier land is slowing down. Unless Ottawa sets new ground rules soon, drilling on the East Coast and in the Arctic could dry up after 1986 when the present agreement terminates. Every day we lose now means another day we will have to wait in 1987 and beyond.
The planning stage should be now. If the Minister is serious about creating employment in the oil sands, why is she not developing a policy? She can never be absolutely sure as to what the world price will be. If she is sure today, she may not be sure tomorrow. This does not mean that we have to sit back and wait until we have a perfect frozen world price. That will never come about. Something has to be done at the present time.
What about the fishery? The economic statement levies wharf fees and cuts back on other expenditures. It is already a severely hit industry on both the East Coast and West Coast. These important questions must be answered. People have to live in the meantime. People cannot wait on the basis of engines for growth and policies for the future. Of course it takes time to put projects forward, but people need jobs. They need some kind of income at the present time. Employment is not only jobs; employment is people's lives. We as a government and we as Canadians should be able to provide a hope of fulfilment through employment. That is very important.
What about young people who are unemployed today? If the position is better in five years they will be met with increased competition because new people will have come on the job market. There will be people in government who will say that
they are lazy because they have not worked. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was quoted on November 9 as saying that the unemployed in this country are not looking hard enough for jobs. Does he mean that all of these people in Canada are not looking hard enough for jobs? That is ridiculous, it is callous. Something has to be done about this very serious unemployment, not only economically but from a human standpoint.
The youth of this country deserve more help than is being given to them at the present time. What I am saying does not constitute, as was mentioned by one Member to another, a voice of gloom. These are avenues which I hope the Government will explore. These are considerations I am hoping the Government will take. It is in the interest of all Canadians and all Members of Parliament, regardless of their political stripe.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise more on a comment as opposed to a question. I congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) and to say how I agree with what he has said here in the Chamber. He made mention of the cancellation of the decentralization program which was earmarked for his constituency, but which served a greater population than that of the City of Sydney. It serviced all of industrial Cape Breton. Those individuals who were hopeful of meaningful employment with the Health and Welfare office in Sydney were amazed at the callousness and the unfairness that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) gave to them on the occasion of the economic statement by the Minister of Finance.
Members opposite have a philosophy that they are against decentralization as a tool for economic development. That is more important when you look at the poorer regions of this country. In the poorer regions, decentralization of Government services, or, indeed, services of the private sector are paramount when you are talking about economic development. This cold and callous move by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance has to be read in the light of the operative word which was contained in the Speech from the Throne. That operative word was "consultations". Then we had $4.2 billion in cuts.
In that specific cancelling of decentralization there was no consultation with the employees involved. There was no consultation with the municipal authorities in the City of Sydney. There was no consultation with the Member of Parliament who represents that area. There was no consultation with the Premier of the province or, as we say in my riding, those seven Tory silent backbenchers. There was no consultation; just a ruthless cut by the Prime Minister who has the gall to travel around this country and try to echo the sentiments of compassion and concern for the less fortunate areas of this country.
We will remember the cold, hard, ruthless way of the Prime Minister, but I would hope that Members of the Tory caucus, who are the silent ones over there, will rise to their feet and try
November 20, 1984

to support a decentralization move, and to put pressure, as will my colleague and I, on the Minister of National Health and Welfare to change that position. There are Senators who are of the same political stripe as colleagues across the way who are deploring this type of action. They are really upset, as I am, and as my colleague is.
In conclusion, we will continue to raise these concerns to the Minister in the hope that he will change this regressive step. The record ought to clearly show that the Tory Party nationally, confirmed by the Premier of the province, agrees with such callous measures.
I have a question for the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. I would like to ask him what other avenues he is going to explore to try to have this measure changed and corrected so that those jobs that were promised in a hard economic area of this country will be restored to those people.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), who feels as I do about this particular project having been cancelled, and the insensitivity and utter disregard for people in an area, who need jobs, being left completely out of the thinking of the Government when it made its decision. Before I answer the Hon. Member's question, I want to quote from the economic and fiscal statement. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said:
1 want to underline this Government's commitment not to act prematurely or with insensitivity on these issues.
Try to rationalize that quote with the action of the Government in that regard. I have spoken to the Prime Minister about my feelings toward the cancellation of this project. I have spoken with the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have written a letter to the Prime Minister with a copy to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). I am hoping that this decision will be reversed, not in my interests or in the interests of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, but in the interests of the people of Cape Breton who need the jobs so badly. They know, as we their representatives know, that the jobs will take a long time to come about. They require a great deal of planning. The 85 jobs that were there will take a long time to replace, certainly with the programs this Government has brought forward and with the attitude of this Government in its economic and fiscal statement.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. They speak of insensitivity and they cite the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald): I would say $430 million to maintain programs that had not even been previously initiated is a definite indication that there is sensitivity on the part of this Government. That sensitivity towards the working and the unemployed will continue.
I would like the Hon. Member to explain something to this House. For the last four years his Party tried in vain to improve the plight of Canadians. The deficit has increased, unemployment has increased, and interest has risen to rates that we have never seen before in this country. The Canadian people have spoken. On September 4 they gave this House,
The Address-Mr. MacLellan
this country, that Party and that Party a clear message. I understand that they are now in Opposition. We are going to keep them there for a long time. They have a job to do in Opposition. Why do they not give this new administration a chance? Why do they not show leadership to Canadians and to the country, showing that everybody is behind this change for which Canadians asked on September 4? They should put their shoulder behind the wheel and let's all work together. I would like a reply as to why they will not give this new administration a chance and then carry out their job in Opposition when the time is ready.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys on a one minute answer.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to give this Government a chance. There are people who are unemployed; they need jobs. They face a winter without any income. I refer to those situations where neither the husband nor wife is working and where there is no unemployment insurance, no welfare, no income of any sort. How long can we expect them to sit back and gaze gaily at their television screens while the Government cavalierly jokes about the plight of low-income and unemployed Canadians, as was done here today?
The Hon. Member mentioned a $430 million Canada Works Program, a follow-up to the program the Liberal Government has had in place for years. That program was brought in every year. It is great that this Government has brought the program in again, because it is important. Do you know what that program does, Mr. Speaker? It gives people an income. It allows people to work and have an income for themselves and their children. It also allows projects to take place in areas that are experiencing difficult economic times, it allows organizations and businesses to spend money in order to redevelop their operations and buildings which would otherwise fall apart and decay. This allows communities to stay together.
I feel sorry that the Hon. Member does not have the compassion or feeling toward ordinary Canadians that would allow him to understand the plight of these people. I would like to mention one more thing, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very quickly, please.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to quote from the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). As reported on page 102 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance said:
We are considering the introduction of a tax designed to ensure that the effective tax rate for high income individuals does not fall below some minimum level.
He goes on to say:
We must also take care not to complicate the tax system unduly-
The Minister will wait and wait to tax wealthy Canadians to the extent they should pay, yet people with low incomes, fixed

The Address-Mr. Harvey
incomes and those who are unemployed have to suffer as this Government has dictated they must.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall now continue the debate. The Hon. Member for Chicoutimi.


