1984-01-26

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stevens (p. 728); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Dick (p. 735).
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity on behalf of my constituents in Prince George-Bulkley Valley to address the Speech from the Throne. People in my riding are very straightforward and direct. They tell things as they see them. They have a distrust for fancy words, promises and platitudes. For them the proof is in the pudding. Obviously, the authors of this Throne Speech, be they ministerial or bureaucratic, would find it very uncomfortable to be in my riding.
The history of Prince George-Bulkley Valley reads very much like the history of Canada. We find in the past explorers like Simon Fraser, the Hudson's Bay Company, pioneers, settlers, loggers and dreams. These dreams are very much alive today in a place which views itself as a viable and growing entity. However, there is a mounting sense of frustration which stems from the feeling that a great deal of potential is being thwarted.
There are two facets of the economy in Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to address today. The first is forestry and the second is farming and ranching. These are both endeavours which have gone hand in hand with the development of mankind and with the shaping of the character of Canada. In looking at forestry, farming and ranching, I hope to point to the areas where we as legislators can facilitate a more prosperous and stable future for those who involve themselves in these honourable professions.
Our attitude toward the forests of Canada has changed vastly from the early days when the slogan was "Burn off the timber and bring in the settlers". This slogan soon changed to a plea- "Save our winter payrolls". Canada at present is facing a similar dilemma. We must rationalize our immediate gain with the future consequences.
For generations, Canadians have been able to rely on forestry for jobs, for government revenue and for balancing our trade accounts. More than 300,000 Canadians work at jobs
directly related to forestry. An additional 700,000 jobs are indirectly supported by that industry. One in 10 jobs in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is dependent on the forest industry.
While the contribution of forestry to Canada's economy is profound, it is even more so in my province. A full 25 per cent of British Columbia's labour force is supported by forestry. This represents 250,000 jobs. Roughly 50 cents of every dollar earned in the province can be traced to the forest. Prince George-Bulkley Valley is in the heart of the forest land. It is little wonder that Prince George has earned the title of the white spruce capital of the world.
As the present Government well knows, industry of this magnitude is an important source of tax dollars. Every year the forest industry provides this Government with $3 billion in revenue. The Government returns only a small fraction of this amount to assist the industry. Less than 1 per cent of the wealth created by the forest in British Columbia is reinvested in their future. Perhaps this neglect is due to a feeling that tax dollars are better spent creating temporary jobs to garner votes rather than creating permanent jobs and securing the future of a vital industry.
Forestry is also important to Canada because of its contribution to our balance of trade. It outstrips the combined net contributions of mining, agriculture, fisheries and petroleum fuels. In the latest year forestry was responsible for production valued at $25 billion, and a whopping $11.4 billion of that contributed to Canada's balance of payments. That, Mr. Speaker, represents 15 per cent of Canada's total exports. Placing British Columbia's contribution in context, the province produces 60 per cent of all Canadian softwood and over 30 per cent of its pulp.
In addition, our forests provide the setting for a multimillion dollar recreation and tourist industry. They also play an important role in the ecological balance. Forests minimize erosion, regulate stream flow, improve water quality, clean the air, moderate extremes in temperature, provide habitat for fish and game, and protect spawning grounds. Even if one was to accept the demise of forestry as an industry, we would have to contend with mother nature as well.
Some 300 communities in rural Canada are completely dependent on forestry. These communities face possible extinction if we do not help to plan their future prosperity. There can be little doubt that forestry has been, is and will be a critical part of Canada's economy. In fact, most observers of the industry conclude that there is significant room for growth. The Science Council of Canada has suggested that, given the proper recognition, forestry industry can generate an addition-

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. McCuish
al 75,000 to 100,000 jobs, double its present output to $22 billion, creating additional exports of $12 billion. This could potentially produce another $3 billion in tax revenues. As I alluded to in the beginning, however, forestry is not without problems which have arisen because of neglect and which require immediate and careful consideration.
Before 1 go on to discuss these problems I must express gratitude which should be shared by all in this House. The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has done much to bring this issue to the attention of government and Canadians. His report entitled "The Green Ghetto" is a comprehensive study of the industry's present situation, and details a number of areas of neglect which we would be wise to pay attention to. There is a plethora of woes which are threatening the continued prosperity of forestry. Some of these ailments are man-made and some, of course, are natural. The cure for many of these problems can be found in research and development, and in returning some of the monies which have accrued to the federal Government in taxes.
The biggest problem facing Canada's forest industry is that we are depleting our supply of marketable wood faster than we are regenerating it. Every day a newspaper such as The Globe and Mail consumes more than 2,000 trees. Each year we harvest two million acres of lumber, an area the size of Prince Edward Island. The result of such depletion is obvious: we will eventually run out. Research and silviculture, the essential components of reforestation, are pitifully underfinanced by this Government in the face of short-term budgetary considerations. Moreover, if we fail to reforest our land, we are forced to harvest more remote and more expensive resources. The answer to the regeneration issue is to inject nearly twice the money we presently invest.
Our reforestation efforts must make use of the techniques which will assure us of producing marketable wood in a timely fashion. This means that inventories of existing stock must be made and we must incorporate the proper spacing, fertilization and thinning methods. If we implement a worthy reforestation schedule, we will be on the road to guaranteeing ourselves a future in the forest industry.
Canada will need to upgrade and expand its present forestry labour force. Our chief competitors, the United States, Sweden and Norway, have approximately one forester for every 34,000 acres of land. Canada has one for every 1,100,000 acres. The United States has 40 forestry schools. Canada, to our shame, has but six. In spite of an obvious shortfall in skilled labour we have taken only tiny steps toward correcting this heinous situation.
Another arena in which we are not scoring might be labelled as competition. Our leadership position is being challenged on virtually every front. We are lacking in research and development, skilled labourers, reforestation and export competitiveness. To put it simply, we are not competing, Mr. Speaker. As the President of the Ontario Forest Industries Association has said, "there is no major forest producing nation in the world in
which the owners of the forests, in this case the public of Canada, have taken more out and put less back in". In 1980 Canada invested $10.55 of new capital in manufacturing plant per cubic metre of log input. In the same year Sweden invested $22.95 and Finland invested $21.60. These Scandinavian countries double our investment. As this gap grows it will become more and more difficult to close. In this age of rapid technological change the time factor becomes much more important.
There is no doubt that Canadians, the Government, academic institutions and the forest industry must pull together in order to maintain our competitive edge. Many of the experts involved in this issue feel that the Government must play a leadership role. It can do this by returning a much higher percentage of revenues to the industry and by co-ordinating the various groups which need to be involved.
The first step which the Government might take is to restore some of the recognition which forestry was once accorded. It is somewhat frightening to me that such a labour-intensive industry is represented by an assistant deputy minister in the government. Let us recognize, as we once did, the importance of this industry. Forestry, Canada's number one industry, will prosper only to the degree that we make it prosper.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne McCuish: The following words from a United States Supreme Court decision are a good summary of what I have attempted to convey to this House today:
An unwritten compact between the dead, the living and the unborn requires that we leave the unborn something more than debts and depleted resources.
Of the people who attempt to leave something behind, Mr. Speaker, farmers and ranchers rate high on the list of achievement. I do not wish to speak today about their contribution to the Canadian economy. I wish to add my name to the growing ranks of those who are appalled by the treatment that farmers and ranchers are receiving across Canada. Revenue Canada is indiscriminately dealing the death blow to many hard-working farmers and ranchers. It is doing so through the application of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. Section 31 was introduced in 1946 as a weapon against tax shelter abuses. Lately it is being used to thwart the dreams of enterprising men and women in Canada. According to the Income Tax Act acreage, time devoted to the farm and expectations of profit are central issues in determining an operations tax classification.
The original idea behind Section 31 was good. However, Revenue Canada has now found it flexible enough to use as a destructive and unjust instrument. In the past year Section 31 has been used to audit and reclassify farming operations in what can only be described as a campaign of terror.
People who at one time were classified as full-time or part-time farmers are now finding themselves labelled as hobby farmers. Thus the deductions they were once allowed is now, by an auditor's assessment, no longer available to them. As if to add insult to injury, Revenue Canada on the basis of their new assessment, is telling the farmers and ranchers that they owe back taxes for several years.
January 26, 1984

The result of these unilateral judgments is, of course, devastating. Farmers and ranchers who have sacrificed a great deal in their honourable endeavours find themselves bankrupt and in many instances are forced to abandon their property. One can only wonder if the Government, in a vain attempt to offset the federal deficit, has decided to strangle agriculture across Canada. Without a doubt the scores of farmers and ranchers my colleagues and I have heard complaints from feel this way.
The politically weak farmers who have been subjected to this campaign of terror are baffled by the auditors' assessments as well as their manner. Revenue Canada either lacks compassion or is totally ignorant of farming operations. No doubt it is a combination of both. They do not seem to realize that a farming operation requires several years of hard work and investment before it becomes a feasible and viable operation. A person does not simply go out and purchase a profitmaking farm. It is too expensive. Rather, one purchases uncleared land and devotes time, energy and money to provide the necessary clearing of land and building of infrastructure. Naturally, the new farmer or rancher is forced to acquire capital outside his farm operation in the early years. Section 31 as it is applied by Revenue Canada makes no allowance or toleration for this.
The Government has long lost touch with people in Canada. It should listen to these people who have invested their time and money in a painstaking effort to fulfil a dream, only to have it swept away. As one exasperated farmer told me: "The whole procedure has taken the heart out of striving to advance".
The auditors that Revenue Canada is sending to these farms are seen by the farmers as being totally ignorant of agriculture. The "inexperienced robots", as the farmers have taken to calling them, are operating in a completely unacceptable manner. There is an expressed unwillingness to look at the farm operation or the farm itself. One member of a farmers alliance group says that the attitude reflected by the auditors indicates that they seem to be working on some quota system; that the whole picture is shrouded in a blanket of unfairness and intimidation. The revenue horror story is made even more scarey by the fact that auditors are coming to farms at night to make their assessments. Some show up in high heels and make their assessment from the back porch or the kitchen of the farmer's home. Obviously these people simply do not care to see the operation.
Given the number of complaints that Revenue Canada is receiving, why is there no action on its part to change or abolish Section 31? One can only stonewall for so long by saying that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, or by saying that a quota system is actually called a target level. The "just society" banner that was once so proudly carried is showing some pretty tattered fringes. What happened to the Prime Minister's invitation on December 21 when he said, as reported at page 402 of Hansard:
I repeat, if there is a doubt, if there is any over-zealous employee, the Minister would be happy to hear of the case and to set it right.
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
It seems to me that this is just another example of the Prime Minister's broken promises.
The Throne Speech which the present Government gave us does little more than pay lip service to the neglect that Canada's major industry has received and it does nothing at all to stop the abuse of Canadian ranchers and farmers. As I mentioned in the beginning, the people of my riding are looking for action. The debts and depleted resources which the Government will leave behind do not reflect good government. They reflect a callousness about the future of Canada which is tantamount to criminal. Is it any wonder that Canadians everywhere are impatiently awaiting an election call?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.
Order. Questions or comments. Debate. The Minister of Labour.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, before elaborating on the points raised in the Speech from the Throne, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to the new Speaker of the House, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-West, and to congratulate him on his appointment. I wish him every success in his new position. His competence and dedication received enthusiastic recognition from our Government and the House when he was appointed Speaker of the House of Commons. Since he is starting the new year so well, I hope he will be met with the same enthusiasm later this year by the voters in his riding. Incidentally, I would like to congratulate the Speaker of the House on a recent statement, immediately after his appointment, in favour of the employees of Parliament who want to be unionized. I agree wholeheartedly with the Speaker's views on the matter. In fact, I hope the House will soon pass a Bill on labour management relations on Parliament Hill. I see no valid reason for depriving the support staff of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament of their fundamental right of association and to ignore their earnest wish to set up one or more bargaining units. I therefore hope that my colleague, the President of the Privy Council and Parliamentary House Leader, will be consulting with the two other Parliamentary House Leaders in order to arrive at some agreement for approving legislation on the matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, we are beginning a session during which we shall be concentrating even more than usual on matters that concern all Canadians today. That is why a large part of the Speech from the Throne referred to labour matters, including the comment, and I quote: "Labour should be a full partner in the process of economic recovery".
Although that should be obvious, labour realizes, nevertheless, that its role is not always accepted by certain employers

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
and often poorly understood by the general public. The media often quote comments by people who wonder why the power of the unions should not be further restricted. According to opinion polls, the public reacts negatively to work stoppages, especially when a strike is on or a strike has just ended. Generally speaking, the unions are too powerful, in the eyes of the public. Is it therefore unusual to find that the unions are concerned about the situation and feel that their basic right to exist is threatened?
I believe that in a modern, developed society like ours, the existence of unions should be considered as a matter of course and as a permanent and deeply rooted part of our society. The role of the unions, their importance for workers and the benefits they have provided are there for all to see, and their existence should never again be challenged. Who can deny that workers deserve a fair share of the benefits of economic recovery? I do not think anyone can. Unfortunately, there are still people who challenge the concept put forward in the Speech from the Throne presented by the Liberal Government, that workers, and consequently, their unions should have an equal voice in the resolution of issues like technological change and improvement of work safety.
We as Liberals, on this side of the House, are not on the fence on this issue. We profoundly believe that workers should have a say in the matter. Unfortunately, there are still too many people who challenge this view, and I have no hesitation in saying that people who oppose this concept have a conservative philosophy that is both reactionary and reprehensible. As was pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, North American, European and Japanese experience shows that productivity is a co-operative endeavour, not a punitive process of seeking more work for less reward.
To improve productivity, we need a combination of progressive management, ingenious technology and high employee morale.
Well, Mr. Speaker, morale will certainly not be high if they are not consulted about changes in industry and realize that they will have nothing to win and everything to lose as a result of these changes. Consequently, it is absolutely vital, especially in a rapidly changing environment, that workers and their unions should be fully informed and consulted, so that they too can share in our economic recovery. To do so, we must strengthen, not weaken, our unions and they should be given funds to help them prepare and disseminate information among their members. We must help union leaders and members to acquire a good understanding of the repercussions that technological change will have on them and on society. I am convinced that new technology will help upgrade the quality of many boring and dangerous tasks. Only when unionized employees understand the advantages of the switch to new technology and appropriate mechanisms are established to
ease their introduction, only then will they realize that they can benefit, only then will they welcome a new technology that will help provide a safer job environment and more stable employment.
That is why, in the Throne Speech, the Government of Canada is proposing the creation of a fund for my Department, Labour Canada, to support research into the effects of technological change and to conduct joint information exchanges between management and workers. This proposal shows that our Government realizes that technological change must be managed in a responsible manner. Of course, we must use technological innovations to make Canada more competitive on international markets, to maintain and increase the number of jobs and safeguard our standard of living, but we must not forget that such changes can have a negative impact on the working conditions of many Canadians.
Although we are aware that technological changes can affect a number of aspects such as occupational safety and health, we still do not know enough about the impact they will have on the organization of work and on labour-management relations.
The Government is therefore proposing the creation of a fund that will be available to union organizations and other groups that may be directly affected by technological change and have no other source of financing, to obtain this kind of information.
The Government therefore intends to award grants for studies on the social impact of certain technological changes. As its next step, and just as important for a better understanding of technological change, the Government is proposing to set up a program of information sessions, to enable labour to benefit from the knowledge thus acquired regarding the nature, scope and probable impact of technological change.
The impact of technology is currently a source of major concern, partly because of lacking information, partly because of incomplete information on the issue. More often than not, when information is available it is not readily accessible to everyone. That explains the wide-ranging discrepancies in the quality of information which may be accessible to the working population.
With a view to disseminating information on technological changes, the Liberal Government will sponsor a series of one-day information seminars. Each Canadian province will probably host one such seminar to look into the significance and impact of technology and related issues which are of some interest to the community. Organized in co-operation with the labour movement, those meetings will be generally patterned after last year's technology and competition seminars arranged and sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

We hope that those seminars will be as successful as those of last year and certainly more instructive and productive. The combined efforts of Government and labour-management delegates to establish a new productivity and employment growth centre are expected to pave the way for a better dialogue between management and labour. First highlighted in the budget last April, this centre is the result of an idea then advocated by the Minister of Finance and having to do with the establishment of a consultation and co-operation centre. That idea is at the root of concrete achievements, thanks to the outstanding work done by business and labour representatives at the sittings of a task force.
I think that such a centre will be a boon for Canadians generally, and even more so for management and unions. Ever since my colleague the Minister of Finance launched that idea last April, the centre has been taking shape. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I have had a number of meetings with the people who sit on that task force. With other Cabinet colleagues, we have examined their suggestions, and I am quite pleased to be able to say that tomorrow, at an important press conference attended by a few of my colleagues who are involved in this project with labour and management representatives, we will be in a position to make a very interesting announcement about that centre.
The third means by which we hope to improve the dialogue between labour and government is to considerably widen the employee exchange program between the Government and the labour organizations. Unfortunately, relations between the two have been somewhat constrained in recent years, and in fact, both remaining virtually ignorant about the operational procedures of each other. Therefore, to improve upon these relations, we plan to widen the Canada Exchange Program so as to promote temporary exchanges of union representatives and public servants. By stepping up these contacts, we will certainly promote a better understanding of the real problems and objectives of both. If it is proper for representatives of the business community to spend some time in the Canadian Public Service, and conversely for Canadian senior public servants to spend some time working for large Canadian companies, I find it quite natural for union leaders or representatives also to spend some time in the Federal Public Service and for senior public servants to spend some time within the larger Canadian unions. I believe this type of exchange to be essential and important to promote better dialogue, to create a better understanding and to establish the climate of confidence which is essential if we want all participants in the Canadian economy to understand, respect and trust each other.
In closing, I would like to speak briefly to the amendments that we plan to introduce to the Canada Labour Code and which are another aspect of the program which the Government has developed for labour. These amendments will include
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
first of all a series of new provisions designed to reduce the effects of family responsibilities on employment. The Code will also include a new section which will provide that any employee has the right to work in a safe and healthy environment. This section will also require that all parties concerned with safety and health in the workplace participate equally in this area and that employees under the federal jurisdiction apply much more consistent standards than at the present time. There will also be provisions dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace. In addition, other amendments will update the regulations on labour unions in order to simplify the work of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
To conclude, the increasing number of part-time workers are entitled to a better protection under the legislation. The Government therefore plans on continuing its consultations with provincial Governments, unions and businessmen in discussing pension plans and social benefits for part-time workers. By means of these measures and its consultations with the labour unions, the Government wants to do everything possible so that the labour movement can become a full partner in the economic recovery. As most Canadians, I believe that it will be better for all major economic agents to co-operate in facing the challenge of the eighties. I support wholeheartedly the concept of reinforcing relations between the unions, the government and the business community. To do so, we need stronger, not weaker unions. Since we want them to play a major role in the decision-making process, we must ensure that existing mechanisms promote a strong and better informed labour movement.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the proposals announced in the Speech from the Throne will become the basis for a national effort to ensure the success of the economic recovery which our Government has undertaken.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief questions for the Minister. He quite properly spoke of the long overdue extension of the right of collective association among the support staff of the House of Commons. Has the Minister given equal attention to the very direct support staff of Members of Parliament with respect to their equal rights, albeit in a slightly different way? Also, can he expand slightly on what we may learn tomorrow with respect to the centre for exchange, a centre by which we can begin to deal with some of the very pressing problems? Can he give an indication to the House today whether the centre will be directly under the aegis of Government, or will it have some independence by being in a university or at least on neutral ground? Can the Minister touch very briefly on funding?

I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his two very relevant questions. Clearly in my capacity of Minister of Labour I am taking this opportunity to stress unequivocally, my support for all Parliament employees, men and women who have long been

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
fighting for the right to unionize. Of course, it will be the responsibility of my colleague, the President of the Privy Council to determine the type of legislation that could be introduced in this Elouse and also to discuss the scope, breadth and terms of such legislation with representatives of the two opposition parties. It is my hope that such an initiative will receive support from all sides of the House and the legislation will be enacted soon.
Concerning the issue of which groups will be covered by that bill, it seems clear that the support staff of the House, the Senate and the Library should be covered. Other employees also should be included, and I feel this should be discussed with representatives of all parties in this House.
On the second question, whether the centre will be independent from the Government, I alluded to tomorrow's announcement because I welcome the progress which has been accomplished in that area. We put the idea forward, but we feel it is essential, for its viability and success, that the main parties involved set up the centre themselves. It would not be a total success if it were a Government entity. And fortunately, I can tell the Hon. Member that I do not think he will be disappointed tomorrow when labour and business representatives announce their common desire to unite to establish such a centre, which of course will be independent and separated from the Government, but substantially funded by the Government of Canada.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the remarks of the Minister, although he did not actually respond to the previous question as to whether support staff for Members of Parliament and members of the Senate will be included in the Bill. I am not speaking formally for my group, but 1 can say to him informally that I believe he will have full support from this part of the House for any legislation that affords the right of workers to unionize. We have expressed that view many times already, even if the legislation were not to include the staff of Members of Parliament and members of the Senate. However, I would be very disappointed if the legislation put forward did not include those. I hope that will be taken quite seriously following the lead of the Speaker.
I also welcome the general remarks of the Minister about the place of labour and organized labour. They follow very well on the comments made a year ago by the bishops about the principle of labour, which is not the same as unions. I refer to the principle that work has to be recognized as giving people a right to share in decision making.
1 therefore have two questions for the Minister. When the workers, through the unions and perhaps through other institutions also, have been given an opportunity to participate in the examination of the effects of the new technologies, will there be a mechanism to enable them to share in the actual decision making regarding the application of those new technologies? I have in mind the present principle that exists and is reflected
in most labour contracts, the principle of management rights. In effect, if management wants to shut the plant down or change the product or something, it has almost an unlimited right to do so. In the post office, for example, new technologies are introduced or changed without any recognized or practised right of the union, as far as I know, to have a share in the decision making regarding those technologies.
Will this new legislation recognize the right of the workers who after all contributed, if not all, a large part, of the new technology? Will they have a right to share in the decision making?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's question and comment is being stretched beyond what is reasonable. Perhaps we could alow the Minister to respond and if any time is left and no other Members rise, 1 will recognize the Hon. Member again.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises two very specific questions concerning the contents of the legislation which is to be introduced. I have taken note of his representations. In both cases, it is very difficult for me at this point to elaborate on the exact wording of either bill.
I would therefore invite him to be patient and postpone his comments and discussions until the two pieces of legislation are tabled. I would simply tell him that I appreciate his representations, and commend him for this.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary question about the Minister's concern for the right of collective association. Would he care to indicate whether he extends that same philosophy and principle to the Governor General's staff, members of the RCMP and members of the Canadian Armed Forces?


