1984-11-13

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 38).
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me on this occasion, my first address to the House of Commons. I would like to congratulate you on your election to a role in which you will surely excel. As one of the most junior Members, I would also like to extend my best wishes to the most senior Parliamentarian, the Hon. Stanley Knowles. Mr. Speaker, you will undoubtedly find him to be a great source of wisdom.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to address this august assembly, and I wish to thank the people of Saint-Leonard-Anjou for electing me as their Member and giving me the honour of representing them in this Chamber.
My riding, located on the eastern part of Montreal Island, consists of two towns, Saint-Leonard and Anjou, and part of the parish of Saint-Rene Goupil. Saint-Leonard has a population of over 70,000, of whom 40,000 are French speaking, 25,000 Italian speaking, 8,000 English speaking and 5,000 of other origins, including many Haitians. In Anjou, the vast majority of the population, 36,000, is French speaking, followed by 3,000 Anglophones and 1,500 residents of various origins. The riding also includes about 5,000 residents of Saint-Rene Goupil.

It is particularly exciting to represent such a diverse and truly multicultural riding. It is principally residential but it also contains the important industrial parks of Saint-Leonard and Anjou. Both of these industrial parks contain a broad sample of that most vital part of our economy, small business. [Translation]
In 1963, our municipalities were small towns without any real economic infrastructure. In twenty-one years, thanks to Liberal legislation which promoted business development, we have been able to achieve a level of economic growth seldom equalled in Canada. By dint of hard work, diligence and
intelligent planning, our small and medium-sized businesses have made the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou a major commercial and industrial area.

While I am on the subject of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, which I am very proud to represent, let me say how honoured I am to succeed the Hon. Monique Begin as its Member of Parliament. It is no small task to try to follow her example. She was such a bright and compassionate person, one who worked so hard to improve the lifestyle of disadvantaged Canadians.

An exceptional Member of Parliament, she remained close to the concerns of her fellow Canadians, while at the same time developing a vision of the realities of this country. She is one of those remarkable people who have had a profound influence on Canada, both through the legislation that was adopted by Parliament and her contribution to the social evolution of our country. Without her, this country would not have become what it is today: a modern and dynamic country, with a concern for social justice and able to provide health services that are the envy of the rest of the world.

I join with my constituents in thanking her for the 12 years she worked for the riding. I will try my hardest to maintain the standard of service which she set.

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out earlier the major role played by small businesses in my riding. Thanks to these businesses and to the assistance provided by the previous Government, Canada has one of the highest job creation rates in the industrialized world. Our small businesses certainly deserve to be praised for their role in the present economic recovery.

Small businesses, from corner grocery stores to microchip manufacturers, from tailor shops to machine shops, can create more real jobs faster than any other sector of the economy. In light of this, I was pleased to hear on Monday that the Government intends to enhance risk taking and to reward entrepreneurs. That is good, but it would be better to know how it will be done.

Confidence is said to be a wonder drug. However, if the government wants to restore confidence, it ought to follow a realistic and constructive rather than an ambiguous approach. Canadians are impatiently waiting for specifics.

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Gagliano
Referring to the correctional system, the government stated, and I quote, Mr. Speaker:
But it is obvious that there are grave defects in the system and my government accepts its responsibility to rectify these quickly.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is now up to the government to accept the responsibilities set forth during the electoral campaign and to begin to deliver on its promises, including those which it forgot to include in the Speech from the Throne.
The government proudly and rightfully talks about its mandate as if it were an excellent opportunity. Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent opportunity to suggest concrete solutions instead of making empty speeches as they have been doing so far.
According to the polls, the majority achieved by the Conservatives reflected a desire for change, not a miraculous conversion to the Conservative Party. The Progressive Conservative government has a very clear mandate to take action. It has a mandate to keep its promises, for indeed they were very generous and even impossible promises. One could even say that they were irresponsible promises.
Mr. Speaker, the government stated that the answer to all the problems of this country lies in consensus, and I quote:
A national consensus is also needed to reduce the persistent isolation of Canada's regions, to meet the challenges of economic and social disparity, to revitalize the strength of our traditional resource industries, such as agriculture, forestry, mining, the fishery and tourism, and to ensure that our critical transportation and communication links better serve the national purpose.
To me, those are pious wishes. A national consensus, but what about? And on what? We have yet to hear practical suggestions which might lead to a consensus. A national consensus! Would problems disappear as if by magic so that the government will not have to solve them? And then we are told, and I quote:
Future summits could address in more details issues such as the enhancement of productivity, and the responsibilities of industry, labour and government in training and technology.
Those are important issues which are put on the back burner, Mr. Speaker, such as the tens of thousands of jobs which were to be created the moment the new Cabinet was sworn to office.
The vocabulary of the Government is full of expressions showing it is in no hurry, expressions like "over time" and "following extensive consultations". I hope it does not substitute "lengthy" consultations for "extensive" consultations. Where is all the work that the famous Tory transition team is supposed to have accomplished? Why were there no new and solid policy proposals in the Throne Speech?
We heard during the campaign that with the swearing in of the Cabinet tens of thousands of jobs would be created. In the absence of any substance to that blarney, we could have at least expected there would be legislation to reduce unemployment; but no, instead of "jobs, jobs, jobs" we hear those heroic
Tory buzz words "study, consultation and consensus". Will the words "some time in the future" cure the unemployment problem?

Mr. Speaker, I admit that some initiatives were taken last Monday, but they did not come from the Progressive Conservatives since they did nothing more than implement the initiatives of the previous government. For instance, deletion of discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act, repression of pornography, assistance to victims of family violence, and resumption of discussions on pension reform already launched by the Liberals. The government might claim to have some credibility if it had been able to fulfil the expectations of Canadians by implementing its own policies as a substitute for the Liberal policies it has adopted.

As for the meagre Tory input of the cure-all "consultation, mediation, co-operation, consensus" and above all "confidence", well, they are very slick buzz words but are a poor substitute for the type of credible and concrete prospects required to generate real confidence.

After the hue and cry raised against the problems created by the previous government, it is comforting, Mr. Speaker, to see that Liberal policies did make sense after all.
MS)

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that imitation is the highest form of flattery.

We thank them for the compliment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? We shall then proceed with debate.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here this morning to address the House of Commons of Canada in this Thirty-third Parliament. 1 wish at the outset to thank my constituents for the opportunity they have given me to stand here on their behalf and address the people of Canada regarding the many important concerns that face the people today.
Members giving their maiden speeches are inclined to say a good deal about their ridings. They talk about the people who live there, how they work and what they do. This morning I would like to address those topics in the context of the recent election campaign and of the expectations that have been raised and the hopes the people of Thunder Bay-Nipigon expect the Government of Canada to maintain.
The people of my riding joined in a sweeping change that occurred on September 4 in the Government of Canada. Of course, they joined, as did the people of other northwestern Ontario ridings, in a rather different way than was true across
November 13, 1984

the country generally. By electing three New Democrats in Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Kenora-Rainy River, they created, as the editor of the weekly newspaper in Thunder Bay recognized, an NDP sweep in the midst of that blue tide. That fact is one to which the three of us, as new Members of Parliament, intend to be faithful in speaking as our constituents would have us speak about the enormously important concerns that face us.
It is beyond question that the economic situation in our country, primarily the problem of unemployment which faces so many Canadians, is the great concern of our day. There was no doubt about that during the election campaign. I called on thousands of people from door to door and met time and again those who had been seeking work. I met tradesmen who had been unemployed for months, carpenters who had been off for six months, a year or 18 months. They were by no means certain they would ever be able to work again. As I met them I began to realize the importance of the problem. We think so easily of the unemployment which faces the young as being a dreadful problem, but it is not much less serious for someone in his or her forties, fifties or early sixties, particularly those who do not have adequate pension plans. They feel a terrible fate before them when they are no longer employed. It was obvious to me that here was the great challenge that faced us. It was a challenge to which all Parties in the election campaign gave lip service, and it was certainly a challenge which all Canadians expect the present Government to face up to and deal with.
It is therefore tragic, Mr. Speaker, that with the fine words we find in the Throne Speech, on Thursday night we got in this financial statement what is, in my opinion, a profound contradiction to the hopes which have been expressed. In dealing with this, in recognizing the problems of unemployment that face our people I want to suggest that the hopes for national reconciliation which have been expressed in the Throne Speech are likely to end up being completely blasted if the financial statement truly indicates the direction the Government is going to take.
It will not be possible to resolve our difficulties by worrying only about the deficit and by using policies of "trim and cut" as a means of paring it back, which could only be done to a limited extent anyway unless one does become truly draconian. As of Thursday evening the Government was not prepared to take the drastic action which I suspect many of its business supporters wanted it to take. Yet we have this trimming and paring in various places which will surely inflict hardship on people, even when practised only to a limited extent, as in the area of the unemployment insurance administration.
The great difficulty with those actions is that the policies of the Government take the wrong direction. We are not going to see a resolution of the enormous problem of unemployment, which faces so many people across the country, if we deal with the deficit as the primary problem in the country. Instead we must have a different vision of what Canada should be like. We must think again of how the country could achieve full
The Address-Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon)
employment and how differently the fiscal system of the country would bear on its people if in fact we were able to achieve full employment.
Having spoken about that possibility during the campaign, I would like to put it on the record here so that there can be no doubt about where I stand. I still believe that 4 per cent is the goal towards which we should be moving. Settling for 10 per cent unemployment is simply unacceptable. If the people of Canada ever considered what the enormous costs of unemployment are, they would be inspired to support us in the actions which need to be undertaken.
I have suggested some of the human costs of unemployment. There are social costs as well which impinge on government, such as the higher cost of policing. The social and economic costs run to enormous amounts when we take into consideration the revenues which are forgone when people are not employed. There are clearly billions and billions of dollars of tax revenue not coming in because people are not employed. On the other hand, we must recognize the direct cost to government of unemployment insurance which is paid out month by month, running to billions of dollars over a year. Other costs include higher social assistance payments which drive up the cost of the Canada Assistance Plan.
We recognize these factors as the consequences of employment and begin to realize that the road out is not to be preoccupied by a deficit which is inevitable in these circumstances. Instead we must ask ourselves by what means we could make real progress toward 4 per cent unemployment. We must ask ourselves what kinds of capital investments, among other things, need to be undertaken by government in order to make that progress.
If we were to achieve substantial movement toward that goal and to consider what the costs of government would in fact be given 4 per cent unemployment, surely we would have reason to undertake those measures rather than follow the ones the Government has taken. We would find that taxation, which is opposed by so many people, could be reduced to a level all Canadians could accept once we have achieved full employment in Canada.
Taxation was an important concern in all of the election campaigns across the country, as it was in my campaign in Thunder Bay-Nipigon. I think we want to recognize there the possibility of achieving some greater fairness even before achieving the full employment of which I have been speaking. We must realize that if the total costs of unemployment in direct outflows, in terms of unemployment insurance payments and the total of tax expenditures and subsidies-which are taxes not collected, particularly from large corporations- exceed the present federal deficit, then there is a basis for saying that the tax burden that is being borne by individual Canadians is far too high.
When these tax expenditures include benefits for wealthy Canadians who can avoid paying taxes altogether, and when there are grants and tax breaks for large corporations and

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon)
wealthy Canadians, there is a basis for exploring the two societies that are developing in this country. There is the situation of privilege in which some Canadians live, and the state of oppression by severe taxation in which the mass of ordinary Canadians are forced to live.
Surely there exists an explosive potential in this division of the Canadian people with those who are privileged because of past action by Canadian parliaments. I intend to make my constituents well aware of this situation and I am sure all Canadians want to recognize it. They expect action in these areas from the Government in order to achieve real fairness.
1 would venture to say that if there was an attempt to make taxation more fair in this country and we were able to reduce the burden on ordinary Canadians so that they would have more money to spend, there would be an increase in the purchasing power of Canadians. There would be a larger demand in the market-place, which is surely what business needs in this country in order to prosper as business leaders say. Surely business does not exist for the purpose of seeking tax breaks or to find ways of hanging on to money. Surely people are in business to sell more. This can only be expressed by increased demand by people in the market-place. Business will be able to achieve the profits it wants through larger sales and more efficient operation.
On behalf of my caucus let me say that it is this kind of basic economic reality that is called for from the Government in this Parliament. We will be able to meet the hopes of Canadians only if the Government recognizes those realities and takes the appropriate action.
I believe that the question of hope is truly a fundamental matter in the national morale. We have gone through a number of parliaments in the past 16 years in which the hopes of Canadians were aroused. First, there was the "Just Society" campaign as far back as 1968. There was a campaign in 1974 which included a ridiculing of proposals for controls on wages and prices. There was that turnaround in 1980 with the defeat of a government, and people across the country are convinced that the legislated measures were very similar or even worse than those that the Opposition chose to defeat. Surely those actions over several parliaments have tempted the Canadian people to cynicism. If there is a degraded sense out there that politicians cannot be trusted, surely it is action of that sort from past governments that has done it.
1 believe if there is to be a national reconciliation in this Thirty-third Parliament, it will have to be done by other means. The contrast between the Throne Speech and the financial statement stares one in the face. The contrast between the present policies and all the hopes that were aroused during the election campaign, such as statements about sacred trust which appear now to be open for reconsideration, can only confirm the Canadian people in the cynicism they have been taught by previous governments. That surely will be tragic. If there is to be genuine national reconciliation, then we have a government with promises given, expectations aroused and a mandate on which it has to act. The result if the Government refuses to do that can only be the degradation of
Canadian public spirit and morale. Therefore, the Government will have to be held very closely to the standard of those promises.
As the critic for multiculturalism and fitness and amateur sport, I would like to say a little bit about those two areas as well. I can relate them to the activities of people in my riding readily enough. Although I am talking about the need for employment, I did not say very much about the activities that occur in Thunder Bay, the importance of the community to transportation, and the importance particularly of Thunder Bay to western Canadians as a port for the movement of grain.
We have at Thunder Bay the largest grain-moving port in North America, at least in terms of elevators and docking facilities. This port is of enormous importance not only to Thunder Bay and western farmers but to the Canadian economy. Thunder Bay is positioned on the Trans-Canada Highway. Through my riding, Highways 11 and 17 move together in one section of tarmac. It can pose real challenges to the movement of people and goods across the country if the route can be cut off so easily by accidents. Occasionally the Trans-Canada route is closed for hours at a time as the highway is cleared. That is one of the transportation matters that I do not intend to forget.
Thunder Bay airport is not on the main route, given the variety of routes Air Canada flies. However, Thunder Bay receives good service from Air Canada and Nordair. Thunder Bay is also served by a number of smaller carriers representing the way in which Thunder Bay is a regional metropolis.
The forest endowment of the Thunder Bay area is something about which we are deeply concerned. We are concerned about the extent to which the forests have been cut in years past and the degree to which forestry production will have to be limited in future. As costs rise and the mills find themselves more hard pressed internationally, we feel concern about the large pulp and paper mills in Thunder Bay at Red Rock and seek research and investment in one more area to ensure that this industry will continue. Again I feel concern about the kinds of policies that the new Government seems to be laying before us.
Then we have the Port Arthur shipbuilding company, which is primarily a repair facility although partial vessels are built in conjunction with the Collingwood yards owned by the same company. In portship we have seen the impact of the economic slowdown of the last years as construction yards in other parts of Canada have had less and less business. They have become more and more competitive in bidding for repair work. We have found business very slow at times and this has meant one more addition to the unemployment community of our area. In these aspects of the economy of Thunder Bay and the surrounding area we see the basis for prosperity and the challenge that exists for achieving full employment.
After those parenthetic comments on the economic life of the community, I want to say something about the multicultural and sports concerns for which I am responsible in our caucus. It is easy to relate those areas to the community of
November 13, 1984

Thunder Bay. The Thunder Bay Multicultural Association is an organization more than ten years old. This group unites the various ethnocultural associations of our community. It was a great pleasure a year ago for me as a faculty member of Lakehead University to join with community members in organizing the seventh biennial conference of the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association in Thunder Bay. I appreciated the strength that members of the Thunder Bay Multicultural Association brought to our planning and to our execution, if you will, of the conference in late October.
The multicultural realities of Thunder Bay are typical of many parts of western Canada and the past and, of course, these days of the various metropolitan centres of our country. We in the New Democratic Party have always regarded the multicultural nature of Canada as an important reality that governments should recognize and respond to.
There were indications during the Conservative election campaign that this reality would be true for the Party now governing, that there was to be recognition of the needs of the Canadian people, that multicultural realities called for the establishment of a department and that the Government would take action in order to meet the needs of affirmative action and justice for Japanese Canadians. Also we have the new concern now arising of justice for Chinese Canadians over the head tax in decades past. These are the various areas that I see need to be responded to and where there is a need to undertake spending. I find myself very anxious in considering what the Government has put before us in the past week.
We need a full-fledged multicultural department which will have a larger mandate laid open to it. We need, as the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) has suggested, a policy that is more than just one of providing some support for festivals, although even that is not what it used to be. We need more than just the politics of multiculturalism. Therefore, 1 shall be very attentive to these needs on behalf of my constituents. It is imperative that government act, in this area as in others, on the mandate it has.
My constituents and various friends have said to me: "Make sure you keep them honest". On Thursday night I felt very anxious about precisely that, of keeping the current Government honest and ensuring that it lives up to its mandate.
There are people in my riding who have not forgotten Conservative governments past. There was the Diefenbaker Government which was marked by recession, unemployment, high interest rates and so on. People have not forgotten the houses they lost in that era. There are people who still remember all too well the 1930s and the Bennett Government of those days. There is expectation in the Canadian people today that this Government will do much better by them than the last one did.


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


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Elon. Member. I have always considered it an important part of my education to listen carefully to speeches made by members of the New Democratic Party, especially when it comes to a
The Address-Mrs. Collins
Member like the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and I see the new Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) will be no exception to this rule.
I was impressed by the Hon. Member's plea for capital spending on the part of the Government in order to reduce unemployment. Another member of the NDP whom I listened to on the same subject is the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). One of the projects he suggested is for heavy capital investment in the railway going to Churchill and in the grain-handling facilities at the Port of Churchill. If that could be done as the Hon. Member describes it, one could reduce the reliance on the Lakehead method of shipping out grain. One could ship grain out from the Prairies cheaper than having it go through the Lakehead. Would the Hon. Member who has just spoken support his colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill, in doing precisely that?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It allows me to say something more about our important grain trade. I disagree with my colleague from Manitoba about the importance of the grain trade through Churchill. I frankly hand that proposal back. I do not see any need to do that. We in Thunder Bay are concerned through the Harbour Commission and other bodies about future demands on transportation.
We had a 20-million tonne season just past. Regrettably as a result of the crop difficulties in the southern Prairies, I do not expect the present crop year to be anything like that. However, our concern in Thunder Bay is about reaching 25 million tonnes. Concern is being expressed. Study is being made of ways to move a good deal more grain. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and I during the election campaign expressed interest in exploring the need for additional elevator capacity in Thunder Bay. We believe there is a good case for that in terms of ensuring that elevator storage space will always be adequate and that there is enough grain to ensure that the interface of trains and ships is always the most efficient possible.
In the context in which we hope to bring the port up to a 25 million tonne capacity, expecting that that is the size of crop we will have to move at some time and comparing the quite limited amount which goes through Churchill, about one million tonnes during a short season, we should have the most efficient system possible at both places. We want to ensure that we can move all grain to markets and that their returns are as large as they can be while we have lots of employment in Churchill and in Thunder Bay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I remind Hon. Members that questions on their speeches must be pertinent and directed to the particular Member. They should not be addressed to other Members.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak for the first time in this Chamber and to support the Speech from the Throne. I offer my congratulations to the
80162 6

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Collins
Speaker and his deputies. I look forward to working with them. Also I congratulate all new Members and those who have been re-elected to the House. I know when I speak on behalf of new Members that we come here with a great sense of optimism and a deep sense of responsibility. I echo the words of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), who asked last week that we all work together with a sense of civility and responsibility to achieve the ends required for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: This morning I will speak only briefly about themes from the Speech from the Throne-economic renewal, social justice and national reconciliation. It would be appropriate first, in the tradition of a maiden speech, to thank my very good constituents in the riding of Capilano for their support and for electing me to this honourable position. Also I should like to extend my congratulations to my predecessor, the Hon. Ron Huntington, who served this House for 10 years and who served Canadians so well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: I thank my colleagues for joining with me in that expression of appreciation.
I do not know how many Hon. Members of the House have had the opportunity to visit Capilano. If they have not, they are certainly welcome as my visitors. It is perhaps the most beauteous part of this wonderful nation of ours. Geographically it is almost beyond one's sense of expression to describe its beauties. As one crosses the Lion's Gate Bridge and enters Capilano, one even smells the different scents in the air. When one looks up at the mountains, six months of the year they are capped with snow and ready for skiers; the other six months in gentle meadows receiving hikers. Perhaps my constituency is the only one in Canada where on a brilliant spring day one can ski down Grouse Mountain and five minutes later board a surf board on the beauteous ocean.


An Hon. Member:: And it only rains at night.


Mary Collins: That is right. Along the seawall, rain or shine, one sees walkers every day inhaling the invigorating sea air. In the eastern part of the riding there is a busy port facility, with ships coming and going, plying foreign markets. There is also a major shipbuilding facility, one which I will be supporting and working toward. Only recently it received international acclaim. Further east one comes to Lonsdale McQuay, a bustling area where a new public market will soon join us with its lovely fruits and vegetables, only 20 minutes by seabus from the site of Expo.
As one's eyes lift up to the hills, one sees magnificent architecture. Capilano was probably the home of western architecture. There are homes with vistas of oceans and mountains enjoyed by the people of my riding. Then in the far western reaches of the island nestles Bowen Island where I spent many a happy childhood summer. It is 15 minutes away by ferry but hours away in the style of life. The general store
there is the focal point for news and views. Life carries on with a full appreciation of leisure.
For all its physical glories, Capilano's greatest wealth is its people, people who truly represent the strength of the country, whose beliefs are grounded in the twin sense of responsibility and service.
We have seen in the Speech from the Throne and in the economic statement which followed that our prospects for economic renewal are predicated upon a desire for less government intervention and great reliance upon the individual to accept the responsibility for risk-taking ventures, for capital growth and increased productivity. We believe that jobs will only be secured by the private sector, by risk takers who are prepared to invest in new ventures. In Capilano live the people who will make these prospects come true, people who wish to accept responsibility for risk taking and expanding new business ventures. They only want an economic plan which encourages, and a government which understands and responds to their needs as a facilitator, not as a competitor.
Each day I spend in my riding I am approached by men and women coming to me with ideas for new inventions, new business ventures and new desires to become involved in Pacific Rim trade. They come to me not for financial assistance; they come to me only to know whether our Government will provide the economic climate in which they can take those initiatives and look forward to some appropriate rewards.
Do not let us get the wrong impression. Capilano has also been ravaged by the recession which we have felt for the past three years. Many professionals in their mid-years have been laid off for the first time. Many small businessmen have faced personal bankruptcy. Many families of my personal acquaintance are perhaps living on a third or on half the salaries they enjoyed only three years ago. Many young people with whom I speak are fearful whether or not they will have the opportunity to contribute to our society.
However, the people of Capilano are now looking ahead. This past weekend that I spent with them we talked about the Throne Speech and about the economic statement, and they could see for the first time the opportunities these would provide. It has rekindled their spirit and their desire to move forward, to take the initiative and to make the investments. I applaud this Government for the initiatives taken in the Throne Speech, initiatives which will set us on this right direction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: Social justice is a major concern of people across the country and certainly of the people in my riding. I am indeed fortunate to have residing within the bounds of my riding the Squamish Indian Band, a Band which provides an example for native people across the country. Members of this Band have worked toward economic self-sufficiency, and with them and with the help of my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), I
November 13, 1984

will work toward the increased political responsibility for their own affairs that they are seeking.
My constituents and I were also heartened by the other comments made on social justice. Certainly to me, the advancement of women toward full economic equality in the country must be a major agenda item for us all. However, I would ask my colleagues to try to put within a new context the traditional women's issues. Certainly issues with regard to divorce, violence and pornography have been raised by women in our society, women working together to make changes. However, they are issues for all people in our society. It will take a concerted effort and a concerted understanding to make the changes that are necessary.
I would like to comment particularly on the task force on child care which was proposed in the Speech from the Throne. My own view of this examination of child care is that it must not be limited merely to how we pay for day care for the children of working women. It should encompass the much broader issue of how we value and support family life in our society and how we may ensure the real nurturing of our young people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: We must take into account the changing nature of families in our society. My young daughter Sarah brought her class picture home from school two weeks ago. I asked her how many of the children shown in her picture still lived with their original biological mothers and fathers. She looked at the picture of a class of 27 children and pointed out three or four who still lived under those arrangements. We must recognize, as I personally understand, the changing nature of families and provide the necessary support to enable our families to bring up healthy and well-rounded children for the future of this country.
The issue of violence is of great concern to us, particularly violence against women and children and with respect to pornography. Basically, I believe some of us have had enough. While I am a great believer in freedom, I think that with freedom comes responsibility. We must take measures to define and limit the worst of the hateful and violent literature which degrades women and children. I will be working diligently with my colleagues in this House to that end.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: Although he is not here, I concur with the words of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who spoke last week. He said that it is not enough merely to advance new penalties or new laws but that we must look at the real root of violence in our society. He referred specifically to the issue of soliciting. I think the same principle applies to dealing with issues related to pornography and sexual violence against women and children. There is a big task before us and we need the good will of Hon. Members from all sides of the House to enable those discussions to go forward in this community of ours.
The Address-Mrs. Collins
National reconciliation was the third theme of the Throne Speech. Again, the people of Capilano agree that we can no longer go on with confrontation between provinces and the federal Government and with confrontation between labour and management. We must again work diligently to ensure that all sectors of our society work together to solve the issues before us.
I have always been a great advocate of the consultative process and I applaud the initiatives our Government is taking to ensure that people are consulted, are involved and have an opportunity to participate in the major issues we are putting forward to them. It is only with an informed and involved public that we will be able to make some of the changes which I feel will be necessary in the years to come. I have begun those initiatives in my own riding and I appeal to the people of Capilano to join with me in this consultative process.
Finally and only briefly, I would like to touch on an issue which I will discuss in greater depth on a future occasion and that is the issue of international affairs. The people of Capilano expect us, as the Government and responsible players in international affairs, to first live up to our responsibility with our allies in NATO, to search for a lasting peace in a non-nuclear world and to share part of our wealth and resources with the rest of the world. They expect us to bring hope and dignity to human life on a global basis.
I am pleased to report to you today, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Capilano are already joining in the fight to ensure that this happens. This weekend in Capilano we formed the North Shore African Famine Relief Committee with support from all levels of government and all organizations. We are reaching out to the people of Capilano to ask them to assist in this emergency situation and I know that their response will be generous and supportive.
Time does not allow me to discuss further the many issues which I know will be important. I look forward to discussing these with my colleagues in the months and years to come. I leave you this morning, Mr. Speaker, with messages from the hills of Capilano to these hallowed halls of Parliament. These are messages of optimism because, in our minds, the Throne Speech provides that opportunity of rekindling the spirit of Canadians and providing a greater Canada for all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments regarding the Hon. Member's speech?


