1984-11-09

REMEMBRANCE DAY


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the House Order adopted yesterday, I recognize the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees).


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege as Minister of Veterans Affairs to remind all Hon. Members that next Sunday is Remembrance Day. This year we have been forcefully reminded of just how much we owe to those who served Canada in war. Last June, millions around the world looked back 40 years and recalled the D-Day landings. The role of our three services in that magnificent undertaking won further honour for our country.
Other nations have shown their appreciation for Canadian servicemen and women this year. Members of the first Special Service Force, that unique unit made up of Canadian and American soldiers, were again hailed as heroes at a special ceremony commemorating the liberation of Rome. Other Canadians went back to Belgium to be greeted and applauded as the men who had restored freedom to that country 40 years ago.
Whether Canadians gather at the National War Memorial or before a village cenotaph, they will also be remembering all those who never got to know the final outcome, the 110,000 Canadians who lost their lives in the two World Wars and in Korea. As a nation, we can only offer them our thankful prayers. However, for the 700,000 veterans living in Canada today, and for the widows and dependants of those who died, we can demonstrate that our gratitude goes beyond words.
Many returned home from the wars to face a lifetime of pain or inconvenience. Widows and orphans were left to cope with a lonely future. Even today the rigours of wartime service are only just catching up to veterans in their advancing years. It is impossible to put a price on these legacies of war, but we can all agree that veterans have earned the right to be treated graciously and generously by the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Particularly as they get on in years, our veterans are entitled to prompt and courteous service. Men and women who, in their youth, were expected to obey without question, should not now have to struggle against the "ifs", "but's", "although's" and "notwithstanding's" of officialdom. In all
their dealings with my Department, veterans will receive the benefit of any doubt.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I know members of all Parties in this House share these sentiments. The men and women we will be saluting on Remembrance Day unsparingly volunteered themselves when Canada was in danger. In return we must regard them as a very special group worthy of our unsparing attention each day of every year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, as spokesman for the Official Opposition, I too wish to pay tribute to those whose memory we shall be honouring next Sunday.
Once again, across this country, Canadians will be asked to pause for a moment and remember the sacrifices made by generations of young Canadians who shed their blood and gave their lives in the defence of freedom, in two World Wars and the Korean War.
Time goes by and in passing, has marked the faces of those who survived those battles. The ages of those who died are marked for all time on gravestones in military cemeteries in France, Holland, Italy, Great Britain, Hong Kong or beneath the timeless waves.
Since the end of the Korean War in 1953, Canada has become a nation of peace. The concerns of Canadians have been directed towards peace, employment and growth. For many of those who gave their lives, the service was their first job. The promise of youth was snuffed out in the mud of Flanders, the rugged mountains of Italy, in Holland's flooded fields and in the waters of the North Atlantic. In death they have become a part of our history, for all time.
On each Remembrance Day, we attempt to find words that will give meaning to the supreme sacrifice made by Canadians in defence of freedom. We live in a free country, where the equality of all Canadians has never been questioned. We live in a country where Canadians are free to pursue their goals as they see fit. That is the true meaning of their sacrifice. [English]
The war memorials in the cities and towns of Canada, the wreaths placed upon them on Remembrance Day, and the minute's silence serve as reminders of the cost paid in full by the young men and women of Canada who answered freedom's

November 9, 1984
Remembrance Day
call. That our nation itself is still open and is still seen as a land of opportunity is a lasting monument to their sacrifice.
[DOT] (mo)
Every year, fewer and fewer Canadians can recall from personal experience the deeds of 1914-18. Time has also begun to thin the ranks of 1939-45. They represent two generations of Canadians who defined Canada's nationhood with their valour and their blood.
Lord Byng, who commanded Canadian forces at Vimy Ridge in 1917, said that out of that battle "was forged a nation tempered by fire".
Out of the fire of the Second World War emerged a Canada able and ready to take its place as an equal among the independent nations of the world. And from the cataclysm of 1939 to 1945, came a Canada dedicated to peace.

The tragedies of war have created a firm commitment among all Canadians to peace and justice, for the people of this country and for all mankind. There comes a time when we must be prepared to defend our principles with our lives. Canadians have made this commitment in all parts of the world.
Mr. Speaker, when we pause for a moment of silence Sunday, let us promise to emulate their dedication to this country. That is the very least we owe them.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to join with my two colleagues, and Members on all sides of the House, to remind all Canadians that Sunday, November 11, is Remembrance Day.
Sunday will mark the sixty-sixth anniversary of the ceasefire in the First World War. I suggest that the House pause a moment to reflect on the sacrifices made by Canadian men and women in that holocaust, in the Second World War, and in the Korean War. Our feeling for them is deep and it is everlasting.
More than 100,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and women served together and died for the ultimate goal, the goal of preserving our democracy and our country.
In these days, when many Canadians are concerned about the unity of our country, it is well to remind ourselves of those who gave their lives for its survival. These men and women fought, not for personal gain nor for glory or conquest. They fought for their homeland; this was their love. Duty was their creed. Truly they are Canada's unforgotten.
I would like to remind Hon. Members of the reference engraved on the Memorial Arch which connects the Veterans Memorial Buildings here in Ottawa. It reads: "All these were honoured in their generations and were the glory of their times". As Canadians we have a special obligation to perpetuate the memory of those who gave their lives for Canada. Let us in our time and in our way be worthy of them.
Before I conclude my remarks I would like to read something which was sent to my office a few days ago. It is entitled "A Prayer for Today", and was found among the effects of a Canadian infantry sergeant who perished outside Ortona, Italy, on a day in December, 1943. It reads:
Today a bird sang for me. Today I leaned against the strong trunk of a living tree ... So, I am not alone. When I get back to Canada I'll remember this. I will cherish all of life, for all life is really one. I will never again be a destroyer ... This is my dream, that we will learn to live in harmony, not between man alone, but with the whole living world.
Let us, the living, keep the faith of this Canadian sergeant so that the incentive of this day may speed us onward and toward a better world of peace, freedom, and justice.
Our purpose is not to glorify war, nor was it the purpose of those who died in war. This is also a moment when we should give thought to thousands of our fellow beings whose lives are ones of intense suffering. They look to us in the developed world for assistance and relief. We have a responsibility to do everything in our power to ensure that those who went forward in the fight for peace did indeed fight the war to end all wars. Let us remember them.


Mr. Speaker:: In the tradition of the House, I ask Hon. Members and those persons in the galleries to join us in a minute of silence, in remembrance.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence.]



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, during the recent election campaign the Prime Minister promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) alluded last night to the fact that his Government would attempt to be compassionate. But what do we have, Mr. Speaker, except "cuts, cuts, cuts"? This budget was conceived probably in Washington and Bay Street, and directly affects the poor regions of Canada, in particular the cuts as they relate to the Petroleum Incentives Program-$250 million.
The Minister of Finance laughs, but the Canadian people are not laughing as a result of those cuts. The Canada Student Summer Employment Program had an $85 million cut; RRAP was reduced by $29 million; DRIE has a reduction in excess of $175 million. Small businesses in Atlantic Canada, western Canada, and parts of Quebec, have had another cut-back. During the recent federal election campaign the Tories promised that they would reintroduce VIA Rail runs. What hap-
November 9, 1984

pened there? A reduction of $93 million! Employment assistance and entitlement had a reduction of $200 million. With respect to national defence, another great Tory promise, there is a reduction of $154 million.
What about the general industrial training program? It had a $40 million cut. The young workers exchange program had another $3 million cut. The forestry research project in Newfoundland is cancelled for Corner Brook. The health and welfare office for Sydney is cancelled. The office building in Halifax is cancelled.
There is no compassion in this Government. There is no compassion in this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and in this Minister of Finance. It is Reagan economics. The Canadian people have been betrayed, and the Government will feel the wrath of the Canadian people as it moves forward in its mandate, because we will challenge it, Mr. Speaker, at every opportunity.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I represent the County of Perth, a county that within its boundaries demonstrates everything good in Canadian agriculture. We produce more pork than any other county in Ontario. We are second only to Oxford in milk production. We have a large feather industry. We grow small grains, beans, corn, and fruit, on land which is very productive.
We have a moderate climate where crop failure is rare. Our people are family farmers, hard working and industrious, but I must report, Mr. Speaker, that many farmers in Perth are in trouble. They have not been ravaged by droughts, insects or disease; they have been ravaged by inflation, which the Liberal Government brought upon us, which caused them to over invest in order to protect their livelihood. They have been ravaged by interest rates which are a reflection of our deficit rather than the earning value of our dollar. They have been ravaged by low farm commodity prices and falling farm values. They have been victims of government policies and this cannot continue.
I want to tell my colleagues that farmers in Canada are becoming desperate and need assistance. The move by the Farm Credit Corporation to stall foreclosure is a welcome relief but does not solve the problems. Farmers are a tough breed, but they have been trampled on-


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



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government campaigned, it promised jobs, jobs, jobs. It promised hundreds of thousands of jobs overnight, and a new, bright future for Canadians. Now that it is ensconced with a bloated majority, it delivers not jobs but cuts, cuts, cuts.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy:: Is there an echo in here?


Cyril Keeper: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as one example-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Members are normally entitled to make their statements without a great deal of interruption.


Cyril Keeper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just pointing out that one area for cuts which the Government is making, in the neighbourhood of $277 million, is that of public works. We usually increase spending on public works at a time of high unemployment.
In order to understand what the Government calls savings, we need to know several things. We need to know how many jobs have been lost through these cuts, jobs in building these projects, and jobs in the private sector activity which has lost support. What are the increased costs of deferring these projects? If we have to build these projects in two, three, four or five years, how much more is it going to cost the taxpayer then? We need to know from the Government quite explicitly whether any of these projects will be needed in the future. I can think of one project in Winnipeg having to do with the export of new technology-


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



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, through you I appeal to all Members in this place for immediate action on Canada's greatest environmental malady. The horrors of acid precipitation are too familiar to most Canadians. The Government of Canada has been delinquent in pursuing concrete measures for acid rain abatement. I hereby advocate the reconstitution by Parliament of the subcommittee on acid rain which officially fulfilled its mandate in June of this year. The subcommittee is gone, but the problem is not.
As the Member of Parliament in an area suffering greatly from the ravages of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, I make this appeal on behalf of my constituents, and in the interest of areas like mine. During the past four years of investigation, the subcommittee on acid rain presented over 50 recommendations to improve the environment. I fear those

November 9, 1984
recommendations will fade into a polluted sunset if the subcommittee is not reconstituted to follow them through.
Action here at home, and negotiations with the United States, are crucial to the uncertain future of many regions affected in Canada. By way of illustration, North American smokestacks and exhaust pipes produce enough S02 and NOx to fill a freight train spanning the distance from Vancouver to London, England, each year. Can we turn our backs on that?



THE ECONOMY


Mr. John V. Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, never before in the course of Canadian history has a Government issued an economic statement that was so unabashedly regressive. This is Government for the rich, by the rich, and of the rich. In one fell swoop the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has torn away the facade of concern professed by the Conservative Party for the less fortunate in Canadian society. It also makes an absolute mockery of the syrupy promises the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made during the election campaign.
This Jekyll and Hyde manoeuvre will not go unnoticed by the Canadian nation. It is a tragedy of the first order because, behind all the numbers, Mr. Speaker, are people, average Canadians from coast to coast. The cuts will mean that 126,000 Canadians will be left high and dry in federal job and training programs. Untold thousands of unemployed will face reduced benefits, and 50,000 will no longer receive benefit cheques at all.
Programs for youth and students have been cut to ribbons. Eighty thousand summer jobs for students were wiped out. The slashing of one industrial training program alone will mean that 43,000 individuals, mostly young people will have had their hopes dashed as far as improving their job skills and future employment prospects are concerned. Amazingly, Mr. Speaker, we are told that these are just the first steps, there is more to come and "you ain't seen nothing yet".
Our Party will fight the Minister of Finance every step of the way on his Draconian measures. Liberals have always stood up for the underprivileged in our society. We have stood up for labour, the elderly, youth, and the handicapped, and we are not about to give up now.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, last year the Public Accounts Committee considered the observations by the Auditor General on the financial statements of the Government of Canada. The House will note that the Auditor General, in his report on the financial statement dated March 31, 1983, qualified his report with four reservations due to government accounting practices. It was his opinion that the stated accounting policies of the Liberal Government of the day were inappropriate for a fair presentation of the accounts of the Government of Canada.
In its first report dated March 13, 1984, the Public Accounts Committee urged both parties to settle their differences in order that the Canadian people could have proper confidence in the Government's financial statements. Last evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated:
In order to provide a clear picture of the country's finances, I am announcing tonight that the Government is prepared to implement most of the suggestions made by the Auditor General.
The House welcomes the statement of the Minister of Finance and his efforts to provide the people of Canada with true and accurate accounting information.



CULTURAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, during the recent election campaign the Conservative Party, in response to questions from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, stated:
We are committed to real growth and federal contributions to the cultural sector.... to maintaining federal funding for the agencies and councils in line with inflation-
Despite that promise, last night the Conservative Government announced a $75 million cut for the CBC and a $3.5 million cut for the Canada Council, the very agencies that the Conservative Party promised it would not attack. Both of these organizations are crucial to the development of culture in our country; both have been the pillars of Canadian cultural initiatives.
It is presently very unclear what will be sacrificed and how many jobs will be involved as a result of these cut-backs. The Minister should tell us whether Canadian TV production will be reduced-only the CBC does such production-whether minority language services will be cut, or whether there will perhaps be additional reductions in regional production facilities. Will the Canada Council be forced to cut funding to such cultural events as the Stratford Festival, or its already small grants to individual artists and writers?
The Government has reneged on its promises and broken its word. We ask the Minister to convene immediately the Standing Committee of the House on Communications to answer some direct questions on these cuts-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
November 9, 1984



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of national and even international significance.

As someone who worked during the last four years at the prestigious and objective Conference Board of Canada, I continuously had to live with the traumas of their accurate doom and gloom scenarios of our national economy. This morning I have already had a number of telephone calls from corporate and personal contacts that I developed during my years at the Board, from Ottawa-Carleton and from all across Canada. The consensus is that our new course of fiscal responsibility to planned prosperity is the right one.
As a member of what is now being called the southeast Conservative Caucus in the House, or the left rump, by some Hon. Members, I am proud to have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) as one of my constituents here in Ottawa. I look forward to teaming with him to deliver his so-called backhand with athletic vigour.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MARC GARNEAU, FIRST CANADIAN ASTRONAUT

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to Oral Question Period may I call to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished Canadian, our first astronaut, Mr. Marc Garneau, and his family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, last night in the House we were finally shown the true intentions of the Government. Last night, for the first time, we were finally allowed to see the Tory right-wing hidden agenda.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister talked about "jobs, jobs, jobs"-
Oral Questions

-jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs.

It is evident from last night's mini budget that there will be a significant loss of jobs as a result of cuts to various programs, particularly in the Atlantic Provinces, Quebec, northern Ontario, and parts of western Canada.
Did the Prime Minister consult his Minister of Finance and see a forecast given to him by his Minister of Finance before last night's statement or, more properly, budget, as to what the effect would be in terms of the net job loss in the various regions across the country? If so, would he be good enough to reveal those numbers to the House of Commons?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the most recent numbers on employment came out this morning. Unemployment has dropped by half of a percentage point. Thirty-four thousand new jobs have been created since the new Government was sworn in.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would agree with me-because it is consistent with what he has said very clearly and believed in for many years- that the only way that new and durable jobs can be created is through the genius of the private sector. We are committed to doing that by positive, active, government policy.


John Napier Turner: The unemployment figures, while slightly encouraging, are still higher than they were when the right hon. gentleman took office. Any improvement seems to have been concentrated largely in Ontario and not in those areas of the country which are brutally affected by last night's budget.


REVIEW OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said on several occasions that our social programs are, to use his words, "a sacred trust" not to be tampered with. In light of the proposed review of assistance to the elderly, for the children of the country, for the unemployed, for housing, and for lower income Canadians, as mentioned on page 8 of the economic statement and page 71 of the document entitled "A New Direction for Canada", will the Prime Minister now reveal the total hidden agenda to dismantle the social programs of this country as part of what the Minister of Finance calls, in language fairly reminiscent of the West Coast, the "new realities"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, the only dismantling and radical change of social programs about which I have heard in the last year really came from the present opposition finance critic when he was seeking the leadership of his Party and proposed their abolition for a negative income tax across the country. That was a major departure.

November 9, 1984
Oral Questions
For my part and that of the Government, we remain committed to the view that universality is a fundamental key to our social development. Given the process of consultation, we are ready to examine with unions, and groups who care for the poor and disadvantaged, the proper utilization and targeting of public funds.
It seems that if one is to enter a process of consultation it is legitimate to ask how best we can use public funds on behalf of those who need them most. That is what we are trying to do in a reasonable way. This in no way jeopardizes the principle that we have referred to, but it opens the door to legitimate considerations from a number of groups designed to help those in Canada who need it most. That is what we are trying to do.


John Napier Turner: Those were not the words that the right hon. gentleman used during the election campaign.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would he undertake to appear with his senior officials before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs as soon as it can be constituted, so that he can explain to Parliament and, through us, to the country, how the economic and budgetary forecasts of that Department could alter the projected deficit for the next fiscal year-$37 billion as against $27-some billion forecast by Marc Lalonde, a difference of $9 billion-in a short period of nine months?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the question is yes. However, I would ask the Right Hon. Member if he would also agree that the mess, as he described it, with which he was presented after he became Prime Minister, should also be made public to the people of Canada so that they would know exactly what the Right Hon. Member was withholding from Canadians during the course of the election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVATE SECTOR
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I made part of that available last night-a 2.6 per cent rate of inflation from July to September. I suppose that that is part of the mess to which the Right Hon. Member refers.
Last night the Minister provided us again with a first class example of saying one thing and doing something else. I heard the Prime Minister say in a press conference a few moments ago: "We are not going to throw money at problems". This comes on the heels of throwing $15 million into Petromont, which I mentioned last night.
The Minister of Finance said that there must be certainty and taxpayers need to know where they stand. At the same time he withholds advance rulings, destabilizing some major economic players in the economy. That is what we have seen.
We were told-again this is the rhetoric-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Hon. Member knows that he has the right to say something at this point but he should then proceed to a question, please.


