1985-11-08

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent of the House to alter somewhat our normal proceedings in anticipation of Remembrance Day, November 11. We would like to proceed with statements by each of the Parties at the beginning of the proceedings. Following that, we will proceed to the usual order of business. The business of the House will be extended for the period of time used for the statements with respect to Remembrance Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Can I be clear whether it is the intent of the House to proceed with the normal statements and then the Ministers' statement, or just the Minister's statement?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Ministers' statement will be made first, followed by statements under Standing Order 22 and then Question Period will take place in the usual sequence.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my proud duty to remind Members of the House that Canada will be observing Remembrance Day next Monday. Last year I said it was not sufficient to recognize the sacrifices of veterans and their families merely on special occasions. I said they must be regarded as a very special group, worthy of our unsparing attention each and every day. I am thankful that we in this House have been able to give a practical expression to those sentiments during the past 12 months.
I would like to thank members of all Parties in the House for so enthusiastically supporting the provision of additional funds for the benefit of many more thousands of veterans and their families. One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the House allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs to streamline and upgrade long established veterans' programs. I am particularly grateful for the advice and co-operation 1 received from all Members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in the preparation of this legislation.
Canadians have been reminded once again this year of the achievement of the men and women we are serving here in Parliament. Some veterans returned to Sicily and Italy to pay their respects to those Canadians who died during a harsh
20-month campaign fought long before the rest of the Allied Forces arrived in Europe on D-Day. Others of us returned to Holland to be greeted with love as representatives of Canadians who liberated that wonderful country 40 years before. Next month another pilgrimage will be going to Asia. There Canada will be able to salute those who were among the first to see action and the last to see freedom again, the defenders of Hong Kong. Cemeteries in Singapore and Burma will be visited by veterans, including some of our own colleagues, who flew so many dangereous missions in that forgotten theatre.
These pilgrimages are always occasions for both sadness and pride. The rows of Canadian graves and the lists of names on memorials are a terrible reminder of the price our country has had to pay in war. Our pride comes from rediscovering just how much respect our service men and women gained for Canada overseas.
I would like to quote some remarks made by the Dutch Minister of Transport when we Canadians visited Holland last May. She said at that time: "During the war Canada was, in the Dutch peoples' eyes, a big, free, hospitable country far away from the acts of war. During the war it was that country whose sons and daughters were willing to risk their lives, and sometimes sacrifice their lives, for the liberation of Europe. The children from that paradise called Canada wore uniforms and went to a hell called Europe. To us, the Dutch, Canada is still a concept we link with freedom and courage".
Such words, Mr. Speaker, eloquently explain why it will be such a privilege for Canadians to commemorate the two World Wars and the Korean War next Monday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, as spokesperson for the Official Opposition, I welcome this opportunity to join the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) in paying tribute to those Canadians whose memory we shall be honouring on Remembrance Day, Monday, November 11.
The Minister referred to the trip to the Netherlands made by our veterans early this year to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the end of hostilities of the Second World War.
I am sure all Canadians were very proud and very moved by the many stories about this visit that were published in the media. On television, we also saw the joy, love and pride with which thousands of Dutch people welcomed our veterans back to their country.
Personally, I was very impressed to see so many young children waving Canadian flags. They seemed to be very much

November 8, 1985
Remembrance Day
aware, and at the same time grateful to all those Canadian veterans who were proudly parading past them.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that today's youth in Canada will also show this gratitude to our Canadian veterans.
Since 1953, Canada has not engaged in any armed conflict. If our young people wonder why Canada celebrates Remembrance Day, they should remember the supreme sacrifice made by generations that went before, to give them a present so few had been able to enjoy for so long: peace and freedom.
We enjoy the unusual privilege of peace. Freedom is an integral part of our daily lives in this country. On Remembrance Day, we shall pay tribute to the suffering and bloodshed with which others paid for this freedom.
There is also fear, the fear felt by those who went overseas and who had to face the enemy, and the fear of those who stayed home, waiting anxiously until a telegram announced that a relative or a friend was wounded or killed in battle.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not demonstrative people. Remembrance Day has never lost its sacred characteristic, nor its silent dignity, nor its link with past events. The Flanders poppy is a discreet reminder of World War I atrocities and sacrifices-over 67 years ago already.
Speaking of the poppy, I would remind the House that the Royal Canadian Legion is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. The Legion has been the staunch defender of veterans' rights and the protector of their families for the last 60 years. I commend the Legion for past achievements and I fully expect its future endeavours to be equally illustrious.
As parades worm their way through Canadian cities on Monday, bagpipers will remind us of our grief, buglers will blow the last post. But we will not highlight Remembrance Day by displays of new missiles, fly-pasts, or tanks thundering down the streets. We do have such weapons, of course, but that is not what Remembrance Day means to Canadians. We can still appreciate what Remembrance Day represents-an opportunity to recall Canadian men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice so we may live as we do today, free!
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allow me to read a verse from a poem written by John McCrae, physician, poet and soldier, entitled "Somewhere in Flanders":
You who survive us, it is up to you to take the torch of combat from our emaciated fingers, it is a sacred duty, we shall not sleep under the soil of Flanders if you desecrate it.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, over 70 years have passed since the first Canadian died overseas in the fight for freedom against totalitarianism. This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, a war which I lived through in Britain as a child and which my father, together with so many other fathers of other young
men and boys and girls, the brothers and the sisters and the cousins and the other relatives, took part. I remember that at the end of that war we vowed it would never happen again and that we would, in fact, remember the sacrifices. We vowed that we would remember those who died and that we would, in a more tangible way, recognize the sacrifice of those who returned from that war wounded, in body and, in some instances, in mind. I ask the House to think back about whether in fact we have lived up to that obligation, to that undertaking to which we committed ourselves at that time without a moment's hesitation.
In 1984 1 had the privilege of travelling with hundreds of veterans as they returned to the places which are indelibly inscribed in their memories. I stood on the shores and at the battle scenes and heard of the terror, the sacrifice and the bravery first hand. I met, with others from Canada, those in France who had befriended and protected our men as they fought for freedom.
I knew then what Remembrance Day was all about and why we, who benefited from the sacrifice, committed ourselves to ensuring that this could never happen again. We continue to owe a great deal to those whose lifetime was one of great sacrifice and suffering, to the widows and families of those who lost their lives.
On behalf of my colleagues, I want to join with the Minister and the representative of the Liberal Party in paying tribute and rededicating ourselves now to meeting our debt to those who served our country, who served it in World War I and World War II, to those who served in the Korean conflict and to those who continue to serve in the many peacekeeping missions in which we take part around the world as part of our obligation.
I continue to pray that we will not lose sight, as Parliament, of the need to develop an economic order throughout the world which will eliminate poverty and want and establish for all people a sense of belonging that will guarantee the level of life-style that will, by its very existence, put an end to the threat of war.

Mr. Speaker, we remember.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all Members will want to join me in a minute of silence.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence.]
November 8, 1985



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 22


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning from the medias that the number of unemployed people in Montreal has increased by as much as one half of 1 per cent over the past month.
We, Liberals, have emphasized these past few weeks the many plant closings and job losses on the Island of Montreal, especially in East End Montreal, because we expected Tory members to do something.
We were wrong, Mr. Speaker, for Conservative members representing ridings on the island of Montreal are not only doing nothing, but they are so incompetent that they simply do not know what to do, which is even worse.
Mr. Speaker, the only minister from an Island of Montreal riding is of course our great international traveler, the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) who is much more concerned about Sweden, Corsica, the U.S.S.R. or the London suburbs than she is about the thousands of jobs which are being lost on the Island of Montreal and which are likely to continue being lost.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the PC committee which meets at the Ritz every Thursday night to give mandates and make appointments might deal with the unemployment situation on the Island of Montreal, for while the number of unemployed is increasing, the number of mandates given to their PC friends is increasing even more.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory federal Government in the name of deficit reduction is cutting back on family benefits, on social programs, on transfer payments to provinces for health and education, and on essential public service jobs. While professing to care about those in greatest need, it is copying the B.C. policy of restraint which has made a devastating contribution to unemployment, poverty, and human rights.
Bill Bennett in British Columbia cut social service programs, eliminated child protection teams, family support workers, closed the Rentalman's office, disbanded the Human Rights Commission, laid off consumer protection officers, closed transition houses and fired elected schoolboards.
While unemployment remains at 14.2 per cent, the third highest in Canada, the number of poor families in B.C. has increased by 400 per cent since 1980. A 400 per cent increase in poverty is a crisis, Mr. Speaker. The federal Government by adding another layer of restraint will add to the poverty and hardship of British Columbians and other Canadians.



FAMILY VIOLENCE


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, this week has been designated as Crime Prevention Week in Canada, with the theme being victims. I wish to take this opportunity to address the House on the importance of this issue.
Violence is always tragic, but none so tragic as that violence which occurs within the family. Abuse of children and wife battering are far more widespread than most Canadians imagine. For example, it has been estimated that at least one in 10 Canadian wives is beaten by her husband in any given year.
There are transition houses and crisis centres for victims which provide an invaluable service for abused children and battered wives. However, they are too few and underfunded. Such a centre exists in my riding in Manitoba, the Dauphin Crisis Centre for Battered Women and Abused Children. The dedicated people involved in this Centre offer counselling, referrals, general information and, in the near future, hope to provide short-term emergency shelter.
The Government has promised that, in consultation with the provinces, it will take action to provide additional assistance to the victims of family violence. It can never be too soon to provide the victims of family violence with somewhere to turn. They need and deserve the support of this House, the provincial Governments, and all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition persists in disparaging our Government not by enquiring as to the great orientations of our election campaign, which are national reconciliation and economic recovery, but by trying to create panic among the poor. We only have to recall the campaign launched last spring to stir up students without any reference to our new program which has been very successful. We should also recall the campaign to stir up senior citizens with no emphasis at all on the new spouse allowance

November 8, 1985
program worth close to $600 million to be paid to the poorest of those people.
In spite of their eloquent and demagogic statement, truth has its rights and we only have to look at the economic indicators. All this was done despite the scandalous legacy of the Liberal Government. For several years, we have seen them cutting capers on the Parliament Hill steps and putting on a show at the expense of all Canadians. That Government was characterized above all by its arrogance and its contempt for all Canadians.
We should therefore unmask, Mr. Speaker, those new defenders of the widow and the orphan who led the country to the brim of disaster. In 10 years they spent 10 times more than during the first 110 years of Confederation, Mr. Speaker. I have been speaking for almost a minute and one half and this will cost us $75,000 in interests because of the foolishness of the Liberal Government. Our Government should therefore continue-


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



FISHERIES


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the fishery and for politics in Newfoundland. The federal Government has announced not just one factory freezer trawler licence, but it has offered two more factory freezer trawler licences, one of them to a provincial-federal Crown corporation, namely, Fishery Products International, which licence was not even requested.
We have the sad situation today in Newfoundland of having the federal Government calling the provincial Government names and the provincial Government calling the federal Government names in open battle. I think that is pretty sad, Mr. Speaker, and is a bad reflection on our political system. What it requires is a full hearing on the matter as far as factory freezer trawlers versus the inshore fishermen are concerned, and for everybody to keep in mind that the best quality of fish is that caught by the inshore fishermen in a trap or by hook and line.
I am hoping that the provincial Government and the federal Government can resolve these differences, because it certainly does nobody any good when we have this situation occurring in a Province like Newfoundland.




Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose is to make a statement, not to engage in debate. 1 welcome the decision made by the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Nielsen) to make a policy change which will result in the issuance of factory freezer trawler licences. 1 am sure it was not an easy decision for the Minister, and I am sure he applied the Solomon-like judgment of which he is capable in coming to his conclusion.
At the same time all of us respect the views and legitimate concerns of people like the Premier of Newfoundland and others interested in the Atlantic fishery who fear that difficulties may arise from the use of this new technology. However, like any advancing technology, we cannot fear it; we must learn to live with it.
1 think the decision of the Minister has allowed the Atlantic fishery to advance with this new technology, adapt it to our own use, preserve jobs, and preserve the traditions of the Atlantic fishery.
I know from my personal experience that the Minister, in pursuing the process by which he came to the decision, had many opportunities to consult with the people in the industry. Many of us in the House of Commons, particularly from the Atlantic area, know more about factory freezer trawlers than we ever wanted to know. There has been a steady barrage of material in the newspapers, in the media, in presentations and so on. I think the consultation process has been followed to the extreme in this case. I think the views of all are well known.
What remains is for Members of Parliament to accept their responsibility to the people-


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



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government formulate plans for the next Budget, today's unemployment figures in western Canada should be studied carefully and should act as a guide to the Government.
In British Columbia, where Conservative ideology has resulted in the devastation of the educational system, the economy, and the province's social programs, and now only offers Expo '86 as the economic saviour of the province, forgetting that there will still be life in British Columbia after 1986, it has become crystal clear that the Conservative approach to economic problem solving has created an econom-

November 8, 1985
ic and social nightmare for hundreds of thousands of British Columbia residents.
Today's unemployment statistics show that the situation continues to deteriorate in the Province of British Columbia, as unemployment climbs ever higher, from the seasonally adjusted rate of 13 per cent in September to 14.2 per cent this past month.
This should be compared with the Social Democratic Province of Manitoba which has had the lowest seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in Canada. In the Province of Manitoba there have not been vicious cut-backs in social programs, the economy is on the upturn, and the number of unemployed continues to fall month after month. In September it was 7.6 per cent and in October it was 7.2 per cent.
By looking at the facts, and the facts only, the western province led by extremist Conservative ideology is a disaster in economic and social terms, while the western province led by a Social Democratic ideology is a caring and building province. Mr. Prime Minister, you now have budget models-


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



FIREARMS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to address an issue of concern expressed to me on numerous occasions. The complaint is that changes to the 1978 firearms control law adversely affect the ownership and use of recreational firearms.
Several reports and evaluations commissioned by the House have indicated that the 1978 changes had little impact on firearms crime. Instead, the resulting growth of the bureaucracy has increased costs, with questionable results.

Mr. Speaker, this House must take into consideration requests for the revision and simplification of that law. Recreational firearms can be controlled much more cheaply and effectively.
Firearms control authorities are primarily police officers. Their view of recreational firearms is rightly constrained by their training and experience, but this can lead to unnecessary friction between honest citizens who use firearms for recreational purposes and the authorities.
The diversity of firearms disciplines makes it difficult to achieve adequate control of the use of recreational firearms without enlisting the co-operation of the community itself, which we have not done.
Our present firearms registration system is deficient. A new system, devised jointly by the authorities and the recreational firearms community, would be cheaper and more effective. This is an area where co-operation between citizens and Government could be improved. On behalf of the recreational firearms community in my constituency, I call for a review of the firearms control laws, with the full participation of representatives of that community.

[ Translation]



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that a year ago today, on November 8, 1984, the Conservative Government tabled its document called A New Direction for Canada, An Agenda for Economic Renewal. It read: "On September 4, Canadians voted for change, and for a better future. In doing so, they have provided the opportunity to make a fresh start, to build new confidence and a new national consensus toward achieving the economic promise and potential of Canada."
Mr. Speaker, I could not find anywhere in that document that the Conservatives would try to deindex old-age security pensions. I could not find either any reference to the fact that the Conservatives would deindex family allowances. That document does not say anything about the resignation of three Ministers. Nor does it refer to the rancid tuna affair. There is no mention of the two bank failures or the nearly $1 billion gift to Gulf shareholders. Nothing is said of possible revenue losses of $250 million in the case of Algoma Steel. A $2.4 billion increase in the tax burden of Canadians was not mentioned anymore than tax privileges of $500,000 to the wealthy.
To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives promised the earth. They ignored their election promises, their document full of promises. One year later, the Conservatives should bury their document so that a new one could be drafted and give perhaps better reason to rejoice in a year from today.




Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, here is the truth: day after day, it becomes more obvious that the Mulroney's Government is rebuilding the Canadian economy.
The number of jobs increased by 37,000 in October. Since the elections, 333,000 jobs have been created. The rate of unemployment has decreased from 11.5 per cent in September 1984 to 10.3 per cent now.
The Bank of Canada rate has dropped 3.54 points since we took over and currently stands at 8.84 per cent. The charter

November 8, 1985
Oral Questions
banks prime rate is now at 10 per cent, three per cent less than it was. The mortgage rates have declined by 2.5 points and now stand at 11.75 per cent.
During the first nine months of 1985, building permits value has increased 20 per cent over the same period the year before.
During the first nine months of 1985, bankruptcies were down 12 per cent as compared to the same period last year.
Investment intentions of large companies for 1985 are up 12 per cent over last year.
The Canadian economy is actually doing better than the American one.
In September 1985, exports reached a record $10.7 billion, an increase of 10 per cent over September 1984.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this positive statement should .. .


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Prime Minister. Today the unemployment figures are out, and they show a troublesome increase in unemployment since last month. In particular, there are a series of sharp increases in unemployment in key regions of the country. For example, in British Columbia there was an increase of 1.2 per cent, with 20,000 people losing their jobs in a period of one month only.
[ Translation]
Also in Quebec, 10,000 people lost their jobs in a single month.

We have 5,000 more out of work in New Brunswick, and
5,000	more in Alberta.
My question for the Prime Minister is: why have he and his Government allowed this to happen? Don't these figures show that the air is starting to go out of the Tories "jobs, jobs, jobs" balloon?


An Hon. Member:: You will wish you had never asked that question, Herb.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend may be sorry he has raised this question. As of today, under a new Progressive Conservative Government, there will have been created in Canada, since the swearing in of this Government, 333,000 new jobs. We have taken the unemployment rate down 1.3 per cent from 11.6 per cent, creating
333.000	jobs in the process.


An Hon. Member:: Not in British Columbia, you haven't.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Interest rates are down; employment is up, investment is up. Canada is on its way to a sustained recovery, and that is good news for Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures began trending down under the previous Government. One wonders why the Prime Minister is satisfied with more than 1,300,000 people out of work. Doesn't the Prime Minister realize that his words are empty? Looking at the Atlantic Provinces, we have a 1.8 per cent increase in the unemployed in Prince Edward Island, 1.5 per cent in New Brunswick, with the rate of unemployment in Newfoundland remaining in the area of 20 per cent. Why has his excuse for a regional industrial development policy been such a failure?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, employment increased in the last month by 37,000. The employment record, in all regions and in all provinces, is better now, today, under the Progressive Conservative Government than it was under the Liberals, and that is true in all circumstances, in all age groups across the country. We increased employment by 37,000.
What my hon. friend doesn't mention and what I think the country ought to reflect upon is the fact that, apart from the
333.000	jobs already created, there are jobs and prospects in the bank. Oil wells drilled in the first nine months are up 21 per cent over 1984; retail sales in August were up 13 per cent over 1984; motor vehicle sales in August were up 27 per cent over 1984; housing starts are up 49 per cent over last October.
The GNP is increasing at 4.1 per cent. That is good news for Canada and bad news, I know, for the Liberals.


An Hon. Member:: Ask another one, Herb.


UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's empty words won't mean much to the more than one million unemployed. Doesn't he know that there has been an increase of almost 1 per cent in unemployment for young men aged 18 to 25? Why is he allowing this to happen? Doesn't he realize that his unemployment policies are creating a lost generation of young people? Why is he satisfied with that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not satisfied-and that is exactly the answer. It is for that reason that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has put in place such impressive programs to deal with the particular tragedy of youth unemployment. It is something to which we have tried to respond. The response of the
November 8, 1985

Minister of Finance has been a decrease in interest rates, in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent. The economy is coming on strong. But the important thing in this respect is that youth unemployment is down from where it was under the Liberals. In 12 months it is down 2.2 per cent, and that, Mr. Speaker, is great progress.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Montreal East industrial base is being eroded with the announcement of lost contracts. Would the Minister tell us today, instead of repeating the answer she gave my colleague, the critic for my Party, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, an answer which I have read carefully, what she is doing in practical terms for Montreal East?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the Hon. Member about the employment situation in Montreal. I was in Montreal yesterday with my colleagues from that city and we met with a large number of citizens to try and find practical answers to the problem.
However, I must point out at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that 90,000 new jobs have been created in Quebec in the last year. This is a very positive record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, East End Montreal will not be satisfied with an announcement of jobs created in general. What the residents of East End Montreal want to know is exactly what is going to be done for the industries of that area.
i quote La Presse:
[ Translation]
Montreal East Cries for Help! Montreal East is ill, and to cure it, the only remedy found was to create the CAMO committee, which all unemployed people in Montreal East are now calling le comite Chameau of Quebec and Ottawa Ministers.
Can the Minister tell these people in practical terms, in addition to saying that jobs have been created throughout terms, in addition to saying that jobs have been created throughout Canada, or to saying, as the Right Hon. Prime
Oral Questions
Minister has just done, that everything is going well, while we can see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is enough!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are very conscious of existing problems in Montreal East.
I regret that the Hon. Member will not take part in the committee or put forward his suggestions to the committee in order to help the people about whom we are concerned. Indeed, we are taking steps. We have set up a committee but, more than that, we have put into effect a Canadian Jobs Strategy which is already having an effect in Montreal and in Quebec. I would tell the Hon. Member that as of November 1, over 1,000 applications under the Canadian Jobs Strategy have come into offices in Quebec. These applications involve almost $100 million for the many people who need training and jobs. That is a positive approach to the affairs of Montreal East and Quebec, not the negative approach that the Hon. Member is taking.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister might be able to give the House a definition of consultation. Regarding the factory freezer trawler issue, the vast majority of groups before the Standing Committee opposed it and the Province of Newfoundland opposed it. In fact the decision of the Government to grant three of those permits shows absolute contempt. Would the Prime Minister give us the Government's definition of consultation?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman heard me say yesterday that the broadest possible consultation took place. The preamble to the Hon. Member's question, as usual, is utterly false. When he makes a statement in the House indicating that all of the provinces were against the granting of licences, he knows, or damned well should have checked his facts before saying such a thing, that it was false.


STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister cannot handle it. I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and try to redo the facts for him. The Province of Newfoundland is opposed to the factory freezer trawlers but the real serious question I would ask of the Deputy Prime Minister is if he can explain why he is

November 8, 1985
Oral Questions
not prepared to let the Standing Committee hear all sides of this question in a public forum and not behind closed doors on November 21. Why is he not prepared to let that happen?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We asked that yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. The question was asked yesterday. 1 do not know where the Hon. Member was yesterday. Indeed, I do not know where he was when he, like all other Members of the House, received a copy of the application from National Sea Products. I did not hear from him on that occasion. All of a sudden he has started to raise these questions. I wonder why he did not make those representations far earlier than now.


CANADA-FRANCE ARBITRATION CASE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my final question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Secretary of State not agree that the Government has cut the ground from under him on the arbitration case with St. Pierre and Miquelon and that in fact we will now have a French fleet of freezer trawlers tied up at St. Pierre and Miquelon? Would he not also agree that, when it comes to the free trade negotiations, the United States will be asking to put freezer factory trawlers in our waters to fish our surplus stock? Has the Government not now cut the ground out from under him in both these cases?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as has become his unhappy habit, the Hon. Member is speaking nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, under the heading Legal and Regulatory Restrictions contained in National Sea Products' application to the Government for a factory freezer trawler, it states:
-Article 12 of the Canada Newfoundland 1983 Restructuring Agreement
states that FFT's would not be permitted to harvest northern cod.
The Government has violated a federal-provincial agreement. I ask the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Fisheries what makes the Government so arrogant as to believe that it can violate a federal-provincial agreement and get away with it?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the record of the Government with respect to the conduct of its affairs with the Government of Newfoundland is historic. The Atlantic Accord, the Burin Agreement, the actions of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and every single action the Government has taken has done more to focus attention on the problems of Newfoundland than anything the previous Government which the Hon. Member supported ever
did. In this specific instance the intent of that Agreement is being pursued.
The first step in achieving the rejuvenation of the fishery in Newfoundland was the allotment of $76.7 million in the new five-year plan for Fisheries Products International, with another licence being made available to that Newfoundland-based firm. Is the Hon. Member opposed to that kind of rejuvenation in his province?


MIDDLE-DISTANCE FLEET PROPOSAL
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question because 1 do not think he can. Let me ask him something that he can perhaps answer. We are not now talking about one factory freezer trawler licence being issued. Two more have been offered and National Sea Products is talking about four being issued as early as 1987 in its application to the Government. Knowing that this will have a devastating effect on the inshore fishery, how far does the Government intend to go in issuing factory freezer trawler licences? Is the Minister going to issue the 30 or 40 licences that have been requested by the Newfoundland Government under the new so-called middle-distance fleet?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman has not read the release. What is being done is the issuance of a maximum of three licences, one to a Nova Scotia based company, another is available to a Newfoundland-based company, and another to the smaller operators in the fishery. The whole intention of this is to enhance the ability of the industry to compete more effectively in the market-place. What could be so drastically wrong with that approach?


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION VANCOUVER RADIO BROADCAST FINDING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In April a Vancouver radio station broadcast a one and a half hour program with the following themes: incest is a regular occurence among Indians, native people are dishonest, native people have no respect for the law, and native people are poachers, dirty, messy and alcoholic. Does the Prime Minister support this week's CRTC recommendation that there be prosecution in this case, and does he not agree that such prosecution should occur quickly since this broadcast took place more than six months ago?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I cannot refer to the radio broadcast to which the Hon. Member has referred but I can tell him that I am sure every member of the Government and every Member of the House would want to dissociate himself or
November 8, 1985

herself from those kinds of statements. They are just not facts. Those of us who have had some responsibilities in the Department of Indian Affairs have always tried to encourage the development not only of models of success but the image, which is correct, and that one is obviously dead wrong.


PROSECUTION INQUIRY
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Jim Fulton (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister because he is the only one who can now clear up the matter. There is at least one Member of the House who does not share in the remarks just made by a member of the Cabinet. Perhaps the Prime Minister could explain, when the CRTC has described the program as being unsubstantiated, indefensible, ill-advised and irresponsible, and that much of the information was false, and has publicly called for prosecution, why he is not prepared to rise today to say that he will proceed with this prosecution under the Broadcasting Act. His friend, the Minister of Justice, is blocking it at this point in time.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Minister of Communications is not in the House today as I indicated to the Hon. Member.
Mir. Gauthier: Yes, he is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with respect to this issue. I will bring the question to the attention of the Minister and he can get back to the Hon. Member.


James Ross Fulton: It is the Minister of Justice who is blocking it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There will be two letters then.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On October 28 I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether Argyle Productions of Toronto, headed by his good friend and political adviser, Bill Marshall, was involved in the planning and conducting of a native economic summit and trade show. To that suggestion, the Minister said that he rejected it. I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain to the House how the Minister could respond in that way when we now know that Argyle and Marshall are involved in this event in a very substantial and lucrative way.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would like to indicate to the Hon.
Oral Questions
Member that that issue will be brought to the Minister's attention when he returns to the House.


TENDERING PROCESS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister agree to inquire into this matter to determine whether the tendering process was completely and fairly used in every respect in the awarding of these contracts?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the first answer applies and those details will be conveyed as well.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-APPOINTMENT OF CANADIAN AMBASSADOR
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It was announced this morning that Simon Reisman will be our ambassadorial head in the free trade talks with the U.S. What consultations have taken place with the provinces on this appointment? Did all provinces give explicit approval to the appointment of this quite conservative centralist to this key job in these negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when we were sworn in as a Government we did not contract out our national responsibilities to the provinces. We selected Mr. Reisman as a man of great distinction and uncommon accomplishment in international negotiations because we felt and were secure in the knowledge that he could represent the national interest and harmonize the provincial interests therewith, with great competence in the negotiations.


PROVINCIAL CONCERNS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am told by my colleagues, who should know, that that is vintage Trudeau.
Given the background of this ambassador in the central corridors of power here in Ottawa, can he really be expected to reflect the opposition of all provinces to bargaining over our cultural industries? Can he be expected to reflect their concern about bargaining away agricultural support programs? Can he be expected to reflect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is the third question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian negotiating team will indeed reflect the interests of the Canadian community because that negotiator and the team working with him will be consulting directly with the provinces, with the industrial sectors, reflecting what he learns rather than bringing pre-con-

November 8, 1985
Oral Questions
ceived prejudices into the discussions as has unhappily been the characteristic of the Hon. Member.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to another important aspect of the Bill Marshall contract.
Last September the Prime Minister personally tabled conflict of interest guidelines which declared, among other things: "A public officer holder shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to family members or friends." Given that Mr. Marshall ran the Minister of Indian Affairs' municipal campaign in Toronto, was his chief of staff during his term as mayor, and ran his Conservative Party leadership bid, would the Prime Minister not consider Mr. Marshall to be a personal friend of the Minsiter and therefore the guidelines have been seriously breached in this $200,000 contract? What is he prepared to do in light of this serious violation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the answers I have given on this issue apply. However, I want to tell the Hon. Member that, yes, members of this Government and this Party, and I would hope members of his Party, but maybe they do not have many friends left, have a lot of friends and supporters. We have many Canadians who want to work with government and see our country improve. I suggest that if he asks questions, he should ask them legitimately and not imply that because people might have friends they should be totally isolated from anything in Government.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the number of friendships the Government has is going to drain the federal Treasury. Will the Prime Minister have the courage to get up on his much-touted conflict-of-interest guidelines and agree that the awarding of a $200,000 contract to the political and personal friend of the Minister of Indian Affairs is simply another crass example of political patronage? Canadians want to know when this is going to stop-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sergio Marchi: -and does he have the courage to revoke the contract?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: First of all, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the figures concerning the consulting firm are wrong. For example, does he take Seneca Communications, a native-run organization, as part of that as well? Yes, they are supporters and friends of this Government as well. When he looks at some of those
issues, he should stay with the facts rather than the innuendo he loves to throw around.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will know that yesterday, on the 100th anniversary of the driving of the last spike, and on many other occasions in this House, Members on all sides have expressed their anger at the action taken by the CPR in arbitrarily cutting off the pass rights of its pensioners. Because there is widespread support in the House for such a measure, will he consider making a personal representation to the CPR on behalf of all Members to have this measure revoked?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to respond to that question. I share the concern of the Hon. Member and, I am sure, the concern of other Hon. Members. I have made representations to officials of CP and asked them to consider coming before the standing committee to explain and justify their action so all Members of Parliament who are interested will have an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the action CPR has taken.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the idea of having them before the committee is a good one and certainly not something one would want to criticize. However, there is very little to clarify. The CPR has done something which has invoked the disapproval of all sides of the House. I ask the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Transport, will he intervene personally with the CPR and say that this is the kind of thing it should not be doing anytime, particularly not on the anniversary of the driving of the last spike?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I listened with sympathy and concern to the point raised by my hon. friend. I know he will agree that, given the fact we have in this House probably the most outstanding Minister of Transport this country has ever seen-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -he will want to join with me in encouraging the Minister in his representation to CP. However, the point raised by my hon. friend is an impressive one and I know we will follow through as best we can.
November 8, 1985


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the high cost to Government of our foreign service employees as shown by their membership in the Aberdeen Marina Club in Hong Kong. It costs about $200,000 to maintain one foreign service person out of the country. Does he intend to have a review on that subject and report to the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not only are we intending to have a review, but the review is virtually completed between myself and the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board will shortly be indicating the response to the report of the Auditor General. 1 simply want to take the opportunity to say how much I, as a Minister, appreciate the work of the Auditor General in drawing to my attention accusations about practices within a Department under my jurisdiction.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In May 1984, Mr. Prime Minister, you promised in the Eastern Townships that if you were elected, you would maintain quotas on shoe imports. We know that quotas are essential and vital to the economy of Quebec. Will your Government, Mr. Prime Minister, indeed respect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I believe he knows very well the question must be put through the Speaker, please.


Mr. Tardif:: Will he respect that commitment?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is very much aware, there has been a report prepared by a tribunal established to study the matter and recommendations have been made. Those recommendations are now being considered by the Canadian Government, and an announcement, a statement of our position will be made before the end of November.


INQUIRY WHEN ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE MADE
Alain Tardif: 1 have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That decision was to be announced in
Oral Questions
September, then in October. Today is November the 8th, and we know that already the whole market is lost for next spring. You are in a position today to state on what day, at what time that decision will be made, so that importers and manufacturers may know what to expect?


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 can indicate once more to the Hon. Member that the decision will be made and announced before the end of November.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On November 4, this week, when asked in the House about access to cabinet documents the Minister of Justice said:
-I can assure the hon. gentleman that a decision will be made this week.
Does the Prime Minister hold by his own stated views that in that kind of confrontation Parliament should always prevail, and by the decision of Justice Jerome that the Auditor General's right to access must prevail? Will he announce today, in keeping with the commitment of the Minister of Justice, that the Government has decided to give the Auditor General the documents in question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Justice is not in the House today, Mr. Speaker. He has been reviewing this matter and will be making a recommendation to the Government. As soon as that recommendation is received, which I hope will be very shortly-in fact 1 know it will be shortly-we will respond in an appropriate and, I hope, helpful way.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: The Minister of Justice stated categorically that the decision would be made this week. This is, for parliamentary purposes, the last day for two weeks that any questions can be asked with regard to this matter. Therefore, is there any conclusion which can be drawn other than that the Government is not prepared to give the documents requested by the Auditor General and ordered given by Justice Jerome, and that the Government is attempting to hide not only these documents but also documents pertaining to other matters decided upon by the Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why would the Hon. Member draw such invidious conclusions from a faulty premise? In point of fact the Minister, as 1 understand, said that a decision would be made this week. He will, I assume, make his decision as Attorney General and

November 8, 1985
Ora! Questions
make a recommendation to us before the week is out and we will respond in due course.
The Minister indicated in the House that, notwithstanding pretensions by my hon. friend to the contrary, this is indeed a complex matter. There is the request for documentation from the Auditor General-


Ian Deans: You said Parliament should prevail.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If I may, there was a request for information. He indicated the intention of the Government to respond fully and with alacrity to that to the extent humanly possible. He indicated that there was a second, complex dimension to the problem which dealt with undertakings in regard to documents under the control of previous Prime Ministers. We have not yet had a response, to the best of my knowledge, from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to his judgment to free up those papers.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Did you ask?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Minister of Justice is proceeding to come forward with recommendations in both of those areas and I hope that my hon. friend will find our response appropriate in both of them.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister knows that Vasyl Stus was a Ukrainian poet, a strong and vigorous supporter of human rights and freedoms, and a member of the Helsinki monitoring group, who died in the fifth year of a fifteen-year sentence in a Soviet concentratioan camp. What action has the Government of Canada taken or what action will it take to protest this loss of life in the interest of freedom and human rights?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the case of Vasyl Stus very closely. All Members of this House are deeply saddened by his death. The House may recall that five or six months ago, when I was in the Ukraine, I had the opportunity to raise directly with the leaders of the Government of the Ukraine the deep concern of Canada about the human rights situation in the Ukraine and elsewhere in the Soviet Union. I did that to the best of my ability conveying, I think, the full conviction of Canada. We intend to continue to make that kind of representation on behalf of human rights everywhere in the world, but particularly behind the Iron Curtain. On behalf of the Government I want to extend our most sincere sympathies to the family of Mr. Stus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOOD AND DRUGS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health and Welfare. The federal Government became aware of toxic substances in wines in May, 1985. We learned yesterday that certain imported wines contain a cancer-causing substance called ethyl carbamate. Will the Minister tell us that he will assume his responsibilities under the Food and Drug Act and assure Canadians that the food they eat is safe for human consumption?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Member refers back to the first instance of the Austrian wines. Ethyl carbamate was not a factor in that situation. It was diethylene glycol at that time, which falls under the Food and Drug Act. What we have in Ontario, and I imagine that is what the Member is addressing the report of yesterday that there are fortified wines and spirits manufactured in Ontario which have urea carbamate in them, which is a carcinogen. As of this morning we have health protection branch people working with the distillers, the wine manufacturers, the LCBO and the Ontario Government. There are indications that we also have some imported wines and fortified spirits which contain the same product.


INSTITUTION OF PROSECUTIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drug Act states:
No person shall sell an article of food that (a) has in or upon it any poisonous or harmful substance.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will prosecute any importers or sellers of tainted wine which is unfit for human consumption? Will he assure this House that provincial commissions or boards which control the sale of liquor will not be exempt from prosecution if they are found to be guilty?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, through my Ministry the Government has taken a very clear position on this situation, whether it involves imported wines or domestic products which contain substances in contradiction of the Food and Drug Act. Our argument has been very straightforward that these substances should not be in the products. That is the position we have taken.
I have also said in the House that so far, happily, provincial liquor commissions have pulled these products off their shelves on a voluntary basis. Additionally, as of November 21 when we meet, the provincial authorities, the liquor commissions and my own Department will look at further standards. I will take the Hon. Member's suggestion under advisement as well.
November 8, 1985


BANKS AND BANKING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, I am sure, during his recent trip to Alberta discussed with the Premier of Alberta the need to maintain and develop regional financial institutions. The finance committee looking into the bail-out Bill has decided that sufficient evidence exists now that the doors should not be closed on the Northland Bank. Would the Prime Minister, therefore, be prepared to instruct the Minister of State for Finance, who has been dealing with this matter, to consider, with some rigour, ways and means of keeping that bank in place if, in fact, sufficient evidence does exist?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I read with interest the observations made by the committee. However, I would also draw the Hon. Member's attention to the expert witnesses on the part of the Inspector General of Banks and the curator for the Northland Bank who drew different conclusions based on detailed studies over a number of weeks into the operations of the bank.
I can understand the position that has been expressed by the management of the bank, who have a certain emotional involvement because they are directly involved in the decisions affecting that bank.
We, as a Government, must look to and rely on the observations and conclusions drawn by these expert witnesses to whom I just referred.


REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF BANK'S STATUS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be well aware that the bank itself feels that sufficient life may have been breathed back into it so that it can be saved. The committee members, most of whom are from western Canada, are of the same mind.
Considering that evidence does exist that perhaps there is a possibility of saving that western-based bank, would the Minister of Finance at least look further into this whole matter before the door is completely closed on the bank?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me take the Hon. Member through the sequence of events that have taken place over the past three or four months that have indicated very clearly the desire of the Government to give the Northland Bank every opportunity to keep its doors open.
During the period prior to the appointment of the curator of the bank there were a number of discussions between the Inspector General and the bank to try to encourage it to find some other means of maintaining its viability. When the curator was appointed, we gave the bank over a month to find other partners to work with, in an attempt to find a way to
Oral Questions
keep that bank open. The Minister of State for Finance asked for assistance from a respected investment banker.
The Hon. Member should also remember that it is important that we keep in mind the interests of the depositors who, until this matter is resolved, will not be able to get their money back. This includes insured depositors as well as uninsured depositors.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he take the opportunity at the upcoming First Ministers' conference to make a representation to provincial Ministers of Agriculture urging that they encourage their provinces to extend private telephone service to farmers, wherever possible? This is not only for the purpose of privacy of conversation, but also so that they may have access to the enormous capacity of data banks in marketing and economics which presently exist in farm technology. That access is limited because of the absence of private phones on farms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is becoming a speech.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the representation from the Hon. Member for Crowfoot. Those of us who know the Hon. Member will appreciate his knowledge, experience, and good advice with reference to the agriculture community.
1 want to assure him that I will answer his question positively and will make every effort to make representations on his behalf at the First Ministers' conference.


TRANSPORT
Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State (Transport), but in her absence I will direct it to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. During the election campaign, the Member for Laprairie geared his publicity to the abolition of Champlain Bridge tolls. Two weeks ago at a Conservative meeting in Greenfield Park, the Minister of State (Transport) promised to abolish Champlain Bridge tolls just before the next elections in order to make political gain. My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: Could he tell the House whether the Minister of State (Transport) stated a personal view or was she stating Government policy when she announced the Cham-

November 8, 1985
Oral Questions
plain Bridge tolls would be abolished just before the elections for political purposes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that matter is currently under consideration by my cabinet colleagues and me. The Hon. Member will be pleased to know that it is being very actively considered and we will report to him at some later date.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 recognize the Hon. Member for a brief supplementary question.


REQUEST FOR PRECISE ANSWER
Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, it might be something under consideration by the Cabinet, but it is a position stated by the Member for La Prairie and by the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A brief supplementary please.


Carlo Rossi: Could the Hon. Minister of Transport state categorically whether or not he will abolish the tolls?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the answer remains the same. The matter is under consideration.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister knows, the tobacco manufacturers are stalling on the establishment of a national marketing board for tobacco. They initiate court actions, they refuse to bargain with the existing provincial boards, and now they are saying that if farmers persist in developing a national tobacco marketing plan some manufacturers will pull out of the country.
If these manufacturers choose to leave and do their manufacturing outside the country, is the Minister prepared to restrict access to Canada for their brands of tobacco and tobacco products?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the extent of the Hon. Member's knowledge of the tobacco industry and the difficulties that the tobacco growers of this country are experiencing at the moment.
1 would rather take a more positive view and hope that common sense and good judgment will prevail. I hope that in the very near future it would be possible for the Ontario Flue
Cured Tobacco Marketing Board to negotiate a settlement on the 1985 crop with the tobacco companies.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the companies are being very hard-nosed. Will the Minister not show that he is prepared to be equally hard-nosed on behalf of Canadians so that, if the companies leave, their products will just stay out of the country?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, perhaps some of the difficulties that the industry finds itself in now are due to some rigidity on both sides which may have taken positions that have not been in the best interests of both parties and, indeed, of the industry.
I have met with the board. I have met with the tobacco companies. In fact I am having another meeting on Saturday afternoon with the board. I am simply trying to close the daylight between the two parties so that a settlement can be reached.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Public Works.
It is rumoured in the National Capital area that for all practical purposes, the last terms of reference that the Government gave to the National Capital Commission dates back to 1956. In view of the fact that there has apparently been no announcement as to future responsibilities of the National Capital Commission, would the Minister tell the House if there is any truth to the rumours that the National Capital Commission will be abolished or that its operational responsibilities will fall under the Department of Public Works?
Would the Minister comment on these rumours?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is worried by rumours, I wish to tell him on one hand that I think he has nothing to be worried about and, on the other hand, that the Nielsen Commission, as everyone knows, should bring forward a rather comprehensive report by the end of the year. In the context of this report, I am much more optimistic than the Member for Hull-Aylmer as regards the future of our beautiful capital.
November 8, 1985

[ English]


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on November 7, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White) by filing with the Clerk of the House, also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises out of the mechanism used for the adjournment of the House yesterday evening. It is a rather important point of order, as you will undoubtedly realize and so recognized at the time. This, of course, is the first opportunity we have had to bring this matter to the attention of the House because under our generally accepted proceedings it is not possible at the time of adjournment to bring up points of order. That procedure has been disallowed on several occasions.
I would like briefly, in developing this point, to go through the sequence of events yesterday afternoon. At about 4.30 p.m., or thereabouts, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shus-wap (Mr. Riis), pursuant to Standing Order 30, moved that the House do adjourn. It came about that the bells were made to ring on that issue in order to bring in the Members to vote thereon.
I presume that at some time after 4.30 p.m. it was indicated to you, Sir, by the Whip of the Official Opposition, that he had no intentions of coming to the House so that that vote could take place. However, I do not know that. It is a surmise.
What did happen, Sir, is that at 6.17 p.m.-and if I recall correctly the two most conscientious Members of this House were present, you and I, Sir-you rose in the Chair and said, and I quote from Hansard at page 8470:
In my view, it being 6.41 p.m. I do now leave the Chair until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.
The actual time, Sir, as I have already stated, was 6.15 p.m. This would appear to depart substantially from established practice in this House. On previous occasions when a motion to adjourn the House has been made, and one of the Parties refuses to come to participate in the vote, the bells have rung until the formal hour of adjournment. Because of the ministerial statements yesterday that normal hour of adjournment
Point of Order-Mr. Nickerson would have been 6.41 p.m. This would appear to be a radical new practice. What took place yesterday evening was presumably meant to establish a new precedent for the operation of this Chamber. Therefore, my I suggest that some form of explanation by the Chair might be given as to why this took place and, if possible, citing the authorities under which this action was taken.
It also occurs to me, Sir, that if it was possible for the Speaker to adjourn the House some 30 minutes or so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the representation the Hon. Member is making. Is he really raising a point of order or is he making representations to me?


Dave Nickerson: I am making a point of order. Sir. If the Chair could address itself to these questions; first, if it is possible for the Speaker to adjourn the House some 30 minutes before the appointed time, would it not, therefore, he possible, using the precedent which was established yesterday evening, to adjourn the House-


Mr. Speaker:: I fully appreciate the importance of the subject the Hon. Member is raising, and 1 fully appreciate that he may want to make representations to me on this matter. I am perfectly happy to hear the Hon. Member's representations in the normal way in which representations are heard. However, if he has a point of order to make, I suggest he may want to make it, because so far what the Hon. Member is doing is making worthy representations but not yet, in any way I can see, raising a point of order.


Dave Nickerson: My final point, Sir, is that it is possible that the privileges of Hon. Members might, by this action, have been breached. It is possible that at some point in time between the time at which the House adjourned and the normal hour of adjournment, Hon. Members might have wanted to come in to participate in the vote and to continue with their deliberations. The action taken by the Speaker yesterday evening was such that it prevented that possibility from taking place. Therefore, it would be my submission that there were difficulties with the precedent established yesterday evening.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. Member is making representations and I appreciate his representations.
8486

November 8, 1985
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of western Canada who are protesting the Government's decision to reduce the increases to family allowance and, therefore, ask the House of Commons to encourage the Government to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance as well as to rescind a number of unfair tax increases which were introduced to the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that Question No. 3 will be answered today.


Mr. Ellis: Were renovations carried out on the 8th and 9th floors of the Sir Alexander Campbell Building and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) at what total cost?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Yes, renovations were carried out on the 8th and 9th floors of the Sir Alexander Campbell Building.
(a)	The purpose of these renovations was to permit the Canada Post Corporation to assume all the new functions associated with becoming a Crown corporation. Many tasks formerly carried out by the federal Government are now direct functions of Canada Post's operations.
(b)	The total cost of the work carried out was $1,428,180 broken down as follows:
Public Works Canada	$488,494
Canada Post Corporation
(includes electrical, construction,
mechanical and changes to heat, ventilation
and air conditioning systems)	$939,686


David Kilgour: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: That this Fiouse condemns the Government for abandoning the people of Quebec by reneging on its commitment to:
(1)	Develop new job potential in Quebec communities;
(2)	Ease the tax burden on low and middle income families; and
(3)	Protect and safeguard key existing industries such as lumber, textiles,
agriculture, pulp and paper and footwear.
He said: Mr. Speaker, our motion, as you just said, condemns the Government for abandoning the people of Quebec by reneging on its election promises. We mentioned three of them here: (1) to develop new job potential in Quebec communities; (2) to ease the tax burden on low and middle income families; and (3) to protect and safeguard key existing industries in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, 1 suppose you remember the election on September 4, 1984 very well. It was certainly a great victory for the Progressive Conservative Party across Canada, including the province of Quebec. It was an overwhelming victory.
After 21 years with the Liberal Party in power, the people of Canada and Quebec voted for a change, and the Progressive Conservative Party won 211 seats across this country, including 58 in the province of Quebec.
However, Mr. Speaker, the situation has changed, and it did so very quickly. Canadians are very disappointed. The turnaround took place in the last two or three months, and according to the last Gallup Poll, the Progressive Conservative Party dropped from 50 per cent to 45 per cent of the popular vote across Canada, while the Opposition parties, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, made a 10 per cent gain.
According to the latest Crop poll in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, where the Progressive Conservative Party came out with a huge majority some 13 or 14 months ago, that Party now ranks second and the New Democratic Party is third with 22 per cent of the votes.
November 8, 1985

Mr. Speaker, it proves that people in Quebec and the other provinces are disenchanted with the Government team across the aisle. Why this change, Mr. Speaker? Why such changes in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada after only 13 months?
First, the image of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He is not competent at all, he is badly organized, and then the question did arise as to whether the Prime Minister had told the House of Commons the whole truth about the tuna incident.
Second, two Ministers had to resign, the former Minister of Communications and the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
More significant still, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister broke the election promises he had made to men and women in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
During the 1984 summer election campaign the Prime Minister and his Party made hundreds of promises, but Canadians can see now that the promises are not being honoured.
First of all, the Prime Minister made an election promise respecting employment. What he said was: "Jobs, jobs, jobs". So where do we stand after one year? Statistics Canada made their figures public this morning, and the unemployment rate is now 10.3 per cent in Canada, and this is the seasonally adjusted rate, Mr. Speaker. Our unemployment rate is 10.3 per cent, but the United States reported a rate of only 7.1 per cent in October, while the number of unemployed in Sweden and Japan is roughly 3 per cent. In October last year 1,305,000 Canadians were without jobs, yet in October this year 1,200,000 Canadians were still looking for work. That is only a difference of 105,000 fewer unemployed for the 13 months the Progressive Conservative Party has been in power, in spite of the fact that the recession in the world has nearly come to an end, that interest rates all over the world are lower now than a year ago, and that oil prices are now lower than a year ago. There are still in Canada 1,200,000 unemployed people, which represents an unemployment rate of 10.3 per cent.
In the province of Quebec, the unemployment situation is pretty bad, especially in Montreal East, Desbiens and Valley-field. The unemployment rate in the province reached 11.8 per cent last month, and between September and October, 8,000 people lost their jobs in the transportation industry. In the trade and commerce industry, there were 10,000 more unemployed people than the previous month. What sort of future do you think the young people who are unemployed have in the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister has broken his promise to create jobs for Canadian men and women in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada.
Supply
He has broken another promise in the area of social programs in Canada. I clearly remember that during the election campaign he used to say that he would not fight the deficit on the backs of the poor. He had the best intentions, but what has happened since then? As a first step, last summer, the Government tried to deindex the Old Age Security pensions under the pretext of presenting a fair and equitable budget. The Conservative Party was going to hit the pocket-books of as many as three million Canadians in one of the most disadvantaged groups in our society. After seeing the anger of senior citizens throughout the country, who were able to make themselves heard, the Government was forced to withdraw its deindexation proposal.
Now, the Conservative Government is threatening to deindex family allowances. As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, the Government has introduced a Bill to reduce family allowances by 3 per cent. The Government justifies these cutbacks by saying that we have to reduce the national deficit. How can the Conservatives say that there is no money for our children when there are so many millions for the wealthy in this country? Mr. Speaker, the Government says that there is no money for our children, but it can find $1 billion for bankrupt financial institutions. It says that there is no money for children, but it can find $1 billion for Dome Petroleum. The Members opposite say that there is no money for our children, but they can find $64,000 for a trip to Europe by the Minister of State for Transport. What a contradiction! They never run out of money for the wealthy, but in the case of children, they deindex family allowances. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) disagrees completely with his Government, and I hope that he will rise immediately to address the House on this issue.


Roch La Salle: With pleasure.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He says that he will do so with pleasure. 1 was speaking about the important matter of family allowances, Mr. Speaker. We must not forget that they were implemented in 1945. They became universal in Canada two years later. In 1947, family allowances accounted for 7.7 per cent of federal expenditures; last year, they only made up 2.4 per cent of our federal expenditures. Moreover, the national debt represented the same percentage of the national income forty years ago as it does today.
Who is victimized by that Tory policy, Mr. Speaker?
First, the children of Canada, and you must not forget that 20 per cent of our children in Canada live in poverty and in Montreal . . . According to the most recent statistics available, there are 160,000 children living in poverty in the City of Montreal. Children are the victims of that Tory policy.
Second, the women of Canada are victimized, and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-East (Ms. Mitchell) has often referred to the problems of Canadian women with respect to the cut backs in family allowances. And do not forget, Mr. Speaker,

November 8, 1985
Supply
that we have women who are heads of single-parent families in this country, and some 50 per cent of single-parent families live in poverty. Four years ago, there were 600,000 single-parent families in Canada, and what with cut backs made in family allowances, those families will suffer even more.
Mr. Speaker, I know you agree that we can change all that. There are two, three or four weeks left to change the minds of the Conservative Members and the Government on family allowances. I would like to tell those who are watching us, the men and women who are watching these debates this morning, that four things must be done to save the indexation of family allowances in this country.
First, it is important to write to your Member of Parliament and to the Prime Minister of Canada. Second, you will have to phone your Member of Parliament's constituency office-and this is most important if your MP is a Conservative-you will have to phone his office immediately and tell him you do not support the de-indexing of family allowances. Third, petitions must be circulated throughout the country, and this is most important. And, fourth, the question of family allowances must be raised with your local press.
Mr. Speaker, another broken commitment of the Conservative Party dealt with the matter of taxation, the tax burden borne by Canadian men and women.
The last Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) increased the gas tax by two or three cents a litre. There was also an increase in the federal sales tax. And the federal sales tax is the worst kind of tax, because it hits everyone, the rich, the middle-income people and the poor. By 1990, the average Canadian family will pay $300 more a year in extra taxes. The Government has also reduced indexation of the tax system. You will be paying more income tax, even if your annual income increases at the same rate as inflation does in this country.
If these examples are not enough to convince you that our Prime Minister's Government prefers to ignore the interests of people on low and middle incomes, what about the Government's decision that let the Reichmann family save one billion dollars in taxes in the Gulf Canada purchase? Not only did this tax exemption fail to produce any new jobs, but Gulf also recently announced that 600 workers would be laid off and the refinery closed in Montreal East, where we have a very serious unemployment problem, Mr. Speaker.
And what about the nearly one billion dollars in tax rebates the Syncrude Company in Alberta has been receiving since 1978? It is very obvious the Government is prompt to help the rich in our country, but it has failed to create a single job.
Mr. Speaker, bankers and big investors will be the biggest beneficiaries of the billion dollars the Government has decided to pay to uninsured depositors; and I am referring to a situation I am sure we are all familiar with. The uninsured depositors are the same people who took a risk by investing in the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. Those same billion dollars could have been used to maintain indexation of family allowances every year until 1990. Mr. Speaker, we know that was not one of the Conservative Government's priorities.
Today everybody realizes that while the rich in Canada are benefitting under the Conservative regime, the poor are not.
According to an economist, by 1990, a poor family with two children and living on a salary of only $10,000 per year will have lost $400 in income. A middle income family with two children and an average income of $30,000 per year will have a drop in income of $1,100 by 1990, thanks to the Budget of the Minister of Finance.
In 1985, the Conservative Party is the same party that was led by R.B. Bennett in the thirties. The Conservative Party is still a party for the rich, everywhere in Canada.
And the Liberal Party, and we have Liberal members with us here in the House, the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, was not so different as a Government. I remember very well when Mr. Lalonde was the Minister of Finance, two or three years ago, and they increased the federal sales tax. It was exactly the same thing.
I remember vididly, and the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) mentioned it two or three times, that Mr. Trudeau's Government limited the amount of family allowances at the time of the 6 and 5 per cent, when we had inflation rates of 15, 16, 17 and 18 per cent, that the increase in family allowances was restricted to those 5 and 6 per cent. It is strictly the same thing, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, what we need in this country is a real change, what we need is a Government for ordinary citizens. We are an immensely wealthy country. We have a positive people facing our future. We have vast quantities of natural resources, but let us not forget what happened in other countries of the world, for instance in France, in Germany and in Japan. All three countries were almost completely destroyed during the Second World War forty years ago. Now, the standard of living in France, in Germany and in Japan is almost the same as ours. And do not forget also that those countries did not have any oil nor any of the national resources that we have in Canada.
Something else, Mr. Speaker, in the United States, the unemployment rate is 7.1 per cent and in Canada 10.3 per cent; in Sweden it is between 2 and 3 per cent and in Japan approximately 3 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, why in a country such as Sweden having a population almost the same as that in Quebec, the unemployment rate is between 2 or 3 per cent? Why is the standard of living as high in that country as in Canada?
November 8, 1985

Mr. Speaker, we can do something for ordinary Canadians in Canada. 1 mean we should give money to the ordinary Canadians and not to the rich. Give money to the workers, not to the banks; give money to farmers and producers throughout Canada, not to big foreign oil companies. And with changes such as these, there will be jobs for everyone in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, 1 will be over in another minute. On that basis, Canada, Quebec and Saskatchewan will be strong. We will be strong all across Canada with a policy designed to encourage ordinary Canadians.
And for our children, Mr. Speaker, and I do have two of my own Canada will truly be the country of the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, having listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's statement, I would like him to tell the House which Government introduced the family allowance program? Which Government introduced the old age security pension programs? Which Government introduced social welfare programs? And which Government did indeed introduce all the social measures Canada is now enjoying?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the same Government which slashed the family allowance program. The same Government which three or four years ago cut back by as much as 6 and 5 per cent old age security pension expenditures.
And do not forget that historically, it was a Liberal Government here in this House, but that Liberal Government was spurred on by the CCF Party, by the New Democratic Party. They introduced family allowances in 1945 because the CCF Party told them it was a priority. They spread the idea around and all across the country. And remember something else. We have here, at the table, Mr. Stanley Knowles, Mr. Speaker, and it was Mr. Stanley Knowles, Mrs. Therese Casgrain, Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, people from the CCF Party who launched the idea of old age pensions in Canada. And without the CCF Party, the Liberal Party would never have done anything for senior citizens in Canada. It is thanks to Mr. Knowles, to Mr. Woodsworth and to the CCF Party that we have in this country social programs that are different and better than in the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to know how the Hon. Member can claim that the NDP or the CCF introduced family allowances, old age security pensions and all those other social programs when they have never formed the Government?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I know that the Hon. Member was elected six or seven years ago, but
Supply
he was not here when there was a minority Government in Parliament.
However, in our parliamentary system, with a minority Government, the third party has a lot of influence on the Government.
For myself, I was in this House in 1972 and 1974 when Mr. Trudeau was Prime Minister, but with only 107 or 110 Members of Parliament. At the time, it was the NDP who told Mr. Trudeau that he could remain Prime Minister on the condition that he take action on three or four very important issues, such as Petro-Canada, the indexation of old age security pensions, the indexation of family allowances, and so on. We must not forget that we have a democratic system and that this system sometimes work better with a minority Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With blackmail!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, it is a democratic system. Historically, when Mr. King was Prime Minister, before Stanley Knowles, at the time of Mr. Woodsworth, there was a minority Government in this House. He spoke to the Leader of the CCF, Mr. Woodsworth, who told him: if we are to support the Government, we want pensions for senior citizens in Canada. That is why Old Age Security pensions were introduced in Canada, exactly in the same way as we later had Family Allowances and Welfare. Mr. Speaker, because we live in a democratic system, Members of all parties can have a real influence and a very large power in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Another question? The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle).