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). I really cannot wait to return to her area to go skiing and water skiing there. She gave us the most beautiful description of it.
I was very pleased to hear about the Hon. Member's concern with respect to violence and pornography and her description of child care. I think that child care is as much a right of the child as it is of the family. As well, I was very interested in what the Hon. Member said about international affairs and I

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Collins
hope she will look at the budget cut and show some concerns there.
I am particularly interested in having the Hon. Member share with the women of Canada the secret held by the women of Capilano. The Hon. Member said that there are so many young, entrepreneurial-spirited women there who do not need or want any government support but are prepared to go into small business and show their entrepreneurship. I know that there are many young women and women of every age who have that desire but seem to be under some constraints, both in terms of obtaining loans from banks and obtaining support from business. Perhaps the Hon. Member could share the secret the women of Capilano know that the women I know do not know.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the congratulations of the Hon. Member and I look forward to working with her. I know of her very fine record of working with the women of this country.
I believe the women and men of my constituency to whom I speak who are interested in establishing small businesses really want encouragement. They want to know that, if they take those risks, they will have the opportunity of prospering and will not be so heavily inundated by government regulations and taxes that they will not be able to take those kinds of initiatives.
I certainly share with the Hon. Member her view that traditionally women have had a much greater problem obtaining the capital to begin new businesses. I have been in that position myself in the past. I believe it will be our responsibility, as indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the debate on women's issues, to work with financial institutions, perhaps beginning at home with the FBDB, to ensure that women have the same opportunities to obtain risk capital in order to begin the business ventures that I believe will be the future of this country.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my endorsement to the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) and by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) regarding the ongoing debate and the seriousness of the pornography issue. In recent days that issue has once again come to the fore. I look forward to debates in this House regarding the fine line between freedom and licence on this issue. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Capilano raised the matter, and I could not let the opportunity pass to indicate that she is not alone in worrying about this very significant issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there further questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member?
[ Translation]
We shall continue debate with the Hon. Member for Bellechasse.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), I understand why the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) decided not to run in Capilano.
Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and proud to have this opportunity to make my first speech in the House of Commons, after being elected for an initial term, and I say initial, because there probably will be several more, if we on this side of the House have any say in the matter.
I was anxious to speak on behalf of my riding today, especially since my constituents have not often seen their elected Member rise in the House of Commons, at least not lately. For twelve years the people of Bellechasse were represented by Mr. Adrien Lambert, who is known and admired by many Members of this House, and that is why today, I wish to say a special word of thanks to Mr. Lambert for the work he has done for his constituents and for the entire country.
I am particularly pleased to be rising in the House today, Mr. Speaker, because in recent years, we were no longer accustomed to seeing Quebecers speak in the House to represent their constituents, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the Minister of Public Works.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that Quebec Members are proud to join the Hon. Member for Joliette, the Minister of Public Works, in representing the interests of Quebec within our marvelous Canadian mosaic.
We all know, especially since last Thursday evening, that the state of our country's economy is precarious. The irresponsible and intrusive attitude of the previous government has resulted in a series of deficits which over the years have become a major obstacle to economic development in this country.
Even worse, I think, is their attempt to have the Canadian people believe the deficit was necessary to maintain some semblance of economic development and to wipe out unemployment. We can see what all those promises have done for us in the space of a few years.
All public institutions in Canada have a duty to balance their budgets. In Quebec alone, we have over 1,200 municipalities, which in the next few weeks must send a copy of their budget to the provincial authorities. That budget must be balanced. If they send a budget that does not balance, it is sent back and they are asked to send in a new budget.
The same applies to businesses and public and semi-public organizations. The same goes for all heads of families in Canada. They have to balance their budgets and avoid spending more than they earn. People will say sometimes borrowing
November 13, 1984

is necessary to balance your budget, for instance if you buy capital assets such as a house or a car. I agree that occasionally, it may be necessary to take out a loan, but in that case, it has to be planned in terms of repayment over a certain number of years. I would have liked to ask the former Minister of Finance before September 4 how he intended to reimburse our cumulative deficit of $180 billion. They did not talk about that. It would have been interesting to hear what kind of answer they would have given me. We have reached the point, Mr. Speaker, where we have to borrow to pay the grocery bill. For every dollar we spend in Canada we have to borrow nearly thirty-five cents. It does not make sense. It was and is the duty of the new Government and that of the Official Opposition and the other Party, to support the Government in its sincere endeavour to gradually reduce this horrendous deficit. There is no other way out. There is no easy way out. We have to take the bull by the horns, as the Quebec Minister of Finance said so eloquently this week, when he congratulated us on the responsible action being maken by the Progressive Conservative Government.
Mr. Speaker, the previous Government has accustomed the people of Quebec and all Canadians to constantly ask for federal hand-outs for whatever they need. As a result, Canadians have come to see the Government as a kind of Providence which responds to their every need.
Mr. Speaker, this is not what a real government is supposed to do. Canadians should learn to take care of themselves and rely less on government intervention. Yesterday afternoon I was explaining to one of my constituents that I did not think the federal Government would be able to provide a grant for redecorating the church or enlarging the cemetery, which is what they were asking. Twenty years ago, nobody would have dreamed of asking such a thing. Everybody knew maintenance of churches, rectories or cemeteries was not a federal responsibility. However, it was the attitude taken by the previous government which literally threw money out of the window at anything that moved service clubs, sports clubs, factories .. . They gave money to anything that moved, to all those organizations, and now people have grown to expect it.
Mr. Speaker, it may not be particularly pleasant to have to say to all these people today who have seen the federal manna from heaven literally pour down on neighbouring municipalities to pay for church repairs, picnic tables or roadside haying: sorry, no more hand-outs.
Mr. Speaker, as I was telling this person yesterday, the Canadian people must gradually learn how to regain control over their destiny and realize that it is no longer possible to carry on this way giving money to everyone, money which we do not have in the first place because if we were to follow the example of the previous Government, we would mortgage our own future and that of our children and grandchildren.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that such an attitude is at all ludicrous, as was suggested last Thursday evening in his reply
The Address-Mr. Blais
to the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) by the economic critic of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henry- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who is not in the House this morning. Admittedly, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount is familiar with deficits. From what I read in certain newspaper articles this week, it seems that the Liberal Party leadership campaign has greatly depleted their resources. Therefore, Hon. Members opposite know all about deficits.
Mr. Speaker, how dare they call us anti-francophones and Orangemen?
We can see, Mr. Speaker, how and with what arrogance and contempt for our democratic institutions the previous Government governed our country. It is rather surprising to realize that the only issue for which there was a consensus in all, and I emphasize all Canadian provinces, as was very clearly seen last Summer and this Fall, was the need for change. Everyone wanted a change in Government.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for the great confidence he has shown in my ability by appointing me Parliamentary Secretary for the important Department of Agriculture. As many of you know, the constituency of Bellechasse is very large. It is made up of a strip about 50 miles wide and 100 miles long on the shore of the St. Lawrence river in SouthEastern Quebec.
I am fortunate to represent a great number of farmers who have told me on many occasions, including last week-end and the one before that, how proud they are that a Quebec Member of Parliament has been asked to help the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) discharge his important responsibilities so that agriculture will once again regain its rightful place in the Canadian economy.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, nearly half of my constituency is a forested area. Our forests, especially in Quebec, have suffered from a spruce budworm epidemic and our people are counting on the Minister of State in charge of the new Forestry Ministry to see to it that Canada takes action, in co-operation with the private sector and the provincial Governments, and really looks after-which was not the case in the past-the management and development of our Canadian forests in accordance with the commitment made by the Progressive Conservative party.
Mr. Speaker, we do not claim to have solutions to all the problems. However, we are anxious to have a hard, fresh look at them and especially to co-operate fully with the provincial authorities in the search for adequate solutions.
As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are in my vast riding of Bellechasse a considerable number of farmers who are involved in nearly all types of farming. They provide a

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Blais
good sample of the agricultural community which exists both in Quebec and Canada. That is something I am proud of. There are in my riding some sixty municipalities, which is rather exceptional, for none of them is of significant size. The largest one has a population of only 14,000, which is relatively small. That is why there are as much as sixty of them. I have just been awarded two more for the next election. These communities boast many small and medium-size businesses which were hard hit by the 1981 recession whose effects continue to be felt. It will take quite some time before small businessmen regain confidence in the future. As the government, it is our duty to help them regain this confidence, and I suggest that the economic statement of the Minister of Finance has provided the basis for a new social contract both with the private sector and with the Canadian people as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, we feel that our sincere desire to see the private sector regain its legitimate role as the driving force of the economy will help these small and medium-size businesses in Bellechasse, in the Province of Quebec and throughout Canada get back to work with renewed courage. We believe that is a prerequisite to job creation. In this way, our productivity will be gradually increased and, thanks to the firms which have not been afraid to invest in research-there are many of them, both in my own riding and elsewhere-new export markets and long awaited permanent jobs will be created by this new approach and not, as in the past, by this increasingly encroaching government intervention in the lives of the Canadian people.
The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, needed a breather and took it.
For over a year, I travelled extensively in the Bellechasse constituency and in the province of Quebec and I intend to travel also elsewhere in Canada including in the Capilano riding of which we were given a glimpse a moment ago.
I was able to meet our people and hear their complaints. They were dismayed at the attitude of the government and their leaders towards provincial governments. People everywhere noted the deep financial problems facing the Canadian government and felt that no effort was made to find a real solution.
However, Mr. Speaker, as stated in the Bible: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." On the morning of September 5, we said: "All of that is going to change."
The policies and directions announced in the Throne Speech by the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the financial statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are an indication to Canadians of the sincere effort and the very difficult exercise performed by the members of the government to cut the fat, out to use a colloquial expression, and reduce considerably government expenditures.
Such exercise was not easy but it was necessary if we want to give back to Canada its true place under the sun and more especially gain real credibility abroad and in our relations with other government levels.
After the statement of the Minister of Finance, the Canadian people might have expected all Hon. Members without exception to praise such a demonstration of courage and determination. Unfortunately, that is not what we got. We heard complaints and witnessed a defeatist attitude with respect to the constructive and sincere proposals made by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, when I am through with my speech in a few minutes, I will already have recorded a better performance than my predecessor, to a certain extent. Quite a few people still remember the Hon. Member who represented the riding of Bellechasse until 1980, the gentleman who belonged to the Social Credit Party, but fewer people can remember my predecessor. His personal record will be beaten when I end my remarks, Your Honour, I mean Mr. Speaker-I am still conditioned by my profession, although I had every intention of being careful about it.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the people of Bellechasse were quite anxious to have a spokesman to represent them properly in the House of Commons.
In conclusion, the Members from Quebec, including myself, want to assure all their parliamentary colleagues that we will fully support the approach of the Government aimed at checking the spending sprees to which we had become used to, as well as the courageous efforts made by the Government in the coming weeks to make sure that the Canadian Government will at last live within its means.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Any questions or comments on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bellechasse?
Very well. We will proceed with debate.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I want to compliment the mover, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), and the seconder, the Hon. Member for Mont-real-Mercier (Ms. Jacques), on the speeches with which they commenced the debate.
I want to express my congratulations to the Speaker on being appointed to this high and important position.
I also want to indicate my appreciation to the electors of Algoma for re-electing me to this House of Commons. It is a great and historic riding, once represented by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson for some 19 years. It has shown its outstanding wisdom by re-electing a Liberal to this Thirty-third Parlia-
November 13, 1984

ment of Canada. They did this as well in 1958 in the great Diefenbaker sweep.
The Algoma constituency is very diverse in its people and geography. We occupy that area of the north shore of Lake Eluron from Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie, including Manitou-lin Island and the area along the Lake Superior route. Its economy is equally diverse, involving everything from agriculture to uranium mines, fishing to forestry, and of course the steel industry in Sault Ste. Marie as well as some of the most spectacular scenery for tourism of any place to be found in the country. Added to the English, French and other less populous groups, we of course have the second largest Indian population in the Ontario region. Some of the most active and vital Indian bands in the country are in the Algoma-Manitoulin area.
The election campaign in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, involved many items but especially jobs, inflation, the economy and youth employment. I believe that during the last two and a half years no community in our country has suffered more from the recession than Sault Ste. Marie, whose steel industry has been hard pressed. We heard all kinds of promises that there would be increased trade with the United States and that the Algoma Steel tube mill would be completed. We heard there would be more rail and rod business from CN as well as more help for industry.
It is unbelievable to me that so many of these promises have been dashed within the first few weeks of this new Government taking office. For example, non-tariff barriers are going to be imposed by the U.S. on the 14th of this month covering tubes being sold to that country. We had a decision by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that the Government would no longer give advance rulings on the tax implications of joint ventures and limited partnerships. This effectively eliminates the opportunity for completion of that tube mill. Just before the provincial election in Nova Scotia we were advised that CN would give all of its future rail business to Sysco, whereas Algoma had provided a great deal of that steel in the past. Since then, of course, there have been cutbacks in the Industrial Regional Development Program which would have helped small industry locate in that community.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Speech from the Throne is long on rhetoric but very short on specifics. There are umpteen studies, task forces, reviews, committee studies and endless consultation, but there is really very little specific agenda for action. That is what I believe the Speech from the Throne should be, but we simply did not get this except for a few left-over items from the last Parliament.
Although those items are important and we are all aware of them, surely that does not really constitute the agenda for action which was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) when he said he was going to build a brand-new Canada. It seems to me the Prime Minister is engaged in a massive public relations exercise. It is very impressive but it does not really follow through. For example, look at the decision to sell off CDIC in one lump. I am sure that makes the moguls on Bay Street very happy as they read The Globe and Mail over their morning coffee, but when you look at the
The Address-Mr. Foster
reality it is not so simple. Look at Eldorado Resources and its move to try and process more uranium. More exemptions are now being given out so that the uranium refinery in Blind River is operating at about one-third of capacity. If you really wanted to sell off Eldorado Resources you would not be giving exemptions of that type. We see the Prime Minister taking a token pay cut of $6,000, bringing him down to $124,000 a year-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: How about you?


Maurice Brydon Foster: -while he increases his staff allocation by $140,000. We see the Job Training Options Program announced to take place some time next spring which will create some 2,000 or 4,000 jobs, whereas the First Chance Program, which I understand was a similar kind of program, was supposed to begin on October 1 and by contrast would have created 26,000 jobs.
In the economic statement that we had last week there were massive cuts in financial activity by the federal Government, but we are not actually going to see a budget until some time next spring. The economic statement told us how the Government was going to make massive cuts in its expenditure, but it did not tell us how the Government was going to create the tens of thousands of jobs which were promised last July in Prince Albert. The headlines of the last three days pretty well spell out the impact of that economic statement. The Globe and Mail carried the headline "Government Focuses on Deficit Reduction, not Jobs". An editorial in The Toronto Star was headlined "Abandoning the Jobless". "PM Changes Stand on Social Programs", in The Globe and Mail. "Reversal of policy squeezes the Department of National Defence" in The Globe and Mail. The headlines "Dewar to Protest Housing Fund Cut", and "50,000 Jobs Price of Tory Cuts", both appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. "Social Welfare Advocates decry cuts in UIC and Job Training". "Tory Squeeze on Youth Outrages Student Leaders". "Gasoline to go up 2.5 Cents a Litre". Does anyone remember the Prime Minister promising anything in the election campaign that would lead us to believe that we would see headlines like these this first weekend after the opening of the new Parliament? Does anyone believe that the Canadian electorate will ever believe the Tory promises again? I doubt that even Tories will believe Tory promises in the future.
What happens when we bring these massive cuts and national headlines down to the constituency level? That is really where the action is. A ten-cent a gallon increase in gasoline probably means that the commuting worker at the Elliot Lake uranium mines or at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie is going to pay something over $100 a year more for his gasoline. The Government cut out the Summer Canada Program. Well, $85 million does not mean much perhaps at the national level, but for 500 or 600 students it means they will have that much less money to spend to go back to school next fall.
An increase in marina fees and the cutting out of the mobile surveillance group for customs means that tourism will be hit hard in my area. The cutting of the Canadian Oil Substitution

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Foster
Program, CHIP and RRAP will mean that low-income families, many of them senior citizens, will not be able to carry out repairs to their homes. They will have to go and see their bank manager instead. The cutback of $200 million in the Industrial Regional Development Program will harm the attraction of new industries to cities like Sault Ste. Marie and northern areas of our country. Toughening up the qualifications for unemployment insurance benefits will push low-income families into welfare that much sooner. Job training programs are to be cut by $128 million so that people cannot be retrained for new jobs when they lose their old ones.
These are cruel and tough measures for the slow growth areas and the low income parts of our country. Cities like Sault Ste. Marie, which has been wracked by recession since the world-wide recession two and one-half years ago, will need more help this winter rather than less, which is what they will get. If the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had told the Canadian people during the election campaign last summer what their secret agenda was to be, the result of that election would have been different. They certainly would not have received the support of 50 per cent of the Canadian people. They certainly would not have gotten 75 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of change in promises which make people so cynical of politicians.
As well as not keeping its promises, with no advance warning in the election campaign, the Government has reduced many vital services to Canadians. The most frightening aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not the end of the Tory "chop chop show". It is probably only the beginning. Our social security system was a sacred trust in the last election. Now it is something to be chopped and negotiated away. We will just have to stand by and see what is proposed for our Old Age Security pension program and our family allowance program which will come under the Tory cutting machine next spring when the budget comes out. Surely no one will believe these kinds of election promises again.
I would like to speak briefly about agriculture today because there is no sector of our economy which requires more attention than this industry at this time. It was mentioned only once in the Speech from the Throne and there were only a couple of proposals and a massive cut of $63 million with regard to it in the economic statement.
Agri-bonds, Section 31 of the Income Tax Act and capital gains are to be referred to a committee of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is the role of government to propose legislation and the role of the Parliament of Canada to dispose of that legislation . This Government seems to be asking us to do endless studies rather than putting forth concrete proposals to be dealt with in the form of legislation.
Canagrex is to be wound up to save the Government $6.6 million. The Tory policy talks about Canada being a superpower and increasing exports massively. How do we increase
exports massively if we cut out this most important exporting arm of Agriculture Canada?
Agricultural research was to be increased, Mr. Speaker. Now we discover that it is to be cut by $2.7 million and that laboratory projects are to be deferred. Farmers were to be able to write their loans down to current day values and the special Farm Financing Assistance Program was to be reinstated. There was nary a word in the economic statement or in the Speech from the Throne about that. Agricultural service fees charged by the federal Government will be increased by $32 million. Some of these are bound to end up in farmers' costs.
There is a crisis in the agricultural industry today with regard to grains, red meats and other sectors. The Agriculture Canada report of mid-summer projects that farm net incomes will drop by 3 per cent across the country this year. In Saskatchewan this projection has increased to 8.9 per cent and to 35.5 per cent in Manitoba. Where is the action to overcome this problem? Grain exports are projected to fall by 25 per cent in the 1984-85 crop year. The value of those exports could drop from the $5.5 billion of last year to $3 billion in this coming crop year, according to the Wheat Board. The red meat industry is likewise facing low commodity prices, higher input costs and stiff competition, such as the imports from Ireland which are subsidized to the extent of some 40 cents a pound.
Already this year farm bankruptcies are up by 25 per cent. The Farm Credit Corporation reports that 39,000 farmers are severely stressed financially and that up to 1,700 could face imminent financial collapse due to the heavy debt load. Where is the action in the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement to solve these problems?
The Government promised lower interest rates to be written down by the Farm Credit Corporation or other lenders. There were no proposals put forward in that regard. Where are the review panels which could prevent bankruptcies and provide arbitration such as that which was proposed in Bill C-17 in the Thirty-second Parliament? Why is there no action in the Speech from the Throne to block subsidized beef coming in from Ireland? Why is there no mention of a marketing program or stabilization system to improve returns to the red meat industry? Why is there no action proposed in the Speech from the Throne to set aside debt for those good producers who, in normal times, would have a viable agricultural industry?
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will be putting forward a proposal such as was made in the United States in mid-September. Why is there no action to make amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Fund to have a special payout of $500 million this year as was proposed by the former Prime Minister? That fund is made up of farmers' money and the returns and market opportunities are drastically reduced this year. That is the sort of action which should have been in the Speech from the Throne or the economic statement.
The Government has proposed practically nothing in the Speech from the Throne to solve the emergency situations
November 13, 1984

facing several sectors of the agricultural community today. The initiative for legislation in the House must come from the Government. Parliament cannot act to solve these problems with legislation or budgetary items which are not before it. Unless there is some action the situation will grow even more acute throughout the winter and spring months and we will see bankruptcies rise to the level projected by the Farm Credit Corporation. Mr. Speaker, there should have been action on these items in the Speech from the Throne or in the economic statement.
The figure projected by the Farm Credit Corporation of 1,000 or 1,700 bankruptcies is not just an empty statistic. It represents farms and farm families. It represents hopes and dreams which will be destroyed unless the Government acts in this first session of the Thirty-third Parliament.