Donald James Johnston: We are told that jobs will be re-energized by the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Donald James Johnston: Last night the Minister of Finance put $702 million of additional costs in the private sector. I ask the Minister to show us where, in that budget of last night or in any of his supporting documentation, the private sector is to be re-energized and jobs are to be created?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member and his Leader would read their own speeches during the course of the last six months, I think it would be quite clear in their minds that the way we can get private sector job creation going is by injecting a greater degree of confidence into the system.
We have said that one of the key steps that must be taken is to reduce the size of the deficit because, in the words of both those Members, that is one of the key reasons why business confidence and consumer confidence are down. We believe that, if we do that, there will be a very, very clear link between deficit reduction on the one hand and job creation on the other.
I cannot give the Hon. Member the exact figures he wants. It is much easier to come up with the precise figures on individual spending cuts. But I am convinced that over time there will be a substantial increase in job creation by the private sector because of the very positive response that is arising from my statement of last night, on the part of the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if our Minister of Finance is so sure of himself, why do his economic projections show an unemployment rate of nearly 9 per cent until the end of this decade? There is a
November 9, 1984

flagrant discrepancy between his statement and what we find in the documentation. Can he explain that to the House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has said that at the end of the decade, according to my projections, there would be a level of unemployment of 9 per cent.


Donald James Johnston: You said it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I believe the figure was 7 per cent. That 9 is the average from 1986 to 1990. But if the Hon. Member reads carefully, he will see that at the end of the decade it would be 7 per cent. I will take him through the book later, if he wishes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What I am saying is that those projections were made on the basis that no changes, no changes in policy were made. We set out the first start to the changes that we propose to make that will re-energize the private sector and if those changes are made, and if Members opposite would co-operate in generating those changes that we will be bringing forward over the next few months, then I am convinced that that level of 7 per cent at the end of the decade will be significantly lower.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister flows immediately from what was just said by the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister promised in the campaign to produce jobs, jobs, jobs, just as we have been saying on this side of the House. Last night the Minister produced a program that gave Canadians tax increases and cut-backs which will destroy thousands of jobs.
The forecasts that were made in the budget documents for the coming year included assumptions about the interest rate situation, assumptions about what would happen in the American economy, but strangely enough did not include the effects of the program that was announced last night. I assume the program was run through the economic model of the Department of Finance. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this program was run through that model? Will he confirm also that it showed it would destroy thousands of jobs, that the effect of this program would be a net increase in unemployment? Finally, as a man who promised open government, will he produce those figures for the House of Commons?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Leader of the N.D.P. knows, models never can quantify consumer confidence or investment intentions.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: That is not the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The signal sent out last night is a most important precondition to economic renewal in this country. I think that it is not unfair to say that the premise, as articulated by the Hon. Member, is inaccurate.


Mr. Deans:: Inaccurate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The premise of the Hon. Member's question presupposed that this program would result in the destruction of thousands of jobs. The program as set out by the Minister of Finance last night lays the groundwork, the essential groundwork, for correcting a malady that we were left with, and lays the groundwork for economic reconstruction on a durable base that will produce the thousands and thousands of jobs we need.


Ian Deans: It is a dream.	*


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, for three days in a row in this House the Prime Minister has continued to act like a campaigning politician instead of like a Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: He has not answered a question straight yet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore, I will switch to the Minister of Finance and put the question directly to him.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE FIGURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns his Department. Will he confirm that the effects of the program he announced last night were indeed run through the econometric model of his Department and that the employment effects shown by his own officials show there will be an increase in unemployment as a result of his program, not a decrease in unemployment? And if he confirms that, will the Minister give the House of Commons the figures?


Mr. Benjamin:: The short answer is yes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker. The short answer is no.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party is based on the wrong premise. He did not listen to the very clear answer of the Prime Minister.


John Edward Broadbent: I heard it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What the Prime Minister has said is that econometric models simply cannot measure the impact of confidence.


Ian Deans: Especially if they do not tell you what you want to hear.

November 9, 1984
Oral Questions


Ms. Mitchell:: Take a look at B.C.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If I could answer the question, Mr. Speaker, I might be able to shed some light on the matter.
When the Budget of 1981 was brought in, there was a clear impact on business confidence and consumer confidence at that time, and that was not measured by the models at that time, by any econometric models. That had the effect of a major downturn in business confidence and in the economy. The reverse, I am convinced, is going to happen as a result of the initiatives that we commenced last night, and that should be very apparent as time goes by, even to Members of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS-DEPARTMENT'S CALCULATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has been around for a while. He was in business before. He has been in the House. He knows the use and the misuse of economic models, as do I, but I want a factual answer from him, not guff. I say put aside the question of business confidence. He may be right about that, he may be wrong.
I am asking a very specific question. Did his officials run the data and the effects of them through their econometric model, that he produced in his program last night? Will the Minister give a straight answer to that? Did they or did they not? I find it extraordinary that they would not have done so. If they did, will he confirm that they show negative results in terms of unemployment and, I repeat, will he give us the data? Then we will see what happens after the so-called business confidence effect comes into being.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the data were run through.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Where are the numbers?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What was the result?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I say to all Canadians, that what we are doing here, in the statement last night and the agenda paper that was attached, is setting a clear, different road for Canadians to follow in economic policy. That different road is to say that we are going to have less reliance on government, more reliance on the private sector, and also rely less on the Government to solve all our problems.


John Edward Broadbent: Where is the data?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I want to say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party-if he could just move his mind
away for a minute from the fact that Governments are going to solve all our problems-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Away from the 1930s.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that they are not going to solve all our problems.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And if the Hon. Member would have some confidence in Canadians, the ordinary Canadians for whom he says he speaks-


John Edward Broadbent: Bay Street, yes. Go ahead.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -if he would have some confidence in those ordinary Canadians, he would have some confidence that there will be a far better economic future for them as the results of this program take place.


John Edward Broadbent: Where is the data? Give us the data.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT'S CALCULATIONS BE TABLED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have just had revealed in answers to the last series of questions incredible statements by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that they issued one of the most savage series of cuts on the Canadian people without knowing what the job impact would be across the nation. That is an incredible dereliction of responsibility. As responsible parliamentarians we have to ask them whether they are prepared to table in this House, for the sake of all Canadians in all parts of Canada who will be savaged by the budget, what the impacts will be of this statement? Will there be 60,000 jobs lost? Will there be 100,000 jobs lost, or 200,000 jobs lost? The only way this Parliament, which the Hon. Members here say they revere, can properly debate and examine that economic statement is if the Minister is prepared to fess up the facts. Will he do that and table them today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me draw something to the attention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. The savage cuts which the Hon. Member talked about represent about 4 per cent of the total spending of the Government of Canada. Surely those are not savage cuts. They are not Draconian. They are a reasonable start to getting control of the deficit, which is one of the major obstacles to economic activity and a major obstacle to economic growth and job creation. That is why the two are very clearly linked.
I say to him, as I said to the person across the row from him, that if he would have confidence in Canadians to get out from under this load of government, and have the flexibility to do the things that they can do and should be able to do, then the job creation that is going to flow from the statement that I made last night will even make his head spin.
November 9, 1984


CANCELLATION OF WINNIPEG RESEARCH CENTRE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that these are not Draconian measures. I would ask him, therefore, how he would describe a cut of S200 million in a program that provides for major opportunities in expansion and modernization for small business in the Atlantic provinces, in northern parts of Quebec and Ontario, and in western Canada. It may not be Draconian where he comes from, but in our regions it is very Draconian. Will he not admit that the cancellation of a major high-technology research centre in my own city, without consultation with business and labour, and which was designed to bring in small business and the high-technology industry, is a Draconian measure? It was to help a region of the country that has been treated as a hewer of wood, and that Party wants it to stay that way obviously. Is that not Draconian? Is he prepared to come to Winnipeg next week and show us how he is going to replace the loss of all those jobs and, in particular, the loss of those job opportunities?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will be in Winnipeg in about three weeks' time, so I will be happy to do that.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will set up a meeting for you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you very much. The Hon. Member mentioned two programs. One was the regional industrial expansion program. I am sure my colleague, the Minister, will be happy to discuss this. Let me just point out to the Hon. Member that that program is going to be scaled back and it will affect mainly the tier one category, not tier three and tier four, and very very marginally tier two. It will have a much less impact on those areas of the country which need this help the most.
Let me now comment on the research centre in Winnipeg, something that I know is very dear to the Member's heart because he spent a lot of time on it, related not in any small way to his election campaign. Let me say that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the National Research Council were both in favour of that. That is why it was cancelled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am forced to do this. I had to call a member of the Opposition to order a while ago for his length, and I must call the Minister of Finance to order for his length.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT'S FORECASTS BE RELEASED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to my earlier questions. It is directed to the Prime Minister. It has just been acknowledged by the Minister of Finance that his Department has run the effects of the Government's program through a computer, through its model, to get the results. The Prime Minister has preached jobs, jobs, jobs. When he was on this side of the House he castigated the Liberals for keeping back information. The Prime Minister said he wanted more open government. My question is pretty straightforward. We want to see the recovery
Oral Questions
the Minister is talking about. We also want to see the statistical hard data on what the implications are of the Government's program. Will the Prime Minister now live up to what he promised in the campaign with more open government? Will he give the House of Commons and, more important, the people of Canada, the results of the forecasts made by the Department of Finance, based on his statement last night?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, any program of governmental action clearly depends on the response that it provokes in society. It depends on the investment decisions that will be made nationally and internationally. That is the way jobs are created, based on those criteria. The reaction of overwhelming approval from those who invest money to create jobs is a very important consideration of confidence building. As the Minister has quite properly pointed out, that is the kind of information that cannot be factored into any analysis. We are satisfied, based on preliminary reactions from the business community, here and elsewhere, that the steps that have been taken are positive and will be most helpful to those who need the jobs. The statement yesterday was based principally on job creation. That is what this Government is all about, jobs and prosperity.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an unusual procedure. I recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa on a supplementary in his Party's time.


REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT'S STATISTICS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary. The Prime Minister knows that what he is indulging in now is a cover-up completely of the same kind we used to get from a man named Trudeau, exactly the same. It is hypocrisy. On this side of the House he preached open government. On that side of the House he is trying to cover up an unpleasant statistic. He knows the data that he has will show his program will lose between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs. Rather than admit it, he is trying to keep the truth from the people of this country. I ask a final time whether he will produce the information which his Department of Finance has and let all Canadians, business people, farmers, and the unemployed, pass their judgment on it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question has been thoroughly and honestly answered by the Minister of Finance and by myself.


PETRO-CANADA CALF-HIDE CHESTERFIELDS AND CHAIRS
Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was reported in the Calgary Herald that ten elephant-hide chesterfields were purchased by Petro-Canada for its executive offices. The cost quoted was from $8,000 to $15,000 each, a

November 9, 1984
Oral Questions
total expenditure in excess of $80,000. What a shameful waste of taxpayers' money, not to mention the loss of animals of an endangered species. If we are going to use the hides of an endangered species, we should use thick Liberal hides. Can the Minister confirm this newspaper report? Is the person responsible for this extravagance still in the employ-


Mr. Speaker:: The question is clear and has been asked. I think that is a decent length for a question.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice. I was able to speak to Petro-Canada officials and I established that they are not in fact elephant-hide chairs. There are two sofas and two chairs made of Canadian cow hide, manufactured in Toronto.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, during the past week we have heard an awful lot about consultations. This Government was going to consult with everybody about everything. Last night we had the most massive change in Canadian Government in many years, without any consultation whatsoever. My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In her Department alone there were cuts amounting to $432 million, mostly on the employment side. Can the Minister responsible for employment give us the exact figures on how many jobs will be lost, not only as a result of the cuts in her Department but as a result of all of the cuts? I know the Minister believes in open government. Let us have those figures.
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and members of Opposition Parties would like to ignore the fact that last night the Government announced a $1 billion fund for job creation and for human resource development.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to tell the Hon. Member that I will be using the time to work out with my provincial counterparts, and with the private sector, the way in which we together can put those jobs and that training into effect. I know that it will take a joint effort to do that. However, I would ask the Hon. Member and all Canadians to take that very positive point of view into consideration.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT-GOVERNMENT POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, what a shell game. The Minister has
talked about consulting with the private sector and the provinces on her new program. Why did she not consult with the private sector and with the many people who would be affected by those cuts beforehand, to see how the $432 million that was cut from her Department would have affected them? With respect to the $ 1 billion, I say that that is a shell game because the First Chance Program, which she cut after coming into office, provided for $1 billion for the next five years. She cut that program out and then brought in a $27 million program, not even near the amount that was there in the first place.
She completely cut out of the budget the general industrial training program and the Summer Canada program. Last night, the Government said it does not believe in direct-
Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


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


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, if the Government does not believe in direct job creation, would the Minister tell us exactly how the Government will create the jobs and provide the training that was lost through the cutting out of those two important programs?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Hon. Members are aware that we have just recently announced a $430 million direct job-creation program which has been detailed to all Members of the House.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have said that we will work very closely with the private sector in order to create new jobs. I cannot think of any way that this was better phrased than it was the other day, when it was stated:
We believe that the role of Government is to support and encourage private initiative and to provide the framework in which it can grow and create the thousands of jobs that we need.
That, Mr. Speaker, was said by the Leader of the Opposition. I thank him for endorsing our approach.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who has explained carefully, and on many occasions, that confidence cannot be measured in dollars and cents. There is something that can be measured in dollars and cents, and that is what will happen to all Canadians over the next couple of months and years while they pay a 12 per cent increase per gallon of gasoline, while they pay increased unemployment insurance premiums, while the regressive sales tax comes back into play, while they pay an increase in air travel tax, and while they pay
November 9, 1984

for the imposition of a whole host of user fees. The Government campaigned during the election saying it was going to get off the backs of the people of Canada. Through this set of measures, it has not only leaped back upon the backs of Canadians but it now has its hands in their pocketbooks as well.
Will the Minister of Finance explain why this priority has been changed? Will he explain why, rather than giving some breaks in order to provide purchasing power to the people of Canada, the Government has increased taxes for every single Canadian citizen?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the increases in both the petroleum compensation charge and the unemployment insurance premiums are charges that we are required to deal with under the terms of the rules set out for those particular programs. However, I would ask the Hon. Member to give consideration to, and read carefully, what was said last night.
The over-all reduction in the deficit is a prime obstacle to job creation. We must get that deficit down. If we are able to get that deficit down, it will more than offset the impact of the items to which he has referred. We do not like having to raise the petroleum compensation charge or the unemployment insurance premiums, but we do believe that if we get the deficit down it will create many, many more jobs than those to which the Hon. Member now refers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the spectre of Bill Bennett rises throughout the Commons today.


INCOME TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. During the Leaders' debate the Prime Minister promised the people of Canada that he would bring some degree of fairness to the system by imposing a minimum tax on those Canadians who, as a result of countless loopholes, were able to pay not a single cent in income tax year after year. That promise of fairness is now being put under study, is being reviewed and will be examined, meditated, and contemplated upon.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he has changed his mind about this promise, which was very strong during the Leaders' debate, and why he will now study it further, rather than take steps to implement it as soon as possible in order to raise the up to $400 million that would assist Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can give assurance to my hon. friend that that important matter which deals with the issue of equity and fairness in the
Oral Questions
tax system, something in which I think we all believe, will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance in his first Budget.


THE ECONOMY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my first question this morning, which was addressed to the right hon. gentleman, sought to seek the figures for the projected additional unemployment which will result from last night's mini budget presented by the Minister of Finance. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. If the figures do not exist, it would be absolutely irresponsible to bring that type of mini budget down without knowing the effects it would have on the people of Canada and on the weaker regions of the country. If, as the Prime Minister has suggested, as he did in his answer to the Hon. Member for Oshawa, that the data were run off, and if the Prime Minister believes in open government, he should tell the people of Canada and this Parliament the consequences of what happened here last night.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my right hon. friend is really raising a different issue and one that goes to the question of secrecy in government. I agree with his comments. If he were to be consistent, he would want to begin the process by releasing the secret letter that he signed in regard to some nominations made when he became Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can simply tell my right hon. friend that all of the working documents have been dealt with from time to time in the course of the preparation of budgets. We are satisfied, as I know he would be, that the response of the private sector and of the international and national investment sector is very critical to the ultimate results of any new economic initiatives. We believe, and I am satisfied that most Canadians believe, that this will result in the kind of job creation that we need.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of his commitment to greater certainty and to private investment, confidence, and a stable investment climate, why, two weeks ago, did he discontinue the practice of the Department of National Revenue whereby it would give advance rulings when corporate mergers were to take place and where advance rulings have been given in the past? Why have there been no advance

November 9, 1984
Oral Questions
rulings when companies like Algoma Steel and Tembec want to put together limited partnerships in order to create jobs? Why is the Minister creating this kind of uncertainty and blocking this kind of job-creation activity in our country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the limited partnership vehicle to which the Hon. Member refers concerns the use of a tax vehicle for a use which it was not originally intended. We wanted to take a close look at the impact, use, and long-term implications of that. That review is now ongoing and I would hope to be able to make some comments after the normal amount of consultation with the people who are affected, in order to give taxpayers a greater degree of certainty regarding this matter. I should underline the fact that this is the only area where the Department of National Revenue is not giving advance rulings. The whole matter of advance rulings, as the question seemed to imply, is not being withdrawn. It is only as it affects the limited partnerships.