André Ouellet: As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are situations steeped into century-old traditions, and the Hon. Member is now referring to institutions that have always been fiercely defended by his own party. I would be very much interested to know whether he is speaking on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party when putting forward such proposals. Personally, I am very comfortable with that, but I would like to know whether the Hon. Member from the Progressive Conservative party truly can speak on behalf of his party when making such proposals.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker of the House. I also want to congratulate and wish well the new Speaker of the House, the Hon. Member of Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). I should like also to pay tribute to the retiring Speaker, the next Governor General, for her efforts as Speaker of the House of Commons. I wish her well.
January 26, 1984

When I was asked by my local news media to comment on the Speech from the Throne, I found very little of substance to comment on. It would appear that whoever wrote the Speech from the Throne, perhaps someone in the Prime Minister's office, listened to the speculation of the press and comments from the public and then decided that all those things should be included. I say, heaven forbid! However, the real action promised in the guidelines-as they seemed to be-recognize that problems exist and quote the Government's concerns in vague rhetoric, generalities and consultation that something would be done, maybe, some day.
On Monday of this week the winners in the $13.9 million 6/49 lottery were announced. I think it was great that such a deserving couple won; I am sure that they will use the proceeds wisely and I congratulate them. It is difficult for any of us to conceive what this amount of money represents. If these people were to invest it at a nominal rate of 10 per cent, they would accrue interest of about $3,808 per day. If this is not tax sheltered, they will be asked to pay the federal Government $1,242 per day and the provincial Government $611 per day. I am sure that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bus-sieres) will look forward to receiving quarterly payments, though perhaps he would prefer to see them assessed a penalty for late filing.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, a quick calculation shows that this would leave these good people with after-tax interest income of about $1,917 daily. If they get a good tax accountant it could be considerably more. The point is that they will receive more in daily interest than some of our constituents receive in several months. They could not even imagine what that much money looks like in one lump sum.
What they do not realize is that it is a pittance compared to the amount of money we Canadians are forced to pay in interest rates per day due to our national debt. This fiscal year alone, the Government has run up a debt of $31.3 billion. Now we owe over $150 billion and are paying $17.6 billion in interest per year. This works out to $48.2 million in interest charges per day. Those constituents who have trouble visualizing receiving $1,917 per day that the 6/49 lottery winners get, will never comprehend paying over $48 million per day to cover interest rate charges on a loan that was incurred by the Government on our behalf without our permission.
In the Throne Speech I see no indication that the Government has any intention of decreasing the deficit. It is quite willing to continue to bankrupt the country despite the warnings of people like Richard M. Thomson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. At the annual meeting of shareholders he said:
Here in North America, economic recovery has just entered its second year ... in many ways, it seems as though the storm clouds and the turbulence of the recession are behind us ... but the economic horizon is not yet entirely clear. There's one cloud that's still with us, and it doesn't show any signs of dispersing. In fact, it's looming larger and getting darker all the time. I'm referring to government budgetary deficits . . . deficits affect your bank-and all other financial institutions-because they affect the money supply, interest rates and the value of the Canadian dollar. And the implications extend further to every Canadian-
The Address-Mr. W. C. Scott
The Speech from the Throne ignores these implications. That is one of the reasons the Conference Board of Canada's latest forecast predicts another recession in 1985 in Canada while the U.S. economy continues to grow.
The only area in which anything really new came out of the speech is the area of youth employment. Unfortunately, the $1 billion for the youth opportunity fund will be coming out of other programs. Again, rather than tackling the problem of unemployment head on the Government has chosen to rob Peter to pay Paul. I shudder when I think of where this money will come from. Will it come from funds now used to support the skills program? Will it come from the allocation used for support to native Canadians or employment disadvantaged women? Will this spell the end to the work-sharing program, which although not perfect has been of use to many struggling employers and employees?
Just who will suffer now because the Government is switching rather than extending priorities in its employment programs? If it is necessary to destroy other programs to create the youth fund, then would it also be necessary to do so to create Environment 2000? Or is the Minister's announcement that the Government is prepared to spend $35 million starting next April on this just another hollow promise designed to hold out further promise to the unemployed so that they will not complain so much over the winter? Is the Government prepared to extend unemployment insurance benefits to those whose eligibility has run out and allow them to survive until they are hired by Environment 2000 or through the National Voluntary Service? If not, then this program will be too little, too late for many whose benefits run out during this winter?
On December 12 I received a letter confirming the new allocation of Canada Works funds for my constituency. That this would be part of the Throne Speech was well known for many weeks. My constituency received $100,000 more. This sounds good, but when you compare the total allocation to the total applications received and see that only 17 per cent of the funds requested are available, it no longer sounds so good.
While I am on the subject of Canada Works, I want to mention the complete frustration which I and other Hon. Members have experienced with this program. Under the new format, Hon. Members are not allowed to establish advisory boards to review these applications. The whole responsibility rests with the staff of the local employment development office. They must decide on the validity of each project and are required to propose who gets the money. The former system allowed them to use the advisory boards and their Members of Parliament as part of the decision-making process. It was not only a much more responsible format, but also put less political pressure on Government employees. When only 17 per cent of those applications can be accepted, as in Victoria-Haliburton, it is ridiculous to put such pressure solely on them. 1 hope the Government will reinstate these boards for the next round of Summer Canada projects.

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. W. C. Scott
On Leaders' day, December 9, our Leader, Brian Mulroney, recalled the Throne Speech given in 1980 by the same Government. He quite accurately showed how this Government really does operate on a two-track strategy. Along one track, which never seems to get anywhere, we find the promises the Government lays out from time to time on occasions such as this. The other track, which always goes in the opposite direction, is the one that the Government really follows. It is driven by the engineers in the Liberal Party who have been travelling in ever-diminishing circles for years now bringing the country down with them.
Going back even further than the 1980 Throne Speech, I want to refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, about a campaign promise made in 1974. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced then that his Party, when elected, would make it a legal right to prepay residential mortgages during the first five years of the mortgage agreement, if the person wished to do so, without excessive penalties. Every Member of this House knows the hardships that the total disregard of this promise has caused. During the ensuing years when interest rates soared, people were forced to renegotiate their mortgages at exorbitant rates and were advised by financial institutions to accept long terms to ensure their rates did not go even higher.
During the 1980 election campaign, our Party proposed a mortgage deductibility program which would have given people a tax break to buffer them from the effects of the high interest rates forced on us by this Government. We recognized the need to help out home owners and the real estate industry. Earlier this year, my office was deluged with letters from constituents who had been forced to renegotiate their mortgages when the rates were around 22 per cent. The lenders were refusing to allow them to renegotiate without huge penalties.
On April 26 and April 27, 1983, I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). They at that time refused to acknowledge that this was a problem. I and other Hon. Members then forwarded individual cases to both Ministers to show that it was indeed a problem.
In September of this year, I sent out a questionnaire to my constituency. There were 37,624 copies of this questionnaire sent out. I received 4,426 responses, an 11.8 per cent response rate. One of the questions I asked was: "Should the federal Government provide trust companies and banks with an incentive to renegotiate high-rate, long-term mortgages with their clients?" Of those who responded, 54.2 per cent said yes, the Government should do so. Despite this kind of input the Government chose to take no action.
Just before this Throne Speech, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs hinted that this problem would be addressed in the new session. I would like to ask the Minister whatever happened to that suggestion. I heard nothing in the Throne Speech about that idea. There were no concrete measures there for the housing industry or mortgage holder. No one can argue with the comment in the speech that "Canadians
require improved security against losing their homes or businesses".
I also agree with the Government when it says in the Throne Speech:
These measures should increase the accessibility and security of home ownership, provide a greater measure of confidence and stability to the home building industry, and enhance the flexibility of the mortgage market.
The question is, what measures is it talking about? What does "legislation and other measures" mean? Does it mean a resurrection of the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan? Does it mean the Government has finally agreed to implement our Party's mortgage deductibility plan? Will home owners with high interests rate mortgages be allowed to pay down their mortgages? None of these questions is answered. All the Government has said in this area, as in the rest of the speech, is that it now knows what the problem is and it may try to solve it. No Hon. Member of this House should advise his constituents to take that promise back to their bank or finance company to use as collateral.
What with the Government's failure to properly assess the funding required for the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan last spring and its failure to make any concrete proposals in this speech, I am not surprised that its motives are questioned by home owners and the housing industry alike.
When the Government announced last spring that it was reorganizing the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to become an integral part of the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, I welcomed the change. The new Industrial and Regional Development Program which was passed in June held out promise to be of much more help to my constituency than were the DREE programs. Victoria-Haliburton was placed in a Tier 3 bracket and I was quite pleased about this. However, what has happened in a number of cases has been quite disconcerting. In one instance a small but growing firm was advised that it would be accepted under the old program. When the new IRD Program came into effect, this firm's application was dropped like a hot potato. I have been fighting for that firm's survival ever since. It has the potential to employ many of my constituents who would otherwise go hungry this winter. How can I, as their Member of Parliament, stand back and see this potential employer held up because the new program is different from the old one?
In another case, a rather large manufacturer in my constituency has been waiting for approval of its application since July. It is a solid firm with great potential for expansion and growth. The constituents of Victoria-Haliburton need the jobs this expansion would create.
I hoped that this Throne Speech would expand and simplify assistance to regional development. Instead, it just reannounced the Industrial and Regional Development Program and said that the Government will be re-signing the ten general development agreements with the provinces which expire in 1984. No new initiatives were brought forward. In short, there is nothing in that speech which will give any

further support to regional development, only the platitude that "we must start by building on our regional strength", a fact that we in this Party recognized some time ago.
On July 15, 1982 I had the opportunity of addressing a Kinsmen function in my riding. My theme was productivity. As a backgrounder to my speaking notes, I used the copies of speech notes given across this country by the then President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, now the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney). To quote from my text:
In improving productivity, Canadians may again be able to compete with Japan's and Germany's markets. Obviously, the onus is not solely on the private sector. Productivity depends on the role played by all segments of society, business, labour and governments at all levels. Government actions play an important role in productivity. They are responsible for setting the economic climate in which the economy operates. They must accept a role in designing programs to increase productivity such as they do in Japan.
The speech notes of the Hon. Member for Central Nova which I referred to went even further than that and suggested the creation of a national productivity commission.
The Government has now chosen in the Throne Speech to heed the remarks made at that time, and this shows that someone in the Prime Minister's office must have been listening. Waiting for the Hon. Member for Central Nova to be elected before using his and my ideas in a Throne Speech is a tribute to him, whether intended or not. Not doing more than just following through on our proposals is not a tribute to the Government.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Hon. Member's speech and note some of the points he made, especially where he referred to his Leader, the former President of Iron Ore Company, talking about productivity and industrial development. Would the Hon. Member care to recount for us the history of that company in both Labrador City and Schefferville?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has some misgivings about the nature and content of the question as it does not relate to the comments made by the Hon. Member who has just spoken. The other concern the Chair would express, which I do with some reservation, is that I simply want to caution Members that we should not unduly involve ourselves in the private lives of our colleagues in the House. That is not a matter for consideration in this forum. In any case, I have expressed some concern and I will allow the Hon. Member to reply.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I cannot relate the entire history of the Hon. Member for Central Nova's dealing with the Iron Ore Company in Schefferville.


Mr. Mazankowski:: He was a lot more compassionate than you guys were with AECL.


William C. Scott: I want to tell the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) that I get some of your brochures. I find them in my mailbox and I never see anything too constructive in them. I want to tell you this-
The Address-Mr. W. C. Scott


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair, not directly to the Parliamentary Secretary.


William C. Scott: He looked pretty attractive over there, Mr. Speaker, but I will direct my remarks to you. The Hon. Member for Central Nova dealt very fairly with the people in the settlement he had to make. Now we will go back to why that settlement was necessary. It was because of the actions of the Government which the Hon. Member represents in the economy of this country. If the Hon. Member for Central Nova had been Prime Minister at that time, this would never have occurred.
The economic forecast on the future of the Canadian economy did not give too much praise to the management of our country. Why? It is the massive debt built up by this Government which is hurting the economy. I wish in some of the brochures the Parliamentary Secretary sends out he would state the true facts.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) is not in the Chamber but he is watching the debate. The Hon. Member raised some points regarding the IRD Program. It might be useful if the Hon. Member could be a little more specific on some of the problems companies are having with this program. I understand it has been well received and is certainly being well subscribed to by business. Lots of applications are in; perhaps that is one of the reasons that the events the Hon. Member has described have taken place. When he compares the IRD Program, passed by this House last June, to the old agreement, does it not have the potential to be a far superior arrangement for individual businesses? It is more flexible, it provides financing in those areas of greatest industrial need at a higher level than in other areas, so it does satisfy regional requirements.
Would the Hon. Member not agree that this program has that potential, and if there are specific problems he has, has he brought them to the attention of the Minister?


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I was involved as my Party's representative in the meetings we had at the time we passed the program. I have great respect for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I have talked to him quite often. My sincere belief is that he is putting forward every effort he can. I talked to him as late as the day before yesterday and I find him very congenial. He told me at the time we passed this program that if it did not work, he would make it work. He would bring legislation to make it work.
Yes, I think it is better than the old program, but I do not think we can get it implemented fast enough in some regions of the country to give it the economic impact we need. That is what I am complaining about. I must say that I find some of the officials in the Department equally co-operative, but I think there is a big hold-up within the Cabinet in getting some of the money allotted fast enough.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, if the Parliamentary Secretary would stay for just a minute, I have something to say regard-

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Gimai'el
ing his comments on IRDP. I hope I will be recognized today for a question regarding the IRDP, Mr. Speaker.
I have a plant in my riding, Greater Canada Colour, which applied three months ago for financial assistance for an expansion which will cost $9 million and affect 75 jobs. 1 have written the Minister. I have spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary. This company is very anxious as they have options on presses in the United States which will come to their plant for this plant expansion worth millions of dollars. I would hope an answer would be forthcoming.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Further questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is always an honour to rise in the House during the Debate on the Speech from the Throne, especially now that the Government, after four years of hard work, is now bringing in policies intended to direct Canada towards even greater economic development, a well-structured development that will benefit all Canadians.
As a Member representing a region that is referred to as a resource region, one of those regions that are exceptional because of their resources, and their climate, regions that always seem to develop of their own accord, thanks to the energy of the people who live there, I would say that the policies implemented by governments in a region like mine are extremely important. I was anxious to speak in this Debate on the Speech from the Throne, following the motion moved by my colleagues and seconded by my colleague, the Member for Levis, because I wanted this opportunity to show the people of the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean what the Canadian Government has done over the past few years, and especially during the past months, in order to make it possible for our economy to develop strongly in the future.
We are starting a new session during which the Government will introduce a number of programs that will help develop our regions, and this comes after many months of hard work on setting up vital infrastructures. For instance, in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, a major change introduced recently was the implementation of the new program referred to a few minutes ago by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Under this program, businesses in our region will be able to take advantage of grants which, in some industries, may be as high as 60 and 50 percent, twice the amount the Department was able to provide before.
In addition, the Canadian Government has just announced that it intends to spend, or should I say invest, $245 million in the form of a grant awarded to Inter-City Gas for the construction of a gas pipeline that will carry natural gas from the Mauricie to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region by early
1985. This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker. This is a major expenditure. The sum of $245 million for the construction of a gas pipeline is a major investment for any government, and if the Canadian Government is doing this, it means it is aware of the industrial and economic contribution being made by the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region to the entire country.
Of course, we produce aluminum, and probably have the world's best workers in the aluminum industry. The same applies to pulp and paper. Our pulp and paper facilities and our sawmills are outstanding. We have a very highly skilled work force, which has managed to survive very well in recent years and has proved the very high level of its skills through the quality of the products on the market. Nevertheless, it is very important for the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region to be able to point to natural gas as one of its assets when competing with other regions for future investors.
In addition to the $245 million 1 mentioned earlier, the Government of Canada will also be subsidizing 50 percent of the cost of installing the intra-regional network, which will be built by local distributors. Furthermore, people can still take advantage of a grant of up to $800 for single family units converting from conventional heating to gas or to electric power, where applicable. In addition, businesses wishing to use natural gas also receive grants from the Government of Canada.
If the Government is doing all this, Mr. Speaker, it is because of its concern for our country and its desire to see Canada mainly through the implementation of our National Energy policy, to achieve energy self-sufficiency. That is extremely important, for Canada's future depends upon it, and it is through major investments as in the case of this pipeline, that we can expect to reach that goal within the next few years.
Moreover, I could tell the House that the contribution of the Canadian Government stopped just there are and did not go any further. Quite the contrary. These last few years, the Canadian Government has made major decisions that were necessary concerning our region. It has done a tremendous job improving all the airports in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. I will refrain from mentioning the millions of dollars spent on them including the Alma airport in my own riding, but I could not ignore the general development plan it has prepared for the region and which includes for instance the setting up of a VOR for long distance flights and the streamlining of our airports over the next four or five years, which will play a major part in our development. Clearly, for a city such as Alma, its airport, which is served by Air Alma, an airline with daily non-stop flights to Montreal and back, is most important: with it, we now feel closer to the major centers and our businessmen enjoy better means of communication.
January 26, 1984

The same can be said of the airport in Saint-Honore which, year in and year out, through its association with the CEGEP in Chicoutimi, has been one of the most prolific training centers for air pilots and air specialists in the province, and which remains most eager to expand its facilities.
When projects were being discussed for a new school for air traffic comptrollers, we would have been very happy indeed to welcome that school in the county of Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, the Quebec Minister of Education decided otherwise. I hold no grudge against the region where these facilities were built, but they would have been a great asset to us. Anyway, we are making every effort to develop that flying-school and that airport where some 15 Transport Canada employees are already working. I hope that during the next months and years, we will be able to do still more to improve that school and train people to become increasingly competent in the field of aeronautics.
As to the other investments by the Government in our area,
I need not mention the port of Chicoutimi which is very important, the new port of Grande Anse which will contribute to our economic expansion, the development of the base in Bagotville in the constituency of Chicoutimi. That project means several millions in investment over the next few years and expenditures in excess of $60 million per year for goods and services of all kinds in our area.
This means that the Canadian Government has played its role. At this very moment, Mr. Speaker, some federal employees who will be working at the Tax Data Centre in Jonquieres are now being hired. They will work for the Department which the people opposite are trying to discredit, the great Canadian tax collector which levies taxes for all provinces but Quebec, year after year, and which has been so helpful to all those Governments, enabling them to carry out sound development policies. That Department which has always endeavoured to provide revenues to those Governments and which has been condemned and decried by the Opposition during the past few days, has opened a centre in Jonquieres near my constituency of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. Thanks to that new centre, 400 people in our area will be able to find full-time employment while 500 or 600 others will get parttime jobs, six months per year.
This is how resource areas are given their orientation. Such orientation is strictly gratuitous because without the decision of the Government of Canada we would not have that new orientation. The Government of Canada has done so because it realized that over and above the 300,000 inhabitants in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean area there is energy used by all Canadians. There are resources used by Canadians: lumber, paper, aluminium, electricity, a valuable seaport for the entire country used for imports and exports and many people striving to improve the lot of every citizen throughout the country. There is even a Canadian Forces Base in our region to provide a line of defence for Eastern Canada. In addition, the Canadi-
The Address-Mr. Gimaiel
an Government gave us a Tax Data Centre to enable our young people to look more confidently towards the future, to remain in their community and continue to contribute to the development of that region which is doing so much for the rest of Canada. That Mr. Speaker, is another one of the vital elements.
Not least, the Canadian Government will leave its imprint on history, particularly for what it has accomplished over the past four years as a Government which has shown no hesitation to implement policies originally designed to provide help to economically distressed Canadians. Mr. Speaker, it would have been too easy to imitate other countries or to follow the advice of other politicians and systematically lower the boom on Canadians during the past three years. Had we wanted to look like opportunistic politicians, we could have said that Canada's deficit would not go higher, that the unemployed would have to fend for themselves, that there would be no point in creating the NEED or Canada Works Programs, because that would mean redrafting our labour and immigration policies to make them even more readily accessible for needy young people. The easy way out for the Government would have been to say that there was no need to create a Department of Youth, that there were too many idle people and that unemployment benefits would be slashed. No way, Mr. Speaker, our Government was fully aware of its responsibilities, and the first priority was to meet the needs of Canadians.
I represent a region where unemployment has always been rampant, particularly seasonal unemployment, and that is now compounded by a structural problem. Had it not been for federal policies in the past three years, I can say that all our region, and especially the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, would now be in an intolerable predicament. For three years now, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government policies have provided assistance to more than half the residents of my riding- humane and encouraging policies which have given faith to the young people who will build and develop our country. The truth is just coming out, Mr. Speaker. The economists are beginning to recognize it. The Canadian deficit is called a deficit, but that is not really what it is. It is simply money that the Canadian Government is borrowing from Canadians and distributing to other Canadians who put it back into the Canadian economy by spending it on infrastructures.
When the Canadian Government invests $245 million to build a gas pipeline, the Canadian population is not $245 million poorer; that is not true. They gain a gas pipeline which is now worth $245 million, but which will be worth $500 million in 10 years from now. The truth must be told. Certain economists were saying as recently as this week that 75 per cent of Canada's debt is supported by existing assets-


An Hon. Member:: The Conservative economists.

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Gimaiel


Mr. Gimaiel:: -three times larger, Mr. Speaker, than the national debt in 1950. Members opposite should stop telling fanciful tales and trying to scare everyone. As incredible as it may seem, they are trying to traumatize the population simply because the Government has done the job that people expected of it, namely, helping those who needed it most because of the difficult economic situation. It is so very easy, Mr. Speaker, to blame those responsible for collecting the money required to operate the whole institution of government or rather the governmental institutions. I have said it before and I shall say it again, Mr. Speaker, one Province receiving some of the money collected by the Department of Revenue has complained that the Department is not doing a good job or is collecting too much money. Nobody has ever heard such a complaint. The Members opposite may be saying this for political reasons, but we are used to this type of rhetoric from the Official Opposition. We only have to look at what is happening in Manitoba. It is incredible to see how hard the Conservative Party in Manitoba is working to try to destroy a small minority of individuals and take away their rights. It is an incredible and shameful behaviour for politicians. We have just witnessed the longest debate ever held in the Manitoba Parliament, and this happened because a small handful of individuals were claiming certain fundamental rights. What have their fellow parliamentarians in this House done to convince them? Absolutely nothing. They join us in passing resolutions. The Leader of the Opposition makes marvelous speeches in which he talks about humanitarianism and compassion. However, when the time comes to call back to order his fellow Conservatives in the Manitoba Opposition, he does not say a word. Not a single word. It is incredible, Mr. Speaker. This is the type of policy that the Members opposite are advocating. I may have misunderstood my role, but I have always thought that I should first of all serve those who pay me and try to make their lives easier and provide as much welfare as possible for them in this country.
There are certain basic principles that must be adhered to, Mr. Speaker, and respect is one. If the House can operate adequately, it is because a certain degree of human respect has developed here since the early days of Canada, and it is this respect which is being flouted in Manitoba by the Progressive Conservative Party. This is unacceptable. If the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) accepts that, I cannot understand how he would want to govern our country some day. It is totally unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Of course, eventually, anyone can exhaust his resources and I believe that this is what has now happened to the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney). He is now at his wit's end, but in trying to be unsophisticated he is merely showing that basically he does not have much to offer politically. The record of the Hon. Member for Central Nova in Quebec is well known. He showed up the day the former Bourassa government gave him a chance by appointing him on the Cliche Commission. Immediately Toronto interests grappled him, they made him
the vice-president and president of a corporation which brought the north shore population from 125,000 down to
100,000	within five years. A beautiful record! This is what we experienced, this is what we know of him, because in the constituency of Lac-Saint-Jean, there are people coming now directly from Schefferville. They have left their house, their livelihoods and everything. They are coming back after 20 years with their belongings packed in a small bundle. This is all they were left with, that and whatever they could bring down on the Iron Ore train, the fare of which was paid by the Canadian government. And as my colleague from Manicoua-gan (Mr. Maltais) remarked, meanwhile the corporation made $185 million profits during the last quarter.
Mr. Speaker, such is the history of the Hon. Member for Central Nova in Quebec.
When I see him here all stiff and starchy, to the point where his face gets red when he turns his head either because he does not agree with his colleagues from Manitoba or because his shirt is too tight, when 1 hear him making assumptions on economic development I wonder what is the basis of all that? Bethleem Steel, or Argus Corporation? We do not know. He would have us believe he has such benevolence for Canadians. Well, Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not need benevolence. They are honest, hard working people, the owners of their country. Every Canadian, and there are 24 million of us, was born a millionaire because our country is large and belongs to everyone of us. We need no benevolence from a party leader who is telling us that tomorrow morning, 40,000 civil servants may be redundant. Apparently he wants to succeed where the British Columbia government has failed. And you know what I mean by this, Mr. Speaker.
It is always easy to pick on workers. And this same member for Central Nova went suggesting out West that I was unknown in my constituency. No, Mr. Speaker. That newly elected member, who was sent here by a constituency outside the province where he was born and has been living, a constituency in a neighbouring province, because nobody wanted him at home, that member, Mr. Speaker, has the gall to say that 1 am not known and I do not realize that people do not know me in my own constituency. I will tell you a story, Mr. Speaker. Just one.

