1986-10-23

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, copies of the Government response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry entitled Forest Resources and Industries in Eastern Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 10, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Mr. Gauthier:: On a point of order. Before the Minister starts his speech, may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) had the floor the last time the House discussed the matter of the Throne Speech. I
think there are six minutes left in his speech and we would like to have him conclude his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: At that time the debate was on the amendment; we are now on the main motion. Under those circumstances it is appropriate for the House to hear the Minister.
[DOT] (mo)


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and I will be very shortly beginning a new round of pre-budget consultations.
I cannot overstate the importance that I accord to these meetings. The presentations by representatives of the business, labour, consumer, social and voluntary communities are invaluable to us. They make an indispensable contribution to the decision-making process by achieving better communication between the Government and Canadians, better understanding of the problems facing the country, and better solutions to these problems.
The forthcoming round of consultations will focus on the key elements of the Government's economic strategy. That strategy has had one overriding objective-the renewal and sustained growth of the economy and the creation of jobs for Canadians.

We are succeeding. The economic indicators attest to that. But most important, we have made significant progress in laying the foundation for a more productive, dynamic economy capable of sustaining growth.

Further progress depends on our continuing to build on the strong foundation that we put in place. Our consultation agenda reflects this vitally important continuity and consistency. I want to take this opportunity to set out the agenda for consultation, then I want to deal with tax reform, which is one of the main issues.
The first agenda item is fiscal responsibility. Sound, responsible management of the nation's finances continues to be crucial. If Canadians are to have the full benefit of a more productive and prosperous economy, we must get on with this job. As Members know, we are committed to a fiscal plan that reduces the deficit annually to the end of the decade. I will be seeking the views of Canadians on measures that should be considered to achieve this objective.

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Wilson

The second item on our consultations agenda is improving the climate for economic growth and job creation.

Our objective is to encourage and facilitate a continuing improvement in the competitive position of our economy. From the outset our renewal program has recognized the critical importance of a dynamic private sector. Past policies have often obstructed private sector initiative and stifled opportunities for economic development. We have been acting to identify and remove obstacles to private initiative, such as overbearing government regulation, inadequate and shortsighted provisions for training and skill development, and disincentives for investment. At the same time, we have sought opportunities to encourage entrepreneurial activity and to encourage the full participation of young people and women in Canadian economic life. We will continue these important thrusts.
In my last Budget I initiated a review of our major social transfer programs and related tax provisions. I set out four principles to guide that review. As we proceed with that review I will be seeking to develop measures that are consistent with the directions of comprehensive tax reform. In these and other areas, we are relying on the assistance of Canadians to help identify problems and offer solutions.
We will also welcome suggestions on where we might reallocate resources to higher priority areas in order to continue to address these challenges in a fiscally responsible
way.
The third item on the consultations agenda is promoting trade and expanding foreign markets.

Ensuring Canada's stature as a superior world trader is a compelling national imperative. Our economic well-being derives largely from our ability to compete. We must also enhance our access to traditional markets and secure new ones. I am looking forward to the views of business and labour on matters that bear on our ability to compete.

The fourth item for consultation, one that I want to discuss in some detail, is tax reform. Members will recall that on July 18 of this year I announced the Government's intention to proceed with a review of options for comprehensive tax reform.
Tax reform itself is not a new initiative. In the 1984 agenda paper, the Government identified the tax system as an obstacle to growth. In a gradual and measured way over the past two years we have introduced a number of important improvements to the system.
In the area of corporate tax, we have taken steps to broaden the tax base, reduce tax rates, remove investment distorting incentives and simplify the system.
In the area of personal income tax, we have broadened the tax base by eliminating a number of tax avoidance techniques and introduced a minimum tax to ensure that high income people cannot avoid paying any tax.
[ Translation]
And this year I began a detailed examination of a possible replacement for the outdated, unfair and inefficient federal sales tax.

We have made progress, but in considering the further progress we wish to make, and in light of the recent major changes in the United States, we decided that a broader approach to tax reform in Canada is required. Such an approach would consider the system as a whole. It would seek a better balance between personal, corporate and sales taxes, and would make complementary changes in a co-ordinated way. My July 18 announcement signalled that new approach.
Comprehensive tax reform offers Canada an important opportunity to make changes to meet today's realities and to gear up to meet the challenges of the decades to come. We have the opportunity to make the tax system simpler and fairer for all Canadians, to create a tax environment that more effectively encourages productive economic activity and support social justice, and to shape a tax system that meets the national need for a stable source of revenue to finance essential public services. These are the main objectives of tax reform.
The reform effort is being carried out within a number of specific guidelines. The first guideline is fairness. No characteristic of the tax system is more important in the minds of Canadians than fairness.
The Government has already made a start to enhancing the equity of the tax system. We have introduced a minimum personal income tax. We have curtailed tax shelter techniques and eliminated the use of limited partnerships to avoid tax. We halted the practice of income splitting through interest free loans between family members as a means of reducing tax. These are all steps in the right direction, but much more remains to be done.
Clearly, the tax system must ensure the fair sharing of the tax burden among taxpayers. People in similar circumstances should be treated by the tax system in the same way. High-income individuals and profitable corporations should all pay their fair share.
It is our intention to reduce sharply the special tax preferences for individuals and corporations. By doing so we will be able to reduce significantly the rates of personal income tax paid by Canadians, and that will mean higher take-home pay.
We will look at ways of further improving support for low-income Canadians through the tax system. We have already introduced a refundable sales tax credit and prepayment of the child tax credit. Tax reform offers the opportunity to build on these progressive measures.
October 23, 1986

Because the current federal sales tax treats similar products very differently, and because different rates of tax apply to various goods and services, an important part of the over-all tax burden is unevenly distributed through the economy. Similar products should bear the same rate of tax and the sales tax burden should be spread more equally across goods and services.
The second guideline is simplification. It is not difficult to believe that the word Canadians are most likely to associate with the tax system is "complex". The more complex the tax system is, the more likely it is to lose the respect and confidence of most Canadians and thereby to have its effectiveness diminished. A simpler tax system can be achieved on a number of fronts-simpler tax forms, improved tax policies, a broadened tax base and a simpler rate structure. These would result in less need for business and individuals to take tax considerations into account in business and financial decisions.

Tax reform will aim to make the system simpler for small businesses. And it will aim to make compliance easier for individual Canadians. By doing so we will strengthen the selfassessment principle that is the basis of our tax system.
Third, balance. One of the biggest problems in the present tax system is that the amount of personal income tax Canadians are paying is too high.
This excessive reliance on the personal income tax must be halted. The government believes that personal income taxes should be reduced to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians to spend or save as they see fit. This means we will be seeking higher revenues from the corporate and sales tax systems. This will be done in a balanced, fair way.
The fourth guideline is revenue stability. We must ensure that tax reform increases the certainty of achieving the revenue goals the Government sets. A stable and predictable source of revenue is essential to the Government's budgeting process. However, certain features of the corporate and sales tax systems contribute to revenue instability. Such instability makes it difficult to manage the nation's finances responsibly.
Revenue stability can be increased by limiting tax expenditures, reforming the federal sales tax and reducing the need for ad hoc changes in tax rules. Hon. Members are well aware of this Government's commitment to fiscal responsibility. It is the Government's intention to ensure, through a reform of the tax system, a sounder, more predictable revenue base. It is not our intention to take greater revenues. However, while tax reform is proceeding, I cannot preclude other tax action if such action is necessary to meet the goals of fiscal management and economic and social policy.
The fifth guideline is international competitiveness. Earlier I spoke of the necessity of keeping Canada competitive in world
The Address-Mr. Wilson
trade. The tax system should reinforce the ability of Canadians to compete. Given the major changes in the United States, particularly reduced corporate and personal tax rates, we in Canada must ensure that our tax system keeps in step where our competitive position is at stake. The corporate tax system must continue to be conducive to investment. This will maintain and enhance our job creating ability. Because the knowledge, skills and drive of people are the key to a successful modern economy, we must ensure that the tax system is not a deterrent to retaining and attracting key people.
Our sales tax system is also in need of reform to remove the serious competitive biases that currently put our exports at a disadvantage and favour imports.

Sixth, economic growth. Relatively high marginal rates, a narrow base and numerous selective write-offs, deductions and credits have reduced the role of business judgment in shaping investment decisions and made tax considerations far too influential. Such a system does not make for the most efficient allocation of capital.

In pursuing tax reform, we shall intensify our examination of the multitude of tax preferences which have built up over the years. Reducing the number of selected tax preferences, broadening the tax base and lowering tax rates will give market opportunities a greater role in investment decisions. This will result in better prospects for job-producing economic growth and will also mean that lower tax rates will result in a greater incentive for Canadians to work and invest.
A reformed tax system must also recognize distinctively Canadian priorities and values. Tax reform should assist in meeting national, social and economic needs. The tax system must be sensitive to our commitment to build greater regional equality. To help finance our large capital requirements, it must encourage domestic savings. It must continue to support affordable post-secondary education and medical insurance. It must reflect our commitment to social justice by providing effective ways to assist Canadians most in need.
The eighth guideline is measured transition. The implementation of tax reform should not leave Canadians in doubt about tax rules. The Government is committed to a measured transition so that businesses and investors will not need to suspend their long-term planning while changes in the tax system are being discussed. A measured transition will also allow Canadians time to understand the new system and to adjust to it.
A final important guideline is consultation. I reaffirmed at the outset my personal commitment to consultation. Consultation will be especially important for such a far-reaching initiative as comprehensive tax reform. I will be keenly interested in receiving the views of all Canadians in the course of the coming pre-budget consultations. I will also ask for the involvement of Hon. Members in this process and I will be

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Wilson
referring the guidelines and directions set out in the document I am tabling today for review.
[Translation}
I will also consult extensively with my provincial colleagues in an effort to ensure harmonized tax systems across the country.

Fiscal responsibility and tax reform are clearly linked. The options for tax reform would be severely limited if we did not continue our commitment to reduce budget deficits and greater spending control. Through continued expenditure restraint we are creating considerably more flexibility for tax reform.

Today marks the beginning of my new round of pre-budget consultations. The issues I shall be discussing with Canadians are crucial to our nation's continuing ability to provide jobs and prosperity.

As the next step in the tax reform process, I intend to issue specific directions for change at the time of my next Budget. In my November 1984 Economic Statement 1 said we must address the causes of our economic problems and not just the symptoms. It is evident from our record of performance and our plans for building on that performance that we are indeed doing just that.
[ Translation]
Comprehensive tax reform clearly presents an enormous opportunity and an equally major challenge. By reducing the number of tax breaks that benefit only a few, by ensuring that profitable corporations pay their fair share, and by relying more on corporate and sales tax revenues, we will be able to cut personal income tax rates. That means increased take-home pay for Canadians. And the overall result will be a simpler, fairer and more efficient tax system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Minister but his time has expired. If there were unanimous consent he would be allowed to finish his remarks.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we will give unanimous consent so that the Minister will have the time required to complete his speech, provided that Members who want to offer comments and ask questions will have a similar consideration extended to them and be allowed to go on longer than the time that is customarily given for such comments and questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank Hon. Members for their consideration.
Comprehensive tax reform clearly represents an enormous opportunity, but at the same time an equally major challenge. By reducing the number of tax breaks that benefit only a few, by ensuring that profitable corporations pay their fair share and by relying more on corporate and sales tax revenues, we will be able to cut personal income tax rates. That means increased take-home pay for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The over-all result will be a simpler, more fair and more efficient tax system. That is our goal, a goal worthy of this nation and worthy of our dedicated efforts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In closing, I would like to table the documents to which I referred during the course of my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must have the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Minister to table these documents. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer some comments and raise some questions with respect to the Minister's remarks.
The Minister spoke of fairness as one of the Government's main objectives in tax reform. This is certainly a worthy goal. However, the actions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) over the past two years strongly suggest that the Government's tax reform will be a sham reform and not a real one. After all, it was his Government which created the new capital gains tax exemption giving higher tax breaks to a handful of wealthy Canadians. On behalf of ordinary Canadians I ask: Is that fair? I think the answer is clear-it is not fair.
In its last two Budgets the Government increased taxes for ordinary Canadians to the point that this year a family with two children and one income-earner earning $30,000 a year will pay $630 more in taxes. I ask again: Is that fair? I think the answer is clear-it is not fair. The Government talks about fairness but its actions have proven that it is moving and will likely continue to move in the opposite direction. One question springs to mind: Will the Government do as the United States has decided to do in its tax reform and fully tax capital gains?
October 23, 1986

The Minister says in his statement that he wants to ensure that "profitable corporations pay their fair share". But how does the Minister and the Government intend to define "profits"? The Government could define them in such a way that many corporations would still escape from paying their fair share of taxes. So I ask the Government: Will it create a minimum tax for corporations?
The Government talks about relying more on sales tax revenues, broadening the sales tax base and cutting personal tax rates so that there will be increased take-home pay for Canadians. Who ultimately pays sales taxes? It is the individual Canadian without regard to level of income and ability to pay. It is clear and well understood that sales taxes are regressive. They are a heavier burden on lower income people. The Government sounds as if it were intending to raise sales tax rates or impose new sales taxes, perhaps called by another name, on goods and transactions, such as the sales of services which are now exempt from sales taxes. If that is what the Government intends to do-and it is giving a very strong signal that it is when it talks about broadening the base for sales taxes-then it is creating a cruel illusion for ordinary Canadians by seeming to put more money into their pockets through the lowering of personal tax rates and then taking money out of those same pockets by making ordinary Canadians pay higher sales taxes. If this happens, and the signal is there in the Minister's speech, then the new Tory tax reform will be nothing but a sham. In fact, if I may say so, it will be nothing but a fraud perpetrated on ordinary Canadians.
The Minister talked about stability as one of his goals. He talked about stability by saying that "raising more total tax revenue is not an objective of tax reform but that it should increase the certainty of achieving the revenue goals that the Government has set for itself'. I ask the Government: Will it be making a commitment right now to rule out any efforts to raise more money through its so-called tax reform? If it does raise more money through this tax reform, will it commit itself to returning the revenues to Canadians through lower taxes? If the Government cannot guarantee that the total net effect of all the tax changes it will bring about through its so-called tax reform will not mean that ordinary Canadians will pay more in total taxes than they do at present, or for that matter more than they were paying before the last two Budgets, then I say that the Government will be exposed as having as its real purpose, its hidden agenda, another massive tax grab from ordinary Canadians.
Canadians will welcome real tax reform. However, ordinary Canadians are looking for less of a total tax burden, not just some type of Tory shell game in which the peas are moved around from one shell to the other giving an illusion of lower taxes through lower personal tax rates. Instead it will be an over-all heavier tax burden as a result of other types of taxes such as sales taxes. The signal is clearly there in the Minister's statement.
I wish to conclude by saying that, yes, Canadians want to have real tax reform of the kind I mentioned. However, on the
The Address-Mr. Wilson
basis of this Government's track record over the last two years, there is little-in fact nothing-on the basis of which Canadians can have confidence that the Government will provide real tax reform and will help them rather than create another massive tax grab.
I wish to say that the Liberals, the Official Opposition, will be fighting very strongly for individual Canadians to make sure that they have real tax reform in spite of the reality caused by what has happened before by this Government. Instead of a real tax reform there is nothing more in store for ordinary Canadians than one more massive tax grab.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and delighted that the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) got to his feet. I thought he would be congratulating us on our economic performance. With respect to our economic record, as the Hon. Member knows, the unemployment rate in Windsor is down to 5 per cent. Housing starts are up well over the rate of increase in the national average. I am sure the Hon. Member would wish to support the economic record of the Government of Canada.
The Hon. Member has raised a number of issues, but as has been the case in a number of his interventions, he has his blinkers on. He only sees what he wants to see. He has talked about the tax record of the Government. He has ignored the fact that we have increased the child tax credit, accelerated the payment of the child tax credit and introduced a very innovative low-income refundable sales tax credit which helps those most in need. He has ignored the fact that we will have eliminated income splitting as of next year, we introduced a minimum tax, we removed the financing gimmicks for yachts and motels, we removed the scientific research tax credit, we very much limited the scope of limited partnerships, we reduced the investment tax credit and we eliminated the inventory allowance. All of these measures are designed to create a fairer, more equitable and more balanced tax system. That is the direction we will continue to take in tax reform.
I would ask the Hon. Member to look not only at certain elements of what has happened in the past but at the broad record of tax reform that we initiated immediately after we came into office. We were presented with such a mess which was built up by the previous Government since 1971 that something had to be done and something had to be done fast.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that after the Government has been talking about tax reform for two years, it has now been announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that there will be a further period of consultation and that there will be some announcements in the Budget of February or March of next year followed by possible legislation or further consultation. Effectively, therefore, major elements of real tax reform, if it does take place at all, will not be put in place until 1988 or 1989.

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
I do not believe that the tax system can be called fair when total tax freedom is given to people with capital gains of up to half a million dollars. I do not believe that the tax system can be called fair when it has increased the taxes payable by ordinary Canadian families by $1,300 just in the course of the first two years of the Conservative Government. I do not believe the tax system can be called fair when it gives enormous tax concessions to pension contributions made by high-income Canadians who have incomes four or five times the income of the average Canadian worker. I do not think the tax system can be called fair when the situation which the Minister himself finally recognized in his speech exists in which some 80,000 profitable Canadian corporations do not pay any taxes at all every year despite having profits that total perhaps $12 billion or $13 billion.
If the Minister wanted to convince Canadians that he was serious about tax reform, he would have come to grips with those problems which have been created by his Government. He would also have come to grips with those problems which were created by a former Minister of Finance and his successors, the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), who started us on this slippery slope of concessions and loopholes for the corporate sector which is forcing us to reconsider the tax system.
I fear that what the Minister is announcing-

I am afraid that what the Minister announced means that he is going to put pennies in the average Canadian's front pocket and take the dollars out of his back pocket, through the sales tax. That is what he intends to do with tax reform, especially with the increased revenue expected under the proposed sales tax system which has now been announced by the Minister. There is no indication, however, that tax remissions will be allowed so as to make this tax a progressive, not a regressive tax for the average Canadian family.