EFFECT ON ALGOMA STEEL
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance aware that in the case of Algoma Steel this new policy will effectively block the completion of a $300 million tube mill project which would create approximately 700 permanent jobs? As well, is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister personally committed himself to that project during the election campaign? In a case such as this, where there will be substantial economic benefit to the community, is the Minister willing to make an exception and introduce a grandfather clause to this policy? Otherwise, it is a mean and cruel device for an industry such as Algoma Steel which has been suffering for the last two and a half years. It is a community which desperately needs jobs.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have met with officials from Algoma Steel as well as officials from Tembec. They have put forward representations to provide for some means of grandfathering the particular projects. We are now reviewing the situation, but at this point we do not have a decision. However, at some stage I hope to be able to let them know exactly where things stand.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what he means by universality. During the election he said: "Our position is simple and straight forward. We are in favour of universality in social programs and it shall not be touched". Now he is talking about a means test. He has already tightened up on social insurance, is cutting back on social housing, and has indicated that old age security and child benefits will be
studied. Did the Prime Minister mean what he promised? Are universal social programs a sacred trust of this Government, or will a means test be introduced, as the Prime Minister implied earlier today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the definition of our position is exactly what the Hon. Member has set out. We have absolutely no intention of introducing a means test. We view it exactly in the manner in which she has set out.
A legitimate question has frequently been raised by Members in this House, including Members on this side, regarding the fairness of someone who makes $500,000 a year receiving these kinds of benefits-could they not be added to the benefits of those who need them most in our society, the poor, the disadvantaged, and people on welfare. These are the people we are trying to help. It seems to me that it is a legitimate question to raise for discussion across the country. That is what we are trying to do in a fair and open way. I think the Hon. Member would encourage us in that view and in the pursuit of a more effective delivery of dollars to the people in our society who need them most.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLD AGE PENSIONS AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I think the women of Canada were right to ask: "Why should we believe you now"? If the Government needs to do a study, all it has to do is look at what has happened in British Columbia through cut-backs, restraint, and the kind of programs which his Ministers are proposing. I want to ask the Minister again-and let us see whether he is a hypocrite or not as he sounds-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Member proceed directly to the question, please?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians right now that there will be no change in universal old age pensions and family allowances? Yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: Withdraw.


An Hon. Member:: Which one is a hypocrite?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first, I hesitated in answering the question because I thought that the Hon. Member would want to withdraw that unfortunate reference-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 9, 1984


Martin Brian Mulroney: -secondly, because I could not believe that she was asking me the question inasmuch as I had just given her a very clear answer to the same question. Our position is clear. The reference to Canadian women is not unhelpful, because Canadian women voted for the Progressive Conservative Party in record numbers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Canadian women, like Canadian men, know that durable job creation can only come about by a renewed and re-energized economy, which requires co-operation, and examination of all the programs so that the people who need assistance, who need the benefits of this kind of a country- those people most in need-get more from the Government at all times. That is our principle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that I am in some difficulty because it has not been the practice of the House to deal with points of order during Question Period. I must inform the Hon. Member, however, that the word "hypocrite" is in fact regarded on all lists as an unparliamentary word.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I presume that she will do the honourable thing.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the "blues" are checked we will see that I did not accuse the Prime Minister of being a hypocrite, but I will certainly withdraw the word.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, November 8, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition which was presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, an Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to define the official designation of Nova Scotia, the words "Nova Scotia" being neither English nor French but Latin. The proper use of the proper noun is Nova Scotia. That is the purpose of this Bill which I ask for leave to introduce.


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

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 64(2), 1 request that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the Ways and Means motions tabled on November 8, 1984.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the House as I should have previously called for petitions. With the consent of the House, may we revert to Petitions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from the riding of Kamloops-Shuswap who ask that Parliament change the appropriate law so that in 1985 corporations will receive tax breaks only in proportion to the net new jobs they have created, and that the number of jobs created by each corporation and the tax breaks received will be reported quarterly to Parliament.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several members of the Liberal caucus,
80162- 5

November 9, 1984
Motions
which has been cleared through the Chair, calling upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to depose all of the documents relating to the budget which outline the massive loss of jobs as a result of the so-called economic statement.
[ Translation]
I just want to clarify, Mr. Speaker, that we Liberal Members have a petition that is duly signed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I explain to the Hon. Member, please, that the tradition here is that petitions are submitted with a brief description of what they are and the translation takes care, I believe, of the problem the Hon. Member is trying to deal with. I take it that is the explanation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that the tradition here is a short explanation of the petition. Does the Hon. Member have something she wishes to add?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to explain that, certainly, from a government which has pledged to the Canadian people that it was going to be an open government, this-


Mr. Speaker:: No, I regret to advise the Hon. Member-and I will be very clear on this-that that is not an explanation of what is in the petition. I will be very firm on that matter.


TESTING OF CRUISE MISSILE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present a petition on behalf of 200 constituents in the riding of Bruce-Grey who ask that the Parliament of Canada act to refuse the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and to reject research, production, testing and transport of any nuclear weapon, their delivery systems or components in Canada; that Canada be declared a nuclear-weapons-free zone; that the wasteful spending on the arms race be diverted to fund human needs so as to ensure prosperity through peace and finally, that the above stated objectives be subject to ratification through a free vote in the Parliament of Canada.
Therefore, the undersigned call upon this honourable House to bring about these changes.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with the Opposition House Leaders with respect to the business on Tuesday. It was contemplated, as I mentioned yesterday, that when we return after the Remembrance Day weekend we will proceed with the Speech from the Throne debate. In order to avoid any possibility of procedural technicality whereby deferred votes today would have to be disposed of before we proceeded with the debate, I would like to propose for the unanimous approval of this House the following motion. Therefore, I move:
That on Tuesday, November 13, 1984, notwithstanding any deferred division on the proposed amendment to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), if the Order of the Day is the consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the business to be considered shall be the proposed amendment thereto of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
I believe you will find that unanimous consent will be forthcoming, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that we give our consent to this order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we did in fact confer on this matter. It is a technical question, as you well know, Sir, as to how to deal with that portion of a debate which is supposed to have ended but which in fact by agreement is being continued. Therefore, I will on this occasion accept that this is one of a number of ways it can be dealt with and we accept the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Government House Leader. Is there unanimous consent that the matter be introduced?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the matter be disposed of as the Hon. House Leader suggests?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 7, 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. November 9, 1984
[Stage Direction]
Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 38) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 46).
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of humility and pride that I stand in this Chamber today to address my fellow Members of Parliament on the occasion of the Throne Speech debate. I feel humble because the people of Scarborough Centre have entrusted in me their confidence that my vote will be their vote and that my voice will be their voice in this magnificent House of Commons.
I feel pride because I am part of a new and exciting Progressive Conservative Government, one which will lead Canadians to a better future, prosperous and free. This sense of pride and optimism is shared, I believe, by all new Members of Parliament. Certainly it was clearly expressed by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) in moving the Speech from the Throne and by the Hon. Member for Mont-real-Mercier (Ms. Jacques) in seconding it. I wish to salute the eloquence of these two colleagues.

I wish to extend my sincere congratulations.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the view from these Private Members' benches is quite marvellous. In one long sweep of my eye the entire Chamber is visible. To my left, to my right and out in front there is a sea of new Government Members, and, of course, across from me sit the Opposition Parties, one of which is "official", but perhaps only in name alone.
The view across these government benches is indeed clear, Mr. Speaker, as clear as the mandate which our Party received from Canadians on September 4. Canadians are tired of negativism. They voted to change the old ways and habits of government. The Throne Speech marks a real start to the fulfilment of this mandate. Many of the initiatives outlined in the Throne Speech relate directly to the good people of Scarborough Centre whom I proudly represent in this House of Commons. First and foremost, the people of my riding are common sense people. They work hard, take care of their homes and apartments and know the value of a dollar. The Government's goal to reduce the deficit through economic growth is therefore strongly welcomed by my constituents.
As well, the residents of my riding understand the value of consultation and consensus. Scarborough Centre is a suburban riding within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. Its people live and work as neighbours. They know that the common good is advanced when people work together. Thus the people of Scarborough Centre strongly support the declaration in the Throne Speech of a new era of national reconciliation. Together we can and will do better.
There are over 1,000 industrial, commercial and retail businesses in Scarborough Centre. Dozens of light manufacturing firms, the backbone of small business in Canada, are to be found as well as several larger companies. However, my riding has recently been affected by the closure of a major electrical equipment manufacturing plant. Sadly, unemployment
The Address-Mrs. Browes
remains high, especially among youth and older, mature workers. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that measures proposed this week will have a strong, positive effect on the economic climate in Scarborough Centre.
Likewise my constituents are confident that the national economic summit to be convened early next year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will offer good news and fresh initiatives.
People of many different cultural backgrounds make their home in Scarborough Centre. I am proud to represent them all with a spirit of equality and fairness as enunciated in the Throne Speech. These citizens appreciate the Government's refreshing new attitude that multiculturalism is more than just displays of dances, costumes, and cooking; it is also full and complete equality of opportunity throughout the land.
Senior citizens comprise a significant portion of people in my riding. No less than six major seniors' residences are to be found in Scarborough Centre. All three levels of government have worked closely in the construction and administration of these homes. The proposed overhaul of the pension system will ensure that seniors in Scarborough Centre need never fear for the integrity and the security of their pensions.
The compassionate tone, Mr. Speaker, of the Throne Speech offers assurances not only to the elderly but also to the single parent family. Due to societal pressures, such families are more numerous today than ever before. This week the Government has spoken on the need to improve the child care system and to increase employment opportunities for women. Such measures are timely and demonstrate to Canadians that the Government they elected is Conservative but with a conscience. Indeed, that phrase, "Conservative with a conscience", aptly describes my own political philosophy as well as that of this Government. I feel an obligation to watch over both the welfare of the public accounts and the welfare of those people most vulnerable to hardship. For the past two years I have fulfilled this task while serving as the chairman of the Board of Health in the city of Scarborough. It is my hope to broaden such involvement in health issues during my term in the Thirty-third Parliament.
I believe that there are several emerging issues in the health field which will receive greater attention in the 1980s. First, of course, is the matter of cost. It is my belief that Canada must continue to move toward a community-based health care system in order to lower costs and increase responsiveness of care. Geriatric care will become a crucial issue as Canada's baby boom generation enters its senior years. I believe the Government must take the lead now to plan for this future trend. Private sector investment in chronic and geriatric care centres is an option which government should promote.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a question of particular sensitivity has emerged in recent years in the health care field. I speak of the palliative use of heroin for terminal cancer patients. Canadians are compassionate people and I believe would accept legislation allowing such treatment.

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mrs. Browes
I have spoken today of the riding I represent, Scarborough Centre, its people and the ways in which the Throne Speech relates to them. I have also described in some detail my interest in health care issues. Permit me now to speak in more personal terms; first, of a certain former Member of Parliament; secondly, the Leader of my Party; and thirdly, my commitment at the start of this Thirty-third Parliament of Canada.
On March 4, 1948, the following words were spoken in this House:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate, realizing that it has been some length of time since it was begun. First, 1 should like to join with other hon. members in expressing my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have listened to the various speakers who have taken part in the debate, and it has been somewhat of an education to me to learn something more about this great country which we are pleased to call Canada.
The occasion, Mr. Speaker, was the Throne Speech debate during Canada's Twentieth Parliament. The speaker was my father-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: -the late Major Robert Earl Drope, the Member of Parliament for the riding of Northumberland, Ontario. Perhaps my fellow members can understand the feelings within me at this moment, to hear his words echo once more off the stone walls and the high ceilings of this House of Commons. The sentiments I express for my father are profound and very special. Those I hold for my mother are equally precious since she still lives, proud and strong, in the century old family home on a farm near Rice Lake in Northumberland riding in Ontario.
I take my place in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, knowing that it is due in some large part to the efforts of a man who once was very close to his father, that being the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who earned the collective confidence of the people of Canada during the election campaign, and it was on a hot, sunny afternoon last July that he earned the confidence of the people of Scarborough Centre. When the Prime Minister attended our riding's annual summer picnic and barbecue, he touched all the people of Scarborough Centre. He spoke with sincerity because he is a self-made man whose humble roots allow him to understand the plight of the elderly and the disadvantaged. He spoke with confidence because he is a proud Canadian who believes in the potential of our nation and the spirit of its people. Our Prime Minister spoke with determination because he is a leader of a political party and now Leader of the Government with the people, the ideas and the policies to bring about a new beginning for Canada.
As a Member of Parliament in the new government I look ahead to fulfilling the mandate given us by the people of Canada, especially those in Scarborough Centre. It is an honest mandate, earned by the dedication of hundreds of campaign volunteers and sealed by the oath of office I took as a private member.
I am proud of my family roots in rural Ontario, Mr. Speaker. I am proud of my life in Scarborough with over 25 years of participation in issues of education, public accounts, health and housing. I accept the challenges which await me in the months and years ahead and I am eager to serve the people of Canada.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that when people ask if the Government truly will accomplish the goals it has set, I declare: Absolutely, it will.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, customary in the House to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne, to congratulate the newcomers and those who make their first intervention, such as the hon. lady who just spoke, and to wish the new Members well as they cross the threshold of the Thirty-third Parliament.
It is also natural that we resume debate on the Speech from the Throne and attempt to find the thread which in a way we lost yesterday as a result of switching the order of debate and having to witness last night a presentation which has deeply disturbed us on this side of the House. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that people in my riding and across the country, at this stage of debate on the Speech from the Throne, are beginning to wonder about the theme of consultation which emerged so strongly in the Speech just a few days ago, as read in the Senate by Her Excellency the Governor General.
It took only a few days, until last night, to make us realize that the theme of consultation is really one that is proposed but not practised by the Government. Last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a series of decisions which will result in the elimination of jobs estimated by some to amount to over 100,000 and perhpas as high as 127,000 Among the programs or intitiatives and projects which are going to we wiped out is, for example, Summer Canada. This was announced on the very same day that the Canadian Federation of Students was here in Ottawa speaking to the caucuses and representatives of the three Parties, probably wanting to ensure that next summer there would be a job opportunity program for them.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, did the Government consult the students before cancelling Summer Canada? To whom will they turn next summer for a job in the absence of this program? Will they go to Loblaws, to Canadian Tire or to the oil compagnies to find a summer job? Where will they find the jobs upon which they rely in order to finance their studies in the following year? Consultation was promised in the Speech from the Throne. Was it carried out with the students in relation to Summer Canada?
Last night we learned about the cancellation of a number of projects, research centres and initiatives across the country which would have resulted in construction projects. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, were the unions and the construction associations
November 9, 1984

consulted about the cancellation of these projects which will mean the cancellation of jobs in their respective communities?
We learned last night that certain programs of the National Research Council are going to be cancelled. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, were the scientists affected, young and old, and the union which represents the scientists in the Public Service, consulted about the cancellation of important, long-term, far-reaching research projects? Last night we learned about unemployment insurance premiums, Mr. Speaker. Were the employers and the workers consulted about the increase in premiums by the Government? We learned about cuts of some $200 million in the Industrial Incentives Program. I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the Government consulted industry about the desirability of cutting these programs, particularly in regions that are not at the centre of our economy.
We learned last night about cutbacks to essential train and ferry services, Mr. Speaker. I ask you, was the travelling public in those regions consulted? We learned that Canadians will have to face higher prices at the pumps. Was there consultation with the Canadian public on this increase and the timing of the increase?
We learned last night about cutbacks in social housing and housing rehabilitation programs. These initiatives create jobs in their respective communities and help Canadians reduce their heating costs. I ask the Government whether it consulted with the housing industry. Did the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) consult with them? This is the theme of the Speech from the Throne. Are they practising what they are preaching?
Were the fishermen consulted about the cutbacks on export promotion and fisheries development programs? We learned about cuts in the cultural sector through the Canada Council. Was the artistic community consulted by the Minister or those who are absent at the present time about the cutbacks in art programs which somehow represent an income to our artistic community from coast to coast, be they writers, sculptors, poets, musicians or the like?
What a sham of consultation, Mr. Speaker. Here you see the reality. We and the Canadian public are being treated to a display of hypocrisy. Consultation versus unilateral action on the part of the Government, with no consultation at all, was proclaimed as the main theme of the Speech from the Throne.
We were also treated to that beautiful trick last night, that great demagogic gesture of a salary cut imposed on Ministers. They have a job. They know they will have it until the next election and not beyond that, we know that. As a great gesture to Canadians who are going to lose their jobs they introduced this magnificent salary cut. We congratulate those heroes for having cut $3,000 off a salary of $100,000. I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for his courage in light of what he has done by eliminating jobs for tens of thousands of students who next summer will have to knock at his door and ask him where they should go to find jobs. Where will they go? Next summer, or next year, or perhaps even beginning next month, there will be some 126,000 less jobs. Or perhaps the
The Address-Mr. Caccia
Government will tell us the exact number of people who will be affected by the cuts last night.
Therefore, I must conclude that it only took four days for the Tory Government to show to the House and the country its ugly face. Through its own action it has destroyed the credibility in the consultative process which it proclaimed in the Speech from the Throne. The good news this morning that Canadians found 50,000 more jobs last month has been wiped out by the announcement of last night. We have been left with a negative result. Over the weekend Canadians will be agonizing at home with their families about whether they will have a job next year, be they civil servants, construction workers, fishermen or workers in any sector that will be affected by these measures.
Cuts are not made in a vacuum. A program cannot be cut in abstract terms because it eliminates jobs. This is what the Government does not want to realize or admit.
We say that the approach taken by the Government on deficit cutting is wrong. Let me explain why. The deficit can be cut in two ways. The Tories are doing it by withdrawing from the economy and partially closing down Canada during the winter, until next spring. That is what the Government is saying. It says that it must think and consult on the one hand, but then it proceeds without consultation. It is basically telling Canadians to consult with the Government next spring and it will talk business again.
The other method of cutting the deficit is by generating real growth, supporting the jobs that have been created so far and enabling Canadians to maintain the purchasing power that permits them to pay taxes, allowing them to generate revenue for the state and pay their bills. It should not be done by adding their names to the unemployment rolls.
Since we are in debate, let us assume for one moment that the Tory approach is the right approach. There is a profound contradiction when the Minister says on the one hand that he wants to energize the private sector, while at the same time he cuts $200 million from the Industrial Incentives Program, 40 million from the Job Training Program and $250 million from the Exploration Assistance Program in the oil and gas industry. How can those measures energize the private sector?
As Liberals, we do not believe that this is the right policy. If one wants to energize the private sector, one does not pull the rug from under it as the Minister of Finance and his colleagues are proposing. The Conservative Government approach to deficit cutting is wrong. Instead of cutting jobs it should provide incentives for expansion and job creation. That is the sensitive and positive approach that does not cause hardships for students next summer, hardships on people who have a job in the Public Service or those who are looking to a job in the private sector as a result of federal Government initiatives.
I believe that Canadians elected a majority government on September 4 with the understanding that all segments of society would be represented and protected. I believe the

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Caccia
Government has failed to understand that message to this point.
There are some very serious gaps in the Speech from the Throne. Let me attempt to illustrate three of them. No thoughts emerged from the Speech from the Throne on the effect of technological change on existing and potential jobs. Although jobs are disappearing as a result of the chip, jobs may emerge as a result of the chip. While people are losing jobs, new opportunities may emerge. The fundamental question facing any industrial society is how we will manage that transition and what is the role of government in the management of that transition. Will the Tory administration abdicate that responsibility? Does it believe that Exxon or IBM will do it for them and provide the necessary social shock absorber to protect those affected by technological change? If it believes that, it is dreaming in colour. The Government must play a profound and important role in protecting those affected workers. When workers lose their jobs as a result of technological change, someone must step in to manage that transition.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why did you not do it?