I simply want to refer to a paper which I have. I will take the last two minutes of my time to read it. It is headed "Northern Research Centre" and states:
I have been in touch with the Russian Ambassador and with the McGill University Centre for Northern Studies to ascertain more completely the parameters of Northern Research and Industrial Development in the northern climate in Canada as compared with the Soviet Union. The Russians have developed cities in their northern reaches combined with research centres in many disciplines and it seems to me that the modest initiative in this regard jointly sponsored by the federal and provincial governments and private industry could be very beneficial.
January 26, \984

I have written to your colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to ascertain the Government's view on the advisability of sending a small mission with Schefferville representatives to examine such facilities in northern Russia.
We would be glad of your assistance in promoting this concept with your colleagues.
It was signed "Brian Mulroney" on January 24, 1983. Is that the place from where the Leader of the Opposition wants to take ideas to govern Canada, northern Russia?

No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way we work in the Sague-nay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. The ideas for development are coming from the people. We do not need to see what the Russians are doing to know how to develop our own country. Moreover, that letter bears the signature of its author. That is a crying shame, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that when one has no idea whatsoever how to develop a city where one's company has been operating for 25 years, to the point that one needs to refer to a communist neighbour which is 5,000 miles away, one should not even sit in this House. I am sorry I had to conclude on that sour note, but however painful the truth is sometimes it has to be told. The Hon. Member for Centra) Nova is entirely out of his depth. He should give up his seat and perhaps hand over his party leadership to his predecessor, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! Questions and remarks. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Bow River.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel). He did not seem as flexible today as he was some time ago when he said the Liberals would be Communists, if necessary, to be elected. He has lost some of that flexibility. I do not question his knowledge of communism but the fact he said Liberals were prepared to be Communists to get elected makes me wonder where that flexibility has gone.


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's question, and sincerely I must add that 1 relish the way he expresses himself in this House, and his verve. He is probably one of the opposition members who acts and speaks with the greatest conviction. And there is one thing I must recognize, his great intellectual integrity, and I say this with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, since I have much respect for him. Ever since I came here four years ago, I have always liked his style of speaking, that of a member who comes straight from the grassroot. But as for the rest, I think he made a mistake when when he quoted me. I have never said that a Liberal, in order to get elected, was ready to become a communist, and I will never say so because, first, the aim of a Liberal is not to get re-elected, it is to put in place policies to help the people. Referring to communism, when a Member makes a speech and indeed emphasizes his true message to Canadians, that a
The Address-Mr. Gimaiel
liberal is first and foremost someone who works for everyone, this is not being a socialist, a capitalist, or a communist. The idea is to work for the people who have elected you, who pay you to do your work, it is to work for the welfare of all. This is one thing. But when someone who, in January 1983, three or four months before being elected as leader of a supposedly national party, and who might some day become Prime Minister, because this may happen, when that person writes a letter as the one I have just read, and says or rather writes above his signature that we should go to the northern cities in the Soviet Union, where the Russians send all their dissidents, to look for solutions to Schefferville's problem, a town he himself had just closed down, from where he took people who gave 20 years of their lives, who built homes there, and he put them on his rotten train to send them down South, to unemployment, and then has the gall to ask Canadians, the Canadian government to pay him for that, this is the pay-off! It is there, black on white and signed, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine what such a person might sign if he ever became Prime Minister? Have you ever heard of such a thing? It is awful.


Mr. Mayer:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel). I listened with a great deal of interest to my friend. We have had some conversations in the past and I consider him quite a good friend in many ways. He was being very critical of my Leader. I am sorry that I missed part of the import of what he said, but in his response just now to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) he talked about implementing policies to help people.
If my recollection is right, the Russians have some extremely good technology and experience in dealing with permafrost. No matter where we are in this world, there are things we can learn as Canadians from other countries. The more we can co-operate with people in business ventures that benefit both sides in many ways, it will do exactly what the Hon. Member said. It will allow us to implement policies that benefit people based on knowledge and experience in other parts of the world. If the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean is being critical of my Leader for suggesting that we can learn things from other parts of the world, including Russia, I would like to hear him comment on those things and how he squares what I think are contradictions in the two statements he has just made.


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his statement. I would appreciate his explaining this to some of his colleagues who, over the last two years, enjoyed themselves scaring people out West by quoting part of a speech I made here in this House. I am not surprised he understood it, I have known him for a long time and he always has been open-minded, something that cannot be said of some of his colleagues. And unfortunately, this is what is killing the Progressive Conservative party. When he tells me there are technologies in the Soviet Union, I can agree on that but there remains a fact, and this in my view is the important fact he pointed out: why

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Mayer
then does his leader go about telling the people in Edmonton, for instance, that in Schefferville, 1,000 kilometers from my place, he could see that people in the constituency of Lac-Saint-Jean did not know Pierre Gimai'el, their Member of Parliament?
Was it not somewhat dishonest to tell people in Edmonton that Schefferville is near enough? You know, the only news we got from Schefferville in Lac Saint-Jean is when Duplessis opened it and when Mulroney closed it. These are the only news we got, so far away are they from each other. They are as far a^ay as Manitoba is from Lac Saint-Jean. And I never understood the assertion the Hon. Member from Central Nova made in his speech to the effect that just because he lived in Quebec, Schefferville and Baie Comeau, he had become aware that the people in Lac Saint-Jean did not know their Member of Parliament, an absolute stranger. When Mr. Mulroney made that statement, he was not aware the Member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I would remind the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members that Members should be referred to by their constituency or title.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. When the Hon. Member for Central Nova made his statement, he was in no position to know whether I was unknown or not. On the other hand, had he been in any way close to my constituency of Lac Saint-Jean, he would have learned the name of Pierre Gimai'el for 12 years, despite my young age, since I did not spend that time amassing a fortune by working for $500,000 a year for big bosses in Toronto. 1 worked for my people, creating jobs more often than not for $6,000 and $10,000 a year, quite simply as an ordinary man. And this I remain, simply doing what I see as my duty. Intellectual integrity would have required that he at least check his facts before making a public statement. So he proved to what extent he can flout everything, trying to gain for himself the reputation of someone well informed. This 1 call intellectual dishonesty.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask the Hon. Member another question. He seems to be disturbed because our leader made reference to him in the great auditorium in Edmonton before 3,000 or 4,000 people. I was there and I listened. I do not know why the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean complains. Our Leader read exactly what the Hon. Member had said as reported in Hansard. If the Hon. Member does not want to be quoted, he should not speak and be recorded in Hansard. At the end, all the Member said was that he doubted very much whether the people of the constituency would go for that type of thing. They would not go for being a Communist just to be elected. That was the gist of it.
I have another point and perhaps the Hon. Member could deal with both points at the same time. This one is really along the lines of what the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) has said, namely that no nation has a monopoly
on wisdom or technology. If we ever close our minds to the point where we cannot learn from someone we do not like or with whom we cannot agree, we will be denying ourselves.
I have no use for communism. I do not accept that philosophy. I could not live under it and I do not want to. I believe in free enterprise. I think communism kills initiative. But if the Communists came up with a cure for cancer, I would be foolish if I said that because the Communists have found a cure, I will not allow it to be used here. I would say that we should certainly take advantage of it. We can learn from them, but we do not have to accept their philosophy to do that.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, what I did not accept in the first place-there are two things that prove the Leader of the Opposition's lack of intellectual integrity. First, he quoted only a small part of my speech. If he had quoted it all, not a single Conservative would ever have been re-elected in Edmonton. Second, he pretended that because he had lived in Quebec, he was in a position to say that my constituents did not know me-

I want to tell people, especially people from Edmonton, that when the Hon. Member for Central Nova was in Schefferville, he was 1,000 kilometres from my home city. He does not know anything about that city. He never went there. If he did, he did it so fast that no one saw him. He cannot tell the people that no one knows me in my area. That is what I mean when 1 say that it is not honest.
If the Hon. Member believes so strongly that we have to be respectful and discuss together, he should tell his Leader that he has to be honest when he speaks about a colleague in the House of Commons. Second, when he writes something, it is better to check first what he will write instead of trying to make people believe that he knows everything.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to have applause even from the other side. I wonder whether they will applaud me when I have concluded my remarks.
This is an interesting debate. It is the debate on the Throne Speech. At the outset, as have other Members, I want to congratulate you on your recent appointment as Deputy Speaker. I have had the opportunity of seeing you in the House in the years I have been here and congratulate you on your appointment.
I also want to pay tribute to Mr. Speaker who has done a good job. We certainly all wish him well. In the past he held the position of Deputy Speaker and did a good job. It is not an easy job, as you well know. If we are to live up to our potential as Members of Parliament, it is extremely important to have capable persons occupying the chair.
January 26, 1984

Before getting into my remarks on the Throne Speech, I want to make reference for what the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'ei) said about the Manitoba situation. I see him conversing with his seatmate; I ask him to pay attention to what I say. He made reference to the situation in Manitoba. There is no doubt that it is a very delicate situation. That is the case any time we deal with matters which involve emotions, questions of conscience, deep beliefs and convictions of people. In this case it is a very emotional experience. I really do not think it does any good for a Member on any side of the House-and I say this with sincerity-to rise and say that the present situation in Manitoba is shameful and that there are people there who are trying to eliminate minority rights. That is not the case.
I live in Manitoba. The Hon. Member just made a case that my Leader should not talk about situations in which he has not been involved. The Hon. Member who just concluded speaking did exactly that when he referred to a situation about which he really has no understanding. I have had past conversations with him. He knows my feelings. 1 consider him to be quite a good friend. Although we have not had lengthy conversations, in retrospect the ones we have had have been very genuine and real; at least, that is the way I feel about them.
I think it bears repeating that we should all exercise caution in the language we use to describe the situation in Manitoba. Even though one is there, it is very difficult to understand it and to put it into words. For someone to say something which goes on the record of this House-that is, to call it shameful- does not really help the situation. That is meant as an observation and a word of caution to everyone as we in the House will probably be faced with a resolution coming from Manitoba very soon. When it comes before us, I think it is important for us to be able to deal with it as objectively as we can, without a lot of prior statements which can be thrown back and forth on either side and misinterpreted.
The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean should know that because he feels badly. Perhaps I am taking too much latitude with what I think are his feelings, but I think he regrets some of the things he said in the House concerning the way he feels as a Liberal. I see him shaking his head; I take back what I said, then. However, I am sure he feels badly that some of his comments have been misinterpreted. Anything we can do to prevent misinterpretation is the right course of action when we consider what is presently going on in Manitoba.
1 only have a few minutes before we adjourn for the luncheon hour, but I would like to talk briefly about the Throne Speech. I see it as being like a blueprint of the Government's plan of action in the upcoming session. I suspect that is largely how the Government views it. When one looks at the Throne Speech, one can get a little idea of or feel for the direction in which the country is going. There are something like a hundred promises in the Throne Speech. The record of this Government in the past in carrying out promises has meant more government, more regulations, more rules, more bureaucrats and more people telling us what to do. In addition to the hundred promises or thereabouts, there are something
The Address-Mr. Mayer
like 26 task forces, committees, boards, advisory councils and such things. Again that points out, at least in my mind, the direction in which the country is going. In many ways I think that is sad.
I have to concur with the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who just made the point that we believe in free enterprise. We do not believe that freedom should be without responsibility or that it should be a licence to prey upon one another. It should be an opportunity for individuals to develop and make use of the resources, opportunities and individual qualities which they bring to this country. In many ways the more regulations, the more rules and task forces which the Government sets up, the tougher and harder it is for individuals to realize their collective potential so as to contribute to the potential of our great country. And I do think it is a great country.
It is with a certain amount of sadness, when all of us rise to speak, that people say we are partisan; that if the Government says that it is black, we would say it is white; that we simply oppose for the sake of opposing. That is not the case with many of us. Many of us feel for the country and in many ways would feel a lot better within ourselves if we could rise during the Throne Speech debate and congratulate the Government. I intend to do that in a couple of instances before I conclude my remarks. We should be able to rise and say that the country is going in the right direction and that the policies outlined in general form in the Throne Speech are the correct ones.
I want to refer very briefly to some of the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is very rarely that he speaks in the House, but I thought he did an excellent job of setting up a whole host of straw men and then knocking them down. He was not being very accurate-and I use that word deliberately; I could use a stronger one-in pointing out some things. He mentioned that this Party was against things. He was good at saying that we were against things and that his Government were for them. For instance, he referred to metric, which has been in the news in past weeks. He pointed out that this Party was against metric. Certainly that is not the case. It is an example of setting up straw men and knocking them down for the sake of making a rhetorical, argumentative or debating point.
It is his Government that is against the imperial system. If he wanted to be intellectually honest, he would admit that. His Government is outlawing or is in the process of attempting to outlaw the imperial system. This Party has never been against the metric system. We have used it gladly, with accuracy and with precision. We have felt comfortable with it; but we do not feel comfortable with the Government continuing to legislate, regulate and tell us how we should conceptualize on things other than measurement.
I see Mr. Speaker getting ready to shut me down. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would never think of shutting down the Hon. Member, but I have a duty to inform the House that

January 26, 1984
it being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


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


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, millions of Canadians are being subjected to another Liberal hoax. To put distance between himself and his predecessor who did nothing, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) toured the Niagara toxic waste areas, and publicly stated that cleanup would be a priority issue both with respect to talks with his American counter-parts and in his Department, giving the impression generally that he was a man who would get things done.
Earlier this week in the House he seemed oblivious of the time period involved with a very technical and complex proposal before the courts. He said he needed help from people in the area.
Well, Mr. Minister, your Department has been getting help from the people in the area for years. Pollution Probe and Operation Clean have received your blessings, your commendation, and your encouragement, but not your money. Knowing that your Department will not intervene, will you help them, first by obtaining an extended time period to allow Canadians to make constructive comments on that proposed court settlement; then make your Department expertise and information available to these people's agencies that care and, last, since you are aware of their financial concerns and needs, will you assist those agencies with funding so that they might do the job that has to be done in the interest of Canadians?



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, since the 1980 election the Official Opposition has made a concerted effort to poison the atmosphere in this House by fostering acrimony, and then manipulating that acrimony to paint themselves "poor victims" of imaginary Liberal Government chicanery. The latest example is the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) blaming the date of the upcoming Budget for the cancellation of a European trip.
For some time now, the Official Opposition has refused to allow the long standing and honourable practice of pairing, whereby a Liberal Member can safely be absent from this House, knowing that a member of the Official Opposition will also be absent to balance out the scales. This practice by the Official Oppositionn has particularly affected the ability of Liberal Ministers to fulfil official duties requiring travel. Have they complained and cried? No! They have put their responsibilities as Members of this House ahead of travelling.
The Leader of the Opposition cries because he has cancelled a European trip. This man, who has refused to co-operate with Ministers trying to do official duties on behalf of Canada, berates the Government because he did not try to ascertain if a civil request for postponement could be met. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) offered an accommodation. It was turned down because the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to continue to play the "poor victim", even if he has to create the circumstances that make him a victim. When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark) at least got half way around the world before losing his luggage, but the present Leader of the Opposition cannot even get off the ground in his own country.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, inaction by the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the red meat area has forced some provincial Ministers to take action. Red meat producers in Canada are seeking ways of improving their industry and would certainly appreciate more commitment from their federal Minister of Agriculture to assist them in doing so. He should not say essentially, by his cool reception and do-nothing position, that the cattlemen and red meat producers do not know what is best for them and, therefore, he will only give a commitment if they accept his theory of a supply management marketing board.
By waiting, and not giving support to the initiatives for a proposed national red meat stabilization plan, these beginnings of national discussions seem to be evaporating. This is unfortunate because, through this kind of co-operation and discussion, satisfactory stabilization solutions might have been found. Rather, it seems that the federal Minister will only move if he has more control and power.
The Minister would love to have the power to set prices, issue quotas, control imports, register all beef producers, and charge levies to cover costs and surplus disposal-visions of Section 14 of the Canagrex Bill. What the industry needs instead of the Minister's pet peeves is co-operation, consultation, and supportive assistance to come to its own solutions.
January 26, 1984



HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANTS-PLEA FOR DONATION OF LIVER

Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, major advances in medicine have been made which have allowed lives to be saved by means by human organ transplants. As Members of this House are no doubt aware, there is right now a young boy, eight-month old Eric Middleton from Amherstburg, Ontario, who is in the University of Minnesota Hospital in Minneapolis awaiting a liver transplant which could save his life. Thus far, doctors have been unable to locate a donor for this young child. I would like to make an urgent appeal to all Canadians to be aware of the desperate need for a liver for this young child, who will not live more than one month without a transplant.
While there is a tragic race for life of immediate importance to Eric Middleton, there are many other individuals in need of organ transplants of various kinds. There is an obvious lack of awareness on the part of the public, and the medical profession to some extent, of the importance and desperate need for organ donors. A tak force has been set up in Ontario to address this problem. I suggest that the federal Government should mount a national public awareness campaign to inform people of the urgent need for organ donors. It is a tragedy when a healthy organ is buried that could have saved a life.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EMERGENCY MEASURES


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Emergency Planning Canada seems to have caught the civil defence bug from south of the border. Not to be outdone by the $4.3 billion civil defence program put together by the Reagan administration, Canadian emergency planners want their own multimillion dollar program of nuclear fallout shelters. In their enthusiasm for plans to survive a nuclear war, Canadian officials are now predicting that half the Canadian population might still be around after a nuclear war.
At least one provincial Premier does not share this enthusiasm. Premier Hatfield has condemned federal plans to build a $3.3 million fallout shelter in Fredericton as objectionable and fanciful. "There is no place to hide", he said. "Nuclear war must be dropped as an option". The Premier is right; there is no place to hide.
The mischief of civil defence planning goes beyond a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Since the early 1960s, successive American administrations have believed that, when balanced deterrence exists, nuclear war would be mutual suicide. So long as no thought could be given to fighting, let alone surviving a nuclear war, civil defence really did not make any sense. In the last couple of years they seem to have turned that around.
They are now thinking about a winnable nuclear war. Like most Canadians, I thought that the Canadian Government was also in favour of a mutual balanced deterrent between the superpowers. This move toward civil defence preparations leads me to believe it has now changed its position. It is irresponsible for the Canadian Government, as well as being profoundly dangerous.



THE LATE JACK SANDERSON


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, the Aviation Hall of Fame in Edmonton honours many Canadians whose soaring drive built an aviation industry in this country. This April another of these great pioneers was to have been inducted into the Hall of Fame but, sadly, Jack Sanderson passed away before he could be so deservedly honoured.
Canadians could draw inspiration from the career of a man who was equally at home in the cockpit or behind a director's desk. He was one of those World War I pilots who brought such glory to our country. He then turned to barnstorming in the twenties, and thrilled many thousands with his aerobatics.
Jack Sanderson brought the same dash and vision to the corporate field. He was responsible for the establishment of Fleet Industries and, by sheer determination, steered the company through the Depression until it became a significant contributor to the Allied cause in World War II.
Hon. Members, his love of flying and aviation was never dimmed by age. He was one of a special breed.
Today there is a movie called "The Right Stuff', a tribute to space-age aviators. Looking back, I think we can say that when it came to the "right stuff', Jack Sanderson was the original source.



FISHERIES


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a topic affecting the fishing industry of Canada, which relates to fish consumption. Fish consumption in Canada is extremely low considering the importance of the fishing industry to many of our provinces. Canada's per capita fish consumption for 1982 was 15 pounds per person per year. This compares to 80 pounds in Japan, 50 pounds in Portugal, 46 pounds in Sweden, 40 pounds in the United Kingdom, and 26 pounds in France. Canada's poor fish consumption is having a detrimental effect on the fishing industry.
Canadians should make a conscientious effort to consider fish as a possible meal alternative. It is low in caloric and

January 26, 1984
cholesterol content, and is a healthy way of obtaining our protein needs.
Since I had the honour of becoming a Member of Parliament in 1979, I have had the opportunity to do a considerable amount of air travel between Prince Edward Island and Ottawa. During these flights 1 have never been offered a serving of fish as a meal. I would like to point out that frozen, prepackaged fish is economical and enjoyable. I feel that fish should be offered on board airplanes as it would help increase fish consumption in Canada, therefore assisting the fishing industry by providing a better market for fish products.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians can rightfully be proud of their country's foreign aid contributions to the world's underdeveloped countries. This Party is in complete support of the principle of supplying aid where and when it is needed.
We must be concerned, however, when the European Parliament is investigating reports that western aid is actually being sent to the Soviet Union. We also hear reports that Ethiopia is spending 40 per cent of its budget on its army, instead of feeding its starving citizens. Meanwhile, CIDA allocates $10 million in food to Ethiopia this year, the same amount as last year. Do we know where it is going?
Has the Government not learned a thing from the Fiasco in Haiti in 1981, when a $21 million project had to be scrapped because of waste, proven corruption, and featherbedding?
Potential recipients of our largesse are not necessarily the poor and the starving. In too many cases the aid is siphoned off into the pockets of the powerful and wealthy leaders of one-party governments. Why not give priority to nations friendly to Canada, and cut off aid for nations politically hostile to Canada? Was there no lesson in Grenada? Is the U.S. stand on UNESCO in vain?
Liberal economic policies have put us in the same league as Mexico, another bankrupt nation, both of us with billion dollar deficits. We can ill afford to squander the taxpayers' hard earned dollars that Revenue Canada goes to such harassing lengths to collect, on propping up inefficiently run, one-party dictatorships that are politically unfriendly both to us and to the entire notion of democracy and human rights.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, some very dramatic developments in the telephone industry threaten
to have a major impact on the very excellent telephone system upon which Canadians have come to depend.
Applications have been made to allow competition in the provision of long distance telephone service. This will force the separation of local and long distance telephone services. Big companies will benefit and be able to negotiate discounts on long distance service. The losers will be the average consumer who makes local calls. The telephone companies are now suggesting that local customers be charged for every individual call, with each call metered. Projections in the United States estimate that the cost of local service will increase up to 100 per cent in the near future.
The victims will be the old and the infirm, who depend on the telephone during the hard winter months to keep in touch with friends and family, the small business person who depends on the telephone to generate business activity, and others who depend on the telephone to improve their quality of life. The Government and the Minister of Communications must make a commitment to protect the consumer, the aged, and the small business person, from the threatening implications of deregulation of long distance telephone services.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is a concern that in our society we have many people who are seeking in Canada Pension Plan disability benefits but who are experiencing considerable difficulty in obtaining that pension.
According to the conditions for receiving such a pension, there must be medical evidence that a person is completely disabled from doing any type of gainful employment. However, many people in this category are stymied in their request for a disability pension due to the assessment made by their attending physician to the effect that they are fit for light duties.
The problems that exist are, first, that many of these people with disabilities have spent many years at some specific employment which, for the most part, requires considerable physical activity, and consequently they have not acquired the skills or the experience to take on any other type of job.
Second, in this period of economic stress it is difficult for these people, for the most part individuals of just under retirement age, to find light, unskilled jobs.
Third, the requirement to obtain a precise medical report which is based on the thorough and complete history taking, and physical examination usually by a specialist, to qualify for a disability pension, is a major obstacle for the average person.
I feel that there should be more flexibility exercised by the Department of Health and Welfare and that criteria other than strictly medical ones should be used to decide whether or not such an individual qualifies for a disability pension. It
January 26, 1984

should not relate solely to the certification of total disability by a physician.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF FINANCE OF MEXICO

Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor, Senor Silva Hertzog, the Minister of Finance of Mexico.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister will be aware of a lengthy and detailed paper prepared by Mr. David C. Nathanson for the Canadian Tax Foundation. In his paper Mr. Nathanson says that there is a new aggressiveness on the part of the Department of National Revenue and, in particular, that "there appears to be a decided official preference for celebrity prosecutions", and that the Department is seeking to blur the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. How does the Minister respond to Mr. Nathanson's charges?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member refers to as charges are nothing more than comments or an opinion voiced by an individual. I do not consider that as a charge in the sense used by the Hon. Member.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what an astonishing statement by the Minister.