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in having been given this opportunity to speak in the House for the first time as the Member for the riding of Chicoutimi, which includes the entire Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, probably one of the worst examples of the disastrous and bankrupt administration of the former Liberal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that individual Members alone cannot change the way this country is administered, but as a Member of the Progressive Conservative Party, I am convinced that this Government has the will to make very decisive changes in the way the affairs of this country are administered.
A few days ago, the Government announced to all Canadians its main political and economic objectives. On the whole, reactions have been very positive. This is because for the first time in twenty-two years a government, and in this case our new Government, has put the cards on the table so that all Canadians can understand the gravity of this country's financial situation. Our Government looks to the future, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot shake off the legacy of the past. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have highlighted the main problems facing this country. If we compare the country's finances to other budgets, be they family, municipal or provincial, the gravity of the mistakes that have been made suddenly looms very large.
Anyone who, over a period of fifteen years, manages to go from a deficit of zero to $35 billion is bound to be in serious trouble. Increasing the deficit certainly does not create jobs. Our Liberal friends opposite are claiming that budgetary cutbacks will bring about the loss of between 50,000 and
100.000	jobs. If increasing the deficit is supposed to create jobs, I wonder why the Liberals, who increased the deficit by more than 20 billion over the last four years, did not create
500.000	jobs instead of 1,500,000 unemployed? This means that the actual situation, if we look at the figures, is far more serious and should be taken far more seriously than our friends opposite have been doing during the past few weeks.
Most families or municipalities or provinces would be in a very bad way if over the last ten or twelve years, they had multiplied their debt load by ten. Most people who owed $18,000 twelve years ago and were living on a very strict budget, would be in serious trouble if twelve years later they owed $180,000. That is exactly what we are up against in this country today.
Mr. Speaker, all this illustrates the relevance of some comments by Mr. Jerome Choquette, who for a long time was
November 20, 1984
not opposed to Liberal views. Mr. Choquette said, on the basis of his considerable experience in municipal affairs, that many provincial and federal administrators would do well to get some experience in managing a municipal budget, with the obligation to explain to the community why their taxes are being raised.
One of the main reasons why the public reaction has been positive is that the government is open. The second explanation for the satisfaction expressed by the people about the reasons given by the government to justify the significant change of course we are about to make is that over the past three months, our government has heeded the overwhelming desire for change voiced on September 4. The people did not put us in office to steer the same course but to change it altogether. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for a Member to agree to get down to politics with restricted prospects. We are not being asked to tour plants and visit social organizations handing out grants for electoral purposes, no, we are being urged to act as a responsible administration and implement short-, medium- and long-term policies.
That is a challenge for a politician, but 1 suggest that it is the only way to come to grips with the very serious problems facing our society and Quebec, particularly the riding of Chicoutimi and the Lac-Saint-Jean area. These are not empty words: the unemployment rate in my region is not 5, 10 or 15 per cent, it is 25 per cent, nothing less. I happen to represent villages where the rate of unemployment under the Liberals in office for 22 years has soared to 50 per cent. Given such hard facts, Mr. Speaker, I simply have to make a summary analysis of the political orientations advocated in the Speech from the Throne and their impact on my riding. I intend to devote a few minutes of my speech to that aspect.
The first of the four major orientations contained in the Speech from the Throne has to do with national reconciliation. If there is one theme which matters to Quebecers, if there is one theme which is significant in a region like Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean where most people voted yes in the referendum, that theme has to be the national reconciliation. To put it in another way, everything must be done to end the polarization of the ideological debate between Quebec and Ottawa, not to mention the municipalities. We had to live through-in any case that was my personal experience as municipal administrator-conflicts sparked by endless arguments between Ottawa and Quebec, and we had a rough time because costs keep soaring when both sides cannot agree on anything. Major projects slated for my region have not been implemented for five, ten or fifteen years as a result of the ideological debate between Ottawa and Quebec. There are quite a few. How can I refrain from mentioning the case of the Saguenay National Park? We do not have eight parks in our province, only one
November 20, 1984