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for my hon. friend and colleague. 1 would simply like to ask him if he believes that the Conservative Party will do as much for the Canadian population as the Liberal Party did, thanks to Members of all parties including, of course, the New Democratic Party which was also part of this Chamber? Does the Hon. Member think that he will have as much success in promoting his ideas with the Conservative Party, even though it is not a minority but a majority Government, which can do almost anything it wants?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am of course very happy, Mr. Speaker, that my "adopted" MP should ask me a question. I say that because when I am in the National Capital Region, I reside in his riding of Hull-Aylmer, and I know he does a very good job.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is more difficult with a majority Government; especially now with 211 Conservative Members.


An Hon. Member:: You voted for them!

November 8, 1985
Supply


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No, I voted in my home province; I am an MP from Saskatchewan, and I always vote there,
Mr. Speaker, it is more difficult now because of the overwhelming majority of the Conservative Members. However, even with its majority, we can still make the Government change its mind from time to time. I remember very well, last summer, when the Minister of Finance wanted to deindex the old age security pensions, there was a general outcry throughout the country against such proposed measure. 1 remember very well, Mr. Speaker, the anti-parliamentary language used by Mrs. Denis when addressing the Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: It is your fault!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It was quite anti-parliamentary! However, Mrs. Denis told the truth which everybody knows. She appeared on the French and English television networks, and as a result of her campaign and the unrelenting efforts of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and other Members of the House as well as the elderly, although the Conservative Members in the House were 211 strong, the government had to change his mind.
I make the same call today, Mr. Speaker. In the same way we can change the Government's mind about the deindexation of family allowances if the people in Quebec start calling their Conservative member's office.


Alex Kindy: 1 would like to ask my good friend who is sitting not far from me here, a question. Does he believe that we can balance the budget while making huge social spendings because, all things considered, if we keep on spending and the deficit keeps on growing, we will end up like a South American republic, a banana republic. As our revenues allow us to put more money in the social envelope, we will be in a position to increase family allowances and old age security pensions. But we must safeguard our ability to do so. Does he think this is a sound argument or not?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is a good question, Mr. Speaker. 1 know full well that we have a problem with our deficit. You must not forget that the Prime Minister said during the election campaign that the deficit would not be reduced at the expense of the less fortunate in our society. The Prime Minister said that, he made that election promise, Mr. Speaker. But there is now before the House a proposal to cut back family allowances as the Government did with old-age security. At the same time, there is a lot of money for bankrupt banks. One billion dollars! 1 hope the Hon. Member does not approve of that. There are another billion dollars for Dome Petroleum; several million dollars for Syncrude, for Gulf, but in my riding, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. By way of clarification, the Syncrude remission order was signed by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was the Minister of Finance in 1975.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order; it is argumentative.
The Hon. Member's time has expired.

The question and comment period has expired.

1 believe the next speaker will be the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle).
Shall we call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please! When the House took recess at 1 p.m., the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) had the floor.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the mover of this censure motion.
I think we should all ponder the part which all elected members of Parliament should play, whether they sit on Government or Opposition benches. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville talked about democracy, and we are all glad, I am sure, to live in a democratic system. However, while such a system allows us sometimes to say silly things, it should not prevent us from telling the truth and to behave as honestly as possible, thereby ensuring the credibility of the system in the minds of the Canadian people, in order to have a Government and country as honest as we hope them to be.
When a Government has been in power for 12 or 13 months, Mr. Speaker, it is easy to emphasize the problems which affect this great country, and to deplore especially the situation which exists now in the province of Quebec.
It is easy to take a pessimistic view of events. But it would be just as easy to recognize that some things did happen, some interesting proposals were made and that a change occurred.
November 8, 1985

And I frankly believe that no Hon. Member in this House can deny it.
The Prime Minister of Canada is blamed for not having kept his promises. In fact he has four years to do so. He has already made good on some of them and I believe it is important to take part in this debate today, and I shall try to do it in a nonpartisan way in order to remind all Canadians, especially the people of Quebec, that we have been truly concerned with the status of Quebec within the federal system.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would also . . . speaking about openness, the sponsor of the motion before us has emphasized the difficult situation regarding unemployment. That problem did not arise on September 4, 1984! And the Hon. Member is well aware of it, having been in this House since 1968, I believe.
I wish he had said, for instance, that as Minister of Public Works, as you have seen it, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to announce on behalf of the Government and in the best interests of the citizens of Edmonton, which is very close to his own province, a $200 million project that will create 2,000 jobs over the next three years. I wish he had said that. He surely forgot, because I have known the Hon. Member for a long time and he usually is a very honest person. He did not have to praise the Government, but he could have, at least, mentioned the fact and thanked the Government for having considered the difficult situation of the construction industry in Alberta.
Coming back to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have done a number of things which I have witnessed. As a Minister, 1 was very glad and proud to announce them nationally, but also in the Province of Quebec. However, the most important promise made by the Prime Minister was a commitment to restore the economic climate of this country, to prepare for a real economic renewal which would create a climate favorable to investment. I think all Members agree with that. We all want to encourage investment.
For Quebec in particular, Mr. Speaker, our Government- and nobody found fault with that-was able to reopen communication between the two levels of Government. I believe that the Hon. Members opposite are aware of this improvement in our relations with Quebec. Now, Quebecers are proud to talk and negociate with the Government of Canada and they are willing to make proposals and enter into agreements with us. This is a very good thing, and I am sure Quebecers are delighted. That was the national reconciliation the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) referred to so often during the election campaign, and that is what we have achieved, Mr. Speaker.
People who are willing to listen and to understand the meaning of this reconciliation, of this renewed dialogue with Quebec, will understand that it definitely creates a favourable
Supply
climate for investment, a climate that was urgently needed. We created that climate, Mr. Speaker.
In addition, there have been a series of agreements with the province of Quebec, and I suppose our friends opposite will tend to overlook this fact. So I think we on this side have a duty and we are of course delighted to point out that we have concluded agreements with Quebec that will create jobs and produce some very interesting projects. And I am sure that both Liberal and New Democratic Party Members will at least applaud the projects resulting from these agreements.
We were not condemned for signing a historic agreement for $1,600 billion to be spent on regional economic development. We did that, Mr. Speaker. The agreement means $350 million for industrial development, $100 million under a federal-provincial agreement on tourism, $40 million for communications, $40 million for cultural infrastructure, $300 million for forestry, $170 million for transportation and $100 million for the development of new technologies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning a few points which in my opinion should be mentioned and kept in mind throughout our beautiful province of Quebec, and should also be kept in mind by all of us in this House in replying to an accusation which I feel is not fully justified, to the effect that Quebec would have been left out, forgotten in our present and future policies.
Mr. Speaker, what was important first and foremost was to restore this atmosphere. And we did restore this atmosphere. We can now speak together, and I believe these Opposition days should also give us the opportunity to make some observations without necessarily indulging in criticism, which is probably the easy way out.
With respect to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, I also knew where the Liberal Party stood during the election campaign with regard to the Petromont plant in Montreal. Of course the overall situation was mentioned. We managed to bring down unemployment, Mr. Speaker, although not enough. They will say: it is not enough. Of course it isn't, and we intend to go on. We lowered our interest rates, and we are very pleased and everybody is very pleased with that. But they on the other side will not mention it, and I know that too. We controlled inflation down to its lowest level in years, and that of course is another highly positive achievement. But in East Montreal-we had, quickly after the elections, and some Hon. Members may not recall this, we had pledged $15 million to at least try and save a plant in Montreal called Petromont. We may be accused once again by opposition members of being in a difficult position with a Montreal refinery, but they will forget to mention the fact that for instance in the past ten years some 12 refineries were shut down throughout Canada. They will probably say that we have not done our homework in respect of the textile industry. Thousands of jobs have been lost over

November 8, 1985
Supply
the past ten years. Yet, it was not under a Progressive Conservative Government. They will probably say that we have not done our duty in respect of the footwear industry. A statement concerning the footwear industry is forthcoming, and we are going to do everything possible to save jobs in both the textile and the footwear industries. Thousands of jobs have been lost in both these industries.
And my hon. friends know it. I am not putting the blame especially on the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) for that. I am not saying anything of the sort, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is that before blaming us for jobs which are being lost in a difficult climate which is not of our own making, Mr. Speaker-
One should be careful before accusing this new Government which is striving every day to repair the almost irreparable, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are up against. There is more. For instance, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) blamed us for the billion-dollar rescue of the banks, as if we had wished those people or any bank in Canada to experience such difficulties. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. We have to deal with the situation. We try to make the best of it and I think we have shown the best of dispositions toward those who put their confidence and their money in those banks. Then again, we will be told that we only protect the rich because we reacted, we realized the importance of suppressing any doubt about the credibility of our banking institutions. We had no other choice. We had to act, and we did. 1 know that action will prove to be quite worthwhile, in the mean and long term, Mr. Speaker, because we cannot afford to leave any doubt about the credibility of our banking institution and jeopardize the investments we need from abroad and within Canada. So we responded to a situation we inherited, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to spend all the time I have critizing our predecessors, but I say we have changed course in the last fourteen months. As our colleagues of the opposition know, because the figures are there to prove it, the economic conditions are more favourable, and business people have a greater degree of confidence. Of course, this morning mention was made of a slight increase in the unemployment figure but people seem to forget, for example, that over the last 12 months, more than 300,000 jobs were created in Canada and nearly 100,000 of those were in Quebec; the matter came up no doubt as a result of the poll published this morning, and 1 am not happy with these figures, Mr. Speaker, of course I am not. But the question is: so we really want to see our economy take an upward trend and get our country back on the road to prosperity? That is the question we have to ask ourselves, and each and every Member in this House is moraly responsible for achieving that goal which is not only to have our country regain its economic stature, but also to have a sound economy.
1 think every member, in the Opposition as in the Government, has a certain responsibility towards this objective and I think that we ought not to go beyond what is generally accepted. To level criticisims is very easy, Mr. Speaker, and I have
been in the ranks of the Opposition before, but never have I indulged in petty politics. 1 did not want to be considered as a second-rate politician, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I have consistently refused to score political points at the expense of the elderly, as was done here recently when it was implied that our party is against the poor and the elderly. God knows, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of respect for these people, and if we work so hard to get our economy going again it is especially in the interests of the poor and the elderly, Mr. Speaker! Some will say that our investment oriented policies are directed only at those who are capable of investing. Of course, they are! Mr. Speaker, farmers, businessmen and homeowners are fully aware of the impact of the $500,000 maximum capital gains tax exemption. But why did we abolish the capital gains tax! To give people an incentive to re-invest in their own country- they are free to do so and we have confidence in Canadians- and also to create jobs so that we will be able to give work to those who are unfortunate enough to depend on unemployment insurance or who for too long have been living off welfare.
It is part of an over-all strategy, Mr. Speaker, and those people know it. I would suggest that the initiatives we have taken will pave the way to economic recovery, particularly certain agreements we have signed with Quebec. I am proud of them, so are all my Quebec colleagues, and I commend them. However, Mr. Speaker, I remain somewhat wary of the Opposition approach. I keep wondering whether they really want us to succeed in getting the economy back on the right track and creating new jobs.
You know, the previous Government has institutionalized unemployment. I have to point out that the number of unemployed went from 300,000 or 400,000 to 1,750,000 in the last
12	or 13 years. They probably think we are biting off more than we can chew when we say we want to reverse this trend, but they should help us anyway. They should react positively, and I will be the first to applaud if they can recommend incentive measures to create jobs. But they refuse to support our efforts to achieve that goal, however noble it may be since that is how we want to give renewed hopes to our youths and make elderly Canadians feel even more secure. No wonder I entertain serious misgivings about the objectivity of those people who are launching unrelenting attacks against us barely
13	or 14 months after we took office.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 14 months we have steered a different course so as to expect better days. The economic picture is brighter: interest rates are lower, as I said earlier and the number of bankruptcies has also decreased significantly; we have evidence that confidence in the economy is growing and that negociations on tremendously important projects are about to start. With regard to our negotiations on free trade, there again the Opposition is quick to spread doom and gloom and predict failure while alarming Canadians with dismal predictions. The biggest mistake this Government could make would be not to move with regard to free trade.
November 8, 1985

We are aware that not only must we begin negotiations but we also have to open wide our ears to have meaningful discussions with our American partners, neighbours and allies. We are aware of the challenge and the work involved. But doing nothing would be irresponsible from this Government and we are not irresponsible people, so we shall tackle those negotiations face to face with a very specific goal in mind: to improve what we have and to increase the number of jobs directly related to our export markets. That is our goal, Mr. Speaker, and we think that we will therefore entirely fulfill the responsibilities given to us.
I might add that as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I was also very happy to agree to a payment of $27 million to compensate farmers following crop losses they suffered in 1983. We have not found it necessary to refund those people. It has now been done, Mr. Speaker. We also approved a $26.7 million payment under a crop insurance program. Funds of $16 million have also been earmarked for a very interesting industry in Sainte-Foy, namely an optic and laser centre. And what about the settlement of the Mirabel claims? I think that all the Hon. Members are quite happy with the settlement which I was able to achieve with the expropriated landowners within nine months of being appointed. Naturally, we hope, by implementing relevant policies, to be able to give back to these farm lands their former natural beauty and usefulness.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my allotted time is nearly over, but while this motion accuses us of having forgetten Quebec and of not thinking about the poor, our whole economic policy is aimed at helping those who need it the most. The Opposition can do whatever they like, we shall probably refuse to develop a social policy as a whole. We are honestly and sincerely trying to help those most in need, but we shall have to create a renewed prosperity. Then, we shall be able to provide more assistance to those who need it the most, and, like the Members opposite, we shall be quite happy to improve the lot of those we represent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), and I must say that either his comments are demagogic, or else the Minister is making very valid efforts without receiving any support from his Quebec colleagues.
I have noted his commitment concerning the shoe industry. However, I also remind him that he made the firm commitment during his election campaign that his Government would pay $13 million to hog producers. There is one thing I know, and that is that if the Minister had got his way, this amount of $13 million would have been repaid a long time ago.
Supply
However, I have been wondering, and this is my question: How come he does not get the support of his Quebec caucus, which is quite powerful, for this kind of initiative?
I also have a subordinate question. The previous Government had made commitments which were endorsed by the conservatives during the election campaign, namely, the cartography project and the agricultural laboratory in Victoria-ville-where, I believe, he is going this weekend-which was to specialize in plant diseases and protection. They also promised to build a gas pipeline between Sherbrooke, Windsor and Asbestos. These were firm commitments. Why didn't he deliver? Why didn't he carry out such projects which would have created much employment?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I shall not go back to 1979, when our friends opposite defeated us over an 18 cents a gallon tax. We know what happened afterwards.
So I would have lots to say about honesty.
As concerns the $13 million that were promised to hog producers, I remember having promised $27 million during the election campaign for crop losses. A $30 million figure was mentioned but we settled for $27 million. That amount was paid by our Government.
The Hon. Member mentioned a $13 million commitment, but he forgets, once again, to mention and thank me for the $27 million which was given to farmers in his constituency and elsewhere in Canada. He forgets about it, but that is understandable.
As for the $13 million intended for hog producers, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that we could have settled that question soon after the election, if it had not been for the position our American neighbours have taken about that industry. He understands it so well, Mr. Speaker, that he could even explain the situation to me. We were actually embarrassed, because we feared that a quick payment of that subsidy might have resulted in the loss of export markets as high as 25 per cent for hog producers in Quebec. That would not have been very helpful so soon after the election.
He mentions several other projects, such as the Cartographic Centre which, obviously, he should know is still alive. However, the Hon. Member will understand that we have a $200 billion deficit, the legacy of these gentlemen of the previous Government who forgot to take care of that before they left. So we have a small debt of just $200 billion, the servicing of which costs some $25 billion. Obviously, we had to postpone certain projects because of that, not only in Quebec but all over Canada.
Heaven knows, Mr. Speaker, how much I would like to carry out these projects as Minister of Public Works. That would really make me happy. Due to various considerations