REQUEST FOR STATISTICS ON TAX PROSECUTION ACQUITTALS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister accepting that it is true there is a decided official preference for celebrity prosecutions and that the Department is seeking to blur the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Those are very serious charges.
Mr. Nathanson states that one symptom of the new aggressiveness is that there has been an observable increase in the number of acquittals in tax prosecution cases as the Department takes on cases where criminality of the impugned con-
Oral Questions
duct is at most unclear. Will the Minister table in the House the relevant statistics, so that Members of the House and the Canadian public can draw their own conclusions?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that evidence has to be brought before the courts when someone is charged with tax evasion. He knows as well that no charges are made before the courts unless the case has first been examined very closely prior to consultations with the Department of Justice and meticulous preparation of the case file.
As to his remarks concerning the new aggressiveness of certain Revenue Canada officials, the Hon. Member is aware of my concern about this attitude or impression on the part of the public or of certain individuals. The Hon. Member also knows that we have announced new measures to make sure that existing policies will be strictly enforced so that the public will be treated in keeping with the practices and principles of the Department.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, you will note that once again the Minister did not answer the question. I asked whether he would be prepared to table the statistics in the House so that Canadians could draw their own conclusions.


DEPARTMENT'S PRACTICE IN INSTITUTING PROSECUTIONS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister another question, and perhaps he will answer it. Does he dispute Mr. Nathanson's charge that his Department's desire to prosecute cases which have little in foundation in the law, in Mr. Nathanson's words, "brings the administration of the Income Tax Act into disrepute"?


Pierre Bussières: In
my answer, Mr. Speaker, I forgot the question about statistics, but I will check whether they are available and, if so, I will be pleased to inform the Hon. Member.
Concerning the second point, as I said to the Hon. Member, and he is aware of that, we do not lay criminal charges for tax evasion before scrutinizing the files and we simply cannot act blindly because we must have evidence. That is one man's opinion, and I should think that the Hon. Member would rather not express a sweeping judgment on the administration of a Department on the basis of that opinion.


CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY KITCHENER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question follows on that of my colleague and is directed to the same

January 26, 1984
Oral Questions
Minister. It deals with the attitude of the Minister and, in particular, his officials, toward the public. The Minister will know that three weeks ago he received a letter from the Kitchener Chamber of Commerce which warned him that the "Big Brother" attitude adopted by his officials would be heavily resisted by taxpayers, forcing many of them to go underground. Has the Minister responded to the serious concerns outlined to him by the Kitchener Chamber of Commerce in its letter of January 6?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have responded in a very positive way to the concerns expressed in the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, for instance by asking Mr. Farlinger to examine our departmental practices with respect to serving the public, our top management performance in the Department, our district office administration, as well as our ways of dealing with the public. I believe that is one way to meet the concerns expressed by the Chamber of Commerce.


RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY KITCHENER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that Hon. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House are hearing from increasing numbers of their constituents that the bullying tactics of his officials are not only creating financial traumas, which have been outlined, but are also contributing directly to individual health problems and family crises.
The Kitchener Chamber of Commerce in its letter to the Minister recommended practical ideas for improving the working relationship between Revenue Canada and the communities which it serves. A good Minister will act upon simple, straightforward recommendations. How many of these practical recommendations has the Minister acted upon?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that it may have escaped his notice that the preamble to his question unfortunately smacks of the worst kind of demagogy.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should keep in mind that whenever taxes are being collected, it is because they were assessed as being moneys owed to all Canadian taxpayers, that is the millions of taxpayers who pay their taxes regularly, every week, or every month.
In cases where taxpayers are in especially difficult financial situation, we meet with them and try to make arrangements acceptable to both parties.
As far as the specific recommendations mentioned by the Hon. Member are concerned, I am considering them within the context of the study being carried out by Mr. Farlinger.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow up to the question I posed yesterday to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance acknowledged yesterday that the possibility of the country, the Government and the private sector, being able to create an additional 1.5 million jobs in the next 12 months was not there. It was virtually impossible for that to happen. Recognizing, then, what necessarily flows from that, that there will be large numbers of Canadians who will not be able to find work during this calendar year, and recognizing that the Minister has frequently claimed that the economic recovery which is taking place will continue to grow and that there will be opportunities sometime down the road, why is it that the economy in 1982 was able to sustain unemployment insurance payments to 95 per cent of all of those who were unemployed, yet in 1984 the economy is only able to sustain unemployment insurance payments to 75 per cent of those who are currently unemployed?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that the Unemployment Insurance Program is an insurance program. Under the law passed by this Parliament, payments under the program carry on for so many weeks according to the number of weeks in which one has contributed to the insurance program. Once people are off the Unemployment Insurance Program, there are other programs in our society to take care of people who are in real need, for instance, the Canada Assistance Plan.
The explanation I have to give to the Hon. Member is that the program is the one which has been passed by Parliament. Unemployment insurance claims are paid under that law for the number of weeks to which people are entitled, and it will continue to be so.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, unfortunately, did not really answer my question. I was not asking how the program is structured. I know that.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
Ian Deans: I asked the Minister how it could be that, in the depth of the recession we have just come through, we were capable of paying unemployment insurance benefits to 95 per cent of those who were unemployed, while now, with the improvement in the economy which the Minister has indicated is there, we are only able to pay unemployment insurance benefits to 75 per cent of those who are unemployed.
Let me focus in on it a little bit. I have in my constituency a gentleman who has been unemployed for, I believe, one full year. His unemployment insurance benefits ran out two months ago. He reported to me as late as today that, because
January 26, 1984

his wife works, he is not eligible for any assistance from any other source. However, her income is not sufficient to feed the family and pay the bills. Why will the Government not extend the Unemployment Insurance Program to guarantee that those who are now unemployed through no fault of their own, like this gentleman and many others, will be able to keep up their commitments during this period when there are no jobs for them, until such time as the economy does in fact turn around and job opportunities are available?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the Hon. Member how the system operates. There is not much I could add to that. He could refer to many cases similar to the one he has described; in fact, there are similar cases in my very own riding and the problem is real. Clearly, these people are faced with a difficult situation, but under the unemployment insurance legislation passed by Parliament benefits under that legislation have always been paid in Canada. We have not reduced the social benefits in spite of the recession, contrary to most other countries. In fact, in this country we have other social programs to help those who are in need, as I explained in my previous reply to the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that simply is not true. Those people cannot receive benefits from other than the Unemployment Insurance Program in the circumstances I have described.


REQUEST THAT AMENDING LEGISLATION BE INTRODUCED
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, if the problem is that the Act is too restrictive, we on this side of the House will be prepared to give a commitment here and now that, if the Government will bring forward legislation to extend unemployment insurance benefits for those who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and for whom work is not available, we will pass that Bill within a week. Will the Government bring forward that legislation in order that those people ought not suffer?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the usual New Democratic Party attitude. It is all ready to vote for additional expenditures, but it is never ready to vote for additional ways of raising the funds.


FINANCE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. A survey by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association indicates that the reduction in capital cost allowances which was implemented in
Oral Questions
the infamous MacEachen budget has forced industry to cancel $1.8 billion worth of investment in manufacturing alone. In view of the 1.3 million Canadians who are officially unemployed, and since investment is the prime engine of new job creation, when will the Minister reintroduce this investment incentive, as our Party has so consistently urged?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not take into account some $2.4 billion worth of incentives to the private sector contained in the April Budget in the form of research and development credits, loss carry-back and carry-forward, and in the form of support for small and medium sized businesses in particular. These measures are having a significant beneficial impact on the private manufacturing sector. Obviously my friend can always imagine there would be more investment if there were more tax breaks. I bet my hon. friend that, if we were to pay 100 per cent of private sector investment, there would be more investment. There is nothing new and great in saying this. But there has to be some reasonable, sensible policy as to how much of a contribution there will be from the public sector, the taxpayers, to stimulate investment.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just given us a contradictory mishmash of policy. It is not a question of whether I am ignoring the special projects; it is the fact that two-thirds of the respondents to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association survey said that that measure had affected their investment.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, turning to our international competitiveness, the widely respected European Management Forum has pointed out that in terms of industrial competitiveness Canada has fallen from sixth to eleventh place, behind Austria and behind Finland. Since some of the firms responding to this survey specifically said they need new investment to increase their productivity, why is the Minister putting the brakes on our economic recovery by failing to provide this investment stimulus?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer I was not referring to federal Government capital construction projects. I was talking over and above the $2.4 billion of capital projects undertaken by the federal Government. The last budget had an additional $2.4 billion worth of tax incentives for the private sector, and my hon. friend should be aware of this.
The Hon. Member refers to the publication called European Management Forum. If she had been in the House when the question was raised about this very same publication by her colleague from Etobicoke, she would have known that that publication based its article on figures from the end of 1982 and the beginning of 1983, when Canada was just beginning to get out of its worst recession since the Great Depression. If she looks at the current figures on what happened in 1983, rather

January 26, 1984
Oral Questions
than still living in the time of the recession, she would realize that Canada's share of world trade increased in 1983, not decreased. She would realize that our Gross National Product has gone up, productivity has increased-


Mr. Nielsen:: So has unemployment.


Marc Lalonde: -and our unit labour costs have increased less than the United States. We have had a very good record in 1983, and I suggest that instead of relying on publications which are something like a year old, she could use at least a weekly publication like The Economist which gives the indicators and shows that Canada is performing extremely well compared to any other industrial country.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is also the Minister responsible for shipbuilding policy. He will know that due to his and his Department's insensitivity to the plight of the shipyard workers, over 70 per cent of those people normally involved in new ship construction are jobless. What is he going to do about it? When is he going to get serious about the desperate plight that this country's jobless shipyard workers and their families are facing?
Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member has not been paying attention to what has happened in the last couple of years in the shipbuilding industry with respect to the Government's initiatives. In spite of the fact there has been a dramatic decrease in demand for shipbuilding all around the world, this Government has taken some very positive action. For example, the Export Development Corporation financed a $100 million plus rig which was built in the shipyard in Saint John. As a result of the April Budget of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence announced substantial contracts for ships, right across this country, ten of them as I recall. If it was not for this Government's positive reaction with respect to the world-wide recession in shipbuilding, there would not have been anything built across this country.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, due to the actions of this particular Government the Saint John shipyard is all but shut down at this very time.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for dragging his feet and not introducing the shipbuilding policy legislation which is long overdue in this House. When will the Minister act on behalf of shipyard
workers and get that Bill before the House, which this Party has agreed to see gets speedy action? When will he close that ridiculous loophole in the PIP grants which, in effect, subsidized foreign-built ships and put Canadian shipyard workers out of work by the thousands?


Marc Lalonde: Mr, Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that there is a heavy load of legislation before the House. If he feels this particular Bill should be given priority higher than other pieces of legislation, he should raise it with his House Leader who, I am sure, will want to discuss it with our House Leader, and then this matter will be examined.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture concerning the economic recovery which the Government says is under way in our country. The fact is that there is no real economic recovery for farmers, particularly in Saskatchewan where farm bankruptcies went up by 87 per cent in 1983 and net farm income dropped by some 12 per cent. In light of those startling facts, and many other cases that I could tell him about from all across my riding, I want to know what the Minister is planning to do specifically to make sure that farmers will stay in business and that net farm income will go up in 1984, rather than down like it did last year.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about the economy of his Province. I would gently remind him that the economy of the Province of Saskatchewan shows in the agricultural sector the least turndown of any province in Canada. It shows the debt repayment ability of farmers to be the best of any farmers in Canada. It also shows that the Royal Bank of Canada has opened 14 new branches in Saskatchewan this year. It shows we have loaned more money to farmers in Saskatchewan this year than we did before, and their repayment ability to the Farm Credit Corporation is the best. It also shows that we spent in Saskatchewan double the money that the Province of Saskatchewan does to help the farmers of Saskatchewan.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If Saskatchewan is doing the best, it must mean that the rest of the country is awfully sick, because our bankruptcies have gone up 87 per cent and net farm income has gone down by 12 per cent in 1983.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Only in Yorkton.


INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT-REQUEST THAT MINISTER UNDERTAKE NEGOTIATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Argentinians have just announced

they are going to undercut our wheat price by $50 a tonne, can the Minister of Agriculture say whether or not he is ready to take the initiative to go to the other grain exporting nations around the world and try to arrange with them an international grains agreement so that our farmers here can participate in a recovery?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Member talks about the farmers' income in his Province, and it is fair enough to say their net income will be down. However, they still have a net income, and it is quite good, actually, better than any of the other provinces. After the recession that some of them went through, for a business to be in that same good economic position I think is something of which we can be very proud.
The Hon. Member talks about what Argentina is going to do with its grain. Surely he does not want a 200 per cent inflation rate. Surely he is happy with a less than 5 per cent inflation rate in Canada. Surely he is not suggesting something like they have in Argentina. It would mean distress selling. Surely he knows that grain sales for the first five months of this year are up 12 per cent over last year. Surely he knows that they were higher percentage-wise last year than they were the year before.
Oral Questions


Miss Begin:: Through my inquiries in the audit department 1 found that in practice there are a few hundred cases where it has taken place. Revenue Canada does not collect when the taxes owed are less than $600. We have decided, as a matter of interpretation, to negotiate hardship cases such as GIS with Revenue Canada.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for small businesses and tourism. The Canadian tourist industry suffered a record $1.9 billion deficit last year, which translates into some 50,000 Canadian jobs having been lost. Why has the Liberal Government allowed this disastrous deficit to accumulate while tourism in other countries has increased? Why does the Minister not show initiative and leadership by calling for a federal-provincial conference forthwith with a view to alleviating the number one problem responsible for the deficit, namely, the over-taxation of the industry by both levels of Government?
* *
*


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday there were allegations in the House with regard to the recovery of income tax arrears from pension payments. I have made inquiries in my riding and in the ridings of the majority of the Members from the Niagara Peninsula, and could find no mention of this. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the House of the extent to which, if at all, income tax arrears are collected by withholding pension payments made under the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security?


Monique Bégin: The Member for Capilano asked me that question, but forgot to ask it again as suggested.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Monique Bégin: I checked the facts of the situation. Hon. Members opposite might wish to tell their research bureau that while the Conservative Government was in office in 1979 it gave Revenue Canada the power, through Section 224.1 of the Income Tax Act, to collect taxes owed, from pensions of seniors, including the Canada Pension Plan.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct when he points out that we have had some loss in tourist dollars in this country. The main problem has been lack of American tourists. The Government has shown leadership. We did have a federal-provincial conference in September. As a result of identifying the problem, earlier this month I announced an additional $14 million, over $12 million of which will be spent on attracting American tourists to Canada through a large television compaign which will start in April. If that is not action, I do not know what is.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that advertising is not the solution and that reduction of taxes is.


TAX ON ADVERTISING MATERIAL IMPORTED FROM UNITED STATES
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Maybe he will have more definitive answers than the Minister of Tourism. To add insult to injury, the Government has imposed a 9 per cent tax on tourist advertising material which is sent to Canada from the United States. The United States Government has retaliated by proposing a similar charge to tax Canadian advertising material being sent to the United States. We send far more material into the United States than they send to Canada. As a result of this, the Canadian tourist industry is the clear loser. Will the Minister repeal this tax in the forthcoming budget? If not, will he explain to us why he continues to penalize the tourist industry which is so important to the Canadian economy?

January 26, 1984
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. friend that the measures contained in the last Budget, particularly those helping small business, have been quite significant and have run into hundreds of millions of dollars. The tourist industry is a very significant element of the small business sector. In addition, the Minister responsible for small businesses and tourism has been announcing a number of steps taken by the Government in support of small business, and tourism in particular. I will take the representation made by the Hon. Member as a representation.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Revenue who reports to the House for CDIC. CDIC owns and controls Eldorado Resources. Would the Minister inform the House whether either the assets of Eldorado Resources, or it and its subsidiary companies, have been sold to Gulf Oil or to any part of the multinational empire known as Gulf? If he indicates to the House that he does not know the answer today, would he tell us whether such an important sale of a Canadian asset would require ministerial approval?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the Hon. Member and to the House. Unfortunately, I have been unable to obtain the information I needed to reply to the Hon. Member. I will enquire about the situation, however, and reply to both parts of his question as soon as possible.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has the Minister received a briefing outlining the abysmal lack of security at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake as it relates to possible infiltration of the base during the upcoming Cruise missile testing?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, it came to my attention some time ago that there had been threats made by individuals that they would attempt to infiltrate the Cold Lake base. At that time I had an inquiry made as to the state of security at Cold Lake. I was assured that the security provisions were sufficient to resist any attempted infiltration.


ROLE OF DEPENDANTS OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL IN ENSURING SECURITY
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Cold Lake base is completely surrounded by woodlands and is easily infiltrated. Does the Minister realize that dependants of Armed Forces personnel have been asked to participate in the security of the base because of the lack of Armed Forces personnel to secure the base themselves? Is the Minister paying these dependants to assist in the security of the base?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, that is information which has not been made available to me. I will review the allegations of the hon. gentleman and report back to him.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in regard to his responsibility for emergency planning in Canada. Emergency planning in Canada has recently announced a rather extensive program to construct nuclear fall-out shelters in different parts of the country. Can the Minister tell us on what basis the Canadian Government has decided that such a program is necessary? Would he tell us the total cost of this program?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this could require a very long answer. I prefer to follow your good advice and be brief. There have been extensive consultations with the provinces and with groups interested in protecting individuals in case of major disasters. The idea of building such shelters is founded on the need to ensure that in those regions, after a major nuclear disaster, there would be survivors to ensure that these people are still led by provisional Governments. Those provisional Governments would be able to provide them with food, make decisions in regard to energy, and make other decisions necessary to ensure that those affected are as well protected as possible. That is the best short answer I can give to the Hon. Member.


RATIONALE FOR POLICY
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Does this new policy for the construction of nuclear fallout shelters mark a change in the strategic thinking of the Canadian Armed Forces? The Minister will know that for many years the Canadian Armed Forces shared the belief of NATO that the best defence is a deterrent which would prevent a nuclear war. Does this signal a change toward the belief in a winnable nuclear war?
January 26, 1984


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the original question that was asked by the hon. gentleman. I might point out though, that I heard his question and his allegation relating to there being a belief that there is a winnable nuclear war. The hon. gentleman knows as well as we that there is no way that any nuclear confrontation would result in any one part being successful. We are facing the difficulties of which the hon. gentleman is very well aware.
Oral Questions
Recently, we have made a very clear proposal and we are prepared to continue the discussions on that issue. Two hundred million dollars is a lot of money! Never before did a Canadian Government invest that much in a sporting event in Canada, and it is altogether normal that we ask questions and want to know how our money will be spent.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Could he tell the House why he refuses to honour the agreement which was reached with the previous Minister on December 22? What did the previous Minister do that is so wrong that he cannot honour that agreement regarding the funding of the Calgary Olympics?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the Hon. Member, we have not refused to implement the proposal, quite the contrary! The agreement of December 22 is still on the table. We have simply said that we want to know how this amount of $200 million will be spent. I think the Hon. Member will agree with me that we cannot give a blank cheque without insisting on knowing how the money will be spent. Those are the only questions we have asked the organization committee.


TERMS OF DECEMBER PROPOSAL-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the Minister's proposal of December 22, and I have this Minister's proposal of January 20. It is not simply a matter of determining how it will be spent. In effect, the January 20 agreement violates the arrangements made with the International Olympic Committee and it puts the Calgary committee in the position of having an open pocketbook, and eliminates the federal Government from any sense of cost control. The previous agreement did not do any of those things. Why will he not honour the proposal which the previous Minister made on December 22?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the position of the Canadian Government has always been the same. Quite simply, perhaps the people in Calgary were under the impression that they could have a blank cheque and spend the money as they saw fit.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It was just over two years ago that the former Minister of Transport, with the stroke of a pen, terminated 20 per cent of Canada's VIA Rail service. My question arises from a Canadian Press article which appeared in the paper the other day which quoted Harold Murray, VIA's western vice-president, as saying that the line between Winnipeg and Saskatoon was re-established because people along the way wanted it, and that it is an example of the democratic process. Could the Minister of Transport explain what new democratic process is in place to bring about the return of 20 per cent of Canada's VIA Rail service which was terminated by the former Minister of Transport?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is fully aware of the various steps we have taken to conduct a review after a two-year period, as the previous Minister of Transport indicated at the time. After a two-year period many of those lines were to be re-examined to determine whether market conditions would reinforce some reinstitution of service. That review was undertaken and, in certain cases, there was a change in market conditions that would justify a re-examination and reinstitution.
As well, we have established a consultative process whereby we have gone into a number of communities and talked to local mayors, boards of trade, provincial officials, and Members of Parliament, to determine what kind of commitment they were prepared to make for any reintroduction of service. I want to say that as the Hon. Member knows, such a consultation has taken place in his own area, so we are already away ahead of him by going into his area and holding those discussions.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I would like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to remind the Minister that that consultation program to which he refers in the municipality of Peterborough has never taken place between the Minister and the heads of those municipalities. In fact, they have recommended three dates, two of which have expired, and the third is coming up on Tuesday.