and it is dear to us. The area I represent is confronted with enormous problems and I am convinced that all Quebecers are aware of the Saguenay National Park issue.
The Liberals ran many campaigns on this issue. They ran not one, not two, but up to five campaigns on it. Therefore, we promised during the last election campaign that we would not follow their example. Beside we were able to find grounds for agreement on everything except the Saguenay National Park issue, Mr. Speaker. For instance, there is the Alma-La Baie Highway. Highways are important in Canada, but nowhere in this country is the road network as bad as in our area. We have the shortest highway in the world: it is only five kilometers long. The problem has existed for 10 years and the federal Liberals made use of the intermunicipal disagreements to withdraw their support. In my opinion, this is not the way to promote regional progress.
Therefore we strongly believe in the theme of national reconciliation because this has cost our region a lot economically and socially, Mr. Speaker.
Another important issue related to national reconciliation is the priority that our Government will give to the Economic Summit, and I may say that economic summits are something which people in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region understand quite well. In a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be tabling the recommendations of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean Economic Summit at which 2,000 people worked for two years formulating recommendations and setting development priorities for our region. How could I not point out that this summit, where major areas of consensus were found, took place in the absence of the Liberal MP's from the region?
As for the second theme reflected in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, namely the importance of economic renewal, it is impossible not to believe that a major change in the economic management of this country is absolutely essential.
How can anyone possibly fail to realize that we simply must make a sharp turn in the economic management of this country? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be done in three months. We keep talking about research and development because it is important. During 22 years, the Liberals invested about 1.2 per cent of the GNP in research, as compared with 2, 3 and 4 per cent in countries like Japan, Germany and many others which were convinced that research was the only way out, aware as they were that productivity and job creation are directly proportional to investments in research. The forestry industry is the most striking example of that. In the next four years, we as a government intend to make huge investments in research. Tens of thousands of jobs are related to that industry in my riding.
According to all the reports available, the forest industry will not survive unless it earmarks at least 20 per cent-not 10 per cent-of its profits for research. We are talking in terms of
The Address-Mr. Harvey
$200 million, not $100 million, if we do not want our competitors to widen the gap even more rapidly.
Mr. Speaker, we have a regional university back home which has the utmost difficulty in obtaining federal and provincial government grants. That is why we intend ... I am convinced that the course set by this government will open the doors of many departments so that we will be able to assume our regional responsibilities with respect to research and job creation.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of things about the Foreign Investment Review Agency, FIRA for short. Not so long ago, I read a report on enquiries made of foreign companies which had to deal with FIRA. Seventy-five to 80 per cent of those 67 companies, including 50 with 250 employees or more, had serious misgivings about FIRA operations. Needless to say, that is hardly conducive to Canada's economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the universality of social benefits allocated to poor Canadians. Judging from the over-all orientation of this government concerning pension reforms, family allowances and old age security pensions, I am sure that the government, with such a strong mandate from the people to change course, will not carry out those reforms on the back of poor Canadians. The government intends to do the opposite, Mr. Speaker. We will be in a position to recoup some of the taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, and 1 have in mind the Crown corporations which grew from 38 to 400 in 12 years. The Progressive Conservative Party is not the one claiming that the previous government did not have the political will to avoid wasteful expenditures.
Last December 12, the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Dye, said this: The government has not shown enough political will to reduce wasteful spending. That statement was made by Canada's Auditor General, not by the Progressive Conservative Party. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) himself said that there was a lot of waste, that much financial recuperation had to be done. We agree with them, Mr. Speaker. We have begun to do just that and we will continue to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to reopening the universality issue of our social programs, it seems that some editorialists are a lot quicker to understand the situation than some Hon. Members. I would like to quote Mr. Wagniere of La Presse. Universality is a problem which must not be glossed over; it must be debated until we can find a solution acceptable to everyone, Mr. Speaker. The philosophy of universality is attractive because of its simplicity and fairness. However in practical terms, it is often neither simple nor fair. There are probably better ways to help children and low-income families than to distribute indiscriminately the riches of the state, only to take a portion of them back through personal income tax.

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. Harvey
Mr. Speaker, one of the last themes discussed in the throne speech concerns world peace. It might seem contradictory to support our full participation in NATO while advocating peace. In my view it is like being on a team. When you do not do your own part, no one listens to you. This is true in military matters, in social affairs as well as in politics. I therefore believe that the commitment of the Progressive Conservative party to honour its obligations to NATO is a guarantee for the future allowing us to be a responsible and worthy partner.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of the fact that all the Liberals can talk about these days is jobs, jobs, jobs, the best way to give jobs to the unemployed, and they are not simply 175,000 as in 1968, but 1.5 million because of the Liberal policies, is to seriously and strictly manage our public affairs and to explain our policies to the Canadian people. In so doing, I am convinced that there will be significant changes in the area of job creation in a short while.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the residents of the Chicoutimi riding and the entire region, as well as all Quebecers of my commitment to job creation and to all the endeavours of this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments about the speech made by the Hon. Member? The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for a question or a comment.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I first want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his maiden speech in this House. He mentioned the high rate of unemployment in his constituency, which I think is over 25 per cent. How then can the Hon. Member support the decision of the Government to cut back the funds allocated to the program designed to provide summer employment for students? The Government has decided to cancel this major program entirely with the result that many more students will be unemployed. Does the Hon. Member agree with this decision?


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, as concerns the job creation programs, Hon. Members too often omit, intentionally or not, to speak about the billion dollars which will be injected into employment programs. The programs which we shall implement will certainly be innovative. To reply to the question asked by the Hon. Member, I can assure him that the student program will be replaced by another job creation program which will meet the needs of students even better than the old one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for a supplementary.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is the Hon. Member in a position to assure the House and the students in his constituency that there will be that much money to replace all of last summer's jobs? That in other terms, although this important
program has been terminated, it will be replaced with enough money to create the same number of jobs as last summer?


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Right Hon. Member-and this indeed would be a very good question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), and we should learn to respect each other's jurisdiction-but anyway I can assure the Hon. Member that, on the basis of the discussions held to this day and the orientation of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and all the emphasis she is putting on job creation, both for students and indeed for the heads of families who should not be ignored, I am convinced we will have an imaginative and interesting program which will generate jobs for everybody by next spring.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa for a question or comment.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) what are his grounds for suggesting that there will be a student program, Summer Canada Project, which we in the Liberal Party had implemented, now that the Minister of Employment and Immigration herself has stated that this program was completely abolished? On what basis can he suggest that the program will be implemented?


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, clearly this Government is not anxious to create permanent jobs, and I will come back in a moment to the student aspect as referred to by the Hon. Member. When one represents a constituency with a 25 to 30 per cent unemployment rate, and even 50 to 55 per cent in certain rural communities, one realizes all the seriousness and reflection that must be applied to job creation programs. People in our area are fed up with band-aid projects. They are simply complementary programs, but we want to direct all our funds to permanent job creation. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this would be a very pertinent question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration during tomorrow's question period, because this Government as a responsible Government and I feel certain of their as a responsible Member will not terminate the student employment programs for next spring and summer. As far as the details of the program are concerned, I would ask the Hon. Member to direct his question tomorrow to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Supplementary question. The Hon. Member for Bourassa.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that I did put the question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. That is why I wonder how he can state that there will be a summer youth employment program. Also how can one talk about band-aid programs when it comes to the Summer Youth Employment Program?
November 20, 1984

We all know that students are on holidays for two or three months and that they cannot work for more than three months. I do not think that jobs for students are a band-aid program. For students, a summer job is a steady job, Mr. Speaker.