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


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), one of the few Members on the other side who returned to the House after the election.
I marvel at the Hon. Member for Algoma expecting us on this side, after a matter of two months, to be able to address all the problems which the prior government caused in the country. Would the Member for Algoma tell us whether he himself or his Party is in favour of pensions and baby bonuses for those in Canada who are making over $100,000 a year? Is he himself or his Party in favour of having individuals in that wage category receive that type of benefit?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, what we really marvel at is the change in what the Prime Minister was saying in the election campaign. At that time he said that these programs were a sacred trust and were untouchable. Suddenly they are no longer a sacred trust; apparently only medicare is a sacred trust. We marvel at the undoubted change that has occurred during the last two or three months.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech. However, I think he made one unintentional error with respect to the Summer Canada Program. He said that some 500 or 600 students would lose their jobs during the summer. Would the Hon. Member correct that statement? Perhaps this figure only applies to his riding, because it is an $85 million program. At approximately $1,000 per student, it represents 80,000 students.
Could the Hon. Member give his opinion as to the rationale of a government that would discontinue direct job creation for students in high unemployment areas such as the Hon. Member's riding? What kind of wicked, cruel rationale would a government follow to take such a move? Does he think that the Government will have to turn around in the spring, reverse that policy and bring back the exact same program that the Liberal Government had last summer?
The Address-Mr. Foster


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the Hon. Member that it was 500 or 600 jobs in the Algoma-Manitoulin area and not the whole country. Those jobs will be sorely missed. Many of these students are from low-income families and many are native students from the 12 reserves in my constituency. Many of them have an opportunity to go to university in spite of their modest backgrounds, but they will not now have that opportunity.
Many communities depend on students for their tourism promotion, community betterment, recreational programs and many other projects which the municipal governments cannot afford. They depend on this Summer Canada Program.
I would not attempt to explain the rationale of the Government for cutting out this program. If I were to speculate, I would speculate that the hue and cry from students across the country, including those from constituencies of Members on all sides, will be so great by the spring that the program will be reinstated. This is a relatively modest expenditure and if my constituency is a typical example, it seems to be a cruel, unfair and unjust action to put 500 or 600 students into idleness and to foreclose on their opportunities to return to college or university. I certainly hope that the Government will reverse its policy with respect to this program. It gave no forewarning during the election campaign that it was planning to cut out the student program.
It would have been interesting to see how Progressive Conservative Members would have campaigned on that policy of cutting out student employment programs. I would have been interested to see what support such a policy would have had from the young Progressive Conservatives.
I welcome the question from the Hon. Member from Newfoundland because I did not go into any of the detail which his question allowed me to give in this debate.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight. In his presentation the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) said that Revenue Canada had ceased to give advance rulings on the tax consequences of certain arrangements. This is not the case. Revenue Canada continues to give those advance rulings, with one particular exception. That is the one with which the Hon. Member is concerned. It involves the use of a limited partnership for purposes that were not contemplated under the Income Tax Act.
According to the Act, limited partnership contemplated individuals forming partnerships. In the case with which the Hon. Member is concerned, there are two large corporations that would like to form a limited partnership. That is why an advance ruling has not yet been given in this particular instance.
However, I would agree with the Hon. Member that it would be advantageous, especially for the potential new employees in his riding, were the Department of National Revenue to be able to give that advance ruling in the near future.

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Darling


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this because I think it is a very important concept. The Government said that it would give greater security, confidence and certainty to the business community. In my opinion, the decision not to allow the implications of a joint venture on a limited partnership only adds uncertainty to the situation. I suggest that it is really a cop-out.
Apparently there were eight such cases before the Department of National Revenue. Two of them, Algoma Steel and Tembec, would create substantial jobs. We are talking about 700 jobs in the case of Algoma Steel. Algoma Steel wanted to form a joint venture or limited partnership in which some of the tax credits and capital cost allowances of the corporation would be used by another corporation under a limited partnership. This would mean 700 permanent jobs that are desperately needed in our own area.
I understand that a similar situation exists with the Tembec company which is about 100 miles north of Ottawa. If such an undertaking would create jobs, why could the Department of National Revenue not say that it would allow it and give the advance ruling? Why could it not do that in the case of Tembec?
If there were corporations which were putting together non-productive, limited partnerships that would not create jobs, the department could refuse to give an advance ruling in such a case.
The Prime Minister came to Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma twice in July to say that he would see that the plant would be completed. When the company laid down its proposal at a meeting in September, there was no indication that the Government was going to disallow it. Lo and behold, two weeks later this advance ruling by the Department of National Revenue was outlawed so that the opportunity to complete this $350 million tube mill is foreclosed.
I realize that the Hon. Member is saying that the advance ruling mainly applies to this kind of circumstance, but it is in these kinds of circumstances where the Government is, in effect, copping out from its responsibility to give advance rulings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments on the Hon. Member's speech has now expired.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege for me to say a few words about the Speech from the Throne as well as the statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last Thursday evening. At this time I would also like to congratulate the mover of the Speech from the Throne, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton (Mr. James), and the seconder, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques). I think it is rather unusual that two seatmates moved and seconded the Speech from the Throne. I also believe that they have the same name because, according to my limited French, I believe the names "Jacques" and "James" are the same.
The Speech from the Throne commencing the Thirty-third Parliament was certainly impressive. Much to the disappointment of the Opposition, it did not go into great detail. However, the Speech from the Throne certainly charted a course. The statements and remarks of the Minister of Finance of last Thursday evening clarified a good deal of what the Canadian people want and are expecting. Canada now has, shall we say, returned to the land of the free.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: This Government is going to free Canadians from a mushrooming deficit. If any statement or message was given to the people of Canada by this new Government, it was that something had to be done to reduce the deficit, to put Canadians back to work and to give Canada's private industry and its entrepreneurs a chance to see what they can do. Past government mismanagement and mishandling of programs and its entry into the private field proved most unsuccessful.
As we are all aware, we are now faced with 1,400,000, give or take, unemployed. Band-aid approaches give some shortterm assistance but the idea is to get Canadians, young and old, back to work in long-term, challenging and, let us say, permanent jobs.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at this very moment is meeting with the Premiers of the provinces to discuss plans for the future of Canada, to set up goals and various projects for a First Ministers' conference some time early in the new year. We wish them well in this endeavour. Future conferences will be of a different type. First Ministers will sit down and discuss on an friendly basis, and I can emphasize "friendly", rather than on a confrontational basis, the way it was in the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Possibly a year down the road at the conference we will see another Conservative Government representing the Province of Manitoba joining in to discuss the future of Canada.


Mr. Manly:: Not likely.


Stan Darling: I notice that last remark of mine did not register too well in the NDP section of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: I listened with a great deal of interest when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) criticized the Throne Speech for references made concerning consultation with the private sector. That attitude is the chief reason his Party went down to a crushing defeat on September 4. When I think back to that great statement of Mackenzie King, it reminds me that the present 40 Members are in the valley of humiliation from which it will take a great many years to recover.
Canadians should take great comfort in knowing they now have a government that will listen. I want to emphasize that,
November 13, 1984

Mr. Speaker. I know that we as members of the government will be bringing our messages to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister. Certainly there will have to be some distasteful medicine taken; there is no question about that. I think the statement "short-term pain for long-term gain" is a truism. It reminds me that everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: Some hard measures will have to be taken in order for us to get the country back on the right road. The doors in Ottawa have been closed so long and the keyholes plugged for so many years that Canadians must get used to true representation in Parliament.
If consultation and co-operation is such a dastardly goal, perhaps Opposition members could explain why private sector spokesmen are so elated with the Throne Speech and the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. Immediately following the address of the Finance Minister, I had the good fortune to meet in my office with John Bulloch, president of the influential Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Mr. Bulloch's federation is one of nine private sector groups participating in the consultation process, the same group so profusely maligned by the Opposition. Let me quote what Mr. Bulloch said:
The signals to the investment community are positive because there is a message of honesty. It is a message that Canada will rely more on the private sector than the Government. We're going to roll back regulations and rely on market forces. For small business specifically, they re-introduced the tax simplification measures from last April. These were non-partisan measures developed after three years of effort between the private sector and the tax fraternity. They represent $50 million in savings in accounting fees alone.
Mr. Bulloch described the Finance Minister's announcement as a "cold shower", and said it was the only cold shower he has ever enjoyed taking. That shower, of course, describes the rude awakening Canadians are enduring in the face of a deficit more severe than previously disclosed. Canadians should not be fooled by Opposition prattlings about lack of concern over unemployment. The creation of meaningful, long-term employment is contingent on a strong national economic base. The Opposition is doing what it is paid to do. Unfortunately, members of the Opposition do not seem to care about misinforming the people of Canada and making the pain and suffering of the unemployed even greater.
Getting Canada back to work is of paramount importance to this Government. We defy anyone to provide concrete proof that that is not the case. It will always be our intention to deal fairly and compassionately with the people of Canada. That, in itself, is one of the changes Canadians have been seeking. Unemployment will not take a back seat to problems relating to the deficit, but even grade school mathematicians can see why the deficit must be addressed concurrently.
Consider, if you will, what Mr. Bulloch had to say on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:
We've had some shocking news when it comes to the size of the Government's deficit and their fiscal problems, but the Government has shown a lot of honesty and straight shooting on how they're going to deal with it.
To have over $4 billion in cuts so early in the game is a major achievement. We, as an organization, are making suggestions to the Deputy Prime Minister where even further cuts can be made over the next six months. The signals to business are very, very powerful. The signals to small business are especially good. We have a whole set of new rules between the tax collector and small business.
They're going to remove the restrictions that are inhibiting small business growth, for example, the unemployment insurance system and the problems of equity capital. The sleeper is the review of the unemployment insurance system because most people don't realize today that unemployment insurance is creating unemployment.
The United States now has 7 per cent unemployment while we have 11. The reason: people in the United States are taking real wage cuts. People in the United States are moving more frequently to take jobs. The people in the United States are taking more training and the rigidity in our labour market is the major inhibitor to job creation in Canada. The sleeper here is the serious initiatives to review unemployment insurance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry but I have to interrupt the Hon. Member since it is one o'clock. 1 shall now leave the chair until two o'clock. Since the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has some time left, he may continue after the daily routine of business.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the full impact of restraint measures announced by the new Conservative Government has not yet been felt in the poorer regions of Canada. I am referring to the freeze on person-years announced by the new Government for the federal Public Service, and the cutting and streamlining of administration in various federal Departments.
It is clear what happens when orders are given to cut, to streamline, and to freeze the federal Public Service. It is the job in the field, the job at the end of the line, and the job in the region which are cut. Tory policy today in this area is even more cruel than it was in 1979. To set out intentionally, as the Government has done, to reduce the size of the federal Public Service, with no regard whatsoever to where these cuts are made, is a cruel and stupid policy. This policy reaches into every community in rural Canada, and into Crown corporations such as Canada Post.
This week orders are being issued throughout Atlantic Canada to reduce the hours of small post offices from 40 hours to 30 hours. In Newfoundland, about 160 post offices are

November 13, 1984
affected by the decision. The decision was made for all of Atlantic Canada last week, and I understand rural Quebec will get the same boot this week. It is now clear that the Government is not interested in the poorer regions of the country, much less in poor people.



NATIONAL SYMBOLISM OF GREY CUP ANNUAL FOOTBALL MATCH

Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement on an annual national event known as the Grey Cup game. I must apologize if I seem somewhat more jubilant today as a Winnipeger than you, Mr. Speaker, as a Torontonian. On last Sunday afternoon our Winnipeg Blue Bombers became the number one football team in western Canada, and the Western Conference champions. The Blue Bombers are a community-owned team with its home located in the centre of the riding of Winnipeg-St. James.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate formally the players-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that gives me an opportunity I must take. I wish only to say to new Members, and others, that according to the rules of the House Standing Order 21 may not be used for statements of congratulations. I rise only to make that point.


Clement George Minaker: The Grey Cup is a real symbol of national pride and unity. It brings the East and West together in a weekend full of festivities and good will.
I might add that my deskmate, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), which is in Hamilton, and I, have a friendly wager that the loser will buy a dinner in the Parliamentary Restaurant regardless of whether or not the price has risen. 1 hope, without breaking any laws, that my colleagues from western Canada will join in similar wagers with our eastern colleagues so that we can get back some of the loot we in western Canada lost last year to the East.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MULTICULTURALISM


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to a commitment made by the Conservative Party during the last election campaign, a commitment which is now by no means certain to be honoured.
Ethnic leaders throughout Canada have been asking the federal Government for many years to strengthen its commitment to Canada's multicultural heritage. Since the first statement by then Prime Minister Trudeau in 1971 referring to Canada's multicultural diversity, there has been growing recognition of the multicultural fact.
During the election campaign the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) confirmed that his Party would, if it formed the Government, create a separate Department of Multiculturalism with an "ethnic minister". When asked if his Leader, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), would support such a move, the Hon. member and former Minister of State for Multiculturalism during the previous minority Conservative Government, was quoted as saying:
I think that I can say that without any problem.
It appears now that there is some problem. The Speech from the Throne which opened this new Parliament made only one fleeting and thin reference to the Government's commitment:
To reach a national consensus which will reflect the reality of Canada's cultural diversity.
There is no mention of the campaign promise of a full-fledged Department of Multiculturalism.
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) is reportedly engaged in consultations with ethnic groups to consider the direction of Canada's multicultural policy. I hope these consultations create a better result than the previous Government's multiculturalism Bill of last June. Let the Government show its good will by honouring at least one campaign promise, one that holds an enormous symbolic importance for thousands of Canadians.


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



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said in his statement last Thursday, the Canadian people did indeed make a clear and confident judgment on September 4 about the future of this great country of ours. I strongly endorse and applaud the objectives and strategies of the program. The process of consultation with Canadians is especially vital if we are to achieve the desired consensus, followed by committed action.
I wish to stress that the creation of jobs remains the top priority in Canada. However, we must take the required long-term steps to create a climate of confidence so that sustained economic growth and job creation will take place. In creating such a climate it is essential to tackle the causes of the problems rather than wrestling with the symptoms. That is why Canadians agree that we must reverse the massive buildup in public debt as a step toward fiscal responsibility.
November 13, 1984

Lastly, Canadians realize that we must be prepared to forge and fashion our role in the world market-place if the blueprint of economic renewal is to become a reality. That is why the Canadian community is so supportive of the aims and objectives outlined in the statement of the Minister of Finance last Thursday in this House.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Last Thursday, in commenting on the acquittal of Dr. Morgentaler, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that he did not intend to support an amendment to the legislation on abortion.
The 1969 legislation on termination of pregnancy is outdated. In fact, in most parts of Canada, recognized hospitals have refused to set up therapeutic abortion committees as provided by law.
The resulting inequities are obvious. Furthermore, the fourth acquittal of Dr. Morgentaler clearly illustrates the shortcomings of the existing legislation, which should be reviewed as soon as possible in order to change either the way it is implemented or its substance.
My purpose here is not to challenge the validity of our judicial system but to stress the ineffectiveness of certain areas of our legislation which penalizes individuals, in this case women, who require a service that, according to the legislation, should be available, but in practice is not.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) promised to reduce the deficit. Now, when the Progressive Conservative Government is actually making a reduction, he groans in dismay, "cut, cut, cut". This is understandable when his record as Minister of Finance shows that he increased federal Government spending by 99.8 per cent. Then his Liberal friends continued to increase spending, with borrowed money of course, until the public debt is now about $190 billion. He would reduce the deficit by add, add, add.
Everyone, except the Liberals, knows a debt cannot be reduced by adding to it, but the Liberals have been trying to lift themselves by their own bootstraps for a long time. The Liberal Leader fights the reduction of the public debt against the wishes of the people.
Here are a few excerpts from editorials: The Globe and Mail, "Business across the country applauded the economic statement"; Le Devoir: "Only a lunatic would claim that the
financial situation of the federal Government is not disastrous and does not require drastic measures of austerity"; and even the Vancouver Province: "-this tough, ambitious and fair program should stop the drift to higher payments just to cover the interest on our exploding debt". However, one of my Indian friends put it more succinctly. He said: "That Liberal Leader talks with a forked tongue".
The economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) reflects the thinking of the vast majority of the Canadian people. We will keep our promise to Canadians despite the moans and groans of members of the Liberal Party and of the NDP and we we will build a new Canada-


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, neither the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) nor the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) have tabled the impact studies which should show the effects of the announced cutbacks on unemployment insurance claimants, particularly those in the various regions of Canada where unemployment rates are far in excess of the national average. It is obvious that the Government views the unemployed as mere statistics. Therefore, in order to appear tough to the large and powerful business interests in Canada, and to create a climate of confidence for the private sector, the Government is prepared to crush those with the least economic power.
See how tough this Government is! See how the Government is slashing at the public sector! See how the Government creates confidence in the private sector! See how tough it is while it is crushing students, chopping research and development, and savaging public servants! See how it mollycoddles the rich and powerful-world prices for oil, no challenge to corporate concentration in Canada, no changes in the Income Tax Act to make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes! It seems to me the Government has adapted a theme song from the Three-Penny Opera: "Mac the Knife is back in town".
The least the Government can do is table the impact studies relating to the announced changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration to do so now.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the results of the election of September 4 indicated that

November 13, 1984
Canadians are willing to work together to solve the problems that we face in our country. They took the first step in reversing the negative trend that has plagued our country by electing a new Government committed to bringing about real change.
Voters entrusted our Government with a mandate to lead the way in a process of economic renewal and national reconciliation. We have begun to fulfil that mandate, Mr. Speaker. Last week, in the Speech from the Throne and in the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), our Government laid the cornerstones for a national reconstruction effort.
In facing up to Canada's serious economic problems, we are all going to have to work hard and we are going to have to make some crucial decisions. The people of the riding of Mission-Port Moody are prepared for these decisions. Already they are responding with enthusiasm to the leadership shown by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance.
Our agenda for change and renewal is based upon consultation and discussion. The Prime Minister began that process today by meeting with the provincial First Ministers. What these people in opposition do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is: "You ain't seen nothing yet".



POLITICAL PARTIES


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, such was the universal accord and happiness with which the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement were received that the whole country has united in its approval of the policies of the new Government. Even the NDP are in favour of the new policies. Apparently NDP members are not even interested in voting on their own subamendment. On Friday afternoon only three out of the required five NDP members rose when the opportunity presented itself to cause a recorded vote. Therefore, there will be no vote of non-confidence this afternoon.
From that we can only conclude either, first, that 27 out of the 30 NDP members fully support the new Government; second, that the NDP has abandoned its role of opposition by vacating the field to its friends in the Liberal Party; or third, that NDP members would be well advised to reconsider their choice of House Leader and Party Whip.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ACCESS TO INFORMATION


Mr. John V. Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign Conservative candidates promised a more open and accessible Government. The Tories castigated the Liberal Government for secrecy. In their national election propaganda they said:
The Liberals deny Canadians legitimate access to Government. They refuse to release government information. Government must be accountable to the people of Canada. It must be accessible, honest and respectful of different needs and opinions.
What a farce, Mr. Speaker. That is hypocrisy in its highest and purest form. Two months of the Tory version of open and accessible Government have given Canadians a real understanding of the words "duplicity" and "deceit". If its present practices continue, the Conservative Government will clearly be the most secretive and paranoiac Government Canadians have ever witnessed.
The most recent example of this approach came last week with the Finance Minister's refusal to release a study done on the impact his cuts will have on unemployment rates. The public, the press, and the Opposition have a right to this information. We have a right to know how many jobs will be lost. We have a right to know which regions and which sectors of the economy will be most seriously affected.
Why is the Government afraid to release this information? What does it have to hide? Canadians are asking themselves what happened to the promise of more open government.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, to my mind, it has to do with the credibility of the Government.
In light of the statement made last week by the Minister of Finance concerning the $180 million cut in foreign aid which Canada was committed to give to developing countries, how can the Right Hon. Minister explain that, 48 hours earlier, he had authorized his ambassador to the UN to deliver a passionate speech to tell the whole world that Canada would give more foreign aid than any other country and that, 48 hours later, his Government ruthlessly slashed foreign aid programs, when Africa is experiencing the worst famine in many years
November 13, 1984

and other countries are wondering whether they ought to expect less assistance?

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, under the government of different Parties, has a proud record of contributing to overseas development assistance. It is the intention of this Government to maintain that record.
When my colleague, the Minister of Finance, made his statement in this House on Thursday night, he made very clear the commitment of this country to continuing our steady progress toward .07 per cent of GNP for overseas development assistance. Because of the severe economic situation which the Government has inherited, we have been forced to stretch out that commitment to a longer time frame. However, we are meeting the obligations of Canada, and we will retain a position of respect and leadership for Canada by contributing to development and by contributing to relief of disaster where it occurs.


AMOUNT OF FUNDING
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, how can the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs stand today and make that statement when, on September 25, at the United Nations, speaking on behalf of the Government and all of the people of Canada, he made the solemn promise that we would keep our goal of .07 per cent of GNP for overseas development assistance by 1990 a few weeks later it was postponed to 1995, and two weeks later the programs of aid for the developing nations were cut by almost $200 million? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the credibility of the Canadian Government has been determined by this inability of the new Government to say the same thing inside Canada as it does outside Canada?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons this Government enjoys much more credibility than the Government with which the Hon. Member was associated is precisely that we do say the same thing outside Canada as we do inside Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: And it is our intention . . . And we
have shown that we always say the same thing in French and in English.

What I said at the United Nations was that the Government intends to achieve its level of support by 1990. That was our intention at that time when we had that state of knowledge of the finances of the country. We did not know then just how serious was the fiscal problem in which the former Government had placed this country. For that reason we used guarded language then, and we repeated in the statement of my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance, a clear commitment
Oral Questions
to maintain Canada's steady progress. I would remind the House that Canadian overseas development aid is going up, not down.


AID FOR CENTRAL AMERICA
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member says that he knows what he is talking about. He made a commitment to the UN on behalf of the Government on September 25. Three weeks later he backed away from that commitment because he has no clout in his Government. If the Government is about to cut $200 million in aid, I would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to continue to cut aid. The Minister indicated last week that the Government would increase aid to Africa because of the famine. Is it the intention of the Government to cut aid to Latin America at a time when a major crisis is developing in Nicaragua? Is it not the view of the Minister that he would have been well advised to follow more closely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect to the Hon. Member, I heard his supplementary question and I do not think that it is fair for two questions to be included in a third supplementary.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would make the point that the Overseas Development Assistance budget has not been cut; it has been increased. It will be more this year than last year.
With respect to Nicaragua, this morning I had the opportunity of meeting with the Hon. Member for Spadina who has recently returned from that country. We discussed an aid program for Nicaragua, which the Government is examining. Two or three weeks ago I had the honour of signing a $7.5 million Canadian aid program which will help to ensure potable water supplies in Nicaragua. We are meeting Canada's obligations around the world, and we intend to continue to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESEARCH
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Cities in central Quebec are probably those most severely affected by the budget cuts announced by the Minister of Finance, and I am thinking of research laboratories in Vic-toriaville, Trois-Rivieres and Shawinigan. Could the Minister inform the House what will happen to the Institut de recherche Maurice-Lamontagne in the Lower St. Lawrence area and

November 13, 1984
Oral Questions
the Centre de recherche optique planned for the Quebec City area?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to answer my hon. colleague but first of all, I wish to thank him for the cordial words he directed to our government and my colleague, the Minister of Finance, last Thursday evening following our policy statement. It was much appreciated. 1 can inform the Hon. Member that the Centre Maurice-Lamontagne will proceed as planned. As Hon. Members must have noticed upon reading the documentation tabled last Thursday, there is no indication of any cuts in that area, and the same applies to the Centre de recherche optique at Quebec City.


INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE LOSS OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY JOBS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary concerning the research centres planned for the area represented by the President of the Treasury Board. Could the Minister inform the House how many jobs related to those research centres will be lost as a result of these projects being abandoned or postponed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in the case of all research centres that were financed by the Laprade Fund, with which Hon. Members are familiar, certain projects which we felt did not have the same high priority as others have been either abandoned altogether or postponed.


