1984-11-14

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is often referred to as a vast cultural mosaic. This is because as a group we have always recognized the invaluable contribution made by immigrants to our society. We have demonstrated this through measures aimed at protecting the cultural identity of the various ethnic communities that have contributed to the development of our country.
Canada does have a very good reputation for tolerance and willingness to accept differences. However, I believe there is much room for improvement. It is not enough to want to preserve the cultural and linguistic heritage of our immigrants. We must also promote their integration in our society, and that leaves much to be desired.
Recently, I read to my amazement in an article in the Vancouver Sun that a number of immigrants, originally from the state of Punjab in India, were unable or hardly able to speak English, after living in Vancouver for five years.
It is therefore imperative that language training in one or both official languages be made available to all classes of immigrants, because failure to do so will ghettoize them and turn them into second class citizens.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the matter of capital gains tax on farms. It has been said, quite rightfully, that the capital gains tax is a tax on the life savings of the farmer. Farmers entering retirement should be able to do so with the fruits of their labour intact. For the new or expanding farmer, the capital gains tax only further inflates the already high price of land.
The 300,000 farmers of Canada and their families contribute much to the life of our country. The economic spinoffs of farm capital gains tax removal would be many and obvious. I support the proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to study the capital gains tax. However, many farmers presently involved in land transactions are uncertain whether to proceed, and they are stalling their sales until the future of this tax is settled. I call on all Hon. Members of this House to consider the capital gains tax removal thoroughly and expeditiously, so that land will sell and farmers can again act with confidence.


TOURISM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure that the new Government is working in unison. On the one hand it has recognized the importance of tourism to Canada by establishing a Ministry of State for Tourism, but it now appears intent on killing it by the death of a thousand cuts. Last Thursday in its economic statement the Government announced a number of cuts in services which will affect this area. Federal programs in the area of wildlife, water, and environmental protection are being cut, and user fees for the services of Parks Canada, fishing permits, and tourist aviation, are being increased dramatically. Five wildlife centres are being eliminated, one of which received over 40,000 visitors this year.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) announced last Friday that tourism projects will no longer be eligible for funding under the Industrial and Regional Development Program. My fear is that the Government will be creating a lot of verbal hoop-la over tourism, encouraging Canadians to travel within Canada and visitors to come to Canada, yet will be reducing services, eliminating sites and, in the whole process, making destinations less enjoyable.

As New Democrats, we are asking the Government to start supporting the tourism and hotel industry with actions, not just words.

November 14, 1984


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the current situation regarding CN pensions. As a result of continuous urging from this Party when in opposition, the previous Government finally appointed a one-member commission to study, investigate, and report on the Pension Act with respect to employees of CN. The study was very limited in scope and mandate and, for that reason, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) rightfully discontinued it.
Due to the status of this Act, and because of the great numbers of CN employees and pensioners who are affected by the current plan, I would respectfully urge the Minister of Transport to proceed as quickly as possible to set up a new study group with a broader mandate, in order to investigate the situation fully and to recommend appropriate changes.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister met yesterday with the provincial Premiers to discuss the agenda for next year's economic conference. The leaders of the two territorial Governments were not invited to this important meeting, nor, to my knowledge, is it at all certain they will be invited to the summit early in 1985.
May I remind the House of statements made by the Government in the Speech from the Throne as follows: "The reality of Canada is one of distinct regional identities", and: "A national consensus is also needed to reduce the persistent isolation of Canada's regions". By not inviting the territorial leaders to the meeting yesterday, the Government has demonstrated that its concept of national purpose, co-operation, and consensus building, excludes the people of Canada's north. This cannot be the model for the future. This Government must match its actions with its rhetoric, and include all of the regions and all of the people of Canada in such significant discussions.


ABORTION
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Canada does not have an effective law on abortion. It has a law which permits over 60,000 abortions to be performed each year in hospitals. In addition, it is estimated that there are enough illegal terminations of pregnancy to raise the total to 100,000 abortions a year.
In two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, it has been impossible to persuade a jury to arrive at a guilty verdict. We, therefore, do not have an effective law on abortion. It is imperative that Parliament and other authorities of the law address this intolerable situation. The Canadian people should not have to live and behave in doubt as to what the law requires. Parliament should not be indifferent to the law of the land being broken with impunity. Leadership is required to develop a national consensus that will support an effective law on abortion.
I am one who believes that human life begins in the womb before birth and should be protected by the law. I am also one who believes that the law can protect only when it has the support of the public. This is clearly a time for Canadians to address the issue of what protection we, as a people, are ready to give the unborn.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in
his economic statement of last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) told Canadians that they would have to work together in common cause, shoulder to shoulder, in order to build a more prosperous future. Everyone, we were told, would have to sacrifice and share the burden of restraint. Unfortunately the Minister's words had a hollow ring when we learned last week that some Canadians are sacrificing much more than others. IBCA Banking Analysis Ltd., an organization which studies and reports on the world's major banks, released figures which showed that, taken together, Canada's banks reaped the largest profits of banks in any country within the international banking community last year. Canada's six leading banks showed, on average, a real rate of return well above levels earned by United States, Japanese or British banks or, for that matter, any other national banking system.
When you consider, Mr. Speaker, that Canada now has the highest level of real interest rates of any western industrialized country, these figures come as no surprise. What is surprising, however, is the Government's inaction in the face of these real interest rate levels. Home owners, small business people, consumers, farmers, ranchers, fishermen, all suffer when interest rates are at their current historic levels.
It is time that Canada's banks were asked to share the burden of restraint like everyone else. On September 4 Canadians voted for change. They gave the Government a mandate to put the economy back on the rails. The first step must be a reduction in real interest rates to traditional levels. The Government has said we need lower interest rates, but so far it has done nothing to indicate that it is prepared to have a made-in-Canada interest rate policy. It is time that the Conservatives go beyond the rhetoric-
November 14, 1984


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, over the years Canada has negotiated a number of social security agreements with other countries. These agreements generally provide that a person who lived in a foreign country and also lived in Canada during his working life could claim social security benefits from both Canada and the foreign country, based on the number of years in each country.
Perhaps the most well known of these agreements is the one with Italy which has proven most beneficial to those Canadians of Italian origin. Many of those persons have lived in Canada for over 20 years. They are approaching retirement, and are today finding it difficult to get the necessary papers organized with respect to their Italian pension claims. To some extent the Government of Italy has been helpful in supplying assistance in Montreal, Toronto, and Hamilton, but that assistance is provided separate and apart from the pension office run by the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In my view the Government of Canada ought to employ, in its pension offices, people conversant with foreign tongues, who can explain the agreements to pension applicants and make sure applicants are able to obtain the full benefits they are entitled to under the agreements. I therefore call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to take action as soon as possible to staff offices in such manner so that Canadians can be assisted in filing the necessary papers-


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, it has been 13 years since the World Court decision declaring the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia to be illegal, and six years since the passage of Security Council Resolution 435 requesting the withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia. Despite these clear cut, straightforward decisions, the people of Namibia are still struggling for their independence, and South Africa is still thumbing its nose at world opinion and the vast majority of world nations. These delays are intolerable. They are caused principally by South Africa and the 1982 policy of President Reagan to support South Africa by linking the removal of South African troops from Namibia with the removal of Cuban troops from Angola, where there should be no linkage whatsoever.
Oral Questions
I would urge our Government to do three things. First, support those Americans who are trying to change their Government's linkage policy. Two, support an economic boycott of South Africa. Three, insist on action by the U.N. contact group to implement Security Council Resolution 435.
Surely Namibia will one day be free, but Canadians can help to bring this about more quickly with a minimum of violence and suffering.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs failed completely to explain the contradictory positions of the Government relating to the starving nations in Africa. In his meeting with the Premiers yesterday, I wonder whether the Prime Minister had any better luck in explaining the contradictory positions relating to transfer payments to the provinces.
The Prime Minister was quoted as saying that "we have not envisaged any cut-backs", yet the Minister of Finance, in a meeting with reporters after his budget, said that such cutbacks were "on the table". Did the Prime Minister discuss these cut-backs affecting medicare, social security, and university and community college funding, with his counterparts at the provincial level? Are these cut-backs on the agenda for the next meeting of the Prime Minister with the Premiers on February 14? If not, is he setting up the provinces for a Valentine's Day massacre?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend seems to assume, as he has often said, that there are three responses to these kinds of matters. One is cutting social programs and reneging on your promises, and so on. There is a fourth response, which is economic growth that we plan to generate by our policies.
In direct response to my right hon. friend, the matter did not arise per se, although clearly if it is raised by the Premiers in Regina we will be happy to discuss it. The answer is that there will be no unilateral cut-backs such as the previous Government initiated. Anything which we care to discuss would be reviewable by all. It would not be introduced unilaterally. That was the intent of my answer.


CONTENT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH PREMIERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, during the course of those discus-

November 14, 1984
Oral Questions
sions yesterday, the Premiers raised with the Prime Minister the cuts proposed by his colleague in the budget, affecting the various provinces. Did the Premiers raise that with him? Did he give them the type of forecast which we have been asking for in the House, namely, what that budget of the Minister of Finance would mean in terms of rising unemployment in each of the provinces represented by those Premiers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Premiers did allude to it. One of them used the exact same term as the hon. critic for the Treasury Board in the Opposition, when he said it was a courageous act by the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There was a mood of realism at the conference which seems to permeate every corner of the country, with the possible exception of the caucus room of the Opposition. It was dealt with. Matters were raised and the agenda was set for what we hope will be a productive and co-operative initiative in Regina on February 14 and 15 next. There we will deal with the manners in which we can genuinely co-operate to bring about true economic growth and renewal in Canada.
[ Translation]


REQUEST NEXT CONFERENCE BE PUBLIC AND OPEN TO PRESS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Prime Minister has every opportunity to come face to face with the new mood of realism as he crisscrosses Canada after the economic statement of his Minister of Finance. Considering that we were unable to assess directly the results of the discussions the Prime Minister had yesterday with his provincial colleagues, would he assure the House that the next meeting scheduled for February 14 will be public and open to the media as well as to the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that suggestion was made as a point of procedure, and the decision has been left to Premier Lee as Chairman of the First Ministers' Conference and to myself. Since the consensus was to make the proceedings public as far as possible, most of them will undoubtedly be aired.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, the Globe and Mail informed us that the President of the Treasury Board, according to what seems to
have been an indiscreet remark to the press . . . that a committee of individuals from the private sector acted as a special consultant to the Government in establishing the budgetary cuts. I would therefore ask the President of the Treasury Board whether it is true that there is such a committee, as reported in last Saturday's Globe and Mail.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that there was no involvement of any private sector committee in the budget cuts described in the document tabled by the Minister of Finance on my behalf last Thursday. This exercise was carried out with the collaboration of my Cabinet colleagues and, of course, their officials in their respective departments, and there was certainly no outside committee involved in this exercise.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has informed the House that the article that appeared in the Globe and Mail was false, but if there was no committee, were there perhaps individuals, other than officials of the Treasury Board, the Department of Finance or the Privy Council, who were informed in advance or consulted about the cuts announced last Thursday and the cuts to be announced later on?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, no one outside the Government was consulted on the announced cuts.



Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister met with the Premiers yesterday, a consensus appeared to develop that jobs ought to be the number one priority for the forthcoming period of time. Did he share with the Premiers the vital information regarding the number of jobs that would be lost, either in the short or long run, as a result of the economic statement and the measures contained therein which were announced by the Minister of Finance to the House last Thursday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Premiers seemed to be aware of the requirements for privileged communications between senior advisers and the Minister, and they did not ask that question.
However, as the Member quite properly requests, they were sincerely concerned about job creation, as was 1, and we discussed the parameters of an important agenda for Regina which, I believe, will be very helpful in creating those jobs that are needed.

November 14, 1984


PROJECTIONS OF IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Prime Minister will recall that he stated in Kingston, in August of this year, that one of the trademarks of the Liberal Party was stonewalling and secrecy. He went on to say that: "The reason for government secrecy today . .." that day "... is to keep vital information from the Canadian public."
With that in mind, and given that there will be a number of Canadians who will lose their jobs as a result of the economic statement and measures contained in it, does the Prime Minister not consider that that information, with the projections which led the Government to discount the importance of the loss of their jobs, is vital information to which they should be given access?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that the model to which the hon. gentleman refers does not bring about or indicate an increase in unemployment in fiscal year 1985-86; rather, that it is the reverse. That is the case.
There is another point, no less legitimate I hope, that he should reflect upon. The Minister has explained his intention to try to be as helpful and forthcoming in all of these areas, but there is another principle that I would ask the Hon. Member to reflect upon, and that is the need for senior civil servants to be able to communicate in writing with their Ministers on a variety of points of view based on partial data from time to time, and not have that information form the basis of partisan debate. I think it is an important principle that the Minister be able to have this data from within the Department.


Mr. Blaikie:: Right on Pierre.


Mr. de Jong:: What a ridiculous reason. Sit down.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It happens that the Minister has acknowledged readily the point to which the Hon. Member refers, but we do not take the sad view that the Hon. Member espouses. We believe that our program, when you factor in investor confidence and consumer confidence, is going to result in a handsome increase in employment, and that is what it is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT OF LAWYERS BY GOVERNMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has misunderstood what the Minister said yesterday. The Minister said yesterday that there would be a loss of jobs in 1986 as a result of the economic statement.