January 26, 1984
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET PETERBOROUGH REGION MUNICIPAL LEADERS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Would the Minister, in order to satisfy the five ridings in the Peterborough area which have been adversely affected by VIA termination, confer with the heads of those municipalities, since he has not done so yet, in order that they can review with the Minister the possibility of a democratic process, as referred to in this article, being followed in the city and area surrounding Peterborough?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that I took the initiative to set up that process. The process is being carried on in a wide variety of communities across Canada under the auspices of a special adviser who reports directly to me the opinions, judgments, and assessments, based upon that wide ranging assessment.
If I were to spend all of my time meeting with each community 1 would not have time to deal with the many other aspects of the Transport Department. I have a special adviser who is performing that duty and who has met with municipal leaders in that area. He is giving me the recommendations, and I will treat them with the same seriousness as I have in every other part of the country.


RAILWAYS
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the Question Period I supplied the Minister of Transport with a press copy and some other information with regard to a very sad tragedy which occurred in my constituency late Tuesday afternoon. This tragedy was crash between a pick-up truck and a CNR freight train, resulting in the death of a 32 year-old mother and two young boys aged five. As well, three young people, all under the age of 11, are critically injured and are in hospital.
I ask the Minister very seriously if he would consider, if he has not already done so, implementing a program to upgrade the safety features and equipment at all level crossings, particularly the installation of flashers and barriers at all level crossings? Unfortunately, this is not the first accident, and unfortunately will not be the last.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the Hon. Member sending me a note concerning the very tragic event which took place in his area. I would point out to him that we have the Urban Transportation Assistance Program which has been operating for the past five years, under which the federal Government provides direct assistance to the provinces for grade crossing programs. It is up to a province itself to choose the priorities for a federal allocation.
We are presently negotiating a further extension or redevelopment of that program for an added period of time. It is still under discussion. We do not control the actual allocation of the grade crossing programs. We rely upon local and provincial judgment to make that assessment for us. I will be meeting the Hon. James Snow on Friday to undertake other joint measures, and I will bring this to his attention.
I would also like to point out that we did announce today that there will be in the Department of Transport a special office dealing with safety measures, which will be responsible for making an over-all assessment and co-ordinated special investigations where there are particular problems. I will refer that problem directly to that new office that has been established today.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who is responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Minister is aware that last year in the Silk case the Supreme Court of Canada found there was discrimination against fishermen in qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits. Amendments to the Act have not served the purpose of the Government or of the fishermen, and a recent Board of Appeals decision in British Columbia shows that the Unemployment Insurance Act, as the regulations pertain to fishermen, is ultra vires and discriminatory to fishermen. Is the Minister prepared to introduce amendments to the Act which will allow fishermen to qualify for unemployment insurance on the same basis as any other workers in Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely aware of the details of the legal case to which the Hon. Member has referred. I will certainly look into it to provide myself with more information than I now have. I should say to the Hon. Member that I do not at the present time have plans to introduce the kinds of amendments he is suggesting.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) on Wednesday, January 25, 1984 and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
January 26, 1984


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader to confirm the business for tomorrow and to outline the business he anticipates the House will be considering next week?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will start debate on Bill C-12, dealing with fiscal arrangements with the provinces. Monday will be an Opposition Day and I hereby designate Monday as such. Tuesday we will resume debate on Bill C-12, as we will on Wednesday and Thursday, except that if debate on second reading is completed before Wednesday, the two back-up Bills will be Bills C-7 and C-8. If debate is completed after Tuesday, the back-up Bill to Bill C-12 will become a Bill to be introduced next Tuesday, which will be the result of concurrence to Ways and Means motion No. 2.
I want to be more specific. The first item of business on Tuesday before we resume debate on either Bill C-12 or Bill C-7 will be the motions to concur in the remaining Ways and Means motions that appear on the Order Paper. That should be the business from now until the end of next Thursday.


Erik Nielsen: Could the Government House Leader provide the House with the title-it escapes my memory now-of the Bill that will be introduced on Tuesday flowing from the Ways and Means motion No. 2? I believe it is something to do with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
While the Government House Leader is answering that question, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in an official release from his office-it does not quote the Minister but quotes an aide-suggested three additional pieces of legislation to come before the House. One is to broaden the use of the Canadian ownership charge; a second is to implement Ottawa's energy deal with Nova Scotia; and the third would be designed to amend legislation covering as yet unsigned frontier exploration agreements, which will likely be tacked on to one of the Bills. I hope there will be no tacking on. I wonder whether the Government House Leader, while the Minister is here, could confirm that we will be seeing this legislation forthcoming in the future.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question, I already referred my hon. colleague to motion No. 2. The Order Paper reads: "Consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act". That is the Bill we intend to introduce next Tuesday.
In so far as the second part of the Hon. Member's question is concerned, I will consult with my colleague, the Minister of Energy. I should be in a position to give a clearer answer in the weeks to come.


Erik Nielsen: Weeks?
The Address-Mr. Mayer



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling a list of the members of Committees of Cabinet as well as a copy of Order in Council PC 1984-217 which designates Acting Ministers. Recent practice has been that these documents are printed as an Appendix to Hansard and I ask the consent of the House for this to be done today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there consent for the Parliamentary Secretary to append these documents to Hansardl


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above, see Appendix.]


CRIMINAL CODE
William Henry (Bill) Domm: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to give notice to the House of my intention to introduce a Bill to amend the Criminal Code. This Bill will be debated at the appropriate time. The purpose of this Bill is to impose the death sentence in all cases of first degree murder.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stevens (p. 728); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Dick (p. 735.)
Mr. Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer) had the floor before the lunch hour recess.


Charles James Mayer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet at one o'clock when we adjourned for lunch. The point I was attempting to make was the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had spoken in the

January 26, 1984
The Address

Mr. Mayer
Throne Speech debate and how he had attempted to put up straw men and make false assumptions and statements about the kind of attitude which the Official Opposition has toward some of the problems with which we are faced today.
One of the points made repeatedly was that his was the only government capable of solving and addressing some of the major problems facing this country. The Prime Minister spoke specifically about social programs, about unemployment and measures his Government has implemented to help those less fortunate or for some reason those who find themselves in circumstances other than they would like. Probably the biggest failing the Prime Minister's Government has had, or any government has had in Canada, is that of being unable to do something about unemployment. I would also point out to the Prime Minister, and this is not original with me, that probably the greatest social program that anyone can avail themselves of is simply getting a job. If one adds up the people who are officially unemployed and adds to that figure those who are continually looking for jobs but have ceased to be registered officially as unemployed, I suspect close to two million people are out of work. That is a tragedy. Without a doubt that is the greatest social program that any government could address.
I have some misgivings about whether any government simply by its nature is capable of taking on the total employment program. That is probably one of the problems this Government has and is a topic for a whole speech; but to the extent a government can address employment and create opportunities for an individual to create wealth, add to the productivity of his family, his community and in total his country, this Government has failed and failed totally.
I would like to speak specifically about some of the measures in the Budget that address agriculture. I want to point out why I think they are really inadequate, but first let me preface that remark by complimenting the Government to a certain extent. There was considerable mention of agriculture in the Throne Speech. I counted up some ten areas. Briefly, I want to point out what they are and ask some questions and encourage the Government, where it is serious about some of the things mentioned in the Throne Speech, to come forward with appropriate legislation. If it comes forward with some of the things mentioned in the Throne Speech, we on this side would certainly support them willingly and encourage the Government to get on with them as quickly as possible.
Page 10 of the Speech from the Throne reads:
As part of the Government's thrust for growth, measures will be introduced to modernize and upgrade the fishery, forestry, mining and agriculture.
I am not sure I know what that means, but if I understand it correctly, I would encourage the Government to come forward with legislation flowing from this. Certainly we on this side would be prepared to support it willingly.
Another area in which I think the Government has fallen down miserably when it comes to accepting or assuming some of its responsibilities in agriculture appears at page 11 of the Speech from the Throne, where it reads:
To help ensure that food production will continue to be one of Canada's long-term strengths, a livestock stabilization program will be established in co-operation with the provinces.
Basically that is empty talk. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has been on record for over two years as saying that he will address some of the problems facing the Canadian red meat industry. He is on record as saying that he has a plan in his back pocket and that he is prepared to come forward with it. He has said that repeatedly. We see it again in the Throne Speech.
People who are aware of the situation with the provinces will know that four provinces reached an agreement in principle in the fall of 1983 to proceed with a red meat stabilization program. It was initially endorsed by the federal Government, yet we have seen no support coming from it. We do not know whether the Government is prepared to put up any money. We do not know whether it is prepared to guarantee or underwrite any losses which the plan would have in the initial start-up stages. Of course, this would be a help to provinces and producers. In fact, my understanding of the way in which the discussions proceeded with the provinces leading up to an agreement by four producing provinces was that the federal Government really played a minimal role. This is the senior level of government in the country. Agriculture should be a major factor in the continuing growth of Canada. It has been in the past and has the potential to be so in the future.
We need some leadership and understanding of the issues and problems faced by agriculture on the part of the federal Government. We do not see that. What we see are statements in the Throne Speech which have been made before but unfortunately have not been followed up with any action. I find that very lamentable. If the Government were prepared to come forward with legislation to address what it says in the Speech from the Throne is a balkanization problem as far as livestock is concerned, we on this side would certainly be prepared to support it. I am not saying that we would support it without examining it or sending it to committee. If the legislation were there, we would certainly take a good look at it. If it were at all feasible and met with the approval of the provinces, we would certainly be prepared to look at it with the idea of supporting it.
There are two other areas which would help agriculture and not cost the Government a lot of money. In fact, one would not cost any money. A simple increase in cash advances would help. People in the agricultural community will understand what I mean by cash advances. It is a system whereby the federal Government guarantees loans that producers can take out against product they have already produced. It is a cash advance against future sale of a farm product which has already been produced and is stored on a farm. Such legislation has worked reasonably well in the past. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that it has been very good legislation. The losses have been minimal and it has put cash into the hands of farmers before they were able to sell their products. Many producers produce over a short period of time. They harvest in the fall of the year and are forced to store their products over a longer period of time. If they can obtain cash advances, it
January 26, 1984

means they are in a position to recirculate the money from that program back into the economy before they normally would if they had to await the sale of their products.
In the case of cash advances from the Canadian Wheat Board, that program has worked exceptionally well. There is an added reason the Government should proceed quickly with such legislation. I see the former Minister of Transport in the House. When one of his responsibilities was the Canadian Wheat Board, he told us in June, 1983 that in September legislation would be introduced to amend cash advances for prairie grain. That has not happened. It did not happen last fall. It is now mentioned in the Throne Speech, but we have seen no evidence of it coming forward to date in this session. Cash advances for prairie grain is an exceptionally good program because it is operated through the Canadian Wheat Board. I repeat that for the sake of the Government. It reminds me of the story about the person who was going out to break a horse. All he was carrying was a two-by-four. He was asked: "What do you want the two-by-four for?" He said: "I have to beat him over the head to get his attention before I try to do other things with him". That is where we are at with this legislation; we have to say it over and over again.
The point is that the Canadian Wheat Board borrows money at prime minus a quarter per cent. That would make it imperative for the Government to proceed with the legislation because money put into circulation as a result of the Canadian Wheat Board borrowing at prime minus would save every producer taking advantage of interest costs. No other producer in the country can borrow money at less than prime rate. It does not make any sense that the Government is unwilling to proceed with that legislation. We are prepared to pass it very quickly in the House. If it were a straightforward, simple amendment to raise the cash advances, we would be prepared to pass it very quickly; in fact this afternoon.
The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) whose responsibility as critic is the Canadian Wheat Board has indicated that to the Minister responsible in the other place, but nothing has happened. The Government charges that we have no policies, no ideas, and that we simply obstruct and hold things up. This is one example-and I could give many more-of where that is certainly not the case.
We are encouraging the Government to come forward with something that makes common sense, yet we see no action. There are many other things in the Throne Speech which make sense as far as Canadian agriculture is concerned. I could refer to them all, but I would say from my point of view and that of all of us on this side that we were pleased to see the Government at least recognize the importance of agriculture and that it was enough aware of it to mention it ten times in the Throne Speech. Our problem is not with what the Government said in the Throne Speech. It is with getting the Government to act on some of the things it says it wants to do.
I see Mr. Speaker giving me the speed-up sign, and in conclusion I would like to quote a brief sentence from the remarks of the Prime Minister as reported on page 48 of Hansard. He said:
The Address-Mrs. Erola
That reminds me of Moliere's character who blindly endorsed the opinions of the elders. For him, it was a virtue.
When the Prime Minister said that, he was referring to Hon. Members on this side of the House. That more accurately and aptly describes Hon. Members on the other side who very blindly, and in many cases sheepishly, endorse the opinions of their elders, in this case the senior elder, the Prime Minister of the country.
I think history will judge the Prime Minister and the Government very harshly. The Prime Minister came to power when our country had a lot of goodwill and a tremendous amount of potential. He is leaving shortly, at least I hope so, as do many people in the country. One of the reasons he has been able to stay so long is that the people behind him have done exactly what I quoted him as saying. That is precisely what Liberal members have done. Not only will history judge the Prime Minister and the Government very harshly; it will judge people who supported him and blindly accepted his opinion.
We are a bankrupt country. The people in the Government are also bankrupt. They are bankrupt morally, spiritually and as far as ideas are concerned. It does not make any sense in the 20th century, when Canada has more resources per capita than any other country, when we have tremendous people and various things going for us, that we somehow cannot get our act together and perform to our capacity so that individual citizens, families and communities have the benefit of Canada's potential. It is a disgrace that we are performing to such bad standards.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: I see that I am getting some reaction from the other side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. Questions, comments? Debate.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about women and, in particular, about how the new commitments in the Throne Speech build on an unassailable record of achievement in this most vital area of concern to a majority of Canadians. I stress "a majority of Canadians" because women constitute 52 per cent of the population in Canada. I must remind Hon. Members of this House occasionally of that fact.
I am particularly pleased today to speak on this subject because I do not often get the chance. It puzzles me somewhat that Hon. Members opposite are conspicuously silent on the subject of women. It is a rare occasion when a Member across the way deigns to put a question to me on this Government's policy on women. I dare say it might be a lack of familiarity with the issues which zips their lips, or perhaps a lack of interest, or perhaps the realization that in good conscience they cannot oppose actions or policies with which one has no quarrel. In that respect I accept the congratulations of Hon.

The Address-Mrs. Erola
Members opposite, implied or otherwise, on a job well done by this Government.
Speaking of congratulations-
[Translation\
-I want to offer my sincere congratulations to our new Governor General and welcome her on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Nickel Belt.

Our new Governor General served this Elouse with grace, equanimity and patience during an uncommonly raucous and bitter three and a half years. Eler appointment has met with unanimous approval, which speaks volumes about the respect in which Madam Sauve is held across the country, and in particular in my riding.
I am comforted, if not altogether satisfied, that we have made remarkable progress in the past decade, particularly in the last four years, in the quest for justice for Canadian women. That is all we want, justice. It is at the same time difficult to believe but easy to understand that just over 50 years ago Canadian women were not even viewed as persons in the eyes of the law. I do not have to remind Hon. Members that it took five women, some of my brave Liberal predecessors, backed I must say by a Liberal Government, to challenge this absurdity and win for Canadian women the right to sit in the other place with the same authority as a man. These women paved the way for other women to gain greater access to the circles of power. We have had many, many women Senators since who have served with distinction. I must say with considerable pride that I welcome Senators Anne Cools and Lorna Marsden to the other place. I know that their extremely high degree of commitment to the advancement of women will be an energizing influence on our Chamber of sober second thought.
I must, say, too, that the increasing presence of women is gradually breaking up the tiresome serge and pinstripe uniformity which has characterized our political institutions. I am afraid it happens on both sides. It is important that this process be accelerated. It is here, within these walls and within the walls of the provincial legislatures, where decisions are taken, changes made and new ideas are put into action. We need women in the fora of political debate to make their voices heard and steadily wear down those reactionary attitudes which restrain female human beings from enjoying real equality in this, the twentieth century.
The outrageously low rate of female involvement in our political institutions is an almost direct result of the fundamental obstacle to sexual equality, the lack of economic security and equality in Canadian society. It really is a chicken and egg situation. There are not enough women in politics because not enough women have the independence afforded by economic equality; or women do not enjoy economic equality because the political system does not contain enough women to influence the decisions which can improve economic equality.
"What do women want?" It seems to be the question across the land time and time again. It seems to be the eternal
question. "You have constitutional equality now, what else can we do for you?" We may have equality in the fine calligraphy on the rich manila of the Constitution and we may have equality in the right to vote, but out there in the real world, in the factories, in offices, in homes, in unemployment lines, equality is a long way from lending truth to the constitutional guarantees which, 1 remind this House every time I have an opportunity, were nearly passed over, had it not been for the unleashed wrath and energy of incensed Canadian women.
We do not have equality when women workers earn on average half of what men do. That applies not just to the trades where one would expect it, but in the professions; lawyers, teachers, administrators. In general, in all jobs, including those requiring at least a university degree, women are substantially underpaid in relation to men.
Why is that? Are women less competent? The reverse is probably true. Are they not worth the same pay as men? Nonsense. The explanation I would venture lies in the continued unwillingness of provincial governments to enact effective equal pay legislation.
The federal Government has only 10 per cent of the Canadian work force under the umbrella of its labour legislation. We have, of course, put in place an equal pay law. It remains the duty of the provincial legislatures to take those steps to correct this grossly unfair situation in the other 90 per cent of the work force. With but a sprinkling of women in the provincial capitals across Canada, one would be well advised not to hold one's breath waiting for male politicians to see this as an important priority.
The other source of economic second-class citizenship status rests with the reality of the majority of women in Canada being entrapped in what we call job ghettos. In fact, over 60 per cent of women work at jobs in the clerical sector as opposed to 26 per cent for men. Women form 72 per cent of all part-time workers who do not enjoy the same pay scales, job benefits or security of full-time positions. This is a matter of great concern to the Government and one which has been addressed in a recent comprehensive study. High technology, the impact of the microchip and the revolution of information processing has further exacerbated the problems of women in the work force. There are conflicting views on the subject. One holds that the advent of high-tech bodes ominously for women presently employed who may face replacement by machines.
The other argument is that high-tech may create enormous new opportunities for both women and men if our training and retraining methods keep pace with emerging requirements. This, too, is a development that we at the federal level are doing something about by providing massive funding for skills training programs. We also established a task force on microtechnology through Labour Canada.
Employment problems and opportunities are the number one concern of women and this Government, but there are many others. Pension reform, for example, while directly related to the situation of women in the workplace, must and will be pursued to remove the indictment to poverty facing so many elderly Canadian women who have little or no means of
January 26, 1984

support in what should be their golden years. It is so often the case that women who lack other means of support become "brides of the state"; governments become the husbands of last resort, impotent ones at that. Daycare, greater financial resources for child rearing, shelters for battered wives, maternity benefits, affirmative action-these are all issues which are very much with us. I am pleased that the Government of which I am a member, has addressed these issues with positive and forthright action.
I mentioned maternity benefits, Mr. Speaker. It was this Government which extended eligibility criteria and made it possible for adoptive parents to have paid parental leave. It is not always well known throughout Canada, because this happened just within the last year, that the Government doubled the child care tax deduction to a maximum of $8,000 per family.
After much pressure on the provinces, we made it possible for women to drop out of the work force in order to raise their families without losing their Canada Pension Plan benefits. We have undertaken the establishment of a thorough public task force on pensions and will respond to its recommendations very soon.
I plan to bring a re-examination of financial arrangements for daycare to the forefront at the next federal-provincial meeting of ministers responsible for the status of women. We have allocated over $9 million since 1977 to fund 666 shelter units for the victims of family violence under the CMHC non-profit housing program, and this support will continue.
We have boosted financial support for women's groups in 1984 to $15 million. In the Speech from the Throne it was mentioned that the Government would reinforce its financial aid to women's programs. Just three weeks ago my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), and I announced this additional funding to allow women's groups to continue the research and networking so essential to the development of progressive, commonsense policies to meet the needs of Canadian women. I am especially pleased that $500,000 per year for the next five years will go to the establishment of chairs of women's studies in Canadian universities. If any Members have had an opportunity to read the Symons-Page report they will know that this is one of the recommendations it put forward. I recommend this report because it states quite graphically the plight of women in Canadian universities.
The Government has demonstrated a commitment to the advancement of women both as participants in the paid workplace and as the people who, for the most part, raise our children. It has acted to remove, reduce and eventually, we hope, eliminate the trauma associated with acts and practices which denigrate, degrade and dehumanize the female person. We have instituted guidelines in sexual and personal harassment in the civil service. We have implemented guidelines to remove sex stereotyping from all government communications. We have amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual harassment,
The Address-Mrs. Erola
pregnancy, family or marital status as well as physical or mental handicaps. We have revised the criminal statutes to make the prosecution of sexual assault a less traumatic experience for the victim and, more important, we have acted to remove the distinction which in the past viewed rape as something other than an act of violence and assault.
We have established a parliamentary committee to study sexually abusive broadcasting. We have set up a special committee to study the thorny issue-and it is a thorny issue-of prostitution and pornography. We fund a woman's group called Media Watch to monitor and alert women to sex stereotyping in the media. I am pleased to say that my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), is planning amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with these issues.
There are very few problems that I can think of facing Canadian women that the Government has not addressed in some form or another. This country serves as a model to the rest of the world for the degree of importance we attach to the emerging needs of women. Our record, while certainly always in need of improvement, stands proud among the nations of the world.
Our response to the United Nations resolution on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women was the most thorough and comprehensive report of all signatory nations. As a matter of fact it is being hailed as the prototype for other nations.
My Department has initiated consultations with provinces and territories in order to complete for the United Nations the 112 page questionnaire on the progress achieved in implementing the goals of the United Nations, namely, decade for women, equality, development and peace. Work on the questionnaire constitutes the first step in activity on our new plan of action on the status of women. Canada will be seeking re-election to the United Nation's Commission on the Status of Women in order to continue our international work for the advancement of equality for all women.
I could go on for the next hour or two reeling off the lengthy list of achievements of the Government in tackling women's issues. I should like to pause for a moment, however, and as we head into the next phase of the Government's mandate, consider what choices face Canadian women.
It is a very clear choice. The present Government's commitment to women is unassailable. This Party has a woman president, a woman as head of the policy committee, an extremely active and influential women's commission, more women Members of Parliament than the Opposition Parties combined and we have as many women in Cabinet as the Tories have in their entire caucus. We appointed the first woman Speaker, the first woman Governor General, the first woman to the Supreme Court. We have named many, many women to important posts within the Government. In fact, I would be very happy to distribute to Members the latest list of 1983-84. We have traditionally and consistently fielded more women candidates for elected office than any other Party.

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Erola
Who can doubt that this Party is the strongest and most passionate voice for Canadian women?


Mr. Nowlan:: Doris Anderson.


Mr. Malone:: I can.


Mrs. Erola:: Who can doubt our commitment?
Let us get down to it then, shall we, with the Conservative Party? Never, never has the appellation, "conservative" been more appropriate than to describe the attitude of that Party to women's issues. Let me cite a few examples provided by no more objective a source than the Conservative Party. The questionnaire results of the-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We had the first woman Minister, Ellen Fairclough.