In looking to fairness, the Minister does not appear to have recognized at all that his plans to increase the sales tax will have an enormous impact on ordinary Canadian families. As a consequence, we are talking about a system which will put nickels and dimes back into people's front pockets while taking $1 bills and $5 bills out of their back pockets. These changes in the sales tax are designed to broaden the tax, to impose it on services and to impose it on many essential goods and services which are now tax exempt. It seems to me that that is part of what the Minister announced just now.
While we in this Party can take credit for the fact that the Minister is finally talking about profitable corporations that do not pay taxes, my Party feels that in order to be really serious about this issue, we must have more specifics rather than the vague generalities which have just been put forward. Are ordinary Canadians in favour of reducing personal income taxes? Yes, of course they are. Are ordinary Canadians, on the
other hand, in favour of the reduction in personal income taxes-


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


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I would make is that I appreciate the support the Hon. Member will obviously give us in tax reform. The Hon. Member made a comment that I believe he will find incorrect when he sees the proposals as they develop.
I would like to draw his attention to the impact of the changes in federal sales taxes. They have to be seen as an integral part of another element of tax reform and that is the low-income refundable sales tax credit. We believe that this is integral because it will provide for a distinct change in the impact of sales tax in that the sales tax will not be regressive as a result of the use of this very innovative tax reform technique, the low-income refundable sales tax credit.
[Translation[


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate you and tell you how very pleased I am to see you back in the Chair. I also take this opportunity to assure you and your colleagues who will be acting in your stead that I am prepared to co-operate fully towards ensuring orderly and especially very constructive debates in this House. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere in the House would be more enlightening if we were always debating positive and progressive issues. But such is not the case, certainly not when it comes to the Speech from the Throne.
At first blush, the speech has something for all groups and all sectors, for everybody in fact. However closer scrutiny reveals that it does not offer much to anybody, a seemingly contradictory statement. Quite simply, the first impression we get is that it is full of wishful thinking and promises which are not followed up by concrete programs.
We in Atlantic Canada did expect to hear about constructive regional development measures, we thought the Government would give special consideration to this problem which explains why the Atlantic region is lagging so far behind the rest of Canada. We expected more because we were led to believe there would be a lot more. Mr. Speaker, none other than the Prime Minister himself had this to say in St. John's, Newfoundland:

"The fact of the matter is yes, there has been a substantial economic comeback in Canada over the last two years-but that wealth is not being fairly shared and evenly distributed across the country.
So we have got to re-examine fundamentally some programs and attitudes because Canada is capable of generating tremendous wealth and prosperity.
But opportunities must be fairly and properly distributed and they are not being right now.
October 23, 1986



Mr. Speaker, that is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) said in the Atlantic region, but how have those fine words been translated in the Speech from the Throne?
This is what we find in the Throne Speech:
Building on the human and natural resource strengths of the regions, a renewed co-operative effort will lead to a new development agenda.
As a first step in achieving improved results from this sustained national approach, an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be constituted to facilitate and coordinate all federal development initiatives in the area.
What do all those fine words mean, Mr. Speaker? We now know that they do not mean much, especially after the visit of the Right Hon. Prime Minister to Moncton. Indeed, in his speech the Prime Minister was unable to explain to the New Brunswick Economic Council the role of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency except to say that the Agency would be set up in the near future, by next spring. For the moment, that simply means a reshuffling of bureaucrats and a few changes to bring in an additional level of bureaucracy. I fervently hope that it will not happen.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, businessmen find that there is already much too much bureaucracy. We can also ask the question: Why a new bureaucracy? Certainly not to administer new development programs with new money. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the last two budgets took away hundreds of millions of dollars from the funds allocated to regional development. How can there be regional development if the money required is not there? How can we eliminate regional disparities if the outlying regions are treated exactly the same as the wealthy regions in central Canada?
The Prime Minister was not alone in suggesting that the Speech from the Throne would pay special attention to regional development. Last September, the Atlantic Ministers arrived in Moncton for a conference called "Focus on the Atlantic". They had come to hear the views of the residents and business people of the Atlantic region and to assess the situation. These people gave the Minister the same message as they had given the Prime Minister the week before in Fredericton. I am sure that you recall the visit of the Prime Minister to Fredericton. That was where the workers threw their hard hats before the Prime Minister. Afterwards, the Prime Minister promised the workers that the Atlantic Ministers would listen to the representations of the CN workshop employees in Moncton.
This is what they did. The Ministers took a few minutes to listen to the representations of the workers.
However, Mr. Speaker, while they may have listened, they did not hear anything. On that same day, there was a demonstration bigger than anything people had ever seen in Moncton in front of City Hall. This demonstration was significant because the workers wanted to show their dissatisfaction not only with the way the CN workshops were being dealt with, but also with the attitude of this Government to the problems of the Atlantic.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
In spite of this demonstration, the Ministers failed to understand the situation. Two weeks later, there came the announcement of a program which is nothing but a joke, and even an insult.
How can we, in the Atlantic region, believe this Government really wants to help the disadvantaged regions?
What is even worse is that we are being compared to the Third World, to countries such as Bangladesh.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall another example of the indifference of this Government, this time in relation with the jobs strategy. Here again, there have been cutbacks. There is much less money in this program than before. What is even stranger is that the changes made to the program favour the regions where the private sector plays a major role in job creation, which is not the case of our own region because our private sector is quite weak.
Let us turn now to fisheries, an industry which is most important for the Atlantic area and especially for my constituency of Westmorland-Kent. If you read that part of the Throne Speech that is written in French, you could believe in this Government's good intentions, Mr. Speaker. Listen carefully.
"La peche est une activite economique d'une importance fondamentale au Canada. Afin d'assurer une plus grande securite a nos pecheurs et de proteger leurs investissements, mon gouvernement accordera une attention particuliere a Tamelioration des ports pour petits bateaux dans toutes les zones de peche." That was all very good. One would believe that they had the best intentions in the world and that they were going to do something. But reading the English text:
To provide increased safety for our fishermen and to protect their material investments, my government will place special emphasis on improving the management of small craft harbours in all fishing areas.

Mr. Speaker, as seen by the people of the Atlantic area, the English text is much more accurate and better reflects this Government's actual intentions.

The intention of this Government is "make believe that you are going to do something".
The lobster fishermen in New Brunswick are worried about the increase in poaching activity. The fishermen would like to see the Department of Fisheries and Oceans put more effort towards the protection of the lobster stocks in particular. The budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been reduced to such a level that patrol boats worth $200,000 to $300,000 can only afford fuel for two to three days of the week.

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
[ Translation]
It's absolutely shocking.

Enforcement officers cannot work extra hours and furthermore, they are tied to their desks because they have no fuel to run their patrol vehicles.

Flow can one believe this Government is sincere! The other primary sectors, like farming and the forest industry, are very briefly mentioned although they are of the utmost importance to the development of our communities.
Let us turn to tourism. As we know, Mr. Speaker, the tourist industry is an important job provider in the Canadian economy, in the Atlantic and throughout the country. Indeed, it accounts for 600,000 jobs in Canada and its growth potential is tremendous. This is an industry that can create the greatest number of jobs in the shortest time frame. In spite of that potential, its growth is only 8 per cent in Canada, as compared with a 13 per cent growth rate on the international level.
It is clear, yes abundantly clear, that the vast number of taxes introduced by this Government since it was elected certainly did not help the tourist industry.
Mr. Speaker, in the last two years I have been listening to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism brag about this Government's concern for the industry. The Government has bragged about having created an independent portfolio for tourism, but what happened to the Department of Tourism in the last Cabinet shuffle? In June last, the Prime Minister simply struck it off. The Department of Tourism is no more. We now have a Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
TIAC Chairman, Walter Tilden, expressed his disappointment by saying that it would appear the Government does not know what to do with tourism. The Executive Director of TIAC, John Lawson, also expressed disappointment by saying:
We're back to a combined ministry. That's a clear sign that tourism is once again relegated to a back room.
Just think how disappointed these people must be after reading the Speech from the Throne. Nowhere in the Throne Speech is the word "tourism" mentioned. The Government has forgotten all about tourism.
One of the best years for tourism was 1986. Expo 86 was a prime contributor to this success. We should have taken advantage of the situation to consolidate our position in the international tourism industry. However, the Government has refused to increase its level of marketing abroad. Because of inflation and the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, the marketing budget has been considerably eroded. It is not putting as much money as it should be into that marketing
strategy. The Government just chose to forget the industry. It has broken all the promises made during the 1984 campaign.

What else should I say, Mr. Speaker? I could go on and on. I have not dealt with all the industries, but as seen from Atlantic Canada, the Throne Speech points to more difficult times ahead, because this Government does not seem to care about outlying regions. The more so because this Government did not succeed in gaining public confidence.
What about the answers given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), who will not take a stand and oppose the recommendations that would jeopardize the whole unemployment insurance scheme-the Forget report recommendations. He simply would not take a position. That is very disquieting!
Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that the Prime Minister understood the message the fishermen delivered to him when he visited Moncton, for they were anxious to express their dissatisfaction and concern in connection with the Forget report recommendations.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I add that I hope this Government will wake up in time, especially to prevent the Atlantic region to suffer a setback vis-a-vis the other Canadian regions. This Government must announce concrete programs and measures to develop primary industries and reduce regional inequalities.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member comes from a province in which parks play a role. I noticed the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) was in the House until a couple of minutes ago. However, I should like to ask the Hon. Member for his comments.
After being in power for two years, the Government has not yet introduced any amendment to the National Parks Act. These amendments were drafted by the previous Government and are badly needed in order to update the functioning, the use, the validity, and the long-term value of parks for Canadians, for the protection of wildlife, and for the protection of our ecological heritage in his province as well as in other parts of the country.
Would he care to comment on the fact that the Minister of the Environment is boasting about a $3 million increase in the budget of that Department? Actually the Department has lost in purchasing power, because of 4 per cent inflation over each of the past two years, a sum of some $59 million. It is sheer erosion and an inability on the part of the Department to keep the purchasing power it used to have in 1984 at the same level.
Also I should like to ask him whether he would care to comment on the fact that the present Government is making some statements on the question of contaminants and on the necessity of introducing an Act to amend the existing one. It has pulled the rug from underneath research in toxic chemicals by not making a commitment, as it should have done, on the
October 23, 1986

establishment of a joint toxicology centre at the University of Toronto and the University of Guelph. There is a need for this centre because of the present situation.
Finally, would he like to comment about the fact that the Government has been in power for two years and we are being asked to wait another year for any progress along the Niagara River? We should come to grips with the contamination caused by dumpsites along the Niagara River. We are being asked to wait another four years for any action or movement of any kind on acid rain-and I know that affects the Province of New Brunswick as well-because of the agreement between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan, which left the initiative in the hands of polluters in terms of coming up with some research and development control methods over the next five years. This makes us conclude that on both these fronts-and I am referring to toxic chemicals as well as to acid rain-there has been no tangible action to speak of in the two years it has been in government. Would the Hon. Member care to comment?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to my hon. colleague. Over the past two years, this Government has made all sorts of fine promises and tried to impress people with beautiful statements and empty speeches. As evidence of this and of what my hon. colleague was saying concerning the environment, one need only consider what is happening in the Atlantic region in connection with the Atlantic Development Board. Certainly, over the past two years, the Government could not help noticing the unemployment problem we are facing because of the jobs which were lost in the CN shops in Moncton; yet, all the Prime Minister has been able to announce recently was the creation of a board. Words, words, nothing but words. The board will be in operation next spring. What is it going to do? He just could not say. It is the same situation everywhere in Atlantic Canada, as far as regional development or environment are concerned. We can hear a great many fine promises, but see hardly any concrete action.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member and my colleague might want to comment on the fact that budgets of important Departments such as that of the Environment, and I suppose also that of Tourism in which the Member is particularly interested, are suffering because in their allocation of funds no provision is made to protect purchasing power. As a result, these Departments are losing badly to inflation every year.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, that is indeed exactly what is happening in the Ministry of Tourism and its budget, more specifically that of the marketing program. The Minister is bragging about the special effort they have made marketing tourism in the United States, but the credits affected to
The Address-Mr. Comeau
marketing are exactly the same as in past years. Which means that in view of inflation and the devaluation of our dollar, we are getting much less services than we used to. I really feel that the Minister has failed in his responsibility, that he should have argued his case with a little more energy to convince his Cabinet colleagues to grant him more funds to make this tourism marketing program a really valuable one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) in debate.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you on your reappointment to the position of Assistant Speaker.
It is an honour for me to have the opportunity to respond today to the Throne Speech and to talk on a subject relevant to my part of Canada, that of regional industrial expansion. I wish to explain to the House that Atlantic Canadians, the so-called poor cousins of Confederation, are the people best suited to tackle their own problems. Given the chance, we will demonstrate to other Canadians that we are again capable of regaining our place as a world leader. As has often been quoted; "Those who do not know and understand their history are doomed to repeat it". To demonstrate the requirements of the Atlantic provinces better I will use my riding as an example.
South West Nova is the oldest settled part of Canada. Although generally typical of many parts of the Maritimes, it is also very unique. The first permanent European settlement in North America began at Port Royal when a French nobleman, Sieur de Monts, established a "habitation" from which to base his trade in fisheries and furs. He brought with him the first resident geographer, Samuel de Champlain, the First pharmacist, the first surgeon, the first poet, playwright and lawyer, Marc Lescarbot, and a few years later the first European woman to be resident in Canada.
The first highway in Canada was built at Port Royal in 1606 and the first successful agriculture development took place there. The first water-powered mill was erected at this site and the first ships to be built in North America were soon sailing from the Annapolis Basin. The First conversion of a native Canadian to Christianity took place in 1606 when Membertou, Chief of the Micmac Indians, was baptized. The first social club in North America, the Order of Good Time, was founded by Champlain to make the people's stay more enjoyable.
In 1621, King James of Scotland and England granted Nova Scotia, Latin for New Scotland, to Sir William Alexander, and an original manuscript copy of this charter will soon be deposited at the Fort Anne museum.
In 1629, the First Scottish settlement in the new world began at Fair Haven near the site of the French colony. At this time, Nova Scotia was granted its own flag and coat of arms, the first in North America.

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Comeau
As time went by, many battles were fought over the ownership of Acadia or Nova Scotia and most took place within the boundaries of my riding.

Over the years, the ownership of Acadia or Nova Scotia led to many fights and, as I said, most of them took place within my own riding. In the end a peaceful climate was restored in Nova Scotia, but not before quite a few Acadians were uprooted from their homes and exiled to Europe, the West Indies and New England.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to show how tenacious those people were is to recall that hundreds and hundreds of them walked thousands of miles through forests and across rivers to find their homeland. As it happens, Mr. Speaker, I am a direct descendant of these remarkable people and living proof of the love-sometimes unfathomable to foreigners-that we the residents of the Maritime Provinces have for our land and our way of life.
Other Canadians simply cannot appreciate this heartfelt sentiment which binds us to our homeland and our heritage and which makes it impossible for us to forsake them. If they cannot understand that, Mr. Speaker, what more can I say?

Immigration into the Maritimes had pretty well ceased by about 1850. The New England planters in the 1760s, the United Empire Loyalists in 1770s and 1780s, the freed slaves from the United States and the displaced farmers and crofters from Scotland, Ireland and England who came afterward had taken up most of the available land by then. This was at a time when half of Canada had hardly seen a settler. It is no wonder that we in Nova Scotia look upon the western provinces as being relative youngsters.
The sea has always been an integral part of the life of the Maritimes. I wonder whether those Canadians who belittle our former prosperity know that in the Maritimes at the time of Confederation we had the fourth largest merchant fleet in the world. It may seem hard to believe, but it is true nevertheless. With a population of perhaps one million people at most, we were competing on an equal footing with Great Britain, France, the United States, Russia, Spain, Germany and Japan. The Town of Yarmouth in my riding had more ships registered than any port in the world, more than London, Portsmouth, Calais, Amsterdam or Boston. Where did this prosperity go, you may ask, Mr. Speaker. When Nova Scotia was dragged into Confederation, kicking and screaming, I should add, the trade policies of central Canada took the prosperity up the St. Lawrence River to Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor and many other such communities. That prosperity has never returned. We have been reduced to the embarrassing dilemma of coming to Ottawa hat in hand looking for assistance.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in his speech the other day, it is not more dollars that we need in Atlantic Canada as much as the ability to make the decisions as to how the dollars that we have will be spent.
Ever since Confederation people in Ottawa have been telling Maritimers what is good for them. But really, Mr. Speaker, they have been looking east with blinkers on. They only see what they want to see. That will not help us regain our prosperity.
The Atlantic provinces must be allowed to run their own affairs and make their own decisions. One hundred and twenty years of simulated indulgence from central Canada has left us relatively worse off than when we started.
I am sure that those remarks will have some of our detractors question our patriotism. The patriotism of the people of Nova Scotia can never be questioned. We have defended our country in her time of need with no hesitation. People of all heritages, Indians, French, English, Irish, Scottish, African, and others, have willingly answered the call. In my riding of South West Nova we have the West Nova Scotia Regiment, successor to the first English regiment in Canada, Phillip's 40th Foot, first raised from among the citizens of the Annapolis Valley in 1717.
I personally know many veterans who fought to keep our country free. If I may digress for a moment, I am extremely pleased with the Department of Veterans Affairs under the capable direction of the present Minister who has vastly improved the direction of programs and their delivery to our many worthy veterans. In the town of Middleton in my riding we have Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 1. I do not think anyone need question our patriotism in the Annapolis Valley.

Let us get back to the topic of my remarks. We residents of the riding of South West Nova have a diversified way of life. Industries based on the development of resources such as forestry and agriculture are often interconnected with one another or with the fishing industry. It is not exceptional to see a farmer doing some fishing, or a fisherman felling trees to earn a few extra dollars.
Given the kind of land and geography we have, a worker may indeed have two or three different sources of income. In winter, when farming and fishing activities are practically nonexistent, many of my constituents would like to work their woodlands. Current forest development programs-locally administered, I would point out-offer them this kind of opportunity. Perhaps this might serve as an example.

The people of my riding are adaptable and versatile. Our agricultural industry includes everything from dairy production to grain growing to hog ranching and fur farming. Some farmers combine two or three aspects of farming in order to best compete in the market-place. One might say that we do not put all of our eggs in one basket.
The federal Government is also a big employer in my riding. We have several national parks, including the first national
October 23, 1986

historic park in Canada, Fort Anne. We have the Canadian Forces basic training establishment at CFB Cornwallis, and many of my constituents are employed by CFB Greenwood, the air base just outside of my riding. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides employment for many others. As well, we have the largest tin mine in North America.