Mr. Broadbent:: That is right.
Oral Questions


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister, if I may, why it is that the public of Canada, the ordinary Canadians, who will lose their jobs as a result of the Gover-ment's measures, must wait for some projected, maybe, opportunity to regain employment in the private sector, while the Government moves, using public funds, to provide jobs for its 500 PC lawyer friends who are already well endowed with income and do not require access to the public trough? Why do ordinary Canadians have to wait for the private sector while Tory back-bench Members are able to hand out patronage appointments to Tory lawyers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now I
understand the question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy:: It is about time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in point of fact that economic statement, as the Member quite properly knows, and as other members of the Opposition have indicated, will lead not to less jobs but to more jobs-


Ian Deans: Less jobs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -in this country for everybody, including NDP lawyers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. As I know the usual good intentions of the Minister, I am hoping he is not completely under the thumb of the reactionary element in his Party-


Mr. Crosbie:: What about you?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and that he will take heed of the Tories friendly Globe and Mail which in its columns is asking the Government to reconsider the CIDA cuts of yesterday. I hope too, because I know he is very much preoccupied with his good relations with the press, that he will stop the crazy "Yukon Erik" gag imposed on his distinguished Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why is the Minister refusing to help the Canadian journalist, Jonathan Mann, who is incarcerated in

November 14, 1984
Oral Questions
India, when the West German Government and the Swiss Government have managed to get two tourists out of there within days? Why has a Canadian Minister refused to help a Canadian press reporter? The Minister should follow what the French Government did in Afghanistan and do something to get this Canadian reporter back in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the question, but I would advise Members in future that preambles to questions should at least relate to the questions that follow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to tell the Hon. Member and everyone in the House that the Canadian High Commission has been following the case of Mr. Mann very closely since his arrest. Representations at the highest level have been made to India's Department of Foreign Affairs asking for the earliest possible consideration of Mr. Mann's case and that he be allowed to have visitors. Our representative has communicated with Mr. Mann by telephone on several occasions. Mr. Mann is in excellent health. He reports that he is very well fed, and as I have already mentioned, we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that his case will be examined as quickly as possible. We have even heard that he might be freed on bail, and I may also add that his mother, Mrs. Mann, has joined in our efforts and that we are keeping her informed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Minister of State for coming to the rescue of the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to know whether the Government has made representations to India's High Commission in Canada and whether she could ask her senior Minister if, at four o'clock, this afternoon, when I meet in my office with India's High Commissioner in Canada we could cross the hallway so that the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs may make direct representations to the High Commissioner.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the Hon. Member and tell him that I am not coming to the rescue of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is my responsibility to reply to this question and I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister has given me this responsibility because, in doing so, he has recognized all the years I have spent trying to improve the quality of life and protect human rights.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whom I should like to congratulate on his appointment to that vital portfolio. Yesterday he appointed Pierre Lassonde from the Yukon suburb of Toronto to reopen the Cyprus Anvil mine as a profitable operation by December 31. The Minister says that there will be no federal bail-out of Cyprus Anvil. Would he explain, in everyday language which Yukoners could understand and which we could understand, just what financial tools he has provided to Mr. Lassonde? For example, does the mandate include loan guarantees, interim equity financing, or Crown corporation status for the White Pass & Yukon Railway as endorsed by the Deputy Prime Minister, none of which are bail-outs for Cyprus Anvil? Would he tell Hon. Members of the House just exactly what tools he has provided? They certainly were not clear in yesterday's communique.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, may I also congratulate the Hon. Member on his polio-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: I congratulate him on his critic portfolio.


John Edward Broadbent: What a Freudian slip!


David Edward Crombie: Well, I was the Minister of Health.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that the geographic location of Mr. Lassande will not inhibit the work I asked him to do. The Hon. Member may recall that last week I indicated I had conducted a preliminary round of discussions with parties involved in the mine. At that time I determined whether or not there was an opportunity to see if the mine could be saved and reopened. My conclusion, as a preliminary finding, was that there was a possibility. It was on that ground that I asked for the services of Mr. Lassonde. I indicated to him that I wanted to have him go to all parties to the action to see what was possible. I constrained him in no way in bringing forward to me those actions which he thinks would be desirable in order to facilitate the opening of the mine.


James Ross Fulton: Last month the Minister travelled to Faro. I am sure he is aware that within days of his visit Cyprus Anvil went on strike and locked out the employees who were involved in the joint federal Government, company and union stripping program which was intended to run until December 31. Interestingly enough, that is the coincident date on which Mr. Lassonde is to report back to the Minister.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would he tell Hon.
November 14, 1984

Members of the House and Yukoners, in plain, everyday language, whether he and his Government are politically committed to the reopening of the Cyprus Anvil mine? It is a very simple question. Is he politically committed to getting that done, and will we see it opened by January 1 ?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I went to Yukon and talked not only with people in Faro but with people in Yukon generally. A long-term, viable opening of this mine is key to the economy of Yukon and certainly to the economy of the people living in Faro.
1 talked with Mr. Lassande, with YTG and indeed with the people in Faro. They asked me if I would facilitate a private sector solution which would open the mine long term. That is what I am doing. That is why I asked Mr. Lassande to assist me. I will not second-guess Mr. Lassande, and I certainly will not do things which would take me away from my obligation to the people of Faro and the people of Yukon, that is, to do what they asked me to do, which was to find a long-term private sector solution to the problem.
As the Hon. Member well knows, this mine has been for sale for some time, and there are no takers. It is not an easy matter. However, the Government is committed to doing everything possible to accommodate the wishes of the people of Faro and of the people of Yukon.


RESEARCH
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He probably knows that today there was a report of a senior official of the National Research Council indicating that the cancellation of the manufacturing research centre in Winnipeg would be a very painful cut to Canadian industrial research. Furthermore, it would have been a unique development in Canada and have major industrial spin-offs for the Province of Manitoba. Also, a senior official of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion indicated that it was a major stimulus for growth-


Mr. Speaker:: I interrupt the Hon. Member with great regret but preambles and answers today are becoming longer and longer. I ask everyone to bring themselves back to Question Period, which is for questions and answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: In terms of the new information which has now come to light concerning the valuable and important role this research centre would play in the industrial development of Canada, is the Minister prepared to look at the new evidence, change his mind, review the decision, and consult
Oral Questions
with the people in Manitoba about reopening that development for the betterment of industrial research for all Canadians?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, I suppose all government officials are entitled to their opinions. However, the Hon. Member's question belies an understanding of the basic challenge which was laid before the country in this Parliament by the Minister of Finance, that being a challenge to the private sector to engage much more actively in the pursuit of research, in the encouragement of investment and innovation, and in the international opportunity which research would represent under the type of economic scenario laid out by my colleague. Just as a footnote, it is astonishing to note that in the-


John Edward Broadbent: That is a long footnote.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to interrupt. With great respect to Ministers and to questioners, I cannot discipline if both sides choose to ask long questions and to make long answers. I have to be fair. Therefore I say to the Minister, please, footnotes are for another place.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CONSULTATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, can we take from the Minister's answer, therefore, that the Government across the way is no longer prepared to work in any kind of partnership with the private sector to stimulate industrial research? It is cancelling a facility which the Minister knows full well the private sector cannot supply. He is prepared to detract from advancement and progress in the vital field of robotics. Is he saying that there will be absolutely no consultation, contrary to what the Minister of Finance said? Is he saying that there will be no development in Winnipeg? Is that his answer?


Thomas Edward Siddon: No, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transport on his important and obviously deserved appointment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I look forward to helping him implement all the statements of policy and commitments he made in the Transport Committee and in other places.

November 14, 1984
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Minister about a matter of grave concern to railway employees, municipalities, and citizens across the country, the attempt of the railways to obtain authority to operate trains without cabooses, which poses a threat to employees' safety, working conditions, and the public safety. Since the CTC is holding a hearing on December 3 regarding the safety of the test train itself, and in view of the Minister's demand-


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the Minister's demand for hearings in nine locations, 1 would like to ask him whether the CTC has responded adequately. If not, will he order it to hold hearings in those nine locations at dates late enough for groups to prepare their submissions?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his kind remarks. I, too, look forward to working with him in implementing the policies and addressing the challenges of transportation in our country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Like re-instating the Crow rate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will answer that at a later date.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, it is true that I expressed concern about the lack of adequate hearings before the testing has occurred. I have suggested to the CTC, as have other Members, that further pre-test hearings be held across the country. 1 am informed by the CTC that the additional hearings will be held in addition to Ottawa, in the cities of Moncton, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. I think those will be announced sometime next week.


DEMONSTRATION TRAINS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will order it to do that at the nine locations that he has suggested.
Will he also require the railroads to cease holding public viewings of the demonstration trains at 33 locations across Canada before the test hearings are even held?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly concerned about the matter of the pre-test hearings. I think the CTC has adequately addressed that. If the Hon. Member has additional locations that he would propose, I would certainly be pleased to entertain that representation. Perhaps he could make the representation to the CTC himself. I think the CTC has recognized the need for the additional pre-test hearings and that it is fair to say there has been a reasonable compromise reached.


CONFEDERATION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister was very satisfied with yesterday's meeting to plan a national agenda for next year's economic conference. In view of the fact that the Speech from the Throne talks about concern for regional isolation, will the Prime Minister tell the House why he neglected to invite the two leaders of the territorial Governments, the Hon. Mr. Pearson of Yukon and the Hon. Mr. Nerysoo of the Northwest Territories? I do not need to remind the Prime Minister that these two leaders were present at the last two constitutional conferences. Why were they not at this meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it was an agenda-setting exercise yesterday involving the First Ministers of the provinces. I hope at our Regina meeting there will be a fair representation from the North.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT ON FUTURE ATTENDANCE
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Do I understand from the Prime Minister's answer that this is a commitment which he has made today, that the two territorial leaders will be at the economic conference next year? Is that correct?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a commitment. It is a suggestion that I have taken the liberty of putting in writing today to my provincial colleagues for their consideration. I believe it would be appropriate.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. The Minister, like all Canadians, is aware of the grave need to equip our Canadian forces properly, but he must face the reality of an empty public purse. Nonetheless, I understand the Minister will proceed to restore navy blue uniforms to Maritime Command, something his Liberal predecessors refused to do. Will the Minister advise the House whether he has formulated a plan to provide navy blue uniforms for Canada's Navy, and when can we expect that plan to be implemented-hopefully in time for the 75th anniversary of Canada's Navy?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


November 14, 1984


Robert Carman Coates: I thank the Hon. Member for Halifax West for the question. I would tell him yes, navy blue will be available to our navy personnel. The distinctive uniforms will be available, at least for some of them, by July 1, the beginning of the 75th anniversary celebrations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue as minister responsible for Customs and Excise and deals with the importation of pornographic material generally, and especially violent pornography.
The minister recently ordered a stop to the importation of a monthly pornographic magazine. Still, he is well aware that the problem is much more serious. What does he propose to do to deal more effectively with violent pornography in Canada?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the Hon. Member for a very important question. 1 think every Member of the House of Commons will share her concern. As the Hon. Member is aware, we have indeed ordered a stop to the importation of the December issue of Penthouse into Canada. In addition, I have given orders to my officials to ensure that, where there is a mixture of sex and violence in the future, such material should not be permitted into Canada. In addition, the Government is awaiting the results of the Fraser committee into pornography and prostitution. We hope the recommendations of that committee will be very helpful to us in discharging our responsibilities.


DANGERS OF VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's activity in this regard. We continue to get representations from women's groups all across the country about insensitivity, and perhaps even incompetence in particular cases. I wonder if the Minister could be more specific about what measures he is taking with regard to education of his own officials, and with regard to the problems of violence itself. The recent communique does not stress the violent aspects, but bad taste and offensiveness. I wonder if this really does justice to the issue that violent pornography is dangerous, and not merely in poor taste.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I fully share the Hon. Member's concern. Violent pornography is not simply in bad taste; it is highly dangerous.
Oral Questions
The Government will do everything possible to ensure that violent pornography is not imported into Canada. What I found very distressing in this instance was the suggestion that it was appropriate to have naked women bound in ropes hanging from trees, and that this was considered art work. It is not art work, and there is no place whatsoever for this sort of material in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I join my colleague to my left in congratulating the Minister on his appointment. The people of Atlantic Canada, in particular those people in the island provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, view CN Marine and the region's ferry services as an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. Last Thursday the Minister of Finance announced a $37 million cut-back with respect to this essential Atlantic Canadian service.
The Minister indicated the cut-backs were possible as a result of selective increased cost recoveries. Can the Minister tell this House specifically what cut-backs and fare increases the Minister and the officials of his Department selected to recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to achieve that $37 million slash on the backs of the people of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, it really is a twofold proposition. There will be a rationalization of the Gulf ferry services and the coastal ferry services. As a matter of fact, there will be an additional three new vessels on the Gulf service and one new vessel on the Newfoundland-Labra-dor coastal service. These vessels will be of the latest state of the art; they will be faster, they will be larger, and they will provide more flexibility and more reliable service. Not only that, this will have a tremendous impact upon the shipbuilding industry and, therefore, will create jobs.
The implementation will be phased in over a three-year period. It will be done in conjunction and in consultation with representatives of the provinces. With respect to the fare increases, there is a proposal for additional fare increases, but it will be done on a basis whereby the regular user will be provided with a discount, and there will be some market flexibility in the application of those new fares.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer makes for some very good PR for CN Marine. Unfortunately he has not answered my question.