November 8, 1985
Supply
and budgetary restraints, it has not been possible to go ahead, but we have not forgetten or rejected these projects.
It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that as we proceed with this economic recovery, we can implement those projects as soon as possible, both in the area of cartography and others, in the best interests of all Quebecers, and in all the constituencies of Quebec.
There is no problem about that, Mr. Speaker, and it is not always easy, as the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe very well knows. He did not mention the footwear industry in his remarks to me, because he knows perfectly well, having been a Member of a Government which unfortunately had problems with the footwear industry, yes, he knows perfectly well that this cannot be solved as easily as he would hope, and if it was that easy, I wonder why he did not do so during the eight or ten years he was with the Government, and a majority Government besides.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) for his liveliness, the way he defends the interests not only of Quebec but of Canada, and of this country's economic situation.
I would like to congratulate him no just for the work he is doing in this House, but also because he is a most able Minister.
I have a question for him. He mentioned an investment in Edmonton. Could he give a few details on what is being done with respect to that investment?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, true enough, this may not be the most difficult question, however, it is relevant.
I assume that each one of you would like to have a project that would be creating 2,000 jobs over the next three years. In the larger National Capital region, here in Ottawa, we have no cause for complaint, there are museums that are proceeding well, and so on. So in the case of Edmonton, it is a major federal presence that will be called Place Canada, in Edmonton proper where a hotel, office, and business complex will be built, of course, for the benefit of people living in Edmonton. And, there is not doubt about it, the federal Government probably will also have congenial office space for its public servants in Edmonton.
What to my mind was the most interesting for Edmonton, considering the unemployment rate in the construction industry prevailing in the great City of Edmonton, in that great region of Canada, since there were economic problems there as elsewhere, I think, was this compensation, this federal presence which responded to a need in the construction industry. I remember quite well that the unions at that time had talked to me about that as well as other people concerned, civic authorities and the Members of this House. Our Members, Mr. Speaker, had told me that it would be relevant to have a major project there because of the economic circumstances existing in Edmonton.
As a Quebecer and as Minister of Public Works, I will admit, Mr. Speaker, in this fine spirit of national reconciliation, that I was proud last Tuesday to dedicate this first-rate complex which will take shape during the forthcoming months, of course to the great satisfaction of Westerners.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the previous speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1984, in the Sherbrooke newspaper La Tribune, the following could be read: "A Tory Government would not remove quotas on imports set by Canada in the footwear and textile industries as indicated Wednesday to La Tribune, by the Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney. The quota policy will remained unchanged, according to Mr. Mulroney who said that he was not in favour of free trade in those areas."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Hon. Minister can tell us if the Cabinet remembers the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on May 4, 1984, when he was seeking the votes of footwear workers and others in Quebec. We have heard "delay, delay, delay" in the past two months. The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said that there will be an answer, but we have heard that for weeks and weeks. Members have asked when we are going to hear a statement. We know that retailers are not buying from Canadian buyers because they are waiting for the end of the quota in three weeks. When will the statement be made and will it honour the pledge made by the Prime Minister?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform my hon. colleague that a decision will be made before November 30.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for comments has now expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, when I was listening to the Hon. Member who presented the motion for the NDP, and who comes from a riding in Saskatchewan, I felt that I had to tell him, first of all, that I did not have to be grateful to him for presenting this motion and limiting it to Quebec, because in any case, he know and his party knew, that yesterday, today and tomorrow we were having a general meeting in Halifax, where the majority of the Quebec caucus, at least our party's Quebec caucus, since they don't have any Members from Quebec, would probably be attending. At the request of my whip, the person responsible for party discipline, we managed to get some of our Members to stay, because this motion, in addition to condemn-
November 8, 1985

ing the Government, might also be construed as an attempt to demonstrate, at least partly, that the party I represent, which has had many Members from the province of Quebec and which very shortly, I am sure, will be able to win back the trust of Quebecers ... so 1 certainly do not have to be grateful to him for the way he, in a more or less rhetorical fashion, limited his motion, although after listening to him via the television cameras, I had not heard anything that concerned Quebec. He did not speak at all to the motion before the House, the motion concerning Quebec and the fact that this Government has apparently abandoned the province of Quebec.
I thought he was exaggerating a bit, especially when I heard him talking about social programs. Having always been an avid reader of La Fontaine's fables, if I may on this Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and this is quite relevant, 1 should like to relate what came immediately to my mind. When 1 listened to my very good friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) 1 was reminded of another fable. The NDP Members who openly take credit for all social programs reminded me of La Fontaine's fable about the stagecoach and the fly. It is unfortunate that young Quebecers and Francophones in the rest of Canada are no longer taught La Fontaine's fables, everybody should know them because they seem to always apply in every human situation. Now, about the stagecoach and the fly, I will skip the first few lines. It was going uphill on a sandy and tough road which was hard to climb. It goes something like this: "The fly sees horses coming. It gets the idea that buzzing them will help. It stings them one after another, convinced that it alone keeps them pulling the coach. Indeed it takes full merit and complains it is doing all the work. After an arduous climb the coach finally reaches the top of the hill and the fly says: Now I can breathe, I worked so hard for those poor people, they Finally made it to level ground".
My friend the Minister of Public Works takes it for granted that all of a sudden everything is peachy and inflation is going down, as if the previous Government did not have anything to do with that. But it does take time and the downward trend was clearly unmistakable before the elections when the inflation rate was 4 per cent and interest rates were levelling off. There is one of La Fontaine's fables which applies, not to him, but to his Party, the one about the frog trying to grow as big as an ox. This really applies, Mr. Speaker, to the Government which claims all the merit for the completion of almost everyone of the big projects which were already started and for which it just had, as was mentioned yesterday by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) to reap what others have sown.
What strikes me, Mr. Speaker, is that during the debate on this motion today, the Hon. Member of the NDP did not really make any reference to his motion, which will probably allow the Government and Official Opposition Members to digress a
Supply
little, but I will leave to my colleague and friend, the Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), to speak about the third part of the today's motion, that is:
Protect and safeguard Key existing industries such as lumber, textiles, agriculture, pulp and paper and footwear.
I will entrust my colleague and friend of Richmond-Wolfe to do that.
I was not offended because we are among colleagues, and there is no reason to be shocked because one of then says things he or she might not like, however I was somewhat surprised at the strategy of the NPD which had the whole debate revolue around the situation in Quebec. Obviously, the Gallup Poll gave them temporarily 22 per cent and they believe, of course, they have made extraordinary progress; they imagine themselves in power, as the fly of the la Fontaine fable they see themselves at the top of the hill. Well, 1 must say to him, Mr. Speaker, that I would have liked to see him make the same remarks in English, because what I do not like with the NDP, with socialists-although socialists are very respectable people-I so not mean nasty and mean socialists, but socialists-They always take the same approach to debates in a very clever but around about way, the class struggle approach. I find this dangerous, expecially when they say "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" I have seen the theme of their campaigns "Let's make the rich pay". It has a demagogic and sad ring to it. It seems to me that there should be a better way to approach this debate, and I say that out of friendship for my colleagues, because when people hear those words and take them at face value they might reach in a violent way which I do not think is what the NDP had is mind the NDP, formerly the CCF and eventually I don't know what-I feel, Mr. Speaker, that one must always guard against this kind of class struggle rhetoric.
Having said that, I of course agree with them when they say the Government has reneged on its commitments. The abandonment mostly of their social programs because, as the Hon. Minister of Public Works said earlier: There are people in the political world who are trying to make us believe that we want to frighten the elderly, the old people, our elders. I would never dare accuse one of my opponents, even if during the last election campaign my opponents travelled across the constituency saying: Mr. Prud'homme is scaring you. I will not repeat what I said when I met those elderly people because of those who know my constituency, there are 12 homes for the elderly, I have known those people forever and they would have kicked me out if I had dared go and stir them up, scare our senior citizens, and as 1 said at the time, almost several months ago, it would have been a shame for my father who died at 90 to hear that his son could have gone to an old citizens home just to stir them up. But it was indeed facts that led us to go and speak to those people. It was facts. And what were those facts? The fact was that the Government decided to de-index old age

November 8, 1985
Supply
pensions. They are saying: Well, no, it was not serious. But 1 ask them: If your intention was not really to de-index and roll back pensions, why did you do it? It was the people's involvement that made you step back. And I have to say that I shall not be claiming the merit of that achievement for my party, and even less so for those who jumped on the bandwagon, the CCF Party which joined us in the wake of the efforts by our colleague, our champion, the one we had chosen within our party to be a leader on those matters, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).
But at the same time, and for the first time in their lives, the people of Canada got organized. Senior citizens who used to remain silent got their act together.
And I must say that I strongly oppose what I always hear from our socialist friends in Canada, that the Liberal Party also had brought down indexation, had de-indexed with its six and five program . .. which is misleading because that is not what happened. The deindexation proposed by the Government related to the first 3 percent ... it was an immediate attack against senior citizens, those who received those cheques, to remove the first 3 percent saying .. . you will have nothing. However, the temporary proposal of the government at that time, and it did not last very long because inflation decreased rapidly, was 6 percent and 5 percent the following year, and it was not enough. But this hardly occurred because inflation decreased to 6 and 5 percent. Thus there is a difference between taking immediately the first 3 percent and what we did at that time.
It is the same as far as family allowances are concerned. I am very pleased to see that a distinguished colleague, a friend of Hon. Members' who is not a Liberal, an Hon. Member from the east end of Montreal, has just started to realize how dangerous the situation is, because she is now presenting petitions. The day before yesterday, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) presented petitions similar to those presented by all my colleagues, asking for the Government to withdraw their Bill on the deindexation of family allowances.
Why all this? Because it is related to the end of my speech. The Hon. Member, if anyone is honourable in this House he is, the former Minister of National Defence and Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), presented a motion on behalf of his constituents to oppose deindexation. He is not a Liberal! He is not a member of the NDP!
He stood up by presenting a petition, and I do not know whether he spoke against the legislation or not, but he presented a petition, which was remarkable, knowing that it would be embarrassing for the Government.
Take it from me, Mr. Speaker: before the debate on the Government's plan to deindex family allowances is over, even my colleague the Hon. Member for Verdun will be tabling petitions calling on the Government to renounce its plan.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has failed to fulfil its promises concerning the well known RRAP-I cannot stand these acronyms!-Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. The activities in Quebec under this program have considerably decreased, while in Ontario they have hardly decreased. I cannot help thinking. I see in the statistics published this morning that Ontario is somewhat better off. There are 7,000 more jobs in Ontario. Unemployment has decreased. But for Quebec and other Eastern Canada regions which are faced with the same problems, it is simply more, much more of the same.
I should like to know what the elected representatives of the ridings I am going to name-I am not going to name all of them-have done about the RRAP-I do not think the hon. member who represents the City of Victoriaville is a Liberal. 1 hear that my friend the Hon. Member for Trois-Riviere was met with a demonstration, and that something resembling a sit-in took place at the PC office. I hear also that Gilbert ... I mean the Hon. Member for Verdun has had his own problems. I can see our good friend the Minister, that is, the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Vezina) who manages to calm us with her smile when the goings get rough. Major cuts were also made in her own riding, and the people there fumed. The elected representatives of East Angus, Becancour, even Victoria . . . The Council of mayors ... A council of Bellechasse mayors say the same thing. A good friend from Rouyn-Noranda. They must be embarrassed. 1 hope they will find some way of explaining the unexplainable. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that a colleague who presides over our proceedings as you do, the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest), also has problems. Questions are asked in Sherbrooke, in Windsor.
So, Mr. Speaker, those promises must be fulfilled. Those cuts hurt middle-income earners and those who are ill off.
I could go on and on. Broken promises! Lord! I will be charitable and suppose the Government will eventually honour those promises, as the Minister of Public Works who responded on behalf of the Government said earlier. He asked for a chance for a Government that has been in power for only twelve, thirteen or fourteen months. I am quite prepared to give them a chance, since that allowed them to make all overtures. Everything they take credit for would have happened anyway, without them. Personally, and that is the advice I gave my colleagues, I prefer to start applying more pressure on the Government after eighteen months, two years or two years and a half. That is when the Conservative Government will be applying its own policies, which I fear.
In Montreal, as a last word on RRAP, Mr. Marcel Sevigny, the spokesman of demonstrators, was quoted in La Presse of Wednesday, March 20, 1985, as saying: "One hundred and twenty-five representatives of housing co-operatives on the
November 8, 1985

Island of Montreal demonstrated yesterday ..." I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that those people will make the Conservative Government members move. There is no doubt about that.
I can say one thing, and that is my reply to those who say things were bad before. Even though my colleagues in my own party do not agree with my interpretation of our defeat, I believe the Canadian people seemed to have had enough with us. Very well. They made a decision. They re-elected 40 members of our party. I thank them, like my colleagues Rossi, Tardif and others who came back. We thank the people for keeping us but they decided they wanted a change. They decided that the Hon. Member for Rimouski was good enough, that the Hon. Member for Verdun was useful as well as my colleagues from Alberta and Nova Scotia who have been reelected, and they wanted those people to bring about some change. Well, we are still waiting for a renewal.
I can tell you something, and 1 will quote from official documents of the Government. Things were not that bad in Montreal. At that time, we did not hear about problems like we do now in Montreal, and 1 am very concerned because 1 am first and foremost a Canadian and a Montrealer. And I do not forget my Quebecker status, which means I am a good Que-becker-Montrealer-Canadian.
However, in a magazine called L'economie du Quebec 1984 published by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, one can read, and I will only quote one paragraph: "For the second year in a row, the rate of growth of the Quebec economy has been higher than the national average". The Conservatives were not yet in power, or had been for a very short time. "Thanks to the sustained growth of the manufacturing and trade sectors, the real gross domestic product has increased by 4.9 in 1984, that is half a percentage point more than the Canadian economy as a whole. The improvement of the economic situation also resulted in a decrease of the number of bankruptcies in all economic sectors, except the resource sector". Our good friend, the Minister of Public Works said exactly the same thing earlier and I quote: "Since we came to power 18 months ago, we ..." I was listening very carefully as 1 always do when our friend the Minister of Public Works is talking. Always, faithfully. I found that quotation in an official report, no less; entitled L'economie du Quebec 1984 published by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion of the Government of Canada. I have it in my hand so that people can see it. There are copies available. It was released in August 1985. At that time-
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has changed since that time, and I am sorry to have to mention that. People tell me sometimes I should be a little tougher. Nevertheless I am sorry to have to say that, Mr. Speaker. In Montreal we need doctors, that is strong Ministers who are able to deal with problems when they arise.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we had problems in Montreal in the past, but the Ministers representing the island and the city of Montreal were so powerful that they immediately found solutions to them-and I will conclude with this hoping I will be asked some questions-what about Versatile, Vickers, Bombardier, Gulf, Canadian Steel Wheels and others; indeed,
Supply
we had problems in the past, but in those days we had people in the Cabinet who could give help to those important companies such as Vickers and Bombardier. But what do we see today? For all those 40 ridings in the Montreal region, I do not mention the Hon. Minister for Public Works who knows very well how to take care of his own area and riding-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired. We have a period now for questions and comments.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on the quite remarkable way he described what is going on in Quebec, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like him to complete the last comments he made in this House about the situation on Montreal Island, especially in the eastern part. What are the problems and what solutions can we expect in the future?


Marcel Prud'homme: I would like to thank the Hon. Member. I shall be very brief because the rules say that we must be but it is really tragic, Mr. Speaker, that each time we ask the question to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), she can only quote imposing figures. 1 can assure you that the workers at Versatile Vickers, Bombardier, Gulf, Canadian Steel Wheels, Parisette, D'Aoust & Lalonde, SKD Technology, of Montreal, and the others who will be joining them will not use these figures to buy food next Christmas or next Easter. They want jobs and they want the Government to act immediately. This is what is happening in Montreal East, and there is one thing I have noted for one of the first times in my political career. I went to Vickers, and in spite of what the Minister of Employment and Immigration said this morning in reply to one of my questions, we cannot sit on all the committees when there are only 40 of us and 21 legislative committees and 23 parliamentary committees. We know how to share work in my party and we have done so. We have the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre). We each deal with certain issues.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that these people, and especially the Vickers employees will not be satisfied with speeches or statistics, they want jobs. I know the Minister of Public Works very well, we all know he has a big heart, that is why I ask him to try and understand the desperate situation of Vickers employees. They thought they had an iron-clad contract and they see it go somewhere else. Even if it creates jobs elsewhere, it does not help them. I have met these people who will come on Parliament Hill and that is why I ask the Government to do something to deal with the sad situation in Montreal East,

November 8, 1985
Supply
because nothing creates more social problems than plant closures. If one closes, others are sure to follow .. . this is the domino effect. I know the Government is going to study the matter, but $100,000 to create a committee with the provincial Government, called Manpower Adjustment Committee, or MAC for short, will not solve the problem. 1 was at these meetings, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you, and there is no doubt in my mind, that this people will not accept that we abandon Montreal East totally. You can ask my colleague from Bourassa, who was with me, or the Liberal Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). They have met these people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A question from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle).


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) a question. Concerning the contract signed by the former Government, it was clearly stated in the original contract to St. John's that of the six frigates, three would be built in Quebec. If there is an oversight today, I think the Hon. Member will understand the problem and it is that Quebec and not necessarily Montreal was mentioned. I am sure this contract was not concluded in bad faith, since guarantees were sought. It is now difficult if not impossible to politicize the debate, because there will be no job loss in Quebec. I understand the frustration of the people in Montreal who are bound to lose those jobs to other workers in Quebec.
However as Quebecers, I do not think we will quarrel about jobs in Quebec. I think that the Minister who was then responsible forgot a comma, because Montreal is not specifically identified. I think that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis will admit that oversight which is the cause of a major problem but we should insist on that matter.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a short answer for the Hon. Minister. When that contract was awarded, it was understood that the Levis shipbuilders, near Quebec City, would have their share. Because they had lost that contract so to speak, they were given something else, that is the retrofitting, or TRUMP program, for $650 million. Montreal got the other contract. It is so obvious that that was the real intent of the Government, no matter what the legal contract says, that the people from Saint-John, New Brunswick, were forced to go to Montreal since Paramax was directly linked to that contract. Paramax, which creates some extraordinary high technology jobs is not in Quebec City but in Montreal, to stay closer to shipbuilders. Those are the facts that need to be remembered.
Therefore, I would submit to the Minister what I consider a shrewd proposal. If, as is your intention or not whether there was an error, the contract now goes from Montreal to Levis, I tell you in return, take the TRUMP contract from Levis and transfer it to Montreal. This would make sure that the people
concerned in east end Montreal and In Quebec City are happy, because the TRUMP contract was given to the people in Levis who were expecting the contract that went to Montreal. Do the reverse. But, please, do not let people out of work, please, Mr. Minister. I urge your Government not to allow those people to be out of work. This will be a disaster for them. They can no longer be displaced. You know very well that, with all the great programs of your colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. MacDonald), it is difficult to place people in other jobs at their age. The Minister knows this very well. Mr. Speaker, you are a reasonable, intelligent and understanding man, you know very well that those people who have just lost their jobs cannot be placed in other industries. And yourself, if you had to decide, you would find that so clever that you would say: This sure makes sense, the TRUMP contract was given to Levis, let us give it back to the Montreal people who just lost a contract to Levis. Clearly, this is so very obvious.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle), who spoke for some time about the advantages which the Government of Canada provided to the country, particularly to the Province of Quebec, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) said that those advantages came about because they were on stream from the previous Government.
Would he take this opportunity to explain to the House and to Canadians why a $200 billion debt, which takes one out of every three tax dollars to pay for the interest on that debt, is an advantage? Had the Government been left with a stronger economy, which had not been blown away by borrowing, we would have been able to do much more than the Hon. Member is now suggesting that we are. Can he not reflect upon his own past in that regard?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow one minute for the Hon. Member's rebuttal.


Marcel Prud'homme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 have sat with the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) in the House for a long time. I never saw him point his finger at the Government, when he was on this side of the House, for incurring all these expenses.


Arnold John Malone: Oh, yes.


Marcel Prud'homme: I stand to be corrected, but 1 never heard the Conservatives, when they were in the Opposition, reproaching us or asking us to give up all the good programs which indeed were expensive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period for questions and comments is now over.