Raymond Garneau: At a loss of how many jobs?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I may inform my hon. friend that despite the fact that the Government represented by his Party during the last session spent more than $130 million, central Quebec is not better off than other regions.
The promise that the Laprade Fund would create permanent jobs, Mr. Speaker, is a promise which, quite frankly, was not kept.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On Friday last, after the Government announced its disastrous economic policy which it is going to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It is typical for Conservatives to laugh about increasing unemployment, a situation which we on this side of the House take seriously.
After the Minister announced his economic policy on Thursday night, he failed to indicate the precise effect that such a policy would have, according to analyses which were done by officials of his Department, on employment in the coming fiscal year. The Minister acknowledged last Friday that there was such a study, but refused to give that study to Members of the House and, more important, to the people of Canada.
My question concerns a news story which appeared the following day in The Citizen of Ottawa. In that story the reporter referred to an official from the Minister's Department, with the clear implication that the official gave to the reporter the information that the Minister denied to Members of the House of Commons. I would ask the Minister did any official from his Department give the information to the reporter which we requested, and will he tell us if that was done on the weekend?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of the official who gave out the information. The Hon. Member can read the papers as well as I can. Clearly, someone spoke to a reporter and gave some information. However, 1 would like to underline the fact that the information that was in The Citizen report is not significant information when taken into the over-all context of the broad impact of the economic statement, which is clearly positive. The chief spokesman for small business, John Bulloch, has said that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect to the Minister, we are now in the second week of this Parliament and the questions are getting longer, and the answers are getting longer. Therefore, I will assert my authority to bring Question Period back to where I believe it should be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPARTMENT'S ASSESSMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my supplementary question short. The Minister has said that in his view the assessment which was done by his Department would not produce significant results. Would he now allow the people of Canada to decide whether the document which he wants to keep secret is, or is not, significant? The Minister preached open government when he was on this side. Why does he not practise it when he has responsibility?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are very open to these things.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: We have just embarked upon the largest consultative process that any Government has embarked on in Canadian history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 13, 1984


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would like to give one piece of information to the Hon. Member in response to his question. I said that the information which was in the memorandum to me was statistically insignificant.


John Edward Broadbent: Let us decide.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will let you decide. In year one, in 1985, there is a marginal positive increase in employment; in 1986 it is a marginal negative impact on unemployment-both statistically insignificant and not worth worrying about.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has told us that the situation will get worse in two years. Some of us hope that two years from now things would be better. Considering that the Minister continues to refer to that information in the House, does he not think that he has an obligation to produce that document, and does he not think that as a Member of Parliament I should not have to resort, as 1 will after Question Period, to the Access to Information Act, and go right over the Minister's head to obtain from the Government information which he should have provided a long time ago?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the information was provided to me as part of a broad memorandum outlining various policy alternatives. Those policy alternatives should be available to me, and only me, as the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I want to underline the fact that the information is statistically insignificant. It is more than outweighed by the positive impact of what has generally been regarded as a good economic statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WORLD OIL PRICES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When the Minister was the opposition critic for that portfolio, she left no doubt, either before the election campaign or during the election campaign, as to what her policies would be if she were Energy Minister, or what the policies of her Government would be if they were elected. Now that the election is over, it would seem that these ideas have evaporated. I would like to say that-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the Hon. Member that the purpose of Question Period is not to make speeches or statements, but to ask questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister has said that she will not be making any major changes in energy policy until world oil prices have stabilized, what does she feel is "stability" in world energy oil prices? How does she define "stability", particularly concerning the difficult political situation in the Middle East?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member would know, the whole subject of oil pricing is currently under negotiation with the western producing provinces. It is a series of negotiations which are going very well. I am not in a position to talk about the outcome of those negotiations months before they are completed.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question preferably short.


IMPACT ON JOBS OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister herself has said that she wants to use energy policies as an "engine for growth". When is this growth going to take place? When are these jobs going to be created? Just because the Minister is frozen at the switch, does she mean, Mr. Speaker, that these jobs are not going to come forward until 1995 or later?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member clearly was not present recently when I was able to sign amended gas export contracts which will maintain or create 15,000 new jobs by following a more sensible gas pricing policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: We propose to bring forward similar measures in the next few weeks.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
When the Progressive Conservative Party sat in the opposition, they often asked for more federal funds to be spent on research and development in Canada. However, in his economic statement last week, the Minister of Finance announced a

November 13, 1984
Oral Questions
$60 million cut in our research and development expenditures. My question is therefore as follows: Can the Minister tell the House how many jobs will be lost because of this drastic action taken by the Canadian Government?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the cut in expenditures announced last week in our research and development programs, I would like to assure my hon. friend that the Progressive Conservative party will meet its commitment to stimulate research and development during the next few years and that, everything being considered, no jobs will be lost in this sector, which is very important for the economic development of Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance just confirmed a few moments ago that there will be a loss of jobs in two years. How does the Minister of Finance square that with what was just said by the President of the Treasury Board?
In the economic statement the Government has cut some $200 million from the Industrial Incentive Program. This means that areas of the country which do not have private industry will be even further neglected by this Government. Will the Minister tell the House how many more jobs will be lost by that cut in expenditure of $200 million? How many more jobs will be lost to the poor areas of the country?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain to the Hon. Member. We are convinced that the impact of the economic statement is going to increase confidence and that will lead to job creation.
I recently received a letter from a man who is 94 years old. He said that because of the new Government and the confidence which we are engendering in him, he has gone out and bought a company which was going bankrupt, saved 145 jobs, and is going to create another 25 jobs over the next three months. That is confidence!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Table it!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Sudbury has the floor. Order, please.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In its economic statement on Thursday the Government announced a number of job cuts in government scientific centres, including the laboratory of the National Research Council which serves as the national standard for radiation. In addition, it is responsible for fine tuning cancer therapy equipment across the country. These cuts will throw into question the amount of radiation which is administered, and make cancer treatments less effective. Will the Minister tell us why the Government has seen fit in the name of restraint, and in a very mindless way, to eliminate very highly skilled technical positions, and at the same time risk the quality and safety of cancer treatment in Canadian hospitals?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, I will say that the Government indeed has not jeopardized in any way the calibration of cancer monitoring equipment. In fact that was but a very, very small complement of the 30 person years associated with the X-ray and molecular research laboratory which was largely viewed to be expendable by senior officials of the National Research Council.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I must add that that is not the view of a number of directors of hospitals across this country who have expressed surprise and dismay at the cut in that area.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment to head that very important Department. Would the Minister tell the House why he went along with a cut which he knows will mean over the long term a loss of skilled jobs to an area in the scientific community of this country in which jobs are hard to come by?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his kind words and also to give him my best wishes in fulfilling his responsibilities.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that I believe, knowing of some of his comments in the past, that he will share our view that getting our economic house in order is the best way to create long-term jobs.
The second point I would like to make, and about which I have obviously made inquiries, is that it is my view, as well as the view within the Department, that the concern the Hon. Member has expressed is not valid. Every step will be taken to protect cancer patients in terms of radiation and to ensure that the veracity of the tests will be maintained. This has not been
November 13, 1984

jeopardized, and I agree with the comments made by my cabinet colleague.


FUNDING CUT-BACKS-EFFECT ON EMPLOYEES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, but first I would like to congratulate him on his appointment. In view of the statement just made by the President of the Treasury Board that there will be no loss of jobs in research and development, could the Minister explain why, in fact, cuts of between S36 million and $70 million are being imposed on the National Research Council, and why lay-off notices have gone to dozens of scientists of great experience at the NRC? Could the Minister also explain explicitly how it is that the Government of Canada is abandoning its capacity to recognize dioxin and other hazardous substances through the disbandment of the environmental secretariat?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member is that, indeed, no lay-off notices have been issued to any employees of the National Research Council. We are taking every measure to ensure a stimulation of private sector research and development-


Mr. Deans:: Oh, yes, Sir!


Thomas Edward Siddon: -consistent with the commitment of this Government. If that, in fact, means that people who were formerly employed in some of these laboratories are going to be able to seek out new private sector initiatives with the benefit of programs which this Government will be announcing, then it will give them a permanent, rewarding, exciting, and challenging alternative to stagnating in laboratories-


Ian Deans: And have it done in the States, or perhaps Europe?


Thomas Edward Siddon: -which have outlived their usefulness in some cases.


CONSULTATION INQUIRY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that employees in several of the laboratories concerned were told on Friday that lay-offs were coming, and were told how many lay-offs would come, but were not told who would be layed off, how can the Minister make that kind of statement? Why did the Government go forward with the cuts in the NRC without the kind of consultation which was so amply promised in the document called An Agenda for Economic Renewal, which we received only last week?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat there have been no layoffs, and the decisions which were announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on Thursday night, were discussed
Oral Questions
fully with the senior officials at the National Research Council. It is unfortunate that one does not discuss such contemplated measures with every employee. However, indeed and in fact, those positions were seen to be the least essential of all of the activities of the National Research Council and, therefore, this Government took an essential decision, with which the Hon. Member obviously disagrees.


WHALING
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, the seal industry in 50 per cent of my riding has been destroyed by conservationists such as Greenpeace. Due to the lack of industry and business opportunities in Nunatsiaq, over 50 per cent of the residents still carry on a form of renewable resource harvesting to supplement their meagre income. In the absence of a substantial amount of financial assistance to the Eastern Arctic, a ban on Narwhal hunting would aggravate the situation and the consequences would be devastating.
My question to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs consequently is: In view of the importance of renewable resource harvesting of Narwhals and Beluga whales to Inuit of Baffin Island and the Eastern Arctic, could the Minister assure northerners that the Government will protect their interests and that appropriate representation will be forwarded to the convention on international trade in endangered species to be held next year?


Charles Joseph Clark: May I first congratulate the Hon. Member on his election and for his first question in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Government is aware of proposals made by the Federal Republic of Germany to list Narwhals and Beluga whales in a way which would jeopardize the economy of northern Canada. We have already begun attempts to persuade the Government of West Germany not to proceed in that way and consequently to be in a position to help us protect the industry and people's livelihood in northern Canada. We are also in close contact with other countries which share our view, to enlist their help in trying to protect the economy and the livelihood of northern Canadians.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employ-

November 13, 1984
Oral Questions
merit and Immigration. Last Thursday we heard that unemployment insurance premiums will be raised, people cut from the rolls and possibly benefits reduced. I remind the Minister that in Newfoundland and other parts of the Atlantic there are hundreds of fishermen who, through no fault of their own, will not even qualify for any benefits this year because of a disaster in the inshore fishery. Will the Minister now announce a special fund for those fishermen, as has been done twice in the past, so that they will be able to qualify for unemployment insurance this winter and will not have to suffer the humiliation of welfare?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have been monitoring this situation very closely. It is my understanding that in the last few weeks there have been sufficient fishing opportunities so as to permit fisher people to qualify for the ten weeks that would allow them to collect unemployment insurance benefits. I also want to say to the Hon. Member that if he knows of any individual cases which do not fit this particular qualification, I would appreciate it if he would bring them to my attention.


LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE FOR AFFECTED CONSTITUENCIES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sympathetic ear of the Minister. In her letter to us of October 9 the Minister said: "Should the situation turn out to be even worse in 1984, I am prepared to consider raising allocation in fishing constituencies as far up to the $3 million maximum as may be necessary to provide required assistance''. If this is necessary, would the Minister follow through so that we can begin to create the jobs that are needed so badly in those constituencies?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to do that as soon as we know that the season is complete and that all the figures and returns are in.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE HEARINGS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. He will know that the CRTC is holding hearings at the request of CN/CP Telecommunications to permit them to enter the long distance telephone business. He will also know that estimates have been made that half a million telephone users will have to give up their phone service, and that rates will go up 30 per cent to 100 per cent in the next few years, if competition takes place. Before the election the Prime Minister said very clearly that he thought no policies should be changed until there was a policy directive. Would the Minister consider suggesting to the CRTC that it should not issue any statement until they policy has been set by the Government?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, hearings of the CRTC are held in accordance with the law. The hearings were announced publicly and the parties involved will be heard. The CRTC will make its decision and the Government will take appropriate action.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REVIEW
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister mandate the House Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to undertake a national review of telecommunications policy prior to any decision by the CRTC?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, that is not the intention of the Government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of a previous question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister's Department has been informed by the federal Department of Fisheries and the fishermen's union in Newfoundland that there are at least 1,600 families affected by what the previous questioner was talking about, not enough stamps for unemployment insurance, and that the ridings so affected are already up to the $3 million limit in Canada Works funds. Given this new information, will the Minister agree that a special program should be instituted like the Liberals did last year, or is she telling the people to go to the welfare office?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what I said in answer to the previous question, and say again, is that we are waiting until the season is completed everywhere in the fishing communities and we will then make that decision. We have made a commitment that we are prepared to go to the limit of $3 million for all constituencies so affected.


George Baker: They are already up to $3 million.


TRANSPORT
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He is well aware
November 13, 1984

of the serious situation facing this continent regarding acid rain. Have he and his officials been contemplating any legislation which would reduce automobile emissions in Canada to a level in line with those in effect in the United States at the present time?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, we are not contemplating legislation at the present time. However, we are organizing public hearings to be held here in Ottawa on the third, fourth, and fifth of December, to study the relationship between motor vehicle exhaust emissions and their impact on acid rain. Following those public hearings we hope to ascertain information as to whether or not appropriate changes should be made to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
With reference to the answers, or should I say non-answers, he gave my hon. friend from Laval-des-Rapides to a very specific question, namely, how many jobs would be lost in the ridings of Trois-Rivieres and Lotbiniere, as a result of certain projects not materializing or being abandoned, jobs that may be lost not only at the research level but also in construction, could the Minister inform the House why he did not give the answer if he has the figures? Second, were the members for Trois-Rivieres and Lotbiniere consulted on the matter and finally, did they agree with the decision?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I may inform my hon. friend that the Members in question were consulted.
As far as the lost jobs are concerned, I think that through redeployment of the funds that were earmarked for the region concerned, many more permanent jobs will be created than was the case when such funds were spent in the past.


INQUIRY ABOUT POSSIBLE JOB LOSSES IN V1CTORIAVILLE AND TROIS-RIVIERES, P.Q.
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the President of the Treasury Board is quite simple. He has been president of a bank-I am asking him to keep his figures simple. Could he inform the House whether any calculations were made with respect to the two projects that were supposed to create jobs in Victoriaville and Trois-Rivieres. How many jobs have now been lost in
Oral Questions
construction? How many jobs will not be created? The answer should not be too difficult.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, since the funds are going to be re-directed to the Laprade Fund, it is not a matter of funds or jobs being lost. On the contrary, additional jobs will be created.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to you on your elevation to key responsibility in the House.
My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In September the Contadora nations, led by Mexico and Columbia, proposed a draft treaty aimed at bringing peace to Central America, including an end to the U.S. backed invasion of Nicaragua. In view of Nicaragua's offer to sign the treaty, the offer of France and other nations to sign the protocol of support, and the U.S. State Department's boast that they have blocked the Contadora treaty, will the Minister now publicly indicate that Canada will also sign the protocol of support to the Contadora treaty, and urge the United States to do the same?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we continue to have some very serious reservations about the effectiveness of the verification procedures in the Contadora agreement as it now stands. We hope that that can be improved. We support wholeheartedly the Contadora process. On the 26th of this month I am meeting with the ambassadors of the Contadora countries here in Ottawa. I understand that the ambassador for Nicaragua has announced today at a press conference that he is seeking a meeting with officials of my Government. We will be delighted to meet with him. We very much want to have his assessment of the situation in Nicaragua. We will continue to exercise our influence in a way which will not only advance the Contadora process but give us a result which will help bring stability to that area.


VERIFICATION PROCESS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the news that the Minister will be meeting with these other Ministers on this urgent matter within a few days.
If the Minister has, as he says, reservations about the verification process in the Contadora treaty, will he be offering Canada's well known expertise in the matter of verification for the assistance of the Contadora Ministers in working out a treaty that Canada will then sign?

November 13, 1984
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that has been done before, but I will certainly renew the offer. If there is anything we can do to improve that agreement, Canada wants to do it.


AGRICULTURE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last summer the Prime Minister announced that compensation would be given to farmers in five rural municipalities in northeastern Saskatchewan in the amount of $16 million, due to flood damage in 1983 and 1984. Many of the 1,700 farmers involved face terrible hardships due to crop loss this year. The Treasury Board approved this funding in August of this year. Can the Minister explain why these funds are being held up rather than being paid to these hard pressed producers?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I am not sure whether his information is complete and accurate. It is my understanding that indeed the $16 million was not approved by the Treasury Board. However, I have been in western Canada and have spoken with my provincial counterparts, as well as with my colleagues in Cabinet and many members of my caucus. We have completed the submission, and it is before the Treasury Board at the moment.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that this funding was approved in August. The Premier of Saskatchewan is in Ottawa today. Why does the Minister not take the opportunity to make this payment immediately and announce it right now?


PORNOGRAPHY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The action of the Minister of National Revenue who stopped the entry into Canada of the December issue of Penthouse magazine, which expressly depicts bondage scenes of the most degrading and dangerous sort, an outrage to women, men, and, in this case, the Japanese culture, was only a very late reaction. These magazines should never have crossed the border.
Will the Minister reiterate before the House the electoral promise made by the Prime Minister to propose an amendment that would include gender in Section 287 of the Criminal Code on hate literature? Will he assure the women and men of
Canada that the customs tariff and the provisions of the Canada Post Corporation Act concerning obscene, violent and degrading material will be enforced by his Government with all the rigour and vigilance required?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the administration of the customs tariff is in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue who is already attending to that particular feature of the Hon. Member's question.
With respect to the other question which the Hon. Member asked, the Prime Minister's commitment will certainly be carried out. Further, we hope that even more effective steps will be taken to improve provisions of the Code that relate to hate propaganda and pornography.
As the Hon. Member knows, there was a commission appointed by the last Government, under the chairmanship of Mr. Fraser, to study the subject of pornography and prostitution. That commission should be reporting in the next month or two. We do not want to move without having the benefit of that report first. You may be assured that after Christmas measures will be laid before the House.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-North Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance, if I could have his attention. His Government promised jobs, consultation, and effective representation for the West in Cabinet, yet in the economic statement the Government cut out the Manufacturing Technology Institute, something which is going to have a negative impact on jobs in Manitoba. That was done without consultation, and the cabinet Ministers from the West were ineffective in stopping this savage blow at the Manitoba economy.
When the Minister goes to Winnipeg in a very short period of time, will he be willing to meet with a representative committee of Manitobans, representing government, labour, and business, in order to give a thorough review of this matter of the funding of the Manufacturing Technology Institute?


Geoff Wilson: Yes I would,
Mr. Speaker.


BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commitment from the Minister to meet with a representative group of-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no. The Member asked a long question and got a short answer. Could we have a short supplementary question, please?
November 13, 1984


Cyril Keeper: Yes, a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In preparation for this meeting in Winnipeg, would the Minister share with Manitobans the documentation and background papers upon which the decision was made to cut out the Manufacturing Technology Institute in Manitoba?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there were no analyses on which to predicate the spin-off that was alleged to arise from this Manufacturing Technology Centre. The real issue here is one of political philosophy. It is a question of whether our Liberal and Socialist friends across the way believe that we can continue to throw government dollars at the creation of jobs, or stimulate the private sector to do so. In the case of the Centre for Manufacturing Technology, that facility will be turned to the use of the economy of the Province of Manitoba and to the creation of thousands of new jobs in that province.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The Peace Camp has been sitting on Parliament Hill for nearly two years. Is the Minister of Public Works going to remove the Peace Camp, or is he going to make rules and regulations to allow other people who may wish to protest to Parliament to set up permanent booths and camps and so on, on parliamentary facilities?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that my colleague is asking me to do in a few weeks something which the previous Government failed to do in 18 months. Still, I might say that since temperatures are usually somewhat colder in winter time, I dare hope that we will not have to pass legislation on that issue, but that those people will look upon the coming winter months as an opportunity to find shelter in warmer surroundings and that there will be no need to urge them to leave Parliament grounds.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Friday, November 9, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Point of Order-Mr. Deans ECONOMIC STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to inform the House that the petition presented by the Elon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates directly to an exchange that took place between the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). You will recall that during the Question Period the Member for Oshawa requested the Minister of Finance to place on the record before the public of Canada and the House of Commons the information pertaining to the number of jobs that would be affected by the recently tabled economic statement of the Minister.
The Minister referred to two matters. In his reply he acknowledged the existence of a report which showed the number of jobs which would be affected by the Government's economic measures that were announced last Thursday. The second point I want to make is that the Minister, in acknowledging the existence of the report, made precise reference to the content of the report indicating the effect of the economic statement on the number of jobs gained or lost in Canada as analyzed by the Finance Ministry and reported to the Minister. The Minister used that particular citation in an effort to influence the debate which is presently taking place in the House of Commons and also to influence the public of Canada in believing that the reference to which he referred was of little consequence.
I am sure it is not necessary but I draw your attention to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 115. Under the heading "Documents Cited", Citation 327(1) reads:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the Table.
It goes on at some length but that is the relevant sentence. Citation 327(4) reads as follows:
Only the document cited need be tabled by a Minister. A complete file need not be tabled because one document in it has been cited.
Paragraph 5 is the relevant part:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
Last Thursday the Minister rose in the House of Commons and delivered a speech. That speech resulted in a response from both Opposition Parties and was the catalyst for the exchange which took place today. It was as a result of the speech of the Minister that questions were asked today. Therefore the questions today are very much a part of the ongoing

November 13, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
debate in public terms over the relevance and import of the economic statement of the Minister of Finance.
We know that it has been the practice in the House of Commons for Ministers to be requested to table documents that they have used and cited as relevant and pertinent information for the purpose of influencing decisions or, for that matter, the views of Members of the House and the public. I can recall at least two occasions during the last Parliament when Ministers were asked to table letters which they had indicated were in existence and from which they had drawn certain paragraphs in order to shore up arguments they were attempting to make during the Question Period.
Therefore I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review what the Minister has done and consider whether it is appropriate for him to use a document provided to him by Ministry officials, which speaks directly to a question being asked of him by Members of the Opposition, in such a way as to influence the debate, without tabling the appropriate document.
In my judgment and I believe that of many Members, I suggest it would be appropriate and correct that the Minister be required to place upon the table the reports that were given to him by the Ministry officials, such reports as were cited by him during his exchange with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, which would answer conclusively the question we have been asking during the last two to three days about the effect of the economic statement on the number of jobs that will be lost in Canada.
The Minister says that he has documents which show that the effect will be minimal, which are almost his exact terms. He said that those are documents provided to him by Ministry officials. He has refused to make those documents and that information available to Members of the House of Commons and therefore to the public of Canada. He is attempting to influence the public view of the appropriateness of the actions being put forward by the Government without being prepared to back it up statistically or with the evidence that is available to him. I simply ask that he be required to table the documents.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of Question Period the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did not simply refer to the existence of a document in general terms; he appeared to be citing from it and using words which would appear to any reasonable person to be drawn directly from the document in question. The Minister or the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) may argue that technically Question Period is not a debate in the House, but I submit that this Question Period took place in the middle of one of the most important debates that can take place in any parliamentary session. It is the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
In addition, I think you are entitled to take judicial notice that there is a debate in the country arising out of the statement given by the Minister of Finance last week. Therefore I submit that what the Minister of Finance did during this Question Period falls squarely within the ambit of the precedents in this regard, that he should be obliged by you to table the document which he cited so specifically before the House so the House of Commons and, more important, the people of Canada will know the truth about exactly how much damage will be done to them as a result of the measures announced in the statement given by the Minister of Finance last week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may 1 say at the outset that this is the first procedural argument that has been brought forward by the Opposition. Let me say that I know all of their tricks. I spent much time in that position trying to bring up points of order which were not legitimate and I congratulate the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on his attempt, which is clearly defective in terms of being a point of order from a number of points of view.
First, the allegation was made that a specific despatch or state document was quoted from. Indeed, Your Honour will recall that in the course of the debates and indeed in Question Period there have been suggestions or allegations made by the Opposition that econometric models have been used. When the response of the Minister of Finance has been that any advice he received indicated that these models were in fact not germane or relevant to the debate, we now have the Opposition House Leaders coming forward to say that indeed there are documents which were quoted from and specifically cited by the Minister. That is the opposite to the truth.
The Minister, if you recall the debate, Mr. Speaker, responded to a question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party who brought forward not a state document or a despatch but an article from The Ottawa Citizen as some sort of authority for his question. The Minister said he did not accept the proposition put forward in the article. The point of order fails on all counts, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that Beauchesne is quite specific. First, you have to have the Minister quoting or citing from a despatch or state paper. There has never been any reference by the Minister with respect to any document in a direct or quotable way. The Minister said that he had received advice and used political judgment on behalf of the Government with respect to the whole matter. His responses have been consistent. He said on the basis of advice received by him, as Minister, without quoting or citing in any respect, that any information he has received from any document with respect to projections concerning job gains or job losses has not been relevant to his decision.