We also contribute substantially to the textile industry and as you can imagine, shipbuilding represents an important area of employment. Our plant used for the manufacturing of ambulances and mobile operating rooms to be sold abroad show that we have the capacity to compete on the international level.
Because of Canada's geography, it is often easier for us to meet competition abroad than in Canada. Year after year Nova Scotia sells Christmas trees in the United States for a total of $30 million. Of course, such an operation only provides part-time jobs for many people, but it is an essential source of additional revenues.

Economists will advise that regional development must be based on comparative advantage. Atlantic Canadians have long known that the emphasis must be on what a region does well. Historically, since the earliest days of European settlement, much of Nova Scotia's economy was based upon shipping and international trade. This led to the development within the province of considerable expertise in serving diverse world markets, and to the establishment of sophisticated transportation networks to facilitate this activity. Those historic skills and patterns have continued to the present day.
Foreign exports of Nova Scotian goods in 1983 were valued at $1.1 billion. The largest item of export from the province is fish products which account for 38 per cent of total exports, valued at approximately $418 million. Nova Scotia is ideally suited to harvest the rich resources of the northwest Atlantic. The province has developed an impressive on-shore fish processing industry. South West Nova alone has 90 of the 160 Nova Scotia fish processing plants. Canada is the world's largest exporter of sea food products, and all indications are that the richness of its fisheries resource will enable it to maintain its position.
In both landed value and weight, Nova Scotia is a leader in Canada, contributing 28 per cent of the total Canadian fishery products export value. Nova Scotia is located adjacent to some of the world's best fishing grounds. It is also situated directly on the major trading route between North America and Europe. Shipping fish products can be done very efficiently. Ferries operate daily between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Bar Harbour, Maine, and between Digby, Nova Scotia, and Saint John, New Brunswick, carrying refrigerated trailerloads of fresh fish products to markets in Canada and the northeastern U.S. My riding alone accounted for 8.7 per cent of the 1983 landed value of fish for all of Canada. To put this in perspective, my riding alone had more land value than the
The Address-Mr. Comeau
whole Province of Quebec. My riding alone had nearly twice the landed value of the whole province of P.E.I. My riding of South West Nova had approximately the same landed value as the whole Province of New Brunswick.
In 1981, the fishing industry in my riding accounted for 4,560 direct jobs. However, listen to this. A 1985 study undertaken by the Gorsebrook Institute for Atlantic Canada Studies, found that the independent fish processors are misunderstood by both government and economists. The 1983 Kirby Report on the East Coast fishery had done little to explain the operations or to address the problems facing the Nova Scotia independent processing sector and the thousands of fish plant workers who depend on this vital industry. The Kirby Report had focused primarily on the economic problems of Atlantic Canada's giant fish processing firms. Our independent operators survived the difficulties of the early 1980s and were able to maintain the thousands of jobs they provide in rural Nova Scotia. They did this without millions of bail-out dollars from the taxpayer.
The role of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is central to the concerns of fish processors in Nova Scotia. Although there is some respect for DFOs efforts to preserve and regulate access to fish stocks, the general tenor of processors' comments is quite critical of government performance, the report says. This dissatisfaction during the summer of 1984 focused on regulatory activity at the individual plant level and on anticipated negative effects of the refinancing of the large Atlantic processors. Small and intermediate size plant owners are convinced that the restructured companies will have to to turn to Government and seek additional support within the next five years.
The success of independently owned fish plants still lies in their ability to react more quickly in their communications and decision-making, and they are more likely to provide the direct supervision necessary to run a profitable company in a labourintensive industry.
The misunderstanding is still there in many parts of the Ottawa decision-making process. This is why the factory freezer trawler decision was greeted with such suspicion and apprehension. The ongoing problems of small craft harbours has preoccupied the fishing industry for many years now and the decision-makers in Ottawa will have to deal with this issue.

No government activity is more important than transportation for the Atlantic Provinces. As it is necessary to ensure that businesses in the Atlantic area overcome the geographic obstacle to compete on national as well as on international markets, the constant presence of the Government in the transportation system is mainly justified. As a result of subsidies and various regulations, the transportation system has become an efficient tool for economic development.
On the whole, the general direction of transportation reform will contribute to increase the efficiency and productivity of

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Comeau
the transportation system. However, this market-oriented approach is giving rise to a deep concern, because we have to determine how communities will be attracted by the setting up of a freight and passenger service.
The importance of transportation for the citizens of South West Nova was clearly shown last year when federal decision makers tried to abolish the wintertime service of the M.V. Blue nose. The people considered such a move as an attack against the basis of their economy.
As pointed out earlier, Atlantic Canada has relied on international trade for almost 400 years. We have learned to compete with the best in the world. Atlantic Canadians have much to gain from successful bilateral trade talks. We recognize that the security of markets must be assured.
Atlantic Canada has felt the effect and the damage of countervail actions which are being advocated by the U.S. protectionists. Security of access to markets offers the stability needed to plan investment and production decisions.
The doom and gloomers who fear that we will lose our national culture by competing with U.S. companies must reassess their views of Canada. Their lack of confidence in Canada's ability to compete is a national disgrace.
The opposition Parties have taken to talking about what they call "new money". They do not seem to understand that printing money and throwing it at problems is not the way to solve these problems. A great deal can be accomplished by spending the money more wisely and by removing the barriers of red tape which simply discourage investors.
The Speech from the Throne announced the creation of an Atlantic agency to co-ordinate regional industrial expansion in Atlantic Canada. I welcome this initiative.
It is my hope that this agency will direct and monitor a new over-all industrial strategy for regional economic growth and that decisions will not be made by Ottawa-based bureaucrats. This agency should seek the participation of the private sector, labour, and both senior levels of Government. Finally, the agency should seek to reduce bureaucratic red tape which restricts growth.
Before concluding let me say that I am sure you have heard about the giant Bay of Fundy tides, the highest in the world. I want to end with a quote from the famous Nova Scotian statesman, Joseph Howe, who said:
Brag about your country, boys. When I'm abroad, I brag about everything that Nova Scotia is, has, or can be, and if they top me at everything else, I can always turn around and stump them when I say "And how high do your tides rise?"
These tides are still rising, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone would agree that one of the benefits of the Throne Speech debate is that we have an opportunity to hear about other areas of Canada. Many of us may not have travelled as extensively as other
Members who have been in the House for some time, and we like to hear about these areas.
I was interested to hear the speech by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau), in which he outlined activities in his area. I might point out that in my area the tides do not rise but the water is getting very high.
I was also interested in his remarks regarding the fishing industry. The Hon. Member may have a large saltwater fishing industry in his riding, but I can boast that the biggest freshwater fishery in the world is located in my riding. There are some 2,000 people who make their living from the freshwater fishing industry in my area.
Let me also say that I am pleased that he is the new Chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure he will bring a wealth of knowledge to that committee.
The fishing industry in our area operates under provincial jurisdiction and it has basically prospered under the quota system for the boats. What does the Hon. Member believe could be done to return some prosperity to the saltwater fishing industry in his area and to the East Coast of Canada? What direction would he like the committee to take and what programs would he like to pursue?


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. We have had some discussions regarding the size of his freshwater fishery and the fact that it is the largest in the world, I believe. I congratulate him for his continuing interest in promoting this fishery, as he never misses an opportunity to discuss it with me as a member of the Fisheries Committee.
The Hon. Member asked what I would like to see in the fishery. In the past few months there has been a rather major problem with the allocation of scallop stocks off the lucrative Georges Banks. Rather than imposing a decision on the allocation of these stocks, the industry was brought together at the insistence of the Minister and myself and was able to meet for some time so that an industry decision rather than one imposed by Ottawa was reached. I understand that the proposal has been submitted to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) which I hope he will accept.
That is the direction in which I would like to go, to have the industry make its own decisions.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) on his excellent speech as well as on his selection as Chairman of the Fisheries Committee. I have worked with Mr. Comeau for the past two years and know of his intense interest and expertise in the area of fisheries. It seems most appropriate, given that he represents a constituency with the greatest landed value of any constituency in Canada. I know that Mr. Comeau will continue to represent aggressively the interests of his constituents and the fishing industry in particular.
October 23, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I just want to remind the Hon. Member that he should refer to the Hon. Member for South West Nova by his riding. He should not refer to the Hon. Member by name.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: I apologize to the Hon. Memer for my familiarity.
Perhaps the Hon. Member could give us his thoughts on the question of quota problems being experienced for VSW in the Scotia-Fundy region.


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) for his appointment as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion. I hope I am not jumping the gun.
I have also had lengthy discussions with the Member about his major concerns. The Hon. Member referred to quota problems in the Scotia region. I imagine that he is referring to some of the comments that have appeared in the press recently, in which it was noted that there was a large amount of illegal overfishing. I suggest that the Hon. Member check with the Minister further, but I have reason to question some of the allegations that have been made in the press. I question the manner in which the figures were calculated.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) for his speech. I think it is a tradition in this House that a Member rise on the Throne Speech. I also think that he has very aptly outlined the history of his constituency and I congratulate him for it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him a question as a Member from Eastern Canada and the new Chairman of the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. We know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has, let us say, snuffed out the marine environment laboratory at the Bedford Oceanography Institute, and the Hon. Member certainly knows the importance of research and development to fisheries and oceans. Is he now ready to tell the House what his position will be as Chairman of that Committee? Will he recommend to the Minister that the Government reinstate that research and development component in the area of fisheries and oceans at Bedford, in order that the laboratory be reinstated to its full capacity?


Gerald J. Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question and the opportunity it gives me to say that I am quite pleased with the Minister's approach, which is to concentrate more effort on the understanding of fish stocks off the East Coast and to combine the various sectors within the scientific branches which previously were heading in many directions. Now the concentration will be on science and a greater knowledge of the stocks, their location and their future on the East Coast.
The Address-Mr. Angus


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has terminated. Debate.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is my intention to focus on two areas of concern, that of jobs and service. I want first to touch briefly on the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the House today as part of his contribution to the debate on the Speech from the Throne. In his address he indicated that it is his intention to bring about a reduction in income tax for, I believe, the majority of Canadians. We, of course, welcome that reduction. However, what concerns us is that at the same time he has pretty well guaranteed there will be in some way an increase in the sales tax collected from the average Canadian. That increase would be on top of an increase of 3 per cent which has been in place since the Conservative Government took over in September of 1984. This is a tax which has extracted over $1,300 from the pockets of Canadian families. There is no guarantee that this tax reform about which the Minister of Finance talks, while it may end up putting a few pennies in the pockets of average Canadians, will not steal dollars from their backpockets through the imposition of new sales tax approaches.
I am also a bit concerned that the Minister of Finance is waiting yet another two years for another review and even further consultation on tax reform when he already knows that
79,000	Canadian companies with annual profits of $13 billion or more pay nothing to the federal Treasury. They pay nothing to help run the country and to provide the services we feel are appropriate to our society.
Let me now focus on the area of service. I think the attitude of the Conservative Government regarding service to Canadians is best exemplified through its handling of Canada Post. There is clearly a campaign in place to reduce the level of service to Canadians. It is being done under the guise of deficit reduction both for Canada Post and for the Government as a whole. What it actually is, though, is a threat to existing services.


Mr. Malone:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: I hear some support for the Government's position, and I am not surprised. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the kinds of things that are happening.


Arnold John Malone: One dollar out of $3 to pay off the debt.


Iain Francis Angus: Fifty rural routes in Canada have been dropped. Fifty areas where people live miles and miles and miles away from urban centres, have lost their postal service. These people now have to travel 20, 30, 40 and 50 kilometres to pick up their mail. Seventy-two rural post offices have already been closed as a means to reduce the deficit, and in consequence service has been reduced. New subdivisions are springing up all over the country and, by and large, the majority are not

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Angus
being serviced. They are certainly not being serviced to the same level I receive in my own community when a letter carrier walks up my driveway five days a week and plops a few bills in my mailbox. We are establishing a variety of levels of service and by so doing we are establishing a variety of levels of class of citizens.
In my constituency there is great concern over the potential to eliminate rural routes. We fought off the elimination of three rural routes last spring and we are keeping a watchful eye on things to make sure they do not try the same thing this fall. There is a fear that some of the rural post offices will be closed, and that fear has been encouraged by Canada Post through its actions.
The hours of operation of some of the rural post offices have been cut back. They are now open from Monday to Friday from eight o'clock in the morning to 2.30 in the afternoon. In the case of the Nolalu Post Office and the Gillies Post Office, which are located approximately 30 miles from the urban centre of Thunder Bay, the individuals who live in that rural area and who commute to Thunder Bay, which is the primary place of employment, have been disenfranchised. In order to reach a job at 8 a.m., they have to leave at 7 a.m. or earlier. To reach a job at 9 a.m., they have to leave at 8 a.m. or earlier. They do not get home until 5 p.m., 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. Therefore, they do not have access to their post office. The post office is closed on Saturday so they do not have that option. The postmasters and postmistresses in these communities went to their bosses and said: "Listen. We believe strongly in service. You talked about not wanting to hurt service. We are prepared to offer flexible hours". In fact, they said they were prepared to open for an hour or so in the evening so that citizens who lived around those post offices, who depend on them for communication, could have access. The answer was: "No. Those are the hours".


Arnold John Malone: The union said no.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member said the union said no. That is not true at all, Mr. Speaker. The individuals involved, with permission of the unions, said quite clearly they would be prepared to provide those services. The Government's answer was, no, because the Government is trying to reduce service, and it is doing it on the backs of the rural residents, in particular.
One of the fears people in the rural area have because of this attitude and because of the decision by Canada Post to restrict the hours of operation, is that Canada Post wants those post offices to fail. It wants to see the level of revenue reduced to the point where anyone can see it is not efficient to keep the post office open. That is the feeling of the people in the rural area of my riding as to what is about to happen to them.
The Minister, I gather, has been receiving mail from citizens. The Canadian Labour Congress, in co-operation with the postal unions, has put advertisements in newspapers and has circulated pamphlets to citizens in postal walks, and the pamphlets are being mailed to a variety of individuals. In order
to assist Members of Parliament, the Minister kindly wrote to us and gave us a suggested way in which we could respond. I would like to quote from that suggested response:
I have noted the comments about providing door-to-door delivery for all urban addresses. As you are no doubt aware, Canada's urban population is growing rapidly, and the cost of providing door-to-door delivery to new addresses is so great that to finance it would require either major increases in postal rates or greater dependence on taxpayers' dollars. The Government and Canada Post find those options unacceptable.
Further along it reads:
I am confident that Canada Post will balance its budget within the next two years-
Clearly, the Government has a fixation about deficit reduction regardless of its impact on service to Canadians. If we follow this strange logic further, we will see the day when the Conservatives will be suggesting we eliminate mail service to those northern remote communities which depend on it for food, dry goods and other products because it costs so much to get it there. Or they will be charged more. We already have a separate fee service to send mail to the United States. Perhaps we will have to pay more to send mail to the North. That is one of the dangers of the route the Government is taking.
Let me now turn to jobs. The Speech from the Throne, quite clearly had a target in it for deficit reduction. What it sadly lacked was a target for an increase in employment or a decrease in the number of unemployed, a concrete projection to which the Government would make a commitment. We all know it is not simple. Jobs cannot be created overnight. A plan must be in place to create them. However, we were not even given an indication that there was a plan in place with some figures attached to it.
There are things we can do to create jobs in Canada and, quite frankly, to create jobs in the community of Thunder Bay and the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan. Some of them are not in disagreement with the Government in either a philosophical or a technical way. The question of replacement of the rolling stock for VIA Rail is one such example, something the Liberals promised when they were in office and something the Conservatives promised during the election campaign. It is something for which the former Minister of Transport indicated his clear support since the last election. There are indications from the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that he supports the concept as well.
Over the last two years people have been working toward the attainment of the decision to replace the rolling stock. The Government in its widsom, and I compliment it on it, decided that it would go the route of a consortium. It was decided that it would ask Bombardier and UTDC, the Urban Transit Development Corporation which owns Can-Car Rail in Thunder Bay, to put together a joint package for VIA Rail. This was done because the Government clearly wanted to have the cars produced in Canada in order to ensure that the employment opportunities regarding the replacement of those cars would be spread reasonably well throughout the system.