Judith A. Erola: -of the national Party held May 13 to 16- before I go into the results of that questionnaire I should like to quote a paragraph from the letter that accompanied it. It reads:
The enclosed results will no doubt prove to be an important source of information for the Leader and the Caucus as they map out a plan for governing our nation.
I hope all Members of the House are seated because the figures I will quote are enough to floor any politician.
On the subject of affirmative action, 75 per cent of Conservatives do not think that women should be entitled to special employment measures. On daycare, 74 per cent of Conservatives feel that daycare funding should not be increased. In fact, of that figure 37 per cent believe it should be decreased. Regarding child care expenses deductions, 41 per cent feel it should not be increased and a further 15 per cent believe it should actually be reduced. On family allowance, incredibly, 62 per cent believe this fundamental assistance to mothers raising children should be cut, and regarding crisis centres, 48 per cent are opposed to increased support, while 25 per cent would actually cut funding.
Is it a surprise, Mr. Speaker, that the women of Canada do not trust the Conservative Party? It is no wonder there is such a wide discrepancy between the percentage of male and female backers of the Conservative Party. What hope is there for Canadian women when the poll results show that there is no commitment to them? How can the women of Canada cast their lot with a Party which would put employment advances for women into reverse, add weight to the burden of working mothers, abandon the needs of women facing violence in the home and slash funding for safety net programs that are so important? The women of Canada do not want to get together for a drink sometime with the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney) to talk about their pressing needs and concerns. They know already where that Party stands on these issues, and judging from what we know already, there is not much support, and a great deal to fear, coming from the Tories.
To wrap up, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne adds new initiatives to this Government's record of acting on the needs of Canadian women. I have already indicated that we are increasing our funding for women's groups. Pension reform will continue as the Government reacts to the recommendations of the pensions task force. Divorce reforms are under way. I will continue to meet and consult with my provincial colleagues on such matters as daycare and violence. Much remains to be done, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that this Government is activist, is a strong Government which believes in justice for all Canadians and backs its commitments with actions.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify a few points made in her speech. Before that, I should point out that both men and women west of the Red River valley do not support this Government. I know the Minister would not knowingly mislead the House so I wanted to ensure that she acknowledges the fact that the first woman Speaker was not appointed by the Liberal Government. The first woman Speaker was appointed by the Clark Government which appointed a woman as Speaker of the Senate. It was a Conservative Government which appointed the first woman Cabinet Minister of any portfolio, and it was also a Conservative Government which appointed the first woman Secretary of State for External Affairs, a senior post. I do not feel that the Minister would seek to mislead her constituents on such an important matter.
My specific question deals with her comment about justice for Canadian women. If she seeks justice for Canadian women, could she explain to me why the divorce legislation presented before the House is so ineffective in the treatment of maintenance orders, which is one of the most important burdens which women face in this country? I understand there is provincial jurisdiction involved. However, clearly this legislation is not adequate when it comes to dealing with the terrible situation which women in this country face when they cannot have maintenance orders enforced. It is the single most important reason for the poverty of single-parent families headed by women. In view of the Minister's comments, could she explain why the legislation does not deal adequately with that?
Further, in view of her comments about degrading and dehumanizing people, could the Minister explain to me why she actively, forcibly and with full knowledge of the problems involved, stopped or opposed the House of Commons majority report on prostitution, particularly the item on protecting juveniles, the kids of 13, 14 and 15, protecting our kids who are on the streets of our major centres? She forcefully opposed that measure.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with all of the issues raised by the Hon. Member seriatim. First of all, I feel it is obvious to the House that there was no attempt to mislead the House when I referred to the former Speaker of the House who was, indeed, the first Speaker in this Chamber. I will
January 26, 1984

make that clear. I felt it was obvious to all and needed no clarification.
On the subject of the enforcement of maintenance orders, 1 do agree with the Hon. Member that this is one of the thorniest issues facing women today and one which gives me great concern and one, I might add, that the Minister of Justice has been investigating for some time. We feel very strongly that there must be measures taken to upgrade the system and, indeed, to make sure that the women of this country receive those payments. Unfortunately, as the Hon. Member points out, it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that this is something which we are looking at actively at the moment and we will, I hope, be announcing in a very short time some of the measures we think should be put into place.
The current divorce reform is not connected at the moment to that particular phase, but it is step one of a phase which 1 hope to see go much further. I would like to say that it is an issue which I have discussed at some length with my provincial counterparts. At this stage I would like to pay a particular compliment to the Minister responsible for the status of women in the Province of Ontario, who was just recently appointed and who has been most co-operative and has exhibited great sensitivity on this issue, particularly in the enforcement of maintenance orders. I expect, therefore, that there will be considerable progress with the provinces shortly.
On the subject of justice, I did not "forcibly" stop-and I actually find the word rather offensive, I must say, Mr. Speaker. We use the parliamentary system effectively, I feel, in the House. The committee, I believe, was almost in a stalemate position because the committee to some degree reflects what is happening in the country in this area. There were those who felt something should be done immediately and there were opposing forces who were equally vociferous who felt that justice would not have been done. I suggest to the Hon. Member that the committee currently hearing the views on prostitution and pornography will come forward with measures which will indeed provide that kind of justice which is demanded by the women of Canada. That division, I must say, is very strong and that division is reflected, I feel, in the attitude of the Hon. Members here in the House of Commons.
Mir. Malone: Mr. Speaker, 1 have never heard so much pap in all my life as I have heard today from the Hon. Minister. The fact is that the status of women would have been the same today had the Rhinoceros Party been in power. What this Government has done is simply to follow culture and cultural pressures. If the Minister believes for one moment that she has done anything to remove sexual stereotyping then she had better try to point out what she has done effectively about the laws related to pornography. She claims, with some pride, that she has instituted, or the Government has, another study with respect to prostitution. The fact of the matter is that a study was not needed in the last 10 years. The evidence has been clearly there.
The Minister raises up her Party and her own view, and says, "We, the Liberal Party, are the ones who have supported
The Address-Mrs. Erola
women". What we are dealing with, Sir, is a human rights question. It raises itself above Party politics. I come from the Province of Alberta. We can claim to have the first women magistrate in the British Empire. We are a group of people in that province from where the famous "Group of Five" came including Irene Parlby and Emily Murphy. We were where the women's "Persons" case was first started. We can take a look at the prairie regions during the war years and recognize that it was during that period that women proved unequivocally that there was not anything which a man could do that a woman could not. If this Minister thinks that there is somehow one Party here which rises up with some great record, 1 challenge her to point out today why is it that after 14, 15 or 16 years with this Government in power, there is still no significant change in the higher echelons of the civil service, which is still male dominated, in a place where women could have had effect and did not?
How can the Minister make the claim that the Government has removed sexual stereotyping in broadcasting when today right into your living rooms comes pornography showing women basically used as instruments of pleasure? Why is it that after all that period in power, we still sit in a situation here today where the majority of our unemployed people, by percentage, are women rather than men; where educational opportunities for higher-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Sorry, I must interrupt the Hon. Member. He went over his time. Does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have a short response?


Judith A. Erola: Number one, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the most famous of those five was a woman named Nellie McClung, and Nellie was a Liberal.


Arnold John Malone: She fought the Liberal Party.


Judith A. Erola: I also would like to point out to the Hon. Member-


Arnold John Malone: It was a Liberal backbencher who said she was not a person.


Judith A. Erola: -that the measures which we have taken-and I repeat, "have taken"-are opposed by the majority of the people who belong to the Conservative Party. In 1982 the poll taken by your Members opposed every measure we have taken to upgrade the status of women in this country. I remind him that last year this Government put into place mandatory affirmative action in the Civil Service. We have put into place all those measures which have not been put into place by any other government in this country. I remind him that this Government covers only 10 per cent of the workforce in its labour legislation, the other 90 per cent comes under provincial jurisdiction. Until those provincial governments move in the areas of equal pay for work of equal value and affirmative action, we will never see justice done for the women of this country.

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. G. Scott


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment to the Minister who says that we on this side show a distinct silence and lack of interest in issues involving women-

I hope the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) will stay for a few minutes and listen to my remarks because they bear precisely on women's interests.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I must remind the Hon. Member that I recognized him for debate. He has 20 minutes to speak.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, this is truly a first for me. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I have spoken and performed on hundreds of platforms over the years. Indeed, I have risen in my place in this Chamber on a number of occasions, but this is the first time since I signed
30 to my journalistic career exactly six years ago today to enter the political arena, that I have had the honour to speak on behalf of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth in a Throne Speech debate.
This is a special honour, Mr. Speaker, because during the traditional Throne Speech debate a Member of Parliament has time to reflect on those issues which he or she feels are important matters, any matter of concern to his or her constituents. I want to use my allotted time to comment on three areas which are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne: The peace initiative launched by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); the equally important if not more important problem that we face here in Canada, namely the unemployment crisis; finally, I want to deal with the most critical issue which affects me as a communications critic for the Official Opposition, namely the terribly damaging spread of pornography in this country. That is an appropriate topic, I think, following the speech just made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola).
Before proceeding further, Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate you, Sir, on your well deserved elevation to the Chair. I have also had a chance to extend informally a personal welcome to the distinguished Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), and I would like to wish Mr. Speaker well in what I suspect are going to be a few turbulent weeks and months ahead.
While I am in a somewhat benevolent mood let me begin by being as charitable as I possibly can about our Prime Minister. I have always applauded the Prime Minister's peace initiative. I think 1 can speak on behalf of every single one of my constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth when I say that we want to see peace, we want to see the superpowers brought to the negotiating table, we want to see a dismantling of these horrible nuclear weapons on both sides, provided that weapons reduction is provable and verifiable on both sides. In short, we
on this side wish the Prime Minister well in his globe trotting to ease world tensions. We think that is wonderful.
The only thing that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that our Prime Minister appears to be rather like a fly buzzing between two elephants; he is annoying them, getting some attention, but he is really not accomplishing much. Some observers, such as the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), suggest that Canadians remain a wee bit skeptical about the Prime Minister's peace mission. Well, I do not want to be skeptical. I hope we do not have to be skeptical, but some do suggest that the Prime Minister's advisers are trying to get more domestic milage out of the international milage by our Prime Minister than serious international co-operation. Some of these skeptics recall the Prime Minister's brief and not terribly spectacular sojourn into the North-South dialogue a year ago. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister's latest venture behind the Iron Curtain becomes somewhat more useful and honourable than domestic political windowdressing. When I use the word "domestic", I include the headquarters of the United Nations in New York City. Since I first broke the story a few years ago from a reliable source at the UN and was scoffed at, I have been hearing increasing confirmation that Canada's Prime Minister is courting eastern European and Third World nations and definitely could be in line to become Secretary General of the United Nations. If he can bring the superpowers to the bargaining table, if he can convince his world-wide contacts that he really does mean peace and not at the expense of democracy, then I wish him well.
I now want to come back down to earth from those rarified heights to which the Prime Minister is so accustomed. There are some good programs enunciated in the Speech from the Throne and we can support them, but the public is skeptical and cynical about some of these back-to-work programs, and with good reason. Let me give you an example. The Environment 2000 project was to assist young people to do things such as planting trees, but no one checked on the availability of seedlings; there are not enough for the program. There are also darn few places to plant them, as it turns out, particularly during the winter months.
My constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth want to be productive. They want jobs which will contribute to the well-being and growth of this country. They know that when times are tough people will hurt. They do not want handouts, however. They want real work. They are also telling me, as recently as yesterday in a call I received from a lady whose husband owns a small crane firm, that if they and other small businesses were left alone and not controlled by dictatorial union bosses, they might survive. What are they faced with? What are these free-enterprise minded people, be they crane operators, farmers, whoever-what are they faced with? They are faced with an unconcerned and misdirected Government which is more concerned with porkbarrel politics than real jobs and real opportunities. It boggles the mind.
I am paraphrasing what the Leader of the Opposition said at the beginning of this Throne Speech debate, but the essence
January 26, 1984

is this: Canadians-my people in Hamilton-Wentworth-have seen this Government in operation long enough. Hence, they seriously question which program might be adopted and what form those programs will take. They are also quite legitimately concerned about the time needed to put these programs into legislation and get the Bills passed. My God, Mr. Speaker, I knew when I started the process to enter Parliament exactly six years ago that the wheels of justice move slowly, but I realize now how much they are clogged with bureaucratic sludge.
As to addressing priorities or announcing new intentions, we on this side found very little in the Speech from the Throne. Yes, we heard the Government paying lip service to Canadians' most pressing problem, unemployment, but what we got really was an exercise in public relations.
The most incredible act that we have had recently from this Government in terms of public relations was that Canadians are to experience yet another rerun of the Liberal budget which 1 dub "Marc III". Naturally it will be a pre-election budget replete with traditional Liberal goodies which will honour the likes of Walter Gordon and Donald Macdonald, not to mention the illustrious Member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen). I have watched at least two dozen budgets in this House of Commons from the parliamentary press gallery, and then from my seat in this place representing Hamilton-Wentworth, for the past quarter of a century. I can testify that the Liberal Government's "Marc III" budget will contain all the goodies that are designed to attract the Canadian people and restore confidence in a Government that has in fact lost the confidence of the Canadian people. We can smell what is coming on the night of February 15, Mr. Speaker. We can only hope the people of Canada can detect what is under the Liberal perfume.
I wonder whether the Government, with its new budget, will have the remotest clue about the disturbing pattern which has been developing during this so-called year of recovery. We now have a rate of unemployment locked in at 11.1 per cent. The year of 1983 closed with an unemployment rate of 11.9 per cent. That means we had a falling behind in unemployment in terms of the growth in the labour force. We can talk statistics all we like, Mr. Speaker. The facts of unemployment are being graphically brought to life for all of us in the House of Commons. We are all hearing truly heartbreaking stories of small businesses, companies, farmers, skilled tradespersons and other qualified individuals who are being laid off, closed down and shut out because of the Government's economic policies. We often lose sight of the fact that behind the usual monthly statistics of the number of people out of work are human beings like you and me, like the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and the Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. McBain). I hope in some of those cases that some of them will not be out of work after the next election.
The Address-Mr. G. Scott
However, we seem to forget the fact that the people who are unemployed are human beings with human problems and potential human tragedies. We casually forget that there are 1.3 million people in this country who are without work, and we all know that the real figure is probably more like 2 million Canadians. Many of them are long-term unemployed. We forget the fact that there are over 500,000 young people in this country who are unemployed. It is a very unhappy situation which is confirmed by the OECD which tells us that economists predict that youth unemploymennt will average about 20 per cent in Canada in 1984 and 1985. This illustrates how urgently we in this country need meaningful youth programs with moneys recycled from other existing programs.
During my last few moments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the issue of pornography. This is a tremendously important issue to a great many Canadians. We in our Party, and all politicians in this country, will have to come to grips with this issue, and quickly. Because so many people feel strongly about the uncontrolled spread of pornographic material in this country, I would like to make some recommendations.
Many federal Government Departments are involved in the pornography issue. The Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission, which controls what is allowed on the air, the Department of National Revenue, which determines what material is allowed into the country, and ultimately the whole Government of Canada in concert with the provinces will have to become involved in how loose the controls should be on the display of pornographic material in this country.
We need a 1984 definition of obscenity, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain that former Justice Minister Davie Fulton's idea of "leave it to local community standards" is effective anymore in our local and global village. There are no more borders, boundaries or moral exceptions in terms of what can be produced. Anything can be beamed 24,000 miles up by a signal to a satellite and received 24,000 miles back down on your family room TV set by a dish a little bit larger than a dinner plate. That "gee-whiz" technology is exciting but it is frightening. We must talk about it.
I am recommending to the House and to the country that we mount a three-level governmental assault on the proliferation of pornography in Canada. I would like to see a national federal-provincial-municipal conference with regional chairpersons involved, where regional governments are set up, to show that all politicians' noses at all levels of government are pointed in the same direction to curb pornography in Canada.
I would not be talking about this matter, Mr. Speaker, had the special subcommittee looking into sexually abusive broadcasting not lapsed into limbo. This Parliament has been in its new session since December 7, 1983. We have yet to hear of a full meeting of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture being called, let alone any word of that Standing Committee reconstituting the special subcommittee on the subject matter of Bill C-675 in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Since I cannot be

The Address-Mr. G. Scott
ruled out of order for discussing something that is not at present before any committee, I feel it is terribly important that the subject of sexually abusive broadcasting and indeed the whole area of pornography and violence toward women and children in particular be discussed here in the House of Commons.
I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to a namesake, David Scott of Toronto, who is chairman of an upcoming symposium on media violence, for some of his thoughts. He is watching the pornography issue very closely, as is Rose Dyson who has done a remarkable job on this pornography issue.
The depiction of sexual violence has proliferated in the mainstream of media entertainment in all media modes from TV to mainstream film to pornographic magazines and tapes. Gratuitous violence and sex combined with violence have been introduced by programmers, editors and directors to vie for a larger share of the media market. What is most sickening to me, Mr. Speaker, is the effect on kids as the use of violence dominates media programming. The mainstream media legitimizes sexual imagery and our children become desensitized and disinhibited to aggressiveness in a sexual sense and to society at large.
A young man committed suicide in Edmonton earlier this week mimicking a suicide that he had seen on a rock video performance the night before. As usual, police and school officials were terribly distressed after the fact. Speaking about rock videos, let me congratulate the Government of Ontario for its determination to control these excessively violent tapes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: A study released recently of Pay TV movies on all channels shows that more than 50 per cent of titles are labelled "restricted" by the Censor Board of Ontario and by the Motion Picture Board of America. That is equivalent to at least half the theatres in Canada which anyone in this Chamber would not let their kids visit because the material is too raunchy. More than half the children of the Hon. Members in this Chamber right now have only to flick on their family room TV set-if they are hooked up to Pay TV and can afford it-and their kids can watch this pornographic stuff which is available. We sit back and watch all of this happen!
I will close by saying that I can think of no one single issue that is more important to society at large than dealing with this issue of the spread of pornography. Even as a former journalist I will not buy the red herrings of freedom of speech and censorship. This is a much greater problem to deal with than those traditional arguments indicate.
I suggest that the faster we can get an all-government level conference on pornography in terms of how to curb its spread, the better the country will be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity today to take part in the Debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and I would like to start by congratulating the movers of the motion, namely, the Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) and the Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde). They both spoke with much conviction and showed great pride in this beautiful country of ours. They spoke eloquently about the spirit of co-operation that exists in their respective ridings, and they quite rightly underlined the problems they would like to see resolved in order to improve the circumstances of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I say without hesitation that the Speech from the Throne is the most impressive speech I have had occasion to hear during my eighteen years in the House of Commons, and I was therefore appalled when I subsequently heard the Leader of the Opposition and the absolutely meaningless comments he made in his reply. Not a single constructive proposal from his Party! How does he expect the voters to hand the reins of power to his Party someday, unless he proposes a better alternative to the present Government's constructive policies? I don't think they ever will.
The media are almost unanimous in their praise for the many measures announced by the Government to enhance the well-being of Canadians at all levels of society. A number of commentators are even saying we will not have enough time to implement them all. I say it is up to the Opposition to stop its obstruction in the House and let us go ahead with the measures announced by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, this House has just witnessed, during the last three years, the longest parliamentary session in Canada's history, a session that can rightly be called historic, and that started in April 1980 following the fall of the Clark Government after nine months in power. It would have been impossible to predict the difficulties, challenges and victories the session held in store. We now can be proud of the obstacles we were able to overcome together, including a world-wide recession which severely affected all Canadians and deteriorating conditions for world peace, and we can also be proud of implementing one of the most important social and legislative programs in our history.
At the beginning of this Parliament, many Canadians were anxious about the future of our nation when the Quebec Government asked for the opinion of the population of the Province on the occasion of its long-awaited referendum on sovereignty-association. Those who rallied to the cause of Prime Minister Trudeau to preserve and strengthen Canada won a well-deserved victory and a vote of confidence in a united country within a renewed federation.
January 26, 1984

In spite of a long and arduous battle, the Liberal Government did not forget its promise to patriate our Constitution and give the country its own mechanism for amending its Constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does recognize English and French as the official languages of Canada and guarantees the right to education in the language of the minority. While in the United States, women are still fighting for sexual equality, our new Constitution protects Canadian women and men against any discrimination of a sexual nature. The conditions of our native people are about to change thanks to the constitutional negotiations, and we are beginning to see changes in attitudes and legal amendments introduced which will enhance the individual rights of all Canadians, including the handicapped and other minorities.
While the constitutional debate was in full swing from 1980 to 1982, the Liberal Government launched a second major undertaking, namely, the National Energy Program. Following the inflationary shock waves caused by the oil price increases which shook the world twice during the seventies, the Government took action to attain energy self-sufficiency by 1990, increase Canadian participation in these industries and protect the consumers. In 1983, Canadian oil exports showed a surplus of $300 million and Canada shows a $5 billion trade surplus for the whole energy sector. We have therefore reached energy self-sufficiency seven years earlier than expected. Exploration in frontier areas and off-shore is faring well. The energy conservation and oil replacement programs implemented by the Government have enabled the consumers to effect major energy savings and they have contributed to ensure uninterrupted supplies. The Petro-Canada service stations are a reminder to all Canadians that, within barely three years, the proportion of our oil industry owned by Canadians has increased from 28 to 38 per cent. The objective of 50 per cent set for 1990 will probably be easily reached.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government has taken action to protect Canadians against the harmful effects of recession and inflation and to prepare the work force for the economic recovery. It increased by $35 a month the Guaranteed Income Supplement to help the 1,300,000 Canadian pensioners. It increased the child tax credit to $343 per child and doubled the authorized child care deduction from $1,000 to $2,000. The Government also came to the assistance of homeowners beset by the astronomical increase in mortgage rates. It developed special programs to lighten the financial burden of farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. Special programs were implemented for young people, including the National Training Act, under which the Government has allocated funds amounting to $1.2 billion.
The Government has also found a more equitable solution to the problem of regional disparities by developing the Industrial and Regional Development Assistance Program, which will cost $1 billion. It has undertaken to make more funds and tax incentives available for research and development, which is our
The Address-Mr. Yanakis
insurance policy for the future. In order to assist Canadians during the economic recovery, the Liberal Government has continued to fight inflation through its 6 and 5 per cent program within the federal public sector. This program has restored confidence at the provincial level and in the public sector, thus contributing to improved performance and production. The more recent statistics set the inflation rate at 4.9 per cent, the lowest monthly rate in the last 11 years.
Mr. Speaker, in the economic area, Canadians can look forward to 1984 with cautious optimism. The challenges of 1984 and subsequent years will be a consolidation of gains made in 1983 and the development of new opportunities to restore our economy on the path of sustained growth with job creation and an improved standard of living for all Canadians. In 1983, our economic performance was better than most of us expected. The rate of growth over the last year increased by 3 per cent and industrial production was up more than 15 per cent over its lowest level during the recession while inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index was cut by half to slightly over 4 per cent. Those impressive results should restore the confidence of both consumers and businessmen.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada were recently shocked when some provinces, more especially Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, decided to amend unilaterally the universal medicare and hospital insurance program by allowing user fees or extra billing by hospitals and physicians. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the findings of the Parliamentary Task Force which was chaired by Hon. Justice Emmett M. Hall, concerning certain problems facing Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, the Task Force found that hospital and medical insurance premiums are a sort of regressive taxation which is unfortunately being used to finance such an essential service as public health. Who could have foreseen some 10 years ago that Medicare would be the focus of a political debate. It was clear then, just as it is clear now, that most of us want a universal prepaid health care system. Now, however, the basic system is being attacked. Some of us, in increasing number, still have to pay something for services which are already paid for by our income tax. The user charge which is imposed by hospitals and the extra billing charged by physicians is undermining the foundations of Medicare.
We may have been too accommodating. After all, Medicare is one of the most visible proofs of our social progress. There is at least one whole generation who has never been exposed to another system. Under these conditions, what could we lose? What is Medicare?
First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is the right for each and every Canadian to seek and obtain anywhere in this country prepaid hospital and medical services. Medicare means that the time when sick children had to go without treatment because their parents could not afford to pay for it, is gone for good. It