Ian Deans: He specifically mentioned 1985 and 1986.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He made reference to information he has received, advice that he has received, in a general way, but he has not quoted from these documents.


Ian Deans: He referred specifically.
November 13, 1984


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has only made specific reference, Mr. Speaker, to the content of The Ottawa Citizen which was raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I have one word in my final submission to you, Your Honour. In the case of precedents where there have been documents quoted from by way of letters or other state papers and there has been by way of agreement the tabling by Ministers of certain documents, that has occurred where specific quotations have been used in support of arguments made by Ministers.


Ian Deans: That is what he did.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In this particular instance that was not the case, I suggest, Mr. Speaker. I think on the basis of the submission made, the Opposition is attempting only to get information which may or may not be in existence and which it is unable to obtain in other ways through the Question Period.


Ian Deans: If I may, I have one final point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I raise only one final point. The Government House Leader was clearly not listening. The Minister made specific reference to a memorandum he had received from his Ministry officials. He went further and quoted what the memorandum contained by way of a projection for the years 1985 and 1986 specifically.
I would ask you, Sir, if you are in a position to render a judgment-and, of course, you ought to-and if it is to be based on the suggestion of the Hon. Government House Leader that somehow the Minister made no such reference, that you await receiving the record of Hansard to determine whether or not, at least on the basis of that part of the argument, there is any validity to the suggestion made by the House Leader for the Government that we do not have the basis for a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that I intend not to make a judgment today. I think it would be fair to the House that my first ruling should be reserved, even if I did know the answer.
I want to say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain that I listened extremely carefully, as he would expect, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the moment the Minister of Finance began to refer to some conclusions, as I remember. However, I want to check the blues. I say this to the Hon. Member because there are two points here. Beauchesne is absolutely clear in Citation 327(4) that the document must be quoted. The consequential problem is that this House has always dealt separately with the use of documents and points of order relating to documents with regard to Question Period. It has always done that according to my reading of the Jerome precedents and before that. Before I could evaluate that, I would have to determine, I think, whether a document had been quoted or whether in fact, as I thought 1 heard-which is
Petitions
why I want to check the blues before I say anything finally- the Minister referred to the general conclusions of a document as opposed to specifically quoting a document.
If that is true, then I suggest a point of order on the second part of the concern does not follow because a document has not for the purposes of the House been specifically quoted.


Ian Deans: It does not have to be.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the Hon. Member and with respect to all our newness to this question, I intend to reserve on the matter and to check the blues. I shall be back to the House in this regard.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, could I ask you to consider one further aspect in reviewing the blues and also in reviewing the precedents. I note in looking at Citation 327 on pages 115 and 116 of Beauchesne that there seems to be a distinction made in the precedents between citing and quoting. I refer, for example, to paragraph 3 on page 116 of Citation 327 which reads:
A public document referred to but not cited or quoted by a Minister need not be tabled.
I respectfully ask you to consider, Sir, whether the Minister of Finance might still be obliged to table the document even though technically he may not have quoted it, but instead if he in fact did something which falls within the ambit of the precedent; that is to say, if he in fact cited a document.


Mr. Speaker:: I take the advice of the Hon. Member and I will consider all the arguments.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 71, I rise to bring to the attention of Parliament a petition signed by many of my constituents and, in total, by some 450,000 Canadians, calling for certain changes in current Canadian international peace and security policies, particularly concerning nuclear arms. I understand that representatives of the other Parties will be joining me in putting this petition to the House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I joined with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and a representative of the New Democratic Party to receive petitions gathered by the Peace Petition Caravan from some 436,000 Canadians, the largest coalition of groups yet established under the disarmament issue. I am, therefore, pleased to present some of these petitions to this House for its consideration. The issues raised in them, connect-

November 13, 1984
Petitions
ed as they are with the survival of human kind and this planet, are important to this House and to all of Canada. Pursuant to the Standing Order, I wish formally to present these petitions.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the same subject I should like to read the petition. To the Hon. House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth whereas the petitioners, all signatories of the Peace Petition Caravan campaign, refuse the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapons, their delivery systems or components in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pauline Jewett: May I continue, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: No. I think the Hon. Member knows that she is putting me in some difficulty by attempting to read the petition into the record. I ask her please to follow the normal traditions and to give a summary so that we may deal with this matter, as I think we all want to deal with it today.


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, 1 consulted the petitions people and they informed me that it was quite in order to explain what the nature of the petition was.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I absolutely agree that it is in order to explain the nature of the petition. But the Hon. Member is verging on simply reading the petition into the record. Could I therefore ask the Member to summarize the petition, please?


Pauline Jewett: The petitioners also ask, Mr. Speaker, that Canada be declared a nuclear-weapons-free zone and that wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs as to ensure prosperity through peace. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition under the provisions permitting Members to bring to the House petitions signed by our constituents.
I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 6,000 citizens of Oshawa who are deeply concerned about the continuing hazard that results from a certain CPR level crossing in that community.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is an understanding with regard to the petitions of the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark), the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). I think the record should show for those concerned that the House will wants to treat all the other matters, which I believe were sent to Journals, as deemed to have been filed with the Clerk at the Table. Is that understood?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Criminal Code, thereby permitting capital punishment for everyone who commits high treason and everyone who commits first degree murder.


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


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act) and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to affirm the supremacy of the Official Languages Act over all other legislation and regulations of Parliament. It provides amendments to the Bank Act, the Railway Act and the Winding-up Act with a view to stressing its characteristic as the basic Canadian legislation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
November 13, 1984
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Gerry St. Germain: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Criminal Code to reinstate capital punishment for premeditated murder. This is not an emotional plea. This is the consensus of Canadians across the country. It is time to act
now.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 38).
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking before the luncheon recess I quoted a prominent member of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I should like to emphasize that it is not a coincidence that the Throne Speech and the economic statement have garnered positive reaction from the private sector. The new Government has been lauded for stopping the bleeding in Canada's economic circles. The private sector is encouraged by the same consultation and co-operation so outwardly despised by the Opposition. The Government has been widely criticized for not creating enough jobs.
As was made perfectly clear during the election campaign, we have no intention of using band-aid treatment for a problem which requires major surgery. It would be very simple to create thousands of new job openings on a part-time or jerry-builder basis. That is not and never was the intention of the Government. We will create long-term, meaningful employment through careful planning and assessment of Canadian markets. Providing widespread, sporadic, unskilled employment serves only to keep workers at jobs with which they are
The Address-Mr. Darling
not too happy and which of course will not last too long. We want Canadians working again. At the same time we want them working at jobs of which they are proud. The Government wants to have Canadians contributing to the welfare of the state as well as to themselves. We want Canadians to take home some self-esteem along with their pay cheques.
Economic security cannot be achieved overnight. It is unreasonable to expect an immediately perfect future when we are stricken with such an imperfect history. The fiscal mess facing us now will be addressed with courage and tenacity by the Government in tandem with the people it represents.
We have been quoted in the past as saying that the cupboard is bare. If the present trend was allowed to continue, we would have to go out and sell the cupboard as well. Presently this is not the case and it will not be the case so long as the people of Canada have confidence in their Government's policies and initiatives. From the outset the Progresssive Conservative Party pledged to stop the bleeding. With this done we are preparing for the transfusion.
Indeed cuts have been made, but let us remember that cuts were required. Also let us remember that the cuts were made in fairness to all. Every proposal made by the Government in the Speech from the Throne and in the economic statement was submitted with the people of Canada at the forefront. We believe government must be made more understandable, more accessible and more sensitive to the people.
To illustrate this, the Government is reworking the taxation system to make it simpler and fairer. The rights of taxpayers, which have been thrown to the wind for many years, will now be protected. We will table legislation to ensure that no taxpayer will pay taxes in dispute prior to the conclusion of an impartial hearing. We will remove the taxation biases against small businesses to enable them to grow and prosper with less government interference.
We believe small business is the route to solving the unemployment problem in Canada. Small businesses should be allowed enough breathing room to become medium-sized businesses, thereby tapping into the ranks of the unemployed for workers. That snowball effect is yet another reason the United States has a lower rate of unemployment than our own.
Canadian women will be pleased in that no previous Throne Speech dealt so specifically with their concerns. The Government is fully cognizant of the need for economic equality for women. We intend to increase our own efforts toward hiring more women within the federal Government. We will also form a parliamentary task force to help the Government seek consensus on the future of child care in Canada.
Special attention will also be afforded to ensure that spousal allowances for widows and widowers are increased from the ages of 60 to 64, where they no longer qualify now. Also mentioned in the Throne Speech was more financial assistance to our war veterans. We certainly know they deserve this. Improvements on many social programs are planned for the future. I submit those proposals are the fruits of a government which genuinely cares about its people.

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Darling
At the same time as the Government has its finger on the pulse at home, it is showing greater concern for international affairs. Canada is not an island geographically or economically. Over recent years international confidence in Canada has eroded. We seem to forget that trade with other countries is not a sideline but rather a necessity for economic well-being. The Government has already made new inroads with the Government of the United States and others, both in terms of good will and future trading prospects.
The vast similarities between Canada and the United States mean two things: first, we are in direct competition for various markets; and, second, there are untold possibilities for good co-operation between Canada and the United States. While this Government has no intention whatsoever of offering Canada as the fifty-first state in the union, we believe the effect of the U.S. economy on Canada should be realistically accommodated.
Frequent communication and harmony with the U.S. can help Canada through increased trade and commerce passing over the border. At the same time, we are determined to refurbish our internationalism in the world. Our main objectives are very clear: to defend freedom and preserve peace, to prevent nuclear confrontation, to improve trading relations, and to build a healthier world economy.
This Government intends to honour its commitment to NATO so we may earn the right to full consultation and participation in policies relating to that alliance. As has been the case in the past, we want to maintain our reputation as a global peacemaker by working toward the cessation of nuclear weapons development and use.
With regard to our own defence, we are convinced that the Canadian Armed Forces need a new definition of their role that is pertinent to present day conditions. The mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces has not been examined since the early 1970s. We all agree that we are now living in a different world with changed priorities and varied attitudes. When the mandate has been clearly defined and modernized, we intend to give our forces the resources they need to get the job done. That simple phrase lies behind the operating philosophy of this new Government. We are setting our sights on getting the job done.
Past governments have liberally dished out rhetorical pap to the people of Canada, but we understand the message of the people of Canada: they will have no more of it. Canadians want solid direction and commitment to effect change in their homeland. The runaway train needs dedicated brakemen to keep this country on track and out of the woods.
1 believe the Speech from the Throne followed by the Government's economic statement has shown our intent to produce legislation with teeth. We are not bending to Opposition derision about consultation and co-operation to help form policy and decision. We are proud to invite the provinces, the private sector, labour and educators into the circle. The day of autonomous Government with little or no accountability is
gone. Canada has a new team at the helm and there are many talented hands on the tiller. The public cry for action from Parliament has not, for the first time in many years, fallen on deaf ears.
I am sure my colleagues and a good many others will see that there is real and meaningful change. The new confidence is now in effect across the country and is in effect even in my own riding, a rural area. As I mentioned earlier, some of us are certainly going to be hurt by some of the cuts. In my own riding, there are not too many federal jobs available and there are not too many federal agencies. If I were to have my way, these cuts would be put in force and put in force strongly everywhere but in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We are all going to be looking hard at our own ridings and, I suppose, telling the powers that be in the Government that particular positions and agencies are important to the riding.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in the document tabled Thursday night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we saw that some $200 million will be cut from unemployment insurance payments. This will be done through a series of what are called intensified interviews with unemployment insurance recipients. This means that workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own will be hassled and will face even more technicalities, red tape and requirements. That will force them off unemployment insurance and on to welfare. We believe that this is only the beginning of the Government's actions.
The Hon. Member who spoke before lunch referred to and quoted with approval a statement to the effect that unemployment insurance creates unemployment. A great many people across Canada fear this attitude of the Conservative Government. Is it the view of the Hon. Member only or is it the view of the Tory Party that unemployment insurance causes unemployment?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been paying attention, he would have realized that I was quoting the words of John Bulloch, the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. There is no question about it. All of us know this after hearing the many people who come to our offices. The great majority of unemployment insurance claims are legitimate claims. However, there is a certain percentage of people who seem to continue to live on unemployment insurance. This is something the new Government will look into. It will see if it can do away with some of these unfavourable occurrences, which are probably leading to continued unemployment.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was fully aware of the fact that the Hon. Member was quoting the words of John Bulloch. However, I pointed out that he appeared to be quoting those words with approval. I would like to know whether the Hon. Member approves of that statement or disapproves of it. Is it in fact his point of view that unemployment insurance causes or contributes to unemployment?
November 13, 1984


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I quoted those words because it seems to be the suggestion and feeling of a great many people who are in small and big business across the country-[DOT]


James Douglas Manly: What is your opinion?


Stan Darling: Just a minute. As far as I am concerned, I live in a rural area in which there is seasonal unemployment and has been for years. A difficult time is coming up now and will continue through until next year. I am hoping that unemployment insurance will continue on. However, it is more important that unemployment insurance be tightened up.
It is much better to have meaningful jobs than to have band-aid jobs. In my own riding, I must admit that there have been jobs that have been created for 10 or 12 weeks simply to get the individual over the hump for unemployment insurance purposes for another year. It would be much more satisfactory if the economy could be turned around and jobs created that are not just band-aid jobs like cutting brush, and digging holes and filling them back in as has been done in the past. I am not saying that this has been done recently. However, these are the things that we are hoping to overcome.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.
I think my hon. friend knows perfectly well that the number one problem for Canadian is unemployment. They want action on job creation. On the other hand, the number one problem for heads of businesses and multinational corporations is the deficit. Could my hon. friend inform the House why his Government has listened only to the demands of the Conseil du patronat and similar bodies, namely to reduce the deficit and increase the unemployment rate?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, we have stated definitely that the deficit is all-important. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government are not making jobs secondary to the deficit. Both jobs and the deficit will have to be looked at in a hard way. Certainly certain jobs are going to be phased out. As has already been stated, certain jobs in the Public Service will be done away with. Some 1,200 or more of those jobs are not in evidence yet but were to be filled later. The filling of those positions will not be acted upon. I am well aware that jobs are all-important, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this Government have stated. We inherited the 1.4 million unemployed from the past Government. I am quite sure that this Government will have a better record a year from now. The latest statistics indicate that, for the month of September, unemployment has decreased.
The Address-Mr. Darling


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, could my hon. friend opposite show me this mini-budget in the Throne Speech and tell me what kind of encouragement it contains for my constituents-I suppose the Hon. Member also has constituents who go to see him and who are looking for jobs-what kind of encouragement can I draw from this for my constituents and where can I say: Look, the Conservative Government has done something, here is a solution to your problem, you will have a permanent job? Where can I find that in this document?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, as far as the document is concerned, the people of Canada have every confidence, and certainly gave this Government the mandate to turn around the economy, to turn away from having the Government helping out by creating jobs such as painting a church. Those were purely band-aid jobs with no permanency whatsoever. That is what I said in my speech and that is what the Prime Minister is going to do. The people of Canada seem to agree with that.
Yes, we are aware that there is serious unemployment and we are aware that it will continue. The figures are not very rosy. The projections indicate 10 per cent unemployment for the next four or five years. If we can get the economy going, businesses, both small and large, will start hiring. Businesses are delighted with the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Those statements created confidence. Businesses will start enlarging their premises. Businesses did not trust the previous Government. They would not spend a nickel because they did not know what the Government was going to do next. We are looking toward better times.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member, when he refers to band-aid jobs, whether he means jobs created for students during the summer through our Summer Canada Works Program for Students, and since the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) has cut Summer Canada Works for Students completely from his budget, will those students have a program so they will be able to work throughout the summer, as was done under the previous government?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking of band-aid jobs, I certainly was not referring to the student program. Let us hope that the economy will be much better next summer so that a lot of those students can be hired by private entrepreneurs and businesses. When I was speaking about band-aid jobs I was thinking back to the jobs which were created by the winter work projects, where townships would submit an application to have their roads brushed. Those jobs would have been done anyway. Those were the jobs about which I was speaking, the jobs which do not lead to anything meaningful. I will give the present Government full marks for moving from the winter work projects to providing wages and assistance to private individuals and entrepreneurs to enlarge or improve

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
their premises. The money went to wages and I agreed with that, it was a good idea. A great many Members on both sides of the Elouse would say that some of those projects added nothing to the economy of the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall now continue with debate, the period for questions and comments having expired. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon, as the environment critic for the New Democratic Party, to make a few comments about that whole area of concern. Many Members in the House will know that I was previously the health critic for my Party. I view my new responsibilities as environment critic as being in continuity with the work that I did over the last four and a half years as health critic. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this continuity would be to remind the House that when the Canada Health Act was in committee I moved an amendment to the preamble of the Act, which was accepted, and which acknowledged the amendment that improvements in the well-being of Canadians would not be forthcoming until the social, environmental and occupational causes of disease were addressed. Although nothing happened overnight, I hope that by adding that to the preamble of the Canada Health Act we achieved some kind of conceptual victory where, by virtue of that legislation and by virtue of many other things which are being said in that direction, we will come to realize, when talking about the well-being of Canadians, that we must take into account the environmental dimension of every problem.
I am also happy to be taking on this new area of concern because it is closer to the reasons for which I entered politics. I was among those in the late sixties and early seventies who began to think about the question of limits-limits to the kind of growth that was being experienced, and the environmental dimension of our problems. I can think of several books which were influential at that time, most of which continue to be good reading even though some of the statistics are out of date. One of those books was Limits to Growth, published by the Club of Rome. Other books which had quite an impact on me were the The Making of a Counter-Culture by Theodore Roszak, the Technological Society by Jacques Ellul, up to and including, more recently, the further works of Theodore Roszak, and the works of Hazel Henderson, Richard Barnet, Lester Brown, Barbara Ward, Barry Commoner, and the list goes on. My intention is not to give a bibliography but to attempt to situate myself intellectually and politically as it pertains to the question of the environment.
Finally, I would be amiss if I did not mention a document which was very instructive for me and which came out a short time before I decided to run for office. That document was the Berger report, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline report. I believe that that report is still one of the most fundamental documents in the politics of the environment, the concerns of native people and the economy. I believe that Justice Berger wove together a number of concerns in a way which has not been
superseded. It is too bad that people do not more often refer to that document and that we do not more often see directions based on the kind of philosophy and insight which was so abundant in that particular report.
1 see myself as belonging to that school of thought which views our social and economic problems as problems which run deeper than the kind of debate in which we generally engage in the House of Commons. I am referring to longstanding debates between the monetarists, the Keynesians, the neo-Conservatives, the neo-Liberals, the supply-siders, and the demand-siders, all these. It is not as clear to me as I would like, nor to many others, but nevertheless I believe there is some truth in saying that all of these arguments exist within a passing economic paradigm. All of these arguments fail to take into account, in my view, the whole environmental dimension of our economic problems. That is what I would like to spend some time on today.
When we talk about the environmental dimension of our economic problems, we are saying that the environment is not just a kind of middle-class, trendy concern that is a kind of aside to the more central economic debate. We are saying that if we want to be realistic we must come to terms with this dimension of our economic problems as well. That is where we enter the fray with the Government and with its particular economic world view. I have listened to a lot of speeches made by my Progressive Conservative colleagues in the last five and a half years and they seem to be saying that they want Canadians to be more realistic and to face up to tough economic questions. I believe that Canadians have responded to that conceptually, even if they may not like the concrete dimension of the proposals put forward by the Government. That is because Canadians have a sense that something is wrong out there, that there is something tough and real which they must face up to.
However, what I want to debate this afternoon is whether or not what is offered by the Government in its economic statement is in fact realistic and contains the realism at which we must finally arrive if we are going to have a truly human future. The intention is to find out who is the idealist here, Mr. Speaker. Is it the socialists who are often accused of idealism, or is it those who continue to believe that we can continue as we have.
The Conservatives would say that they do not believe we can go on as we have. That is why they believe they must take tough measures with respect to the deficit and get tough in the way indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). But I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this is still a form of the belief that we can go on as we have.
What the Tories are really saying is that we have been off on a sidetrack because of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Liberals, and that what we must have is some fiscal responsibility to get back to where we were before there was this aberration called "excessive Government spending", so we can have again the kind of economic growth we experienced
November 13, 1984

after World War II. I am contending that in this we have not something new but, rather, an attempt to get back something which could not have continued in any case. The Tories want to breathe new life into an old economic paradigm.
The Government does not have, in my view, an adequate view of the crisis of profitability and productivity about which it spends so much time talking. The Tory hunch is that it all hinges on attitudinal change, that if the Minister of Finance sends out the right signals by indicating he is willing to cut the deficit, investor confidence will increase, the private sector will invest money in Canada, and jobs will be created. There is no concern, I might add, for what kind of jobs are created or whether investment is made in appropriately strategic areas. The government thinks that if it creates the right attitude, money will flow. I cannot prove this, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that the private sector will let its friends down, not because of any maliciousness on its part but because the problems run deeper than that. The answer is not simply to throw the door open to the private sector. The answer is not uncritical public sector spending, either. But I do not want to get into that argument. I am trying to transcend that argument.
The problem is international. The solution will also be international because, when it comes to environmental problems in particular, we will have to face up to them together. If one country tries to face up to the environmental dimensions of its economic problems alone, it will put itself in an uncompetitive position with respect to other countries. We will then hear arguments in the Canadian context, for example, of how we must stay competitive with other countries. Therefore, we must face up to this crisis of profitability and productivity in an international way so that countries are not played off against each other, or workers in one country played off against workers in another.
What is the crisis of productivity, Mr. Speaker? The crisis has to do with us having overestimated productivity for years. We have taken certain things for granted. We have taken for granted clean air, clean water, top soil; and the strong social and moral capital, which was bequeathed to us by 19th century piety, by the work ethics, and in North America by the pioneer experience. We have taken all these things for granted, Mr. Speaker, and they are slipping away from us, while we try to understand what is happening within the limits of an economic model which has no room for understanding these kinds of factors.
Over time, our economic system has destroyed what one might call these "free goods", goods which never had to be figured into the costs of production. We now know that mining is a lot more expensive than it seemed in the beginning when we start to take into account the cost of health care for occupational disease or the environmental costs of cleaning up acid rain. We now know that industrial technologies have been far more expensive than envisaged, after looking at the Love Canal and the quality of water in the Great Lakes. We now know that our farming methods have not been as productive as we believed they would be when we read the Senate report on soil erosion which just came out a couple of months ago. Our
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
agricultural methods have tended toward a long-term decrease in productivity as opposed to an increase in productivity. We know that the whole dynamic of our economy, Mr. Speaker, tends to a disintegration of formerly valuable human relationships. I do not mean, Mr. Speaker, just spiritually or morally valuable but economically valuable economic relationships.
We are just beginning, Mr. Speaker, to comprehend the full social costs of our economic model. I am now talking about the social costs of the breakdown and increasing disappearance of the family farm, of the breakdown of the extended family and community and the breakdown of even the nuclear family. Even the nuclear family cannot survive the economic model of which we have been so fond. We have tried to meet the externalized social cost through the welfare state, but we have now another externalized cost coming due, and that is the environmental cost. This externalized environmental cost is working on us in two ways; for one thing, it is reducing productivity and profitability. We must go out a farther and farther into the forests for trees because we did not bother to replant when we first harvested that resource. We allowed the wasteful destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres to meet false needs. We allowed a system in which those needs were created through advertising. We are all guilty of this. It is not a question of pointing a finger. We are all guilty in our own individual way of being a part of this orgy of consumption, on which people will look back hundreds of years from now and ask: How could they have used up an accumulation of millions of years of resources in such a short time and without any regard for the future?
I am glad that the media is finally paying some attention to the forestry crisis. We have been raising it in this House ever since I got here, as I am sure people did before me. Hopefully it will catch on and some attention will be paid to the problem.
Another good example of how productivity is decreased through our own wastefulness is the incredible amount of hundreds of millions of dollars which has been spent in the last decade in places like the Beaufort Sea and other places where we have had to poke holes all across the Arctic looking for that last barrel of oil. Would it not have been wonderful if we had managed our non-renewable energy resources so well in the first place that we did not have to enter into that kind of risk-taking in the Arctic with respect to the well-being of native peoples and the very sensitive eco-system up there? Fishery is another example of how we are up against the limits of our economic model.
In any case, the problem is that this environmental limit reduces profitability. We have to go farther and farther and deeper and deeper. But if the companies involved are asked to clean up their act, then that reduces profitability. They say that that is too expensive and they may invest elsewhere. Or they may pass on the cost to the consumer in the form of higher prices, which will then either reduce demand or make them less competitive. So we see here that the concern about environment is not just a side issue; it is embedded right at the