October 23, 1986
We have only two passenger rail car manufacturing facilities in Canada. While my constituents and I would have liked to have the whole package we recognize that there is a need to share these jobs.
The process did not go all that smoothly. Design problems were encountered, which prevented the plan from moving forward as fast as it could in terms of the cost estimates. However, those problems were solved. A solution was reached with respect to getting these two double-decker trains to pass each other without a fear of their colliding at the top. After that was solved there came the question of money.
During last winter and into the spring and summer of this year VIA Rail sat down with the consortium to work out the dollars and cents, as well as the design aspects involved. This summer an agreement was reached. The parties involved met with the newly-appointed Minister of Transport. We all appreciate that he was new to that portfolio and that he needed some time to understand not only the process to date but the process that would occur. Quite frankly, the Minister and his cabinet colleagues will have to determine whether or not the Government is prepared to pay the price which VIA and the consortium came up with.
For the last two weeks in the House my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and I have raised the matter with the Minister. We are clearly in support of it. I met with over 1,000 workers at Can-Car Rail just one week ago. They asked me to bring back a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in support of the project. I would like to read it into the record for Hon. Members. It states:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
This letter has been circulated on the shop floor of Can-Car Rail in Thunder Bay. The workers at this plant have been waiting now for many months for confirmation from your government that the contract for the construction of double-decker rail cars to replace VIA Rail's antiquated rolling stock will be awarded, in part, to us.
I am sure you can understand that the release last week of a document showing that VIA is in serious financial trouble has caused us a great deal of concern about our own future. We want to say, Mr. Prime Minister, that we believe our future in this industry is largely dependent upon Can-Car Rail securing this contract.
As Canadians, we believe that a viable national rail transportation system is a fundamental and necessary aspect of nationhood in Canada, and we believe that the upgrading of VIA's equipment, particularly the rolling stock, is necessary to maintain an effective and viable system.
Therefore we are working along with our Member of Parliament, Ian Angus, to ensure that the contract we have been counting on for so long will soon be forthcoming. We ask that you make a public commitment to this effect as soon as posible.
Copies of this letter were delivered to the Prime Minister last week. I took the opportunity of asking the Minister in the House either what decision had been made or when it would be made. His response was that before too many suns and moons have passed he hoped to have an answer for me. Well, about seven suns have passed and perhaps a quarter of a moon. I encourage the Minister of Transport, who is here in the House today, to take the opportunity to ask me a question at the end
The Address-Mr. Angus
of my remarks in which he can indicate that, yes, his cabinet colleagues have agreed and the announcement is forthcoming.
The last area I would like to delve into is with respect to a report commissioned by the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) along with his colleagues in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. It is a report entitled Western Canadian Low Sulphur Coal, Its Expanded Use in Ontario. When the report was released the Minister of Transport had some very positive things to say about the recommendations which it contained. For example, he said that it could result in significant benefits to the Canadian railways, Great Lakes marine carriers and transfer terminal operations. He said that the increased volume in coal traffic would stimulate rail efficiency which would lead to lower rail costs. He also indicated that any reasonable measure that can be taken to improve the competitiveness of western Canadian coal has his support.
When I finally had the opportunity to read the report I became very excited. I became excited for a number of reasons. The report was undertaken initially to see if one of the answers to our acid rain problem in Ontario, basically, and part of Quebec, was through the use of western Canadian low-sulphur coal. This is why the task force was put together and why a great deal of money and a great deal of time was spent doing research. The answer which the task force came up with was that, yes, it is one of the ways in which we can reduce acid emissions. Over and above that what I find exciting are the benefits which will flow to a large part of Canada as a result of adopting the recommendations in this report. I would like to give Hon. Members some examples in this regard.
If low sulphur western Canadian coal is used instead of installing scrubbers in Ontario Hydro plants and we continue to import at the same high levels-in fact even higher levels- high sulphur American coal, then we can create twice as many jobs in Canada. We will be able to bring in more than twice as much revenue to Canadians, with benefits reaching from British Columbia right through to Ontario and even into Quebec.
I would like to mention some specifics. Over-all, 101,000 person-years of employment would be created over the next 15 years which would bring in total incomes of $1.6 billion. In terms of British Columbia, from where the bulk of the coal will come, 28,000 person-years will be created with $444 million of revenue. In Alberta, 39,000 person-years will be created with revenue of $671 million. In terms of Saskatchewan, where there is a lower figure because of the type of coal there, there will be only 1,000 person-years with $12 million in income. For the Province of Ontario there will be created
14,000	person-years for incomes of $301 million.
I would like to wind up this part of my remarks by saying that it is an area that we have to look at because we in Canada will receive the benefits. We will have more people working. We will have more people paying taxes. Therefore it will be a revenue generator.

October 23, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I met and welcomed our roving, rolling ambassador extraordinaire, Rick Hansen, in Montreal. Shaking his gloved hand, I could sense Rick's strength and the tenacity of purpose that has propelled him over 24,900 miles around our globe. I shared in his enthusiastic determination to raise public sensitivities and awareness to the potential of the disabled. His goal to establish a $ 10-million international trust fund for spinal cord research seems to be closer to reality today than when I visited with him and wished him good luck and farewell in Vancouver just two years ago.
Barriers are continually being challenged and overcome by wheelchair users. Physical access to buildings is improving. However, better psychological access to society through attitudinal change is needed as well. Too many people are still more conscious of the wheelchair than of the person in it.
The next few months of battling the Prairies in winter are going to be rough, but Rick Hansen is tough. Our prayers and thoughts will be with you, Rick, and we look forward to your arrival in Ottawa this weekend.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, today solemn services are being held in various communities across Canada to mark the 30th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution and to remember those who lost their lives in that historic struggle for freedom. On October 23, 1956, the years of oppression by the communist regime culminated in an



ETHNIC AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Mr. Moe Sihota was elected to the B.C. Legislature. Mr. Sihota is, I believe, the first Canadian of Indo-Pakistani origin to be elected to any Legislature in Canada.
The peoples of South Asia have come a long way in Canada since the Komagatu Maru with a shipload of would-be Indian immigrants was turned back from Vancouver Harbour in 1914 by a country with then clearly racist immigration laws. There are now 200,000 Canadians of East Indian origin living in Canada.
Mr. Sihota is a lawyer. Although he is only 31 years old, he has degrees in social work and in law. He was formerly a member of the UBC Board of Governors and ombudsman at UBC. He was formerly the President of the B.C. Young New Democrats. He is currently a member of the Esquimalt Municipal Council, and by yesterday's vote of 13,603 to 10,639 he is a member of the New Democrat caucus in the B.C. Legislature.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a regressive and unacceptable decision which was taken by Air Canada. The airline is slashing direct flight service between Edmonton and Ottawa, thus relegating the City of Edmonton to second-class status. What was once a four-hour direct flight can now be an exhausting and time-consuming seven-hour marathon which stops not only in Toronto but also in, God bless us, Calgary.
Transportation and communication links lead to economic activity, they do not follow it. Thus, Air Canada, by this totally unwarranted act is dealing another body blow to an already struggling Alberta economy.
October 23, 1986

How does Air Canada defend this insensitive and needless decision? It does so by claiming that this will lead to better use of its aircraft. My direct observation is that these flights have nearly always been fully booked. Indeed, at times it is difficult to get on a flight.
By arranging its flights to suit its own convenience rather than placing its customers first, Air Canada is being irresponsible. As for myself, I will now fly Air Canada only as a last, unavoidable resort. I have strongly urged others to boycott the airline until this reprehensible decision has been reversed.



WELFARE


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: The report by the National Council on Welfare has provided further evidence of the growing disparity between the rich and poor in Canada. The report outlined that there were close to 4 million Canadians, or 16 per cent of our population, living in poverty. This is more than in 1980. The results also showed that one child in five is growing up in poverty; that single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than families with two parents; and that 60 per cent of female single-parent families are poor.
The Tories continue to peddle the myth that all is well in the land, and that the economic tide is propping up everyone's boat equally. Brutal statistics tell a tale of two cities, a tale of two Canadas, a tale where food banks are on the rise and the lineups are getting longer. There is nothing more humiliating and degrading to a human being than to stand in line for a daily piece of bread. Regrettably, this is a reality. The sooner the Government recognizes it, the closer we will be to successfully combating poverty across all regions.



NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS WEEK


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: This being Small Business Week in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay special emphasis of the dynamic spirit of our entrepreneurs in the riding of Lotbiniere. Their significant contribution to regional economic development and job creation being essential, their achievements deserve praise.
First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that Small Business Week will not go unnoticed in Lotbiniere. For starters, the Bois-Franc Chamber of Commerce will hold a
one-day convention and play host to businessmen. In addition, the regional economic organizations in the riding are taking this opportunity to compile a survey of the activities of our entrepreneurs. Among other things, the territory covered by the Bois-Franc Economic Development Corporation reported an increase of 411 jobs over last year and was instrumental in the establishment of 24 new business concerns. For its part the territory covered by the Lotbiniere MRC added eight new companies to its list and thus created 223 new jobs, not to mention the expansion of existing businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to tell the House about the constructive achievements of small business in Lotbiniere, and I can only encourage their representatives to keep up the good work, and to assure them of my full support.



FINANCE


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, today Argus and Power Corporations are the recipients of the eighth and ninth great untaxed corporation awards. Generous Liberal and Conservative tax expenditures allowed Argus the right to receive tax credits instead of paying taxes in 1983, 1984, and 1985, on profits totalling tens of millions of dollars.


An Hon. Member:: Shame, shame!


Simon Leendert de Jong: 

CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has once more earned the wrath of the customers it is supposed to serve. Residents of Parkdale-High Park are furious over the removal of mailboxes from their neighbourhoods. Across Toronto 700 mailboxes have been removed and the increased distance between post-boxes is creating both inconvenience and frustration. This high-handed action on the part of Canada Post is further evidence of the lack of regard the Corporation has for its customers.

October 23, 1986
The Canadian public is entitled to fast, efficient service. What we see are rate increases, service cuts, deficits and excuses. Proposals to cut mail delivery and pick-up services are infuriating Canada Post's customers and time is running out on their patience for footing the bills while getting the boot. I call on Canada Post to return the mailboxes to Parkdale- High Park and get on with the job of serving the Canadian public.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, $41 million-think about it for a minute, Mr. Speaker-is the amount of taxpayers' dollars that are literally being frittered away because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants to play sugar-daddy to his constituents in Manicouagan.
The Auditor General pointed out yesterday that there was absolutely no need for a protective custody prison in Baie Comeau or, for that matter, anywhere in Quebec. Yet the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) rose yesterday and directly contradicted the Auditor General. Other Ministers of the Crown have attacked the integrity, impartiality, and objectivity of the Auditor General. It is inexcusable that that should be done.
It was also revealed today by the Auditor General that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had a member of his own staff sitting on the construction task force to oversee the construction of the Port-Cartier prison. It is obvious why that individual is there-to further the goals of the Prime Minister to continue to porkbarrel in his own riding and to ensure that contracts are given to his friends.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, glancing through the report tabled yesterday by the Auditor General, I was pleased to see that he is aware of the Conservative Government's resolve to reduce public outlays even more.
Although he was careful not to comment on specific political programs or trends, he did say he was particularly pleased to receive the February 1986 note concerning tighter resources management which was sent to all deputy ministers and heads of agencies.
He went on to say that the course steered by the Government with respect to resources management is along the line of his earlier recommendations.
Yesterday Mr. Dye expressed satisfaction with our commitment towards improved accountability and better management.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Government firmly intends to stabilize the management of public funds, and I am pleased that the Auditor General has publicly acknowledged our initiative. All economic indicators are positive and at last we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I am making this statement today on behalf of the Liberal trade critic. It is what he would like to say to his Leader but cannot: "Please, please, tell me what is going on. On Monday I called for the suspension of free trade talks after the U.S. lumber tariff. Yet, on the same day, you said that to walk away from the talks now may unleash damaging countervailing action against us. It was bad enough when the Liberal spokesperson for External Affairs wrote an article in The Gazette of Montreal late last year endorsing the Macdonald Commission, but now the confusion is complete. That leaves us with a policy for everybody-pro, con, and in the middle-but it also leaves us looking exceedingly foolish".



INCOME TAX


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in his report released earlier this week the Auditor General pointed out his concern for the integrity, fairness, and credibility of our income tax system.
The Government takes these concerns very seriously. During the past two years it has ended tax loopholes such as the scientific research tax credit, hotel and recreational vehicle tax shelters, carve-outs, and income splitting. In addition, the Government is phasing out the investment tax credit and the inventory allowance.
This past July the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced a comprehensive tax reform review, upon which he expanded this morning. It is aimed at eliminating corporate tax expenditures and reducing personal income tax rates.
October 23, 1986

These quick and positive actions clearly demonstrate the Government's concern with fair and effective control of taxpayers' dollars.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern with regard to the awarding of the CF-18 contract by the Department of Supply and Services. Yesterday I raised in the House the fact that the former Minister of Supply and Services interfered in the bidding process of the Department of Supply and Services, thereby changing the established programs of that particular Department.
I raise this point because the Minister who represents Atlantic Canada has abdicated his responsibilities, not only to his constituents in Halifax but to all constituents in Atlantic Canada. This particular Minister, on orders from either above or from various other Ministers, has changed the process. It is very clear that the bidding process, the integrity of the bidding process and, indeed, the merit principle which has been so much applicable, if you will, to the Department of Supply and Services, has now been done away with. It is blatant, political porkbarreling by the Government of Canada to award its friends, to the detriment of regions less fortunate, like those in Atlantic Canada.

[ Translation]



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the positive elements in the Auditor General's sixth report.
As you know, the criticism voiced in this report was both judicious and appropriate. We realize what has to be done and we are convinced the Government intends to pursue even further the objectives set by the Auditor General. We have been submitted a program and we all intend to act on that program as responsibly as we have done so many times in the past.
I may point out that this Government has even made considerable progress in controlling the public accounts. It has made sure that past audits are followed up. In fact, the Auditor General praised the present Government's philosophy which centres on the need for tighter resource management.
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted for a change on September 4, 1984.
Canadians asked for a significant change, Mr. Speaker, and significant changes are in the report.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Three Ministers have challenged the accuracy and competence of the Auditor General with respect to the prison in Port-Cartier.
Both the Solicitor General and the President of the Treasury Board have denied factual statements made by the Auditor General, and the Minister of State, the Deputy Prime Minister's neighbour, even said that he had grave doubts as to his competence.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with his three colleagues who challenged the objectivity and integrity of the Auditor General, who is directly accountable to Parliament?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we never challenged the Auditor General's comments. What we challenged was the false interpretation the Opposition gave of many of the tables, comments, figures and data presented in the otherwise excellent report by the Auditor General.


ROLE OF AUDITOR GENERAL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we understood that when the Prime Minister was not here, and we understand why he is not, that the Deputy Prime Minister would be the chief operating officer and I hoped he would respond to these questions. I will leave it to Maz., Mr. Speaker.
The Auditor General has caught the Prime Minister with his hand in the cookie jar.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The response of the Government is to have three Ministers attack the credibility of the Auditor General. This is just not another public servant whom the Government can malign. This is an officer of

October 23, 1986
Oral Questions
Parliament, responsible to the taxpayers of the country through Parliament, and I want an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister as to what is in line here. Are we trying to undermine one of the parliamentary officers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, when a Government has competent Ministers, the Prime Minister or a Deputy Prime Minister does not have to act on their behalf. We have competent Ministers. They speak out, and they speak out with clarity.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What we are dealing with here, and simply to back up the President of the Treasury Board, is more Liberal distortion.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF MINISTERS' STATEMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, not at all. We have the Auditor General saying that the Prime Minister wasted $41 million of the taxpayers' money, and the response of the Government is to attack the Auditor General.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: That is a falsehood.


John Napier Turner: I want the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, to say that he wants those three Ministers to withdraw the statements attacking the Auditor General.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we could talk about the swashbuckling style of the Liberals which provoked the Auditor General's ire as well. That is why we suggest he has made a comprehensive and objective report. We certainly do not find any difficulty with that. We do find difficulty with the distorting and twisting kind of interpretation that some Liberal Members are putting on the report.


CONSTRUCTION TASK FORCE-REPORTED PARTICIPATION OF PMO STAFF MEMBER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Prime Minister's prison. It was revealed today that a member of the Prime Minister's staff has been sitting on a task force overseeing construction of the Port-Cartier penitentiary. Can he confirm that, and indicate that person's function on the task force? Would he also not agree that this is further evidence of political interference by the Conservative Government?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that apparently the Auditor General was referring to a planning implementation committee set up in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 140 of the Administrative Policy Manual of the Treasury Board. I might add that the committee was set up several months after approval of the Port-Cartier project.


NEED FOR PRISON-AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of his conversation with the Auditor General last evening, is he now prepared to admit that the Auditor General is right when he says there is no need for a protective custody prison at Port-Cartier?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, that is quite correct, the Auditor General did call me. I did not call him. Mr. Dye and I agree with the figures contained in his report at paragraph 7.51. That shows a surplus of 30 protective custody beds. That figure includes the 250 protective custody beds to be built at Port-Cartier. If you do not build Port-Cartier you are going to have a deficit of 220 protective custody beds, so obviously there is a need for that prison.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be aware of the information we brought to the House a few weeks ago that 64 Canadian companies with profits of over $25 million per annum paid no income tax in 1983. We have new information today that in that year there were only 252 Canadian companies with profits in that range.
Given the evidence that one in four Canadian companies having more than $25 million in profits paid no corporate income tax, can the Minister tell us why he simply announces more consultations on tax reform rather than undertaking to bring in measures in next February's Budget which will ensure that those corporations pay their fair share in taxes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone in this country who would criticize the Government for consulting about something as large and comprehensive as tax reform. I again draw the attention of the Hon. Member to what I have said to him time and time again, and it has not got through his head, that we have acted. We acted in October, 1984, to change the rules on limited partnerships. We changed the rules on the scientific research tax credits and subsequently eliminated them. In the last Budget we eliminated the inventory allowance and changed the investment tax credit. Those four items are contributing factors to the figures which the Hon. Member
October 23, 1986

has mentioned in the course of his question. We have acted in these areas and we are going to act again in the future.


NEED FOR TAX REFORM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Could the Minister of Finance explain why he is not prepared to take measures with respect to companies that are making profits-and there are 80,000 of them-and why he is not prepared to promise there will be some action in his next budget in February, instead of following his party's policy of deferment? Both the Auditor General and Canadian taxpayers agree on the need for immediate tax reform.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member put his question without having listened to the answer I gave to his first question.
He did not listen. He is not listening. I have said time and time again that we have acted and addressed, in part, the problems that he has raised. We have introduced this comprehensive tax reform proposal to continue the good work we have already been doing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Raising taxes mostly.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Members on the other side are critical of the good work we have been doing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


BUSINESS TRANSFER TAX INQUIRY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister all but announced that the Government will introduce a new form of sales tax which he calls the Business Transfer Tax. Canadians can expect to pay a major increase in sales tax through that new tax. What is the use of putting a few pennies into their front pockets by reducing personal income tax if you are going to take a lot more out of their back pockets by means of this new sales tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess we will have to get used to this distortion. When we have something as complex and as comprehensive as tax reform, it is very easy to pick and choose, to cherrypick those things which are going to distort the whole purpose of tax reform. I said in my comments this morning that we are going to increase the tax load on corporations. I also said that we are going to expand on the very progressive element of tax reform that we announced in the last Budget, namely, the refundable low-income sales tax credit. Those are very important parts of tax reform and I ask the Hon. Member not to distort the issue by ignoring those very positive elements.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


PORT-CARTIER PRISON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns the awarding of contracts at Port-Cartier. Yesterday in the House the Minister said: "The usual call to tender procedure was followed in this case". In view of the fact that the Treasury Board guideline, Article 310, Section 8, very clearly states that sole source contracts can only be given where there is a pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest, will the Minister now retract his statement of yesterday and admit that no tender was issued in the case of property management and the preliminary site plan, and admit to the House that the rules were not followed as required by Treasury Board?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing what I said yesterday. In fact, I may inform Hon. Members that to the best of my knowledge, all the criteria set by Treasury Board were met in awarding contracts for the Port-Cartier prison.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW STATEMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, since this morning the Auditor General said publicly that he did not think there was a pressing emergency, in referring to the construction of a prison at Port-Cartier, will the Minister finally admit that the action taken by him and his colleagues goes against the rules of his Department and decide to withdraw what he said yesterday in this House, since there has been a very clear breach of the rules?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, I was asked three questions. The answers are as follows: No, no and no!