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Yanakis
means also that ordinary people will no longer lose their shirts trying to pay exorbitant medical bills and that older people will obtain the care they need. All levels of society benefit from Medicare. Hospitals are liberated from the financial uncertainty which used to threaten their budgets. Physicians enjoy their professional freedom. They have the possibility to dispense their services to a great many people who, otherwise, could not afford them. Taxpayers pay less for better services. Canadians now pay the lowest per capita cost for high quality care, thanks mostly to our Medicare system. We fare a lot better in this regard than countries, including the United States, who have no universal health insurance system.
With Medicare, Mr. Speaker, we have a national system which eases the financial burden of sick people. Through our income tax system, we all contribute to the common welfare. That is what is being eroded. User fees and extra billing are heavy burdens to carry for sick people. These practices fly in the face of Medicare's basic principles.
Some people claim that user fees are necessary to prevent the system from being abused. They feel that some people are seeking treatment merely because it is free. But they have no concrete proof that such abuses are the rule. Sick people are hospitalized only on physicians' orders.
Mr. Speaker, the economy of my riding and the neighbouring area depends largely on agriculture. The main industry is the dairy industry, followed in order by the hog, cattle and sheep industries. Poultry farming plays also an important part, together with the production of yellow tobacco.
The recent recession has spared none of these industries. Each in turn was faced with the slowing down of its markets, high inflation and high interest rates. That was a world phenomenon, something the producers are aware of.
However, the advanced policies drafted and implemented by the federal Government several years ago already have enabled producers to cope with the situation much more easily than did the industry as a whole. Our producers got sound advice from their union. Throughout the recession, the Agricultural Producers' Union acted with foresight and was able to warn the Government when the situation was becoming critical. As Members from Quebec, we were made aware of that when the most controversial Bills were introduced in the House of Commons. I might just mention Bill C-85 to establish Canagrex, a Canadian Crown corporation to export agricultural products.
The 200,000-member strong APU testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture that it would support the adoption of the Canagrex Bill as it was. Its members emphasized the importance of establishing Canagrex to promote Canada's agricultural export industry. The following debate on the Crow rate was vital not only for the economy of Western Canada, but for Canada as a whole and for all Canadians. There again, the APU worked in close co-operation with the Government, which took that opportunity to steer
a different course to avoid penalizing the farmers of Eastern Canada. In addition, we were pleased to see that, in its dairy policy summary for the 1983-84 production year, the Canadian Federation of Producers unreservedly endorsed Canada's dairy supply management system which, when it comes to stability and improved productivity, remains the best standard for the industry, in the interest of consumers, processors and producers alike.
Mr. Speaker, the Marketing formula and the implementation of quotas in all sectors of agricultural production have proved to be a winning combination for producers and the Minister of Agriculture to guarantee a fair and steady production to all farmers, not to mention the fact that the Minister of Agriculture guaranteed the basic prices to offset the possibility of market fluctuations.
I could go on and on like this, Mr. Speaker, but I realize that the time available to me is quickly running out. I do not want to conclude, however, without paying a last tribute to the rural family for 1983 which was selected in my own riding, namely, the family of Marcel Bastien, from St-Leon-Le-Grand, a small community of about 1,000 people. Mr. and Mrs. Marcel Bastien and their children have demonstrated a very deep and sincere love and attachment for their land. I know that Hon. Members from both side of the House will want to join in congratulating most sincerely this family for their success and to extend to them their best wishes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: A 10-minute period for questions and remarks. Debate. The Hon. Member for Shef-ford (Mr. Lapierre) has the floor.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for rpe to take part in the Throne Speech debate. I want to zero in on one short paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which had to do with the Government's proposed Canada-Japan auto agreement that we hope will be established or written up some time in the future. So far it appears that it is just political puffery or fluff because nothing has come of it. Let me quote:
The automobile industry is crucial to our economic well-being. Stabilizing employment in automobile manufacturing and its supplier industries is an essential task. The Government intends to seek a Canada-Japan auto agreement for the benefit of both countries, leading to additional production facilities and parts procurement in Canada.
As you know, for many years, Mr. Speaker, my Party and I have been pushing the Government to bring in or to force the Japanese into an agreement, friendly or otherwise from their point of view, to invest in Canada in plant, machinery and in jobs at least equal to sales in this country. For the past several years the Japanese have gained more and more of the Canadian automobile market until now they have approximately 27 per cent of the automobile market and that does not include trucks. There is nothing wrong with selling Japanese cars in Canada. There is nothing wrong with importing Japanese cars.
I am not calling for quotas at this time. What I am saying is
January 26, 1984

that the Japanese should be forced to trade fairly in a Canadian market and not have the added advantage of very low labour rates, comparatively speaking, in Japan and then dumping their cars and trucks in this market where they have the competitive edge.
So far little if anything has been forth-coming from the Government. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) make periodic trips to Japan. They come back and they talk about what they have talked about over there, which is usually nothing as you can see if you read their statements either in Hansard or in the newspapers. Just the other day 1 asked the Minister for International Trade what had resulted substantively from his senior Ministers', the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, latest trip to Japan. I got what is called in this House a non-answer. They did mention a $4 million investment on the part of Japan in some kind of an ethereal office in Toronto, a PR office, but a $4 million investment in the Canadian auto industry is like someone buying a package of cigarettes to promote the Canadian cigarette or tobacco industry. On the other hand, there was a press release or a statement made by some official in the Government to the effect that the Japanese were thinking of investing $200 million in some kind of facility here in Canada. So far there has been absolutely nothing substantive, nothing factual, nothing specific on the $200 million, and the Japanese Government apparently knows nothing about that $200 million. Whether it was part of the figment of the imagination of the Minister or some other person or persons is at this point impossible to determine.
I have been touring around the automotive parts area of southern Ontario for the past several weeks. I have talked with union people and with manufacturers. It is interesting to note that on this issue, particularly in the automotive parts industry, we have the UAW, headed by Mr. Bob White, Director of the Canadian branch, and the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, headed by Mr. Patrick Lavelle, in total agreement. They know that it is a sick industry and that it is getting worse. Let us not be misled by the increase in automobile sales in the past year or year and a half in the country. The auto parts industry is not in good shape.
The automotive task force was composed of the United Auto Workers Union, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, Chrysler Canada, Ford Motor Company of Canada and Magna International Inc. This composition is an interesting and unique coalition between management and labour. Mr. White commented that it was of the utmost importance that people realized that all the recommendations in this report were supported by all factions or groups represented on the task force.
The automotive industry employs over 100,000 people and supports just as many jobs indirectly in industries such as steel and rubber, textiles and plastics, glass and aluminium, ma-
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
chinery and electrical parts. Another way of looking at the importance of the automotive industry to Canada is the fact that over 60 per cent of Canada's exports of manufactured end products are motor vehicles and automotive components. Automobiles and automotive components make up over 60 per cent of Canada's exports of manufactured end products and account for, directly and indirectly, 200,000 jobs. On the world stage, Canada has the seventh largest vehicle market in the world. On top of this, our resource base in energy supplies and future-oriented materials, that is to say plastics and aluminium, provides significant cost and availability benefits.
The Canadian work force has proven to be a highly-skilled one. Its productivity, manufacturing quality, labour costs and absenteeism compares favourably with conditions in automotive plants in the United States, Europe and Australia, another little known or little acknowledged fact from the report of both management and labour.
In 1965 the auto pact was signed between Canada and the United States. It allowed for a conditional duty-free environment and also allowed Canadian and United Sates industries to rationalize themselves according to the appropriate economies of scale. This pact recognized Canada's need for safeguards such as production to sales ratios and Canadian value-added commitments which had to be met before duty-free entry to Canada was granted. The pact has increased Canadian automotive employment in absolute terms and as a share of total Canada-U.S. automotive employment. It has also allowed for an increase in productivity so that the gap between Canada and the United States in productivity has been eliminated.
Today Canadian vehicle prices are lower before sales taxes than those in the United States. While the auto pact favoured assembly-and incidentally Canada had a surplus in vehicle trade with the United States-auto parts production has not grown at a comparable scale. As a result, in most years Canada has had a deficit in auto parts trade. In the meantime, all imports have increased their sales in Canada to the point where 30 per cent of the cars sold here are from a foreign automotive maker who in turn conducts little or no vehicle production in Canada.
While Canadian vehicle and parts companies have been making unprecedented investments in product design and development and in innovative manufacturing systems to improve productivity and quality, foreign imports have been taking over more and more of the marketplace. Japan is an example of the kind of competition being faced by the automotive industry. Japan combines a modern, efficient industry with a standard of living that has not achieved North American levels. There is no doubt that Japanese automotive manufacturers will continue to have lower labour costs. As well, the under-valued yen provides another competitive advantage to the Japanese automotive industry.
If Canada does not bring in limits to the Japanese automotive imports expansion, we will become Japan's dumping ground. Political pressure and public policy in other countries aimed at limiting imports and increasing exports could result in vehicles and parts being diverted to Canada. The primary

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
recommendation of this task force is that all vehicle manufacturers selling in Canada should make binding commitments, phased in over a reasonable period of time, comparable to the commitments now being made by vehicle manufacturers currently operating in Canada under the auto pact, that is, vehicle production to sales ratios and 60 per cent Canadian value-added.
After this commitment has been achieved by all vehicle manufacturers, the Canadian Government can negotiate with all the companies to increase the level of minimum commitments from 60 per cent to the Canadian economy. The task force admitted that the report did not break any new ground. It was just that they were all agreed that if Canada provides duty-free entry of vehicles and components into the country, offshore manufacturers must be sensitive and contribute to the needs of Canada's economy. This is just following the lead of other countries such as Australia, about which I will speak in a few moments, that are determined to develop and maintain modern and efficient automotive industries.
The end result is that the task force has estimated that if its recommendations are implemented, they will result in 40,000 jobs in the automotive industry and an additional 40,000 jobs in related industries such as the steel industry. The spin-off effects of the implementation of these recommendations could result in as many as another 50,000 jobs in totally unrelated industries such as food, retail sales, etc.
The auto task force on Japanese imports was an extremely important one. It focused on the major problem, that indeed the Japanese have flourished for the last 25 years because they have practised one of the most oppressively restricted and protected manufacturing markets in the world. It is virtually impossible for Canada, the United States or western Europe to sell manufactured goods in Japan. I am not saying that that is what we should adopt in this country, but when Japanese automobile makers and parts manufacturers accuse us of being protectionists, all we are saying is that they can sell all the cars and trucks they want in Canada, provided they make their parts here, source their parts here or assemble their cars in this country; in other words, provided they invest in plant, machinery and jobs at least up to their sales in Canada. That is what we expect from the auto pact which is already in place. It is totally unfair to continue to allow the Japanese to dump their cars and trucks in Canada when they do not invest here. In 1982 the total Japanese automobile investment in the country was less than $2 million. That is absolutely deplorable. Yet we have Minister after Minister going cap in hand to Tokyo and Japan and returning with nothing but hollow promises. This has to change and change pretty fast.
It is often brought to light that we have a favourable balance of trade with Japan. That is very true. As a matter of fact, I have figures which will show that we have a very favourable balance of trade with Japan. Last year up to June 1983 we had a surplus of $308 million. It was down considerably from 1980 when it was $1,367 million.
Let us look at Australia. It has very tough quotas vis-a-vis Japanese automobile and truck imports, plus a value-added
source regulation which forces the Japanese to purchase many of their parts in Australia. In 1976, Australians had a surplus trade with the Japanese in the amount of $2.1 billion U.S. Coming down to 1983, every year they had a favourable balance of trade, even up to July 1983, with a surplus of $900 million U.S. That is three times our surplus, yet the Japanese import a tremendous amount of raw materials from Australia. In fact, Australia exports more raw materials to Japan than to any other country, everything from coal to cereal foods and base metals.
What are we afraid of? The Australians have become tough with the Japanese and have come to terms favourable to the Australian automotive industry. Even Austria has forced the Japanese in the last few weeks to come to terms, to invest in Austria and to source parts there. Here is an interesting example: in 1982, Iran had a surplus trade with Japan in the amount of $1.3 billion U.S., yet it forced the Japanese to begin sourcing parts and to assemble their cars and trucks in Iran. In 1982, Mexico had a trade surplus with Japan of $565 million, $200 million better than our trade surplus. Mexico has forced the Japanese to manufacture parts in that country. What are we doing? Nothing.
This is becoming an incredible situation. Day in and day out I ask questions of the two Ministers who share joint responsibility for this problem. All I get are very weak or non-answers. I know they are concerned about it, or they would not be going to Japan or inviting the Japanses here to enter into discussions, but they are not accomplishing anything. I do not know what they are waiting for. It certainly cannot be an election. If so, they would have made these announcements long ago.
Let us look at other countries in western Europe. The average importation of actual units of Japanese cars into the United Kingdom, France, Italy, West Germany, Spain or Portugal averages between 5 per cent and 11 per cent of their market. Keep in mind that the Japanese already have 27 per cent of our market and the fact that Canada is the seventh largest automobile and truck market in the whole world. We are giving our market away to the Japanese without making them invest in this country to provide jobs, and capital and to pay taxes.
Let us look at the United States, which is very close to home both in terms of economics and geography. The United States has had a substantial trade deficit with Japan since 1975 or 1976. In 1979, the deficit was $8.7 billion. By 1983, the trade deficit between the United States and Japan had risen to $19 billion. That was the projection for 1983. Some of the initiatives that have taken place in the United States with respect to the building of Japanese plants are as a result of a progressive program by some individual states involved in attracting foreign investment. The State of Tennessee is one example. I would like to know what is being done by Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia. Nothing. They talk about supporting this task force. Premier Davis said he supports the recommendations. What is he doing to attract Japanese manufacturing
January 26, 1984

industry to Ontario? So far as I know, nothing. Other initiatives have been taken by private companies such as GM and Toyota.
I see you indicating, Mr. Speaker, that my time is rapidly coming to a close. Unfortunately my time is not longer, but I realize we have to get through this Throne Speech. I have briefly outlined a very serious situation where we have lost in this country between 80,000 and 100,000 jobs. This is at a time when our manufacturing sector is threatened by a lot of offshore, much more cheaply made manufactured goods, not only in the automobile industry, but the whole manufacturing industry, at a time when we are being assaulted and bombarded by high technology. We cannot hold back high technology. We can humanize it. We can bring it in in a rational way so that it displaces the absolute minimum number of workers. Elowever, we have total control over how many Japanese cars enter this country or whether the Japanese begin to manufacture automobiles here and buy their parts here.
1 urge the Government to move on this, not just to fly back to Tokyo, but to get the Japanese negotiators here in Ottawa and really stick it to them. We should tell them that they have one or two years to source their parts up to 60 per cent or not more Japanese cars will be sold in Canada until they do so.


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


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in the debate today on the Speech from the Throne, and I shall be speaking to one aspect I found particularly interesting, and that is the appointment of a Minister of State for Youth.
Mr. Speaker, for several years and especially in the last few months, many colleagues on this side of the House have been hearing about, and have supported, a plan to establish a Ministry for Youth, something many young people across this country have been asking for. Following the whole political process-I would say that within the structures of our own Party, in the Youth Commission, for instance, the young Liberals of Canada made their views known-the Government decided in favour of a proposal to appoint a Minister of State for Youth.
Mr. Speaker, I think the vast majority of young Canadians were very pleased with the news in the Speech from the Throne and were disappointed at the reaction of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), who had criticized the proposal when it was announced. I realize it was the day after his first Caucus meeting and that he was rather nervous, but just the same, he did say the proposal was a gimmick.
Mr. Speaker, from the favourable reception this proposal has received among all groups in Canada, it is clear that once again, the Leader of the Opposition was out of touch. Mr. The Address-Mr. Lapierre
Speaker, behind this proposal was a belief that a Ministry for Youth would play a major role within the federal Government, and there was also the consideration that young Canadians who represent over one quarter of the population needed a spokesperson within the Government, and that the Government itself needed someone to communicate with a group that is too often taken for granted.
Mr. Speaker, there was also the realization of a lack of coordination among eighty-seven different programs spread over various Government departments, totalling nearly $6 billion in expenditures. That is why it was necessary to clean up our act, to examine and assess these various programs and see whether they meet the needs and priorities of the youth in the eighties. As Hon. Members know, many of these programs have been designed in the forties, the fifties and particularly in the sixties. So I believe the Minister of State for Youth will face a tremendous task. I see the Minister is in the House and I am happy to share my views with her.
Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we noted was that there was a lack of information amongst the Canadian youth. In this regard, as soon as the Minister of State has completed an inventory of these programs, hopefully she will put in place new and innovative mechanisms allowing young Canadians to be better informed about programs they have access to. I strongly believe this International Year of Youth will prove a golden opportunity for the Minister to illustrate not only the government's contribution to youth, but also youth's contribution to society, while recognizing the weaknesses and deficiencies in our system.
A problem which all of us often face in this House is that we are somewhat lamenting the lack of decentralization to the regions. In various meetings we had with representatives of some 200 groups from all parts of Canada, most of them criticized us for being out of touch with their daily lives and concerns. In this context, I hope we will manage to draw closer and closer to these young people who, in the final analysis, are feeling somewhat lost in these difficult years, somewhat left behind. In this regard, this initiative of creating a Ministry of State for Youth will certainly contribute to break this isolation.
Obviously, we will also have to rethink our whole system of national programs. In some cases, criteria may be considered quite equitable when viewed from headquarters here in Ottawa, but sometimes officials travel in the field, in different regions of Canada, only to find out that the programs are not always applicable as such in a given area. Given her great sensitivity to people, I am convinced the Minister will see to it that the criteria are true to the real world and that programs are properly targeted.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard several criticisms from people who charged that we were intent on creating a whole new bureaucracy, on increasing the government machinery, and I am quite sure this is not at all the intention of the government

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Lapierre
or of those who promoted the idea, because what we want to avoid above all is to lock this segment of the population into some kind of ghetto.
I strongly believe the most noble objective we could assign to this initiative would be to achieve full integration of the youth into our society. The top priority of the hundreds of groups we have met is employment. To have a job is certainly the best standard of social integration. Several young people told us: Do not try to come up with a miracle cure, a panacea. Neither do we want to be considered solely as cheap labour. What they expect from the jobs we create for them is to help them get direct and, hopefully, permanent integration in the labour force.
I am happy to see that, recently, our job creation programs, such as NEED and Canada Works, have for the first time been providing for participation by the private sector. If we go by what has happened in my own constituency, many projects that were developed by the private sector have created what were to be short term jobs, but as these young people proved to be useful to the businesses and favourably impressed their bosses, they were then able to get permanent jobs. In fact, certains projects were maintained indefinitely. I therefore hope that the majority of the new initiatives developed by the Ministry of Youth will aim at long term integration in the work force and not simply at creating short term jobs. If such is the case and with the co-operation of the private sector, I believe that these programs have very great potential.
Of course, there are also cultural, linguistic, financial and geographic obstacles to the participation of young people. However, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that, if we have a comprehensive idea of the situation of our young Canadians, we can try to minimize these barriers. Once more, the International Youth Year will give us the opportunity to examine the most difficult obstacles standing in the way of young Canadians and the realignments that should be made in our own policies. In this regard, I believe that the great majority of young Canadians have rather high expectations of their International Year as they have seen what progress can be made following the International Woman's Year, the International Year of the Child and so on.
One of the problems which was often raised during our discussions and to which the Minister will certainly give her attention is the need for young people to organize, to join together so that they can express their views. The weakness of any youth organization is often due to a lack of funds. Most of these organizations live from day to day relying on Government projects and sporadic grants and unfortunately do not have any medium or long term financial standing. Yet, other organizations, whether they represent economic interests such as the Chambers of Commerce or women's groups, have shown that they can get from the government long term funding commitments to ensure their survival. And to that extent, I am convinced that it would be essential to set up a program to
insure the continued existence of organizations dedicated to young people.
There is so much diversity among young people, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great need for them to meet and talk and try to agree on priorities. In this regard, the event which took place in Quebec last year, that is a Quebec summit for youth sets an example and I hope we will see more of those summits. It brought about a deeper public awareness, helped young people to reach a consensus and draw up some rough plans. 1 know that at present, many volunteers throughout Canada are nursing various ideas. I know for example that during the weekend 150 young people representing various organizations will be meeting in New Brunswick to put their heads together and perhaps eventually organize a summit. I think that such initiatives should be encouraged.
If we want to have a dynamic community, we must make sure that all sectors in that community can state their views and take part in the development of our common project.
Another finding which will surely be a great challenge is to restore somewhat the confidence of the young people in our institutions, whether it be this House, unions or big business. The Bishops' Conference stated that many of those young people see themselves as part of a lost generation. They are under the impression that unions shut them out with their seniority rights. Undeniably, this House also has seniority requirements which prevent them from gaining access to the decision-making level. The young are surely not heard as easily as the Board of Trade. That is why it will be necessary to make sure that Members on all sides of this House are more familiar with their grievances. I know that the Canadian Federation of Students comes here each year to make their problems known to Members of Parliament. And this year, 1 must point out, the students were quite pleased with the welcome they were given by most Members of Parliament.
But I think more of those groups will have to organize to do some real lobbying if they wish to be heard.
Another problem of course is lack of access to government information. In that sense, I know this is a real challenge to all departments, but the ministry of State for Youth has a target population, and I hope that new programs can be developed that have imagination but also much simplicity to avoid that famous red tape that often turns people off.
Another complaint, and in fact another interest of our young was of course a better knowledge of the country and the world, and in that sense the initiative announced in the Throne Speech concerning the VIA pass certainly is welcome and had indeed been suggested by many groups.
I know the Canadian International Development Agency also fosters knowledge of the world, but it is my hope that it can in the future give wider access to those programs, because I know there is a very strong demand.
January 26, 1984

Apart from community involvement, there is the whole question of world peace, Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous concern for all our Canadian youth. All my consultations clearly showed that overwhelmingly, our youth is antimilitarist and each time decisions are taken ... 1 know one of them hurt many of our young and dispelled much of their illusions. It was the decision to test the Cruise missile. Unfortunately we did not make the effort to reach that audience, and each time we take decisions we do so more or less in a vacuum, with experts, taking for granted the others will follow.
Mr. Speaker, young Canadians do not necessarily believe in the conventional approach in this regard, and I think we shall have to call on them increasingly to support our world peace initiatives, make them understand and actually keep them better informed about government policies and, who knows, join forces with them. They have proved to be and still are very active elements in Germany, England and other countries of the world. We should be fully aware that a similar situation may well occur in Canada, because if we keep on ignoring their urgent pleas we are taking very serious chances.
Let us deal with the matter of education, Mr. Speaker. Even though educational problems do not come under the constitutional jurisdiction of this House, we do know, on the other hand, that substantial funds earmarked for post-secondary education are voted by this House. Many people today are wondering whether post-secondary education really meets the labour market requirements. Does the training provided by these intitutions really help the student to become an active member of society? People demand more than ever that those in their ivory towers be in closer touch with the realities that surround them.
Mr. Speaker, with the substantial amounts that we invest in post-secondary institutions, I hope it will be possible to help these young people join the main stream of life. It should also be recognized that economic hardships, the technological revolution and all such phenomena must affect them as well and that they have to adjust accordingly. Accessibility is another problem. We know that at the present time only 27 per cent of young Canadians have access to post-secondary education, while the remaining 73 per cent are denied access, often for financial reasons.
It is a tragedy that access to education should more and more be based on elitism. In this regard, I know that this would be a big challenge for Cabinet members on the eve of negotiations on post-secondary education, and I know that many young people would like to have access to higher education but unfortunately cannot afford it at this time or cannot count on family support. This should be a matter of some concern to this House.
Mr. Speaker, before closing I would also like to mention the necessity of an overall youth policy. At the present time, some
The Address-Mr. Lapierre
random initiatives are taken, here and there but without any overall action policy towards that social group. And in this sense, the obvious lack of leadership concerns everyone, young people as well as their parents who wonder what will the future hold for their children. And the Government has the duty to clearly indicate what direction we want this new generation to take.
I think that the Members will be interested eventually in trying to develop an overall youth policy although it is a taxing exercise. Perhaps it should be the spearhead of our policy and we should dedicate our resources and energies to that end.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased once again to see that the Government has accepted this suggestion. Everybody knows that action should be taken without delay and that we should listen and care for our young people. Finally, I hope that the preparations for the International Year of Youth will make this possible so that 1985 will really be the beginning of a full and complete participation of all our young Canadians to our society. Furthermore, perhaps in the course of that year, we might be able to find some newer solutions, because so far the ones we came up with are certainly not satisfactory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Remarks and questions period. The Hon. Member for Labelle.