Marcel Prud'homme: Have a nice weekend.
November 8, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, my hon. friend, but the period provided for questions and comments has now expired.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering a motion presented by the New Democratic Party concerning the situation in Quebec. The motion reads as follows, and 1 quote:
That this House condemns the Government for abandoning the people of Quebec by reneging on its commitment to:
(1)	Develop new job potential in Quebec communities;
(2)	Ease the tax burden on low and middle income families; and
(3)	Protect and safeguard key existing industries such as lumber, textiles,
agriculture, pulp and paper and footwear.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the third point which deals with the situation in Quebec's industry.
What is that situation? Mr. Speaker, today, if we consider all the statistics on the unemployment situation, we see that Quebec has an unemployment rate of 11.8 per cent. That is an increase over last month and constitutes a level of unemployment that is not acceptable in this country. However, some regions of Quebec have unemployment rates that are even higher. For instance, Jonquiere and Chicoutimi have an unemployment rate of 15.5 per cent. The city of Montreal has an unemployment rate of 11.4 per cent, far too high for a city of its size.
Mr. Speaker, if we look at regions in Quebec that are located far away from these urban areas, and I am thinking of the Gaspe-In the Gaspe, we find unemployment rates as high as 17.1 per cent, 40.6 per cent, 40.9 per cent. This is intolerable in our country.
And these problems are the result of a widespread loss of jobs in industry in Quebec.
I have here a list of all the jobs lost in Quebec after the Progressive Conservative Government was elected last year. There is for instance in Ormstown a textile industry where 80 jobs were lost. There is another small plant in Saint-Jerome where 30 people lost their jobs. The list could go on and on and on. There is for instance a small clothing factory where 55 people lost their jobs. But those are minor setbacks. There seems to have been a change this year in Quebec. Some shutdowns are taking place which create massive unemployment. Take for instance the case of Shawinigan with 175 jobs lost.
There are many other cases in such industries as lumber, footwear, leather, but mostly in the textile industry where losses are quite severe. Last May, for instance, in Quebec, 264 workers became unemployed at the Wabasso plant in Shawini-
Supply
gan and 560 at the Wabasso plant in Trois-Rivieres. Those are weak industries, small scale industries, but industries which used to play a major role in the province of Quebec. Today 1 wonder that the Government's strategy is in tackling the problem of those losses in the manufacturing sector of Quebec.
I believe there is no strategy, and I do not say that because I am a socialist, a Member of the NDP, I am saying it because I have discussed the matter with the textile industry in our country and they handed me their files and in the files you find a lot of interesting things.
In the files of the textile industry, for instance, you find a statement by the Conservative Party, a statement for immediate release, on July 26, 1984. That was close to the elections. This is the way they look at things in that statement: the Progressive Conservative Party will be committed, and it is a promise: first to fair trade, but not free trade.
That was not said by this NDP member. The Conservative Party said no to free trade before the election. It is true, that was your opinion.
Secondly, with respect to the textile industry. Stability is based on a promise of comprehensive quotas and a controlled increase of imports. Where is that promise now? There are no such comprehensive quotas. The Minister has perhaps forgotten them? Is that the explanation? I do not think so because the textile industry has held meetings with the new Tory Ministers who will provide a great future for Quebec.
For instance, in November 1984, the textile industry arranged for a meeting with the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and responsible for international exchanges. At that meeting, the textile industry set forth all the problems and difficulties experienced by the textile sector in Quebec and referred to all the jobs which would be lost if nothing were done.
Mr. Speaker, what has been done? Nothing! The textile industry is quite articulate and thinks that the Government really wants to respond to the industry. After a year's work to arrange for another meeting with the same Minister, on October 4, to deal with the same matter, with the problems it was experiencing, the textile industry told the Minister: "We told you that if nothing was done many jobs would be lost in the textile sector. And now since you have done nothing, many, many jobs are lost".
And at that October meeting the Minister was asked if it was then possible to arrive at some decisions. Was it possible then to amend the textile industry policy in a way that would be consistent with their election promises? Was it possible to have comprehensive quotas? The Minister answered no, it was not possible.
I have before me a press release issued before the election, which says: Here are comprehensive quotas, they are for you too if you vote Progressive Conservative. But after the election,

November 8, 1985
Supply
the textile industry told me the Minister had said: No, that is not possible.
And the textile industry apparently was not the only one to have made that proposal.
I have here a letter from the Quebec Government which says exactly the same thing. This letter, Mr. Speaker, is signed by Rodrigue Biron, the Quebec Minister of Trade and Industry. It reads, and I quote:
The announced shutdown of the Dominion Textile Company plants in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Valleyfield, with the resulting layoff of more than 800 workers, and the recent Wabasso shutdown in Trois-Rivieres and Shawinigan, with the resulting loss of 1,000 jobs, are but a few examples of the disastrous situation facing the Quebec textile industry.
And this is not an NDP Minister but a Quebec Minister who sent the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, Mr. Sinclair Stevens, this letter last August to ask for the implementation of global quotas. It is a small, direct and simple request, related to a promise the Conservative Party made before the election, and it is something very important for the future of the textile industry in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.
Here is a communication from the committee for the survival of the textile and clothing industry, it is an invitation to join forces so that this great magician, the Canadian Government, will not make our industry vanish because imports are not restricted. The survival of the textile industry is now for sale. But what does the Government do? It does nothing. Mr. Speaker, this Government has no strategy at all. We see the same thing happening in many other areas, like forest products industry, clothing and textile industry, for which there is no strategy. There is a strategy that could support Quebec communities and inform them about their economic future and that of our country. Take the Desbiens situation for instance. This is a project our Party considers very important, Mr. Speaker. During our tour, we visited Jonquiere and found this small pulp and paper mill, and we have fought for Desbiens, asking in the House that the Government support this industry. It might not be a big struggle, but it is the struggle of a community which does not want to become a ghost town. This community seeks a balanced economy with jobs and a future.
When we raised questions, the Government announced help for Desbiens. But this now brings an other important question. The private company, which was considering building or renovating that small plant, has backed down. We must find an other solution and the House should take up this challenge. When we have this kind of small community which thinks in terms of planning the future, I believe we should have economic tools to help them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hope of that small community is the same as the great hope of the province of Quebec, and we endorse it without question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin).


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, first I must say that I am a little moved to be recognized after some very experienced members such as the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who brought forward this motion, then the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle), of course, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and last my colleague from the New Democratic Party.
Earlier today, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville proposed this motion in this National Week of Career Counselling announced by the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), 1 hope the hon. members of the NDP will take this opportunity to train for another career than prophet of doom in Quebec. I beleive this is a golden opportunity.
Moreover, I would like to indicate that the Hon. Member who is the sponsor of this non-confidence motion before us, said he belonged to a party which represents ordinary people. I, for one, as Member of Parliament for Charlevoix, I come from a region and I have not been elected by the previous Liberal "establishment" but precisely by ordinary people. I am the representative of a peripheral area. I represent ordinary people. I am Member of Parliament for a region where unemployment rate vary between 20 and 80 per cent. In my riding, I succeeded to a Liberal Minister, the Minister of Public Works, as well as Minister for Small Business and Tourism. When 1 was elected, I found that the economic situation in that riding was just as bad as everywhere else in Canada and particularly in Quebec.
I would like to say as well that I agree with the last intervention of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who spoke about the poor East Montreal region which is now in difficulty. I sympathize with those people and I suffer with them. But what about our peripheral areas, what about us people from the Upper North Shore, from remote areas like the Abitibi, from Gaspe, Riviere-du-Loup, Rimous-ki, who are constantly facing prohibitive transportation costs and business investment disincentives? I sympathize with people of East Montreal. I am quite sure that the meeting which is taking place between the Members from East Montreal and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) as well as some of her colleagues will bring about solutions. This is a unique opportunity for them, given the
November 8, 1985

closeness of markets and so on, to start a new process in East Montreal.
As for us, what has been done for us during the last fifty or hundred years? We live in outlying, isolated areas. It happens that 13 or 14 months ago we too in Charlevoix in particular and in Eastern Quebec generally, voted, with an overwhelming majority for change? Why did we vote Progressive Conservative?
Precisely because we wanted to breathe into our people, the disadvantaged, a new spirit, a will of change, a will to control our affairs.
The previous speaker was talking about a mere 11 per cent unemployment rate. If I had an unemployment rate of only 11 per cent in my riding, I would be taken for a god. People would kiss my hands and feet. I would be carried in triumph.
The fact is that unemployment in my area is well over the national average. We always exceed it. And we avoid comparisons, because although it may sometimes be comforting it can also be distressing at times. In the area of underemployment and underdevelopment, we still have much progress to make. Yet we have started making some progress in cooperation with people. For example, just a day ago, I was 60 miles deep in the forest as a result of a deal made with Miss MacDonald to invest $509,000 in a forest management project. I was in the ditches with the guys, about a hundred men working at forest management and feeling proud and happy, despite the temporary nature of this investment, to be able to control the future of the forests. Because, of course, Charlevoix is also the country where Le temps d une paix was filmed, it is the Little Switzerland of Quebec and indeed of Canada and one of the most beautiful areas of our country.
I urge my hon. friends to support the tourist industry in my riding by visiting Charlevoix next summer or even this coming winter . . . they could ski there also. That is an invitation. They will find excellent accommodation and can expect a warm welcome on the part of my constituents who are working hard to change things and improve their lot.
And I do my part too, as a backbencher, or rather, as I often tell the people in my area, I am a proud "front-sitting backbencher". We have managed, thanks to the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. MacDonald), to get some $15 million to invest this year in my riding and to mobilize my constituents around a number of projects which are a little more significant and around which we hope to create long and middle term jobs, for in spite of all the investment contraindication, we are trying to adapt to a changing situation. We make very effort to do so, Mr. Speaker.
The results are often late in coming. Like people in other areas, those who have lived for years up there on a Cadillac level find it hard now to step down to a Volkswagen. However, I urge them to follow the example of our people and to show
Supply
this new spirit. Along those 100 miles of coastline my riding is almost 300 miles long-there are communities with just one small industry and often during the winter, you can count on you left hand those who are working. Do not waste time counting those who do not work. It takes too much time, the other way is easier.
However, we are trying to rouse those communities and to breathe into them a new working or creative spirit. And 1 was quite pleased, indeed, to take advantage of the support provided by my Government for certain projects and that creative spirit is going quite far. One of our industries was advertising today in the Globe and Mail its intention of issuing a new series of shares once it will have secured a loan from the Quebec Government which has not yet been confirmed. However, in view of their worthwhile project, which is to build a fifth pulp and paper mill, those people are issuing new shares. And I can tell you that the decision to expand has come from within, from the workers, the ordinary people, the leaders and the unions who are fostering this development and asking for this new investment. I hope that the issuance of new shares will be really successful and that they will find the necessary capital without too much help from the Government. Of course, they have asked us to intervene. They asked the Quebec Government. If the Governments of Quebec and Canada had been willing to open up the valves, we would have been the first on to congratulate them and to provide financial aid to that business. However, what is more fantastic yet is that they have done it all by themselves encouraged by the worthiness of their project. I feel this is great and I hope it will result in the creation of 200 or 300 jobs in an area which is highly underprivileged, but still experiencing major technological changes.
Some investments have also been made under the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle). This week, a $800,000 project in my constituency will get under way for the refitting of a new wharf. The use that is made of those wharves will be changed. I have had funds invested this year in Tadoussac, where the tourist industry is experiencing new developments, where very low unemployment rates have been felt in that small community because of the natural phenomenon of whales visiting our shores. This is an extraordinary event, which year after year generates activity with people coming to enjoy that tremendous attraction. And this has been done by local people. There is a new spirit that is spilling over. And, of course, If we had all that money available, if it were not for that damned $200 billion deficit, if the previous Governments had not run wild with the coffers, we might afford to add to all this activity. There is also a tremendous awareness effort in the small community of Sacre-Coeur, where cooperative movements "rehabilitated" a mill. Yet, the previous Governments had spent $47 million, but because of the distances those $47 million proved to be unproductive investments. There were successive failures, but for the first time, the local people took

November 8, i 985
Supply
over that investment and the company manager, assisted by the chairman of the cooperative union was proud to show us the 196,000 board-feet of average production, a figure never before achieved for that mill and which has steadily been maintained for some months now. That same cooperative union with others in the area, and even some private investments are triggering a process that will, as I wholeheartedly and despite unfavourable conditions, our remoteness, the financial reluctance of the banks-In remote areas like the North Shore, banks think that assets have no resale value at all whereas in Quebec City, you can get loans up to 70 per cent or 80 per cent of your investment, because banks know their money will easily be recovered if the project fails. The bank thinks: "I will recover as much as 70, 75 or even 90 per cent of my investment." In our outlying communities, you get 0 per cent. And investors must give iron-clad guarantees.
Despite all that, however, there exists a new climate, a new will and a new hope. And contrary to what today's motion implies, I think that we are creating new opportunities in the remote areas. If past debts were not so heavy we could build our future more rapidly.
Now, this is a young Government and despite a lack of resources, it stimulates people and investments. When my Government says it intends to negotiate free trade, it has a tremendous impact where I live. However, free trade is important for the forest industry, the lumber industry, the sawmills which cut our timber. Should the Americans decide to limit our exports, as they intend to do under the influence of the protectionist lobby responsible for the Gibbons Bill and others, something we watch very closely, it would be a disaster.
That is why it is crucial that or Government anticipate that trend and tell the Americans: "Let's sit down and negotiate". Naturally, our people expect our Government-elected for that purpose-to protect the interests of the average Canadian. 1 can tell the Hon. Members of the NDP that, in my riding, dealing with the lumber industry and exports to the U.S. is dealing with ordinary Cannadians.
I repeat, I represent ordinary people, not the Establishment.
I was working on a project in a community of 800 inhabitants. We had the financing. We had, thanks to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Government of Quebec and Hydro Quebec, a nice little project of $1.7 million. We were to announce it, to start creating 60 jobs, permanent jobs. But, the threat of American protectionism was enough to make the main developer back down. That was the only threat.
You can see the need for us to initiate such a process in the best interests of regions such as mine, where tourism and the forest industry, which often has low stocks because of the infestation by the spruce budworm, need investments. An agreement of $300 million has been signed with the Quebec
Government, and I have learned that workers in my constituency are already benefiting from this agreement. What is also interesting, is that-my colleague tells me that we should speak about remote areas, such as Pontiac, Gatineau, Labelle and Lac-Saint-Jean. He is right. This is Canada and Canada is a country of regions. If we were ever to forget that fact in Ottawa, this country could not survive. We, in the ordinary regions, are what make up this country.
As I was saying, this new agreement between Canada and Quebec is beginning to show results. There are new spruce trees in the forests and work for the unemployed in my region. It is unfortunate that this motion has been introduced by a Member from Saskatchewan, even though I have a lot of respect for him. I see his intervention as coming from someone who wants to invite us to do more for Quebecers. However, 1 can assure the Hon. Member that we, the new Conservative Members from Quebec, who might, it is true, not speak that often in this House... do you know what we are doing? We are waiting to see the results of all this experience.
Of course, we cannot judge the future by the past. We saw what our predecessors did. You, socialists, never had the opportunity to implement your proposals. However, the people in France now bitterly regret having done so, and there will be major changes in this regard.
However, I understand this proposal. I would rather view it as an invitation from a colleague to do more. But before redistributing wealth, we have to create it. We are now doing so with what little means we have at our disposal, but I hope that the policies we are implementing and which admittedly impose certain sacrifices on the public will enable the outlying regions to initiate an ongoing process to achieve their economic potential so that their needs will no longer always be subordinated to those of the major centres.
As for the 74,000 jobs created in Quebec, I would naturally have liked them all to be in Charlevoix. Some of them have probably been created in our region, and it is thanks to the dynamic attitude of this Government, to this new spirit of entrepreneurship, to this new will to promote development, because of which within four years, we shall have fulfilled our mandate to change, maybe not that much, but significantly, the economic picture in Quebec and Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made a magnificent speech. We have many NDP members who could say the same, but we must say it is the same Government who decided to give away $865 million to two major banks. It is also the same Government which made cuts in RRAP, the program that was so helpful for your area.
I agree with what the Hon. Member had to say and it was very interesting to hear both speeches one after the other. I also think as a Member from a peripheral area, namely South Ontario instead of Quebec, but it is basically the same.
November 8, 1985

I think it is essential for all of us from remote areas to appeal to the Government who pays more attention to demands from Montreal, Toronto or Edmonton; we must tell him that he must now listen to remote areas.
I believe it is sound to struggle, it is important for the Hon. Member that we support him and we hope that during next Parliaments we will lead the Government to at last listen to what remote areas have to say. That would be helpful.


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support which, I hope, will be more forthcoming than in the past for this Government. I am as anxious as you are to achieve all these objectives and you know, I wish we would have the "Decade of remote areas", but we should give ourselves the means to achieve that end. My people and myself still have enough patience to understand that we must give ourselves the means to act, to give more consistency to this economy, to have more confidence in private enterprise because I too believe in it, even though it is difficult in our region. But I am prepared as well as my fellow citizens to ensure that we take some time, that we change our scale of values and that within a short time we may achieve all the objectives that this Government and this party... all the objectives I have set to myself as a Member of Parliament both for my riding and for all peripheral areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski);: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his excellent presentation. We understood how much you wanted to defend the interests of peripheral areas. You have said it many times in your speeches and since you talked about Canada and its regions'in your presentation, I wish you would tell us about a statement that you made a few months ago regarding that suggestion to help our regions and to create a special fund for this purpose. Following the statement that you made a while ago, I wish you would give us details as to how this special fund would work to ensure that peripheral regions are taken care of.


Charles-André Hamelin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, within the very structures of our party, I did suggest the establishment of a regional fund of development, not to be confused with a fund of regional development, and 1 even put forward a figure of several millions of dollars for each of the ridings or outlying areas. From that fund we, the people from the regions, could draw on the basis of various factors, criteria, competitiveness, investment disincentives, to realize all our social and economic potential. Unfortunately, for the time being we lack the resources to put these policies into place, to establish this regional fund of development, but the idea has already gained ground, for even the Quebec Government and certain people have talked about it and I hope that the idea
Supply
will gain even more ground to the point of allowing us to establish it at some point in the future, when the funds are available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, if 1 may, however, like my colleague I deplore the fact that the motion, which has my full support under these circumstances, has been introduced when most Quebec Members have to attend the Halifax convention. Be that as it may, I should like to take the next few minutes to voice my views with respect to the motion before the House.
As Hon. Members may recall, we were in the midst of an election campaign a year and a few months ago, facing men and women who were crisscrossing Quebec and making every kind of firm commitments. The underlying theme of all those commitments was "jobs, jobs, jobs". Everybody then knew the state of the country's financial situation. Canada's debt was not a secret to anyone and, more than that, during the months following the election of the present Government it became clear that our indebtedness was definitely not as outrageous as they had claimed throughout the election campaign.
It is therefore fair to say that they were fully aware of the Canadian economic situation when they made those hundreds of promises and commitments on the hustings. They knew that Canada had gone through extremely hard and difficult times when, unfortunately, the deficit was bound to increase. They knew what the score was all right, but it did not stop them from making formal promises. So election day came and we all know the results-the Canadian people gave a massive vote of confidence to the Progressive Conservative candidates.
Here we are now, November 8, wondering what has been accomplished during those short 14 months. We have been hearing all along that inflation went down and interest rates declined since they took office. We were also told that they had a strong mandate to take whatever action was necessary under the circumstances. Well, as everyone knows, one does not have to be an economist to realize that the current situation with respect to interest rates and inflation happens to be the outcome, the result which could have been generated only through policies which had been implemented long before the Conservatives even arrived on the scene.
They pass a number of measures. They introduce a number of bills, but the particular feature of this Government is that for the majority, if not for all of its initiatives this Government, dug into the pockets of the constituents of my hon. friend who are people of modest means, whose salaries are very small or very average.