November 14, 1984
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Newfoundland and, I understand, Premiers of other Atlantic Provinces, indicated yesterday to the Prime Minister that they were very concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member has a question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They were very concerned about the cut-backs. In view of the commitment of his Party during the election campaign to make tourism a high priority for this administration, can the Minister of Transport tell the people affected by the ferry services between Nova Scotia and P.E.I., P.E.I. and New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, the only method of cheap transport available to these people-two of the provinces are islands-that the Government will not slash subsidies and will not pass on unviable-1 am coming to the question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism, whom I congratulate on his appointment to that important position. The question deals with the report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, which was published under the title "Equality Now". Delegates to the conference of the Canadian Council for Multicultural and Inter-Cultural Education, which was held in Toronto this past weekend, endorsed all 80 recommendations in the report. Several hundred delegates signed a petition calling on the Government to implement the recommendations immediately. Will the Minister indicate when he intends to respond to the recommendations in the report, especially considering the difficult economic times and the recommendations it made regarding employment?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind remarks and welcome him to his important position as critic for multiculturalism.
In the area of our work, and the whole question of the "Equality Now" report, there is something in the neighbourhood of 40 recommendations, out of the 84 or 85 recommendations which were made by the committee, which directly affect the area of multiculturalism. My staff is actively working on those recommendations at the present time. We are priorizing those recommendations. We have met with the ethno-cultural community across the country. I think the work is well on its way, and I am hopeful of early results.


ABELLA COMMISSION REPORT-DATE OF PRESENTATION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the report of the Abella Commission, which has been anticipated for some time. Could the Minister tell the House when the report will be presented and what are his expectations? I trust those expectations are for speedy action on the report of that commission, as well as on the report of the special committee.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the report is scheduled for presentation in the very near future, literally within a matter of a few days. When that takes place I will be in a better position to respond to the Hon. Member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Last week in The Vancouver Sun headlines appeared which read: "Court Rejects 15-Year Parole Wait for Killer". This case involved a convicted killer. He was convicted of second degree murder of his common law wife and infant child. The jury recommended that he wait at least 15-


Mr. Speaker:: I will be as patient as I can with new Members, but I would ask that the Member please put his question.


Ross Belsher: What steps is the Minister's Department taking in reviewing and changing the present parole board procedures, so that convicted killers will not be allowed to return to society before justice has been served?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first, with respect to my hon. colleague's question, the case to which he refers is in the purview of the Attorney General of British Columbia and deals with the issue of crimes that were committed before the coming into effect of the Charter of Rights. Therefore, it is the lesser penalty of the 1969 era that applies rather than the present law. As far as the rest of his question is concerned, I can tell him that we are doing everything possible within the confines of existing legislation to control the situation, and hope that early in the new year concrete steps will be taken to give the public of Canada better protection.

November 14, 1984


IMMIGRATION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister is of course aware that six Soviet prisoners being held by the Afghan authorities are probably about to be executed, following a decision made by her department and the Department of External Affairs. These prisoners were about to be granted asylum by Canada as a result of representations by a Toronto lawyer. However, the Government has now reversed its decision and, today, is refusing unconditionally to grant them asylum. Could the Minister justify before the House a decision that could cost the lives of six people?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that no application was ever made for those people.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Canada Health Act states that all Canadians should have reasonable access to health services without undue financial barriers, yet thousands of Canadians are denied access to the specialized treatment they require because they live in areas which are outside the major metropolitan centres and cannot afford the transportation costs to those centres. In light of the Prime Minister's recent reaffirmation of the universality of health care, would the Minister commit himself and his Government to eliminating this long-standing inequality by changing the regulations that currently prevent federal health funds from being spent on medically-necessary travel?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member relates a concern which is outside the agreements on the so-called insured services that is, services which are agreed to be cost-shared between the provinces and the federal Government. I can tell the Hon. Member that I have had one meeting with my provincial counterparts. We did not explore that issue, but in general terms we have agreed to sit down and take a look at the best manner in which we can preserve not only the present health care system but also future considerations.


REQUEST THAT MINISTERS DISCUSS ISSUE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister agree to place the subject of medically
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
necessary travel on the agenda for the next meeting with his provincial counterparts?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will give that suggestion consideration. I would also point out to the Member that the delivery of health care is within the purview of the provinces, and we will give full consideration when looking at that issue.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on November 13, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) does not meet the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on November 13. The Hon. Member alleged that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in answering a question from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), quoted from an official document and therefore had an obligation to table that document.
Having carefully examined the exchanges which took place between the Hon. Member for Oshawa and the Minister of Finance, it is evident to me that the Minister, while referring to a departmental memorandum, did not in fact quote from it. He stated that the memorandum was "statistically insignificant", and added that it indicated a marginal positive increase in employment for 1985 and a marginal negative impact on unemployment for 1986. This, I submit, may be a reference or a paraphrase, but it does not constitute a quotation. Therefore, the Minister is under no obligation to table it as is made clear in Citation 327(3) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which states:
A public document referred to, but not cited or quoted by a Minister, need not be tabled.
Citation 327(5) adds:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.

November 14, 1984
Petitions
I submit that when a Minister uses a document to supply information in replying to a question in the House, the use of that document cannot be construed as an attempt to influence debate. This view is supported by a ruling given by one of my predecessors, Mr. Speaker Jerome, on April 8, 1976, when he said that:
Reference to a document has never been held to apply to a situation in which a Minister has simply been asked a question about a document and given an answer.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain alleged in making his point of order that the Minister cited the memorandum, and I quote the Hon. Member:
-in an effort to influence the debate which is presently taking place in the House of Commons and also to influence the public of Canada in believing that the reference to which he referred was of little consequence.
He went on to say that the questions directed to the Minister were, and I quote:
-very much a part of the ongoing debate in public terms over the relevance and import of the economic statement of the Minister of Finance.
It seems to me that when a Minister is specifically questioned about a document and he refers to that document in the course of his reply, it would be difficult to find that he was attempting to influence debate. Furthermore, Beauchesne's Citation 327(5) applies only to debate in the House and not to debate in the country at large. Using a document to influence the public and using a document to influence debate during debate in the House of Commons are not the same thing, and the authority of the Chair cannot be exercised in relation to the former.
Given all of these circumstances, therefore, 1 must rule that the Minister is not compelled to lay this particular memorandum on the table unless he chooses to do so.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to this House a petition from residents of Leeds-Grenville and elsewhere in Ontario who call upon this House to reinstate capital punishment as a penalty for murder, and to introduce the legislation as quickly as possible.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present a petition to this House on behalf of a number of my constituents from Prince Albert who ask Parliament to reject any proposals in the deregulation of Canada's telephone service. These Canadians are satisfied with the
current telephone service and feel that deregulation would result in poorer and costlier service.
Therefore, the undersigned call upon this Parliament to stop deregulation of the telephone services.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from a number of citizens of Spadina and other parts of Toronto requesting this House to change the Income Tax Act for 1985 so that large corporations will receive tax breaks such as they have received in the past only in proportion to the number of new jobs they have created, and that the number of new jobs created by each corporation, and the tax breaks it receives, will be reported quarterly to Parliament.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-205, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, during recent months we have had some tragic, violent murders in Canada, many committed with the use of firearms. The purpose of this Bill is to strengthen our gun control laws. It is well documented that those states with stricter gun laws have fewer crimes committed with guns. This is a measure to prevent violent crime before it takes place and not after the fact.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 38).
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate you on your election to your high office, and also for keeping a close watch on us during Question Period. I would also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. May I make particular mention of the
November 14, 1984

seconder, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques), who gave a very strong speech, particularly in light of the fact that she is, 1 believe, the youngest Member of this House.
In replying to the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, and in addressing this House for the first time in this Parliament, 1 would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of New Westminster-Coquitlam for returning me to this place and honouring me with their trust and support. I am honoured and proud to continue to serve them.
During the recent election campaign, promises were made by all Parties. We, on our side, promised to represent and fight for the ordinary people of Canada, to fight for fair taxes, equality for women, the preservation of social services, disarmament and peace. We are living up to our promises.
What can we say of the Conservatives and their promises and the way they have lived up to them? Campaigning this summer, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that universal social services for Canada were "a sacred trust that would be maintained by a Conservative Government". Only weeks later we see this Government moving to negotiate and, perhaps, abandon this sacred trust.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), while speaking in my riding during the election campaign, told pensioners that fears that the Conservatives would cut social services was "a lot of garbage" and "over my dead body would they cut them". Dead body or not, it is that Minister who is responsible for a lot of garbage as we see Tory plans for cuts to social services and cuts in her own department now enfolding.
What of fair taxes? During a televised debate with the other two Party leaders, the Prime Minister promised to move to ensure that the wealthiest Canadians, many of whom pay no income tax, would pay tax and "would pay handsomely". We see no promise of that in the Throne Speech, nor indeed in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the other evening.
The Tory list of deception and broken promises is already long, but nowhere is it more shameful than in the broken promises to Canadian women. An early promise by the Prime Minister for contract compliance to achieve affirmative action in firms doing business with the federal Government has been reneged on. Canadian women are still waiting to be paid equally for work of equal value. They are still waiting for increased pensions and for growth and funding in child care. One might argue that all Parties, particularly those which hope to form a government, make a lot of promises which they cannot then keep. However, one cannot accept that something which is a sacred trust one day becomes expendable the next day. What that does, Mr. Speaker, and what causes us the most concern, is this. Far from engendering confidence in Canadian society, the kind of confidence which this Government is talking about engendering, it breeds cynicism. How can the Canadian electorate take a government seriously when on one day it says universality is a sacred trust, and the next day that it is negotiable?
The Address-Ms. Jewett
On jobs, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' deception has been thoroughly addressed by my Leader and other Members of my Party in their remarks. With grand claims to put thousands and thousands of Canadians back to work, to create new jobs and new prosperity, the Conservatives won the support of many Canadians. The Throne Speech gave no substance to these promises and the Minister of Finance buried them unceremoniously last week. The true Tory job policy is really 19th century free market economics.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Make that 18th century.


Pauline Jewett: No, not quite. The famous large-scale monopoly private sector will take care of job creation, just as the Iron Ore Company of Canada has taken care of job creation in Schefferville, and just as B.C. Packers is taking care of jobs on the West Coast.
Now, the kind of initiative the Government could take, and which we have been urging it to take, the kind of initiative the people of Canada expect from their government, could be both direct and indirect support for the forest industry, to take a very important example, and particularly the forest industry in British Columbia. I would like to give one example of the tragedy that is taking place in this industry and in the industries that serve it.
A New Westminster-based supplier of pulp and paper machinery, Lamb-Cargate Industries, a recent casualty of this Government's high interest rate policy, is a key manufacturing industry not only in my riding but in the province and in the country. It is being prevented from competing in our own domestic markets by the high interest rate policy of this Government. Foreign pulp and paper machine manufacturers benefiting from lower interest rates in their own countries, indeed in some cases subsidized interest rates, are winning manufacturing contracts in our own province and country. Lower interest rates, assistance to the forest industry, and real national economic planning, Mr. Speaker, are what Canadians need and expect from the federal Government.
In this Parliament I am proud to continue to speak for my Party on external affairs in general and on Canada's nuclear disarmament and international development assistance policies in particular. I am concerned, indeed alarmed, at the emerging shape of the Government's foreign policy.
Before I address those concerns, let me point out that there are some things upon which all Parties in this House agree. Such unanimity is felt at the time of great loss. The sad and untimely death of Indira Gandhi, the outstanding woman in politics in our time and the leader of the world's largest democracy, is a loss not only to the Indian people; in all corners of this House we share that loss. We are concerned as well with the continuing violence in India, and we have had many moderate members of the Sikh community in this country talk to us about that violence. I would hope that all of us, many of us having East Indian and Sikh constituents, would agree that what is needed is a fact-finding mission on
222