André Harvey: 1 think that we will take this opportunity to show that most job creation programs under the Liberal government are an excellent example of the basic theme of the Throne Speech about national reconciliation. Quebec had its job-creation programs, the federal government had its own and it is always painful, Mr. Speaker, to agree about very significant programs.
For example, on what do I base my suggestion that our government will offer an interesting direction for students? I can make this kind of statement because we are a responsible government, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that the program which will be announced in a few months will deal not only with a single aspect of job creation but will also most certainly call for the co-operation of other levels of government. An example 1 have in mind is the program for the integration in the private sector. It is essential that it is carefully considered. As for details of the programs to be set up, it is obvious that I rely on the Minister of Employment and Immigration who will disclose in due time her over-all policy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North has a question.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to address a question to the Hon. Member who has just spoken. Naturally I and every Member of Parliament would agree with him, that permanent jobs are much better than the kind of short-term job created by programs such as Summer Canada. However, I would ask the Hon. Member if he has seen the report of the Conference Board, which was reported in the Globe and Mail today, in which it estimates that while growth in Canada reached 3.9 per cent in 1984, next year Canada's Gross National Product will increase by only eight-tenths of 1 per cent. In his province, which has so much unemployment, growth next year will be just six-tenths of 1 per cent. Unemployment will still be at 12.5 per cent. How is this going to change when the Government has announced cut-backs in expenditure of well over $2 billion? Those cut-backs will mean unemployment for thousands of Canadians who have worked for various departments and agencies on very necessary jobs created by the federal Government.


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest to my hon. friend that the parameters which are used as the basis for some economic forecasts may change considerably following a major political realignment.
The Address-Mr. La Salle
Mr. Speaker, the cutbacks which have been made, 1 am sure . . . As a matter of fact, concerning the loss of jobs resulting from the budgetary restraint measures, 1 shall show in a moment that an administration should not try to create employment by simply increasing the deficit. Liberal governments over the past 20 years, but more specifically over the past five have clearly demonstrated that truism. They have multiplied the number of the unemployed by seven over the past 12 years, while the number of people on the labour market has certainly not increased sevenfold. The new government must therefore do things differently. It is going to create new full time jobs with the co-operation of the private sector, especially on the basis of research and development. That is the area where it should make its major investment effort over the next four years in its search for new orientations. I am sure that the temporary programs will remain, but I feel that we should not put the major emphasis on make-work programs. We should have an economic and political orientation directed toward permanent job creation. We must find openings for our young people in industry. It is clear that small ditch clearing jobs are all right for a while, but there is more challenging work to be done, and that is what our young people want, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the time allocated for questions and comments has now expired, we shall resume debate. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle).


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate you on your appointment and inform Hon. Members that I was very pleased to see our present Speaker elected in the riding of Vercheres. I also would like to offer my congratulations to all new Members of this House and to all those who were re-elected. I believe we all share at least one objective, that of making Canada a better place to live for all Canadians and doing our best to the best of our ability.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) who in an excellent speech showed his concern for his constituents and his grasp of the situation in his riding. Quite a few Quebec Members have come to see me, and my hon. friends opposite will understand I am very pleased to have some company in this great Party of ours which has now formed the Government of Canada. And of course, as so many newly elected Members have done, I would like to thank the people of my riding who have re-elected me for the seventh time, I imagine that occasionally they may have found the odds discouraging, but in any case, today I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for the support they have shown since 1968.
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to make a few comments on the Government's economic statement and on the Speech from the Throne. I would like to do so as objectively and as

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mr. La Salle
impartially as possible, because I believe that in today's context, we should not indulge in the kind of petty politics that has so often proved costly to this country.
First of all, I wish to announce before the House my unconditional support for the economic statement made by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and for the measures proposed therein. It is the aim of this Government to reduce government spending and to promote economic growth, it being understood that the latter will depend on channelling the energies of all social partners and on their co-operation. I also want to urge Hon. Members opposite to realize the need for unprecedented co-operation and objectivity if we are to truly serve the interests of a country that has placed its trust in us as its elected representatives, whatever our political allegiance.
The measures outlined by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, contain figures and statistics, but I am thinking of the human beings behind the statistics and of all Canadian citizens affected by the deficit problems Canada is facing today. We have been living too long on credit. It is time to wake up out of our pipe dreams and face reality. Mr. Speaker, there are more than a million and a half people out of work in this country. These are people who are able to work, who want to work and who do not have jobs. More than a million and a half that is the entire population of Montreal Island, half the population of Toronto Metro. There are hundreds and thousands of men and women and young people out there who have the right to work, who are entitled to share in the wealth of this vast and beautiful country of ours and for whom today there are no opportunities at all.
It always hurts to share what we have and to pay taxes when we realize how hard we have to work for the money we earn. It is quite human to want to keep our hard-earned money to ourselves. However, it is also a fact that Canadians know how to be generous when they see other people suffer. Need I recall the recent trip to Ethiopia made by our colleague, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the film sequences that showed thousands of elderly people, women and children literally starving to death in the most desperate circumstances you can imagine? All over Canada, thousands of Canadians reacted quickly to help the people of Ethiopia. Of course, the situation is different in Canada. But I want to appeal to that same spirit of generosity and sharing and co-operation, and I hope that at least we Canadians who have jobs will realize we must help our brothers, sisters, parents and friends who live in this country as well and have no jobs and no opportunity to make something of their lives, and whose incomes are below the poverty level.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not change our spending habits, if we do not get rid of the credit card attitude, there may well come a day when we will no longer be able to pay unemployment
insurance to the unemployed, which would be unthinkable. It would be the greatest tragedy that could befall our country if our young people were to inherit a national debt they could never repay, with not a cent left in the Treasury.
The problems facing this country today will require a joint effort and constant co-operation on the part of business, corporations, labour, all levels of government and Members of all three political parties.
During the last twenty years, Mr. Speaker, the number of young people in Canada has increased significantly. This country has invested large sums of money in education at all levels to help our youth enter the labour market with the best and most advanced technical and professional training available to meet the challenges of the 20th and 21st centuries. Today, all we have to offer these young people is a very uncertain future. We must act now, if we want our young people to ever see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible to consider maintaining the financial commitments made by the previous Government. It would be irresponsible to allow 25 per cent of the total budget to be used to service the national debt. It would be irresponsible to think we should maintain a debt load of $190 billion, created within the last ten years, as the previous Government has done.
I think the Canadian people have decided who they want to govern them, and because of this, we must make an unprecedented effort to put Canada back on the road to prosperity. This will of course involve a number of sacrifices. And that is exactly what this government intends to do, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility of the private sector is to find employment for young people trained in our educational institutions. The responsibility of the labour force is to do its share to boost productivity. The responsibility of each one of us is to share with others, show initiative and creativity so that together we can find ways to spur the Canadian economy, create jobs and reduce the national debt. But we cannot have one without the other, Mr. Speaker. I am calling upon the spirit of co-operation which has sparked Canadians over the past century, as much in the field of housing as in the field of investment, as much as in the field of forestry as in the field of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I know that Canadians can undertake even more joint endeavours in agriculture, reforestation, housing construction and creation of small and medium-sized businesses. I know that the various levels of government can work closer together to initiate consistent measures and coordinate their efforts without needless duplication.
Should each of us regain confidence in our capabilities and our future and, as individuals, join in the common effort of our society, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the economic and intellectual potential in this country would enable us to have an overwhelming economic revival and a significant reduction in the number of people out of work. Naturally, I repeat that it
November 20, 1984