Mr. Caccia:: We did it and you know it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What about the railroad workers?


Charles L. Caccia: I regret that the Hon. Member has been so asleep over the last two years that he does not even recall the elementary tenets of a Liberal administration. We did it through training and the provision of early retirement schemes requiring workers in certain industries to retire at the age of 55. We did it by way of the mobility program, which the Tory Government cancelled last night, a program which permitted people who knew of an opportunity in another region to move there with their family with our help. That is a social shock absorber. During this time of technological change in which the pace will accelerate, the issues will become more complex and difficult to resolve. This is a profound and important issue for any government to address.
In the short time I have remaining, let me point out another shortcoming with respect to what is missing in the Throne Speech. No thoughts are advanced on how to proceed on the frail path leading to arms control and disarmament. It is a very complex issue and an important debate for everyone in this country. Surely the Speech from the Throne would be the natural mechanism to put forward the options and approaches that ought to be examined for the sake of debate in the House and possibly for the guidance of the Government.
The third issue that is missing from the Throne Speech is the very important issue of the interrelationship between the environment and the economy. As Hon. Members know, our economy depends very heavily on our natural resources. Therefore, we have a particular economic interest in maintaining our natural resources in a condition which generate the jobs and wealth contained in our unique nature that makes Canada so envied in the world.
We must ensure that the air we breath, the water we drink and the soil we use for agriculture, forestry and other purposes are in a sound condition. If one accepts that concept, one must conclude that our country and even the world cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. The two are part of the same concept. Therefore, we must pay attention to the consequences of acid rain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon. The Hon. Member may continue at that time because he has some time left.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) had the floor. Does he wish to continue in debate?


Charles L. Caccia: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before the recess I was outlining some of the major areas in the Speech from the Throne that this Government has forgotten or omitted to cover. Having outlined some, I feel compelled to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members that an important area of policy making missing in the Speech from the Throne is the whole question that relates to the North, the economic future of native people in the North, and the utilization of the natural resources in the North. That raises also the basic question as to the economic future in the North when the exploitation of gas has been completed and the rigs are gone. On what will future generations of northern people rely for their livelihood and for their economic survival?
Another area also missing in the Speech from the Throne, that needs to be dealt with and cannot be dealt with in the limited time available to me is the important issue of a water policy for Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal Government that launched a federal inquiry into water policy. The commission appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter Pearse of Vancouver is to report next year. I would invite the Government to endorse and support that very important inquiry which will determine the quality and quantity of water that Canadians will need in the future, particularly as we are facing some profound changes in climate due to the greenhouse effect which, as scientists and meteorologists tell us, is bound to bring about changes in agriculture, different levels of water-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry but I have to inform the Hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired. Do Hon. Members have any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and it concerns his
November 9, 1984

speech. In the early part of his speech he took the Government to task for having failed to consult young people in particular with respect to the demise of the Summer Canada program. It is not clear to me whether his concern is about the failure to consult or about having broken a promise to consult. If it were the former, I would ask the Hon. Member, if his concern is about consulting, how does he reconcile that with the failure of the government of which he was formerly a part to consult with students and young people concerning cuts in postsecondary education for which that government was responsible?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the inevitable attraction for the Hon. Member to try to score political points in this House on a matter on which he displays abysmal ignorance. If the Hon. Member were informed, Mr. Speaker, and if he knew what had been done in the Thirty-second Parliament by the Liberal Government, then he would know that post-secondary education was one of the major concerns of the Liberal Government. Post-secondary education received funding and increases in funding, but if there were a shortcoming in the provision of funds it was because we never knew whether the respective provinces would channel the earmarked funds to destination.
Now we hear from the new Tory Government-because the Hon. Member's Party will never form a government-that there is a new notion in the country whereby we are going to consult the provinces, that we are going to do things as if a new era had started. We will be watching Hon. Members across the aisle in the Government to see how they will ensure that funds to post-secondary education will reach their destination. We will watch Hon. Members across the way to see how they will reconcile the backward position of provincial governments across the nation on native rights and the commitments made by the former Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs which recognized that the native people have legitimate rights and aspirations.
We will watch and find out how Hon. Members across the way will reconcile the energy interests of Ontario with those of Alberta in this holding hands under the table, which seems to be the latest gospel proposed by the Party opposite. We will watch them on a number of federal-provincial relationships. I, therefore, welcome the question of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, regarding consultation with students, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) never answered the question. He expressed his government's great interest in post-secondary education, but he never said what consultations were held with the students before a couple of hundred million dollars was taken out of the budget, taken out not by the provincial governments but by the government of which he was a member.
He also raised the question of whether the provincial governments could be relied on to use the money. He probably
The Address-Mr. Caccia
recalls that this Party asked that legislation be amended so as to require provincial governments to use the money for the purpose intended. His government would not introduce such legislation or would not support such an amendment.
When the Students' Administrative Council of the University of Toronto asked permission to be heard, with a very thoroughly documented brief opposing the cuts by his government earlier this year, what response did his government make to that request and to the request of other councils like it when they asked for consultation on the question of cuts to postsecondary education?
When answering that, I would be glad if the Hon. Member would tell us what consultation the then Minister of Public Works held with the Co-operative Foundation and the nonprofit corporations of several cities when he cut their budget, cutting co-ops to about half and practically wiping out Section 56(1) of the National Housing Act. What consultation was there with the co-operative and non-profit housing industry? We know he consulted with the private profit builders; but what consultation was there with the non-profit and co-op builders?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been here yesterday, he would have had the benefit of the meeting with the Federation of Canadian Students in which the whole question of past and present consultations was elaborated. Also, he would have learned some of the answers. He would have learned the answer to the pseudo question he just posed.
In the past, as far as I can recall, long before the Member was elected to this House we launched programs in close consultation with the groups affected. In the case of co-op housing in Toronto, we have developed one of the most outstanding programs of social housing in the whole western world. We did that in very close consultation with organizations, not only with that one. The Liberal Government funded organizations so that they could be formed, when they expressed that intention, in order to provide criticism at times, support at times any ideas and policy changes that they from their experience saw fit to make at given intervals. This is why he and I can rightly claim that we have a social co-operative housing movement in this country.
It is true that there has been a change in that policy. It is a proposed change whereby the former Minister of Public Works, to whom the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) alludes, indicated that at this stage of development of our housing policy it was desirable also to find ways of improving the quality of rental housing in the downtown urban areas of Canada. This includes housing that needs to be upgraded and housing for single person households with a very limited income. They require as much attention as those who have found accommodation through co-op housing.
We were discovering a new public responsibility towards a group of Canadians who until then had perhaps not received the attention they deserved.


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

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Redway


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I of course wish to thank the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne. As well, I want to express my sincere thanks to the people of my riding of York East for selecting me to represent them here in the House of Commons. At the same time, I want to assure the people of my riding that I intend to represent each and every one of them and to serve each and every one of them to the best of my ability, regardless of their political persuasion and regardless of my own political affiliation.
The riding of York East is located in the central and the eastern portion of Metropolitan Toronto. Approximately 40 per cent of my riding is located in the City of North York and is comprised of the original Don Mills community as well as the communities of Flemingdon Park, Jonesville, Victoria Village and Wynford Heights. The balance of the riding, the other 60 per cent, is located in the borough of East York, the central and eastern portions. That is the municipality where, until recently, I had the privilege of serving as mayor.
York East is a slice of urban Canada. It has a population of approximately 100,000 people. That includes people from every part of the economic spectrum. About 70 per cent of the people in my riding come from the traditional, long-time Canadian background. The balance, approximately 30 per cent, come from Greek, Chinese, Southeast Asian and black origin. In fact, there are over 60 different cultural and ethnic groups and backgrounds represented in my riding. At the same time, York East is the home, proportionately speaking, of one of the largest communities of senior citizens anywhere in Canada. As well, it is the home of a great many businesses and industries, some large and some small.
Although the recent recession has not affected Metropolitan Toronto or my riding as severely as many parts of the country, a day does not go by in York East when I do not hear from somebody who is either unemployed now, has been unemployed, or expects to be unemployed in the near future.


Mr. Boudria:: It will get worse with the Tories in power.


Alan Redway: I stood for Parliament because of remarks like that and because of the policies of the previous government.
In the last two years that I served as the mayor of East York, I would go to my office every morning to find it filled with people looking for work. In 1982, because of exorbitant, horrendously high interest rates, many of the businesses which formed the tax base of our community went bankrupt.
At the same time, because of those same high interest rates brought in by the last government, the senior citizens of our community could not sell their homes. The young people could not afford to buy those homes. That was two years ago. Today we still have 1.5 million unemployed in this country.
This morning I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicate that there has been a gain of some 34,000 new jobs since September 4. I was pleased this week, at long last, that the Speech from the Throne and the economic statement spelled out the new government's strategy for the unemployment problem. The first is to restore fiscal responsibility by putting our own house in order in order to limit and reverse the massive build-up of public debt and the damaging
impact that this has on confidence and growth. The second is to redefine the role of the Government so that it provides a better framework for growth and job creation and removes obstacles to change and innovation. The third part of the strategy is to foster higher investment, greater innovation, increased international competitiveness and a positive climate for the birth and growth of new enterprise. The fourth is to bring about these changes in a way that is fair, open and consistent with the basic sense of compassion, tolerance and justice that is a characteristic of Canadian society.
Last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) began the process of implementing that strategy by outlining his plan for reducing the deficit in an orderly, balanced and fair manner. As the Finance Minister continues the process of implementing government strategy, I ask him to bear in mind that, in addition to restraining expenditures, to improving management and to eliminating programs and agencies, there are two other ways to reduce the deficit and to restore business confidence. I commend both of those ways to the Minister.
The first way to do this is to reduce interest rates. Even a modest reduction in our interest rates would substantially cut the cost of government borrowing which this year will reach something like $17 billion out of a $34 billion deficit. It is plain to see that any slight reduction in interest rates will have a very substantial effect on our deficit and on the cost of borrowing. In my view, the second method by which we can reduce the deficit is simply to put people back to work again and turn them into taxpayers instead of welfare recipients.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Finance has a little rule of thumb that indicates that for every 84,000 people who are out of work, we lose $1 billion in government revenues. Just think about that, Mr. Speaker. If we could put one million people back to work again, we could cut that $34 billion deficit right in half.
In the United States, people have been put back to work again and this has been done by cutting personal taxes to stimulate consumer spending. It is no wonder that President Reagan was re-elected with such an overwhelming majority. After all, who could refuse to vote for a man who cut unemployment, who cut taxes and who cut inflation? That is an amazing record and one that I commend to our own Minister of Finance.
The primary task of this Parliament is to put people back to work and to get the economy moving again. If we can do that, we will have laid a firm foundation for the new era which was described in the Speech from the Throne as an era of national reconciliation, economic renewal and social justice. If we can do that, we will get Canada growing again and Canada can truly reach its real potential as a nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 9, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? We will proceed with debate.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for this opportunity to speak on the Speech from the Throne. I would like to begin by extending my sincere gratitude to the people of northwestern Saskatchewan who live in my constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. These people have given me the honour and the privilege of being their servant in the Thirty-third Parliament of Canada.
When one reflects on the outcome of the September 4 general election, one sees that the people of northwestern Saskatchewan and their counterparts around the country voted for a change in government. They did not vote for change for the sake of change but for a significant, markedly different sort of government, a government that the citizens would like to have effect not only new policy initiatives but also a new process and a new way of governing. This way of governing is a consultative, positive, open form of government.
As debate on the Throne Speech continues, I am pleased to be able to speak on this occasion on behalf of my constituents from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I would like to explain my riding to Hon. Members. It comprises the entire northwest of the Province of Saskatchewan. It is truly a beautiful area of the country comprising almost 100,000 square miles. It is also large.
From the wheat fields to the rolling hills to the forest country of the north, this constituency comprises a vast array of people and backgrounds. There are 65,000 people living in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake with one-third of them residing in The Battlefords, which is the major economic hub of the constituency. The Battlefords is located on the banks of the North Saskatchewan River with the Town of Battleford to the south and the larger City of North Battleford to the north.
The Battlefords provides goods and services to a constituency that is largely dependent on agriculture. Many of my other constituents live in smaller centres, the largest of which is Meadow Lake with a population of 5,000. The smaller communities are strongly tied to agriculture and reflect a diversity in ethnic backgrounds. There are the Francophone communities of Jack Fish, Vawn, Edam and Leoville, the early Ukrainian settlements of Krydor, Hafford and Speers and the many other communities like Paradise Hill, Spiritwood, Glaslyn and Big River.
In the northern area of my riding, beyond this strongly agricultural base, is the largest geographic area of the riding, the far north. This is home to several thousand constituents who live in communities like Patuanak, Beauval, lie a la Crosse and Buffalo Narrows. There is now a tiny settlement in the far north of my riding which remains as a sad legacy to the former government. It was called Uranium City.
In my constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, the concern of most people is farming. Farmers have defied misguided government policies of the past decade by adapting to rising costs, but these costs reflect values of 1984 while the
The Address-Mr. Gormley
prices the farmers receive for their products reflect prices of 1972. This dichotomy, which is known as the cost-price squeeze, has forced many farmers in my constituency off their land. For many of their counterparts who remain, life is difficult, even for the people in the urban centre of The Battlefords whose livelihoods and professions depend upon the viability of farms. It is with this commitment to agriculture that I come to Parliament.
Prominent too in my constituency is the oil industry which, in the community and surrounding area of The Battlefords, employs some 200 people who work in oil development, on the rigs, on the service rigs and in the other industries associated with oil.
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has several other unique features. Twenty-two per cent of my constituents are of native origin. There are 19 Indian reservations in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. It is with growing concern that I see the plight of the native person on the reserve. This person is often neglected by the society in which he or she lives, a society which starts with our past Parliament of Canada and extends down even to the Indian leadership which, in often cases, is less responsible for the needs of its people than it should be.
In my constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake there are many elderly people. Because this is a farming, agrarian community, families tend to stay closer to one another. Often farmers retire to the urban area of The Battlefords while their families take over the farm. Older members of society demand from us a better world for their children and for their grandchildren.
Cognizant of this, we should address our country's business as we have in this Speech from the Throne. In that Speech our Government has made commitments which appeal to the people of western Canada, and particularly those in my constituency. Our Government has promised, in an open and forthright fashion, reconciliation, renewal and economic growth. These themes are suitable within the framework of social justice and can be further paraphrased in three sentiments: common sense, honesty and fairness. Every person growing up in small-town Saskatchewan knows that honesty, fairness and common sense are what comprise truly successful people, farmers, families and traditions.
If one looks at the history of Saskatchewan, they will see that the early pioneer knew that life was more bearable for everyone if people co-operated rather than confronted. This spirit of co-operation grew from helping a neighbour or fellow farmer into the co-operative movement and the credit union movement which are still so vital a part of Saskatchewan today. Much of western Canada owes its present prosperity to the fact that the early settlers realized that consultation, cooperation and sharing made society move ahead. It is that same commitment which is in the Throne Speech.
I find it rather odd that critics of the Government find it distasteful that emphasis has been placed on co-operation and consultation at the expense of belligerence, arrogance and