November 14, 1984
The Address-Ms. Jewett
behalf of Parliament to go to India and collect the facts upon which we can then make our judgments about what assistance we can give to the people of India. I would hope it would be an all-party fact-finding mission established within the next few weeks or at most few months.
As I say, on many matters we are in accord. On many more we are not. The shadow of war grows in Central America. The danger of a regional war directly involving the United States is more likely now than ever before. Continuing military conflict, covert war, border attacks and grotesque violations of human rights are the reality in Central America. Despite congressional reprimand and international outcry over the mining of Nicaragua's harbours earlier this year, the Reagan administration continues to escalate its military aggression, economic sabotage and attacks on Nicaragua. This poses a danger not only to Nicaraguan sovereignty and independence but to the rule of international law, the self-determination of a people, initial efforts towards development and democracy, and the peace and stability of the western hemisphere.
Honduras has become militarized by the United States to the point where its fledgling democracy and economy are threatened. In Guatemala, massacres and large-scale human rights violations continue and have been well documented.
What has been this Government's response to the crisis in Central America? First, it has refused to increase our diplomatic and political representation in the region. While haggling goes on about Canada's representation in the winegrowing regions of France, this Government accepts that Canada will have no representation except an occasional monthly call in El Salvador, Honduras or Nicaragua. What that means is that the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, will continue to rely on the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Defence Department and the White House for information on and assessment of this critical region. The Tories are simply continuing an earlier Liberal Minister's policy, that of Mark MacGuigan, of "quiet acquiescence" in Washington's policies on Central America.
Secondly, one of the first foreign policy decisions of this Government was its refusal to send observers to the recent Nicaraguan elections. Although earlier this year Canada had sent official observers to the elections in El Salvador, this Government declined the same courtesy to Nicaragua. The Conservative Government prejudged the process and the outcome of the election and once again acquiesced to Washington's wishes.
Thirdly, the Government has failed Canadians and the cause of peace in Central America in an even more fundamental way. Earlier this year all parties in this House were in agreement that the Contadora group's efforts were the only realistic path to peace in Central America. All parties claimed support for these efforts. In September of this year, when the Contadora foreign ministers presented a proposed peace plan for Central America, the countries of the region expressed approval. Nicaragua in particular, much to the surprise of the United States, agreed to the plan. France and other European nations have endorsed it but the United States, which had
earlier asked for and succeeded in getting certain elements in the peace plan, refused to then support it when Nicaragua accepted it. They said that there were verification problems. What verification problems? France and other countries have not raised this question. The countries in the region, members of the Contadora groups, have not raised this as a problem. Only the Americans are raising it as a problem and this Government, in the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) yesterday, echoing Washington, has begun raising it as a problem.
What this Government does not seem to realize is that Washington has wanted to delay indefinitely implementation of the Contadora peace plan. For proof of this one need go no further than an article in the Washington Post on November 13 which revealed the contents of a paper presented by the National Security Council of the U.S. for an October 30 meeting of that Council at which President Reagan presided. This paper, which to my knowledge has so far been made available only to the Washington Post, credits U.S. foreign policy with success in blocking efforts by Venezuela, Panama, Colombia and Mexico-that is, the Contadora group-to obtain early signing of a proposed regional peace treaty in Central America. It actually states that the United States has been successful in blocking the peace plan.
The paper goes on to say that problems remain in getting the four core contries, that is Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and El Salvador, to agree on a position consistent with U.S. policy against Nicaragua, the fifth potential signatory. There are problems with getting the core countries to agree with the U.S. policy of attacking, undermining and destroying Nicaragua.
In considering its policy vis-a-vis Central America, perhaps the Government will read some of these documents, such as the one I have just quoted from, a document of the U.S. National Security Council, rather than what they are fed by the State Department, Defence Department and White House.
1 believe this is an example of breeding cynicism in our own electorate. Members of the House will recall that when the Prime Minister spoke at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish on September 28 of this year, he said that his "most cherished ambition is to reduce the threat of war and enhance the promise of peace".
But, if the Government is failing Canadians and peace in Central America, it is also failing Canadians in other aspects of the quest for peace, such as the urgent necessity for nuclear disarmament. It is interesting that the Government has chosen two admirable and skilful spokespeople for its policies in this field, not the least of whom is the new Canadian ambassador to the United Nations and indeed the new ambassador for disarmament. While we applaud these choices, if the Government really feels it is essential to go outside of the External Affairs Department, we cannot applaud the policies and actions, or rather inactions, that go with them.
November 14, 1984

The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), speaking at the United Nations on September 25 with regard to aid policy and Canadian development assistance, said that "despite serious economic problems at home, we shall not turn our backs on the world's disadvantaged people". He went on to say: "Our new Government intends to maintain Canada's commitment to reaching .7 per cent of the GNP by 1990 in official development assistance". The Minister of Finance shot that one down in his economic statement, as he shot down the sacred trust of universality. Now the goal is not .7 per cent by 1990, but rather by 1995. This is beginning to sound just like the Liberals. In the early 1970s they had a goal of .7 per cent of GNP for official development assistance. That was consistently lowered to .6, .5 and .43 of 1 per cent of GNP.
Most seriously, will the electorate not again become cynical when our Government says very fine words and then reneges so seriously and damagingly on its promises? What has the Government done in the search for peace in the field of nuclear arms control and disarmament? So far it has not produced any ideas or proposals which would carry Canada and the world forward even a step. In his speech in Vancouver on October 20 the Government had the ambassador for disarmament say that the kind of progress the Government would make in these life and death matters would be inch by inch. In metric that would be centimetre by centimetre or millimetre by millimetre. Indeed, the very title of that speech was to the effect of reaching peace "inch by inch." I am sure that the ambassador was almost embarrassed to have to say this, but of course that is government policy.
The second shocking thing about the Government's policy is that it has totally rejected any unilateral initiatives that Canada can take in the field of nuclear arms control and steps toward disarmament. It has totally rejected our own historical tradition where we have, from time to time, taken unilateral initiatives. It says that those are no longer possible and we cannot take any initiatives on our own as Canadians, whether it is rejecting Cruise missile testing or bringing nations together to promote a nuclear freeze.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's speech has now been concluded. We will proceed to questions and comments. In view of the fact that there are no questions and comments, I would like to call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on the assumption of that very prestigious office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this Government has taken office at a time when our society faces challenges and difficulties. These challenges and difficulties are without parallel in the history of most Canadians. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this Government has taken office to meet those challenges and difficulties because the voters of Canada recognized that the old ideas and ways had reduced our economy to a shambles
The Address-Miss MacDonald and in the process had cost many hundreds of thousands of Canadians their homes, jobs, businesses, dreams, and even their hopes.
It is no wonder that when Canadians went to the polls on September 4 they did indeed vote for change. Hon. Members opposite have acknowledged this. With less than three score and ten of them, they have no alternative but to do so. The message of the electorate was unequivocal. The people of Canada voted for change. They voted for a government that they could believe in again, but they voted for more than that. They voted as well for a government that would believe in
them.
Therefore, I stand in the House today to make my first speech as Minister of Employment and Immigration mindful of the enormous task of rebuilding and reinvigorating that lies ahead of us. However, I am confident that with the strength and belief of the Canadian people behind us we shall succeed in our duty. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we must succeed in that duty. Unemployment of 11.3 per cent, 10 per cent, 9 per cent or 8 per cent is a tragedy that we cannot afford and must not tolerate. We cannot afford its continuing cost in human terms of ruined lives and the despair in many regions which is almost incomprehensible in a land that is so truly great-a land which we all grew up to believe held unlimited possibilities.
But that despair is real. It is the legacy of ministers and cabinets dedicated to the belief that the government-the bigger the better-knows best. It is the result of unilateral policies that promised one thing and delivered another, such as high interest rates, which ruined tens of thousands of businesses, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and in three or four short years left a national debt which is both a millstone and an albatross around our necks.
No, the old ways will not do. They did not work in the past and they will not work in the future. The people of this country do not want them any more. They did indeed vote for change. They voted for a government which will meet the challenges of today and those of tomorrow; a government which will ensure that productive, remunerative, worth-while and prideful work will remain a fundamental element in our daily lives.
As Minister of Employment and Immigration I will accept no less objective. However, I want to emphasize that I do not underestimate the momentous task ahead if we are to achieve this objective. We know today's unemployment only too well. We all label it intolerable or unbearable, as indeed it is. What,
then,	shall we say tomorrow if hundreds of thousands more Canadians were to be left without work and without the skills needed to work because the technological revolution passed them by? What, then, would be the economic and social reality?
Over the past five years those ministers responsible for addressing this challenge either did not recognize it and its dimensions or simply did not care. Today we are paying for that failure and for that indifference. We are starting out already late in the race for the future. If we do not begin to

November 14, 1984
The Address-Miss MacDonald hold our own and to catch up in the next five years, then the race as far as Canada is concerned will be over. We must put Canadians back to work. We must keep Canadians in work.
That requires two objectives. First, we must remove the obstacles to economic growth. We welcome investment. We restore an atmosphere which shows that Canada is once again a good place to do business. We build better, sell better. We manage our own affairs, our own economy above all, in a professional and competent manner. In other words, we build confidence at home and internationally, confidence in Canada itself and in the ability of its people.
This development of economic resources was highlighted by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), last Thursday. I may say that in that one address we heard more sound commonsense on economic matters than we heard in the whole of the previous four and one-half years by all the former Ministers of Finance.
If the first condition we must meet in our quest to create employment for all Canadians is economic development, then the second is the development of our human resources. Indeed, the two are inseparable. Without the skills we cannot fill the jobs and without the jobs in a growing economy we will not create new opportunities.
The world of work is changing. The place of work is changing. In the future, what we do and how we do it may change not just once or twice during our lifetime but over and over again. Skills will not be static. They must be developed and upgraded on a continuing basis. Every working Canadian, young and old, male and female, must expect and indeed accept new training and retraining as part of their working lives.
That is what it is. It is part of our working lives. The era in which we went to school, acquired our skills and then worked 30 or 40 years in the same job is at an end. In the information age that we are rapidly entering, today's skills are but a stepping stone to tomorrow's and not an end in themselves. We, as a society and as individuals, must be prepared to accept this fact and to accept this challenge.
Clearly, it is an enormous undertaking. Some estimates suggest that fully 5 per cent of our annual GNP will eventually be directed to training and retraining. There is no question that the task is huge or that the time is short. Virtually nothing has been done to prepare our society to meet the scope of this challenge of human resource development. However, our Government is determined to make up for lost time.
The enormity and complexity of this task will require the co-operation and determination of all sectors of our society. The old unilateralism just will not work. To meet this challenge, I have already launched a process of consultation. Over the coming months I will meet with provincial ministers, business and labour leaders and with groups from the community. The challenge is common and so must be the solution.
It is obvious why we must consult with the provinces. Basic education, the foundation upon which we prepare for our working lives, rests with the provinces, as does most of our
post-secondary education. The role of community colleges and technological schools is already expanding and will become even more critical in the years ahead.
Training and retraining does not begin and end only in the classroom. The responsibility cannot rest solely with governments. Industry has a vital interest in contributing to a trained labour force. Training will be an ongoing part of work and if industry will share this responsibility government will share the cost of this human investment.
In the future, training and retraining will not be restricted to schools and institutions. It will also take place on the shop floor and in the office. If for no other reason, this would require the participation of organized labour.
Labour has an even greater role to play. The trade union movement in Canada has helped to shape our lives. It will continue to do so as we face the challenges of tomorrow and labour's participation can help ensure that we maximize the opportunities of technological change, be it through better working conditions or a new equality in the workplace.
The goals we are striving for are basic. We must ensure that we have a skilled labour force which can meet the needs of the future. We must stimulate economic growth, a dynamic force for the creation of new job opportunities. We must also ensure equality of opportunity, equality in competition and equality of access to jobs. We have a national challenge and it will take a national commitment to meet it.
The federal Government has signalled its determination to meet our share of this national challenge and national commitment. We have already allocated an additional $1 billion for employment development. But our commitment is to people as well as to providing money. When I talk about investing in people, I think of those groups in our society today who are at a particular economic disadvantage-groups which need a particular commitment.
I should like to mention just three of them: youth, older workers, and women. Youth unemployment is a continuing tragedy. Many young Canadians still lack training and practical experience. They are having trouble getting their first job. They need to prove their worth and their competence. They need to get on with their lives. Dealing with youth unemployment requires more than the random spending of dollars. What happens when our young people leave school? How can we help them make that transition from school to work? What about those who do not go on to post-secondary education?
We are considering a number of options, Sir, which will be set out in a discussion paper on training and which I will be releasing shortly. These include a new emphasis on co-operative education measures and on apprenticeship. Employer-based training is another concept which merits study and consideration. Through the process of consultation and commitment with the other players in our economy, we will find the answers to this critical waste of talent and potential which we see now.
November 14, 1984

Now 1 come to our older workers. Many older Canadians now find that they need new skills in mid-career. These Canadians are still travelling along the old road; that is, school, one career, and then retirement. They have crashed headlong into the future world of work. How do we equip these people for new employment opportunities? How do we keep our work force skilled, current, employed and employable? One avenue which we will explore is that of skill development leave. We also recognize that business must be more involved in training. Training as well for those with special needs should be available if we are to meet our responsibilities to all Canadians. With regard to new employment opportunities, one way to encourage the private sector is through an employment tax credit.
In any discussion of opportunities, Mr. Speaker, there must be an emphasis on what the future means to women. The reality of working women in this country still lags behind the accepted principles of social and economic equality. In this context, I noted this morning's report from the Economic Council of Canada. I am encouraged by the trend that it shows, but we must continue to do much, much more. One cannot be satisfied with the results we saw this morning.
Women need real choices in the future. They should be able to choose both to work and to have children. That is what I mean by real choice. Like all Canadians they must be able to train and to have retraining without suffering economic disadvantages. These are economic realities, and the problem of child care and parental leave are inexplicably linked to the problems of employment for women. But it is not only a so-called women's issue. I cannot emphasize this enough. This is a major employment issue.
The new technologies remove many of the obstacles, real or imaginary, to women. For the first time a revolution in the workplace has occurred which does not impose any physical barriers. In fact, some of the skills that have kept women in low-paying jobs will now be tickets to new opportunities. The computer managed world is one which I think can be of some immense help to women. For women to make the most of it, training opportunities must be expanded as access to the new machines increases. The age of the microchip is still young. For women, I think this is a critical opportunity.
Future prosperity will not be achieved easily, Sir. It never has been, but it is achievable. With the mobilization of our economic and human resources, with a shared sense of purpose and a shared responsibility, we can and we will attain it. The process has begun. The consultations on which I am embarking this month will lay the groundwork for a new atmosphere of mutual trust and co-operation. While they apply in particular to the provinces, I have five objectives clearly before me.
First, to remove obstacles to employment growth and to promote mobility in a growing labour market.
Second, to develop approaches to training which are capable of providing the skills and flexibility required in the years ahead. It is especially critical that we apply this philosophy to small business, the powerhouse of today's employment growth.
The Address-Miss MacDonald
Third, to simplify federal programs and wherever possible to harmonize them with the efforts of the provinces.
Fourth, to ensure equitable access to training and employment opportunities for all Canadians.
Fifth, to reach a consensus on fair sharing of responsibilities between the federal Government and the provinces and our economic and social partners.
These consultations are critical to our development of a workable co-operative training and employment creation strategy. That is what I am aiming for, Mr. Speaker.
But we will also act immediately when obvious need confronts us. The $430 million I have already allocated for Canada Works this winter is an example of such action today. The $1 billion this Government has allocated to employment and human resource development signals our determination to meeting our commitments tomorrow.
The creation of an effective employment strategy for Canada is long overdue. Our need for such a strategy becomes even more critical with every passing day. We are entering a new era in work, a new era in living itself. Our success depends upon our own intelligence and indeed upon our resourcefulness and our willingess to work together.
As a government we have a faith in the future, undiminished by the magnitude of the task and the challenge that confronts us because we know Canadians will work together to accomplish these goals.
All of us share a common tomorrow, and I believe we all share common hopes of that tomorrow. We are all social and economic partners. Our purpose is to secure prosperity for all Canadians. This is the vote for change that was recorded on September 4, and I am optimistic we shall achieve it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We shall now proceed to the period allotted for questions and comments. I would like to recognize Members in the following order: the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford); the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom); the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi); the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker); and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). After that, we will see if there is time to recognize any other members in the ten-minute period.