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
heart of all the economic questions we deal with in this House. I do not think we deal with those questions adequately enough because we do not take the environmental dimension into account often enough.
1 talked earlier about the international dimension, Mr. Speaker. What we need to be working for at every opportunity is a new, just and sustainable international economic order. We need international co-operation rather than competition. That is why my heart breaks whenever I hear government rhetoric, whether it be that of the Liberals or of the present Government, to the effect that we are not going to try to build co-operation, that we are going to yield to the competitive spirit and say, by God, other countries may go under but Canada is going to make sure that it is near the top. Of course, we will not be as near the top as we would like because we will not be able to muster the international meanness and power that the United States will be able to muster, and they will make sure they are at the top.
I think the difference between us and the Government is that the Government sees the way toward economic renewal as being one of complying with the world view and the demands of the international investment community. The Government has said that pretty clearly and honestly, and I appreciate that because we can then have an honest debate. However, we think that is the wrong way to go. In the final analysis it will not work because it will not face up to pressing international questions of co-operation and development, and because at home it means neglecting the environmental dimension of our economic problems. Instead, we should be providing leadership where we have a political culture which, I hope, is able to stand up to the demands of the multinational corporations and others who would have us put aside these environmental questions in order to allow them to do what they want.
We know that environmental sensitivity is seen as a barrier to investment. What has the Government done in keeping with the world view I have attributed to it? It sent out the right signal. It cancelled the Environmental Secretariat. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) spoke about that today. The Government sent out the right signal to the investment community with respect to the environmental dimensions of our problem: Don't worry about us; we are willing to forgo that, if need be, in order to please you. The Government sent out the right signals when it cancelled the Toxicology Research Centre in Guelph. I cannot think of anything more pound foolish and penny wise, more short-sighted, than for the Canadian Government, at a time when we are sitting on an environmental time bomb, to be cancelling a project whereby Canada was finally to have some kind of independent capacity to test and to arrive at a scientific judgment in the area of toxicology. If I had to think of one thing as an example of the kind of shortsightedness we are getting from this Government, that would be it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to conclude his speech briefly, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I had a few other things I would like to say but perhaps I can just wind up my comments by saying this. What we have here on the part of the Government is an attempt to go back to an economic ethic previous to the welfare state when the real solution to the problems of the Liberal welfare state is not to go back but to go ahead and do some new economic thinking, take into account what is really going on in our fields, forests and oceans, and arrive at new economic solutions which take all this into account and give up the phoney bookkeeping which leaves the environmental dimension on the side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, as always the speech by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) was excellent, but the point he was making toward the end of his speech is something I think well worth pursuing in light of the difficult negotiations between Canada and the U.S. regarding the Love Canal, the S-Dump, Hyde Park and others which are leaching particularly toxic chemicals, dioxins in particular, into the Great Lakes system. They are as well endangering the lives of millions of Canadians and Americans. I know one of the few requirements in Canada is to really get a handle on what is happening in the Great Lakes. We know about the Mirex contamination of eels that we previously exported to Germany. We know about the possibility of the movement of certain dioxins into the Toronto water supply and so on.
Can the Hon. Member outline in somewhat greater detail the difficulties from an environmental perspective where the Government takes away that kind of funding from the only institute in Canada which could really do that kind of thorough ongoing work? What will it ultimately mean, not only in terms of potential danger to Canadian public health, but also to the environment where these hazardous wastes will build up and become a far greater and more unmanageable problem down the road? Could he expand on that particular point?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for his question. What we have by way of government action as a result of the cut-backs announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is, as 1 said, a very shortsighted strategy. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) was on his feet today referring to the cut of the manufacturing and technology centre in Winnipeg. He said that he looked forward to the day when all this would somehow be taken up by the private sector. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we wanted to have these kinds of publicly funded research institutes is that for so long we have been dependent on the private sector research activity in the United States, which has proven, time and time and time and time again, to be inadequate, false in many cases and all the time suspect, to the degree that private sector research is funded by the very people who would benefit from research and who declare their products to be safe and marketable.
November 13, 1984

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say enough about how much I regret this direction by the new Government toward private sector research. We have a strong tradition of Crown corporations and public service in this country. I do not see any reason why we could not have created, within the public sector, the capacity to do that kind of research. Presumably we could trust that research for two reasons. The first reason is that it would be done with the Canadian context in mind, and the second is that it would be done by people whose next paycheque was not dependent upon a grant from the very multinationals whose products were being tested.
Instead, from the Conservative Government we get a continuation, with all due respect to my Liberal colleagues, of a direction, which was already being established by the former Liberal Government, of wanting to have more of this done in the private sector and winding down the public end of that. It is a black day for the environment in Canada as a result of the cut-backs made by the Minister of Finance.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments with respect to the presentation just made. We heard a repetition of the old NDP ideas that Judge Berger's report on the Mackenzie Valley was the best thing since sliced bread, that we should not produce oil in the Arctic but rather leave it in the ground, and that development in the North should not take place.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that this view was repudiated, not only in southern Canada at the time of the last election, but right across the north. The three northern ridings, Yukon, Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq, all returned PC Members to the House of Commons. People have had the opposite idea, namely, that we should develop the resources in that part of the country, that those areas should not be turned into some kind of reserve but should play their full role within Confederation, and that we should pay our way, so to speak. That can best be done by developing the resources there. That is my comment with respect to the worn out suggestions made by the Hon. Member.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short reply. I would like to make it clear to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic that no one, not myself, not Members of the New Democratic Party, nor Judge Berger in his report, ever suggested that there ought to be no development in the North. In fact, a great deal of attention was devoted to the type of development which would be beneficial economically to the whole of Canada and also respectful of the traditional renewable resource economy of the North. I heard the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk) speak on that very topic today in Question Period.
I am always surprised at the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). Coming from where he does, he gets up and pours abuse on the Berger report. It is very interesting that he would do that because he knows, if he knows anything at all, that this is one of the most widely read Canadian royal commissions. It is respected by many people in the North. For him to get up and call the Berger report some sort of old NDP
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
idea is very curious rhetoric indeed. I am sure that many people in the North would want to apprise themselves of the kind of things that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic says when he gets up in the House of Commons. I wonder if he goes around the North dumping all over the Berger report. It would be interesting to know whether he does that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the comments of the Hon. Member for Birds Eye, is it, Birds Hill, or something to do with a bird. However, I cannot agree with him. I would like to go back in history a little to illustrate how wrong this idea of having government do everything is.
We would not have oil and gas from Alberta in Canada today if we had followed the recommendations of the old CCF which preceded the NDP. There were only two members of that Party left there, but they advocated using public money rather than allowing money to come into the country to develop our oil and gas. If we had not permitted American money to come in and develop our resources there, we would not have a heritage fund in Alberta today. Rather, we would be a few more billion dollars in debt. However, since we permitted money to come in to develop our resources, give jobs to our people and put taxes in our Government's coffers, we have an oil and gas industry today of which we can be proud.
The idea of allowing government to do everything just does not hold water. That is why we have a reduction of people in the Opposition. They wanted government to do everything. I say, let private enterprise do it. Give it a chance. Take the shackles off. Unbuckle its hands. The Liberals put handcuffs on free enterprise with the help of the NDP. As a result, we have 1.5 million unemployed and a debt of $190 billion. Let us unshackle free enterprise as we are trying to do. Then we will see things move. There will be jobs, resources and tax money. That is the kind of country we are building.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the Hon. Member not to comment on the name of the riding of the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. Does the Hon. Member wish to answer the question?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, 1 was first going to say, with all due respect to the people of the town of Birds Hill, Manitoba, that I wish Hon. Members opposite would desist from making fun of the name of my riding. I say this not for my own sake, because I can take any kind of abuse these people over here can throw at me. I have a sense of humour like everyone else, but I think there is a certain amount of decorum involved. I do not go around twisting the names of other people's ridings. The fact that the words "Birds Hill" lend themselves to this is unfortunate. I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that intervention on behalf of the people of Birds Hill.
With your permission, I will now make a comment on what the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had to say. The Hon. Member for Bow River is known for his enthusiastic defence of the free enterprise system. He is as good at turning up the volume as anyone here. However, I noticed that he did

November 13, 1984
Adjournment Motion
not answer my analysis of how the free enterprise system used up the forests and left us in the situation which everyone acknowledges we are now in. He did not answer the question of how the free enterprise system put the fishery in the state it is now in. We have not been under some kind of a socialist regime.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Oh yes we have.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: This is not an intellectually respectable claim. How can you answer this kind of garbage, Mr. Speaker? If that is the case, why did all of the five major banks in the country donate as much to the Liberal Party as they did to the Conservative Party? Was it because they thought the Liberals were socialists? Is that the same reason that the seven sisters oil companies donated money to the Liberals in the same way that they did to the Conservatives? Was it because they thought they were socialists? Really, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the claims that are made by Progressive Conservative backbenchers push the imagination and credibility. I only hope that the next five years in Government for them will have some kind of educational effect on them, then maybe we will not hear the same kind of intellectual garbage we get from them from time to time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question period on the last speech is now over.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had no intention of making fun of the Hon. Member's riding. It is Birds Hill and I will remember that from now on.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I wish I had time to answer the other questions he raised.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You can have all the time you like, but you won't have the talent.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)- Regional Development-Glace Bay Coal Project, (b) Plight of older miners; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- National Revenue-Discontinuance of advance tax rulings in case of limited partnerships, (b) Effect on Algoma Steel.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ken James for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver-Quadra) (p. 38).
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate you and the Hon. Mr. Bosly on your appointments. I also congratulate the mover and seconder of this debate as well as the preceding speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), on his re-election and his contribution to this debate.
Mr. Speaker, since this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons I would first like to thank the people of southwestern Saskatchewan for sending me to Ottawa to represent them. I will try to the best of my ability to justify the confidence that they have placed in me.
I am grateful to my colleagues in the House who have been quick and generous with their counsel and advice.
I pay tribute to my predecessors, Frank Hamilton and Jack McIntosh. It was Mr. McIntosh who first aroused my interest in the Party. I thank them for sharing their wisdom and experience with me.
The riding of Swift Current-Maple Creek is located in the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan, bordered on the south by the State of Montana, on the north by the South Saskatchewan River, on the west by the Province of Alberta, and running approximately 150 miles east into Saskatchewan to include such villages and towns as Ernfold, Hodgeville, Mey-ronne and McCord. The population in 1981 was some 53,000 people. The area comprises some 18,700 square miles from Leader in the northwest to Mankota in the southeast, from Consul in the southwest to Morse in the northeast.
Southwestern Saskatchewan is almost totally agricultural and comprises a vast farming and ranching area. It was pioneered largely in the early 1900s by hardy settlers from the northern United States, Ontario and Europe. They were men and women who carved out the oft-times inhospitable Palliser Triangle, a heritage for succeeding generations.
The main centre of population is the City of Swift Current, also known as "Speedy Creek". Some attribute this name to our winds because I am told that Swift Current has the second highest mean wind velocity in Canada. The remainder of the population is divided evenly between some 69 towns and villages, the largest of which are Maple Creek and Shaunavon, and the farm community.
While Swift Current owes its beginnings to the railway which arrived in the winter of 1882-83, it owes its continuing prosperity as a centre of supply to the surrounding farmers and ranchers. Agriculture is far and away the predominant economic force. Approximately 80 per cent of those in agriculture
November 13, 1984

are grain farmers; 15 per cent are cattle ranchers and 5 per cent of the operations are mixed. The average farm investment is approximately $600,000.
The second main industry is the oil field servicing sector, maintaining fields lying to the west of Swift Current and running north and south of Gull Lake. The Dominion Agricultural Research Station in Swift Current is famous throughout the West for its research and development of varieties such as Leader Wheat, Wascana and Wakooma Durum and Rambler alfalfa.
The area is a hunter's paradise with literally thousands of hunters converging in the fall to hunt geese, chicken, pheasant, antelope and deer. Liberals are off-limits, having been declared an endangered species.
The riding contains a number of interesting sights such as the Great Sandhills, south of Sceptre the Prairie Wildlife Centre near Webb, the Grasslands National Park, which is an area east of Val Marie for which land is presently being assembled, the Frontier Days Rodeo in Swift Current, and Fort Walsh National Historic Park, which was home of the Royal Northwestern Mounted Police in the 1870s. Finally, there is Cypress Hills Provincial Park which rises out of the prairie south of Maple Creek to a pine covered bench land, which, at 4,560 feet, is the highest point in Saskatchewan. In fact, it is the highest point of land between the Rockies in Alberta and the Laurentians in Quebec. From this vantage point, I am pleased to note, there are no Liberals to be seen for 600 miles in either direction.
According to Statistics Canada, English is the mother tongue of 79 per cent of my constituents, German of 13 per cent and French of 3 per cent. Some 93 per cent of families are headed by two parents, and 78 per cent live in owner-occupied private homes. Swift Current-Maple Creek is a very stable and, if I may say, conservative area. The population turnover is quite low, and we have many three generation farmers and ranchers. The values are traditional. The people believe in God, home and the family. They are church-going people who love Canada.
They have been appalled for years by the state of affairs in this country. They despaired at the economic chaos and felt the disunity. They were saddened at the sight of region tearing at region and Canadian confronting Canadian. They felt sickened at government intervention in the market-place, oppressed at an unreasonable taxation system, and disappointed at the lack of regard for individual enterprise and initiative. They were astonished at incredible man-made disasters such as the national energy policy and the 1981 Budget. They welcome the new spirit of consultation and co-operation.
The spectre of capital gains tax hangs like a sword over the farm community. The farmer struggles for years to pay off his land, which is a non-depreciable asset but which is paid for out of after-tax dollars. The farmer's retirement is in his land. It is truly locked in the ground. Therefore, we have the sad plight of a man who works diligently for a lifetime, only to find that he cannot transfer title to his children for a reasonable sum
The Address-Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek) without facing substantial income tax on the capital gain, which is nothing more than a tax on inflation.
The farm community is heartened to note that some interim relief is in sight. The first $120,000 of taxable capital gains can be rolled into a Registered Retirement Savings Plan, effective January 1, 1984. I say that it is interim relief because we hope that in due course the parliamentary committee will see fit to recommend the elimination of capital gains altogether on agricultural land dispositions. The farmer is first entitled to this special consideration for he is a price taker who is subject to the vagaries of the world market at one end and yet unable to control many of his cost inputs at the other.
In many ways the small businessman is in similar circumstances. His retirement is tied up in inventory or company shares. He also feels threatened by capital gains and by the unnecessary complexity of the tax system. Facing a deluge of forms, questionnaires and surveys, even the smallest business must have extra staff to keep up with the paper work.
Small business will welcome the initiatives in simplifying the tax system and particularly in eliminating the cumulative deduction account. It is my further hope that some means may soon be found to eliminate or at least soften the impact of capital gains on the small business sector. >
b*
Earlier this year Canadians watched with interest the work of the PC tax task force, and they applaud the new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) for listening and acting. All Canadians will welcome the introduction of legislation ensuring that no taxpayer need pay taxes in dispute before his case has been finalized.
As a new Member of Parliament who, according to the media, is far removed from the Cabinet and the decision-making process, I am pleased to say that I have had easy personal access to the Ministers and their staff and that the serious problems of my constituency receive a fair hearing. For example, I cite the legitimate concerns of the producers in the Hallonquist and McMahon areas over the possible loss of the Shamrock rail line. It is the same line which was to form part of the basic rail network as a result of the CTC decision of 1980 and thus be guaranteed to the year 2000. These are the same producers who were assured by the previous Minister of Transport that the necessary Order in Council would be passed to enshrine the CTC decision.
I am delighted to report that the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) moved quickly and responsibly on the request for the adjournment of the CTC abandonment hearing to allow fair notice and time to prepare and, most important, time for the Minister to study fully the whole question of rail line abandonment and rehabilitation, with particular reference to finding the most cost efficient transportation alternative.
During the past number of years, western Canadian grain producers have managed to cope with the cost-price squeeze through high sales volumes. The drought and consequent short crop have resulted in a desperate situation for many farmers and ranchers who are faced with ever higher input costs such as fuel, chemical, fertilizer, feed and carrying charges.

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
1 would like to list a number of responses already made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). First, there is the final payment of $123 million under the Western Grain Stabilization Plan, coupled with the important commitment to make pay-outs more flexible and time-responsive relative to the seasonal needs of the producer. It is the intention of the Government to attempt to initiate a substantial interim payment for 1984-85 in time to assist in the cost of spring seeding.
Second, in response to the drastic position of a significant percentage of the agricultural community, the Minister has imposed a freeze on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosure activity until January, 1985, pending a thorough review in an attempt to seek innovative ways to deal with the problem.
Third, there will be immediate capital gains relief, which will assist older farmers to retire in dignity and at the same time enable younger farmers to begin with less debt load.
Four, there will be improvements to farm rollover provisions, expanding the definition of child and enlarging the definition of land qualifying for the rollover, all of which will relieve substantial impediments to farm estate planning and intergenerational transfers.
Five, a number of agricultural taxation issues, including the question of part time, Section 31 of the Income Tax Act relating to farmers, the question of agri-bonds and the taxation of capital gains on farm land, will be referred to a parliamentary committee for expeditious study and report.
Six, there will be substantial fuel cost relief, as promised, in the form of a three-cent a litre sales tax rebate on farm fuels and an exemption from the 1.8 cent per litre increase in the petroleum compensation charge, giving a total benefit of almost 22 cents a gallon.
The foregoing are but some of the initiatives already put forward in the few short weeks of this Government. They represent a caring and practical response to some very real problems.
It is the hope of many of my constituents that an increase will be made in the domestic wheat price. At present, the return to the bread wheat producer is the equivalent of something less than two slices out of a standard loaf of bread. A 50 per cent increase in the domestic wheat price would cost the Canadian consumer approximately 5 cents per loaf. Surely, Canadians would find this a small price to pay to assist in the survival of Canadian agriculture.
Many constituents in Swift-Current-Maple Creek remain most resentful of metric and the arbitrary and high-handed way it has been imposed. Metric measurement has caused considerable hardship, unnecessary expense and occasional catastrophe to the agricultural community, particularly in the application of chemicals and fertilizer. They welcome the undertaking to allow Imperial measurement on these containers.
The oil and gas sector in my constituency and Saskatchewan in general has, through sensible provincial royalty provisions, experienced a real boom. It is hoped that a similar common sense federal approach will foster unprecedented oil and gas development. We applaud the recent natural gas export licence amendments enabling Canadian companies to export gas to the United States, thus benefiting the industry, producing provinces and Canada as a whole. This will earn more export revenue, which will in turn strengthen our dollar and lessen pressure on interest rates.
The problem of unemployment, particularly among the young, is grave. This is the bitter fruit of years of economic stagnation and of government mismanagement. It will not be easily overcome. A string of massive deficits and consequent high interest rates, coupled with retrograde policies which discourage risk taking, have caused unprecedented economic malaise. Short-term solutions will not work. We need a fundamental change of direction in this country, a change which is well documented in the Throne Speech and the economic statement, change which through consultation and consensus will restore fiscal responsibility, remove obstacles to growth and encourage new investment.
1 will touch briefly on some of the pressing concerns of my constituents. Many of them have quite properly raised concerns over problems in the collection of child maintenance payments. I can think of no legitimate reason for a father to dodge payments for child support, thus throwing the burden on the rest of society. This problem of long standing is under examination and, in a new spirit of co-operation and dialogue with the provinces, I am optimistic that real progress will be made.
The people of Swift Current-Maple Creek express consternation over abuses in the parole system. Many also favour a return to capital punishment. I personally share these concerns and intend to work for both a thorough overhaul of the parole system and a return to the death penalty in situations of first degree murder.
I have received many queries regarding the situation in Ethiopia, and while Canada has already made a generous contribution, it is our intention, as expressed through the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), to mobilize a national campaign of relief. Information will be forthcoming from all Members of Parliament to groups in their constituencies'as to how best assistance can be marshalled and funnelled into these grief-stricken areas.
Further, in the international arena, Mr. Speaker, peace must be our most cherished goal. No group, and certainly no political Party, has a monopoly on the desire for world peace and nuclear disarmament. We can collectively leave for our children no greater legacy than a world free of the nuclear threat. I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for their initiative in the appointment of Mr. Roche as the ambassador for disarmament.
At the same time, Canada, if it is to be taken seriously in the world, must act on its own as a sovereign nation and live
November 13, 1984

up to its obligations. I am pleased to note that Canada will again fully participate in NATO, and thus earn its place at the table of responsible nations.
As the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek riding, which shares 150 miles of border with the State of Montana, part of the longest undefended border in the world, I recognize the United States of America as our neighbour, our largest trading partner and our best friend. I have been ashamed of the attitude of the past Government toward the United States for we, Canadians and Americans, share the fruits of freedom. We must likewise share the responsibilities. My constituents and I congratulate the Prime Minister in his efforts to renew our bonds of friendship with the United States. We applaud this very sensible and historically desirable initiative.
The thrust of the Throne Speech is reassuring to Canadians. At a time when this nation is reeling under the weight of record unemployment and staggering debt, most people understand what has to be done. They understand we cannot long continue to mortgage tomorrow to pay for today. They know tough decisions have to be made. They know we cannot forever print money to throw at the symptoms of the disease. We must deal directly with the cause. We must recognize our excess. We must renew confidence in Canada. We must rebuild our reputation. The way will be long and arduous, but if we are to survive as a strong and free nation, we have absolutely no choice.
I ask Canadians to take heart because this Government, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, stands united, united in its determination to rebuild over the ashes of years of Liberal neglect, united in its determination to get this country moving again, and united in its determination to secure a fair shake for all Canadians.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a Government that will breathe new life into this country, a Government that will listen to and work with the people, a Government that will seek a new spirit of co-operation and consensus for the Canada we love and cherish.
It has been an honour for me to participate in this Throne Speech debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? There being none, we will continue with debate. The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, before starting my comments on the Speech from the Throne, I wish to offer you my congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House and with you your colleague, the Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) on being chosen as the Speaker of the House of Commons. I also wish to put on the record that I feel very honoured to have been re-elected to serve the people of Sudbury during this Thirty-third Parliament.
The Address-Mr. Frith

Before beginning the actual text of my speech, I want to spend some time to thank the people of Sudbury for re-electing me in what I call the Tory onslaught across the country. I think my sentiments speak for any one of my 39 colleagues in the Liberal Party who, with me, survived the onslaught. We know it means even more that the people of our particular ridings place a lot of confidence in our abilities to represent their viewpoints here in Parliament. I just want to assure the people of Sudbury that the confidence they placed in me on September 4 will not be misplaced and I shall continue to serve them in the years ahead with the same degree of enthusiasm that 1 served them in the Thirty-second Parliament.
In addition, I would like to congratulate the various new Members of Parliament on all sides of the House. I suppose that in this case, with 211 Conservative Members of Parliament, there are a lot more new Conservative Members of Parliament than members of any other political Party. I wish them a four-year successful term. That is all I offer them in this particular instance! I want them to know that I still share the same degree of enthusiasm today that I did four years ago when I first came to Ottawa. Each day as I arrive on the Hill and look at the Peace Tower, I have the same sense of fulfilment of having been selected by my own constituents to serve their needs. That is a sentiment felt by all Members of Parliament regardless of their political stripe.
I want to mention briefly some of the premises which will be inherent in my discussion today. The more experienced Members of Parliament know that Throne Speeches can be made once or twice in the life of a Parliament and sometimes more. A Speech from the Throne can list a number of specific items which the government of the day wishes to accomplish during the life of a Parliament, or it can choose, on the other hand, to use a general theme which will give the people of the country a sense of the direction in which the Government wants the country to go. Evidently the Speech from the Throne which was given approximately a week ago adopted the second route in order to establish a theme which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wished to present to the people of Canada on behalf of his Government.
That theme has raised a degree of concern among members of the Opposition. As Mr. Speaker knows, my speech will be very brief; I have some 18 minutes remaining. My purpose is to establish that there are items other than the Speech from the Throne and an economic statement which are important to Parliament.
At the beginning of its mandate it is important to Parliament for the Government to outline in clear, concise terms the direction in which it wants the country to go. I would suggest that the Speech from the Throne was lacking in that direction. If anything, it outlined 10 particular task forces, if I am not mistaken, with which the Government wishes to study in ensuing months. It did not mention any commitments to the people living in Atlantic Canada. There was very little mention