FINANCE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On repeated occasions the Minister has taken great credit for how the Government has plugged up the various tax loopholes. Will he give us assurances that one-quarter of the most profitable companies in Canada today are paying their fair share in taxes, instead of paying no taxes at all, like in 1983? Are they paying taxes today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can read the statistics as well as I can. We have said that one of the key objectives of this tax reform is to

October 23, 1986
Oral Questions
make sure that profitable corporations are paying their fair share of tax. I look forward to the support of the Hon. Member in that objective.


REQUEST FOR EARLY LEGISLATION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Minister the assurance and total support if he brings in legislation in his next Budget. Why wait for 1988 and 1989? Why not introduce such measures in the next Budget to make certain that all corporations making more than $25 million in profit a year pay their fair share? I will give him that assurance. Why not bring it down in his next Budget rather than wait for 1988?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member listened to the answer that I gave twice to his colleague. We have already acted. We acted in October of 1984, in May of 1985, in July of 1985, in February of 1986, and 1 think it was July of 1986. Surely the Hon. Member can recognize that steps have been taken to deal with the problem we inherited from the previous Government. We have taken action and the results will show up very clearly.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Minister in answering questions put by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston continues to contradict and challenge the competence of the Auditor General of Canada. Does the Minister not realize that, as recently as this morning, the Auditor General reconfirmed the finding contained in his report where he said that the decision to build the institution at Port-Cartier, instead of at Drummondville, cannot be justified on the basis of need?


Charles Joseph Clark: What is the question?


Mr.   La Salle@: It's the same question.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am a little at a loss. I would like to know what the question is.


An Hon. Member:: There was no question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to repeat my first question since the Minister was not listening.


David Charles Dingwall: Typical of the Tories-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Does the Minister not realize-


David Charles Dingwall: And the Deputy Prime Minister.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -that in answering questions put by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston he continues today to challenge and contradict the competence of the Auditor General, who, as recently as this morning, reconfirmed his-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member put his question? The Minister has asked that the Hon. Member put his question again. Would the Hon. Member put the question?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister could not understand my question when I put it fully last time. I thought I had to repeat it fully.


Charles Joseph Clark: Come on. Order.


Mr. Crosbie:: Ask the question, if you have one.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: How can the Minister say-


Charles Joseph Clark: What's the question?


Brian Vincent Tobin: -he is not contradicting the Auditor General-


An Hon. Member:: Joe who?


Brian Vincent Tobin: -when the Auditor General again today said the decision to build the institution at Port-Cartier cannot be justified on the basis of need?


An Hon. Member:: Joe who?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can give a very short and simple answer to my hon. friend. I am not contradicting the Auditor General, I never have, and I am not, here today. I am accepting the report he gave-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sit down while you're ahead.


James Francis Kelleher: -in which he showed a surplus of 30 protective custody beds.


Ms. Copps:: You are gone.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Going.


An Hon. Member:: Gone.


James Francis Kelleher: I agree with that. But it includes Port-Cartier. If you take that away, there is a very large deficit, hence the need for Port-Cartier.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.


Brian Vincent Tobin: If the Minister is asleep and not here today, do I have to suffer? He should take a wake-up pill.
October 23, 1986


UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SURTAX
Steven W. Langdon: The Government claims that a U.S. free trade agreement will solve problems like the new customs surtax which has been imposed on us. Is the Minister aware that the only country to have a free trade agreement with the United States, that is, Israel, has also been zapped with this tax? Does that not completely demolish the Minister's arguments?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would suggest that it reinforces our argument, particularly since we are each other's largest trading partner. I may point out, as the Hon. Member has himself, that this move by the U.S. affects all U.S. trading partners. That is why we are taking it to the GATT Council on Monday.


CANADIAN RESPONSE TO LUMBER TARIFF
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister go to Boston and say the lumber attack, the tariff on lumber, is an attack on our sovereignty and yet take action only through the U.S. courts and the U.S. appeal system? Why are there no strong Canadian moves to try to counter this tariff?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I have not had a chance-and 1 welcome the opportunity the Hon. Member has given me-to point out that the stand taken to fight the softwood lumber tariff was a stand decided on by all 10 Canadian provinces, including the four provinces affected, by the IWA, who had representation at our meeting this week, by the industry spokesman, and by the federal Government. So the answer to the Hon. Member's question is simply that the stance we have chosen to adopt is supported 100 per cent by all the parties involved.


FINANCE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This morning the Minister spoke of relying more on sales tax revenue in order to reduce personal income tax rates. Since the Government has raised sales taxes three times in 18 months and Canadians are paying S3.5 billion more a year in sales taxes as a result, will the Minister tell the House why Canadians should look forward to lower income tax rates and more take home pay if it only means the Government is going to tax away their disposable income through higher sales tax and a broader sales tax base?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the question the Hon. Member has just put is almost
Oral Questions
identical to one which was just asked by the real Opposition, the New Democratic Party.
What I would ask the Hon. Member to consider when she asks the question, is the importance of the low income refundable sales tax credit which is an integral part of the reform of the sales tax itself.


PERSONAL TAXES-REQUEST FOR ROLLBACK
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks of low-income Canadians whose personal taxes will be rising 27 per cent over the next two years as a result of his last two Budgets. Does the Minister intend to roll back those increases? Is that included in the concept of fairness he spoke of this morning?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I include in my concept of fairness is the increase in the child tax credit, the acceleration of the payment of the child tax credit, the introduction of the low income sales tax credit to which I just referred, the movement of $100 million to help people who are on welfare now to get back into the job market. All of these questions related to taxation are going to be included in the review because it is comprehensive tax reform. We are not going to pick and choose. We are not going to identify just those areas the Hon. Member would like to pick out and try to embarrass us on.
The whole point is to look at the broad question of tax reform and the balance. It is the balance which is important here.


INSURANCE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Although insurance is primarily a provincial responsiblity, there is a liability insurance crisis facing Canadians and all of us are concerned. Will the Minister agree to take a leadership role in solving this problem and help to organize a reinsurance market in Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for raising this very important issue. I sympathize with the problem. I want to say that I feel it is very important that all Canadians have affordable insurance.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Hurrah!


Michael Morris Cassidy: What is the Government's position?


Thomas Hockin: Not only do we have Bill C-8 before the House, which is in place to strengthen the solvency of the

October 23, 1986
Oral Questions
industry in the long term, but in the short term-yesterday, for example, and today at noon-I have been meeting constantly with members of the industry-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNITED STATES IMPORT SURTAX-PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. When the United States last imposed protectionist laws against Canada in 1971, this country passed an act called the Employment Support Act which at that time safeguarded
22,000	jobs against U.S. import surcharges. Will the Minister now use this law to protect the workers who are about to be laid off in Canada's lumber industry?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to examine the law in question to see if it is appropriate.


LUMBER INDUSTRY LAY-OFFS AT THUNDER BAY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could tell the House and the workers in the lumber industry what specifically the Minister is going to do to assist, for example, the 20 per cent of the workforce in Thunder Bay in the lumber industry who are to be laid off on November 3. What action will the Minister and the Government be taking on their behalf?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Government is taking action in concert with the provinces, the industry, and the union to seek to reverse this preliminary decision. It is a preliminary decision. The process allows for verification of the facts as presented. All the parties to the dispute have decided to seek to reverse the decision when it is finally handed down some time in December.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and concerns the decision of the RCMP to lower the percentage of
French-speaking officers from 20 to 14 per cent. In his reply on October 16, the Minister said the following, as reported on page 428 of Hansard:
-discussions that never received the approval of the Treasury Board or Cabinet.
Does the Minister know whether there has been an agreement in principle between the management of the RCMP and the Secretariat of the Treasury Board on this policy to reduce the proportion of French-speaking personnel from 20 to 14 per cent?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has said, and I believe that he quoted accurately what I said a few days ago, there have been discussions between officials of the RCMP and officials of my Department to try to agree on lowering the target for francophone members of the RCMP. As I said at the time, this agreement or discussion between officials has not received the approval of the Treasury Board required for it to become Government policy. I can assure the House that we shall want to review such a decision very closely because we have no intention of relaxing our efforts to strengthen the francophone presence in the Canadian Public Service.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATIONS CONCERNING LETTER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if there has been no agreement in principle, and the Minister used the words "agreement" and "discussion", I think that we should have a clarification of the terms employed. How can the Minister explain the correspondence exchanged June 13 between the Commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Simmonds, and the Special Advisor of the Treasury Board, Mr. Aquilina, in which the following was said:

Since it was agreed, at the January 10th meeting, that it would be to our mutual advantage to formalize the agreements reached-

Mr. Speaker, this looks like a rather firm agreement in principle to me. How can the Minister explain this letter?


Robert René de Cotret: Very simply, Mr. Speaker. There are discussions daily between the officials of various Departments. If the Hon. Member wants to have an answer, he should at least give me an opportunity to reply. Such decisions and discussions occur regularly, but they are not discussions among elected representatives in a position to make Government decisions. There has been no Government decision which could weaken the efforts of this Government as concerns official languages.
October 23, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. The Institute of Agrologists in its farm task force report in Ontario has estimated that the harm done to Canadian grain growers due to the U.S. Farm Bill will be in excess of $4 billion this year, a figure similar to that which was arrived at a month or so ago by the Prairie Pools. Given the Government's stated policy of consultation with farm groups and provincial Governments on emergency aid, why has the Government arbitrarily picked the $1 billion figure as a limit to which it will go in terms of assistance when it knows that more than $4 billion will be required?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the study to which the Hon. Member refers. Indeed, I have seen two or three other studies and calculations. We do not run over a cliff or head off into the sunset by $3 billion or $4 billion. The $4 billion figure was arrived at by making a direct comparison of the support American farmers receive from Washington with the support Canadian farmers receive from both federal and provincial sources.
As I have said before, the fact of the matter is that it would be totally and completely irresponsible for any elected public official, regardless at what level of government he or she may be in, to suggest-indeed, to mislead-Canadian farmers to believe that we in Canada have the financial resources to take on Washington. The truth of the matter is we do not. Farmers understand that.


COMPENSATION FOR FARMERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since bank depositors with over $60,000 were given 100 per cent compensation about a year ago by the Government, can the Minister explain why farmers are only being given about one-quarter of what their sustained losses will be?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I will say again that if the Hon. Member were to examine the record he would see that this is the largest single farm-aid package ever delivered by any Government in the history of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: We have to recognize that agriculture is a joint and shared responsibility. I want to compliment the provinces for the contributions they have made. I hope that when they establish their priorities they will be in a position to add supplementary funds to this contribution.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology who, in the House yesterday, threatened and questioned the integrity of senior management of the National Research Council by saying:
I have offered to intervene personally for the employees wherever I can, but 1 cannot give the same kind of assurance to some of the senior management who have fed the Hon. Member some of this information which is less than truthful.
I ask the Minister to withdraw immediately this threat, and confirm that he has complete confidence in the integrity and ability of senior management of the National Research Council.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member admitted that some of the testimony he adduced in the House did not coincide with the facts. What he is telling me now is that perhaps he twisted the facts and that he received accurate information.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APOLOGIZE TO MANAGEMENT
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I again ask the Minister to apologize to the senior management of the National Research Council and to withdraw the threat and the comments that he made yesterday regarding the integrity of senior management of the NRC. Can the Minister unequivocally confirm that public servants have the duty to provide all Members of Parliament with factual information about the activities of government?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely what I had in mind when I made comments about the testimony that had been adduced in the debate. I will review what I said yesterday. If I said anything that could be harmful or that could impugn the motives of the senior management of the NRC then, of course, I will apologize.


FISHERIES
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Allegations have been made that thousands of tonnes of groundfish-between 30 per cent and 50 per cent above and beyond federal quota-have been caught, landed, processed, and sold in the U.S. market. Can the Minister confirm whether such a black market fishery exists and is threatening the health of the stocks?

October 23, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I tell the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso that there is no evidence of any black market fishery in the Province of Nova Scotia. I have examined the basis of calculation on which the provincial Department of Fisheries makes this allegation and I find that it is seriously in error. While there will always be some modest degree of misreporting in the fishery, most fishermen do report their landings accurately since they know that this is the ticket to their own future. Furthermore, they know that the law requires accurate reporting.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: The
Minister of National Defence being absent, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Acting Minister.
Is the Minister aware that the people in the Saguenay- Lac-Saint-Jean region have been trying for the past three and a half years to express to the Government their concern about the setting-up in their region of a test range for F-18 aircrafts?
Does the Minister realize that the impact study carried out by the Department of National Defence has totally ignored the social and economic criteria raised by the citizens of that region?
What is the Government planning to do to meet the concerns of these people?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of National Defence. From my previous incarnation, I can say that we had a process in place of working very closely with the people of that regional know that the Member of Parliament from that region was very closely involved and things were going along smoothly. I am surprised to hear the representation of the Hon. Member but I will ensure that my colleague is made aware of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood. One short supplementary.


QUESTIONS RAISED BY LOCAL RESIDENTS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, why has the Government failed to respond to the questions raised by the people in the area since last April, questions brought to the Government by the Quebec Inter-
Ministerial Committee, on the test range? Will the Government stop the tests until-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Lynn McDonald: -the coming inquiry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I will bring the representation of the Hon. Member to the attention of the Minister. From my experience, I think the tone indicated by the Hon. Member is inappropriate. There is a great deal of co-operation, and the people in the region are in fact enthusiastic about having that test range there because of the jobs and economic benefit it brings.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. One short supplementary to his previous question.


PENITENTIARIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that when the Minister of State and former Minister of Public Works said of the Auditor General that he doubts his capacity, the Minister in fact called into question the competence and integrity of the Auditor General of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not calling into question the competence of the Auditor General. What is creating a haze over the integrity of the Auditor General is the jargon and distortion that we are getting from that side of the House.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister knows, the Auditor General's Report criticized severely the capacities of his Department in the area of land management. I would like to refer the Minister to a specific example, that of the Serpent River Band. For 23 years this band has had a chemical soup
October 23, 1986

brewing on its reserve because no clean-up clause was included. Will the Minister guarantee to the band that the clean up of that 25-year-old problem will begin next spring?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the Hon. Member that something that has gone on as long as the chemical waste disposal on the Serpent River Band land is now under discussion with the leadership of the band. I have had discussions with the leadership as well as with Rio Algom. I have had discussions with the operating VicePresident of Rio Algom, and discussions between Rio Algom and the band are taking place now on the use of Rio Algom for a dump site. These discussions are ongoing.


START OF CLEAN-UP OPERATION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that assurance, however limited. Will the cleanup begin next year and will the Minister guarantee that the funds for the cleanup will not be taken from other accounts designed to benefit the Indian people of Ontario?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that there are dollars allocated within a region. I will have to review that, but before a commitment can be made we must have the agreement of Rio Algom to use its site for disposal.


DISASTERS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recent American laboratory studies show that the Chernobyl nuclear accident emitted as much long-term radiation in the form of cesium into the world's air, topsoil, and water, as all the nuclear atmospheric tests and bombs ever exploded. What is the Government doing to monitor and protect the people of Canada from this potential danger?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the testing done by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, it is the Department's assessment that that is a credible laboratory. In terms of the study, we have not assessed whether or not that release would be on site at source or would be affecting Canada, but I can tell the Hon. Member what is happening in Canada. Monitoring is taking place continuously. I can assure the Hon. Member and all Canadians that, as recently as this week, our monitoring showed that we do not have any reason to believe that the fallout in Canada is not within acceptable levels as we indicated earlier closer to the time of the Chernobyl accident.
Oral Questions ENERGY


INDUSTRY'S LOSS OF JOBS IN ALBERTA
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the desperate situation of the petroleum industry. Almost 50,000 jobs have already been lost in the industry this year and it is projected that 20,000 more jobs will be lost this winter. The Minister has refused to participate with Alberta in a cash flow stabilization program for the industry and particularly for small producers. Could the Minister indicate how many more thousands of jobs have to be lost before the federal Government will act by assisting Alberta in establishing such a program?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the employment related problems which Canadians are experiencing in the energy industry, especially in Alberta, and I sympathize with them.
However, there can be no solution to the energy crisis without a stabilization of the market as such. The problem is resulting from an oil glut which affects prices. The Government has already provided this industry with billions of dollars in tax money, something for which the industry has commended the Government.


SYNCRUDE APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be a little more specific. Syncrude has asked the federal Government to provide a guarantee agreement of $175 million to see a 20,000-barrel-per-day increase in production. Is the Government considering this, and is it willing to provide this assistance in view of the increased production and thousands of jobs it would create?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, we have ongoing discussions with the provinces, especially Alberta, concerning the energy issues. Last Monday, I met personally with the Alberta Minister; although we have not addressed directly these issues, they are part of the discussions we are pursuing with the provinces.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board.

October 23, 1986
Oral Questions
Early in August the Cabinet set a new price range for domestically consumed wheat. At present the price being paid is at the minimum of that range. Can the Minister inform the Efouse when the new domestic price will be set and if it will be set at the $10 level which was unanimously recommended by the special committee of the House?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Government presently has the recommendations of the committee under consideration. The Hon. Member will know that the price range that is presently being charged for wheat used domestically is the new price range. When the Government reaches a decision on what adjustments will be made, we will make the announcement.


RECOMMENDATION THAT PRICE OF BREAD BE MONITORED
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, when the increase recommended by the committee which the Government has suggested it would follow is put into place, will the Government or Consumer Affairs monitor the price of bread, cake and so on, as was also recommended by the special committee?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that that was one of the things recommended by the parliamentary committee. The Hon. Member should also know that this is a very complex issue and that the Government is considering all factors, including how best to treat not only producers but consumers and processors as well. There are many jobs at stake and that is also a major consideration of the Government.


EFFECT OF NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM ON ALBERTA
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like him to inform the House if it were the case that the National Energy Program had never been put in place, Alberta would have some $56 billion more, there would be no need for a stabilization fund, and the unemployment experienced today would not in fact be taking place?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I have here a similar statement from the Vice President of Texaco Canada Resources. I do not want to read this statement, but I think the Opposition would be well advised to do so; the statement is along the same lines. The Government policy meets the needs of the oil industry.


EMPLOYMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. On February 26 in the Budget of the Minister of Finance, it was announced that a program for older worker adjustments would be put in place to replace the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program. The Minister informed the House which provinces had consummated a deal with the Government of Canada. Would the Minister inform the House what plans he has for the remaining provinces in order to get them onside?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members know, this program was announced in the February Budget. The sum of $125 million was put toward this particular program. Negotiations are ongoing with all provinces. Personally, I have met with all my provincial colleagues, and officials are still fine-tuning the agreements that will hopefully be signed soon.


POSITION OF PROVINCES
David Charles Dingwall: My
brief supplementary is to the same Minister. I certainly do not doubt his sincerity. Would the Minister confirm that the reason for the rejection by the various provinces across the country and the delay that they are taking is as a result of the Government of Canada's wishes that the provincial legislators pay the lion's share of the money with regard to the older workers' program? If not, would he explain to the House what plans he specifically has in place to establish a national program for older workers' adjustment?


Pierre H. Cadieux: There has been no rejection by any province as yet, and I do not expect that there will be any rejection. We are still negotiating.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Privatization. Could she tell us whether her Department, any other Department of the Government, branch, or Crown corporation, has commissioned a survey to be made across Canada about the privatization and the selling of shares of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways? I urge the Minister to be careful about her answer.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the question has to do with polling on privatization of Crown corporations. To my


October 23, 1986

knowledge, there may have been some polling done but I cannot think off-hand of any recent surveys of the kind the Hon. Member is describing.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), one question please.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following question: In view of rumours that have been around that tenders for the CF-18 maintenance contract have been tampered with, could the Deputy Prime Minister give us the assurance that when the awarding of the contract is announced, the whole matter will be cleared up, that all information will be given as to how tenders were processed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that tenders have absolutely not been tampered with. The tender now before Treasury Board is identical in every respect other than the extension of the tendering date from August 31st to October 31st. That is the only change, but the tender itself is identical to the original one submitted to Treasury Board, and it is on that basis that a decision will be made. Moreover, when that decision is made, I will be very pleased to explain the Government's reasons, why that decision was taken in Canada's best interest.


POINT OF ORDER
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from a remark by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) during Question Period. I do not have the "blues" in front of me. If I understood him correctly, the Minister of Finance said that I had asked my question in order to embarrass him. Imputing motives has long been considered unparliamentary. I hope that the Minister would see fit to withdraw his remark.
In view of the very positive remarks that were made at the beginning of this session by Hon. Members on both sides about wanting to have an improvement in civilized behaviour in the House, I do not think it fits in with that spirit when a serious question from an Hon. Member is treated in this fashion.
The Address-Mr. Angus


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had to leave the Chamber. I will certainly check the statement and consult with the Hon. Minister. If there is a correction, or a point of order to be made, I am sure that he will do it, being the gentleman that he is and having the respect that he has for this institution.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he will give us the statement of business he intends to call for the rest of this week and for the coming week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We will continue this afternoon with the seventh appointed day for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Friday will be the eighth and final day of the Address in Reply. Monday has been designated as an allotted day. On Tuesday we will continue with Bill C-12, the amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that the names of the Members appointed under the provisions of Standing Order 92(5) to constitute the Panel of Chairmen are as follows: Derek Blackburn, Jack R. Ellis, Ernie Epp, Richard Grise, Gaston Isabelle, Russell MacLellan, Fred McCain, Keith Penner, Marcel Prud'homme and Barry Turner.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
670
[Stage Direction]
October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Angus
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that there is now a ten minute question and comment period on the remarks of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, during his speech, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) indicated his excitement about the recent coal report and pointed out the values that would be rendered to Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he can give us some indication of what will be the cost to the hydro consumers of Ontario if the coal report is put into effect.


Iain Francis Angus: I would like to thank my colleague for his question. In terms of the consumer in Ontario, assuming that the cost of either using western Canadian coal or the scrubber option with the United States coal is applied totally to Ontario Hydro's consumers, then we can see that with the scrubber option, the additional annual costs will be $39 per household. With the western Canadian coal, it will be $79 per household. That is predicated on the consumer alone picking up the tab. Hon. Members who were here this morning will remember that I pointed out the economic benefits to a large part of Canada, for example, $444 million of new income to the Province of British Columbia; $671 million more for the Province of Alberta; $12 million more for the Province of Saskatchewan; $301 million for the Province of Ontario.
Because of the wide-ranging benefits of the Province of Ontario and Ontario Hydro deciding to use western Canadian coal, I believe there is a legitimate argument that the federal Government, as the single clearing house for all provinces, should participate financially. The increased cost to Ontario Hydro customers would be less than it would otherwise be, at the very least, or in fact would be negated by such assistance.
Eastern Canadian provinces will benefit from reduced acid rain emissions. In that event we would not see the destruction of forests in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada which we are now experiencing. From the long-term point of view it makes sense for the federal Government to participate financially in this project.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) that I appreciated his comments in respect of the use of low-sulphur coal. He and I share a common objective which I am sure is shared by many other parliamentarians. It would be to the advantage of all Canadians, our balance of payments, western Canada, and our environment to use it in central Canadian industrial regions.
I was not perplexed with the latter part of the Hon. Member's speech. In fact I agreed considerably with it. However, I was perplexed with the earlier part of his speech when he said that the government Party was preoccupied with debt. He indicated that we needed more postal services and better VIA Rail services, both of which are desirable objectives. Does he
not see anything wrong with a situation where we pay $1 out of every $3 in taxes to pay the interest on the present debt? Is the debt of no concern to the New Democratic Party? Can we just allow it to grow and grow, bearing in mind that today the payment on that debt is the largest single cost to Government?
It is correct that we all have wish lists. There are more things about which we can dream and want to do. However, is there a belief that when one is in debt, one borrows one's way out of it? How can the New Democratic Party take a position that we do not have to be concerned about the debt, that we can just borrow more money? How can the Hon. Member say that there is no economic accountability in that regard? How does he justify that?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments relating to the coal question and his question relating to the deficit. It is important for me to acknowledge today the work of one of my predecessors, the former Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke, Sid Parker. He worked very hard to focus attention on the need to use western Canadian coal in eastern Canadian markets.
I take the Hon. Member's question concerning the debt in all seriousness. I will use the example of VIA. Currently taxpayers are spending somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million per year trying to keep that ancient rolling-stock working. The Hon. Member knows that it freezes up in the winter in his part of the country just as much as it does in mine.
The reports of respected people in the field indicate that there will be a pay-back in five years to seven years of the expenditure for new rolling-stock. If we make such an expenditure, it is not a giveaway or a pet project. It is an investment in a revitalized VIA system. It is also an investment in jobs in a number of parts of the country. Both investments will have ongoing returns for taxpayers or the Treasury of the country. By building or purchasing those cars, we will not have a half billion dollar burden each year on the federal Treasury in five years to seven years.
There are more ways to look at the matter than just at the expenditure of public funds. We on this side of the House look at it as an investment, particularly an investment in human resources of which there is an abundance in the country.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan made a good point. He talked about an investment in VIA Rail as something which may make money in the future.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It will.


Arnold John Malone: I hear the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). I agree that there are many things which can be done, but surely when a business principle is applied, be it on a farm, a small business, or any other business in Canada, innumerable investments can be made which will return money to the business or to the country. However, a business would go
October 23, 1986

broke if it borrowed on every one of its investments and got its debt load out of balance with its capacity for a return. It is an investment, but our present debt is such that it now takes $1 out of every $3 in taxes to pay the interest on the debt; it does not buy down the debt.
How does the Hon. Member square that with the notion that it does not matter how fast we run with the debt or that we can borrow on anything?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is reading into my comments a number of things which I did not say. Nevertheless, let me respond to how he sees my attitude and the attitude of my Party regarding the debt. We recognize-and I will use a business phrase-that one has to spend money to make money. There is the economic generator of public spending; there is no question about it. When we invest by creating jobs to get more people to work, we have more people making a decent living and more people paying taxes. If we add to that the corporations about which we have been talking today that have been ripping off society by not paying their fair share, it is one darn good way to reduce the deficit. We should get them to start paying their fair share of running the country.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Hon. Member a question relating to western coal. Ever since I was 10 years old living in the coal-mining district of Drumheller, I have heard talk about attempts to get low-sulphur western Canadian coal into the Ontario market. I realize the difficulties. It does involve hundreds of miles of travel. I also remember the late Jesse Gouge, a prominent coal operator in Drumheller. In fact, he opened some of its first mines. He advocated the use of unit trains to get coal into the Ontario market.
In adding up the costs and the benefits, I wonder whether we are forgetting about two major items. If the low-sulphur coal fields of Alberta were opened, hundreds of jobs would be created in those coal-mines. As well, scores of jobs would be created in the railways to bring the coal to Ontario. All of these people would be paying taxes in that event.
In addition, one of the costs we are paying, because we use high sulphur American coal, is the thousands of dollars to clean up acid rain which would not exist if we had used low sulphur western coal for the last 20 years or 25 years. That is an important item. We should use Canadian coal and save the country from the acid rain caused by high-sulphur American coal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on a short rebuttal, please.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, there is no rebuttal to the Hon. Member. Once again I find myself in the position of agreeing with him. We sit together on the Standing Committee on Transport, and I am sure we will work very hard on this particular project.
The Address-Mrs. Landry


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Three weeks ago, the Government set forth its broad objectives for future action, and four fundamental factors will form the basis for its action. First, the imperative need to maintain among Canadians the same spirit of reconciliation that has pervaded our Government's relation with the provinces; second, the continuing pursuit of economic renewal, without which no major national projects can be realized; third, expanding Canada's international role which should be a reflection of our development as a nation, and finally, the advent of greater social justice which is both the precondition for, and the logical result of, an enlightened democracy.
As the Minister for External Relations, I am responsible for integrating these objectives in our development assistance policy and our relations with other countries.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe that durable national reconciliation cannot be achieved by intergovernmental exchanges alone. It will be achieved by Canadians all over this country, working together to improve the well-being of the community, both here and abroad. And I am convinced, and it is one of my priorities as the Minister responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency, that we could involve even more Canadians in our international activities. This implies, first of all, that we make CIDA better known here in Canada, by expanding our information and public involvement programs and also by making the effort to meet people in their own communities.
Recently, I started on a round of visits across Canada, and I intend to meet as many groups as I can that might be interested in our humanitarian activities.
I recently visited the Province of Saskatchewan where I was delighted to find that the leadership role historically assumed by that province in international development is still a reality. As I progress across Canada I will be comforted to know that even in those regions where difficult economic circumstances, such as agricultural prices in Saskatchewan weigh heavily on the livelihood of our citizens, the traditional generosity of Canadians remains one of the basic virtues.
I was in Toronto at the beginning of this week where I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Canadian Filipino community to explain CIDA's important new commitments in favour of the Government of Corazon Aquino.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to know how international development funds are used, and I intend to give them that information in the clearest possible terms. But I also want

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mrs. Landry
to make CIDA better known to Canadians and thus attract new recruits who will share our commitment to development assistance for the Third World. To the question: Have we done eveything we could to recruit the maximum number of Canadians and obtain the maximum amount of resources to help three-quarters of the population of this earth in its fight against poverty? I think the answer must be: No.
Granted, the generosity of Canadians is well known, and our efforts to help the hungry in Africa are a recent example.
Before the General Assembly of the United Nations yesterday, I described the ambitious program developed by Canada for helping Africa. I stated, in no uncertain terms, our desire to see the international community stop talking and start taking action. Nevertheless, I remain convinced, and this will be my second priority at CIDA, that we can recruit more allies for our war against underdevelopment.
It is the only way to come to grips with new emergencies as they occur. Excessive urbanization would be an example.
Among the groups which have not always been given their rightful place I would single out women and young people. The integration of women in all our assistance projects is a matter of social justice in the Third World, just as it is here. In the Third World it happens to be a basic requisite for the development of many societies where women are the unacknowledged or ridiculed driving force behind community progress.
We also seek to establish closer links with another sector of our population which has not always enjoyed full freedom to play an important role, and I am referring to young people. My colleague the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) and I will work together to set up new programs under which young people will find it easier to participate in our endeavours to help Third World countries and to promote the interests of Francophones.
Our commitment to strive for a more egalitarian society in this country stems from the premise that, without adopting a paternalistic and dogmatic approach, we must first show full respect for our basic values among those we want to help. Canada's development effort must continue to be inspired by respect for human rights, so that our assistance may never contribute to perpetuating elsewhere the kind of injustices we do not tolerate here.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we will try to find new ways to cooperate with business. For example, our private sector may indeed have a definite and constructive impact on the private sector in developing countries. Nor should we underestimate the dynamism of the private sector and the significance of its innovative contribution.
As always, non-government organizations play a support role in CIDA, so central that they can hardly be considered as new partners. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we rank first among donor countries with respect to the NGO participation rate. Our NGOs have been given responsibility for implementing major programs. Just recently, for instance, we asked one
of them to manage the Canadian universal immunization program designed for developing countries of the Commonwealth and those of the French-speaking nations. Our NGOs will also play a leading role in the new aid program for the Philippines which I unveiled in Toronto on Monday.
When it comes to bilateral assistance, we co-operate with the various NGOs even more closely than before. There has been noticeable improvement in this respect since we first came to office.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, and I am determined to prove, that we can extend even more the contribution of nongovernment organizations and all voluntary associations to our activities. We shall also ask for the participation of organized agencies which have not yet used their abilities to provide assistance to the Third World, such as the municipalities. In other words, we shall explore every avenue of co-operation because Governments alone will never be able to solve the problem of under-development.
We can however hope that concerted action by all sectors of industrialized societies will have a major impact on the tragic situation which still exists in the Third World.
We shall never forget that our major partners in the fight against under-development are those we want to help, and they should be able to become, with our assistance, the artisans of their own economic development.

It is also my belief, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time to take stock of our foreign aid programs. CIDA will be 20 years old soon. The last comprehensive review of development assistance programs was done in 1975. Since then, the world has not been sitting still. On the contrary, it has changed at a quickening pace.
I am convinced that it is high time we take a fresh look at the policies shaping our foreign aid program so we can maximize their efficiency. At the end of the last session the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations tabled its report. The Government will be responding shortly to its recommendations. The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs will also be submitting an important report on the international financial system and the difficult problems for developing countries concerning debt repayment. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade is presently conducting an extensive study of our foreign aid. I will of course give the fullest consideration to the conclusions of these parliamentary committees. It is also my intention to seek advice beyond the precincts of Parliament and to elicit the largest possible contribution to our reflections from the Canadian public.
This exercise must not be seen as just administrative housecleaning. It is our imperative duty in the light of human suffering to achieve the greatest possible efficiency in delivering aid.
October 23, 1986



During this Parliamentary session, Mr. Speaker, Canada will have an opportunity unique in its history to enhance its international influence.
Indeed, our country will successively host the Summit of francophone countries, the Summit of the Commonwealth and the Summit of industrialized countries.
If I may, I would like to speak further about the Francophone Summit where I had the honour of representing Canada with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in my capacity as Minister for External Relations.
I am indeed especially proud to remind this House that, had it not been for the historic vision and enlightened policies of our Prime Minister, this Summit would perhaps never have taken place.
As far as I am concerned, this is one of the best results of our initiatives to promote national reconciliation. Could anyone have imagined a few years ago that the Canadian and Quebec Governments would be able to organize jointly on our territory a meeting of the countries that have French as a common language, and that the First Ministers of Canada, Quebec and New Brunswick would agree on a harmonious Canadian participation in this new international forum?
The major role played by Canada at the first Francophone Summit last February in Paris is also the result of a judicious definition of our potential participation and of our expectations from this francophone forum. First of all, we want these meetings to provide an opportunity to exchange practical and profitable projects. For us, the Summit is not a dream come true. It is already a meeting of collaborators. We shall bring to it our share of precious knowledge and we expect to gain in return an enriching experience.

It is a happy coincidence that the meeting of the Commonwealth heads of state and government will also take place in Canada during the life of this Parliament. By hosting both the Francophone and Commonwealth Summits, Canada implicitly says something about the very special role it can play in today's world and tomorrow's. We are the only industrialized country that belongs to both of these important groups. Our recent strides toward national reconciliation are helping us to play a vigorous role in la Francophonie, and within the venerable Commonwealth we have recently shown new leadership, notably in the urgent matter of South Africa.
Canada's history owes a lot to France and England. How fitting it is that it is now recognized in the French-speaking and English-speaking countries of the world as a unique bridge between these two large families of nations.

As you see, Mr. Speaker, the coming year will be a great year for Canada on the international scene. I for one am very pleased that Canadians will have an opportunity, because of the three summits that will be held here, the Francophonie, the
The Address-Mrs. Landry
Commonwealth and the Industrialized Nations, to measure the full extent of this country's role within the world community.
I also welcome the coming opportunity to play host to our African friends, whether through the Francophonie or the Commonwealth meetings. As I said once again before the United Nations yesterday, our Government, after having responded positively to the critical situation in Africa last year, has no intention of reducing its help to that continent now that other subjects are making the headlines.
I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that I also want this new parliamentary session to give us an opportunity to refine our strategy for development assistance. So, to conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me assure this House that I will make every effort to develop the most effective assistance program possible and to conduct external relations that bring tangible results.
Canada's prestige is at stake, but more important still, millions of human beings in need are looking forward to it.


Mrs. Collins:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on her speech this afternoon. It touches many areas of real interest to me. I want to say how pleased I am with her announcement of special assistance for the Philippines. Having had the opportunity of visiting there earlier this year, I was certainly made very aware of the difficulties that country faces and how much they appreciated Canada's involvement and what the support our country can give them will mean to the new government of Mrs. Aquino. I know as well how it will be welcomed by the Filipino-Canadian community. Over the summer I had the opportunity of meeting with representatives of that community in Vancouver and they were really anxious to become involved and were eagerly looking forward to the announcement which the Minister made this week.
I want to come back to that in a moment, but I also want to say I was so pleased with the Minister's comments at the UN yesterday with respect to our involvement in Africa. Again having a special interest in that area, I am pleased to see that the Africa 2000 program is well under way. Of course, the third area is the focus on women and development. As I have had the opportunity of either travelling to some of the countries with which we are involved, or during the summer welcoming representatives from those countries at Expo, I have heard over and over again just how important that is. It is women in so many of the lesser-developed countries who are bearing the burden of poverty. If they are going to make advances in their economy, it is going to be so often the women who are going to do it. Whatever we can do to strengthen their role in these countries is vitally important.
With respect to Africa 2000, I still find that across the country there is a lack of understanding about what we are trying to do in Africa. I think it is important that there be some component of that program directed toward public education. I wonder if the Minister might comment on that and advise the House if there would be programs in this respect.