Mr. Clifford:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey my congratulations to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) for working out such wide-sweeping plans for this most serious problem in our country today. I was pleased to note that the pricey plethora of patchwork programs that has been imposed upon Canadians in the past is going to end.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

November 14, 1984
The Address-Miss MacDonald


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: -the source of most unemployment, which is at the secondary school level can the Minister clarify what she is going to do to keep young people in school-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) is rising on a point of order.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, it is understood that the ten-minute period for questions is usually reserved for Opposition Parties, and if Opposition Members do not have questions, then I think it is legitimate for Members of the Party to which the Member who has spoken belongs to ask questions. I would think the other two Parties should have their chance first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's point of order is not well founded. Questions and comments are permitted for every Member in the House. The Hon. Member for London-Middlesex has the floor.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, I think I actually completed my question to the Minister. However, in summary, could she elaborate on whether there are any plans in these programs to react to a source of unemployment, that source being students at the secondary school level?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is an area which has a great many unemployed people in that age group. In announcing the Youth Training Option Program, I said that it was to be used as a pilot project. We will be looking at the results of that pilot project. However, that pilot project and the manner in which it was announced indicated that the other partners in a youth training plan had previously been left out. I am talking about the provinces which must have a direct input into education leading to further training and to jobs. Through the course of the next few months of intensive consultation, I will be discussing with the provinces, the educational system and the private sector a much larger plan as to how employment for those coming out of secondary school can be addressed and training plans initiated.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak loudly enough. First I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. I think she is the right kind of person in that Party to be in that portfolio, being a so-called red Tory.


An Hon. Member:: Time will tell.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Time will tell. In any event, I appreciate the emphasis she placed upon retraining, mobility and so on. Arising out of that, I should like to ask her one or two questions about the statement of last week. In the blue book entitled "Expenditure and Program Review" we notice that there was a total cancellation of the General Industrial Training Program of some S40 million. If the Minister is interested in retraining people, why would she cancel that program before any other program is put in its place? I could see it if
she was bringing in a new program that might be an improvement to the Liberal program; that is not difficult to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why did the Minister cancel that program before there was something else in its place?
My second question concerns a reference in that book indicating that she is planning on doing something. Could the Minister illustrate what the new program will be?
My last question deals with mobility. The Minister has talked a lot about mobility. However, I notice in this book that she is cutting back on the mobility program by $2.8 million. Why is she doing that in the age of high-tech and the information society when people have to be more mobile than ever before? It seems to me that the Minister is saying one thing and doing the other.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in addition to other recipes I will try to find a recipe for the Hon. Member's laryngitis. Perhaps I could help him out.
He dealt with two questions in particular, the first one being the General Industrial Training Program. That program had not lived up to its expectations. It was not providing the right kind of training. We have analysed it. We feel that in that sense there are many more effective ways to carry out retraining. However, I should like to tell the Hon. Member that any contracts or agreements presently in force will continue. There will be no cancellation for anyone who is in a training program at the present time.
With regard to the mobility program, we have made adjustments in that program. We have altered it to avoid cases where persons coming in from other communities could take jobs and where unemployed people in the community were bumped out of their place in the line. We have altered it so that those people who are unemployed in local communities will have the first chance at jobs.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What kind of program is the Minister planning to introduce in place of that $40 million General Industrial Training Program which she cancelled? This is referred to in that blue book, but there are no details.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There are no details. I want to assure the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members that in the process of consultation which begins later this month I have not set on the table the answers I want to see come out at the end of three months of consultation. We will be negotiating meaningfully with labour organizations, women's groups, the private sector and the provinces. I do not go to them saying: "These are the details of the programs I want to see at the end". I really want input and co-operation from all sectors.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister on her very important appointment. In her speech she referred to youth unemployment as being a tragedy. I agree with her. Seeing that students can only work a few months per year during the summer holidays, could the Minister tell us whether
November 14, 1984

she feels-like the Tories have said-that the Summer Canada Program for students was a band-aid program? It was abolished by her Government.
Was it the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) who suggested that it be abolished or was it the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald)? What does the Minister have in mind as a program to replace this Summer Canada Program for students?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for his question. If he looked at the documents which were released the other night along with the economic statement, I am sure he would see that there was another part to the cancellation of the Summer Canada Program. There was an undertaking that there would be other programs in place. As the Hon. Member knows, we have set aside some $1 billion for new job-creation opportunities. We want to co-ordinate our efforts for next summer and indeed beyond that with our provincial counterparts and with the private sector.
I assure the Hon. Member that these programs will be worked out within the next few months and that there will be programs in place for next summer. I want to assure the Hon. Member, all other Hon. Members and the young people of the country of that.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I had another question for the Minister, but in light of the statement she just made, I should like to indicate that there are vast areas in the country where there is no private enterprise-none, not even a McDonald's. These are high unemployment areas. The only way that someone leaving high school can attend university or trade school is through direct job creation by one of the two governments. Certain provinces in Canada, such as the Province of Newfoundland, have no direct job-creation program for students. That is the only way a student can further his or her education or return to school the following year.
Is the Minister now saying definitely that there will be a direct job-creation program by government for students next summer to replace the one which was just discontinued by the Government? The question is straightforward. It has nothing to do with private enterprise because many of these areas have no private enterprise. These are the poor about whom I am talking now, not students of rich families. I am asking the Minister point blank: Is she saying definitely that there will be a direct job-creation program for students administered by government next summer?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very well aware that there are disadvantaged areas and disadvantaged groups of people throughout this country. I think we have already shown our good intent in this regard by announcing some $430 million in direct job-creation programs for this winter. That is job-creation projects that were not placed on the books by the previous Liberal Government. They simply were not there.
I want to assure the Hon. Member with regard to next summer that we are going to be working out these programs
The Address-Mrs. Champagne during consultations throughout the next three months. I do not intend to announce today what the outcome of those consultations will be, but I can assure the Hon. Member that there will be programs in place for the summer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The last question by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same Minister. The announcement was for $430 million Canada Works funds. Will the Minister indicate to the House whether that is over a two-year period or if it is just for one fiscal year, 1985-86? Second, she makes mention of the $1 billion fund for job creation in training. In answering this question, will she say whether or not the National Training Act, which we instituted, is going to be done away with and can she give a firm date as to when the $1 billion will be disbursed and how it will be disbursed? She makes mention of discussion and consultation, but the Canadian people would like to know when that announcement is made how the money will be disbursed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, can I perhaps take the questions in reverse order. The $1 billion and the announcement thereof will certainly not be made until we have carried out the consultations with the other partners in the process. That is really what it is all about. I am hoping that these consultations will be carried out within a period of three months. That is what I am looking toward. I cannot tell the Hon. Member definitely at this point that they will all be completed by then, but that is generally the target.
The second part of the question had to do with the National Training Act. I have been in discussion with my provincial colleagues, the persons responsible for having signed the agreements on behalf of the provinces under the National Training Act. We have agreed jointly to the extension of the National Training Act for one year so that consultations can take place over that which will extend the National Training Act and make any modifications or changes to it that are seen to be needed.
With regard to Canada Works, that is for this winter. It began, of course, in 1984-85. The tail of it has to run over into the next fiscal year. That is because some of the projects which will probably be underway or getting underway January 1 will not be completed until into that next fiscal year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I would like to recognize the next speaker-

-the Hon. Minister of State (Youth) and Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: First I would like to thank my fellow Members, who irrespective of their political affiliation, offered their congratulations on my

November 14, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Champagne appointment as Minister of State for Youth. I can assure them of my full co-operation and dedication. I appreciate their support, Mr. Speaker, especially since I will need it to fulfil the mandate I have been given by the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to help the young people of this country.
I also wish to say a word of thanks to the people of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot for their trust in electing me on September 4. 1 want them to understand that despite my ministerial responsibilities, I will certainly be available to my constituents. I have also become a member of the rural caucus of my Party in order to serve the farmers in my riding more effectively.
I was very pleased that my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), announced that the increase in the price of gas will not apply to the gas farmers' need for their operations and that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) informed us recently that the Farm Credit Corporation would be stopping most of its recovery activities until next January 15.
My responsibilities as Minister of State for Youth will be exercised within the parameters by which my mandate is defined. 1 shall get back to these as soon as I have indicated the key points of my speech. These reponsibilities arise from the high priority placed by the Prime Minister on youth, a priority that will remain, despite budgetary restrictions that have become absolutely necessary as a result of the financial situation left by the previous Government.
The support every one of us has shown for youth is a good sign. In fact, this support will make it possible for us to approach 1985, designated by the United Nations as International Youth Year, in a spirit of co-operation and enthusiasm. [English]
On September 4, the Canadian people clearly indicated their profound desire for a new approach. The Government has understood this message. We must all take it into account. [Translation]
I think it was Picasso who said that it takes a long time to grow young. The problem is that young people do not have time to wait. At a time when words are often more powerful than ideas, they would not understand, nor would the rest of Canada, if we wasted our time.
My philosophy is one of optimism and realism. My optimism is tempered by reason and arises from my experience with young people, starting with my own children. This common sense optimism leads me to believe, for instance, that the majority of young people who succeed in our society can, through appropriate activities, have a beneficial effect, a snowball effect as it were, on young people who are less fortunate.
My approach to Canadian youth which, I might add, is more to be envied than pitied, generally speaking, as I realized not long ago at the Conference of ministers for youth and
sports from French-speaking countries, held in Gabon my approach will, I hope, be a common sense one.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the conference I just mentioned, 1 am pleased to announce, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina), that Canada will be hosting this conference in 1987. In Libreville the news was welcomed with enthusiasm by all participating countries.