November 8, 1985
Supply
There may be a certain logic in taking money from the people through direct and indirect taxation to lower down the deficit. On that basis that kind of rationale is acceptable. However, what is unacceptable, what is even odious, is the fact that these sums collected through taxes on drugs and deindexation of family allowances, are being given away to the tune of $1 billion or several hundred millions to individuals or companies which also have certain responsibilities under the circumstances and should participate in the economic recovery of this country. It is totally unacceptable to take money from people who cannot afford that extra expense.
Still under the theme of job creation, they also said to the people of the region I know best, the Eastern Townships, the Bois-Francs, that they were going to develop, as soon as possible, a number of projects, absolutely essential to the economy of the Eastern Townships to strenghten its infrastructure and to create direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs.
Obviously, I am referring to map-making, to the gas pipeline which should have linked Sherbrooke, Windsor and Asbestos and would have created hundreds of jobs as a result of infrastructure improvement.
They also said, because this is an agricultural oriented region, that they would develop a project which had been announced in June, a research laboratory, the phytoprotection laboratory, in Victoriaville. The cost of that project was 12 or 13 million dollars. Agriculture Canada had given its approval. This amount of $12 million was to come from the Laprade Fund, but once again, the project was postponed indefinitely.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), in response to a question that I put to him last week, said that he did not know enough about the project to answer a question of this importance. These were issues with a regional dimension. These were issues which were and still are necessary, in order to preserve the basic and significant economic nature of the Eastern Townships and the Bois-francs.
But there were other issues as well. Personally, I come from an asbestos producing region. During the election campaign, it was said that asbestos was a very important natural resource and that we should intensify research activities in this field and make additional efforts to promote it again in order to be able, eventually to consider transforming that product in larger quantities. What happened to the asbestos? A year and a few months after September 4, some 1,200 layoffs in the asbestos sector were announced; 1,200 people who were very well paid, lost or will lose their jobs in the next few months and weeks; 1,200 direct jobs that will disappear. It is well known that jobs earning $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 or $40,000 per year are very contributive to the economy and themselves generate an enormous number of indirect jobs.
So, what happened in that regard? Nothing at all. Absolutely nothing. Yet, it would have been easy for Canada which professes to believe in asbestos to put into place policies that
would have served as a model, on the international level, to issue guidelines to all construction undertakings to use as many asbestos-based materials as possible. Asbestos is no longer the controversial substance it once was, and it can now be used in a scientifically acceptable fashion. There is evidence that asbestos can be useful, even protect and save lives. It just have to be used safely according to rules and regulations.
There have also been commitments concerning an industry that is of special interest to me, that has been the subject of a fight to which I have been closely associated and still is, that is the footwear industry. The footwear issue is very simple and easy to understand. There are 20,000 jobs in Canada in footwear manufacturing, equally distributed between Ontario and Quebec, 10,000 in each province. Approximately 100 million pairs of shoes are bought in Canada.
At the present time, we import about 65 million pairs. Some will say I am against imports. I am not opposed to imports, 1 am for a just and equitable share of the Canadian market for manufacturers, through protectionism, with a view to ensure half of the market that is estimated at 100 million pairs. If Canadian manufacturers were guaranteed that share of fifty per cent, Mr. Speaker, the 20,000 jobs would first be secured. Second, that would lead to the creation of 6,000 new jobs in the next few weeks or months, at most within a year. During the last election campaign, there were men and women representing the Party which is now the Government who came to Quebec and said: "If we are elected, we solemnly promise to continue the quota system. We will make sure the jobs in these vital industries for the Eastern Townships are fully protected." They made a clear commitment to maintain the quotas.
What has happened? Under pressure, the Government is saying that it is in the interest to the consumers to abolish the quotas. I feel it would be easy to prove the opposite, because importers are very much interested in getting rid of the goods manufactured in this country and replacing them with imports with a much greater profit margin. When they speak, these people generally do so on behalf of the retailers. Well, there are some 4,000 independent retailers in the footwear industry who are never consulted, who never have their say and who in fact are for the protection of the Canadian footwear industry.
The Government had clearly defined its stand during the election campaign. The quotas which had been established under the Liberal Government were coming to an end. As a matter of fact, they will effectively do so in November. The Government promised to make its decision known last August. Then, it promised to make it known in September. Then it said it would be in October, and although the date today is November 8, there is still no decision. And the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) stated today in the House that the Government would make its decision known before the end of November. At the end of November, a decision will be made concerning footwear, and quotas end November 30.
November 8, 1985

However, we must realize that the decision, even if it were a good one, and I did take notice of the statement of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), namely that jobs would be safeguarded . . . Even if this decision is good at the end of November, some harm will have been done, a prejudice will have been done, for which we will have to pay next year, because as everyone knows orders in the footwear industry must be placed 6, 7 and 8 months in advance.
Now, importers, assuming that quotas would disappear, have already placed their orders; they have already made their purchases for next Spring and next Summer.
Now, even if the decision were good, some harm, a prejudice would have been done to the Canadian manufacturing sector. Why? Simply because we were passive, because we have not made a decision, because we have not delivered after making formal commitments which were very clear, very precise.
There is also the textile and clothing industry, although this is another sector. At the present time, we talk a lot about the necessity to turn to a free trade policy, about the necessity to liberalize trade with the United States. In a constituency like mine, and I am not the only one in this case, there are dozens in Canada, constituencies which would in fact become extremely vulnerable if the economic barriers, customs barriers, with the United States were to be abolished.
Dozens of small businesses which do not have the capacity to invest millions or even billions of dollars, are literally going to go bankrupt. Small businesses which employ presently 25, 30, 50 and 100 people and which, in the case of free trade without conditions, will disappear. Unfortunately a constituency like mine cannot hope to benefit from the investment of billions or hundreds of millions of dollars, considering that such investments are generally made in densely populated areas. Remote constituencies or those which are not too close to large centres will fall victim to the consequences of such a policy.
1 am proceeding rapidly because there is another fundamental aspect for Quebec which, in my opinion, has been totally and shamefully ignored, namely, agriculture.
And speaking of agriculture, the spokesperson for your political group, now the Hon. Roch La Salle, said in Lon-gueuil: To live you have to eat. We understand that. He was inferring that farmers would get everything they wanted under a Conservative Government. In a question I put to the Hon. Member I mentioned the $13 million they have been waiting for all this time. According to the Minister's comments, they can now forget the whole deal. You have adopted a Bill which according to some Members is fantastic for agriculture and I am referring to Bill C-25, the stabilization legislation. This is an unprecedented setback for Quebec farmers, and here, they all agree that they have been sold down the river by the Members from Quebec. Not a single Quebec Member rose in
Supply
the House or even expressed disapproval of this measure which was an insult to everyone involved in agriculture in the province of Quebec. Today, those same farmers are very concerned about the Government's indecision-it reminds me a little of the footwear industry-about establishing a long-term dairy policy. It has been promised repeatedly by the Government, which was very emphatic about it, even implying that production costs would cover all the input, all the elements involved. We are still waiting. It was promised for August 1. The Minister has said time and time again: You will get a longterm dairy policy and we are going to release it on August 1. Today, on November 8, we still have no policy. They are now talking about reviewing a problem which had aroused considerable interest, and I am referring to the Crow rate. They are considering the possibility of putting that back on the table, with the clear implication that eventually, payments will be made to the producers instead of to the railways. Most farmers in Quebec are very pessimistic today about this whole issue.
Still on the subject of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, and with your permission, since we are often given this opportunity, I would like to talk about what the agricultural or the agri-food industry has been discussing in recent weeks in a journal which comes very close to what the Government's official spokesperson on Agriculture Canada, the Parliamentary Secretary, was saying: We are not here to play Santa Claus, and the Government is no longer financing the shortfall between production prices and costs. We cannot apply social welfare or social insurance policies to agriculture. That is what he had to say about the stabilization bill. A little later, that same Parliamentary Secretary, the same official spokesman of your Government said: I was feeling somewhat uneasy as I spoke in favour of Bill C-25, but I do not feel I am a traitor ... Because the word traitor is not used by him, but by the farm community which says that the Quebec deputation is composed of 59 traitors, and these will be my final words, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to congratulate my Hon. colleague for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) for speaking in such objective fashion. I would indeed like to ask him how we could explain to the people of Canada the difference, since he mentioned the de-indexation of family allowances and old age security pensions, how we could explain to the people of Canada what the difference is between the full 3 per cent de-indexation and what the Conservative Party are claiming we were going to cut down with the 6 and 5 per cent? What is the difference, and what was the impact of those 6 and 5 per cent in terms of wage control in the industrial sector in the provinces?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my Hon. colleague indeed for allowing me to qualify somewhat this aspect, which seems important in the circumstances, since that argumenta-

November 8, 1985
Supply
tion has been cropping up repeatedly on the other side of the House, namely that we too in the past were somewhat unfair to the people benefiting from social programs, which by the way had been introduced by the Liberals. The 6 and 5 per cent were not aimed just at the lowest income people, they applied to every sector of society, every individual and every company. The basic feature was that the first 6 per cent were unassailable, sacrosanct, and that the restrictive measures, if any, applied to the higher amount. The policy put forth by this Government concerns the first 3 per cent, and this means people will lose the first, the second and the third percentage points. Now within that context, the decision reached by the previous Government under the 6 and 5 policy which this Government is taking advantage of because if we are so often told today that the inflation rate is good, that growth is on again, it is the result of measures such as those taken by the Liberal Government. The 3 per cent are not aimed at large companies, at the rich people, at those who will benefit from capital gains of $400,000 to $500,000, but at the people to whom my colleague was referring, the little people who really need those 3 per cent.
I agree, as I said earlier in this House, that 50 cents, $1, $1.50, $3, $4, $5 per month are not much, but people are vulnerable. But what 1 say is that for these people, it is very important to know one, two, three months in advance that they will have $5, $10, $15, or $20 to spend on Christmas. It is these people who suffer the most because of your unfair measures. And what is even more despicable is that you are literally bleeding them to feed big companies, very big companies that do not need that money at all.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) has raised quite an interesting point. He talked about asbestos. According to him, asbestos is not as dangerous today as it used to be because of new processes. Will he explain which processes he is referring to when he says that as such asbestos is not hazardous to health?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I know of a Member who could give some of the details, I think, and I mean my colleague because I understand he is from Sherbrooke. And in the Sherbrooke area, asbestos is most important. What I want to say is this: at a time asbestos was submitted to a lot more research than any other resource, product or commodity. We had an unbelievable volume of expertise on it and I do not think there is anything on the Canadian market that has been subjected to that many studies and analyses. Obviously, when a subject is as researched as this one has been, it is difficult not to find some failings. But what I am saying is the properties of asbestos have been identified as well as the effects of a non-regulated use, in other words, we know all about the parameters involved in the use of asbestos. And since we fully
know about all the peculiarities of this natural resource, asbestos can now be used in a totally safe way.
Finally, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that dynamite, gasoline and a lot of products that are extremely more hazardous than asbestos are being regularly transported-we realized and accepted that those are essential products to the same extent as asbestos. Furthermore, asbestos has saved and is still saving hundreds of lives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is ended. Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their contributions, and especially my colleague for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin). If there was any need for an example of involvement by Conservative Members, I think he has set it. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix has been an advocate of regions, and has been promoting his own region within that spirit of renewal that motivated all Quebecers and all Canadians in 1984. He has realized that it is not by handing out money to a region that it will become a dynamic region.
The work required now from those Members who want to respect the movement they set up, who want to respect the people is indeed to get involved, to work very hard and to motivate their community. The Hon. Member mentioned a current example in his area, a business which has decided to invest although it has no definite feelings that there will be government involvement.
That determination to invest is to be found also in the Charlevoix region; it is to be found throughout Quebec, throughout Canada.
Those who are monitoring the situation, and 1 do not mean the Government or any political party, but people who usually monitor the Canadian economy ... we have had over these last few weeks the economic statements of the Royal Bank of Canada. If you take a close look, all indicators are positive. The average number of hours worked in manufacturing industry is growing, the house building industry is picking up and so on. The Royal Bank of Canada has good news; a real economic recovery is taking place in Quebec.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business talks as well about a steady growth in employment and capital investments for small businesses. It indicates that the capital gains exemption announced in the May budget has clearly brought about stronger investments. That is yet another analysis confirming that we are achieving our objectives and that better days lie ahead for the Canadian population.
The Canadian Economic Council is also optimistic. Canadians can well have faith in the economy of their country. There is indeed a recovery and this recovery will continue.
November 8, 1985

A moment ago, my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) was mentioning among other things the regional unemployment situation. The Hon. Member from Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) said that the unemployment rate had just gone up slightly. To better make his point, he stated that this rate is unacceptably high for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that anybody speaking about unemployment in this Chamber would always find the rate unacceptable. Any unemployment is wrong, and the Government's task in this regard is precisely to find remedies.
If you look abroad, you will see that the current OECD forecasts put Canada right behind Japan. I must say I feel very good being placed there by OECD in terms of economic growth. If that growth can be allowed to continue, Canadians will have a more stable and more balanced standard of living.
Cost of living increases are presently stabilised at around 3 or 4 per cent. Deficit for the first five months of the year is only $300 millions. Compared to last year, this is already an improvement.
All these improvements, and my friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) touched on that this morning, could in part be attributed to the spirit of cooperation. We have the will to succeed, but this will must be supported by a better understanding between the various levels of Government, general acceptance by the population and cooperation at all levels.
Within a year, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion supported 559 projects in Quebec which will generate some $648 million of investment. They will create 12,324 new jobs and help maintain 9,400 others. Naturally, there are problems in certain areas or certain industries. What we must avoid is tranferring the problems, that is to say solve the problem of an area at the expense of another. We have to be more dynamic, more innovative and we must find new solutions.
I heard a lot about federal-provincial agreements. They too mean money spent in Quebec, for the Quebec people. A moment ago, my friend, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (M. Hamelin), was talking about the benefits for his area of the forestry agreement.
There are also other agreements which will have an impact in Quebec in the areas of industrial and regional development, and tourism. These total over $450 million. If we look at industrial development, under the agreements already signed, $152 million have been committed, of which 50 per cent will come from the Federal Government. We have therefore put aside $77 million to help certain businesses in Quebec.
As concerns tourism, $32 million have been allocated. We could also add the amount of $45 million already allocated under federal-provincial agreements by the Government since its coming to power.
Under all regional and industrial development programs, $90 million were allocated between September 1984 and April 1985, and another amount of $22 million has been allocated since April.
Supply
The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe said earlier that we have done nothing for the textile industry. We should not forget that this Government is now working on a textile policy which will be proposed and developed in consultation with the industry, and that, this year, the Canadian Government has allocated an additional amount of $44.4 million to the textile industry through the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. In the textile, clothing and shoe industries, 234 projects have been approved which made it possible to create or preserve 1,730 jobs.
There is another program developed by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to increase the productivity of the defence equipment industry, under which $95 million were provided to Quebec manufacturers between September 1984 and April 1985, and $31 million since April.
We must not forget either that the Federal Government provided an amount of $10 million to help the Quebec Labour Federation create a small solidarity fund. Such contributions could be offered to similar organizations on the condition that they were created in accordance with provincial legislation. This is another contribution to the Quebec economy.
The Hon. Member, whose constituents probably go to the various financial institutions to ask for loans, should know that, this year, the Government has taken care of small businesses and, under the Small Businesses Loans Act, it has guaranteed 11,524 loans to small businesses for a total of $342 million.
The Federal Business Development Bank has granted 938 direct loans since September 1984, which represents an investment of $220 million.
Quebec businesses now owe $457 million to the FBDB. When we look at these figures, it is impossible not to realize that this Government wants to allow our businesses to become more dynamic. If the Government-During my own electoral campaign, I insisted on two major themes, which were also the two major concerns of the people in my constituency, in Quebec and throughout Canada, namely unemployment and the economy.
If there is one thing that my constituents understood, it is that it was impossible to lower unemployment and improve our social programs if we did not succeed in promoting economic recovery. What this Government and private businesses can do at the present time is to continue to work together. It seems easier to increase the deficit to stimulate the economy than to try to work with local businesses and people to have them take control of the situation and invest in the economy in our areas. I appreciated very much the comments of my colleague from Charlevoix because he seems to understand that it would take more than grants to get his area moving.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).