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mrs. Landry
As to the Filipino assistance program, can she advise the House how Filipino-Canadians can become involved in the new program and what might be the appropriate kinds of assistance they could provide and what the next steps are going to be in the development and delivery of the new assistance program for the Philippines?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the Hon. Member for her concern for the cause of development and also for her reference to the announcement I was pleased to make Monday in Toronto concerning the Philippines, for her concern for the Philippines community. I feel the Government's commitment was a gesture of support to Mrs. Aquino's new government, which has shown a positive commitment to her country's social and economic recovery. So the announcement we made was aimed at supporting Mrs. Aquino's policy.
The Canadian Philippine community was very pleased with our announcement. I told them that of course the program orientation was decided upon after a planning mission was sent to the Philippines in September, with a delegation made up of CIDA officials and representatives from the Philippine-Canadian community who met the Government, the NGO's and everyone concerned with the development of the Philippines. These people came back with certain priorities with which we will try to deal as quickly as possible.
We are conscious that at present the Philippines need some short-term assistance and we are therefore considering shortterm and eventually long-term programs. We rely greatly of course on the support and contribution of Canadian groups of Philippine origin. We told them that we will keep in contact with them, that they can apply to the organization, to CIDA and that we would be pleased to develop jointly with them, and of course with the Philippine authorities programs, which will meet our commitments to the Philippines.
Therefore, I am quite pleased to indicate to this House today that we greatly rely on the contribution of the Canadian community of Philippine origin.
My dear colleague's second concern was related, I believe, to the Africa 2000 program. Africa 2000 is a program which we announced last spring and which was an additional commitment of our Government to Africa. This was a $ 150-million commitment for a 5-year period and we have asked more specifically for the assistance of the NGO's. A slice of $75 million has been allocated to the non-governmental organizations which are to develop and submit to us programs designed in keeping with our commitments to the needs of Africa.
Also, there is a whole development assistance program to foster women's integration.
My hon. colleague has also indicated her interests in the community of women; I am pleased therefore to repeat that within the framework of the Africa 2000 program, we have allocated an envelope of $25 million for the integration of
women in the development. I should like to mention some of the commitments: $10 million to finance health-related projects; $2 million for the assistance program with the United Nations; $6 million for studies aimed at promoting university education among women. I think, therefore, that the Canadian Government has committed itself not only in words, but also in deeds by taking steps to favour the integration of women in the development.
Of course, you mentioned also how the program is and should be promoted throughout Canada. As I indicated a while ago, I am anxious, during my travelling from coast to coast, to inform the public about the Canadian International Development Agency. I refer to the various projects in which Canadians can participate, and I hope, through this initiative, to recruit new partners to help us develop our projects for Africa, in order to meet even more efficiently the urgent needs of Africans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allocated for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has the floor.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. Not long ago, on the afternoon of October 1, 1986, several experts used the expression "deja-vu" to describe the last Throne Speech. Personally, I feel that the term "rehashed" fits better. Why? Because the Prime Minister had delayed by as much as a whole month the opening of the session to give his new Ministers the time to make their contributions to the Throne Speech. Yet, we have been hearing the same platitudes as in November 1984, at the opening of the first session, when we heard the promises made during the election campaign of the preceding summer. Today, Mr. Speaker, we can rightfully conclude that the more it changes, the more it is the same.
Mr. Speaker, we find in this nice little booklet, the Speech from the Throne opening the second session of the 33rd Parliament, an item which is not altogether new. One should not forget the Blue Paper of November 5, 1984, dealing with a new direction for economic recovery. The time has come for us to assess this economic recovery the Government keeps harping about in its Throne Speeches. In assessing those results, I would like to quote an article by Alain Dubuc in the September 6, 1986 issue of La Presse. This is what he says appropriately of those two years of Conservative administration:
The same thing all over again. Economic growth: it is the best way of determining if the growth of the economy is adequate. Our economy grew by 3.3 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984, the last two years of the Liberal administration. In 1985, the growth rate slowed down to 4.5 per cent and should not exceed 3 per cent this year, as we are entering a slowdown phase. There has been no progress on that account.
This is Mr. Alain Dubuc, from La Presse, not me, speaking. And it is quite clear. In this economic renewal process, our

October 23, 1986

economic growth is not going forward, but backward. Obviously, there is no progress.
But there is more, Mr. Speaker. In the same assessment, in that article of September 6, 1986, Mr. Dubuc writes, and I quote:
Inflation: Price increases had already been slowed down to 4 per cent in the Summer of 1984 when the Liberals were defeated. And no progress has been recorded since. Dollar: Our currency was worth 77.14 US cents in August 1984. It is now worth only 72 cents, after falling below 70 cents in last February.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that presently it is below 72 cents, around 7116 cents.
Purchasing power: This is the measure of consumer prosperity. However, in 1985, while inflation increased by 4 per cent, salaries increased only by 3.5 per cent. The same trend seems to be prevailing this year. And while the purchasing power will therefore have decreased by 1 per cent, the tax burden imposed by the Federal Government will have increased by 23 per cent.
That is what the Conservative Government means by economic renewal, Mr. Speaker. Reducing the purchasing power of consumers.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has been boasting about massive investments since they took power. Let us see what Mr. Alain Dubuc says, and I quote:
Investments: Renewed confidence in businesses was going to be the key to the Conservative success. This excitement is usually reflected in the investments of the private sector.
Now they will increase by a mere 2.8 per cent this year, that is at a slower pace than the economy generally.
In the export field, Mr. Speaker, we know quite well that for several months our governments have been discussing free trade with the United States. And let me quote again from that report:
Exports: This other source of vitality for the Canadian economy, or foreign trade has also decreased. In 1984, our Canadian exports exceeded our imports by $20 billion. This year, that excess will be reduced to around $12 billion. As a result the balance of payment surplus which amounted to $2.5 billion two years ago could turn into a record deficit of $8 to $9 billion this year.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, the other very important factor of economic renewal in which the Conservative Government takes pride and for which it takes credit is job creation. Of course we have been told so many times in this House about the 500,000 jobs that have been created. That is the fact, and Mr. Dubuc indeed is not overlooking it. I quote him:
Job creation-This is where the Mulroney Government put its pride. From August 1984 to August 1986, 569 000 jobs have been created in Canada. However the figures seem to indicate this was done in one shot. Since the beginning of 1986, not one job has been created in Canada. There were 11,632,000 jobs in January; there are now 11,615,000, or 17,000 less than at the beginning of the year.
Mr. Speaker, that is the score, and I would like to add this to what Mr. Alain Dubuc stated on the matter of job creation, concerning the 569,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker-how could the Conservative Government create those 569,000 jobs? Mr. Speaker, the truth should be stated once and for all. How could they? We are all aware that before the Conservatives came to power, we Liberals had an employment program called Works Canada. It was a 52-week employment program. As a matter of course the Conservative Government abolished
The Address-Mrs. Landry
that program and created 26-week job creation programs. This means the same programs that used to create one job now created two. There are the figures. That is how they play with statistics, Mr. Speaker.
But in the end, after a year and a half, we see those programs no longer have the rollover needed, there are no new jobs created anymore. On the contrary, we have lost 17,000 during the first six months of 1986. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker.
And once again, on October 1st they come up with a speech on economic renewal. Mr. Speaker, I would not like to miss this opportunity, since this is Small Business Week in Canada. Last summer, I had the pleasure of travelling across the land, from Vancouver to Halifax, and meeting with people, businessmen and women who were concerned about small business development in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, during all that time, during those meetings, I was leading that Liberal task force on small businesses. People submitted that the time had come for the Government of whatever stripe, red, blue or green to stop the rhetoric on small business, to stop putting people to sleep with the suggestion that small business is the most wonderful thing in the world, and to start helping those who really need it.
I should like to tell Hon. Members how a Cornwall businessman defined small business when he appeared before our task force. I should like to quote him, if I may. This will take a few minutes, but I suggest we ought to reflect upon this definition of what is a real Canadian entrepreneur.
Today's small businessman is faced with overwhelming odds. He is faced with "Big Government" who legislate laws that govern every decision he makes and every action he takes. He has to know about labour laws, corporate laws, workmen's compensation laws, tax laws and I could go on and on. He is swamped by paper work, in order to satisfy the whims of every bureaucrat who administers and enforces these laws.
He also has to run his business, buy the products, wheel and deal prices, sell his product or service at a profit, meet ever increasing competition from larger big businesses, satisfy his bank manager, work long hours and all too often with very little left for himself. He is the head office, the bookkeeper, the buyer, the salesman. He is also on the front line, accessible to all, not only customers, but also the target of every charitable organization, sports club or service club who wish a sponsorship or a donation. Yet, you will find him coaching a minor hockey team, leading a charity drive, attending a service club or merchants' meeting and serving on a church or civic committee.
This is our average Canadian businessman or businesswoman and what are we doing for them today?

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne contains one paragraph about small business, just one, and I want to quote it so everybody will remember it:
My Ministers will introduce programs to promote small business and entrepreneurial values. Included will be measures to improve procurement procedures, to strengthen the unsolicited proposals program for small companies and entrepreneurs, to increase technology tranfer from government laboratories, and to develop new initiatives to promote entrepreneurship among youth.

October 23, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Elere we go again, Mr. Speaker, words, more words, nothing but words! What a beautiful speech! But the Progressive Conservatives have been in office for two years now, so when are they going to start practicing what they preach? Hopefully they will not tell me that the capital gains tax exemption was meant for small business. It is not quite true, and statistics will bear me out, Mr. Speaker. It is happening in major cities, nothing but real estate speculation. If you are on the market for a house, the price has almost doubled. Why? Because of the capital tax exemption. How many jobs has this created? How many times did we point this out in the House?
Now, they are bragging about another pension reform involving the investment of pension funds in small business. Yet, at the same time, they announce that businessmen cannot invest their pension fund in their own business. Mr. Speaker, where is the logic in that? I have just given a definition of what is a small businessman in Canada. How could a municipal pension fund, administered by a board of directors, be invested in a convenience store when no control structure has been provided? That fund is the businessman. When he is gone, there is no business.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if he were allowed to use his pension fund, he could lower his bank loan, pay less interest and therefore expand and enlarge his business which would be less encumbered. But no. That request was made to the Minister of Finance on a number of times. He refuses because he fears that someone might take advantage of the situation and starts playing around. But how? He fears small business which creates the majority of jobs, and this was acknowledged yesterday in the Auditor General's report-actually it was just a press release Mr. Speaker, where it said: 'A tax credit of 225 millions dollars granted by Revenue Canada'. This means, Mr. Speaker, that through the Income Tax Act, tax credits are made legal. And they worry about the fact that small businessmen might invest their pension fund in their own business to create jobs. They refuse, they do not trust these businessmen; who knows they might try to play around with their income tax. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. It indicates that the Government does not trust Canadian men and women who are working an average of 16 or 18 hours a day on their business to earn a living, while paying out to large corporations millions of dollars in subsidies. Those are the facts. That is the economic recovery the Progressive Conservative Party has been talking about.
When I travelled this past summer with the Liberal task force on small businesses throughout Canada, I received a great many recommendations. I can assure the House that by the end of November, we will have prepared a preliminary report on this issue, contrary to this Government. We should remember that, Mr. Speaker. In January or February 1985, or in the spring of 1985, the previous Minister of State for Small Businesses announced a consultation from coast to coast. He travelled everywhere in this country to learn, because nowadays, we must pay our Ministers for them to learn. A Minister
must be well educated and well prepared to administer his Department and suggest policies and programs to help the constituency of his Department. But for the past two years, Ministers have been learning. They have been learning every day. They set up commissions and task forces. As I was saying, he was travelling from coast to coast with an army of his officials, paid with taxpayers money, to find out what was the problem with small businesses and what would be the solution before suggesting policies. This is October, 1986. We have not yet received a report, preliminary, final or otherwise, on this ministerial task force, Mr. Speaker.
As for us, we did it without any budget nor public servant. We toured the country on our own money, and in late November we will publish a report and will put forward to Canadians some policies for small businesses.
That's the difference, Mr. Speaker, between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Conservatives, after 20 years in opposition, came to power without any program, without any knowledge, without any vision, nothing, Mr. Speaker. And today Canadians are suffering the consequences. Some wonder why Canadians have lost confidence in this Government; the answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. This Governement has no vision. It does not know where to go, as was evidenced today by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). For two years now he has been changing his mind with the weather, considering a value added tax, or a transfer tax, or a tax reform, or increasing personal income tax and reducing corporate tax. Today he is proposing to increase corporate tax and reduce personal income tax. Now, Mr. Speaker, when will that nonsense stop? How much must Canadians pay for that nonsense from this Conservative Governement?
You are indicating that my time is up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 66, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss	Nicholson)-Banks and Banking-Takeover	of
Continental Bank, (b) Repayment of Bank of Canada advances; the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner)-Indian Affairs-Departmental administration- Request for reform, (b) Request for independent inquiry; and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)- Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Reduction of Francophone



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


[Stage Direction]
October 23, 1986
[Stage Direction]
employees, (b) Policy relating to official languages-Government position.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this oppportunity to speak today. Many Members will recognize that although the election is some two years past, when we were chosen to lead the country toward the changes it needs, Ministers of the Crown have few occasions to express themselves in debate in the House. I found myself in that position as Minister of State for Mines, so it is with a great deal of pleasure and anticipation that I share a few thoughts with Hon. Members today.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations and sincere best wishes to you and your elected and appointed colleagues who together serve the House of Commons. Our election process at the beginning of this second session of Canada's Thirty-third Parliament was, for all who participated awkward and arduous, but in its final result a most democratically successful and satisfying exercise of Member power. Let us all hope that Member power, that admirable, even essential, goal of the parliamentary reform process, initiated by the Government, will be reinforced by our future actions and decisions together.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) and the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard) for their exemplary contribution at the onset of this Throne Speech debate. They grasped and stressed the positive and constructive elements of our Progressive Conservative government's political program. Their example and the quality of their speeches did serve well those who followed. But finally it was the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, who once again reminded us that our mission, our main mandate, is to introduce and maintain a responsible and stable system of government in order to ensure confidence in ourselves and in the future of our great country.
Areas of progress up till now are not difficult to enumerate and record. It has been done by many others. But that is not enough. We have to show our intentions to follow through, to reduce crippling deficits and ensuing interest rates in order to secure investments and jobs. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that we are committed to keep the promises we made.
The Address-Mr. Layton

I am particularly proud to participate in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne debate because it gives me an opportunity to share some thoughts and, perhaps, feelings about my riding of Lachine with its key role in the historic and economic development of Canada, and its key role today in the economic renewal of the Montreal region. The federal riding of Lachine, which I am proud to represent, is comprised of the four cities which developed along Lac Saint-Louis to the southwest of Montreal. These cities are Beacons-field, Pointe-Claire, Dorval and the southwest section of Lachine. Not known to many, other than the 57 families who, along with my own, live there for six to seven months of the year, Lachine riding also includes the car-free and carefree municipality of the Island of Dorval.

Historically, Lachine was established as a relay post for the celebrated voyageurs, a trading station where those travelling in canoes and those travelling in larger boats could barter wares for pelts and furs. Lachine is where I believe our trade originated without all the intricacies of today. In spite of the changes in means of transportation, communications and technology since the 17th century, the riding of Lachine, with its highways, its railways and its Dorval Airport, still remains the relay point between the economic centre of Montreal and the rest of Canada.

Thus I would like to address very briefly some of the concerns raised by the electors in my riding of Lachine. My neighbours in these lakeshore communities voted overwhelmingly for change in September of 1984. They shared, with a majority of Canadians, the concern that continuing down the road of unlimited government spending would lead to higher inflation and debts that could never be sustained let alone repaid. I believe they support the direction that our Government has taken, but are disappointed that progress is slow and at times intermittent. It would be their wish that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would, in nautical terms, "stay the course" so that a stable, fair and promising future would be the inheritance of all Canadians.
Paralleling this concern for fiscal responsibility and responsible management in Government, there is a frequently raised concern for equity and simplicity in the tax system. My constituents will welcome tax reform as it was announced in this House this morning by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with its encouragement for and protection of personal savings. Many have expressed disappointment with current regulations that tax and restrict the use of savings and compromise those who accept early retirement packages leaving their long-held jobs open to younger workers.
The business leaders of my constituency warmly support the steps taken by the Government to encourage initiative and

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Layton
reward success. However, they are looking for equal opportunity and uncomplicated access to government Supply and Services contracts and to internationally competitive regulations on research investments and trade activities. They ask simply for the level playing field, that often obscured goal of our trade negotiations, and of course for a chance to get into the game.
My community has been home to many for most of their lives. Families have been raised, schools and churches have been built. Most of my neighbours are looking to the Government to maintain conditions that permit them to continue to live where they are. In recent years, heavy industries located in the east end of the Lachine riding have been particularly affected by the international economic slowdown and recession. Many large companies have either closed down or cut back their operations with the result that jobs and job opportunities have been greatly reduced. One group which has been particularly hard hit by these changes is that consisting of managers and executives over the age of 45 who have, in many cases, been released after many years of service and are unable to find other employment. However, with the enlightened leadership that has characterized the public administration of our municipalities over the years, other interests including the modern technologies of biochemistry, electronics and aerospace have been encouraged to establish and develop operations in our area with its access to transportation, to highly trained human resources and to excellent living conditions. These are the key factors in executive decisions.
Lake St. Louis is a lovely natural playground. However, the absence until recently of industrial and municipal waste treatment systems has cast a cloud of uncertainty on its use for bathing and other aquatic sports like water-skiing and windsurfing. Now, with the combined efforts of all concerned- and I am glad the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is with us today-and with the putting in operation of the vast Montreal urban community sewage collection system, it is hoped and expected that this beautiful waterfront with parks and beaches will be accessible and totally safe to one and all. A population of close to two million Canadians will be able to enjoy it. I believe that all Governments share in the responsibility to develop and preserve these precious natural resources.