I know my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), will agree with me when I say that in programs aimed at solving youth unemployment, for example, we must discard the shortsighted formulae and those that fail to take into account the training and work experience already acquired by those involved.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), reminded us the other day in his eloquent statement that we must attack the roots of the problems facing us and not just the symptoms. Let me add that we will devote our efforts to co-ordinating our activities on behalf of Canadian youth with those of the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector. We will do everything in our power to make our programs compatible with the long-term development programs of the various regions of Canada.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I intend to realize these projects as part of the mandate I have been given by the Prime Minister. At the Department of the Secretary of State, I am responsible for co-ordinating the national activities program within the framework of International Youth year and for acting as a spokesperson for youth and for those who work with young people within the Government and Cabinet.
I accept this mandate with enthusiasm. I fully intend to be the spokesperson for young people. I will actively promote their interests and aspirations in the preparation of the Government's political orientations and strategies. I am already committed to that policy. If I am to fulfil that role properly, however, I must also speak to young people on behalf of the Canadian Government. I am anxious to listen to them and learn more about their problems and their achievements. I want to make them see me as a privileged spokesperson who will uphold their viewpoints and aspirations. I want to establish a close relationship with them, with their associations, with the organizations which serve them and with their major social partners in the private and public sectors.
Overly concerned about seeking solutions to their own problems, adults are often wont to forget young people and to leave them on their own. Those young people must regain their rightful role in the activities and the conduct of the affairs of our society. Where there is no such role, they must create one, and it is up to us to help them. Young people have every right to education, employment and decent living conditions. They must have adequate means at their disposal to ensure personal
November 14, 1984

development and take part in the development of their community. It is imperative that they have their say in the decisionmaking process which involves them and has an impact on them. Those last three objectives are priorities for me and they will be the focus of my efforts in the coming months.
Youth in Canada today are really no different from their predecessors, even though living conditions have changed. Young people have always demonstrated their creative and innovative potential and have always played an essential role in the constant adjustments which our societies must make in order to adapt to new realities. In this way, they represent an active and positive force. Their unstinting contribution to society's institutions has two important benefits. On the one hand, it enriches the institutions and pushes them toward renewal; on the other hand, it represents one of the most fundamental investments in their future.
Youth's achievements are often more easily recognized in the highly visible areas of the arts, culture, sports and politics. Yet in the past they have contributed directly to our economic institutions, particularly in areas which have become central today, such as advertising, communications and high technology.
Young people represent a significant portion of our society. Almost one person in five is between the ages of 15 and 24. They generally enjoy good health and a physical condition that compares favourably with that of youth in a number of developed countries. They are more educated than they were in the past and benefit from the positive aspects of our age of communications. However, young people are affected by the insecurities, difficulties and restrictions facing our society as a whole. At a time when they are making plans for their future and the search for personal autonomy is a constant concern, all young people are extremely sensitive to the precariousness of world peace, the vagaries of the current economic situation and the significant shift in social values and behaviour.
Young people today are under an unprecedented amount of stress. For some, it becomes a source of innovation, exceptional achievement and excellence. For others, it is a source of serious problems that lead to isolation, use of drugs and alcohol, delinquency and even suicide.
A large minority of young people do not have equal opportunities to earn an income, nor equal access to jobs and training. Poverty is widespread among young people. As well, unemployment and underemployment among youth are particularly serious as they affect young people's confidence in themselves and their abilities.
Adults and especially our major political, social and economic institutions can do much for young people who are in difficulty. However, I believe that young people can do a great deal for themselves if they are given the means to gain a better self-understanding, to help each other and to use their knowhow and creativity to improve their circumstances.
The Address-Mrs. Champagne
Young people are not a homogeneous group. They are not as readily identifiable with specific ideological and political trends as they were in the past. They are students, workers, entrepreneurs and unemployed people. They live in urban centres and remote areas. They are men, women, natives, disabled and people of different ethnic origins. However, a single important characteristic unites them. Having lived in a state of dependence on their families and social institutions, they are beginnig, and in many cases completing, their transition to personal autonomy. At age 15, 98 per cent of young people live with their parents, while the proportion is only 65 per cent at age 20 and 23 per cent at age 24. The transition to personal autonomy is crucial for young people and for society because it shapes the way in which youth participate in society, now and in the future.
Youth form a unique pool of human resources in a society and this alone is reason to pay special attention to their development and to potential obstacles to it.

I was saying, Mr. Speaker, my philosophy is based on optimistic realism. Any society must be particularly attentive to every new generation of young people. The vigour, the health and the future of any endeavour, whether industrial or cultural, can be judged by the quality and the commitment of those who bring new blood to it. The same is true for a society. I invite my colleagues and every Canadian to look at our youth from that point of view.
There are two other principles underlying my actions: one is a sense of equity and the other a search for excellence. All young people do not have the same potential. However, every youth must have all the opportunities to develop his own potential fully whether rich or poor, male or female, native or immigrant, and so on. Moreover, as a social group, young people must not be viewed as a separate class entitled to fewer rights. For instance, it is no more acceptable to pay a young person less than the minimum wage for his or her work than it would be an adult.
On the other hand, young people must yearn for excellence in their field of activity. Youth is by nature idealistic. This idealism must be encouraged, especially when it leads to creativity, challenge and excellence. These are the major principles underlying my action plan, which is threefold.
First, I shall continue to get involved with young people, with the groups representing them and with our social partners for the purpose of listening to their projects and discussing them, whether they be their own or whether they be carried out by governments or the private sector. My involvement will make it possible for me to examine existing means of action, especially in the various federal departments and agencies. I shall see what they entail and check, in cooperation with my Cabinet colleagues, to what extent they can meet the needs of our young people and how their efficiency can be improved. I shall also identify with them present shortcomings and the

November 14, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Champagne possibility of taking new initiatives to help young people help themselves.
Finally, 1 shall continue to hold bilateral meetings with my counterparts in the provinces and the territories, who are responsible for youth-related matters. I shall attempt to define with them the objectives which we can share and to ensure the relevance and complementary nature of our programs.
Finally, I will endeavour to ascertain whether there is any unnecessary duplication of our respective endeavours. I will therefore be in a position during 1985, the International Youth Year, to put forward specific proposals. They will serve as the basis for long-term planning for the young and will truly help enhance their involvement in all sectors of our society.
The International Youth Year is indeed a unique opportunity for youth to strengthen their self-image and potential, to pave the way for future generations. For us adults, it is a privileged period for improving our awareness of the youth fact, to communicate with them and to foster their integration into society.
I specifically and cordially urge all our young people and all those who are interested in them to take an active part in the celebration of the International Youth Year.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that if I seem to dwell upon the young people who are doing all right, I also care for the minority of young people-a minority that is always too large, whatever their numbers-who are facing tremendous difficulties. I have in mind the young unemployed, the young faced with poverty, whether they are workers or students, the young whose emotional ties with their families have been severed, those who are withdrawn within themselves and have lost all hope of better days ahead. They deserve special and first hand attention, because without minimum standards a person cannot grow and fully contribute to society. Were we then to stress the lot of these young people only, this might have negative effects, discouraging the young, making them over-conscious of the obstacles confronting them, leading them to ignore the enormous potential of youth generally, with or without problems. This might emphasize short-term solutions rather than solutions that extend in the future, or create a ghetto for the young people whose problems frighten the adult population and deepen the generation gap. This is why, in my view, an approach to youth must also set aside an important place for their creative achievements and contribution. A youth policy must address all of the young, and increase the potential of each and every one.
To summarize, I see my role at various, closely related levels. First, I definitely intend to strive during the International Youth Year to look for solutions that can improve living conditions for all our young people. In that sense, it is my belief that most young people who succeed will help the less privileged within their rank. Second, as Minister of State for Youth, I am committed to direct all of my energy to influencing federal policy orientations pertaining to social, political, cultural and economic activities affecting Canadian youth.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: Questions, comments.
Questions or comments. I would like to recognize the following Hon. Members, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall); the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong); the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez); the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie); and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), in that order.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate the Minister on her remarks. I would like to say how happy I was to hear those remarks because they were made with some degree of conviction. However, during the election campaign, the Leader of the Minister's Party promised "jobs, jobs, jobs", and I believe the Canadian youth responded to that and voted en masse for the Conservative Party. However, the Minister ought to know that it was revealed by StatsCanada that there are 600,000 young people unemployed. There are another 300,000 young people who are "officially unemployed" but who have not reported this to StatsCanada. Therefore, we are looking at crisis proportions, Mr. Speaker, with 900,000 young people unemployed.
My question to the Minister is: Notwithstanding her conviction to see something realized for young people in this country, does she not believe, as I do, that there is a credibility gap? On the one hand, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promises jobs-on page 9 of the Throne Speech there is mention of jobs-and on the other hand, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) cuts out most of the programs for Employment and Immigration. When will the young people of this country see some concrete, substantive action as opposed to more studies, dialogue and deliberation with the private sector?
I suggest to the Hon. Minister that young people want jobs; they do not want rhetoric!


Andrée  Champagne: May I say that I am somewhat disappointed, Mr. Speaker; I felt that since he appeared to listen to my remarks and to understand my deep convictions in this regard, my hon. friend would have been satisfied. I indicated very clearly in my speech that I would serve as the spokesperson for youth in the Cabinet and indeed I am the spokesperson for youth-related issues in the government.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Hon. Member that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) answered his question just a few minutes ago and that employment programs are her responsibility.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on her speech. Indeed, if I were handing out
November 14, 1984

awards, it would receive a very excellent rating because it is very rhetorical. Her speech contained some very lovely, high-flown phrases which mean absolutely nothing. The Minister says she will use the International Year of Youth in order to try to bring about a better understanding of the problems of youth internationally. However, can the Minister tell me what her role was when all the consultation over there was going on to eliminate what looks to me like a very interesting program called "The Young Workers' Exchange Program"? This was to allow international exchanges for young people.
If there is one thing we need in this country, and in this world, it is better understanding among peoples. One of the places we should start is with young people. I do not want a Pontius Pilate washing of the hands answer that the Minister is going to be a spokesperson. I want to know what voice the Minister had in the consultation. Did she demand from her colleagues that they ought not to eliminate what appears to be a pretty creative kind of program?
Second, all of these studies are now showing, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great correlation between unemployment and juvenile offences. This can all be related back to the fact that young people are not receiving the kind of dignity of being employed in jobs for which they feel they are gifted or in jobs they would like to do. How can the Minister responsible for youth sit there, Mr. Speaker, and wash her hands, saying she will only be a spokesperson? Can this Minister say what she is going to do within her Cabinet to get some of these programs, like the $85 million for the Summer Canada Program, into place before there are any more changes?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that I am talking to deaf people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrée  Champagne: I will try changing languages and perhaps that will help. As far as the exchange program is concerned, yes, we discussed it in Cabinet and found that some cuts had to be made, and part of that program was cut. He may ask for some more details of the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) under whom this program comes.


Carlo Rossi: You should know about it.


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


Andrée  Champagne: As far as employment is concerned, I think again the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) answered the Hon. Member. I said in my speech, and I repeat, that my main responsibility right now is with the International Youth Year, and again in doing what I have done, maybe not always all that I wanted with all my heart to do, I had to agree, as did every single Minister, to some cuts somewhere because of the financial state in which we were left. Every sector had to be cut, mine included.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mrs. Champagne


Douglas Jung: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate the Minister on her very important appointment. The youth of this country are surely our most important asset and resource. I think every Member of this House agrees that there are some very serious problems facing young people today.
I must say that poor Pablo Picasso must be turning in his grave hearing himself quoted by a Conservative Member. But poor Mr. Picasso is gone and will not be able to rise and object. I am interested in the statement of the Minister in which she described herself as the spokesperson for youth in the Government. I am interested in what her position is on some of the issues of concern to young people, particularly funding for higher education.
As the Minister knows, there has been ongoing conflict between federal and provincial levels of government on how transfer payments for post-secondary education have been used for other purposes, such as building highways, by the provinces. In the last session, the Opposition Conservative Party moved a motion requesting the federal government to monitor how the provinces spent the money allocated for this purpose. Does the Minister believe the provinces should be held accountable for the money they receive from the federal Government for post-secondary education? Will she express these views vigorously in Cabinet?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made it very clear that all those subjects will be touched on during the meetings with the premiers of the provinces.

Certainly these are some of the subjects to be discussed at the meetings which we have scheduled for next week in Quebec and other provinces. I suggest that, together with the provinces and following consultations, the Secretary of State will be able to reply more conclusively.


Douglas Jung: You are the spokesperson, what is your position?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for a short, succinct question, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with a spokesperson like the Minister young people do not need enemies, because she has failed time and time again in Cabinet to defend those things which are worth defending. Where was the Minister when the Government decided to freeze the Canada Student Loan Plan at present levels? Given the situation in which students find themselves, where was she then? Does she sit outside the door during Cabinet meetings or does she say nothing when she is there?


Andrée  Champagne: The Hon. Member is well aware that this program has not been cut.

November 14, 1984
The Address-Mr. Malepart


An Hon. Member:: Yes it has.


Andrée  Champagne: It has not been cut. Let me tell the Hon. Member that we are merely maintaining the amount which may be paid each week to the same level as last year. Where did the money go? The Hon. Member should ask his fellow Opposition Members!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now expired.