Mr. Dupras:: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to my colleague from Shefford, because he was through his awareness program instrumental in having the Government set up the new Ministry of State for Youth.
Since the Canadian government has been the first actually to launch programs such as Young Canada Works, Katimavik and other excellent youth programs in Canada, would it not be more appropriate, in his view, that those most commendable projects come under the new Ministry of State (Youth) so that they may be improved and meet the needs of our young Canadians who feel that this new ministry, which illustrates that the government is concerned with the young, will offer enormous opportunities.
Therefore, would the hon. member for Shefford tell the House, whether of not those three programs could eventually come under the jurisdiction of this new ministry?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Labelle (Mr. Dupras) is perfectly aware that those programs have a direct effect on the employment of young people and I am sure that the new Minister of State will take over, if not the administrative responsibilities, at least the development of criteria for such programs. She will be promoting grants which hopefully will be increased substantially. But I must admit that the Minister of State (Youth) should go even further in that direction since I have numbered 87 federal programs directly and indirectly related to youth. And I do hope she will act as a coordinator as some of those programs may overlap. Considering she will overview the operations and not the administrative

January 26, 1984
The Address-Mr. Friesen
responsibilities as such, I am convinced that she will set up policies and standards so that the programs meet today's needs and may be revamped with increased financing if possible.


Maurice Dupras: I would like to put a second question to my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). In view of the disenchantment which is felt now by the students, at least in the Province of Quebec, about the administration of the grants program, I wonder if this would not be a good opportunity for a new ministry to deal with this question which is so important for the Quebec student, and perhaps put under the federal jurisdiction the administration of the grants programs for the young students of Quebec at the secondary, collegial and university levels should again come under federal jurisdiction.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has just raised a very important point; there was reference to access to post-secondary education a little earlier, and I must say that the whole question of loans and grants to students has become very important. At the present time, we are aware of their dissatisfaction not only with the administration but also with the criteria, and the major contribution of the Canadian government to that field is very well known.
I know discussions about loans and grants are taking place at the present time. Personally, I would like the situation to be clarified. And if the Canadian government is involved in the program, I wish the money would be given directly to the student, as it is done everywhere else in Canada. For that reason, I think the whole situation should be reviewed because I doubt even 10 per cent of Quebec students are aware the Federal government contributes to their loan and grant program. Moreover, being very likely one of few members still paying back his loan, I can say there are numerous administrative problems right now. I must admit I never received any pamphlet or letter telling me about the Canadian government contribution to our loans and grants. In that regard, when I underlined the need for government information, I did so because I am convinced this is one measure which should be taken. Our duty is clear in that area and if possible we should make the criteria much more just and equitable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any other questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that smuggling in this country was a criminal offence until I heard the Hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) ask those questions of the Hon. Member for Schefferville.


An Hon. Member:: Shefford.


John Leslie Evans: That is a Freudian slip.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member has legalized a profession which has been frowned on everywhere else in the country. But I guess when you are running out of imaginative ideas, that is not a bad twist.
I take pleasure in speaking in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. It is getting to be a rare privilege in this country to be able to speak in reply to a Speech from the Throne. When I first came here nine and a half years ago, the first session lasted two years, and at that time that was a record in the Commonwealth for a Parliament before there was another Speech from the Throne. That, however, was not good enough for the Government. It wanted to establish a new record. I suppose it wants to become the Wayne Gretzky of parliaments and have the longest streak going. This one has been nearly four years long.
As I say, it is becoming a rare privilege to be able to speak in a Throne Speech debate. I say that not entirely in jest because there is a real feeling that the rarity of Throne Speeches is diminishing our opportunities to speak on issues of comprehensive global and international importance. Supposedly a Throne Speech will set before us a blueprint for action by the Government. If the Government follows the blueprint, Canadians have an idea of the direction the Government plans to take. But when there is no blueprint, there is no way of knowing and the Government can, helter-skelter, bring in legislation; willy-nilly it can follow any direction because there is no direction. I think it is a subtle denial of our right to participate in debate over the direction of the country when the Government does not bring forward annually a Throne Speech debate.
I want now to speak to the amendment to the motion before us, Mr. Speaker. It is very emphatic in that it says:
"This House regrets to inform Your Excellency that your ministers have failed to propose measures that would result in lasting and equitable solutions to the hardships imposed by the high level of chronic unemployment that is being experienced in all regions of Canada as a consequence of years of economic mismanagement by your ministers."
Then there is a subamendment which says:
-"and their insistence upon fighting inflation by deliberately throwing hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work."
I can imagine that Members sitting in the Government benches might think that motion is too severe and sweeping, especially the words "deliberately throwing hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work". At first blush it might seem to be too extreme because I think all of us recognize that there is an international economic problem and distortion in the economies of almost every country in the world. In my own province of British Columbia there are severe economic problems, the blame for which we would not necessarily and immediately lay at the feet of this Government. There are problems in the lumber industry because the housing industry is down. There are problems in the B.C. coal industry because steel mills in Japan and other countries are shut down. There has been a decline in the demand for B.C. mineral products, and a high inventory of processed salmon because people are
January 26, 1984

not buying it the way they used to. As you know, Mr. Speaker, all these are primary resources and therefore British Columbia is in a sense facing a problem in a way no other province has to face. It is hardest hit because of the international scope of the economic problems we are facing. In that sense I would not lay the blame at the feet of this Government.
The crime, Mr. Speaker, perpetrated by this Government lies in the fact that it knew of the impending economic crisis, at least it should have known if its economic planners and specialists in the Department of Finance and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources were doing their job properly. They should have known we were going to face hard economic times. In spite of this, the Government persisted with policies which put ideology and slogans ahead of the needs of people. That, Mr. Speaker, is this Government's crime.
For example, we come again to the National Energy Program. We have experienced now the effects of that program. I recall the time three years ago in this Chamber when Members, particularly those representing Alberta constituencies, were rising in their place to question the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), on the National Energy Program and the distortions it was creating in the economy at the time. He gave a glib retort about the number of rigs still out there when all the Members representing Alberta knew those rigs were moving south. An ideological compulsion which the Minister had to force the industry into the mould he had created for it caused massive unemployment in Alberta. Day after day Members doing their job for their constituents would challenge the Government about its policies, but ideology was so important to that Minister that he brought in a man who believed in socializing and nationalizing that industry. He wanted to squeeze that industry into the mould he had shaped for it. Mass unemployment resulted.
I remember the delegations who came here representing the drilling operators, exploration companies, machinery dealers and small truck dealers. All of those delegations came here only to face a stone wall. Ideology was that important to this Government. I know there were Members on the Government side who were challenging the Minister in caucus meetings, but it was all to no avail.
A year ago I visited Fort St. John in northern British Columbia. It was a veritable ghost town. I saw a brand new hotel, I suspect it had 100 hundred rooms-with a large dining-room. It was a multimillion dollar establishment financed by CMHC and was boarded up because the rigs had moved out and the economy had been smashed. Down the main street, store after store was closed because there was no work to be had.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say the motion does not go to the extreme at all because the ideology was so important to these Ministers and this Government that they were willing to sacrifice an industry in order to propagate the ideology.
The slogan was "Canadianization", we want to Canadianize the oil industry. The cruel irony was that the industry they crushed was the Canadian industry, while the multinationals
The Address-Mr. Friesen
are surviving. They have cross-national investments to keep them going even if they cannot operate in Canada. But the truly Canadian companies, the small driller, the machinery driller, the explorer, those who are 100 per cent Canadian, they were going bankrupt all in the name of Canadianization. Then what does the Government do? It establishes a wholly Canadian-owned national oil company. Oh, yes? They go down to New York, to Wall Street, and borrow the money to finance PetroCan. Some Canadian company, Mr. Speaker! The ripple effect of that ideology spread all across Canada. It affected Ontario. My friend, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), spoke earlier about the auto industry. The ripple effect of that program and what it did to the auto industry is a shame. It affected my riding. There is a plant in my riding called Gearmatic. Gearmatic is the premium company around the world in manufacturing hydraulic winches. That company was starting to feel the effects of the economy earlier because the lumber industry was shut down. Gearmatic had sold a lot of its inventory to the logging companies. Gearmatic was hurting and it had to lay off half of its work force. Then the National Energy Program came along. It so happens that Gearmatic is owned by a multinational, Paccar, in Bellevue, Washington. Paccar is going to survive because it deals around the world. When the National Energy Program came through, Gearmatic could no longer sell its product because the oil rigs were not in Canada any longer. Therefore they sell it wherever they are, and most of the sales are offshore.
Last July, Gearmatic made an announcement that on December 31 they were shutting down the plant, which would leave another 110 families out of work. This is all because of the National Energy Program, which is an ideological obsession unrelated to the needs of working Canadians. As I said, Paccar will survive. Will those unemployed survive?
I have another example. PetroCan has a clause in its agreement with the Government that it can spawn any number of other Crown corporations. One that it has spawned is a company called Enercon. There happened to be a small company in southern British Columbia that was manufacturing insulation materials. It was a neat idea developed by an American. The problem was that the plant was too far from market, the cost was too high, the plant was not functioning well and therefore could not sell its product. Enercon bought about 35 per cent of that company. I would like to read to you a letter which I received from a gentleman who operates a company called National Cellulose, B.C. Limited in Surrey. The letter reads:
Pacific Enercon is a rock wool insulation manufacturer in Grand Forks, B. C. This company was started by an American businessman from California for a reported investment of $7-$10 million. After considerable problems of breaking into a declining market, the plant was in jeopardy of being closed down due to financial losses and an uncertain future. Canertech (division of Petro Canada) purchased forty percent of the shares for a reported $4 million to bail out an American, who was about to go bankrupt.
Now instead of the market sorting itself out as the weak drop out, we have a losing business proposition being artificially supported by the Canadian taxpayer. In addition to continuing to sell product below a profitable level, they have

The Address-Mr. Friesen
huge known credit losses facing them from contractors who have gone bankrupt. This is estimated to total the amount of $500,000.00.
On a very small scale this is almost as big an embarrassment as the CanadAir fiasco. Government should stay out of private enterprise.
I am enclosing a letter from Woods Gordon, a consulting firm, which claims they are doing an insulation study for Canertech, a Canadian Crown Corporation. Isn't it ironic that, in addition to making our life miserable and competing with us every day, now they want us to tell them how much business we are doing and with whom so that their own insulation company can use the information to really do us in.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the mentality of the Crown corporation multiplication of this Government. We have tax dollars invested in losing companies which can sell their products below cost because they are tax supported and, by doing so, drive other companies out of businesses which are employing Canadians. This motion which reads, "deliberately throwing hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work" is not at all a motion that goes to the extreme.
I have further examples. Let us take a look at the issue of the conduct of Revenue Canada. My accountant called me and told me that although this company is interested in making sure that the small businessman succeeds, Revenue Canada sends a notice out to the small businessman indicating that he has a refund coming from his quarterly payment of $20,000 or $30,000. A month later that company gets a second notice from Revenue Canada indicating that instead of sending the cheque, it is going to apply that money to its account for the next quarterly payment. It is confiscating the money of that company, which is cash flow that that company needs in order to run its business. It does not even pay the interest. That is robbery.
There is a small telephone answering service in Surrey. A lady came to see me with her company records and admitted that she owed Revenue Canada the money that it said she owed them. Revenue Canada sent out third party notices to all of the creditors saying that it wanted the money first. She went to Revenue Canada and said: "If you confiscate my income I am going to have to lay off my employees". They said, "That is your problem. You can send those employees to labour relations".
This is a Government which tells us in daily Question Period how many jobs it has created. It fails to tell us how many jobs it has destroyed by the conduct of Revenue Canada. When officers tell a company that if they have to lay off people it is their problem, they can go to labour relations, we can tell that it has no conscience at all about the existence of the company or the welfare or livelihood of those unemployed Canadians.
The fisheries industry on the West Coast is another example, Mr. Speaker. We have a dilemma there which is second to none in the country. We have a bureaucracy in the Fisheries Department in British Columbia which has allowed the fish stock to be raped and destroyed. In the meantime the Department is going to announce a buy-back program so the boats will move out of the industry. There is no assurance at all that the fish stock is going to be replenished. Nothing is being done about the foreign companies which are fishing Canadian stock in international waters so that they do not even get back to the
source to be protected there. Nothing is done about the Japanese, Korean, Russian and Polish ships out on the high seas taking Canadian tagged fish, without declaring them, and robbing the Canadians of their employment and profits. Nothing is being done to ensure that the Salmonid Enhancement Program is going to work the way it should work to replenish the stock for future generations. Nothing is being done to secure the livelihood and way of life of those fishermen who have been living there for several generations and have had that as their way of life. Government members may think this motion is extreme, Mr. Speaker, but Ministers have conducted the affairs of Canada in such a way that they are fighting inflation by deliberately throwing hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work. On the evidence that I have presented, Mr. Speaker, that is not a motion that goes to the extreme, and I support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(4), to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment and sub-amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Dick, seconded by Mr. Forrestall, moved:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and their insistence upon fighting inflation by deliberately throwing hundreds
of thousands of Canadians out of work."
Will those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Will those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to suggest that if you seek unanimous consent, there may be a disposition to provide that unanimous consent. When you put the main amendment, there might be a disposition for the vote just now recorded to apply to the amendment without requiring Members of the House to stand again.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. Cosgrove:: Mr. Speaker, I would be agreeable to that provided that my vote is added to that division list.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we get the consent of my hon. colleague, we on this side of the House would agree that the amendment be negatived and the vote recorded as for the previous division.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is satisfactory to us. The Hon. Member missed the first but he is here for the second.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we would also agree to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that, with the amendment concerning the Hon. Member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Cosgrove), the vote be otherwise as recorded for the previous division? Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been drawn to the attention of the Chair that the amendment has not been formally moved. Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Nielsen, moved:
That the following be added to the Address:
"This House regrets to inform Your Excellency that your ministers have failed to propose measures that would result in lasting and equitable solutions to the hardships imposed by the high level of chronic unemployment that is being experienced in all regions of Canada as a consequence of years of economic mismanagement by your ministers."


Mr. Speaker:: Will those in favour of the amendment to the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Will those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it. By consent, shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?

January 26, 1984
The Address


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we will dispense with the bells. I think there is a disposition to do that. We will apply to the amendment that you have just read the same recorded division as was recorded for the amendment to the amendment, with the addition of the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Cosgrove) who, I assume, would be added to the Government vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that unanimously agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being 6.04 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to the provisions of Standing order 2(1).
At 6.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
January 26, 1984


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
CABINET COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP*

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Mr. J. Roberts
Vice-Chairman	Mr. S. Joyal
Members	Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. G. Regan Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. W. Rompkey Mr. D. Johnston Mrs. J. Erola Sen. J. Austin Mme C. Hervieux-Payette

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Mr. D. Johnston
Mr. J. Chretien Mrs. J. Erola
Mr. E. F. Whelan Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. F. Fox Mr. P. De Bane Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. G. Regan Mr. W. Rompkey Mr. E. Lumley Mr. L. Axworthy Mr. C. Caccia Mr. D. Smith
*N.B. The Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Finance are ex officio members of the Cabinet Committees on Economic and Regional Development, Foreign and Defence Policy, Government Operations and Social Development. All Ministers are free to attend meetings of these Committee.

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Mr. G. Regan Mr. J.-J. Blais
Mr. J.-Mr. E. Mr. F. Mr. P. Mr. R. Mr. C. Mr. E. Mr. L. Mr. C. Mr. D.
L. Pepin F. Whelan Fox
De Bane
P. Kaplan
Lapointe
Lumley
Axworthy
Caccia
Collenette

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Mr. Y. Pinard Sen. H. A. Olson
Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J.-J. Blais Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. P. Bussieres Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. S. Joyal Mr. B. Campbell Mr. R. MacLaren

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Mr. Y. Pinard
Vice-Chairman	Sen. H. A. Olson
Members	Mr. J. C. Munro
Mr. H. Gray Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J. Roberts Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. L. Axworthy Mrs. J. Erola Sen. J. Austin Mr. S. Joyal Mr. R. MacLaren
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1984

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Mr. Y. Pinard
Vice-Chairman	Mr. M. MacGuigan
Members	Mr. E. F. Whelan
Mme M. Begin Mr. P. De Bane Mr. G. Regan Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. W. Rompkey Mr. S. Joyal
Mme C. Hervieux-Payette Mr. D. Smith Mr. J. Olivier

[Stage Direction]
Chairman	Mr. P. E. Trudeau
Vice-Chairman	Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Members	Mr. J. Chretien
Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. M. Lalonde Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J. Roberts Mr. G. Regan Mr. Y. Pinard Mr. D. Johnston Mr. L. Axworthy Mrs. J. Erola Sen. J. Austin

[Stage Direction]
Chairman	Mr. P. E. Trudeau
Vice-Chairman	Mr. Y. Pinard
Members	Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. M. Lalonde Mr. D. Johnston Mr. S. Joyal

[Stage Direction]
Chairman	Mr. P. E. Trudeau
Vice-Chairman	Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Members	Mr. J. Chretien
Mr. M. Lalonde Mr. J. Roberts Mr. J.-J. Blais Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. Y. Pinard Sen. J. Austin

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Sen. J. Austin
Mr. J. C. Munro Mr. M. MacGuigan
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
Mr. R. LeBlanc
Mr. J. Roberts
Mme M. Begin
Mr. F. Fox
Mr. R. P. Kaplan
Mrs. J. Erola
Mr. C. Caccia
Mr. S. Joyal
Mr. B. Campbell
Mr.D. Collenette
Mme C. Hervieux-Payette
Mr. J. Olivier

[Stage Direction]
Chairman	Mr. Y. Pinard
Vice-Chairman	Sen. H. A. Olson
Members	Sen. H. R. Argue
Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. P. Bussieres Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. B. Campbell Mr. D. Collenette Mme C. Hervieux-Payette Mr. D. Smith Mr. R. MacLaren Mr. J. Olivier

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. M. Lalonde
Mr. J.-L. Pepin Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. B. Campbell

January 26, 1984
[Stage Direction]
Alternates	Mr. C. Lapointe
1st Alternate Mr. R. MacLaren Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. P. Bussieres Mr. D. Collenette Mr. J.-J. Blais
WESTERN AFFAIRS Chairman	Mr. L. Axworthy
Members	Mr. J. Chretien
Mr. J. C. Munro Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. E. F. Whelan Mr. J. Roberts Mr. P. De Bane Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. G. Regan Mr. E. Lumley Mr. D. Johnston Sen. J. Austin Mr. D. Collenette

[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 19 January, 1984
The Committee of the Privy Council on the recommendation
of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office, the next senior minister who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the functions of the Office of Prime Minister, be authorized to act for the Prime Minister;
2.	that in the absence from Ottawa of a Minister whose name is set out in Column 11 of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Minister whose name is set out out in Column 111 of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item;
3.	that in the Absence from Ottawa of the Ministers named in Columns II and III of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of both of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of the item be authorized to act
for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column 1 of the item;
4.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Ministers named in Columns 11, III and IV of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of all those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Prime Minister or, if the Prime Minister is absent from Ottawa or unable to perform the functions of his Office, the next senior minister who is in Ottawa be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column 1 of the item;
5.	that where an Office set out in Column 1 of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item; and
6.	that where an Office set out in Column 1 of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, in the absence from Ottawa of the Minister whose name is set out in Column 111 of that item, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of the Office set out in Column I of that item, the M inister whose name is set out in Column IV of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column 1 of that item.
798
[Stage Direction]
January 26, 1984

[Stage Direction]
COLUMN 1
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN 11
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN 111
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN IV
[Stage Direction]
OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
NAME
[Stage Direction]
ACTING MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
SECOND ACTING MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Communications
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
3.
[Stage Direction]
Consumer and Corporate Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
4a.
[Stage Direction]
Economic Development
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
4b.
[Stage Direction]
Science and Technology
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
5.
[Stage Direction]
Employment and Immigration
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. C. Hervieux-Payette
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
6.
[Stage Direction]
Energy, Mines and Resources
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
7.
[Stage Direction]
Environment
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
8.
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
9.
[Stage Direction]
Finance
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. MacLaren
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. Gray
[Stage Direction]
10.
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries and Oceans
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
11.
[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
12.
[Stage Direction]
Regional Industrial Expansion
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. P. Smith
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
13.
[Stage Direction]
Justice and Attorney General
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
14a.
[Stage Direction]
Labour
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
14b.
[Stage Direction]
Post Office
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
15.
[Stage Direction]
National Defence
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
16.
[Stage Direction]
National Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Olivier
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
17.
[Stage Direction]
National Revenue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
18.
[Stage Direction]
Privy Council
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. P. Smith
[Stage Direction]
19.
[Stage Direction]
Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
20.
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
21.
[Stage Direction]
Social Development
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
22.
[Stage Direction]
Solicitor General
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
23.
[Stage Direction]
Supply and Services
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
24.
[Stage Direction]
Transport
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
25.
[Stage Direction]
Treasury Board
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
26.
[Stage Direction]
Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Whelan﻿HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 27, 1984