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
unilateral action. The days of government heavy-handedly telling people what is good for them are over. With those days being over, we have a government which will truly listen to the ideals, aspirations and dreams of Canadians from all walks of life.
In The Battlefords-Meadow Lake the change of Government, and the directions which the Government plans to undertake, have been welcomed. The people who have placed their trust in me by electing me to this Parliament are people who know that one does not spend money on what one does not have. One does not bully and force your way on others when talking out a problem may create exciting, new possibilities and solutions which were earlier thought impossible. That is the way in which most well-intentioned Canadians of good judgment have lived their lives and that is what most Canadians wanted on September 4.
Lamentably, the federal government of the past has not lived up to this expectation. This will change. 1 am proud to be a part of that change and I am proud to be a part of bringing some long-awaited and positive moves to this country.
As the youngest Member of Parliament ever elected from northwest Saskatchewan, and as one of the younger Members of the House, I take a great interest in the future of this country. The future, as seen by other young Canadians, is a future to be challenged and conquered. Through an era of reconciliation, as expressed by the Government in the Speech from the Throne, all Canadians will be able to search mutually and share in new views and new ways of addressing our national obligations and responsibilities. With a united commitment among all of us to consensus, tolerance and fairness, our country will be a better place to live for those of my generation and the generation of our children.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say a few words of thanks to my constituents for once again re-electing me to this Chamber for the sixth time. Obviously I was either very lucky, or else the constituents of Yorkton-Melville were very wise in their choice.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that we did not have a period of questions and comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is right. I looked on both sides of the House and did not see any Member rising.
I apologize, but I had not given the floor to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think the Member was standing up.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the order, if in fact there are no questions from the floor, do you revert to the Official Opposition or do you revert to the third Party? There
was in fact a Member standing from the Official Opposition to make his response to the Throne Speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In terms of the order, what I will do for the rest of the day is to choose two from the Government, one from the Official Opposition, one from the NDP; two from the Government, one from the Official Opposition and one from the NDP. We had a Liberal member a little while ago; I have recognized two from the Government and one from the NDP. The next speaker would normally be a Liberal, and then two from the Government and one from the NDP.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: To clear the matter up, I think there was a misunderstanding because you did not ask the usual question as to whether there were questions and comments. The Hon.
Member rose to make her speech, thinking that she would be given the floor, and I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding. But we will accept-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Proceeding with debate, the Hon.
Member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said previously, I want to thank the voters in my constituency for once again re-electing me to this Chamber. It is something which I appreciate and I will try to do as much as I possibly can for everyone in that riding.
[ Translation]	I
1 want to congratulate the new Prime Minister of Canada	I
(Mr. Mulroney) as well as his government, his Ministers and	I
his colleagues in the House, and all the other new Members of	I
the Liberal Party and of the New Democratic Party.	I
[English]	I
I would also like to commend the Prime Minister (Mr.	I
Mulroney) about one thing that I liked in the Throne	I
Speech-which is a welcome break from the past-and that is	I
the emphasis on consensus, the emphasis on trying to find	I
some co-operation in this country. It is a consensus for working	I
together. 1 think that is very good because we are a federal	I
state and in the past there has been too much confrontation,	I
too much unilateral action which has led to all kinds of	I
regional frictions between our peoples, the provinces and the	I
federal Government.	I
I also want to say that I am pleased to see in the Throne	I
Speech a reference to the fact that there will be a special	I
committee, headed by the Hon. Member for St. John's East	I
(Mr. McGrath), to look into the reform of the rules of the	I
House in order that the average Member in the House can	I
have more input and power over the direction that the country	I
is moving toward. I think it is time that that sort of thing	I
happened, because in the past there has been much too much	I
power given to the Prime Minister's Office as well as the	I
offices of the various Ministers of the Government. I hope that	I
this is a sincere move on behalf of the Government. If it is, it	I
will be a worth-while contribution to this new Parliament.	I

November 9, 1984

I believe there is already a national consensus on one very important issue, and that is that the most important issue of the day is job creation, providing jobs for the Canadian people from one coast to the other. In this Parliament we must make a massive contribution to the creation of long-term, permanent jobs for Canadians. That must be the number one priority.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, last night we saw the Government going in exactly the opposite direction. We saw it do two things; first, it cut back on services by $4.2 billion a year, some $430 million of that in the Department of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Just today in the House we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) confirm that they have run these figures through their economic model, through the computers, but he will not table the lists of what kind of job losses or job increases resulted from that.


Paul Wyatt Dick: He did not say that!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We asked him very clearly to make public that list-perhaps the Hon. Member was not here this morning for Question Period-but he will not do it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Minister never said that!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is he trying to hide? I thought the Prime Minister believed in open government. When he was in opposition he asked for an open government. He wanted more freedom of information. All of a sudden, now that he is on the other side only two months later, he is not going to make available those statistics for the Canadian people to see. I really wonder what he is trying to hide, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to mention to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), if he wants to be accurate, that if he was here this morning he would have realized that it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who said they had put it through an economic model.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair rules that this is not a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think he just proved my point, Mr. Speaker. If he will check the blues or Hansard on Tuesday morning he will see that the Prime Minister will not make a commitment to make that information public.
Something else which happened last night, Mr. Speaker, which really concerns me is that we have now seen some tax increases. The sales tax has gone up in Canada. We have seen an increase in the price of energy in this country, the gasoline tax, the excise tax, the move toward the world level in the price of fuel in Canada. We have also seen the increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
This all comes from a political party whose members said in my riding and other ridings across the country that, if elected,
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
there would not be a cut-back in services; if elected they would not concentrate on the deficit because jobs are number one; if elected they would not increase the taxes on ordinary Canadians; in fact, if elected, there would be a minimum tax which rich people would have to pay so that they would not get away with all of the loopholes we have in our tax system today. After only two months, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a cut-back in services of over $4 billion. I am told by economists that as many as 100,000 people could lose their jobs because of those cut-backs in all of the government departments across Canada. In fact, if one looks at agriculture alone, one sees a $62 million cut-back. And it is not just Canagrex. There is a $32 million cut-back on extra fees which a farmer is now going to have to pay for the services the farmer needs on his farm.
There are millions of dollars cut back in funding for rail lines, branch lines and rehabilitation. In my riding, Mr. Speaker, there are rail lines which need to be rehabilitated. I recall a certain all-candidates meeting in my riding when the Conservative candidate could not show up because he was out with the now Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) looking at a rail line in my riding which goes from Kelvington to Lintlaw to Preeceville, and they made a promise that they would keep the rail line, which those nasty Liberals would not; that there was not enough funding, and that was true.

That is the truth of the matter, Sir.

Here is the Conservative Party saying: "You elect us and we will keep that rail line". But what has it done? If one goes to the Government's information books distributed last night, one finds it cut off tens of millions of dollars for branch line rehabilitation. It is one thing to promise the people of Canada and not deliver. But here we have the Party across the way promising the people of Canada one thing and delivering something else.
It was the now Leader of the Opposition of the Liberal Party who talked a lot about the deficit being too high in this country and that we had to cut back on the debt. I notice the present Prime Minister is now quoting him day in and day out. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Party is now implementing the program of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). No wonder the people of this country are becoming increasingly cynical of politics and politicians when we see that kind of breach of promise within 60 days of the September 4 election campaign.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we now have a national consensus in this country. It is a national consensus and unemployment is the first priority for the government and the country. Canadians will get to work and build a new country. As the Canadian bishops pointed out nearly two years ago in January 1983 in a document that is now very well known throughout Canada, the most urgent issue facing us is setting up a program to fight unemployment which is already too high in Canada, and we

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
must take immediate action to find jobs for Canadian men and women across the country.

When the Pope visited our country he said that the big, important issue in this country is unemployment. I have here an article from The Toronto Star of September 14 wherein the Pope said, and I quote:
Men and women are meant to contribute by their work to the building up of the human community, and so to realize their full human stature as co-creators with God and co-builders of His kingdom," the Pope told the fishermen of Newfoundland and their families this week. "Prolonged failure to find meaningful employment represents an affront to the dignity of the individual, for which no social assistance can fully compensate."
The Pope reminded us that this is the big issue facing the country today. The Bishop said the same thing. Our Party has been saying the same thing, as have farm organizations, trade unions and ordinary Canadians from coast to coast.
The point is that it is not just the fact that if people are not working they cannot make a contribution to society. The fact of the matter is that if people are not working it creates all kinds of anxieties and problems for them and their families. A Canadian psychiatrist said recently that last year about 70 per cent of his patients came to him because they were unemployed and were facing problems which were created from their unemployment. The problem is real, Mr. Speaker, for the over one million Canadians who are unemployed today. If one looks back over the last few years, one can see that it is a problem which is becoming worse each and every single year.
In 1981 some 7.5 per cent of the Canadian population was unemployed; in 1982, 11 per cent; in 1983, 11.9 per cent; in 1984 the average so far is at 11.5 per cent. This morning it was 11.3 per cent; last month it was 11.8 per cent; in July it was 11 per cent. So no matter how you look at the figures they have been consistently over 11 per cent during 1984. I do not forget that the Prime Minister said in Prince Albert that if he was elected, within days, as a matter of fact when he was sworn in, thousands of jobs would be created almost magically, like Alice in Wonderland, overnight. I would like to hear the Prime Minister say that to unemployed people in the City of York-ton, in the City of Melville or in any place in this country. As a matter of fact, if one compares the situation at the time this Government was sworn into office with the situation today, one can see there are more people unemployed today. If one looks at the figures between October, 1984 and October, 1983, one finds there are 72,000 more people looking for work. Those figures come from a government which said: "If you swear us into office, automatically overnight there will be thousands of jobs created". Where are those jobs, Mr. Speaker?
Looking at agriculture, for example, the Party across the way made promises during the election campaign to get rid of the capital gains tax. It made promises to freeze freight rates because the Crow rate had disappeared. It made promises to pay out money from the Farm Stabilization Plan. It made promises to give aid to farmers in northeastern Saskatchewan because there was too much rain. It made all kinds of promises
to the farmers of western Canada. They promised to upgrade the rail lines. Yet we have had a Throne Speech, a budget-


Mr. Jelinek:: No budget.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: All right, maybe it is not a budget but it was a financial statement. That is what budgets used to look like when I came here a number of years ago. If you want to create jobs, I say to the Government why not spend money in agriculture, helping the farmer, the ordinary citizen and small business in this country, and we will put people to work like we have never put them to work before?
I see across the way the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) and other Members who sat in opposition a few months ago. They were asking why the Government was not doing more for small business and the farmers of this country, but all of a sudden they are on the Government side of the House and they think they are Pierre Trudeau.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Please, no. That is an insult.


Don Boudria: They do not deserve that compliment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not know if I would call it a compliment or not, but they have certainly forgotten what they stood for before the election campaign was announced.
We have all seen the statistics that were announced this morning. Unemployment is 11.3 per cent. It is 21 per cent in Newfoundland, 15.1 per cent in British Columbia, and 12.8 per cent in Quebec. The unemployment rate is still very high, yet we do not see any new ideas, programs or initiatives whatsoever from the Government to reduce unemployment. The mandate the Government was given in the election was to create jobs, jobs, jobs. Where are those jobs, jobs, jobs? What programs do they have for jobs, jobs, jobs? I do not see them.
If the Government was to spend the money on small business, agriculture, guaranteed prices, parity prices for farmers, this money would be spent on goods and services. Small business would do the same thing. We would create jobs. In fact, an economist said not too long ago that if we had had an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent for the last few years, the federal deficit would have been completely eliminated by the year 1983. If we want to eliminate that deficit, the quickest way of doing so is to make sure we put more Canadians to work. They would then generate economic activity, pay taxes and make a contribution. That is how the deficit would go down.
Current levels of unemployment in Canada mean a loss of some $40 billion to $50 billion a year in economic activity. That does not include the anxiety, pain and suffering people go through when they cannot find work. I suggest that the Government set targets to reduce unemployment in this country by, say, 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent a year. The Manitoba Government set that objective a few years ago and it has been able to achieve that objective because of its special job creation
November 9, 1984

projects and programs. I remember very well that when the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and others were in opposition, they used to ask the then government: What are your objectives? What are your targets? How long is it going to be before you bring unemployment down from 11 per cent to 9 per cent, 5 per cent or 4 per cent? They used to get very upset when the government would not set targets. Well, we are seeing the same thing from this Government today. It has set targets for the deficit but we have not seen any target setting for unemployment. I suggest Members opposite tell the Canadian people where they are planning to go.
I believe job creation should be the main focus of this Parliament and this Government. More jobs for young people, women and small business. I have already mentioned agriculture. One can mention forestry, where we need a lot of research and development. That is another area where the Government is cutting back. Single industry towns must be diversified. We must put more money into shipbuilding. We must have tax reform. As I said before, there are lot of people not paying any taxes at all, or who are not paying their fair share. If we had tax reform, we could collect several hundreds of millions of dollars from the rich and put that money into job creation for the ordinary citizens of Canada. I believe those are things that can and should be done if we are to create jobs for each and every single person in this country today.
We in this country, Mr. Speaker, indeed right across the western world, are going through quite a change in the way our society is organized. We are in the process of moving from the industrial society into the post-industrial or information era. We are going to have to make sure that we spend more money on research and development. We have to spend more money on developing our computer and other high technology industries than we have in the past. Otherwise we will fall further and further behind.
Look at the trend, Mr. Speaker. In the United States in the 1970s some 90 per cent of new jobs were in the non-goods producing area. Only about 10 per cent were in the traditional areas of manufacturing, agriculture and forestry. That type of thing is happening in this country as well. As we move into this kind of society, the important thing will be brain power and knowledge. Yet we see a financial statement here last night which is cutting back on research and development. It will not put as much money into job retraining and upgrading of skills, not just for our young people but for all Canadians. I think that is going in exactly the wrong direction.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a government which has a little bit of imagination to do a little bit of planning; a government which will try with the provinces, labour, farmers and business to sit down and develop some national goals and objectives. Ask ourselves what we can do as Canadians and do well. Pick three or four areas that we can do well in, become world leaders and experts in, and I will suggest just three or four of them this afternoon.
We are one of the greatest agricultural nations in the world. There is no reason we should not be producing more agricul-
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
tural machinery and equipment. We import most of our agricultural machinery from aboard. I think we should be putting more money into that sector so that we can start producing more of that machinery ourselves, thereby creating jobs for Canadians and exporting to other parts of the world.
Another area is that of resources. We are very abundantly blessed with all kinds of resources, yet over 80 per cent of the mining machinery we use in our mines is imported from other countries. I think that has to be changed. There is no reason we could not specialize in mining machinery and equipment to be used in our mines and also export it abroad as well.
A third area is that of communications. We are a vast country and communications is one area we should concentrate on and specialize in, in order to become world leaders in communications equipment and devices.
Another area is that of transportation. This is something that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has spoken about many times in this House. There is no reason in the world that we should not be in the forefront of technology in transportation. Yet it is not Canada that develops a lot of the more modern trains and transportations vehicles. The fastest trains in the world are in France and Japan, not here in Canada.
These are just four areas where we are naturals to become world leaders, which would create jobs through exports to other countries around the world. There are a lot of other things that one can mention in this debate, a lot of ideas that could be tossed into the hopper concerning jobs. We could be cleaning up our environment and creating jobs at the same time. We could be building a lot more houses, investing more money in people, health education, and creating jobs all at the same time.
We should also be looking at job security legislation because a lot of workers do not feel there is very much security in this high-tech age. We can look to countries in Europe such as Germany, Norway and Sweden and the legislation they have covering job security and protection. We could be doing that as well. We should also be looking at processing more of our raw materials in Canada, as well as asserting ourselves more economically so that we make sure that we make the economic decisions which are important to this country. At present more of our economy is foreign owned than is that of any other country in the world. That, Mr. Speaker, not only causes us to lose some political autonomy, but causes us to lose jobs as well. I see my time is up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Mr. Nickerson:: I have one question I would like to address to the Hon. Member. I found his presentation to be excellent. It was presented in a non partisan way and had some very good ideas attached to it. I would like to ask about the last point he made on the processing of resources in Canada. That is something which everybody, I am sure, would like to see

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
happen. However, how do we get around the following problem? We would like to sell sliced bread to Japan and European countries rather than just wheat in order to keep the extra jobs in Canada. However, they do not want to buy sliced bread and they do not want to buy flour. They want to buy wheat, and if they do not buy it from Canada they will buy it from Argentina, Australia or the United States. How do we proceed to implement the ideas of the Hon. Member?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if we had a more aggressive sales policy and perhaps more aggressive trade commissioners around the world, we could sell more processed and refined goods. Other countries are doing it right around the world. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) knows that as well as I do. Perhaps Canagrex would have been able to promote the sale of more processed farm commodities and do more trading and bartering. However, the Government across the way has decided to kill off Canagrex, thereby chopping another $6.6 million or $6.2 million from the budget.
The farmers from my constituency supported that particular piece of legislation. I voted for that in the House. I wish that that legislation would have stayed, but it is being chopped off by the Government across the way. The purpose of Canagrex was to sell, sell, sell for the farmers of Canada. I do not know what the Conservative Party is afraid of. Is it afraid of Canagrex because it is a Crown corporation? Is it afraid of Canagrex because it might get out there and sell for some of the small producers who do not have the ability to sell through the big private marketing agencies? I am not sure. Perhaps the Hon. Member can explain it himself.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the last exchange between the Hon. Members. All of us in this country must recognize sooner or later that, if we are indeed to export manufactured goods, we have been remiss for 15 years or more in upgrading technology of all kinds in the country. We have not been able to produce manufactured goods at a cost which anyone could sell abroad. One of the reasons I believe this Government will increase the sale of manufactured goods is that for the first time in a long time we have a Government that recognizes the significance of technology transfer. That is the key which has been missing for many years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily disagree with the Hon. Member's comment that one area in which we as a country have fallen back is technology. I made some reference to that myself. We are into the so-called post-industrial era now in the information society, and we are rapidly falling behind. In fact, our standard of living in the last 30 years has fallen from second in the world to tenth or twelfth. One reason for that is that we have not restructured our economy. We have not restructured a lot of the industries in the country. One of the reasons for that is that so much of our economy is foreign owned. We have depended so much on the head offices in the United States, Europe and Japan and we have the branch plants in this country. The branch plants are always the last ones to be modernized. They are the last ones
to have jobs preserved in them. They are the first to go by the wayside. They do not do research and development. There is no innovation in them. That is one of the problems and consequences of foreign ownership. Fully 26 per cent of our economy is foreign owned compared to 3 per cent in the States, France or Britain, or 1 per cent in Japan. I am afraid the Government across the way will be going in the opposite direction by getting rid of FIRA and opening up the doors once again to foreign equity, ownership and control.
The other point I would like to make is that if you look at the budget papers from last night you will find that the Government has reduced research funding in the country by either $60 million or $80 million, I forget the exact figure. This is in a country where research and development already had too low a priority. Until yesterday we had spent about the same percentage of our GNP on research and development as did Ireland and Egypt. Despite that, the Government has cut that back by an extra $60 million to $80 million.
The same thing is happening in agriculture. About $2 million or $3 million was cut back on research and development in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, coming from a farm riding I know that instead of spending less money for R and D in agriculture we should be spending more money in terms of helping the farmers improve the products which they are trying to produce to feed the hungry people in the world. Instead of going forward into the future we have a Government which is moving backward into the past.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to comment briefly on what the mover has just said about Canagrex. I think that this was a program ... I am very happy to see that the New Democratic Party is now joining the Liberal Party in recognizing that the former Government had some good programs. I also know that the Member from Guelph who has just spoken will have many other opportunities when he chairs the Committee on External Affairs to establish new relationships between Canada and other countries, and in my opinion, everyone is co-operating.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I only want to add a few words, Mr. Speaker.
I have already said that I was in favour of Canagrex, and I still am, and the 31 members of our caucus voted for Canagrex last year. That legislation had been introduced by the former Minister, Mr. Eugene Whelan. It was nothing new for me. I have always been for Canagrex as we need such an agency to promote our exports throughout the world. This is very important. I agree with you that it was a backward measure which the Government announced last night.