Before I recognize the next Member, may I bring to the attention of Hon. Members that earlier today during Routine Proceedings under the heading "Introduction of Bills", the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) introduced a Private Members' Public Bill to amend the Criminal Code. The seconder of that motion was stated as being the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I have since been informed that the seconder of the motion was in fact the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). The record of Parliament will reflect this change.
I would now like to recognize the Hon. Member for Mont-real-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as most Members of this House have already done, I wish to congratulate you and your colleagues on your respective appointments. I would like to start my speech by thanking the people of Sainte-Marie for giving me a third mandate to represent their riding in the Parliament of Canada. Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to give them the assurance that I shall continue, as I have done in the past, to work together with the groups in my riding to improve the quality of life of my constituents.
As far as youth is concerned, despite the cuts made by the Conservative government in a number of programs that were not merely needed but desperately needed by the young people in my riding, I can assure them that in conjunction with the Action jeunesse office I set up myself in my riding, we shall continue to increase the number of services offered to these young people. These services include teaching them how to find that first job if only this government would stop raising unemployment; how to find out which subjects to take in high school; and we are also offering various kinds of recreational services.
As far as senior citizens are concerned, they may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that as in the past, I will be organizing an annual seminar or meeting with all those responsible for taking care of senior citizens, while senior citizens themselves will have an opportunity to attend a meeting and find out about the various programs being offered by all levels of government to help this segment of our population to provide various services appropriate to their needs. I find this is also an opportunity to consult them, to find out about their concerns, and the Government has asked us ... You may be sure that on
February 15, I will have a meeting to inform these people about what the Government intends to do about the universality of old age pensions.
Mr. Speaker, although this Government unfortunately found it necessary to make cuts in subsidized housing, I intend to continue, with the co-operation of municipal and provincial representatives, to ensure that low-cost housing will be built in my riding, as well as co-operative housing projects to meet the needs of families, the handicapped and senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I also want my constituents to know that right after September 4, with a community group from my area, we set up an organization that will provide advice and assistance for tenants in my riding who are faced with unreasonably high rent increases by a few landlords who are only interested in land speculation. These people may rest assured that they now have an organization that will defend their rights.
As for my role in the House of Commons, I can assure my constituents of Sainte-Marie that when the government introduces satisfactory legislation meeting their needs and expectations, I will support them. On the other hand, if programs, legislation and regulations detrimental to low or average income citizens are introduced, I will oppose them strongly and make sure that the government is fair in trying to meet their needs.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to refer to the throne speech. I believe, as you and most members in this House do, Mr. Speaker, that everybody was disappointed with that speech. After 20 years in the opposition, many seminars and conventions and the setting up of many committees, I thought, like the new Conservative members, that the Progressive Conservative Party would waste no time and have specific programs ready since they made so many promises and commitments. What do we find in the throne speech? Nothing. There is nothing for a million and a half unemployed, no specific measure for the young or for consumers, nothing about the housing policy, for single parent families, for farmers or fishermen and nothing about pension reform.
Why did Canadians vote for changes? They did so because hon. members opposite had led us to believe that there would be changes for the better, but they are for the worse. It is they who have deceived the public and not the other way around.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows and all the polls show that Canadians believe the major problem in Canada is unemployment. However, the major problem for business leaders and high finance is the deficit. Who did the Conservatives listen to? They listened to the big wigs, the VIPs; and gave priority to the deficit. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the party opposite ever intended to create jobs.
I have leafed through the throne speech, and I found it interesting in two places. When I read that the Government would organize a tripartite summit attended by labour,
November 14, 1984

consumer and employer representatives, 1 thought that they would finally be able to discuss solutions to the unemployment problem. Not at all. It says in the speech that they will be meeting to determine how the few workers who are left can become more productive. The major purpose of this meeting is not to sit down and discuss how to reduce unemployment. Such a meeting could have provided an opportunity to consider using early retirement to help reduce unemployment. Those involved could have considered using unemployment insurance funds to allow 60-year old workers to retire and make room for young people or for those looking for a job. They could have studied the union recommendations for shorter work week to create more jobs. They could also have discussed work-sharing and many other suggestions. However, the first item on the agenda is the economy and how to reduce the deficit. There is only one good thing in the throne speech, and it seems that this Government is unable to do things to the full even when it tries to do well. I am referring to the spouse's allowance for widows and widowers between 60 and 64. What 1 do not understand, is why single people are penalized. Why discriminate against single pensioners? Why penalize pensioners who are separated or divorced? Why did the Government decide to do so?
1 believe that the Minister should have done something for all of pensioners between the ages of 60 and 64 who live alone whether they are widows or widowers, single, separated or divorced, because they all have needs. 1 trust that he will because I have confidence in the Minister. In fact 1 believe that only one or two members of the Cabinet will defend low-income citizens because all the others belong to the financial establishment.
Mr. Speaker, I always maintain that a picture is worth a thousand words, that a cartoon speaks for itself. Just what is the Speech from the Throne? Well, I have here a cartoon featured in the November 6 Journal de Montreal which shows the Governor General reading the Speech from the Throne. It is a blank piece of paper, and that is what people think of the Speech from the Throne.
And now, the mini-budget. If we keep in mind the promises and commitments of this Government, what does it contain? Higher taxes, fewer jobs, more unemployment, more lay-offs, and 2 cents more for a litre of gas.
When I saw the election results in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, I told myself that we had a champion of gas station operators, the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) who took up the fight of small gas station operators against the multinationals. I thought that the Government would at least have one man to speak up for low-income people. However, I saw him rise and praise the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for increasing prices!
What is going on, Mr. Speaker? What is going on? I saw him on TV not so long ago when he said that the multinationals would be cut down to size. He was the one who was cut down to size in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. 1 have heard that he got
The Address-Mr. Malepart
into a new business and bought a Mr. Muffler franchise. He got a contract to muffle 57 Quebec members.
Mr. Speaker, who will pay the increase in unemployment insurance benefits and various services made available by the government? The consumers will. Let us now have a look at the cuts. We should never forget that this government has promised jobs, jobs, jobs. What have they done for our youth? First, the student loans program for students, a rather negligible program, will be reduced by 5 million dollars. The minister has just referred to that and said that it will remain at the same level as last year. But indexation of income tax tables for the rich will be maintained. To do otherwise would be shameful. Students are not rich so they will remain at the same level as last year. School fees as well as transportation costs will not be increased any way, despite the increase in oil prices. However, the Exchange Program for Young Workers is not really important, so it will be abolished and so will the Summer Youth Employment Program with a budget of $85 million because it is unimportant.
Mr. Speaker, I woulk like to read into the record a letter from the chairwoman of the school committee of a polyvalente school in my constituency concerning Summer Canada projects. I quote:
Dear Mr. Malepart:
Having read newspaper reports on cuts in Summer Canada projects for the coming year, I want to tell you that I am shocked by the Government's decision to cancel those projects. Having done volunteer work as member of a school committee over the years, 11 years to be specific, I can say that a good many of our students have been able to attend Cegeps or universities through such projects, which allow them, within a short period of time, to earn the money they need to pay for their registration, textbooks and transportation over a certain period. I would therefore ask you to forward to whomever it may concern our representations for the continuation of Summer Canada projects. Because with the current high unemployment and uncertain future opportunities, we deem it important that the people in this constituency, mostly young people, keep on hoping by furthering their studies. I want to emphasize that as a parent I have done volunteer coordination work for 34 young people working on projects and if 1 had to go through that experience again I would do so, because I can say that, had they not worked this summer most of them would have had to stay home in September because their parents could not afford the cost of attending Cegep or university. It is my hope that the decision is not final. Expecting good news for our students and parents, I am.
Yours truly,
Micheline Mathieu Chairwoman
Home and School Committee Polyvalente Pierre Dupuy
So much for what has been done for our young people.
Let us turn now to our workers. A moment ago, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) emphasized the importance for people who are 55 years old to adapt to technical changes through manpower training. That is all very well, but given that the available resources have been cut by some $40 million, she could have dispensed with that speech. Some $40 million less for on-the-job manpower training! Some $300 million less for unemployment insurance

November 14, 1984
The Address-Mr. Malepart
benefits! They have found someone who could collect $600 in unemployment benefits for a couple weeks. Fancy that! The executioner from Treasury Board said: It is outrageous! Let's save this amount for the presidents of our major banking establishments. It does not make sense.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister brags about consultation, even in that field. A company in my riding sought the agreement of the union and decided that, instead of laying off 60 employees among those with little seniority, it would urge workers aged 55 or more to take early retirement, and it offered them a cash settlement for leaving their jobs, in addition to allowing them to draw benefits from the private pension plan. But with the new measure, those people stand to lose $12,000, so they are quite reluctant now. As a result, young employees with little or no seniority will be laid off, yet 126 people had willingly agreed to go on early retirement. That is just another senseless measure taken by this Government.
When it comes to housing, Mr. Speaker, social housing does not weigh heavily in the balance.
In the City of Montreal and surrounding areas, some 15,000 applicants are waiting to move into low rental units, $9.6 million. Residential rehabilitation: the RRAP program had gained wide acceptance throughout Quebec, but all the Conservative Members from Quebec rose to cheer. 1 can hardly wait to see them face to face with the mayors. I can hardly wait to hear what they will reply when the mayors say that rehabilitation is fine, but who is going to pay for it? The people will pay, or else the city will be left with slums because this Government has decided to shelve that program.
The Minister responsible for housing sent us a press release full of statistics about the decline in rental housing starts. True, he said, we will look into that, it is important, the situation is deteriorating. He did look into it-he cancelled the program and withdrew $7.8 million. Who wants a press release! But that is not all, those cuts are only part of the picture. Quebec Members from the Lac-Saint-Jean region are aware of the $80.5 million cut in the Natural Gas Laterals Program. I can just see them telling their constituents that they support that. Then there are projects in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, in the riding of Lotbiniere, $4.9 million, and the Members . . . The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) tells me that they have been consulted. Fair enough, cut those programs out, there is no unemployment in our ridings.
And now, the National Capital Region. The National Capital Commission had several projects, but it so happens that the projects which have been dropped were in Quebec. The Members from the Quebec side of the Ottawa River rose and cheered, Mr. Speaker.
Another $3.5 million .. . The Vieux-Port in Montreal, the marina in Chicoutimi, VIA Rail cuts, all those projects were slated for the western part of Montreal and would have created jobs. Mr. Speaker, I fully expect that certain Members will wake up at the next caucus, because the people will give them an earful. I referred earlier to the cartoons dealing with the minibudget or the Throne Speech. I have another one with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), above the caption: Ladies and gentlemen . . . and showing knives stuck in ail the various expenditures the Government has decided to slash.
Concerning commitments, I would have understood that that party could not implement all its promises; this is normal. They could have done so over four years. But the shame of it is, they did the exact opposite of what they had promised. I would like to quote from an article by Gilbert Lavoie published in La Presse in 1979. 'From an about-face to another, election promises are made to be broken, said John Crosbie'. He is a Tory, and I am happy to see Quebec Members say: 'Yes, 1 fooled the people at home and I am happy.'
The Mulroney Government is no exception to the rule. It reneged on universality for social programs, which was held as a sacred trust by the Prime Minister during the election campaign but they are now preparing to throw that overboard. Mr. Mulroney and his ministers have tried to rebut the charge of reneging on one of their election promises; only, they forgot to agree between themselves on how to explain that. The Prime Minister admitted during a news conference that he promised not to tamper with universality, but he denied having reneged on his word, saying he was merely launching a public debate. One hour earlier, the President of the Treasury Board had said the Government was not tampering with universality because universality has been abolished with the introduction of child tax credit for needy families and the guaranteed income supplement for certain pensioners.
On Friday-according to Mr. Lavoie-the Minister of Finance had another explanation. He suggested Mr. Mulroney had only promised to maintain the universality feature of social programs for the less privileged. When the reporters appeared to be taken aback, the Minister, being a true gentleman, abstained from insisting. Such were Gilbert Lavoie's comments in La Presse. Mr. Speaker, not only were they satisfied with delivering a minibudget, but after creating unemployment and taking money away from the people, they put all that together and said: We are going to bring down their earnings, we are going to put them out of work, then six months after we are going to hire them back. From what we have saved, we will use a billion dollars to create jobs.
But there is something which is not bad which they have decided to do concerning new directions for Canada. Again, 1 thought they had promised to create jobs, but the title of the document is An Agenda for Economic Renewal. If that party had truly wanted to create new jobs, the title would have been
November 14, 1984

"An Agenda for Economic Renewal and Full Employment". But this is merely window-dressing. There are two points which 1 should like to discuss concerning the so-called sacred trust principle governing social program universality which the Prime Minister and this government insisted upon. I, for one, deplore the approach of this document which aims at fostering a class war between Canadians earning $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $500,000. When the Prime Minister wonders if a person earning $500,000 should be collecting family allowance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.
[ Translation]
I regret . . . Questions and comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bisson-nette).


Mr. Bissonnette:: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who has been elected by his constituents for a third term, although I deplore his negative remarks concerning the Government. 1 should like to ask him what he thinks of the $1 billion job creation scheme which is being offered under the Canada Works Program and which has been made available thanks to a better administration. What do the Hon. Member and his constituents think of this program?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if only the Government had made available $1 billion of new money, but it is $1 billion which has been taken away from the poorest among the poor to create jobs, and the Minister has not yet defined whether the unemployment insurance money was paid to ... Is it the rich people who are collecting unemployment insurance benefits? How about the student loan cuts? A cut of $85 million from the summer jobs programs for students? Are these rich people? What about the 2 cent increase on gasoline and fuel oil? The Minister is not likely to get hurt in his pocketbook. But the single parent family in his own riding will certainly be hurt.
On the other hand, to reply to his question concerning the $1 billion for job creation, what kind of jobs is it going to be? The Minister has stated that he would make no announcement, but it will be probably some kind of tax incentive for employers willing to hire young people. You know that thousands of businesses are not unionized. What is going to happen? They will lay off people 55 years of age and save money hiring young people. That will be the end result of your policy.


Mr. Chartrand:: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a question for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), but 1 have a comment to make.
The Address-Mr. Malepart
As was pointed out by my colleague from Saint-Jean (Mr. Bissonnette), 1 am concerned to see that the Hon. Member has only negative things to say on behalf of constituents who are entitled to be well represented in the House of Commons.
As for me 1 simply want to comment on two points related to job-creation for young people. 1 am sick and tired of hearing that, in years past, the Opposition party boasted about creating a whole lot of jobs for young people. Recently, when I received the grants already allocated to my constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul, 1 realized that these grants which were supposed to go to students for summer jobs were simply a continuation of Canada Works grants from past years. And who received them? 1 investigated and realized that most of them went to friends of the party. It so happens that I decided this year to advertise in the regional newspapers, and this had never been done before. I had never seen, in Western Montreal constituencies, advertisements saying that grants were available. I do not know if this was the case in Eastern Montreal, but in Western Montreal, this had not been done. As 1 do not want to take time away from other Members, I shall simply add that 11 times more applications were submitted this year and I have $300,000 more to give. Therefore 1 think that the money is coming from this Government. Our Government is doing this and I do not see any evidence of a cutback. Jobs will be created in the small constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul, and there will be at least 150 of them because, for once, a Member of Parliament is working with groups of people and public servants instead of ordering officials to help his friends.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just insulted you once again. Last year, you were already a Member of Parliament and you were responsible for distributing these-


An Hon. Member:: In the Opposition.