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Frith
of fisheries or the direction the Government wanted to take with respect to agricultural development. Government Members campaigned this summer on a particular issue, mainly job creation. Most of us on this side of the House sadly recognize that there was very little mention in the Throne Speech about job creation. In fact, when I deal with the specifics of the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made some four days ago, if anything I will indicate that they have reneged on some of their promises in the election campaign of 1984 concerning job creation.
I should like to return to the first week of July, 1984 when the Government of the day, led by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), elected to call a summer election. In his statement at that time, he said that he did not wish to get into a bidding war with Canadians or particularly with candidates of the other political Parties, recognizing the size of the federal deficit. There are responsible people on all sides of the House who recognize that the size of the federal deficit should be and is of concern to the economic well-being of the country. However, having said that, the then Prime Minister outlined that if he were to do such a thing, one of three things could result. If he were elected, he would have to cut spending, renege on the promises which he made during the election campaign, or raise taxes. Yet, the Leader of the Conservative Party chose, despite the fact that he felt at that time that the size of the federal deficit-and this is a direct quote-was "$37 billion", to embark upon a summer campaign in which he promised a great deal to the Canadian public. That is the point I want to make. Throne Speeches and economic statements come and go. What is left is an impression by the government of the day on the people of Canada. The impression left in this case is one of broken promises by the Conservative Party, broken promises to the various constituencies in Canada. That legacy really disturbs me.
At times all of us, regardless of political stripe, worry about the degree of cynicism which exists in the minds of the Canadian public toward politicians. At times, I suppose, various government actions can point to various points made by government to justify its cynicism. It is a sad day when politicians decide that they can campaign and, regardless of their campaign promises, can renege on them within a short period of time after being elected.
I would like to refer to some 338 commitments of the Tory Government during the election campaign this summer. It campaigned on regional development to give DREE a specific legislative mandate to promote the least developed regions of Canada. Yet, in last week's economic statement, the Minister of Finance cut $200 million from available DREE grants. I do not recall the Conservative candidate who campaigned against me campaigning on the basis that there would be cuts in DREE. Earlier in the day I saw the Hon. Member for Tim-mins-Chapleau (Mr. Gervais) in the House; he is not here now. I do not recall him campaigning in his constituency and telling the people of that riding that if they elected a Conservative Government there would be cuts in DREE grants.
Cuts in DREE grants mean losses of jobs largely in the hinterland areas in Atlantic Canada, in northern Ontario and in northern Quebec. Cuts in DREE do not affect people living in Toronto, Montreal or large urban centres. However, they affect the people living in the less privileged areas of the country.
I should like to refer to another one of their promises. In the area of senior citizens they campaigned on the basis of reinstating complete indexation of old age pensions to the actual cost of living as of January 1, 1985. Much has been said about a statement of the Prime Minister during the election campaign. He said that universality was a sacred trust not to be tampered with. Yet, within two weeks of the opening of Parliament, he is reneging on the basic commitment of universality as a sacred trust not to be tampered with. During his Friday news conference he questioned whether or not bank presidents earning between $500,000 and $600,000 per year deserved to collect universal benefits, be it family allowance or Old Age Security. He left the distinct impression that the terms of reference for the review of universality by the Conservative Government would be related only to about 50 bank presidents. Because we will be returning to this over a long period of time, I want to read into the record the terms of reference of the committee or the parliamentary task force which will review universality, so that Canadians, regardless of their income level, will at least begin to understand the new direction for Canada as outlined by the Conservative Government. My constituency in Sudbury and those everywhere in Canada should at least get in touch with their Members of Parliament to find out how the government of the day will consult with various constituencies to ensure that the interests of average Canadians are looked after. Questions are raised on page 72 of A New Direction for Canada. One such question is:
"Is it fair that families with an annual income in the $20,000 to $30,000 range have larger benefits than families with income below $10,000?"
That is not a bank president earning $500,000 or $600,000 per year. That is the average International Nickel Company worker or the average worker in Sault Ste. Marie who will be affected if the direction of the Conservative Government affects their universal family allowance benefits.
Referring to the second question, I remember a Liberal colleague of mine who raised this issue and quickly had to forget it. She raised the issue as the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt at the time. That question is also raised in A New Direction for Canada and reads:
Should the child tax exemption be retained, since it is of no assistance to low-income families?
If they are to question that, it does not affect the bank president and his wife. It affects the average worker earning between $20,000 and $30,000. If they leave the impression that universality will be questioned by Members of the House in terms of people in upper income levels, I want to read into the record some of the questions which will be asked, because the questions in this paper determine the terms of reference for this Conservative mandate. One question reads:
November 13, 1984

For example, one possibility would be to reduce the amount of Old Age Security available to high-income pensioners, by making benefits taxable at higher than normal rates or subject to some other tax recovery scheme.
That one affects upper income families. However, it goes on to say:
Another possibility could be to increase the progressive nature of the system by phasing out the two tax deductions over several years.
So that the people of Sudbury and others across the country who are watching today understand, they are here speaking of the special aid exemption and the exemption whereby the first $1,000 of pension income are tax deductible. That refers to everyone with an income of from $15,000 a year up. That is part of the terms of reference of this new Conservative mandate in the country.
Another alternative involved reducing or eliminating the indexation of Old Age Security while compensating pensioners in need. 1 do not know how that fits in. How can Tory Members campaign with the promise that they will reintroduce full indexation, a reference to the cut that occurred when our Government brought in the six and five program? At that time, the howls of outrage on this side of the House were incredible. Government Members campaigned on the promise of re-introducing what was lost in the six and five program, yet A New Direction for Canada questions whether or not they should be eliminating the indexation of OAS.
I think there should be a word of caution spoken to the people of Canada. They had better listen carefully to what the Government says because, quite frankly, I have the impression that one cannot trust this Government. The sacred trust that the Prime Minister said he would not tamper with has already been tampered with within two weeks of Parliament's resumption. The Prime Minister this summer, after having made many campaign promises, was suddenly confronted by a bare cupboard. If the cupboard was bare when the Opposition felt we had a $37 billion deficit, why is it even more bare when the deficit is only $34 billion?
I am not suggesting that the only role of Opposition is to be critical. There are some good things contained within the economic statement. However, I am making the point that there is an obligation on the Government of the day to come clean with the Canadian public and not imply that everything will be done above board. There is a hidden agenda. The Leader of the Official Opposition was correct when he suggested that the Tories do have a hidden agenda. That hidden agenda is outlined in that book called "A New Direction for Canada". I suggest that Conservative Members of Parliament read that book. They should explain to their constituents just exactly what the terms of reference will be, not only for the committee that will study the universality of benefits but for the committee that will study the cuts in the unemployment insurance program and the committee that will study the pension reform. I am simply suggesting that Hon. Members should be honest with their constituents and should not leave the impression that these cuts will only affect Canadians in the upper income levels.
The Address-Mr. Frith
I mentioned previously that I do agree that there are a number of other areas in which some much needed reform has been brought to the system. That is why I suggested at the beginning that I would have to define certain things. When a Government is given a mandate of 211 seats, it is incumbent upon the opposition to come to grips with the definition of that mandate. In other words, if government action lies outside the mandate that the Opposition feels the Canadian public has given to the Government, then we have an obligation to oppose it. On the other hand, if the Government determines certain legislative actions and if we as an Opposition feel that the mandate given by the Canadian public is commensurate with the legislation that is being brought forward, then I think our only obligation is to enhance or better that legislation but not to impede it. In other words, it is our obligation to allow it swift passage.
As an example of this, I welcomed the proposals contained within the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement indicating that the spousal allowance will be extended to people who are between the ages of 60 and 64. I do not think one member of the Liberal Party would oppose the inclusion and expansion of that particular social program. If anything, I might perhaps put the case to the Government that it should not only go to widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 but that single persons between the ages of 60 and 64 who are in that same economic position as well as divorced Canadians who are in that same boat should be eligible for it. If the Government of the day were to bring that piece of legislation forward on the legislative calendar, it could expect quick passage.
In addition to speaking of some of the much needed reforms to the pension system, I wanted to welcome some of the references to pension reform in the Speech from the Throne. The committee that studied that report last year had the concurrence of its three Conservative Members of Parliament and the other three Liberal Members of Parliament. There was only one dissenting opinion on that report, and it was an opinion of a member of the New Democratic Party. However, we all agreed that the need for reform was great.
My disappointment in the reference to pension reform in the Speech from the Throne is that the Government has chosen to study it and to have further consultations with the provinces. I would suggest that there is already enough agreement in this House on the need for pension reform. Rather than enter into some lengthy negotiations with the provinces, the Government should table legislation which would show the federal Government leading by example on pension reform. I believe that there is agreement on our side of the House that if the Government were to table legislation that would alter the federal benefits standards Act covering all employees of Crown corporations, the federal civil service and employees of the banking institutions and transportation companies that operate interprovincially, then the Government could expect swift passage of it. If the Government would introduce that legislation, it would be a catalyst that would speed up pension reform under provincial jurisdictions. I would hope that the

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Frith
Government would take my advice and introduce this legislation, rather than relying on its consultative process with the provinces concerned.
Finally, I would like to touch upon another promise made during the election campaign. This is a promise to which the Opposition will return time and time again. That comment will not go away and will not cease to reflect upon the Conservative Party and its Leader. The Prime Minister campaigned by saying that once he was elected, Canadians would see tens upon tens of thousands of jobs created just as quickly as a new Government could be sworn in. That was the commitment that was made to the Canadian public.
We find in the economic statement that, rather than having job creation as a priority of this Government, there is a warning that unemployment benefits may be cut back just when they are needed the most. Notice is given that the Summer Canada Works Program for students will be eliminated. Spending cut-backs are to be made in the name of deficit reduction. I do not remember Hon. Members campaigning on the promise of reducing the deficit. However, all this will result in a net loss of 45,000 jobs a year. That is 150,000 jobs over three years. That is not job creation, Mr. Speaker. That is cuts in employment.
I would like to suggest that members of the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister should remind themselves that the trust given to them by the Canadian public on September 4 involved the belief that the Conservative Government would live up to its campaign promises of the summer of 1984 rather than embark on a hidden Tory agenda that will destroy the social fabric of our country.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) speak of broken promises. 1 really wondered how he had the gall to do it. Does he recall that in 1979, the Liberal Party campaigned on the promise that it would not charge taxes on gas of more than 18 cents a gallon? After the Liberal Party got into power, it increased those taxes several times that amount. Is that the kind of promise to which the Hon. Member is referring? If so, his Party is expert at that.
Second, the Hon. Member indicated that we had not mentioned some items. Did Liberal Members mention to the people of Canada that the Government would change the Constitution? Did they tell the people of Canada they would not put property rights in the Constitution? Did they tell the people of Canada they would bring in the National Energy Program, a program that would practically destroy the industry of western Canada? No, they did not tell the Canadian people about any of these things. Perhaps the Hon. Member should take a look inward before he starts to tell us how to do things.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I referred very early on in my speech to the degree of cynicism felt and the contempt in which a great many politicians are held by the Canadian public today. I said that I think that a great deal of that cynicism is generated by the fact that governments get elected
on a given set of promises and then do not deliver those promises to the Canadian people. That is where the cynicism is generated. I will not deal with the specifics of the questions of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), but I will say that in some cases he is quite correct. Promises were made in the 1979-80 election which were not kept by the Liberal Party. As a word of warning, I would tell the Hon. Member that we paid the price in 1984 for failing to keep those promises, and I am therefore suggesting that he should keep his side honest, because I will remind him of the 338 promises that that Government has made. As I have outlined in my speech this afternoon, if the Government breaks its promises, I wish it the same election results in 1988 as we received this year.


Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). He mentioned hidden agendas, lack of trust and cynicism. I am somewhat perplexed by his comments inasmuch as the Progressive Conservative Party has been saying, not only during the past election campaign, but for many, many years, that the rising national debt is of the utmost importance and must be solved. The Conservative Party has said that in order to get the economy back on the rails, the problem must be addressed. I have said it in my riding, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Pietz) echoed that, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was in our areas several times to tell the people that it would be the First priority of a Conservative government. I am very pleased that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Right Hon. Prime Minister have chosen to keep the promises that they made, and the promises that we as private Members made, to make this number one on the agenda.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct that comment. As a Party, the Government made a promise to the electorate this past summer. Following the leaders' debate, I took part in a discussion on The Journal. On that program I represented the Liberal Party. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) represented the NDP and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) represented the Conservative Party. During that discussion, the Conservatives promised that universality was a sacred trust not to be tampered with. Canadians were promised that additional dollars would be put into the medicare system and that the concept of universality would not be tampered with. That was the trust that was given to the Government on September 4. When an agenda for action was introduced, with the parameters which I have outlined in my speech, that will affect Canadians down to the level of those families whose income is $20,000 a year, I suggest that the Government did not have that mandate given to it on September 4. That will be where we will draw our line as an Opposition-the definition of the mandate. There are 211 Conservative Members of Parliament. They were given a mandate to do certain things. I will remind them every time they break and tamper with the trust which was given to them on September 4. We in the Liberal Party will be questioning
November 13, 1984

them, because they will be destroying the trust which should be inherent between the Government and its people.


Mr. Boyer:: Mr. Speaker, I followed with considerable interest the speech of the Elon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). I felt that the initial part of the speech was very balanced, and 1 too have that same sense when walking to Parliament Hill early in the morning.
The Hon. Member then got into the difficult terrain of trying to reconcile campaign statements with subsequent action or a change of course. Two Members of this House have already brought home to the Member the record of his own Party, such as the questions of double-tracking in the West, 18 cents a gallon, wrestling inflation to the ground and price and wage controls. The list is long, and I do not have to remind Members of this House that his Party, as he has acknowledged, said one thing in the course of an election campaign and found fit, for whatever reasons, to do something quite different at a later time. In fact, I surmise that it may have been his own experience, in having tried to reconcile the different course that his Government took when in office from what it said during the course of the campaign, that has made him sensitive to the particular challenge which the present Government faces.
The fact remains that the Government has made a strong commitment, which was reiterated in the Throne Speech, to social justice, as reflected through social programs which have been built up over a number of years. We also recognize the need to ask certain questions about those programs through the parliamentary committee, and the Hon. Member has read into the record of the House a number of the questions which that committee will be addressing.
I would ask the Hon. Member how questions that are contained in a public document can constitute a hidden agenda. Moreover, I would ask the Hon. Member whether he believes that his questions should not be asked at this time by a parliamentary committee in order to come to an understanding effectively and thoroughly of whether the House is fulfilling its duty to the Canadian people in providing effective social programs. If he does not feel that this is the time to ask those questions, I would ask him when they should be asked.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I raised those questions to put them on the record because they are legitimate questions. They were raised on the middle of the summer election campaign. The Liberal Party chose to say it was not going to try to outbid the other Party and bring in social programs which would cost more dollars and increase the size of the deficit. The Conservative Party chose to campaign on that basis. It campaigned on the basis that it acknowledged that the deficit was $37 billion, yet it still chose to make promises and commitments to the Canadian public. All I am suggesting is that that is very dishonest. We all know that there are 200 weeks before the next federal election, Throne Speeches will happen once or twice in this Parliament, and there will probably be five or six budgets, but I wanted to ensure that the initial stage was set by reading into the record the promises that were made by the
The Address-Mr. Edwards
Conservative Government. I can only hope that those promises are carried through.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising because the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), has appointed himself as aide-memoire to the Government. However, I would say that he should not be too forgetful of his own Party's record. I will not repeat what some of my colleagues have said, but I would not want him to forget some promises which his Party made when they were campaigning-sometimes successfully-such as reducing the deficit. The only things which he found favour with in the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement were those which would add to spending. Spending seems to be in favour on that side, not cutting the deficit, although that was one of the Liberal Party's promises in 1980.
I would like to draw to his attention a promise which was made by the former Liberal Prime Minister and his Party to the people of metropolitan Toronto. They promised a heavily-subsidized program of urban transport, but not a dollar was ever received. That is only one of a long list of broken promises.
In the program which the Government has announced thus far, there have been certain positive aids to cut unemployment and to increase job opportunities in this country. It must be emphasized that we have no future economically and no future for a social justice program unless we cut the deficit and stimulate the economy. That is the objective of the economic statement.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) that, with respect to unemployment, in Question Period today the Minister of Finance has agreed and knows that the econometric model that he used in the mini-budget shows that the unemployment rate will be marginally higher two years hence than it is today. I know that the Hon. Member comes from an urban riding, but I come from a riding in northern Ontario which has experienced the highest level of unemployment, statistically, for the last three years. As a Member from that area, I would suggest that all those make-work projects and Section 38 were instrumental in keeping my community afloat. I hope that private Members on the Government side who are experiencing high levels of unemployment in their areas will keep their Government honest by pushing for those programs for which the NDP and the Liberal Party have fought for decades.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As questions and answers have now been terminated, I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it propitious that the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) is occupying the chair at this moment. I congratulate him as the senior member of the Edmonton caucus on his nomination. I congratulate as well the Hon. Mr. Speaker and the Hon. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

three times in the past week of participating in the process of federal-provincial consultation. I know that all provinces welcome this fresh and somewhat novel approach. I am sure that all Hon. Members have confidence in the outcome of today's First Ministers' meeting. Few of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, oppose the federal commitment to the quality of the two official languages. Many, though, resent the insensitivity of previous administrations in the pursuit of that goal.
[ Translation]
Today, in the House, we have an abundance of talent from all parts of Canada. We are seeing a remarkable phenomenon which would have been inconceivable as recently as ten years ago: two Anglophones from Ontario speaking French in the House, and we have a number of new Francophone members who are taking advantage of this opportunity to learn English. If language is the key to culture and if culture is in the heart and the soul, let us open our hearts and souls and reason will follow.

The Speech from the Throne referred to the necessity for co-operation between the two levels of Government in fostering multiculturalism. Perhaps nowhere is multiculturalism better fostered as something far beyond song and dance than in Alberta where there is no majority. In Edmonton South the Edmonton Heritage Festival is held annually. It is held in a park named, appropriately, after our first mayor of Ukrainian descent, William Hawrelak. This year, over 400,000 people visited the 44 pavilions. A new ethnic group provided a pavilion for the first time, namely, the English.
The Hon. Horst Schmid, Alberta's Minister of International Trade and the godfather of multiculturalism in my province, said that the Albertan is a man whose father, descendant of French, Cree and Scottish fur traders, married an Italian Polish girl from Hamilton. Our Albertan and his German Mennonite wife leave his Jewish-owned wholesale business in their Korean-made car, drive past the mosque to see a play by an Irish author featuring English and black American actors. That is followed by Chinese sweet and sour spareribs at a Ukrainian restaurant where they are joined by their daughter who is majoring in Greek classics at university and her Uganda born East Indian engineer fiance. Mr. Speaker, the mosaic is fast becoming an alloy in the kindly crucible of understanding.
The people of Edmonton South welcome the economic initiatives which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced on Thursday. For us, government does not, cannot, create real jobs. Government can create a climate in which business can plan, act, expand, and buy and sell. The first excruciating steps have been taken on the perilous path to growth and, dare we say it, solvency. It is right and reassuring that in undertaking this journey we commit ourselves to preserving social justice so that the costs of change do not fall on those least able to bear them. Even though we attain the
The Address-Mr. Edwards
Minister's goal of reducing the projected level of annual expenditures by 1990 to something like $10 billion or $15 billion below what they are today, we may still be stuck with a structural deficit. Therein lies the challenge for true change and reform, to provide incentive rather than penalty, and to tackle truly the fundamental reform of our tax system.
During the course of this past summer I encountered hundreds of mature men and women who had been laid off or forced into early retirement because of the recession, compounded by the disastrous effects of the National Energy Program. As well, there were hundreds of well educated young men and women looking for their first real job. Now, we all know that true job creation is going to come in the field of small business. Let us therefore encourage what I call a generational partnership wherein the senior experienced former business people join with the energetic, well trained young people, form a business with funding from conventional institutions, backed by federal government insurance or guarantees. In four or five years the senior partners could extract an equity share as a retirement nest egg earlier denied them, leaving the now seasoned junior partners to further expand and develop new employment.
Albertans, Mr. Speaker, were encouraged by the energy initiatives taken by the Minister of Finance last Thursday. Since 1980, western Canadians have been angered and frustrated by the unilaterally imposed oil and gas pricing schedules, by the new excise and income taxes on gas and oil, and by the centralizing aspects of the NEP such as the changing of the incentive system to target exploration on federally controlled lands. My constituents viewed those policies as a federal grab for revenue and power in an area of provincial jurisdiction. Second, investors had lost confidence in the oil and gas industry. The NEP's huge volume of complex regulations contributed to the uncertainty of the business community. Perhaps $17 billion of direct capital investment, which could have created 500,000 jobs, left the country. Third, the NEP caused a drop in exploration activity and development efforts. Following cancellation of the Cold Lake and Alsands projects, the private sector followed by withdrawing drilling rigs and exploration crews. Many companies announced cut-backs in exploration plans. The Economic Council of Canada maintains that the NEP exacerbated the heavy debt of many important oil companies, rendering new exploration activities even less likely.
The NEP crippled more than the West, Mr. Speaker. The Ontario Minister of Energy, Mr. Andrewes, says the NEP was almost as costly to Ontario as to the West. He says that from 1979 to 1983 the NEP cost Ontario 90,000 jobs and was responsible for price hikes amounting to 33 per cent of all inflation experienced by his province. Ontario's wholesale costs of crude oil and natural gas almost doubled from $4.7 billion in 1979 to $9 billion in 1983.
The announcements made by the Minister of Finance last Thursday are a big step forward. Market pricing for oil with safeguards to protect consumers from price surges, changes in the PGRT which will apply to integrated oil sands projects and

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Edwards
which will double the threshold level of the small producers' credit, are major steps in the right direction. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has said, a healthy, thriving energy industry creates permanent productive jobs. When the oil patch works, it means business for the supply and service companies, the restaurants, hotels and hardware stores. It means thriving communities and healthy family life.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are to have a renewal of a healthy, responsible Canadian internationalism. All Canadians, especially we Albertans who have the closest family, business and cultural ties with the United States, welcome the hand, and not the single digit, across the border extended by our Prime Minister. Those who fled tyranny in Eastern and Central Europe salute the new commitment to our North Atlantic allies. I am pleased to report that I have had calls during the past day from constituents concerning hunger relief. In one instance, the Kiwanis Club of Edmonton is recommending to its board of directors an expenditure of $10,000 for Ethiopian and African relief. I had a call on Friday from a doctor at the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, who himself comes from the Third World, who volunteered his six weeks' vacation time starting February 11 to go to Ethiopia at his own expense to be of assistance there. That is in the true spirit of Canadian internationalism.
Yet, overriding all these concerns, both economic and defence, is the ultimate sine qua non: the quest for peace. I am honoured to represent the riding adjacent to that of our distinguished Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and to represent the people who sent to Parliament for so many years Mr. Douglas Roche, our new ambassador for disarmament. They must have our support and that of all Canadians. No goal is more elusive, but its dedicated and unrelenting pursuit is demanded by posterity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's maiden speech?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) on his first speech. I will leave it to you to rule; he is my mother's brother s wife s brother's son. I would like to congratulate him and welcome him to the House. I hope that my having revealed this unusual relationship will not keep him from becoming a frontbencher very quickly.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to that rather convoluted description, I think it is also fitting that there is something that makes political campaigns go, that is, financial support. I am very pleased, and I hope this is a harbinger for Canada's political future, that the common bond in this familial relationship is a long-time Liberal from Edmonton who contributed to the campaign of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and to my campaign as a Conservative.