Don Boudria: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure and a great honour for me to take part in this debate. But first, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you and your assistants on your appointment to the Chair of this illustrious assembly. I also wish to congratulate the Government opposite and, I should
November 9, 1984

add, on this side of the Elouse, on their election on September 4 of this year. Finally, I wish to congratulate all Members of the House on their election to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all those who helped me in this and previous campaigns. First of all, the people who voted for me in 1974, when I was running for the Municipal Council of Cumberland Township, as well as those who voted for me in 1976, 1978 and 1980, and last but not least, the voters of Prescott-Russell who elected me as their Member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in 1981, and finally, the voters of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who voted for me on September 4 of this year and sent me to this illustrious House.
1 think the mandate the Government received on September 4 is very impressive, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that this Government, now that it has obtained the support of 50 per cent of the voters of this country, definitely has a mandate to lead the country. A word of caution, however: they must recognize the mandate of the Opposition, that of all Members, and the aspirations of all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that even if 50 per cent of the voters voted for this Government, the other 50 per cent did not.
The Government must therefore recognize and even help the opposition parties by providing them with the tools needed to discharge their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, on September 4, we, of the Liberal caucus, were elected to be the Official Opposition in this House. Ours is also a very important mandate, and, interestingly enough, it will have to be discharged with 40 members as against 40 cabinet ministers. This means that each and every Opposition member is called upon to be an official critic for a department. This again is a very important task which, I am convinced, every member in the Liberal caucus will fulfill with our customary vim and the energy of our leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) along with the 39 other Members in the Liberal caucus. I am convinced that with such a dynamic team, we will very succesfully carry out that mandate.
I would like to thank our leader for selecting me as the Opposition critic for Supply and Services. This is an area I find most interesting, Mr. Speaker, because it has been my former privilege, as a Canadian civil servant, to be a purchasing agent here for the House of Commons, and to work with the Department of Supply and Services.
Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a very special one in my view. Of course, every member in this House feels that his or her constituency is very special, and understandably so. Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is at the eastern tip of Ontario, east of the City of Ottawa. As opposed to what some people may think elsewhere in Canada, east of Ottawa we are still in Ontario. My constituency has an area of 3,137 square kilometres and lies east of the National Capital. It includes such communities as Orleans, Rockland, Embrun, Alexandria, Vankleek Hill and others. It has a few industries,
The Address-Mr. Boudria
but it is a farm constituency, especially the eastern part. Ottawa suburbs make up the western part of the constituency.
The area is Loyalist country, except for the Longueuil seigniory which is part today of the Prescott constituency. It is interesting to note that today 64.6 per cent of its citizens are French-speaking and, still more interesting, that 20 per cent of the French-speaking constituents are unilingual.
I think that this very fact makes the French-speaking citizens outside Quebec in the Glengarry-Prescott-Russell riding a very special group.
The average wages of electors in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are slightly lower than those in the rest of the country. This means that our riding needs help from the federal government and that the cuts announced last evening by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will affect the electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
The people in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Mr. Speaker, wanted action and a government which would take action on some issues. My constituents want positive action on women's issues, for the benefit of the handicapped, manpower training programs and improved conditions in the years to come. I suggest that those are the aspirations of my constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and very likely of all Canadians as well. But what have we seen over the past few days? A throne speech which offered nothing and an economic statement yesterday which made cuts across the board. That is not the way to improve the economic situation of my Glengarry-Prescott-Russell constituents.
I see that my colleague the hon. member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) does not share my views. I am sure, however, that when she goes to Buckingham this weekend, on Saturday, her own constituents will impress on her that these cuts are a mistake. The hundreds of thousands of workers who will lose their jobs within a few months, a great number of them both in my riding and in the hon. member's, will find out that this is no joke, that it is very sad for one to lose one's job because of the action taken by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House of a few historic events which took place in my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

Some of the more interesting historical features include the fact that Samuel de Champlain came into our area in 1613. As well, it is in the eastern part of the riding that the battle of the Long Sault with Dollard des Ormeaux took place. This battle was fought between 17 French Canadians and 44 Indians against some 1,000 Iroquois. This battle took place just east of Hawkesbury in the vicinity of the community Chute a Blon-deau in my riding.
The riding also has some very interesting political history. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one of the Fathers of Confederation, was a candidate for the provincial riding of Prescott in 1867. It is also very interesting to note that he was defeated in that

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Boudria
particular election by one James Boyd, who was a wood merchant from the Town of Hawkesbury.
Another interesting feature is the fact that John Sandfield Macdonald, Premier of the United Province of Canada and the first Premier of the Province of Ontario had the honour and privilege of representing the riding of Glengarry in the Legislative Assembly.
William Lyon Mackenzie King represented the constituency between 1945 and 1949. It is interesting for Liberals in the House to note that he was elected in that election with a vote of 4,551 for the Liberals against 325 for the Tories. While I do not quite enjoy that kind of majority in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I am grateful for the majority that I did receive and I hope that support from the electorate of my area will continue in future elections.
It is a particular honour for me to come to the House of Commons. I come from humble beginnings and I am very proud of them. I believe it is important for all of us, once we get here, to remember our roots forever. Those of us who forget them will often be reminded in a most ungenerous way by the electors at subsequent elections.
I started working at the House of Commons on October 25, 1966. I believe that I am the first former employee of the House of Commons ever to be elected as a Member of Parliament. I did not come here as an executive assistant to Mr. Speaker, although that would have been nice. Nor did I come here as an adviser to a Cabinet Minister. I was not the son of an MP. I came here as an employee of the Parliamentary Restaurant. I will always have a special place in my heart for the employees of the House of Commons.
During my first days as a Member of Parliament, I had the privilege of taking a tour of the House of Commons. I must say that I have come to the conclusion that we often do not appreciate the work of the staff of this great institution as we should. I want to bring one interesting fact to your attention, Mr. Speaker, of which perhaps we are unaware, that is the lack of attention that we pay to the work of the staff. A few days after the election I was in the hallway right in front of this Chamber. There I noticed a plaque which honours a Member of Parliament who died in the great fire of 1916. Underneath the Member's name it says that six employees also died, but their names are not listed. I think it important that we pay more attention to the people who make this place work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I propose that we erect a plaque honouring these six people, and if this House is unwilling to do so, I will offer to pay for it myself if someone, some day, will instal the plaque. The plaque will honour the following six people: Madame Louis Morin, Madame Henri Bray, Mr. J. B. R. Laplante, assistant clerk of the House, Mr. A. Desjardins, a plumber, Mr. Alphonse Desjardins, employee of the federal public service, and Mr. Randolph Fanning, an employee of the post office. I believe it would be recognition of the 3,000
people who work here if we paid that special tribute to the six employees who gave their lives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I have the utmost respect for this institution, Sir, and as I said, I worked here previously. I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of our great Province of Ontario, and I was a member on three different occasions of a municipal council. I believe, as my Leader very correctly said only a few days ago, that no greater honour can be paid to a Canadian than to be elected to the forum of this nation. I believe it was our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said it is a great country when a truck driver can aspire to be Prime Minister. I would like to think that this is not a bad place where a busboy in the Parliamentary Restaurant can someday return as a Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?
We will continue with debate. The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne).


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank voters in the riding of Champlain for the trust they placed in me and the Progressive Conservative Party on September 4 of this year. The vast majority of my constituents realized that important changes have to be made in the riding, in the province and in this country, if Canada is to be saved from the social and economic disaster towards which the Liberals have been leading us during the last twenty years. We owe this tremendous victory for democracy to a Party, to our Party, which listened to the needs of the people, which was receptive and understood the expectations of all Canadians, expectations which in the past had been dashed by an all too arrogant Liberal Government, a Liberal Government which thought it owned the country, a Liberal Government which wasted the hard-earned dollars of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, this country was sick and tired of the Liberal Government's constant confrontation tactics with the provinces. That is why, Mr. Speaker, after the election on September 4, the Progressive Conservative Party has received a clear mandate, a mandate that will give Canadians, once again, a chance to fulfil their potential in all economic and social sectors. Hon. Members will remember that during the last election campaign, Brian Mulroney and his team of Progressive Conservative candidates invited the Canadian people to work together with them towards national reconciliation. The Right Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, has always associated reconciliation with the need to bring about an economic consensus. The climate of tension that existed under the previous government was one of the factors that led to the sad deterioration of our economy. In my riding, in Champlain, Mr. Speaker, this has meant a combined unemployment rate
November 9, 1984

of over 50 per cent in some areas. By combined, I mean the unemployment rate plus the welfare rate. Unemployment is particularly high among young people. They are almost desperate. Women are frustrated because they are being confined to traditional roles. Factory shutdowns have become common place. Farmers are increasingly being faced with serious financing problems, and this is particularly true among those who are starting an operation for the first time. People are very concerned, and it is clear that the situation requires a sustained and concerted effort by all Canadians. We cannot leave the people in my riding and throughout the country in a situation that is indeed deplorable in the eyes of the outside world. We must take action, and we must do so as soon as possible.
In the throne speech, the Prime Minister reiterated his intention of calling a national conference on the economy. In fact, before the opening of this session, provincial first ministers had been asked to meet to set the agenda for the conference. This economic summit will bring together representatives of consumers, women, native peoples, the business world, labour and various levels of government. The purpose of the summit is to establish a new national action plan. It will be a success, provided participants can agree on certain economic priorities and on the respective roles of the economic partners, and if there is a commitment to some immediate courses of action. The Prime Minister also mentioned the possibility of future summits which, over time, would generate mutual confidence and a sense of shared responsibility for our national economy. He also defined the Government's role in the economy in which it would act as guide, mediator and catalyst.
A Progressive Conservative Government will be less intrusive in the private sector but vigilant over the integrity of the national economy and of national standards. The co-operation of all economic partners in a movement towards common economic goals, a concerted effort to resolve economic problems that are at the top of the priority list, regular meetings of these partners, and getting Canada back on the road to prosperity-these elements are all part of the grand design for national reconciliation.
The Progressive Conservative Party did not fight the Liberals and win the election to do what they did, which was to let the Canadian dollar float downward and try to solve the unemployment problem with bandaid programs. We are aiming for consensus, but we realize this will take time. However, we can take other important steps to help create this economic renewal.
The strategy devised by the ministers of our government is threefold: to restore fiscal responsibility, to remove obstacles to growth and to promote new investments. The record shows, Mr. Speaker, that the former Liberal government had to work very hard at the end of its mandate to leave such a bare treasury. Faced with such conditions, the present government got down to work seriously. Our plan aimed at reducing the deficit will be enforced in a fair, balanced and orderly manner and will allow us to restrict the growth of the public debt.
The Address-Mr. Dorin
Nobody will deny that it is urgent to tackle the deficit. If it gets out of control, it will finally drain all financial resources still available and will prevent us from taking maximum advantage of new opportunities. It will exert a very strong pressure on interest rates and will eventually bring to a standstill all investments required for our economic growth.
I would like also to give my constituants the assurance that our Government will endeavour to increase the efficiency and flexibility of our financial markets. We will strive to improve employment opportunities, based on market needs, and stimulate investments in research and development in order to increase our productivity.
This Government, Mr. Speaker, will introduce legislation to improve market conditions, and will put forward proposals to stimulate enterpreneurship and innovation. And to better reward success, especially in the small and medium business sector, we will also have orientations to suggest. There will be initiatives to increase both Canadian and foreign investment. With regard to unemployment, that tragedy brought about by the former Government, our Government now speaks in terms of strategy. We are committed to put the economy back on its rails, in order to create jobs. It is therefore urgent to stimulate job-creating investment. But to be efficient, any strategy for increasing employment opportunities should rest on increased worker training and retraining. This is why such a strategy based on a broader utilization of resources will be submitted to the provinces, the labour unions and the business community, with special emphasis on the private sector. Intensive consultations will be held with these groups. I am convinced that we will achieve those most interesting results, with the one goal of restoring to Canadians their proper role which is to make this a united, prosperous and pleasurable country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions? Comments?


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a pleasure for me to rise to address this House as the Member of Parliament for Edmonton West. After having heard the Speech from the Throne, I am confident in believing that a new chapter will be written in history. There are fresh ideas and approaches to show the country the direction in which this new Government will proceed in the coming year.
In this, my maiden address as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Edmonton West, I want to outline some of the reasons why I became a Member and indicate to Members of this House and my constituency those areas of personal interest and concern. I am very pleased that those areas have been

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Dorin
addressed in the Throne Speech as well as in the economic and fiscal statement last night in what I believe is a very positive way. As a Member of Parliament I do not have and will not have all of the answers to the many pressing questions facing Canadians today. I will, however, be searching for ideas and people with ideas to help me in my role as a Member of Parliament.
I will be consulting and seeking input from my constituents and others on the direction the Government has set. I will do the political leg work necessary to carry the ideas and views of my constituents directly to government, because I feel what has been missing in government in the past is that government has not been prepared to listen to the people and, furthermore, has lacked the political will to act once the consultation process has distilled and refined the ideas which have been presented.
Make no mistake, ideas abound. All Members will know that we here in Parliament are involved in a paper war. We are inundated daily with ideas and presentations of persons seeking to put forth their views. What we need then is to define the process through which all Canadians can be confident that their views will be heard in determining how best to proceed in the direction which the Government has established in the Throne Speech and also in the economic and fiscal statement, which I believe is an integral part outlining that direction, and also that they can be confident that, following proper consultation, the Government will act. For any Member of Parliament the greatest occupation is to serve others and make certain that those people less fortunate can be assured that their government will work with them instead of imposing policies without consultation.
It is obvious from this Throne Speech that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) strongly believes in consultation with the provinces, and the new Progressive Conservative Government has indicated its willingness, and indeed intention, to co-operate with the provincial governments and all involved sectors in major policy areas.
The key issues covered in the Throne Speech by my Government are important to my constituency and the Province of Alberta. The specific areas of economic recovery, international trade and parliamentary reform are of utmost concern to me. Alberta's views must be heard at the federal level, and the new Progressive Conservative Government has indicated its willingness to hear them.
The economic renewal three-part strategy plan announced in the Throne Speech refers to removing impediments to growth, seeking national consensus for economic direction, re-invigorating investment, and enhancing private sector risk taking and innovation among entrepreneurs.
As a chartered accountant by profession, it is obvious to me that, through consultation and co-operation rather than through confrontation, this new Government can adequately respond to regional difficulties when presenting national economic policies.
The initial introduction of a First Ministers' conference on the economy, followed by a national economic summit will join important groups together for the task of constructing a national economic consensus. This summit will be justly represented by all groups: women, consumers, native peoples, labour, business and government.
Alberta cannot prosper without international trade. It is vital that we continue to contribute to our growth and survival. Canada has a vital stake in the elimination of barriers to trade, commerce and investment on an international basis.
Any further protectionist moves by the United States or other major trading countries could have a very negative effect on Canada's and Alberta's trade expansion opportunities. The future of Canada and Alberta in this area must be keyed to our success in penetrating these markets with world level technology, fully reliable export capacities and transportation networks, and a skilled, highly productive domestic work force.
Since Canada is a trading nation-more than 30 per cent of our Gross National Product is derived from exports-changes in the international trading environment have important domestic ramifications. Government must play its part by creating the climate and fostering the entrepreneurial spirit needed to realize new products and processes and to adapt and develop innovations. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in his economic and financial statement which was presented last night, made specific reference to directions for change in increasing industrial research and development.
Canada has begun to experience other structural shifts as well, such as an increase in the average age of the population, slower population growth, alterations in demand for consumer products, and greater output shares accounted for by the service sector and the high-tech industries. All of these now demand enormous adaptation and adjustment. I am convinced that the most constructive role this Government can play is to concentrate our attention on creating a kind of environment in which the private sector can do what it does best, which is to create new jobs and new prosperity.
Increasing private-sector confidence and investment in the Canadian economy will result in the security of employment and jobs in Alberta. The quality of our economy rests on the self-reliance of individuals, and that requires room in order for creativity to be expressed. In this respect, our concern for small business, Canadian ownership and access to new careers for women, minorities and young people entails a vital human concern central to our quality of life. To meet these aspirations as well as our economic challenges, it is important for our society to encourage people to innovate and to create.
Economic growth is a social necessity because it will enable us to continue to invest in social programs. As we were reminded, people and not statistics are what economic growth is about. For us, this is a far more ambitious and indeed a far more compassionate concept than a safety net of food and shelter for the less fortunate. Rather, it is the provision of necessary resources and help to reduce dependence and to
November 9, 1984