calls for co-operation and uninterrupted dialogue based on confidence and mutual respect. In that context, I am quite pleased and 1 have every confidence that positive results will be achieved in the forthcoming discussions the government intends to launch with business circles, labour and the various levels of government.
I have personally, and I must say with a great deal of pleasure, initiated and re-established a dialogue with the people of Mirabel and the Quebec Government for the purpose of giving back to the farmers of this area the good farmland which was taken away by a Government whose grand designs are responsible for the present economic crisis. 1 am pleased to see that, in spite of the terrible conditions now facing Canada, and for which we cannot be held responsible, we can still come up with a solution which will allow us, once certain adjustments are made to provide for a fairer redistribution of the financial potential of this country.
I also appreciate the fact that we can allow full indexation of taxes for 1985. However, I know as you do too, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector, business and high finance will have to agree to participate in this collective effort and to accept our invitation to work together at putting the Canadian economy back on its feet, by creating a favourable climate for investment, and by providing jobs and a brighter future for our youth.
Mr. Speaker, names like Terry Fox, Gaetan Boucher, Sylvie Bernier, Steve Fonyo and Marc Garneau arouse a lot of admiration and national pride in Canadians. There are now ten of thousands of young people between the ages of 15 and 25 who also want to develop their full potential to meet challenges and reap the fruit of excellence. Hundreds of thousands of young people need our assistance, our support, our confidence, because they are waiting for a job. This is why, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I make an appeal to the Canadian people and I urge all sectors of the economy to pool their resources and their know-how to provide better job opportunities for everyone, and particularly to make it possible for our young people to succeed.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, and 1 shall close with this comment, 1 know the House of Commons and 1 know the kinds of attacks to which on occasion I have been subjected in the past, but 1 also know that we are here essentially to discharge our duty and that, if vicious partisanship pervaded our proceedings in this House, we would severely be judged and rightly so by the public. There are no magical solutions, but those opposite are already asking us to put right within 24 hours conditions which were created over a period of 20 years.
The Hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) said earlier that a new direction has already been given to the economy involving the private sector. This does not please a certain political party I know, but with incentives and even benefits related to job creation, the private sector will achieve our purpose, and I am confident that the budget to be brought down early in 1985 will clearly indicate the type of programs that will be provided for the private sector, as it needs to know
The Address-Mr. Deans
the long-term direction and economic policy of this Government. 1 believe that, in this way, if we take our job seriously, which we do, we can give back this country a minimum of confidence and give investors a new reason to invest and speculate; in this way we shall succeed not only in providing our senior citizens with the security they desperately need but also in giving new hope to our young people who have some at the present time. That is our commitment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? [English]
If not, we shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: 1 am pleased to enter this debate Mr. Speaker. 1 had wondered for some time as 1 watched the election campaign unfold what the outcome would be. I want to congratulate all the Members who have either been elected for the first time or returned to the House of Commons. I might say something more about that in a moment. I want to congratulate you, Sir, not only on your appointment, but also for the fine way in which you have conducted yourself in the Chair-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: -and to say through you to the Speaker how pleased I am at the way he has taken on the role and established the presence he has in the House of Commons. I had no doubt, of course, that he would do that. I thought upon hearing of his appointment that there could have been no finer choice.
I am happy therefore that all the feelings I had were an accurate reflection of his performance.
Like all Members I want to thank my constituents. 1 am not sure they knew exactly what they were doing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -but I want to thank them nevertheless for the overwhelming vote of confidence they gave me. I must say I was taken aback by the magnitude of the victory. 1 had thought perhaps it would be somewhat closer, given the tides of the time and given that the Conservatives were moving with considerable force toward government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They wanted you here to keep them honest.


Ian Deans: My colleague says they wanted me here to keep them honest. 1 would like to think that that was true. 1 am not absolutely sure they gave that a great deal of thought however.
I want to congratulate both the mover and the seconder. I have listened over a number of years in politics to speeches moving and seconding various and different debates. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Ms. Jacques) performed admirably in the functions that were assigned to them.
1 should congratulate other Members too for the interesting way in which they have presented their views today and on