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned an increase of two cents per litre in the price of oil and an increase in the price of home heating oil. Perhaps he could inform the House how this will protect the consumer and how single-parent families, most of whom are headed by women, how the aged living below the poverty line and the thousands of workers earning the minimum wage and on modest incomes, depending on the provinces-and I think in yours the situation is pretty rough-how is a two-cent increase for the consumer going to help him?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, there are going to be difficulties. However, I think it is fundamental that the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated in his remarks last Thursday night that the whole objective of the Government's policy is to protect the consumer from sudden fluctuations in cost. I can promise the Hon. Member that that will be taken into full consideration.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct two questions to the Hon. Member. He suggested that moving toward world prices in oil would help the workers in Ontario. 1 invite the Hon. Member to explain how an increase in oil prices, which will have to be absorbed by the manufacturers in every province, will mean an increase in their price of production and will make them less competitive with other sources, can lead to anything but lay-offs?
The Hon. Member gave the usual and very understandable position of the Conservative Party with regard to the role of the private sector in the free entreprise system and downgraded government intervention. He then proceeded to complain that the free entreprise system should not be permitted to operate in a free way when it comes to broadcasting. He is opposed to the super stations. He wants CRTC to stop them. If he believes in the free enterprise system, surely there is no reason why the super stations should not be permitted to move ahead.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having those two questions put to me by such a distinguished and senior Member of the House. I would like to respond to the first question with regard to the effect upon workers in Ontario of world price for oil. The world price for oil, Mr. Speaker, is part of the whole regime of energy policy which is designed to be a major engine for growth in the country. If in fact the NEP caused 90,000 jobs to be lost in the Province of Ontario, those are 90,000 Ontario workers who today would be employed.
In response to the question about free enterprise, my quarrel is not with the free enterprise system. My quarrel is with the fact that a bureaucratic quasi-judicial tribunal is ostensibly making governmental policy in the country. It is time that that policy was returned to the hands of the elected representives of the people.
November 13, 1984


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the Throne Speech debate of the Thirty-third Parliament of Canada. I would first like to congratulate Mr. Speaker Bosley on his appointment to the Chair, and you as well, Sir, on your appointment.
I would also like to congratulate my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), who happens to be my neighbour, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques), for an excellent job in moving and seconding the Address to the Throne Speech.
Lambton-Middlesex has the dubious distinction of being the largest geographic riding in southern Ontario. It stretches from the edge of the City of Sarnia to the edge of the City of London and encompasses most of the counties of Lambton and Middlesex. It encompasses 6,500 square miles in total. As an added distinction, Lambton-Middlesex has three beautiful waterways which form the boundaries on three sides of the riding. Lake Huron is on one side, the St. Clair River is on the other, and the beautiful Thames on the third. This completes this unique aspect of our constituency.
As you may well have guessed from its geographic size, the agricultural industry dominates Lambton-Middlesex, and this industry is widely diversified. The Thedford Marsh located in the northwest corner of Lambton produces large volumes of vegetables such as potatoes, carrots, celery, beets, head lettuce and onions. Sweeping south from the Marsh is a large gravel ridge which supports orchards producing apples, cherries, peaches, pears and apricots as well as a multitude of tender fruits. On the opposite side of the riding there is another sandy gravel area running from the village of Mount Brydges to the village of Komoka which also produces tree fruits and tobacco.
Lambton-Middlesex is the largest soya bean producing area in the country, with corn running a close second. With the abundance of feed corn available, livestock is perhaps the most important aspect of our economy. The riding is home to a heavy concentration of beef feed lots and pork farms, with a significant number of dairy and poultry farms. Two of the larger turkey operations in the country are located in my riding, with Cuddy Farms, located in the Strathroy area, being the largest integrated operation in Canada and perhaps in North America.
This large and diverse agricultural sector is serviced by a multitude of small towns and villages which supply the infrastructure for the agricultural community. The town of Strathroy, with a population of 9,100, is the largest urban centre that I have in my riding.
As in most parts of southern Ontario, the native people were our first settlers. They were followed in the 1800s by a mixture of English, Irish and Scottish, who were followed by Slovaks in the 1930s, the Dutch in the 1950s and the Portuguese, who are the latest addition to the mosaic which makes up our riding.
In referring once again to the agricultural industry, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out what I perceive to be an impending crisis in that industry. On a
The Address-Mr. Fraleigh
personal note, I feel fortunate that I entered the agricultural field prior to the onset of the era of inflation and high interest rates. However, the young farmers of today are facing a financial crisis, and my concern is for them. I believe this crisis was caused by a variety of circumstances; mainly rapidly escalating production costs, falling commodity prices, and, most important of all, high interest rates. This, coupled with questionable financial advice from some government agencies and financial institutions, has placed agriculture in a position where this country stands to lose a whole generation of young farmers owing to bankruptcy.
I do not profess to have any simple answers to a very complex problem. However, we as Members should be extremely concerned about what has become not only a severe financial problem, but what could turn into a severe social problem.
At the meeting of Agriculture Ministers last week, this problem had high priority, and I urge Members to support this initiative with constructive input. I would also urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to seek input from the private sector as well as from individual Members so that we can attack the problem with all the expertise available.
I would now like to move to another significant part of the economy of the riding of Lambton-Middlesex. Because of our proximity to the cities of London and Sarnia, a growing part of the population lives in small towns, villages and built-up areas along the beautiful waterways and commute to work. In the area closer to London these people are composed of professionals and tradespeople who work in a wide variety of industries. However, on the other side of the riding, the commuters work almost exclusively in the chemical valley in the Sarnia area. It has been estimated that as many as 10,000 people in Lambton county derive their living, either directly or indirectly, from the health of the valley.
It is for this reason that I fully support the pleas of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton that we as the Government act quickly to remove the obstacles which now obstruct the petrochemical industry from becoming internationally competitive again.
I will not attempt to duplicate the description of the valley given by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton except to say that those industries are now extending into the riding of Lambton-Middlesex. CIL has the most modern nitrogen fertilizer plant in North America and it is located in Sombra Township in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex.
The provisions of the National Energy Program have crippled this industry. The refusal of the previous Government to address these problems has caused an industry with a proven track record for creating jobs to come to a standstill. The recommendations of the task force that was set up by the former Government would be a sound business proposition for Canada. In all probability, that is the reason why it did not act on those recommendations. Hopefully, we will not be that shortsighted.

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Fraleigh
The shoreline of Lake Huron is blessed with large expanses of sandy beaches. This asset has created a tourist industry that is vital to the towns and villages in close proximity to this area.
Not only are there large areas of privately owned cottages, there are also public beaches and two of the finest provincial parks in Ontario. One of these parks, the Pinery Provincial Park, has enormous sand dunes gracing its shoreline which are unique to this area. Several excellent harbours attract large numbers of boaters to the area, including many Americans.
In addition to these excellent recreational facilities, the riding of Lambton-Middlesex has several significant historical attractions which attract a large number of visitors. Rock Glen, which is adjacent to the village of Arkona, has yielded a treasure of fossils. That municipality has moved to preserve this unique heritage with an excellent museum in that area containing thousands of items from the region.
Furthermore, the first oil discovery in North America was in Lambton County at the Village of Oil Springs. This oil bubbled to the surface and did not require any drilling. A museum on the site contains all the equipment that was used in those early days.
Just six miles away, adjacent to the Town of Petrolia, is the site of the first drilled oil wells in Canada. While their operation became uneconomical a good many years ago, recently the town restored the site to its original state. It is now producing again and is a unique tourist attraction.
These varied tourist attractions attract thousands of visitors to the riding of Lambton-Middlesex and are an important part of our economy.
I would be remiss if I did not make reference before closing, to the gas storage fields which lie beneath the fields in the Townships of Dawn and Moore. These are huge natural subterranean cavities into which natural gas from western Canada is pumped via pipeline in the summer months at a time when demand is low. These natural cavities hold billions of cubic feet of natural gas.
Not only does this allow the country to make more efficient use of our pipeline facilities, it supplies an important buffer if there are any major breakdowns in the cross-country pipeline system.
I was most pleased that 1 had the opportunity to return to my riding after the delivery of the Throne Speech and the financial statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It allowed me to get an impression of how ordinary Canadians viewed these two most important documents.
Let me say for the benefit of Hon. Members opposite that the people of Lambton-Middlesex could not be any further removed from Bay Street. However, their response to the direction in which the Government is going was one of wholehearted support. I would suggest that the members of the two Opposition Parties go out into the streets of their ridings to find out what the people are saying. I am sure they will be surprised to discover that the people are in full agreement with the Government program which is designed to stimulate economic growth and create permanent jobs in a framework of fiscal responsibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments on the Hon. Member's maiden speech?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. When the Hon. Member is talking about the tax system, justice and social programs, instead of his Government starting discussions to try and modify what is referred to as the universality of pension plans and programs that affect Canadians on very low incomes, would it not have been preferable to review the indexing table for personal income tax? If I am not mistaken, the net result of this particular measure is to increase benefits to the rich and give less to the poor. Let me give an example I found in the documents tabled by your Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson): a single individual with an income of $7,500 gets only $54, while someone with an income of $100,000 saves $460. Do you not think that to reduce the deficit, your Government and your Minister of Finance should have tinkered with that program instead of with the universality of pensions and unemployment insurance?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that 1 had raised the question that was posed by the Hon. Member opposite. However, since he has raised the question, I would be pleased to inform him that there are no easy answers. There will be hardships, and it has been the Government's position that everyone share in those hardships in a fair and equitable manner. I believe that, as a result of his financial statement, the Minister of Finance has done an excellent job in having the economy and various sectors of the country share those hardships.
If the Hon. Member had spent the weekend on the streets in his riding as I did in mine, he would have found that most people would agree with that assessment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I may point out to the Hon. Member that I go down the streets of my constituency on week days as well as on weekends, and that I am a good defender of my constituents' interests, since I was re-elected on my own merits.
Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that the measure I just mentioned is one his Government has introduced, a measure that provides very substantial assistance to the rich. This is not some time in the future, it is here and now. Just read the supplementary information. Instead of shouting, the Hon. Member who did so should stand up and defend his constituents. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Hon. Member agrees with what the Minister of Finance has just done.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.
November 13, 1984


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) on his opening speech. During his speech he referred to the native people as the first inhabitants in his riding. Of course, that is true for all our ridings.
Has the Hon. Member had an opportunity to give particular thought to the problems and alternatives facing native people in Canada today? I am not aware of the situation in his riding and perhaps he could enlighten us about that in his response.
I believe it is generally recognized among those who have studied the situation that the present system is not working. It is not working for the Indian people of Canada and it is not working for the Canadian taxpayer.
In the last Parliament, there was a special committee of the House which studied the whole question. It brought forward the report on Indian self-government with some major recommendations, urging that Canada recognize First Nations governments and that we make the resources available to them to act as governments. In fact, the right to govern themselves has always existed. Has the Member had a chance to consider some of the needs of the Indian people in light of Indian self-government and would he be in favour of that proposal, willing to support it and work for it?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I have four reservations in my riding and I am quite conversant with native problems. I happen to have served here for a short time during 1979-1980 and I served on the Standing Committee for Indian Affairs and Northern Development in order to make myself more conversant with those problems. I happen to support wholeheartedly the initiative of more self-government for the native people when they are ready. I think a great number of native people themselves will admit that there are large sectors of the native population which are not at this point in our history ready to assume full self-government.
I come from an area where the native people are more advanced than in many other areas. We have reasonably high employment on our reservations compared to that in other parts of the country. These people are good citizens. My understanding of the problem nation-wide is that there are a great many areas in Canada where the band councils and the people who are governing reservations are not by their own admission ready to take over full self-government.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his answer. But I think the crux of his answer was the question of readiness on the part of Indian people to govern themselves. The testimony we as a committee heard time and time again was that the native people have never given up the right to govern themselves. The presence of a colonial type of administration in the Department of Indian Affairs has impeded the right and ability of the Indian people to govern themselves. What they want is for us to get off their backs so that they can do that.
The Address-Mr. Fraleigh
Does the Hon. Member not believe that the best people to decide when they are ready to govern would be the Indian people themselves? They are the ones who can best determine their Fitness for self-government.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had addressed the question. I said that the areas in my region were ready. By the native peoples' own admission there are a great many areas where they themselves do not feel they have the infrastructure and the knowledge to take on full self-government. I could not agree with you more that the present system is not working. It has never worked. We have tried a multitude of band-aid solutions. None of them have worked. I do not profess to have the answers. This is a major problem. I would suggest to you, Sir, that for us, as a government, simply to walk away from the native people and say, "There you go. You look after yourselves. Govern yourselves and do all the things that we have been doing for you," would create chaos in the native community.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a question and a short comment, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to welcome the Hon. Member back to the House. He said he was here between 1979 and 1980. He mentioned that we should be out there on the streets listening to what people are saying so that we understand. I think I know what people are saying. I think they want a lot of changes. They listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who made a lot of promises and who made a lot of commitments. Their expectations are very high.
I was here in 1968 when another Prime Minister also caught the imagination of the Canadian people. He made a lot of changes. He made a lot of commitments. He promised participatory democracy and he promised a new vision of a new society. It will be very dangerous if this Prime Minister follows the lead of the former one and does not fulfil those expectations.
We have now heard a Speech from the Throne and we have had an economic statement. A lot of commitments were made. I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was right when he said there were 330-odd promises. There might be that many but I am not sure. A lot of commitments that were made have not been delivered in the Speech from the Throne, nor have they been delivered in the economic statement. Why has this not happened? Is this not a dangerous thing in terms of people getting very cynical about the process? I will give you one example, Mr. Speaker, and then I will sit down. In my own province, commitments were made to fund farmers in northeast Saskatchewan, to freeze freight rates and to improve farm stabilization programs. All kinds of other commitments were made to farmers. So far there has been no delivery except for a study on the capital gains tax. I find that kind of thing very dangerous. I would like to know what the Hon. Member's feelings are.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will follow the example set by the previous one. There is nothing more sure than that.

November 13, 1984
The Address-Mr. Fraleigh


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: As to the expectations of the people, I would have to agree with the Hon. Member. They are great. We happen to have been in power for two months and I, Sir, do not know what the Hon. Member expects in that short period of time. We made some promises, a fair number of them.


Pauline Jewett: A couple of hundred.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: They were all made on the assumption that they would be done in a good financial framework-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I am afraid the ten-minute period allotted for questions and comments has expired.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The House has no problem calling it six o'clock, I presume?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member could start her remarks. There are still three minutes remaining.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I understand the dilemma of the Government House Leader and I think I understand the dilemma of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam. (Ms. Jewett). Perhaps the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) would like to finish his comments by unanimous consent. Does that solve the problem?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Lamb-ton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) for one or two more minutes.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to my remarks and to point out that when we as a Party and our leader made some commitments to the people of Canada, they were done on the basis that they would be done within a good, sound fiscal framework. That is what we intend to do. The people of Canada do not expect us in two months to turn the economy around. I want to assure Hon. Members of that.
Some Members of the New Democratic Party say they were on the street this weekend. From what I heard on the streets in my riding I find what they said hard to believe. 1 did not have one negative response or negative remark about the economic statement of the Minister of Finance. That is the truth. I spent a fair amount of time this past weekend in my riding. If people to whom 1 was talking did not offer comments to me, I would ask them questions.
My riding is made up of small businessmen and farmers. They are hurting as much as anyone else in this country. They realize that everybody is going to have to bite the bullet. It is something that Hon. Members in the Opposition have not yet
realized. To renew prosperity in this country we must have economic growth.


Pauline Jewett: Like in B.C.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: To get economic growth, we have to restore investor confidence. The only way we can restore economic confidence is to run the government in a business-like manner.


Pauline Jewett: Like B.C.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: I am getting a fair number of comments, and if I have done my duty-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has done his duty.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on November 8, I posed a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) concerning coal development in the constituency I represent in this Parliament. I specifically asked the Minister for certain undertakings, but unfortunately he was not either prepared or willing to give me an undertaking in that regard. For the benefit of the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, I should like to give a brief chronology of events.
As the House may or may not know, a fire destroyed Number 26 colliery in Glace Bay, taking the life of one individual and placing 1,200 workers on the unemployment roll. Subsequent to that my government announced coal developments in excess of $300 million. In that announcement on May 25, 1984, specific comments were directed toward a new validation report for the new Number 26 colliery.
Since that time United Mine Workers of America placed a proposal before the Cape Breton Development Corporation. That proposal is known as the IB colliery. They are seeking large sums of money from the Government of Canada to open the IB colliery. I asked the Minister responsible if he could provide some details, because shortly before the provincial election the regional minister, the member from Central Nova, announced that there would be some moneys toward the IB colliery. We heard from the Minister in this House that it would be 100 jobs for 10 weeks. That is not sufficient. In fact, it was alleged in the news media that it would be 200 perma-
November 13, 1984

nent jobs. Now we find out after my questioning in the House that it will be 100 jobs for 10 weeks. The details of the press release did not indicate in any way how much the Government of Canada was prepared to allot to the IB colliery. It did not make any mention of the number of jobs or the duration of those jobs.
I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary so that he will understand that economic conditions in that part of Canada are pretty devastating. It has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country. Now that the main industry in that community has been put on the back burner, with 1,200 men unemployed, the situation is a very serious one. I wish to remind the House that they do not want 10-week jobs; they want permanent ones. I believe there is a responsibility on the part of the Government to provide the necessary moneys.
In putting my questions and concerns to the Parliamentary Secretary, I wish to remind him that there is a strategy for coal development at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. If the IB colliery as submitted by the United Mine Workers of America is not a feasible operation, meaning that it is not safe to proceed with that colliery, they ought to proceed with the new Number 26 colliery. Studies are already in place, consultants have been retained, and that information is readily available. A new Number 26 colliery would not come into place for two, three or perhaps four years.
What about the interim? As I have said in the House, interim measures ought to be put in place forthwith. They ought to have a pre-retirement plan for miners who are 55 years of age or over. It should be something similar to that contained in the Labour Adjustment Program. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) compaigned in August, he said that the coal and steel industries in Cape Breton were the soul of Cape Breton. He also said that a Tory Government, under his jurisdiction, would see the two industries through thick and through thin.
The situation is crucial, Mr. Speaker. We need a firm commitment for new coal developments in the Town of Glace Bay. We need interim measures and long-lasting measures as well. We need a pre-retirement plan for the coal miners. In addition to the pre-retirement plan, the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Government of Nova Scotia, ought to conclude a subsidiary agreement for all of Cape Breton in order to put those miners and other unemployed individuals to work. Many programs dealing with infrastructure like water and sewer could be tackled as an interim measure.
I suggest very strongly that the Government of Canada must provide the leadership. It cannot sweep this one under the carpet. It has jurisdiction and responsibility for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It must provide the money and it must provide it forthwith.
Adjournment Debate


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I would like to take this opportunity, that of my first reply as Parliamentary Secretary, to congratulate you on your appointment and also to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister for allowing me to accede to this position. I also wish to give all Members of this House the assurance that I shall answer their questions to the best of my ability.
The questions asked by the Hon. Member actually go far beyond the issue raised by the fire in the mine in Cape Breton. [English]
On April 5, 1984, Number 26 colliery was lost by fire. The fire came from within the mine and one man, Mr. Ronald MacDonald, lost his life. We are all well aware of that. The colliery employed 1,200 employees and was the principal industry within the Town of Glace Bay. It was a sad day for all concerned; for the employees, the town and the corporation. The community's loss and the loss to the employees is so obvious it need not be stated. However, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the corporation has lost as well. It lost its major source of metallurgical coal and millions of dollars worth of machinery, equipment and tools. This loss is in the neighbourhood of $25 million.
1 would also like to remind the Hon. Member that the effects of the fire have not gone unnoticed. The corporation made available $150,000 to clean up the roadway leading to the top of Number 7 deep. Number 7 deep leads down to IB colliery which was closed by the predecessor company on June 30, 1955. Our Government has made available $1.7 million for the sealing of Number 26 colliery and the arching of the same roadway so as to permit safe passage. The closing of Number 26 colliery at the same time is also a required safety measure.
Subject to the physical constraints of the area, it is intended that at least 140 employees will be recalled for a 10-week period to arch the roadway. In the interim, the feasibility study on the reopening of 1B colliery is under active consideration. The decision to reopen IB must take into consideration not only the current circumstances in Glace Bay but, as well, the market for such coal, the cost of mining, the capital cost of reopening the mine and the return on the capital invested. There is no doubt that this study requires time. However, it is the intention of the acting president to inform the Minister of the results of the study sometime within the next month. The latest news is that, as of today, 130 persons have been recalled to work on the roadways leading to IB colliery.


NATIONAL REVENUE-DISCONTINUANCE OF ADVANCE TAX RULINGS IN CASE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS. (B) EFFECT ON ALGOMA STEEL
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question of November 9 was addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I asked him why the Government was discontinuing the practice of advance rulings by the Department of National Revenue with respect to the tax implications of joint ventures

November 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate
and limited partnerships. The decision taken by the Department of National Revenue was holding up a very important project in my riding. In any event, it seems to me that this whole procedure of not providing advanced rulings for limited partnerships and tax implications of that mechanism is bad. Surely the Government should be providing certainty for the private sector. It should be providing a stable position for investment, as well as certainty and confidence to the private sector. The decision to stop giving these advance rulings is simply adding to the uncertainty of the private sector in making new joint ventures.
I am especially concerned in this case because it involves Algoma Steel. In Sault Ste. Marie there are about 20,000 constituents, within the city itself, and another 10,000 or 12,000 constituents in the surrounding area who depend on this industry as the main economic activity. Two and a half years ago Algoma Steel discontinued the construction of a $300 million tube mill to make a new seamless tube which would be saleable in Canada, the United States and other countries. This tube is now available only from Japan and a few other countries.
During the course of the summer months Algoma Steel decided that it would proceed, using a tax credit transfer, or a capital cost allowance transfer, as a limited partnership with some other company. Representations were made to the Department of Finance and a meeting was held in September at which a proposal was given to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) by the company. Two weeks later the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) said that they would not give advance rulings. Of course, when that happened, the whole opportunity to proceed with the completion of the tube mill was totally thrown into limbo, as were other projects across the country.
In his reply, the Minister of Finance said that they were reviewing the situation. If and when a decision is made, or whether any decision will ever be made, really puts the completion of this massive plant into jeopardy. We must look at it in terms of the 3,000 or 4,000 people who have been laid off by the company. Unemployment lists are up from 5,000 some three years ago to 11,000 at the present time. The giving of an advance ruling on a limited partnership could ensure the completion of the Algoma Steel Company's tube mill. It would create 250 to 300 jobs in the construction phase and as many as 700 jobs in the actual operation of the tube mill-not just in the tube mill, but in producing the additional steel by the company.
I would urge the Minister, the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to stop this procrastination and to make a
decision which will allow this important economic development project to go ahead at Algoma Steel.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to clarify several points that were raised by the Hon. Member of the Opposition in his questions addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last Friday.
In the first place, it is absolutely necessary to correct the very serious and very inaccurate statements made by the Hon. Member that this Government has discontinued the practice of advanced tax rulings. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to support fully this essential component of our tax system. We feel that providing advanced tax rulings is essential-in order to obtain further clarification and thus help Parliament in adopting certain tax provisions for individuals who wish to obtain such an opinion before taking measures that might prove to be costly.
Issuing advance rulings in the specific case of limited partnerships and joint ventures, however, has been curtailed for good reason. Both the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) viewed the impact of recent decisions as a severe test of Parliament's original intent in approving the flow-through provisions of the tax. Some were also found to test the limits of the federal treasury's ability to finance all eligible applicants.
In no longer issuing advance rulings in the case of limited partnerships, and joint venture in the circumstances outlined in the speech of the Minister of Finance on October 24, 1984, the Government has safeguarded the principle that its scarce financial resources be applied in the manner Parliament intended. Furthermore, there is a sincere and justified concern on the part of the Government that advance rulings be used to enhance real investment and not necessarily to purely tax-motivated transactions.
With reference to specific tax cases raised by the Hon. Member on Friday last, I am not permitted by the provisions of the Income Tax Act to disclose any details of a taxpayer's file.
For all of these reasons, the Hon. Member will surely support the Government's initiative in applying the policy as announced by the Minister of Finance on October 24, 1984. In addition, he may wish to take particular heed of the fact that a
November 13, 1984

broad review of government economic programs is being adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to undertaken.	Standing Order 2( 1).


Mr. Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands
At 6.20 p.m. the House adjourned.

Wednesday, November 14, 1984