liberate the individual to participate in the work and rewards in our rich society.
Because of poor job prospects in most other parts of Canada, many unskilled people moved to Alberta in recent years in the hope of finding a job, only to discover that an adjustment to the boom in Alberta was already under way and that fewer jobs were available. The federal Government's announcement that measures are needed to improve and expand skills training and re-training and the Government's intention to introduce an innovative employment strategy is an indication that every effort is being made by the Prime Minister and his Government to co-operate with the provinces, labour and business in determining appropriate policies.
In immediately attempting to reduce the huge federal deficit, this administration has realized that the cost of servicing the deficit limits the Government's ability to meet priority economic and social needs. The deficit hides the real cost of Government and does not allow for society to respond. The deficit inhibits private-sector growth and constrains the Government's ability to encourage growth. With a balanced budget, people would have to pay directly for services and programs initiated by the Government rather than paying indirectly for these services.
We have created an environment in which people expect governments to solve all of their problems but are actually shielded from the fact that, ultimately, the price tags for all those solutions must be paid for by the taxpayer. Deficits insulate that reality, and therefore governments become unresponsive to the true demands of their citizens.
By eliminating this smoke and mirrors distortion of reality, the Government can be held accountable for the success or failure to provide the level of services desired by the citizens with the resources allocated to it by those same citizens. The people are then in a position, through their exercise of the franchise, to decide what the role of Government will be, how large a role it should play and, most important, to what degree our society shall respond to the needs of those less fortunate. That is an important point. I have every confidence that Canadians will respond in a generous and caring way when others, either within or outside our country, are in need. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have more confidence in average Canadians responding than I have in some bureaucrat or official making a decision on what an appropriate response might be on behalf of the Government and the people of Canada.
The willingness of Canadians to respond to those less fortunate has been demonstrated by the response we have seen to the tragedy in Ethiopia. I commend my colleague, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), for his approach to this world tragedy and for the way that he has provided a vehicle for Canadians to get involved and to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Dorin: In Edmonton West, groups have been collecting funds to provide necessary food and equipment for Ethiopians
The Address-Mr. Dorin
in the hopes of alleviating human misery. It is obvious that this Government and the Canadian people care.
The Government has also announced that Members of the House of Commons will be asked to approve the appointment of a parliamentary task force on reform of the House. This is indeed an important announcement. As a new Member of Parliament, I believe that if the House were freer to represent the regional and local realities of the country, more effective federal programs and policies would result.
Parliament does not at present appear to be in full control of government, and parliamentary committees are not as effective as they could be. Individual Members of Parliament must be given sufficient and adequate resources to do the job properly. We must be provided the tools to do the job and then be expected to deliver results.
Assigning genuine problems to standing or special committees would give Ministers the views of Members of Parliament from across the country. It would also give Members of Parliament the direct opportunity of contributing to the development of policies. We must be given the power to call before committees experts from all areas of the country and all sectors of the economy. We must be allowed more free votes on issues that are not matters of confidence in the Government, and we must be given more individual power. The enhancement of the role of the private Member is the key issue and would allow our system to reflect the reality of the country and lead us to a more effective system.
The Government's planned restructuring of the Foreign Investment Review Agency will undoubtedly benefit small business directly and encourage foreign investment. In my view, this is a positive step for the Province of Alberta. The prosperity of Canada and Alberta will depend on new job creation. Under the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), a new formula has been used to allocate funds for Canada Works programs to every riding across Canada on a more equitable basis.
While I have some concerns about the long-range effectiveness of such programs, it is important to note that areas of tragically high unemployment like Edmonton, which now has an unemployment rate of 13 per cent or more, are now receiving their fair share of federal employment funds to help temporarily alleviate a very serious situation. My constituency allotment for Canada Works has been increased from a mere $122,000 to a more realistic $777,000. This indicates a concern on behalf of the new Progressive Conservative Government for the equitable distribution of funds across the country in order to stimulate employment.
It is Edmonton's eightieth birthday this week. It became a city on November 7, 1904. It is also the one hundred and eighty-ninth anniversary of the building of the first fort by the North West Company. The tremendous growth of Edmonton is a result of immigration from other parts of Canada and many areas of the world. People came to Edmonton because

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Cassidy
they had confidence in the future of the city and of the province.
It is evident from the Throne Speech and the economic and fiscal statement that this administration is attempting to breathe a new spirit into federalism and restore the faith and trust of all Canadians in the effectiveness of our system of government. Canadians voted for change, and from the indications in the Throne Speech debate I am convinced that this new direction will benefit Canada, the Province of Alberta and my constituency of Edmonton West.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the maiden speech of the Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin)? If there are no questions or comments, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your election to the Chair, and I would also like to congratulate this new Government.

I think it is quite clear that in the election the people of Canada did vote for change, and as a consequence decided to turf the Liberals out and, hopefully, to make them a historical vestige in Canada. I believe that people also voted for the kind of compassion and concern for ordinary people which New Democrats have traditionally represented and certainly intend to represent in the course of this Parliament.
I would like to thank the electorate of Ottawa Centre for their confidence in electing me. The House may be aware that my majority was a modest one of only 54 votes, and therefore I congratulate other Members of Parliament who were elected with a larger landslide than I was able to attain this time. I will attempt to catch up with them in the 1988 election.
This is a new venue for me, but it is also a return. I was in this House as an observer, as a parliamentary journalist for The Financial Times of Canada, from 1966 to 1970, before spending 13 years in provincial politics as an MPP. It is good to be back in my home city. I recognize and fully sympathize with those Members who have distant ridings, because for 13 years I have been living in one community and representing another. I know the difficulties that that represents. To those new Members who are residents of my riding I offer a particular welcome and a promise that I will inform them regularly through my householder of my work in politics.
I would like to talk about the election campaign as well as the economic statement and the Throne Speech. I believe there is a real danger of polarization between Bay Street and Main Street, and I think that that danger has already been amply demonstrated by the two policy statements which the Government has delivered this week. I do not believe that the people of Canada voted for the values of Bay Street when they voted for change on September 4. I also fear that too much, too quickly and too soon the new Government is beginning to look like the Liberal Government which it replaced, rather than
bring in real change which will benefit the ordinary people in my riding and across Canada.
I have a number of priorities I would like to speak on which relate to the people of my riding as well as to many people across Canada. One of those priorities is the question of housing. More than half of the people living in Ottawa Centre are tenants. We have a vacancy rate of 0.2 per cent. One apartment in 500 is actually vacant, as some new Members may have discovered when seeking accommodation after being elected to Parliament. Rents as high as $500 or $600 for a one-bedroom apartment. For family accommodation as well as apartments they are far beyond the affordability of large numbers of people who live in Ottawa Centre, despite the fact that Ottawans are perhaps fortunate in having a higher level of employment and somewhat higher incomes than people in many other parts of Canada.
In my area, homes which rented for $100 a month in 1966 have been renovated. Then are now renting for up to $1,000 or more a month, 18 years later. That is symptomatic of what has happened to the housing situation in Ottawa. The question is, what do families on modest incomes do?
Over many years as an MPP I fought for the rights of tenants. I was among the first people in the Ontario Legislature to seek and successfully gain rent review to protect tenants in the Province of Ontario. But that protection is not good enough if housing is not being provided for people on modest incomes. That is why I regretted so much the cutbacks on co-operative and non-profit housing allocations which were taking place under the Liberals, and why I equally regret that in the Throne Speech and the economic statement there was no thrust at all to have a job-creating investment in new housing directed to people on modest and moderate incomes.
It is to our shame in Ottawa that last winter we had to open emergency shelters because there were hundreds of adult men and women who were homeless. They had no place to live and no place to sleep. There is no form of social alienation in our society which is more intense than that of a person who does not have a roof over his head. In our province, people cannot even qualify for welfare unless they have a home address. There are now sizeable numbers of people in Ottawa who do not qualify for that minimum level of assistance because they have not got a home of their own.
The market system, in which the Minister of Finance and the Conservative Government have put so much trust, is not succeeding in providing housing for people who are poor and people who are on moderate incomes. There are a million Canadians who face an affordability crisis in housing, many of whom are here in Ottawa and in my riding of Ottawa Centre. If the market system is not going to work, people in that situation are either condemned to inadequate accommodation-to paying 30 per cent or 50 per cent of their income in rent-or to having no accommodation whatsoever. I fear that is what the Government is doing because of its lack of housing provisions in the Throne Speech.
The Throne Speech and the economic statement indicated that the Government intends to make cut-backs in the Public
November 9, 1984

Service. My riding is a Public Service riding, and I certainly intend to be a voice on behalf of those people who are public employees and who do essential jobs for Canadians through the Public Service. So far, it has been indicated that 1,500 cut-backs will begin in March, and 2,400 positions will be cut back over the next two or three years. That is disturbing and disquieting. Those numbers are less than we had feared, and for that small mercy I suppose we should be thankful. However, 1 want to insist that training schemes and relocation schemes be put into place so that no one in the Public Service is forced to lose his or her job as a consequence of the economies which are imposed by this Government. If there were adequate training and adequate advance identification of those workers, that would not occur. It certainly occurred when the Ministry of State for Economic Development was shut down a few months ago under the old Government. I want to ensure that the secretaries, the clerks and the little people who work in the Government get the same treatment as the high-priced bureaucrats in senior jobs received when that Ministry of State was closed down. I hope that the new Government will give that priority.
I also hope to see priority given to the question of political rights for public employees. Over the last several years people working for the Government of Canada have had to put up with an awful lot. A Liberal Government was elected which said that it was opposed to wage and price controls, but it brought in those controls. In the last two years, the Liberals brought in the six and five program. The Liberal Government did it a second time. If people working in the service of Canada wanted to get involved politically to defend their own interests, or if they wanted to get involved politically and had some interest which was completely unrelated to the fact that they worked for the federal Government, they were impeded because of federal law which gives no political rights to people who work for the Government of Canada, apart from the fact that they can vote. As well, under certain limited circumstances those people can present themselves for nomination. This was a major issue in my campaign and I am pledged to work for political rights for people who work in the Public Service of Canada. I want to see that the vast bulk of those workers do not face the disciplinary threats that they faced over the course of this year when the federal election was impending.
Since 1966, the Public Service Employment Act has had restrictions, but they have not effectively been in force because they had to be initiated by a candidate for Parliament, and that did not occur. However, this year the restrictions and warnings were intense. Cases have been lodged and people have been threatened with dismissal for attending political conventions, even despite the fact that no election was taking place. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of treatment runs in the face of what we have been trying to achieve in this country, which is to broaden people's political rights rather than to narrow them.
The Address-Mr. Cassidy
I want to remind the Government that when the Conservatives were campaigning this summer, before they became a government, they made it very clear that they believe that most people in the Public Service of Canada should have political rights along the lines for which I would argue and which I would support. In fact, in the correspondence with both the Professional Institute of the Public Service and also with the Public Service Alliance, Brian Mulroney, as Leader of the Conservative forces in the campaign, indicated that the matter should be addressed by an all-Party parliamentary committee in consultation with Public Service organizations, and I am quoting now-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member would refer to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister as the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Well, at that time he was Brian Mulroney, but I will certainly refer to him as the now Prime Minister of Canada.
The now Prime Minister said in his letter to PIPS, "We believe the situation can be quickly resolved-", and referred to the work of the D'Avignon Commission in 1979 as a valuable base on which that should be done. I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that that promise was not reiterated in the Throne Speech. I urge the Government and all Hon. Members, in particular those from Public Service ridings, to ensure that that parliamentary committee is set up in the life of this Parliament, hopefully by December. I remind the Government that similar promises were made by the Liberals when they were in Opposition in 1980, but the moment they came back to power they forgot about that particular promise and commitment. I would urge the Government not to be like the Liberals. Do not start forgetting your promises as soon as you get into government. This is an issue which I believe ought to be addressed and ought to be addressed very, very soon.
There are many ethno-cultural communities in my riding. I have made some strong commitments on a number of issues which relate to people from ethno-cultural communities and I am determined to ensure that we will respect those commitments, such as action for redress to the Japanese Canadians for their treatment during the war; action for redress for the terrible situation imposed on Chinese Canadians with the head tax, which effectively shut off immigration to this country over the first part of this century; and the need for affirmative action programs within the Government of Canada in order to ensure that visible minorities are no longer discriminated against in terms of employment. I look forward to the results of the Rosalie Abella Commission on that particular subject. I regret the fact that in the Throne Speech the Government did not take advantage of the opportunity it had to commit itself to the principles and recommendations of the all-Party task force of this Parliament which were contained in the document called Equality Now. It seems to me that that is an excellent blueprint with respect to action by the Government of Canada regarding that important part of my riding, and of our country, which is represented by the ethno-cultural communities.

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Cassidy

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to some broader issues concerning what was announced in the Throne Speech and the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last night. As Hon. Members are aware, I am now my Party's critic for Treasury Board and Science and Technology, but I have also been appointed Chairman of our Caucus on Quebec, and, Mr. Speaker, we intend to further develop the New Democratic Party's action on issues that concern Quebecers, as well as the activities of our Caucus in the Province of Quebec.
1 am afraid that since the September 4 election, there has been a change in the Government's priorities. During the election campaign, the Government ... the Progressive Conservatives said that their priority was jobs. Now it is the deficit, and they maintain that if they can get rid of the deficit, that will attract investment and create jobs.
Since I am going to deal with issues that concern Quebec, I sincerely wonder whether these policies will really affect the situation of Quebecers. Will investment solve the unemployment problem in Quebec in the near future, considering that a majority of Quebecers voted for the Progressive Conservative Party? They elected 58 PC Members to sit on the Government benches. I believe that Quebecers did not vote simply for the theories of Ronald Reagan or Neo-Conservatives, but for a real change to solve the unemployment problem in Quebec and throughout Canada.
The facts are as follows: Unemployment in Quebec has now reached 12.8 per cent compared with 8.9 per cent in Ontario. There is a difference of 4 per cent between the two provinces. Regionally, unemployment has reached 25 per cent in Rouyn-Noranda, 21 per cent in Chicoutimi and 15 per cent in Hull and the Outaouais compared with 8 or 9 per cent in Ottawa. Unemployment is now 14 or 15 per cent in Trois-Rivieres. That is the situation. However, the Government is trying to convince us that, if the deficit begins to decrease, this will promote investment which will in turn help correct the situation.
Is the market place going to reduce the difference between the unemployment rates in Quebec and Ontario? Definitely not, in my opinion. What we need is for the government to show leadership and to give priority to employment and not to concentrate only on the deficit.
Will the private sector create jobs in Chicoutimi or Rouyn-Noranda? I do not think so.
What has happened in the past? Many industries in Quebec, such as the mining and the textile industries, have specific problems with which the Government of Canada should be dealing instead of ignoring them. However, the new Government seems to be planning to ignore these problems in the belief that the market place will solve them.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you about the situation of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. This company had as its
president Mr. Brian Mulroney before he became Prime Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to remind the Hon. Member that this is not the Ontario Legislature. The Hon. Member must, not use the Right Hon. the Prime Minister's name. 1 must also correct him on his use of the name of the Hon. Minister of Finance. He must not address them by their names.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am newly elected to this place, but in the future, I shall definitely refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance by their titles.
When the Prime Minister was president of Iron Ore, he closed down the Schefferville mine. At the time, some 600 workers received compensation and separation pay totalling $9 million. However, between 1980 and 1982, the American owners of Iron Ore of Canada received $225 million in dividends while 600 workers received separation pay amounting to $9 million and 1,200 workers were laid off without getting any compensation from the company. These were people who worked in Labrador or for the railways owned by Iron Ore of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this is how the private sector operates. This is what happened to a private company in Quebec.