Jean-Claude Malépart: In the Opposition or in the Government, it is the same. It is about time you should learn that. I think that the Hon. Member is wrong. As for creating jobs for the students, they do not need permanent employment since they only have two-month holidays. When you were a student, you had two months of vacation, from May to September. That is when students need jobs. These jobs were important not only to help students make money, but because of the practical experience they could acquire in their work environment. Whatever the agency involved and even if this was an extension of another program, the purpose was to help the student, and the agency served the people. It is time for you to learn your job.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer).

November 14, 1984
The Address-Mr. M. Tremblay Mr. Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). It was not difficult to understand. It is clear that the Hon. Member proudly and strongly objects to unemployment, but I am not asking a question, I am making a comment, my friend. He speaks with the pride and enthusiasm of a neophyte who has just discovered a new problem. I wonder if he still holds the same opinion as when he sat on this side of the House. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Hon. Member is reflecting the views of his constituents with such a negative attitude about our new $1 billion program for job creation and whether he could set forth some concrete ideas and better suggestions in our national debate on unemployment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's three questions. With respect to his first, namely if I had the same attitude when I was on the other side, I would say yes because if during the worst recession, the Liberal government had enforced your policies, we would not have a million and a half but four million unemployed. Within the caucus, some members like myself and some of my colleagues have fought and instead of reducing the deficit, the government created jobs to prevent undue hardship. That was the first question.
The Hon. Member then asked what were my suggestions. You said that you listened carefully to my speech. Suggestions have been made. Union leaders say that we should discuss reduction of working hours as a means to create more jobs. Would it not be worthwhile to set up an early retirement policy, to lower to 60 the retirement age so that the young could gain access to the labour market? There are many solutions and instead of challenging the universality of programs, it may be more advisable to deal with taxation.
Yesterday, I mentioned the tax indexation table. Who benefits? The rich. One billion dollars . . . The income tax indexation table ... A bachelor with an income of $7,500 saves $54. But a bachelor with an income of $100,000 saves $460. That is where they should get the money to reduce the deficit. Why 1 am so negative? Well, my constituents seem to think I do a good job, because in spite of the Conservative landslide, they put their trust in me, while as far as you people are concerned, anyone running for your Party would have been elected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: More questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, upon rising in this Chamber, the symbol of our democracy, I am filled with emotion. On this occasion, while I am both very proud and very pleased to be making my first speech as the Member representing the riding of Lotbiniere, I also feel some apprehension and at the same time a great deal of confidence in the future in undertaking my duties as a parliamentarian. Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy and enthusiasm that as a
citizen of this great country, I am ready to help find solutions to the problems that will be facing us, nationally, provincially and within our respective ridings.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment. I am sure that you will conduct the proceedings in this House with discernment, justice and equity for all. I should be grateful if you would also convey my congratulations to the Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), the Speaker of the House. Perhaps the Hon. Member remembers his visit to the riding of Lotbiniere. In any case, the people of Lotbiniere remember a bilingual gentleman, who is both fair and forthright, and also his quick wit and brilliant intellect, his absolute honesty and his parliamentary experience. My congratulations also go to all Members of this House who were able to win the confidence of their constituents and who are sitting in this Chamber at the beginning of this thirty-third Parliament. I am sure that we, the class of 1984, will benefit from the experience and advice of these senior Members.
Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the tradition, I would like to thank my constituents in Lotbiniere for their confidence in electing me as their representative in the House of Commons.
I can assure them that I will devote all my efforts and energy to state their views and their claims in Parliament. I would also like to congratulate the Canadians throughout the country who have made a sound choice when they heavily supported the representatives of a government of national reconciliation, for it is in those terms that the newspapers and other medias describe the new era announced in the throne speech. National reconciliation is what people seek at this juncture and Canadians have said so clearly in the last election. National reconciliation calls for change or renewal in many fields. Current priorities, as set forth in the Speech from the Throne, are designed to meet our requirements: economic renewal, social justice renewal and constitutional renewal.
Using my riding of Lotbiniere as an example, Mr. Speaker,
I intend to depict briefly our current situation with respect to employment, economic conditions, agriculture, federal-provincial relations, youth or senior citizens associations. Everywhere, people are worried.
Lotbiniere is a huge riding on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. Our population is young despite the exodus towards more challenging labour markets. It is a partly urban, partly rural area. We have aggressive farmers, and some have the best dairy farms in Canada, but they also are worried. They have things to say to the federal Government. They remember that in the past they have been ignored at times, forgotten at other times, but they have been hurt by legislation and regulations passed without being consulted. They were quite often victimized by high-handed decisions coming from above, and certainly they are happy with this new Government's attitude. I am therefore committed to be a strong and efficient spokesman, and I feel sure that this new spirit of conciliation will be beneficial to all.
November 14, 1984

Certainly 1 will not forget our hog, poultry or grain producers who also at times are at odds with a finicky government. All these people getting their living from the farm are entitled to the decent income and the job security the Government can provide them through just and fair legislation.
Several other types of producers and breeders may also be found in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and in Saint-Apollinaire we have one of the very few rabbit abattoirs in Canada. This goes to show that people in my area are not afraid of going off the beaten track in order to break new ground and show their vitality in that area so vital for our economy. Whether it has to deal with a dairy producer in Warwick or a grain grower in Saint-Edouard-de-Lotbiniere, our government will make it its duty to be equal to his expectations. The Speech from the Throne indicates very well the spirit in which we will work in the future with local operators.
Mr. Speaker, in my riding we also have a very large number of small and medium-sized businesses. Incidentally, one of our communities, Daveluyville, has the largest number of industries per thousand inhabitants in Canada. But those industries, once thriving, have been hit hard by recession. The preceding government's policies have also contributed to their downturn. The employment crisis in the Bois-Franc area, in the very heart of the riding of Lotbiniere, is almost tragic.
The clothing, wool and textile industry which used to be the pride of Victoriaville, same sort of a regional metropolis of the Bois-Francs, is near bankrupcy. Just two years ago, that industry still employed over 4,500 people whereas today it barely survives with only about 1,000 jobs. The largest clothing manufacturers in the area were forced to close down.
As well, Victoriaville used to boast about being the capital of the furniture industry which has now almost disappeared from the area taking away the means of living of a specialized manpower.
Such disrupting facts about the economy of my region have been brought to light during various economic conferences held in the Mauricie-Bois-Francs area. We now have a chronic rate of unemployment which, for the past two years, has been twice as high as the average rate in Canada. All those who took part in the economic summits held in our area have been unable to find a sound solution to our problems.
Voters in our region seem to have found the answer, Mr. Speaker, in the trust they placed in the Members of the Government, which public opinion has already described as the Government of national renewal. The hopes of small businessmen are now raised because obviously the policies of the Progressive Conservative Government will favour the private sector, which is the motor of a healthy and dynamic economy. Our regional economy, which was based almost exclusively on soft sectors such as wood and clothing, certainly needs clear and specific policies. It also needs a general sense of vigour which will make it easier for consumers to purchase Canadian products of excellent quality.
The Address-Mr. M. Tremblay
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Victoriaville area is the industrial core of my constituency. During the last few years, many industries have had to close down and to lay off hundreds of able and hard-working employees.
To solve this problem, the former Government chose to create temporary jobs leading nowhere. But, my fellow citizens are proud people, and like all Canadians, they want lasting jobs; they want to support themselves and their families with dignity without fear of going on unemployment insurance every three months. These are probably the reasons why so many community agencies were created; in other words, people have organized effectively.
The expectations of the Lotbiniere voters will not be left unfulfilled by this Government or by their Member of Parliament.
Along with the sad regional economic situation, there is anxiety on the part of the farming class in Quebec. The milking industry and maple plantations constitute the basis of that farming industry. Regretfully I must remind the House that there is a problem in this area in that producers are complaining about cost increases.

I should mention as well, Mr. Speaker, the role of the State in the generous distribution of its wealth through so-called job creating grants.
In this regard, I wish first to refer to a view expressed in a report published in La Presse on November 6, 1982, about the role of the Welfare State. One can read in this report those very wise comments, and I quote:
The State has grown out of proportions. It has overwhelmed in too many areas personal initiative and hence created an excessive dependency, thereby undermining all inventiveness, mutual help, family and community solidarity, etc. Group, class and regional interests have replaced sharing and mutual aid.
Community organizations and intermediary bodies have a particularly meaningful role to play in restabilizing our society.
During these times of economic and social crisis, we must support any local initiative intended to help people in need and to strengthen the life lines of the community.
Mr. Speaker, these are basic principles that we will put into practice when allocating the available funds of the State, which must cease to be viewed as the welfare State. Those who control the distribution of these funds or programs must not be guided by political capital considerations. The general interest must prevail at the time of the allocation over the particular interests of any individual or political group.
I will now say, Mr. Speaker, a few words on the federal-provincial constitutional relations as they stand in my province and in my riding. It is no secret that there is constitutional disagreement between the different levels of government in our country. It is inconceivable to think that Quebec is still not

November 14, 1984
The Address-Mr. M. Tremblay
part to the constitutional agreement. It is also inconceivable to see that the federal and provincial MPs of our region have not been able to co-operate in order to implement joint programs in the best interest of their constituents who are all full-fledged citizens of the same nation, Canada.
I am very happy to note the atmosphere of national reconciliation between Ottawa and Quebec and better relations among all government Departments.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Hon. Prime Minister who, faced with the concerns of young people, has appointed a Minister of State for Youth to deal specifically with their problems. This is an initiative that my constituents approve of.
1 would also like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the wish expressed by the Federation des personnes agees du Quebec, which has 175,000 members in Quebec and whose former President, Mr. Francois Urbain Roux, lived in my riding of Arthabaska. Their message, reprinted in the paper Vie nouvelle de I'age d'or, in the October 1984 issue, said in particular and I quote:
We ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, always to consult with the senior citizens of Canada before making any decision concerning them, because the builders of yesterday deserve the consideration and attentions of their sons, today's leaders, as the full citizens they continue to be.
I want to tell this House that senior citizens, their club with the largest membership of more than 2,200 in the province of Quebec being in my riding of Victoriaville, are concerned, and they would like to see a renewal in the social justice measures concerning them. I am assured that this government will be able to take their claims seriously. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to talk about the expectations of my constituents, and particularly about the hopes they put in this new government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Minister of State for Small Businesses Mr. Bissonnette.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) for his speech. You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the value of the candidates recruited by the Progressive Conservative Party is most impressive. The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere spoke of young people, older people, poultry producers and other very interesting issues. He also mentioned the industry and all the other concerns in his own riding. You certainly noticed, Mr. Speaker, that his remarks were thoughtful, straightforward and positive. That kind of attitude has not been prevalent up to now. A new government with new blood and such fine young men and women is indeed capable of achievements.


Jean-Claude Malépart: It is somehow strange that the Hon. Minister gets $40,000 more just to congratulate his colleagues in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my question to the Hon. Member whom I want to congratulate for his statement. The Hon. Member may have been here when I had asked a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). He told me that he had consulted with you about the delay of the project in your riding and that you agreed with him. The same thing was said of the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent). Therefore, I would like to know if it is a fact that the Hon. Member asked for your agreement.


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) for showing an interest in the problems faced by people living in the riding of Lotbiniere. However, considering many things he said in the last few days, I find good reasons to doubt his concern for my constituents is genuine. Moreover, I must add that I have acted without waiting to be consulted. I decided to take the first steps on my own. In fact, in the document tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), you may find that, possibly because of my intervention, what is mentioned is not a cancellation but a delay until further studies are done.
I would like to deal with something else, Mr. Speaker. I am rather amazed by the bragging from the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. He is talking about the plant laboratory in my riding as if it were in existence. In fact, that project was supposed to be implemented over several years and be completed only in 1987-88.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. It being 5:30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(4) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment.
Mr. James, seconded by Ms. Jacques, moved:
That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada.
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, 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.


John Napier Turner: That the following be added to the Address:
"But this House condemns your advisors for their failure to demonstrate
leadership and to provide plans for immediate action in the creation of tens
upon tens of thousands of new jobs.''
November 14, 1984

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: Before we proceed to the vote on the amendment, with the consent of the House I am going to try to explain the procedure we are going to follow. We are now dealing with an amendment to the main motion. Therefore, I have some assumptions about who may be voting in favour of the amendment. Given that assumption, the vote will begin with the Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition (Mr. Turner). We will then proceed in the normal way with that Party, starting with the Hon. Member closest to me.
Making an assumption for the moment about a potential other Party's interest, we will begin again with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and we will then proceed from the front bench to the back bench. If that Party were to vote against the amendment, we would deal with it after we have dealt with the Government.
Now we get to the complicated part. We will begin with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). We will then proceed as is normal, starting with the Member closest to myself on the front bench, then continuing with Members on the second bench, the third bench, etc. We will then proceed-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: You should try to figure out how the Clerk Assistant feels! We will then begin with the opposition Member closest to me on this side and we will call out the names of all the Members on the front bench voting that way. We will do the same with all the Members on the second bench voting that way, etc.


An Hon. Member:: Would you say that again?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if everyone would accept that I have said that twice?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, November 15, 1984