November 20, 1984
The Address - Mr. Deans
other days, and on how they were able to interweave the affairs of their own constituencies with the affairs of the nation, and use as examples of their support or opposition to the Government's those measures matters which directly relate to their own constituencies.
Let me take just one brief moment to say to new Members that the role we have all taken on is of vital importance. There are times when the people of Canada wonder, I am sure, whether or not what we do makes much sense. There are times, I am positive, when they watch us on television, as my mother no doubt is doing now, and they wonder whether or not we know what we are trying to achieve or have any idea of where we are trying to get to.
I urge Members not to be disillusioned by the comments they will receive over the course of their time here. The work that we do is of vital importance on both sides of the House. The work done by the Government and by government supporters is important in the sense that it provides for the country an idea, a view, a vision, of the way in which this country should grow and develop. The work of the Opposition I venture to say is of equal importance inasmuch as we provide alternatives, alternatives to that which the Government is attempting to achieve, hopefully having in mind the sense that there has to be some co-operation and understanding.
1 approach, as does my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) a new session with a sense of anticipation. 1 listened to the then government throughout the election campaign and watched as it floundered, worried as I am sure its members did, about the imminent loss of power. But I want to say to them that the loss of power is not necessarily a bad thing. Not withstanding my partisan views, the fact that there has been a change in government will do some credit to the system itself. It is a vital part of the political system that there be a change in government from time to time, and while I may not subscribe to the change that took place in a personal way I nevertheless subscribe to the fact that a change was inevitable, that change is necessary, and I look forward to the day when yet another change will take place, as inevitably it will. I hope in some way to be part of that change; whether in a major or a minor sense only the electors will tell.
I watched also with interest the then Leader of the Opposition as he went about the country setting out what it was he hoped to achieve. I must say, and perhaps the first partisan comment I will make, that while I listened with great care to him and understood, I think, what it was he was trying to impart by way of a vision of Canada, I am frankly disappointed in the way in which he has chosen to implement it.
My colleague, from Chicoutimi I believe, who spoke some time ago said that the Government was to be judged on the merits of its proposals. I had some questions in my mind as I listened to what he was saying, as I had on the day when the Throne Speech was read, and then on the subsequent Thursday when the budgetary statement was brought down. The first question 1 had was, is the Government being frank? I
have come to the conclusion over the course of the last two or three weeks that although the Government speaks with a sense of openness and frankness, that the Government is attempting to impart a sense of understanding and a newness about Government involvement in the community at large, there is something sorely lacking.
This is a Government which when in Opposition was adamantly and vociferously opposed to secrecy. I must say that in the short time the Government has been in office it has embarked on a path of secrecy that I have not yet seen in my political lifetime. I worry about that. This Government is a government that asks people to have faith and says there will be need for co-operation, that there will be a need in the country for confidence. Yet this is the Government that is apparently afraid to give to the people of Canada all of the information necessary in order that they can make judgments about whether or not they want to place their confidence in this Government's measures. I warn the Government now that it cannot get away with that indefinitely. A government cannot do that indefinitely.
The people of Canada have a right to know not only what it is the Government hopes to do for them, not only what it is the Government hopes to achieve with them, but also what the cost will be. The people ultimately must decide. It is not enough to say to them, "Well, you can decide at election time". People have the right to make decisions day by day and to influence if they can the direction that the Government is taking, based on the knowledge they have been given by the Government.
If, for example, we were to tell the people of Canada what the cost would be in terms of jobs as a result of the economic policy now being pursued by the Government, setting aside the claim by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and others that somehow or other some great confidence will envelop the country and everything will turn out well, and if we were to look statistically at what the Government has proposed, analyse it carefully and then present it to the public of Canada on the one hand as what we want to do, and on the other hand what it will cost, then the public will be able to discuss with their individual Members of Parliament in Government and in the Opposition benches whether or not they believe that is the course they are prepared to follow, and whether or not they are prepared to have their individual Member of Parliament vote for or support that course of action.
I suggest if there is to be openness in government and if you want people to participate, to begin with the Government must make available to the people all of the relevant information. To this point members of the Government have not done that. On a test of frankness, I think quite bluntly that they have failed that test to this point in time. I ask them to reconsider the direction in which they are going. I also ask them to reconsider the economic direction.
However, more important at the moment, I ask the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) to con-
November 20, 1984

sider whether or not it is incumbent upon a government to provide the information necessary for people to make learned and accurate judgments about its policy direction and the impact of it. Perhaps he could take that to caucus tomorrow. Perhaps he could urge upon Cabinet, if Cabinet deigns to show up,-perhaps he could not tell me even if he did since the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is not likely to allow him to talk to me anyway-that that would be one of the first things it could consider.
The second point is: Has the Government been honest? We have to wonder about that. I remember not long before election day the Prime Minister saying that he would be able to create tens of thousands of jobs almost immediately after the Conservatives were elected to govern. I must confess that I doubted it, but I did not say it. It was said by the Prime Minister. Whether or not 1 doubted it, the Prime Minister apparently believed it to be true. Yet when he took office, did he create those jobs? No. What did he do? He set about to eliminate jobs, saying all the time that if things worked out somewhere down the road a piece, maybe things would improve and therefore maybe things would be better.


Gerry St. Germain: They have.


Ian Deans: I hear the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody. If he were to be entirely up to date he would understand that the numbers of jobs available in the country today are fewer than the numbers of jobs available in the country on September 4. Therefore, that indicates to me that the action of the Government in total over that short period of time, if it created any jobs at all-and it has not directly, at least-or if it has had any impact at all, it has been a negative impact. Notwithstanding, the Prime Minister did not say on those days just prior to the election, when he was going around telling everyone everywhere that somehow he would be able to perform minor miracles, if not major miracles, and that individually they would find work somehow somewhere, that one of his first priorities would be to go to Ottawa and eliminate jobs. I am sure Mr. Speaker will remember that when the Prime Minister was confronted with the suggestion that he was likely to eliminate a significant number of jobs in the Public Service he denied it. I think the evidence is now in. Quite clearly his denial was based upon a false premise. In fact, the Government had a hidden agenda. Notwithstanding public pronouncements about its intentions on behalf of the unemployed, it in fact intended to cut out a certain number of jobs in the Public Service and in so doing affect detrimentally the number of support jobs in the private sector. Therefore, when we apply the test of honesty, we have to say that it comes up somewhat short.
Then we get to the question of sacred trusts. They are not like trusts at trust companies. These are sacred trusts, the kind one never breaks. They are just a part of one's soul; nothing would make one change a sacred trust. That does not seem to be the interpretation of members of the Conservative Party. Sacredness to them is an erstwhile thing; if something is sacred today, it may be sacred tomorrow but then again it may not.
The Address - Mr. Deans
"After all, these things are open to interpretation", says the Prime Minister. He did say it, but then again he did not, he says. What he really meant was something else, he thinks, and then he smiles. I always thought that a sacred trust was something not to be violated.
When they said that social programs were sacred, I thought that meant that they were there to stay. Apparently for this Government it means something quite different. Taking that into account, along with its actions on the job front, maybe in the test of honesty it dropped a little short over the first two and a half to three months.
Then we have to go to the test of government understanding. Did they show the kind of compassion and understanding about which the Prime Minister so often talked, that civility which the Prime Minister told us was absolutely necessary in the dealings between government and the public?


Mr. King:: It is.


Ian Deans: I want to say again that I do wonder. They have struck fear in the hearts of many people in this land with their inability to recognize the problems which would befall those whose unemployment insurance benefits have been changed as a result of the economic statement of the Government. They have clearly indicated to those facing retirement in the not too distant future that the system will be changed in some way so that whatever planning they have done or whatever they may have anticipated may or not be there. They certainly have not come forward with jobs.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall quite clearly the questions I asked of the last government about people between the ages of 55 and 65 who were unemployed through no fault of their own and no longer qualified for unemployment insurance or welfare benefits. They found themselves at that very delicate period in their lives when they were building up equity for their retirement, faced with the real possibility, if not the probability, that they might never work again or, if they did, chances were that it would be at low-paying jobs. Thus they would not be able to contribute in the same amounts to their pension programs, and they would probably lose their pension programs because there was no portability. I remember the now Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) with tears as big as crocodile tears running down her face. She almost had to use the hem of her dress to dry herself. It was terrible; how she bled openly for those people. However, when I asked her the other day about the exact same thing; where were the jobs, where was the concern where was the Government's automatic understanding, and where was the compassion and the civility, she sat there supporting this. There will come a day, I tell you, when you will desert them. They will let you down just as they have let down so many others, the people about whom I am speaking. The Minister of Employment and Immigration knows what those people are going through. Does she come forward with a special program? Does she extend the UIC benefits? Does she have some kind of a special development program so that they can get back into the workforce, a special training program aimed

November 20, 1984
The Address - Mr. Deans
directly at them and taking into account their skills and needs? No.