That is a good example, Mr. Speaker, of why we are concerned about the promises of the Government, that the free market on its own will suddenly invest and bring jobs back to places like Chicoutimi, Schefferville, Rouyn and Noranda. We quite honestly do not believe that that will in fact occur. We intend to be very active in our attention to the Province of Quebec. As I said in French, I am now heading a Quebec committee of our caucus. We have a Quebec committee in our Party as well. We will be working there because now we are the second party in terms of representation in the House of Commons from all of English Canada, and after 1988 I want to make sure that we are the second or first party in this Parliament representing the people of Quebec as well.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that in the course of the statements made in the Throne Speech and in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), so little reference was made to the problems of technological change which we have to learn to manage if we are to survive successfully the next ten or fifteen years. 1 believe that responding to technological change can only be done if we do it together. I welcome some of the statements made by the new Government concerning seeking consensus, conciliation and consultation. But consultation is empty if you are not prepared to share in decision making. One of the most urgent problems, it seems to me, in responding to the challenge
November 9, 1984

of technological change is for us as Canadians to learn to share in decision making. The responsibilities of management will have to be shared. Management rights will have to be redefined. Working people will have to take some of that responsibility as well. It is a two-way street. It means both legislation, exhortation and a lot of new thinking by a lot of people. That is why I very much regret that somehow we seem to be getting the rhetoric of Bay Street and encouragement for some of the most outdated management attitudes from the new Government, rather than a clear move forward.
For my part, as critic for science and technology in my Party, Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to ensure that we look for consensus, conciliation and consultation, but that we do it by sharing, a real kind of economic democracy. If we could move to make economic democracy in this country as powerful and meaningful for every Canadian as is political democracy, I think we would be doing a very good job for all Canadians in moving this country toward the 21st century.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a warm welcome to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) even though he defeated one of my good friends whom we will miss, the former Member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Evans.
I think that the Hon. Member has raised a rather important question in his remarks concerning the Public Service of Canada, particularly with respect to the right to participate in the political process. He is referring of course to this issue which he used himself during the electoral campaign-and it served him well. But I would like to ask him to comment briefly and make it clear to Hon. Members and the public at large that there are indeed two aspects to the question he has raised. First, the political participation of public employees which is covered under Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. I think that the Hon. Member has explained that this section applies during an election and that the Public Service Commission must initiate disciplinary proceedings against a public employee who has been the subject of a complaint by a Member of the House. I should think that very few Members are not fully aware of that provision. That question has been debated at length here and, in the spring of 1984, the Members of the parliamentary committee had an opportunity to raise that issue with the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Gallant.
The second aspect is very important, Mr. Speaker, and it is about it that I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member. It has to do in fact with the freedom of expression of public employees.
The Address-Mr. Cassidy

-freedom of expression. The Hon. Member will recognize that in the PIPs brief that was made public in the last week or ten days a lot of emphasis was put on freedom of expression. That is a totally different approach than the strictly political participation. I would like to know if he agrees with me that it is a much more encompassing, much larger, more difficult area to discuss, assess, evaluate and come to grips with. [Translation]
And if in his answer he could explain to me his position on the question of the freedom of expression of public employees-
Both the Hon. Member and myself represent civil servants here, in Ottawa. In our riding we probably have a majority of them, and certainly more than most other ridings. The problem is that there are Hon. Members from outside Ottawa who represent ridings where there are high officials dealing with customs, manpower, skills upgrading or immigration; an immigration officer has the power to decide whether or not a person may enter Canada. From his point of view, would he allow these officials to make public statements concerning government policies? Would he extend to all civil servants this freedom of expression? Since he mentioned the D'Avignon report, does the Hon. Member suggest, like D'Avignon, that there should be restraints placed on the Civil Service as a whole, so that as politicians, we could rely on a non-partisan Civil Service which not only refrains from arbitrary statements concerning government policies but also which is perceived by the Canadian public as totally independent from the government and partisan politics?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I would say that-

Perhaps I can reply in English to that particular question. The Hon. Member raises a good question, one which I believe should be studied by a parliamentary task force, particularly if it were to be established very quickly. I happen to believe that most of the restrictions which exist now can and should be removed. That was the position of the D'Avignon Committee, and it is also the practice in Great Britain where senior civil servants do not have freedom to act in a political way. They have to remain neutral, but people who hit the typewriters and drive the trucks and run the weather stations and do all the other jobs that most of the 250,000 people in our Public Service perform would in fact have political freedoms which are essentially the same or almost the same as those of anyone else. I say almost the same in this respect. The principle that is you work for General Motors you do not criticize Chevies if you want to stay in the firm probably applies here, too. If you happen to work for Transport Canada, then I think it is legitimate to expect that a person would not speak out about the policies of his or her immediate employing department. I think that that probably is something that can be developed through guidelines or in other ways, but it certainly would not

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Cooper
prevent someone from Transport Canada from being quite actively involved in concerns about, let us say, ureaformalde-hyde insulation or concerns about peace or the Cruise missile or some other issue not related directly to his or her department.
I do not think that people in this Parliament are going to be inhibited or restricted by the fact that some people working for government are active politically or are, from time to time, when sitting at a bar, going to a meeting, or in some other way, speaking out on some issue not directly related to their employment. I think this place can rise above that. I do not think that is particularly a problem.
In the case of a Customs worker or someone else who is making quasi-judicial decisions, there may be a certain limited group around whom one has to have a certain intermediate level of restrictions. That is a possibility. But I would say that somewhere around 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the people working for the Government of Canada should have the freedom of expression and of political activity, a freedom which should not have been taken away from them many years ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. I recognize the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper).


Dave Nickerson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that in the last question and answer period there was only one question asked and one answer given. My understanding of the rules is that what we were trying to do when we changed the rules was to allow some kind of debate and to have one, two, three or four Members ask questions of the Member who had spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. I can appreciate what the Hon. Member said, but when the Hon. Member completed his maiden speech there was only one Member who rose. I considered him to be the only individual who was going to be asking a question or making a comment. Therefore, I proceeded to allow him to have the whole 10 minutes. I am sorry about that.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your appointment to serve this House in your honoured position. We are very flattered to have you as one of the officers of the House. I would also like to offer my congratulations to Mr. Speaker Bosley. As he has become the interpreter of the rules of this place, I would like to share with him and with you, knowing your sense of humour, a little definition of what an interpreter is. I must say that my comment is made with tongue in cheek. The definition comes from a dictionary which you may well know was written by Ambrose Bierce, It reads:
Interpreter: one who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.
I will leave that with you to think about a little bit. You may consider that as you and Mr. Speaker Bosley are called upon to interpret what takes place in this special institution of which we are privileged to be a part.
Before I really begin my remarks, I would like to thank the people of the Peace country for once again giving me the opportunity to serve them in the House of Commons. I found serving them over the last four years to be an exciting challenge, an opportunity, and one of the great thrills of my life. I appreciate the confidence which they have once again placed in me by returning me here. I also appreciate the constant feedback they have given me over the last few years, and which I know they will continue to give me as I continue to work for them in this new Parliament.
I would like to start to discuss the business at hand today, namely, the Throne Speech. As I heard the Throne Speech being delivered I felt there was a great deal of value in that speech. There were a number of things which I felt were extremely significant. I would like to focus on some of those which I feel are very important. One of the first items which comes to mind as I think back on the Throne Speech is the area of federal-provincial relations. This particular issue is very much a concern to the people of Alberta whom I represent. We are very concerned about federal-provincial relations because in the last few years we have watched what can happen when those relationships start to break down. We can see the development of separatists in a region where that had never been a problem. We can see the frustrations and angers that begin to boil and brew when federal-provincial relations are not working. We know that that can cost us jobs. We know of the angers and frustrations which become apparent when federal-provincial relations are not given a priority.
As I listened to the Throne Speech I sensed that we can now expect and look forward to an end to the bickering. I hope that we can start to see some realistic approaches. From conversations which I have had with provincial colleagues, I can tell that tensions are reduced now. There is an opportunity for us as Canadians, for Albertans, Quebecers and people from Ontario, to begin to relate to one another and represent those people at the federal-provincial levels whom we are all elected to serve. I see that as being one of the primary factors in the Throne Speech which I hope will establish a tone for the new Parliament.
A second area in the Throne Speech which is of particular interest to me is parliamentary reform. I had the privilege of serving on the special task force which dealt with parliamentary and procedural reform in the last Parliament. It is a subject which is very near and dear to my heart. It is a subject which I consider to be of paramount importance. It very much affects all of the individual Members of the House, but even more than that that it affects how this nation is governed, how we approach our legislation and the ability that we have to move legislation through the House of Commons.
From references in the Throne Speech to these subjects I sense that there will be a much more meaningful role for private Members of Parliament, Members who are not neces-
November 9, 1984

sarily in the Cabinet, who are not Parliamentary Secretaries or have not been given a high profile title. I sense that there will be new opportunities for those of us who are in that position. I also see an indication that there will be improved opportunities for Members of Parliament to examine the Government and to consider what it is bringing forward and the implications and seriousness of it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has asked the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to head this very important task force. The Member for St. John's East is a well-known senior Member of the House who has contributed to parliamentary and procedural reform for years.
I would like to congratulate him on his appointment and to congratulate the Prime Minister on his choice of this particular individual, who I know is fully capable of delivering to the House a concrete, serious and valuable report.
A third area of the Throne Speech which I believe to be significant is tax reform. Members will recall that in the last Parliament the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), who is now the Minister of National Revenue, was asked by our Party to form a task force to look into Revenue Canada and the difficulties that Canadians from coast to coast were facing with that Department. In my opinion it was one of the most important task forces to be struck in the last Parliament. Out of that came a great deal of good, a great deal of excitement, and a great deal of challenge for the new Government.
In the Throne Speech we have seen signals that there will be an end to the quotas which had so many of us worried and kept so many of us busy by constituents who felt they were being harassed by the Department simply because someone was trying to fill a quota and making sure they were getting their promotions.
Another important factor in the area of tax reform is the concept that a person is innocent until he or she is proven guilty, which we have always thought was significant and totally acceptable in Canada. However, we found that was not the case with Revenue Canada. Often we had taxpayers who were reassessed and had to pay that tax before they could even appeal. So they were found guilty until they could prove their innocence. There are indications in the Throne Speech that we are going to change that. I would like to congratulate the Government on that.
The Throne Speech is a statement of intent, Mr. Speaker. It is a statement of intent in the broadest sense. It cannot outline specifically all that must be done. Of course, the Governor General, out of politeness and good manners, did not or could not tell us why all of these things had to be done. However, I am not under any similar restrictions today and I feel quite free to talk about why I think we need the changes which have been indicated in the Throne Speech and in the economic statement which followed. I believe that we must change the direction in which the Government has been leading the country. We must change it because for so long now the direction in which we have been moving has been the wrong direction. I would like to refer to a few examples which I think
The Address-Mr. Cooper
demonstrate very clearly the wrong direction in which the previous Government was moving.
Representing the region that I do, I must speak first about the National Energy Program. That Program destroyed investment, opportunity and jobs and set back our country in terms of energy self-sufficiency. That was an example of the wrongness of the actions of the previous administration. There was Canagrex, on which I can remember having a very long debate in the House. It was a debate that took place because Canagrex was going to be the new saviour of our agricultural community. It was going to catapult Canada into making world exports of our agricultural products. After it was formed, we saw that that did not happen, the results were not there. So we now see why we had to cancel Canagrex and return those funds to the Government of Canada. That is a second example of how wrong the last Government has been.
I have already referred to Revenue Canada. Never have we seen such a demonstration of arrogance and such an uncaring attitude toward Canadians. Canadians were treated like numbers and simply as a source of revenue. There was no sense of concern or compassion for fellow Canadians. I believe that the previous Government's use of Revenue Canada greatly contributed to the fact that we are now sitting on this side of the House and they are sitting on that side. There has been a change of government because Canadians did not like the attitude demonstrated by the Liberals. Fortunately, I believe that we are turning that direction around.
In addition to the Throne Speech we also heard the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last night. When I listened to that very significant and important statement for all Canadians, I was struck by the open, frank and sometimes very disturbing appraisal of the problems we face in this country. I was particularly impressed by the fact that the Minister seemed to be speaking directly to the people of the Peace River constituency.
People from the area I represent could quickly relate to many items in the economic statement. They could see that there was an attempt by the Government to recognize the difficult situation that the people of Peace River and all Canadians experienced. They could see that there was an attempt to provide some solutions.
The first issue that comes to mind is that of farm fuel costs. Last night the Minister indicated that there would be an end to the sales tax on farm fuels of some three cents a litre. That is very significant because it gives a considerable advantage to people in the Peace country who consume a great deal of fuel in the seeding, harvesting and maintenance of their fields and crops. In addition, there will be no increase in the petroleum compensation charge to our farming community. These measures are a recognition of the importance of stable input costs to the agricultural community of Canada. That is extremely important to the people in the Peace country, particularly at this time when we are facing rather difficult times.

November 9, 1984
The Address-Mr. Cooper
I must say that there are agricultural difficulties which still must be addressed, particularly in my part of the country. These include the difficulty of covering freight costs for such places as Valleyview, McRae and Fort Vermilion. These are examples of communities in my riding which do not have rail service for grain transportation. I will continue to emphasize this serious situation faced by that part of my riding. There are other areas that are affected by freight costs as a result of changes in the Crow rate.
Let me point out that we in the Peace River area were pleased with the Prime Minister's appointments to the agricultural community. My colleague, the Elon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowksi), who is now the Minister of Transport, is probably one of the most knowledgeable people about the difficulties facing our farmers in terms of the shipment of their grain to market. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) understands the difficulties that we face, and the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board knows that industry as does no other person in the Elouse. We are very pleased, and I know that the people of the Peace country want to congratulate these Ministers on their appointment to these positions. We look forward to their leadership and assistance in providing for the needs of the people in the Peace country.
Another area of particular concern to my constituents is the question of northern allowances. As Elon. Members know, a previous Minister of Finance who is now a Senator in the other place introduced legislation that would greatly affect and tax benefits that northerners receive while working in the North to compensate them for the high cost of living and working in those areas. As a result of last evening's economic statement, there will be a remission of a number of these taxes until 1985 and there will be a study made to determine what further changes can be made. I plan to participate in that process and anticipate the opportunity of making an input to ensure that the people who work and develop the North and provide many of the resources which the rest of Canada enjoy will have a fair tax set-up.
Furthermore, there will be a reference for study on the whole issue of part-time farmers. Many Members will be aware of the difficulties that have arisen in this area. It is a unique problem that is very much a factor in the Peace country. Many new farmers in that area are opening new land. This involves tremendous costs with no income initially, because one must wait for some time before there is any return. Therefore, many of these individuals must earn income off the farm. Under the previous administration, once they did this they were immediately declared part-time farmers and lost the tax benefits they previously would have had as full-time farmers. This placed them in a classic Catch 22, situation. I am pleased that this matter has been referred for study, because it must be addressed. Again, it is a recognition of the serious problems facing many of our farmers.
Other items that I could mention which have a significant impact on the Peace country include changes to the PGRT. This will remove some of the uncertainty faced by our producers. It will also have an impact on oil sands production,
which is of particular concern to the region I represent because of the Peace River tar sands project, which is now considering an expansion. I hope that these changes will mean that the project can proceed, thereby encouraging investment and jobs, which are so desperately needed not only in my part of the country but in all of Canada.
There is the matter of veterans' pensions. Any Hon. Member who has spent any time in the House will know that this has been one of our biggest frustrations. It has been frustrating to deal with the members of the Armed Forces or their dependants who have been forced to exist on pensions that are terribly meagre and in fact an embarrassment to all of us when we witness such treatment to those who gave so much to represent our country in the last wars. I am pleased that there will be a one-year extension of pensions for a surviving spouse and that the disability pension will continue for one year. I am pleased that that pension will now be pegged to the consumer price index or to wages of a select group of public servants. We are making progress in recognition of the difficulties experienced by all Canadians.
The main economic thrust of the Government as illustrated by the economic statement and the Throne Speech is the reduction of the deficit. In closing let me address that question. If we avoid dealing with the deficit, we are locking ourselves into permanent debt. Without such action we will not be getting the value for our tax dollars and soon will only be making interest payments on interest payments. The third result of a high deficit is high interest rates. An economy cannot grow with high interest rates and the result is reduced consumer demand. It would mean reduced housing starts with reduced investment and consequently fewer jobs.
We cannot sit and do nothing. We have to make a number of hard decisions and we have to make them now. That is what I see coming through this Throne Speech and what I see coming through this economic statement.
The most optimistic projections indicate that our present deficit is up to about $34.5 billion. Next year it has been projected at about $37 billion. Between now and 1990 that deficit could well stay between $34 and $38 billion.
As the Minister of Finance said last night, to put it in common terms, it means that in 1967 a family would have had g debt of $4,000. Today that national debt per family has gone up to $24,000. If that trend continues, it could well mean by 1990 a debt of $54,000 per family.
My time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, but let me say that it is most important that we kick our economy into gear. We can do that by addressing the deficit and by addressing the serious situation that exists in this country.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and his Cabinet on the initiatives they have taken both in the Throne Speech and in the economic statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 9, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments?
It being 4.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(3), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps my eyes are deceiving me but it appears to me that we have speakers on this side of the House who would like to speak in this debate, and I take it that it is only 4.42 p.m. at best. I do not want to question the time that you have called, Mr. Speaker, but I would appreciate it if our Members could also participate in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In response to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I did not see anyone rise from his side of the House. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) will be recognized now that I see him rising. There are about two minutes left, and in order for him to make his maiden speech and keep it intact, it would be much better if he were recognized now and were to be one of the first to speak at the next debate on the Speech from the Throne.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that you are protecting the position of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) on Tuesday morning at eleven o'clock and that he will be recognized first on this side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, when we next commence with the Throne Speech debate.
May I reiterate. It being 4.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 42(3), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment. The question is the following one. Mr. James, seconded by Ms. Jacques, moves:
That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May It Please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Gray, moves:
The Address-Mr. Cooper
That the Address be amended by adding the following words:
"But this House condemns your advisers for their failure to demonstrate
leadership and to provide plans for immediate action in the creation of tens
upon tens of thousands of new jobs".
Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa), seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:
"and specifically, that your government has failed, 1. to set jobs as its top and immediate priority; and to set targets and outline specific new programs to put Canadians back to work; 2. to reform the tax system to ensure wealthy Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and that corporations use their tax breaks to create more jobs; and, 3. to provide immediate measures to bring about equality for women in Canada".
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am very disappointed, and I hate to point this out to the House, but my friends from the New Democratic Party surprised me. I stood up to help them and hold their hands in order to get their subamendment voted upon. I am sorry to see the 10 per cent solution, that there are only three New Democrats in the House and they could not be here to make this subamendment of theirs a votable motion. 1 regret that this motion-


Sheila Maureen Copps: And this is the real Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier but he does not have a point of order.
It now being five o'clock, pursuant to order made Thursday, November 8, 1984, this House adjourned until Tuesday, November 13, 1984, at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.45 p.m. the House adjourned.

Tuesday, November 13, 1984