November 8, 1985
Supply


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. B. Tardif) who seemed to have so well all the facts and figures. However, 1 would like to ask her how many businesses took advantage of capital gains? i would also like to know how she could say that those capital gains were invested when the legislation has not been passed yet? Could she tell me how many businesses invested and also what are the amounts involved?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this question. He knows perfectly well that when we talk about those provisions, it is with a view to encourage businesses to use them. The important thing right now is that our business community realize that they will benefit from investing in our economy.
If businesses understand the message that was sent to them, they will invest large amounts and in this regard, 1 consider what happened in the case of Charlevoix. The business community decided to use some other means rather than asking for Government grants or if they do, it will be as a surplus. They will first appeal to the population and the Canadian people are asked to invest in Canada as foreign people were asked when the legislation on Investment Canada was prepared; they were told that Canada was in business. I think the same principle applies. Many Canadians have yet to understand that it is in our interest to invest at home and that we will manage to improve our situation by investing in our businesses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) has the floor.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has not answered my question because in her statement, she did say at the outset that people who have made capital gains had re-investyed their money in this country. If the Hon. Member wants to check the "blues", she will see that she did say that capital gains were re-invested.
Therefore, I ask the question: How many businesses have reinvested these funds since the legislations has not been passed yet? Are you not deceiving people when you say that capital gains were re-invested? I think you are deceiving the Canadian people. I would like the Hon. Member to answer my question.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, yes I will read the "blues" and if I said that, I did not mean to. What I wanted to say was that that provision has been worked out to help our businesses and also that I hope they will understand the message and use it.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my colleague that some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) were very interesting and attractive. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and this is the heart of the problem, that he did say on several occasions in his speech that if we could increase or intensify our will to control our affairs by making investments at the federal level, it would be ideal. What I want to know is what do you say to those who need this Government effort in the area of resources when, on the one hand you give billions of dollars to large corporations and on
the other you tell them: "Listen, we do like the idea, the initiative, but, as you know, the country's financial situation does nos allow us to get involved in your investment?"
What can you tell them after having invested billions of dollars with the multinationals? As a sub-question, I understand that there is a footwear industry in my colleague's riding; what do you tell those workers? That you did not make the decision? What do you tell them, considering the simply disastrous impact of the present situation? And a final question, with your permission. My colleague has access to data that could certainly have been interesting to this House if she had told us what proportion of her Department's funds has been spent in Quebec as opposed to those spent elsewhere. It would have been interesting to have those figures.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit I am not too sure about the meaning of first part of the question about the billions of dollars we could not promise the multinationals, but still I will try to answer as best as I can.
Obviously projects submitted cannot all be considered, for various reasons. Therefore some projects get our support while others do not, and my colleague should know that, as a rule, the preference will go to cases which will produce results, and we would rather not provide help when no jobs are created. So we will set priorities and respect them.
My colleague referred as well to the shoe industry. Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in that file. 1 have been working on it for quite some time, perhaps even longer than my colleague. You may think that you have a major problem in Richmond-Wolfe, but I should point out that in Charlesbourg we have 1,000 jobs directly related to the shoe manufacturing industry. There is no easy answer to that problem, and 1 would suggest that a parliamentarian who has been here for many years should know that different viewpoints are expressed in the course of negotiations, that it does take a little time to reach a consensus. As my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) said, the shoe manufacturing industry should have an answer before the end of this month.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take the floor and support the motion of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I would like to respond to the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif) who said something about the money spent by the Government to help the shoe industry. She said that she was concerned about the fact that thousands of people would be losing their job in the footwear industry, in his town, but she forgets to talk about the commitment that her leader made, on May 4th, 1984, when he promised to maintain import quotas. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said then: "A Conservative Government would not abolish the import quotas in the footwear and textile industries".
November 8, 1985

On Wednesday, the Conservative Leader, Mr. Brian Mul-roney, pointed out to the newspaper La Tribune that the policy on quotas would remain the same, and he made clear that he was not in favour of free trade in these industries. He also added he did not intend to bow to the pressures that could be exercised by the Common Market on the United States in order to bring down the quotas on footwear and textile products in Canada. He said that he would not hesitate telling that to President Reagan, when he meets him in Washington, next month.
Mr. Speaker, they said that they intended to renew these import quotas at the end of the month. It was necessary to do it in September or October. Mr. Speaker, in September and October 2,000 may have been lost jobs in Quebec alone. Three hundred and twenty jobs were lost at the G.A. Corbeil Company, in Montreal. At the Empress Company, in Montreal, 100 workers lost their jobs. The companies Saint-George Shoe, in Saint-Georges de Beauce, Jean E. Blais, in Saint-Cezaire, Chaussures M.G., in Actonville, Boot Legger Incorporated, in Montreal, M. Lalonde, in Montreal, Popular Shoes, in Con-trecoeur, La Parisette, in Montreal and Gen Foot, in Con-trecoeur, laid off respectively 225, 110, 155, 375, 100, 147, 160 and 200 workers. In Grand Mere 100 jobs were lost.
Mr. Speaker, if the Government does not give its word, to maintain the import quotas on shoes, we could lose even more jobs, because Canadian retailers refuse to order shoes made in Canada, while waiting for the end of import quotas, this month.

I do not have very much time because I have to catch a plane, Mr. Speaker, but I want to make one more point in this connection. The public opinion on this point has been tested by a Decima poll which has shown that 44 per cent of Canadians consider imports are a serious threat to Canadian jobs and 66 per cent said that they would prefer to maintain quotas in order to protect jobs even if it means paying higher prices for footwear.
It is not enough to talk about all the great things the Government would like to do if it had more money or even about the things the Government may have done in subsidizing certain industries. The point is to renew the quotas on the importations of footwear, otherwise we stand to lose a whole industry in Canada of 20,000 jobs, as has been pointed out, half in Quebec and half in Ontario. That is the action that is needed and it is not a substitute for that to give certain subsidies or to promise certain grand programs for the future. If those companies give up because they are losing the Canadian market to countries that pay wages perhaps one-tenth of ours, then it will be too late to try to restore the industry by government subsidies. I would urge the Hon. Member for Charles-bourg (Mrs. Tardif) to consider this and to use her influence
Supply
with the Government to have those quotas declared and restored immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mrs. B. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague. He spoke of course of job losses in the footwear industry and Government concerns in that regard.
I would like to remind him that there have been job losses before those of the last year. When we examine the decline of that industry over many years, we realize it is not a new problem.
There is however a question I asked several times last summer when I toured the country with a group of Members of Parliament to study the textile, clothing and footwear industries. At a dinner, I asked my table companions: How many of you are wearing Canadian-made shoes at the moment? I would like to ask my colleague the same question, and see how committee he is to Canadian industry. If Canadians do not make it their main concern to buy Canadian products, the problem will remain with us for a very long time.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I only wear shoes and clothes made in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 know the Hon. Member has to catch a plane. Questions and comments are now terminated.


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will allow me to raise another point before dealing with the motion proper.
Today, I should like to congratulate a former Member of the House who last Sunday was fortunate enough to be elected Mayor of the City of Verdun.
Mr. Raymond Savard was elected Mayor of the City of Verdun, and I take this opportunity to assure the new administration of my full support and cooperation for the next four years.
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to turn to the censure motion which the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has moved and where he condemns in part the Government for abandoning the people of Quebec by reneging on its commitments. As a Quebecer eager to defend the rights of my province and region, I can hardly accept that.
When he says that the Government has failed to develop new job potential in various communities, 1 point out that the Verdun-Saint-Paul riding which is not much industrialized has managed to create over 900 jobs last year. The Government

November 8, 1985
Supply
has invested $1 million in my riding to create these jobs, and it would be very difficult to demonstrate that Canadians are unhappy or dissatified with the efforts their elected members have made in their respective ridings. It is a fact that many industries are faced with problems. But there is a whole new generation of politicians who have entered politics to improve the well-being of the people and provide them with better services, to make it possible for them to work at something they like and raise the living standards of their families, and I think they will achieve that in a not too distant future.
Admittedly the textile and footwear industries are in a very difficult position now. i have had the opportunity of travelling and meeting with many people who export their products in Canada. Here, we are told that we do not protect our industries; and yet, when we go to other countries where footwear and textiles are produced, we are simply told that our industries are overprotected, that the market is completely closed, that the exporters are not allowed to sell their products on the Canadian markets. One must understand that our textile and footwear industries are indeed in a very difficult position, where the markets are invaded by virtually all the countries of the world.
There is also the fact that these people have an expertise in various types of machinery, and they have the know-how; and I am confident, for the Montreal area for example, that very soon there will be an economic upturn, an upturn which will bring new industries and high technology. I believe that we must mention it, because all over the world, Canada has the reputation of being an unequalled producer of high technology. I am confident that very soon we will be able to retrain these people who will have lost their job; it is indeed true: in some industries, we will retrain the workers in other fields where we do have state of the art high technology on the international level.
We must also recognize that the new programs, the housing programs, will create many jobs. They will put to work many people. 1 will give again the example of my area, the riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul.
Last year, I managed to get more than 235 housing units that were subsidized by the federal Government. This meant that people were needed to build and improve and repair them. And when people say that we are not doing our best to reduce the tax burden on families, especially on low income families, and I am not saying that my riding is any poorer than another riding, but these are average people who work hard to succeed and who have worked hard to get what they have today. And now, thanks to these subsidies and the jobs we are providing, these people will be able to live a better life, have a roof over their heads and a home that can compare with homes anywhere in Canada, and all this at very reasonable cost.
These people can live comfortably, can live very well and can prove to themselves that they have the respect of all
Canadians, that no one can tell them they are poor and they have to live in poverty, because that is just not true that some people want to be poor or think they are poor and will never get ahead. When I decided to go into politics, I had thought about it for a long time. Several years ago, I decided 1 wanted to get involved in politics and do something for the people around me, and I ran in the municipal election. I found this an extraordinary experience, because now I had a chance to meet people in their own homes, to see what their needs were and find out where they worked and what they did and what they had against the system. But I realized that at a given level, one cannot do more.
A new team was formed at that time, a team with an extraordinary leader, someone who believed in Canadians and who was prepared to give all Canadians a chance to succeed, to achieve their goals and stop being jealous of others.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave me a chance to become a member of this team when he said quite simply: "I am giving you a riding, but it is not an easy one." These people have been manipulated for years and years and told time and time again that with a Conservative Government, they would not get anywhere and would lose everything they had. However, at 30, and 1 was actually 29 at the time, all this was a challenge, and you do something because you believe in it. I really took the bull by the horns and I went to see these people who did not belong to my municipality at the time, they were living next door. These people had always been told: "Oh, we don't care about the people of Verdun because they are poor." Nobody was interested and nobody wanted to get involved. But today, 1 am proud to say the people of Verdun have understood.
Those people gave me a chance to go and meet them, speak to them, and stop telling them lies and telling them consistant-ly that everything was going to be taken away from them, that they were not going to be allowed to succeed, they were not going to be given a chance, because the Progressive Conservative Party was the Party of the rich. The last elections showed a participation by those people. The percentage of votes went up by 15 per cent from 60 per cent to 75 per cent. So there was indeed a dissatisfaction among them.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was wrong, I believe, when he said earlier that we no longer study La Fontaine's fables at school. I, for one, have been lucky and fortunate enough to have parents that allowed me to learn, to study and to travel. And what I have learned is what I want to give to the people of my constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul. Day after day, they come and see me. It is not true that they always come and ask for jobs, and tell me that they are unhappy, that things are not going well, that they pay to much tax, that their pension is about to be cut, that they are not satisfied with Bill C-70 on family allowances, and they do not want to have it. All that is not true.
November 8, 1985

Many express very hard views, but we let them speak. As you know, being a Member of Parliament today no longer means that you just work five days a week. It does not consist simply in attending functions and cutting ribbons. It means being in your office and meeting people who come and tell you about their everyday life, tell you about the difficulties in the plant where they make shoes; tell you that the Unions are sometimes much too harsh with the bosses or with themselves. You have to go and meet those people at home. You have to speak to them.
And when I see a Party like the New Democratic Party, to me, the New Democratic Party are socialists. How could we accept a socialist Government in a country like Canada? Canada is a country of free enterprise where everyone is allowed to succeed. And if someone is rich, it means that he has worked and has been successful, and has been involved in an environment, in a community. It should be clear that if I personally spend hours and hours working, I shall never ever accept overnight to give everything I have to people who don't want to do anything. An I am not afraid of saying that to anyone. When people come and see me at my office and tell me: "I am willing to work, but I want to work 35 hours a week with a salary of $40,000 a year", I ask them questions. For instance, I ask them: What is your educational background? What can you do? And frequently the same answers crop up. Eight year. They gave up and are frequently what we call dropouts. I am willing to help them, but not by taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets. It would be most unfortunate for the people of Canada and mostly for that particular individual, because I fail to see what interest there would be for that individual to live off the government.
The Conservative Party really had new ideas to offer and it proved it by bringing new Members to the House and when 1 say "new Members", 1 do not mean only young ones, from 27 to 35 years of age, but also new Members who are 50, 60 or 65, as well as socially involved women, not only the feminist type who have a grudge against males, but also women who are willing to work in the community, for the prosperity of their constituents and neighbours. Our Prime Minister gave us that opportunity.
Now, they try to tell us that we are not keeping our promises in Quebec when we work late every night, seven days a week. The NDP Members are not the only ones to work late at night. We do too every day, seven days a week, in order to give our constituents the service they are entitled to receive and that they did not get for a number of years.
How is it that everywhere we go people keep asking us: How come you are not treated as a VIP? You are the Hon. Member of Parliament and you should be seated at the table of honour and be asked to make a nice speech about all of the Government's achievements. In fact, most Conservative Members go to see the people, sit with them and discuss their problems. We listen. We are not members of Cabinet. It is
Supply
very difficult to change decisions once they are made, but at least there are Ministers who listen and give us a chance to say what we have to say. However we do not give them our personal views but those of thousands of Canadian men and women.
If sometimes we reverse a decision like the one on the deindexation of pensions, it is not because we fear the electorate. On the contrary, I think that our Prime Minister is too smart to waste his time on polls. It is because each and every one of us went in our constituencies to talk to our senior citizens, who told us that they were against it for numerous reasons. We had the opportunity to express those reasons to the Cabinet, to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and the decision was made there, at a time when every Hon. Member had the opportunity to express his views. This is democracy. This is what I call enabling people to make progress ina country all of us can be proud of.
Could some people say that they are not proud to live in Canada? How many of us have travelled all over the world to see poverty in other countries? We say that there are no jobs here: have you been in France, have you seen what the socialist party has done in France? I have a personal example. My family has been in business for years, for more than 40 years, and we deal with a French company which had been in business for 130 years. Because of the socialist government, because of unions which really twisted its arms and prevented it from working, that company will close its doors and lay off 250 workers this year. Strangely enough, people here want a socialist Government thinking that the Government will give everything, whereas we have blatant examples in various countries. For us in Quebec it is easier to find examples in France, because we are much better informed on France, particularly because of the language. Do not deceive our people, the Canadian people, in believing that your ideas are better. Tell them the truth, tell them that Canada is the ideal country, the place where young or old people, where any one who has an idea can succeed if he wants to work. There is no free lunch.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is not trying to do to his leader what the Liberals have been trying to do to theirs since September 4.


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


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on this motion today we have to be aware that this is a national Parliament. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has quite correctly and appropriately drawn our attention to a number of national problems and their adverse effects in the Province of Quebec such as the lack of effective job-creation programs. There is an

November 8, 1985
Supply
inequitable tax system which causes low and middle-income families to pay more than their fair share of taxes in Canada, and difficulties and problems in certain industries or sectors such as the forest products industry. These are all national problems with serious effects in Quebec as well as in other provinces.
It does not matter to what extent the Government boasts about job-creation endeavours. As Members of Parliament we still have to face up to the fact that we have double-digit unemployment in Canada, much higher than in the United States. Everyone I think rejoiced rather cautiously when the unemployment rate in September dipped to 10.1 per cent. It has not been at that level for a long while. Everyone hoped that this was the beginning of a new trend, but when the figures came out today, as we begin to approach another long and probably cold winter, we see the unemployment rate is once again building upward. In October there was an increase of .2 per cent so we are back again to 10.3 per cent. Now there is concern that this may be a trend that is going to be with us for several months. It is most disturbing that in these figures there is an increase of .6 per cent, taking us to 8.5 per cent unemployment for young men in this country between the ages of 15 and 25. The unemployment rate among women in the same age category is also alarmingly high, nearly 14 per cent. In Quebec the unemployment rate is above the national average. It is nearly 12 per cent, compared to 10.3 per cent for the rest of the country. In Atlantic Canada we learned from questions in the House today that the situation is really in a state of crisis. Prince Edward Island in one month had an increase of 1.8 per cent in unemployment, taking that province over the 13 per cent point. New Brunswick had an increase of 1.5 per cent in a single month, increasing the rate of unemployment to 15 per cent. In Nova Scotia it is 13 per cent, and in Newfoundland it remains at almost 20 per cent.
I can well understand that a Government wants to boast about job creation and quote figures about the number of jobs created in a certain period of time. However, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was correct and apt when he stated this morning that he took no satisfaction at all from these statistics. I think all Members of Parliament share that feeling with him.
The United Church of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has a national working group on the economy and poverty. It met with a Liberal caucus task force last summer. It used some rather strong language in talking about the May 23 Budget. It referred to that Budget as being obscene.


Dave Nickerson: You should have heard what they said about the MacEachen Budget.


B. Keith Penner: The Budget the Hon. Member is bellowing about does not have any effect on Canadians today.


Dave Nickerson: It sure does.


B. Keith Penner: The Wilson Budget does have adverse effects. I do not know about the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) but I am living in the present. He wants to live in the past, that is his choice.
However, this working group condemned the Conservative Budget for one reason. It put the rich ahead of the poor and the unemployed. It gives tax breaks to the rich while at the same time it cuts services to the young. It cuts services to women and elderly and unemployed. Look at the figures that this working group provided for us. It pointed out that no matter how well we think we are doing in this country in our attempts to alleviate poverty, there is still one in five Canadians classified as poor. Some 75 per cent of this nation's wealth at the top end is held by 10 per cent of the people. At the bottom end 1 per cent of the wealth is held by 40 per cent of the people. Realizing that, one wonders how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) could bring in the kind of Budget we heard on May 23.
In the same submission the Church told the caucus quite clearly that the situation is getting worse. I am among those Members of Parliament who feel a deep sense of concern about the size of our deficit. I am concerned about the growth in our national debt. However, at the same time, I cannot help but be aware that in 1945, at the end of World War II, on a per capita basis we had a higher deficit than we have today. Despite that we managed to live with it. Not only that, successive Liberal Governments were able to bring in a number of social programs which today are part of the very fabric of our society, programs which the Prime Minister during the election campaign described as a sacred trust. Social programs will not be part of the negotiations when we deal with the United States on a free trade agreement, said the Government.
Our focus today really ought not to be on reducing our social programs. That is not where the emphasis should be. That is not where we should be looking for better accountability and better use of scarce financial resources. We ought to be looking at the elimination of government mismanagement and waste. Cutting social programs at the very same time we introduce legislation in this House which will cost the taxpayers nearly $1 billion to pay unknown and uninsured depositors in two failed banks is extremely difficult for my constituents to comprehend. I cannot explain it to them and I share their perplexity. We do have an inequitable tax system in this country, as suggested by the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. However, when you add together tax revenues lost on personal income which escapes taxation, to that of corporate write-offs, there is enough money there, about $31 billion, to cover our federal deficit.
I wanted to take some time to speak about the third item in today's Motion, namely problems with the forest industry. However, suffice it to say in the time remaining that the forest industry is in some difficulty at the present time. I am at somewhat of a loss to understand or appreciate exactly what the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) in this Government is doing. He promised last April that he was going to carry on extensive consultations with interested Canadians regarding the forest products industry. We have yet
November 8, 1985

to hear from him. It is now November. What has he learned from these consultations? When can we except him to announce a national forest products strategy to help overcome some of the serious problems we are facing? There is the problem of protectionism in the U.S., especially with reference to softwood lumber; the instability of domestic and foreign markets; the need for an effective reforestation program. Like other Members of Parliament, we are wondering, debating, asking questions about the free trade agreement to be negotiated with the U.S. At present, Sir, we have free trade with the U.S. in lumber. There are many people wondering if any new comprehensive free trade agreement, while it may on the one hand remove the threat of congressional legislation which
Supply
would have the effect of limiting lumber exports to the U.S., on the other hand are wondering if a free trade agreement is not also going to lead rather quickly to some kind of parity between our currencies. If that were to happen, and it probably will, along with the effect of declining interest rates, 1 suggest it will be far more serious for our lumber exports than any quotas imposed upon us would be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.16 o'clock, it is my duty to announce that pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 63, proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 4 this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 18, 1985, at 11 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 18, 1985