James Douglas Manly: She talks like a Liberal.


Ian Deans: As the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) says, she talks like a Liberal.


Gerry St. Germain: That is not nice.


Ian Deans: That is probably true. Probably some day it will become unparliamentary in the House of Commons to say that about somebody. I realize that I have but a minute remaining.
The tests which the Government has to take are clearly not being met. They have not been frank. They have not been honest. They have not been understanding. They have not done those things they said they would do. They have done those things they said they would not do. They have not provided the jobs they said they would provide. They have done away with jobs that were already there. They said they were going to create new research and development, but they do away with the only effective research and development in this country. They are going to hand the country over to the foreign invester without any quid pro quo, without any demand.
In closing, this Government has failed the test. It has been a short time, and I recognize that. I cannot really say that they will not recover. I certainly hope on behalf of this country that they do. Up until now it has been a dismal showing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Between 20 and 25 per cent of the budget of the Government of Canada is occupied with paying interest on the national debt. The equivalent figure in the United States, which the Hon. Member chooses to be critical of on many occasions, is 12 per cent. My question to the Hon. Member is what proportion would be acceptable to the Government of Canada, the Opposition and the people of Canada? What proportion of the national budget does he believe should be expended on interest on the national debt?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a direct answer to the question. Let me try, however, by saying to the Hon. Member that he will recall that when he sat in the back row over on this side that during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, when interest rates were rising at a very rapid rate, interest rates which incidentally contributed significantly to the size of the national debt as they contributed to the high levels of unemployment because of a decrease in purchasing power and the inability of corporate and smaller industry to maintain itself, we in this Party were arguing for a measure which would have controlled interest rates. Had he and his Party supported us instead of going off on some other tangent in support of the Liberal administration, had his Finance critic now Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson) been prepared to support
us instead of supporting the former Minister of Finance, and the one previously, in trying to press the Liberal administration of the day into bringing interest rates down, the national debt would be nowhere near where it is today.
I want to say to the Hon. Member who asked the question that it is upon his shoulders that the national debt rests. It is on this Member's shoulders, along with his colleagues who were here, that the national debt rests. It was they, together with the Liberals, who refused to deal with the primary problem in Canada, that being interest rates.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. He referred to the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) being in the back row. I cannot see any difference being in the front row or in the back row. We all represent Canadians regardless of where we sit.
The Hon. Member blamed us for causing the deficit to rise. He said we are responsible for the deficit, which is related to high interest. How does he expect to reduce the deficit and control interest when he is advocating the same type of irresponsible spending that his friends to the right of him have been carrying on for the longest time? He is advocating make-work programs. He does not want to recognize the great social benefits we have already brought to the country through improving the widows' allowances and veterans pensions. The Member wants to ignore the improvements and the good things that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has done since taking on the leadership of this country.
The Hon. Member is not giving the Government a chance. He is coming totally negative, like he was before. He does not seem to have the smallest bit of positive attitude within him.
The only way we are going to get this country together again is by working together as Canadians, you and I and all Canadians. I would like the Hon. Member to elaborate on this aspect. He blames us for the spending. He blames us for the high interest rates. How would he have done it? I would also like his comment on whether he would have brought in exchange controls.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I know now how Ministers feel when they are asked 72 different questions at the same time. With regard to the interest rate problem, the Hon. Member will remember, I am sure, although he was not here for the entire last session of Parliament, that the New Democratic Party on numerous occasions attempted to move amendments to the Bank Act which would have made the banks much more responsive and responsible. We were defeated at every turn by the combined Liberal and Conservative Members on the committee. That is for starters.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that he does not have to be far-sighted. He can look within his own constituency. I defy him to tell me where things are better now than they were before the beginning of September. I defy him to tell me where the jobs are. I listened to him earlier talking about how many people were unemployed in his constituency.
November 20, 1984

It is not a question of being negative. It is a question of not being given anything to be positive about. I come to this House the most positive person you have ever met. I want to be enthusiastic about this Government. I want to be able to applaud their every measure. I want to be able to stand up and be happy in endorsing the things that the Government does. How can I endorse what the Government does when the Government has not lived up to its promises, when it has done the very opposite to the things it said it would do when it was seeking office? Am I to support the Government when it does what it said it would not do and does not do what it said it would do? I could not do that. It would not be honest of me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) on a short question and a short answer.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment. I hear Members opposite talk about direct job creation programs as not being the answer to solving the unemployment problems in this country. I would not agree. I do not believe that my Party or the NDP have ever advocated that that is the sole measure to cure all of the unemployment in this country. However, I take strong objection to Members opposite who are not in favour of direct job creation programs for the unemployed.
I would ask the Hon. Member if he and his Party are committed to direct job creation programs in substantial dollars for student summer employment as well as for Canada Works. As we know, the Conservative Party both in philosophy and in terms of the fiscal measure are totally against any financial assistance for direct job creation.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the question is quite simply yes, we are. It is obvious to anyone who has to deal with the unemployed that it is better to have a short-term job than to have no job at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Another question by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil); a short question with a short reply.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment directed towards the New Democratic Party in general and the Hon. Member's speech.
[DOT] (P30)
I represent a riding in which the largest employer is a foreign-owned corporation. It is owned by Stora Kopparberg and is the largest industry and major employer in the riding. It continues to irritate me to hear representatives of the New Democratic Party rise and chastise foreign investors. I cannot help but conclude that members of that Party would rather see Canadians out of work. I can assure the Hon. Member that the unemployed in my riding would much prefer to work for a foreign-owned corporation than not to work at all.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member that we also would rather that people worked for a
The Address-Mrs. Veiina
foreign corporation than not work at all. However, we would also extract from the foreign corporation commitments that would be in the best interests of the country. Foreign corporations are far too often dominated by the decisions made in their home offices and do little if any research and development in Canada. There is no long-term value for this country if we do not derive long-term benefits. We do not get those benefits from many foreign corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of my first speech in the House, my thoughts are of course with the people of the riding of Rimouski-Temiscouata. I want to thank them for their support, and I would urge them, as I did throughout the election campaign, to take an active part in the Canadian democratic process. I would ask them and all Canadians to engage in a constant dialogue with me and other Members of the House on the issues that concern us all and the policies they would like to see adopted by this Government. Dialogue is the very essence of our system of government.
Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and confirmed by my colleagues the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), we shall be facing some formidable challenges during this thirty-third Parliament. The decisions we shall be making in the years to come, or the lack of decisions, will have a significant impact on the economic future of this country and the employment opportunities available to our children.
Our economy is in a precarious state, and the Government's economic message has provided a keen and in-depth analysis of the situation. The problems are many and largely due to twenty years of Liberal rule. During those two decades, the standard of living of Canadians dropped from second to thirteenth place in the world. Our net federal debt was multiplied by ten, rising to nearly $200 billion. Our economy suffered because our predecessors saw prosperous industries as a source of revenue, and not as the key to future economic development. They drained the resources of these industries to support weaker sectors of the economy instead of dealing directly with the weaknesses themselves. This had the unfortunate result of undermining all sectors of the economy.
Twenty years of Liberal economic policy have left us with a dollar that is worth only a meager 75 cents in terms of the American dollar.
We have also inherited an unemployment rate of over 10 per cent. This disastrous legacy has been reflected in the large number of farm and business bankruptcies that have occurred during the past few years.

November 20, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Vezina
Mr. Speaker, the economic statement of November 8 was adamant on the subject. If we pursue the economic policies of the previous Government, an already massive national debt could very well compromise this country's future. When we realize that nearly half the money borrowed by the Government must be used to service the national debt, we have a clear understanding of the challenge awaiting this Parliament.
Unlike our predecessors and Members of the New Democratic Party, we do not believe that the deficit can be left to grow ad infinitum and that extravagant spending will resolve our economic problems. The status quo must not and cannot be maintained. The mandate we received in September is sufficiently clear on that point.
Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech and the economic statement have shown that unlike our predecessors, we have listened carefully to Canadians and responded to their concept of what a federal government ought to do. Canadians are fed up with short-term and short-sighted economic policies. They are sick and tired of seeing job creation funds used to renovate picnic tables instead of being invested in a long-term strategy for creating permanent jobs. They have had enough of watching the federal and provincial governments fighting needlessly over their respective jurisdictions. The demagoguery and the "divide-to-conquer" mentality shown by the previous government are no longer acceptable to the Canadian people.
Last September 4, Canadians indicated that they can no longer stand cynical and unilateral initiatives which are taken to score political points while the economic issues remain unsolved. They no longer want their taxes used to finance re-election campaigns. They are tired to see that their opinions are not taken seriously and that the Liberals do not even consult them. They have had their fill of condescending policies.
Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that we will have to make some decisions in the coming years. We will have to decide where Canada is going and what is the best way to get there. Once the government is committed to take the necessary steps to solve our economic problems, we will have to make sure that the men and women whose subsistence depends to a large extent on the generosity of the federal government are well protected.
That responsibility has been clearly acknowledged in the Speech from the Throne and in the economic statement, urging us to study the conflicts, maintain the dialogue and hold consultations before making major decisions.

I was surprised and saddened when I heard the response of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) to the Throne Speech. He saw our call for dialogue and consultation as a sign of weakness. Has he not learned? Have members of the Liberal Party not learned? Canadians will no longer tolerate having their views ignored.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Vézina: When decisions affecting the people are to be made, they want to be present at the discussion table, not out in the corridor. When programs are established which may affect their livelihood, they want to design them. Yet when calling for dialogue, consultation and co-operation, our efforts are denounced. If it is a political sin to have trust and faith in Canadians that they themselves know what is best for the country, we are truly lost.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking to the House as member of a team which has been closely associated with the initiative taken by my colleagues the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I commend them for their courage.
By appointing me as Minister for External Relations last September 17, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) was giving me special responsibilities in the field of international development. He was asking me, and my colleague the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), to devote all our energies to assist the Secretary of State in the management of the vital relationship linking Canada with the rest of the world. I assume those new responsibilities, anxious to draw inspiration from the professional experience I gained within organizations concerned with regional development.
Mr. Speaker, the generosity of Canadian men and women is such that, despite the current economic difficulties, they are quite sensitive to the predicament of people in less affluent countries. The government shares their concern, as evidenced by our decision to maintain a steady growth in public development assistance over the next ten years so that it will amount to 0.7 per cent of our GNP by 1995. A number of people are blaming the government for the flexibility it is demonstrating in deferring for five years the achievement of this level of assistance by Canada. I am sure that Canadians support the government's decision. As a former French Minister of Cooperation said so aptly, one must avoid introducing too much budgetary rigidity into the financial management of the State, otherwise the sum total of sectorial commitments precludes any national policy.
During the next few months, a special Parliamentary committee will thoroughly examine the major areas of our foreign policy. I would like to share with the House some preliminary comments on international development. The problems with which the so-called Third World nations are faced are extremely serious. I refer here to natural phenomena such as drought and desertification. I refer also to the bloody wars which are being fought in a number of regions and countries. I refer to the serious problem of indebtedness which prevents these nations from buying new equipment at a time when they badly need to increase their food production. I am also thinking about the population explosion, which is a source of major
November 20, 1984

concern in view of the limited increase of food production in these countries. The complexity of these problems makes us feel very humble. However, we must have every confidence in the potential of these peoples to ensure their development.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to our obligation to provide rapid assistance to nations struck by natural disasters, 1 cannot overemphasize the fact that our intervention must also have a long term impact. Instead of providing spectacular assistance to these countries, our challenge must be to help them to take charge of their development and to become responsible for it.
As rightly underlined in the throne speech, we need to support the effective and extremely valid humanitarian work of voluntary organizations. This is what we have already done to help the victims of the drought in Ethiopia and of desert encroachment in Africa. The drive of these voluntary organizations and of all Canadian men and women involved is fantastic and provides a guarantee of efficiency for any Government which decides to rely on them.
Mr. Speaker, I invite the Hon. Members to avoid specious issues in any future discussion on development assistance. In some circles, development assistance is too often opposed to international trade. As I was saying at a meeting of the Dakar Club in Montreal recently Canada intends to work on increasing its economic relations with Africa, while fully aware that private investments and trade relations are as significant in terms of development potential as traditional co-operation projects.
In the same context, Canada must not be ashamed to get involved in other countries in the fields it knows best. I am proud to-
The Address


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being 5.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(5), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the main motion. Accordingly, the question is the following one. 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 Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That the Address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 5.48 p.m. the House adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 21, 1984