And more generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, city residents in my riding belong to the Montreal urban community. We are deeply worried about what is happening in Montreal. For many various reasons, our region did not share in the economic renewal experienced by other areas in 1984 and 1985. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the eastern part of the region, but confronted to that problem, the Prime Minister established ten months ago a ministerial committee of which I was a member, under the leadership of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). Its terms of reference were to study the situation and bring forward long-term solutions to ensure Montreal its rightful place in the future.
To help us, our ministerial committee asked a few Montrealers, among the leaders or most informed or experienced people in various fields, to form an advisory committee.
After studying the preliminary report, and a few months ago, the orientation report, the ministerial committee is now preparing specific and practical recommendations to be implemented by the government. Some have already been announced, including the establishment in Montreal of an international banking centre and a high technology centre for aviation and aerospace industry, bio-technology, telecommunications, transportation and engineering services.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if those great orientation projects are pursued Montreal will rank among the firsts as an economic and cultural activity centre. In fact, high technology that is tied to the CF-18 maintenance contract is a very important part of those projects and I hope all ministers responsible for the final decision in that matter will keep it in mind.

Our concerns for the future of Montreal as an economic force in Quebec and as a cultural development centre for Canada find expression also in the arguments being advanced to resolve the problem of the two airports in Montreal. When forecasts of passenger and air-freight traffic indicated in the 1960s that the traffic would soon surpass the ultimate capacity of Montreal's airport at Dorval, the Government of the day decided on a site considerably removed from the centre of the city. Alternative sites near Drummondville to better serve central and eastern Quebec and near Vaudreuil to better serve Ottawa, eastern Ontario and the northern United States were set aside, according to reports, because the chosen site at Mirabel had a lower incidence of fog. Fog was what surrounded and continues to surround the Grits.
Be that as it may, the markets never developed and the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in land acquisition, buildings and infrastructure at Mirabel have never been fully utilized. Having inherited this problem after years of inaction, the Government undertook to resolve the issue first with the farmers whose land had been unnecessarily expropriated. This past year, the Government has completed extensive studies on the best way to serve the air travel market in the Montreal region.
Convenience, cost, access, time and interconnection opportunities are all factors considered by the travelling public. Tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments will be directly affected by the decision on the Montreal airports when it is taken.
The Government has received opinions from the airlines, the business community and the provincial and municipal administrations directly and indirectly affected. I am confident that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and all responsible will adopt a solution that best responds to these interests and that Dorval airport in the riding of Lachine will continue
October 23, 1986

its 300-year-old role as the gateway from Montreal to North America.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with a brief comment on the Constitution and the negotiations between the federal government, the signatory provinces and the nice province of Quebec.
At the outset, I would like to state that most Quebecers are first and foremost Canadians, that we are proud to be Canadians and ready to play our part and accept our share of responsibilities as citizens of this great and beautiful land.
Canada without the province of Quebec is unthinkable! It is obvious that the signing of an agreement with the Quebec government must be an important and urgent priority of our government. I hope as well that our concerted efforts will bring about a fair and lasting success.
One particularly delicate element of the constitutional negotiations will be the freedom of all Canadians to live and work together in both of Canada's official languages. Great progress has been made in developing linguistic skills among Canadians, particularly those attending schools in the last 10 or 15 years. Job opportunities in our governments, institutions and business concerns should be equalized as must access to government services and information in either language. I hope that during negotiations the necessary assurances will be found to allow the natural goodwill of Canadians to be applied to the language issues everywhere in Canada. Canada deserves our best effort. Let us be sure we give it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member. Since the election of his Government in 1984 we have seen the closing up or the sharp reduction in activities of a number of companies which operated in basic industries in the east end of Montreal. I am not saying that they closed up or cut back because of the Government, but this is in fact what happened.
For many years, for generations, the Canadian National Railway operated shops in the City of Moncton, in his City of Montreal and in my City of Winnipeg. Now the CNR has already made arrangements to close the shops in Moncton, turning over the facilities to Canadian General Electric. About 700 workers who have worked for years at the Moncton shops will be out of work. The CNR has announced that it proposes to close up its railway shops in Montreal. If they continue to operate, they will simply operate by way of contract work for other companies.
We heard a message from the Hon. Member about the great things that the present Government is doing for Montreal and Quebec. What advice would the Hon. Member give to those
The Address-Mr. Layton
workers who have worked for so many years in the Point St. Charles shops of the CNR and who are facing unemployment in the very near future?


Robert E.J. Layton: I am happy to have the comment and also the question from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). It is true that Winnipeg, Montreal, and Moncton were the principal centres where the railways chose to build their original service and fabrication centres. It is also true that the railway systems of those days have gone through great changes, not only in the service that they render but also in the equipment that they use to render that service. There has been considerable effort made to rationalize the cost of maintaining our railroad systems. Without it, the railroads would not have the capacity to compete with the other modes of transport. Highway trucking services are very flexible. There is a great deal of competition in rates and service in the market. I am a believer that the railways are a basic form of transport for Canadians and our goods. VIA Rail, CN, and CP organizations are going through a process to create and maintain that degree and quality of maintenance in their centres, and to compete not only nationally but also internationally, as so much of our transport now travels back and forth across the border. The Montreal community had been selected as one of the major service centres on our short term service type role for the VIA operations. Many of these decisions are under review.
As a Montrealer, but more particularly as the Member for Lachine, which is a west end component of that great Montreal region, let me say that we have suffered from the loss of heavy industry jobs at Dominion Bridge, Dominion Engineering and Allis-Chalmers. These jobs are the ones being replaced by a capacity which uses a lot more of our trained minds.
During the last weeks of summer, I had the privilege of visiting a number of very advanced technological centres in the west end of Montreal. I also share with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr.Cadieux) a great interest in the biotechnologies. This has become one of the major future industries for Canada, and certainly for the region of Montreal. We look forward to this continuing to be an opportunity for those trained minds that we all know the country will depend on to find an outlet for their skills.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton) on what was his maiden speech. During that speech he stressed the great necessity for everyone and every province to function in both of Canada's official languages. I would like to commend the Hon. Member further for his enviable command of both of Canada's official languages.
His riding of Lachine and my riding of Scarborough East have many similarities. Both ridings are suburbs. My hon. friend has Lac Saint-Louis to the south of his riding, and I have Lake Ontario to the south of my riding. Scarborough East does not have the heavy industry that the riding of

October 23, 1986
The Address-Ms. McDonald
Lachine has, however, I would hazard a guess that both ridings have comparable problems.
My question to the Hon. Member for Lachine is, does he have the feeling that perhaps these comparable problems will be solved by comparable solutions, guided by the direction that this Government seems to be taking right now?
[ Translation]


Robert E.J. Layton: I extend my sincere thanks to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks). It is a privilege for everyone to be able to speak in both languages and I have found, over the last two years that we have all worked together, that practice is the sure way to master a second language.

I am very happy to have the comments of my colleague from Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks). If we share one thing in common with regard to the initiatives of this Government, it is that we are back to having confidence in our own capability to invest and have a success. I have lived through, with all of my colleagues in the House, all of those cycles where there was a very real need or concern that this might not be the right time to take a dive, move ahead, take a chance, invest. But I do not find that in the community I am part of now. There seems to be more initiative, more readiness to succeed and to achieve. It is evident in our young people, but it is also even coming back to those of us of a third age.


David Orlikow: I would like to come back to the comment from the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton). 1 had used as an illustration the difficulties that workers in their forties and fifties were facing because of new technologies or cutbacks. The Hon. Member added several other companies such as Dominion Bridge, Allis-Chalmers, and so on. In CN and CP, for example, there are workers for whom working for the railway was a way of life. Very often a grandfather of a worker first started working for the railway. Many of the workers who are now losing their jobs are in the age group from 45 years to 55 years and have worked for the company for anywhere from 20 years to 30 years.
What advice can the Hon. Member give such workers? What retraining is possible? What are their chances at obtaining jobs, when they are in that age group and with their background and experience, in new highly technological industries such as biotechnology?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). There is a very special need for concern on the part of all of us for those people he identified as having a special problem as a result of fast changes. People between the ages of 45 and 55 who suddenly find themselves out of work face a very real and desperate problem.
I like the self-initiative which has been demonstrated by a number of groups in this area, I believe the Government has an opportunity to follow and support the initiative being taken by
these self-help groups. One such group has been particularly active in the west end of Montreal Island, Executives Available. They maintain themselves without government aid. I am somewhat disappointed that some of our retraining programs do not recognize these special opportunities to support those initiatives.
A little earlier this afternoon I listened to the Minister responsible for external aid. CIDA is constantly looking for new ways to be more efficient in transferring our technology and support to developing nations. One such way is through the use of NGOs. CIDA has found out that NGOs are becoming the most efficient way of getting our aid and support across. I feel the same applies to the senior workers which the Hon. Member brought to our attention.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne which we are considering today represents the Speech from the Throne at mid-term of the Conservative Government. It has been in office for two years. Of course the Throne Speech reveals a certain amount of tiredness. It seems that the Government has run out of steam. It is in drift right now.
Canadians hoped to see concrete measures for action, especially in the area of job creation. They were hoping to see some very specific measures for tax reform, equality for women, cultural policy, and environmental protection, all of which are very important public policy questions. However, we only see pretty vague statements. As I said, there is drift. There is no vision in the Speech from the Throne.
There are high-sounding phrases. There is talk about national reconciliation, economic renewal, and social justice. Who could disagree with these as objectives? However, there is precious little to achieve any of them. There is talk about families, and the importance of the family is recognized in the words. However, this is the Government which cut the family allowance and is cutting the child tax credit. How can we believe that it has the interest of Canadian families at heart?
I note that action was promised for victims of child sexual abuse, child prostitution, and violent pornography against women and children. It is about time. These issues have become far worse in recent years. There were unanimous recommendations on child prostitution as long ago as 1983 by the justice committee. The Badgley Commission made extensive recommendations in the area of child sexual abuse, including child prostitution and child pornography. These recommendations have been available since the summer of 1984, and we have not had action on them.
The Throne Speech mentioned a campaign against illicit drugs, but it failed to mention that the great killer drugs are alcohol, which kills 12,000 Canadians per year, and tobacco, which kills 35,000 Canadians per year. These are the licit drugs, and they create a far worse problem in terms of health, damage, loss, and destruction of families. They are not glamorous enough for the Government. It would rather follow
October 23, 1986

Ronald Reagan and go after the illicit drugs which certainly pose problems. There is no doubt about that, but they are not remotely on the scale of the illness, death, and harm caused by other drugs. The Government's priorities are wrong. It is going after issues which it thinks will give it some credibility with the public, but they are not the issues that really count.
The Government talks about economic renewal, but there is very little about job creation in the Speech from the Throne. There is a vague statement about investor and consumer confidence. The Government hopes that somehow this will mysteriously develop and be the solution to the problem of continuing high structural unemployment. Youth was scarcely mentioned although the unemployment rate among young people is even higher than the rate among older Canadians. The educational opportunities of young people have been cut back by the Government in its cuts to Established Programs Financing for post-secondary universities and colleges. These were cut last spring, yet the Government makes vague promises to youth.
I note the promise of the establishment of a new agency to promote economic opportunity in Atlantic Canada. Certainly job creation is needed in Atlantic Canada, but I question the establishment of a new agency. We already have a government Department, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Will we now have two? Will they send memos to each other? Will the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion get out of job development in Atlantic Canada? Certainly these questions are not addressed in the Speech from the Throne. One reason the Government is not very specific about job creation is that it does not have a good idea. It is very misguided on the subject.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had a prison plan for an area where it was not needed. He moved it into his riding where it certainly is not needed, at an expense of more than $60 million. He justifies it on the grounds of job creation. If he wanted job creation, he should have considered that misguided project against other possible ones which would do a better job at creating good productive employment, long-term jobs. We simply do not see that in the Speech from the Throne. Instead we see very opportunistic schemes being used for political purposes which do not serve the public very well in terms of getting the unemployed back to work.
I was pleased to see the down playing of free trade in the Speech from the Throne. In fact the Government sounds almost like the NDP in how it is now treating free trade. It talks about trade with all parts of the world. It especially mentioned the Pacific Rim, an area in which we can certainly expect to expand our trade. It talks about mutually advantageous trade with the United States instead of a free trade agreement which would probably lose us a lot of jobs and certainly risk our political and cultural sovereignty. Whether the Government has stepped backward for the right motives or the wrong ones, whether it has just been reading the poles, or whether it has been convinced that the interests of Canadians will not be well served, I do not know. However I am pleased
The Address-Ms. McDonald
to see this more cautious approach to free trade. It was never a panacea for our economic ills. I am glad to see it not being touted quite as enthusiastically in the Speech from the Throne as it was in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne refers to national reconciliation, social justice and economic renewal. Yet, nothing impressive is planned to meet these objectives, however worthy they may be. There is even a step back in the Government policy on national reconciliation. The previous Speech from the Throne was stronger in this regard. The latest Throne Speech recognizes that the Charter of Rights and Freedom and the Canadian Constitution remain incomplete without the assent of Quebec. That is the least that can be said. What the Government undertakes is vague and weak, and I quote:
Should there appear reasonable prospects for agreement, formal negotiations will proceed in the expectation that Quebec will take its rightful place as a full partner in the Canadian Constitution.
That is very little. We have to wait for reasonable prospects, but where will they come from? We should instead be creating prospects for an agreement.
In relation with social justice, the Government talks about building a modern, tolerant and caring nation in which its citizens are secure and prosperous. This is obviously a wonderful thought. However, what has this Government done? The Conservative Government was the one that attempted to reduce old age security pensions through deindexation.
This is the Government that deindexed family allowances and that now wants to deindex the child tax credit. This is the Government that increased the sales tax for ordinary families in Canada.
What the Speech from the Throne says is not reassuring, and I quote:
Canadians would want their governments to give the highest priority in social policy to those who are in greatest need.
We agree up to a point. However, I am afraid that there is another message that can be found in the Speech from the Throne: that there will be an attack on universal social programs. Unfortunately, this is an objective of this Government, even though the Conservatives promised during the electoral campaign not to touch universal programs. They started doing so. Fortunately, under the pressure of Canadian men and women all over the country, the Government had to back down with respect to old age security pensions. Unfortunately, in spite of the efforts of women's groups, churches, unions, citizens all over the place, the pressure was not enough and the Government deindexed family allowances.
We in the NDP believe that we need universal programs. They should be the cornerstone of our system. Non universal programs are also most important, but we should not rely solely on those programs to ensure a decent living for Canadian families.

October 23, 1986
The Address-Ms. McDonald
Canadians want to see action on jobs. They want to see action on fair taxes, but we do not get action in this Speech from the Throne. The speech has high sounding phrases but we do not see specific promises that Canadians would like to have heard, such as, the Government is not going to appoint its friends to high places anymore. That kind of promise for real highness in action we do not see in the Speech from the Throne. There is rhetoric on tax reform, but I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, the shift to individual taxes from corporate taxes is continuing. We know that 79,000 corporations made a profit in Canada in 1985 but did not pay a dime in tax. There is nothing about that. There is nothing about seriously closing tax loopholes. We need specific action. Instead we have only a vague statement of achieving a better equilibrium between income tax and "other forms" of tax. What other forms, Mr. Speaker-sales taxes, excise taxes or corporate taxes?

We have to realize that tax loopholes are the main reason for the present deficit. If corporations had paid their fair share of taxes, we would have had sufficient funds for government spending. It is therefore vitally important to plug those loopholes if we want to come to grips with the accrued deficit.
The Speech from the Throne mentioned a reduction in the deficit. We should be aware, however, that it is only a reduction in the rate of growth of that deficit. It is not an absolute reduction. Our deficit has increased more under the present Government than under the previous one.
The Speech from the Throne proposes a forum on postsecondary education. No one can find fault with such an initiative, but we have to say that it is not good enough. Last spring, this same Government slashed the budgets of postsecondary education without consulting the provinces. The cuts made in post-secondary education budgets on that occasion are just the opposite of what the Conservatives promised during the election campaign when they pledged to increase the budgets of post-secondary education. Provinces and universities and colleges are expecting this Government to roll back its unilaterally imposed reductions.
There is at least one good thing for which I could congratulate the Government, the priority given to science and technology in the Speech from the Throne. That speech announced the appointment of a national advisory board for industrial technology, to be chaired by the Prime Minister himself.
The Speech from the Throne also mentions a billion dollars for scientific research. However, contrary to what the Speech says, it is not new money, but the same already announced in the spring, in a program condemned by scientists themselves as being impractical. This program to assist universities has- according to scientists, that I am inclined to believe-very
little chance of success. It requires private enterprise to provide funds to universities. However, there are no incentives for the companies to do so.

I would like to add that this encouragement of research is only in the field of the natural sciences and it excludes completely the social sciences and the humanities. They are part of Canada, an important part of the universities and colleges and an important part of Canadian life. They have been neglected in this Speech from the Throne.

This Speech from the Throne gave more space and more interest than usual to cultural matters, and this is also to the credit of the Government. It promises to strengthen our cultural institutions, and especially the broadcasting system. It makes a commitment to Canadian cultural values. But, this costs money. It is not possible to broadcast more Canadian programs without increasing the budget of the CBC. The Caplan-Sauvageau report is excellent and full of concrete recommandations to promote Canadian programmming. But, again, implementing these recommandations would cost money. The private sector has its own responsibilities, but we, in Parliament, are responsible for the CBC. We will have to provide more money if we want to achieve this goal of more Canadian programming.

This speech from the Throne includes some measures that are old, some that are new, some that are borrowed, some that are recycled-


Mr. Friesen:: And they are all blue.


Lynn McDonald: Some of them are blue, indeed. Some of this Speech distinctly gave me that impression as I sat listening to it. Some measures represent reversals. I am pleased to see some of those that go backwards because they should not have been entered into in the first place.
When we add together all of these different kinds of measures in the Speech from the Throne, what do we get, Mr. Speaker? We have a speech with a lot of rhetoric, a lot of Tory objectives for the most part, and even where there is something questionable in the Speech from the Throne, such as, what I think is a veiled attack on the universal programs, it is very gently and civily put. It is not a direct attack on the social programs but a statement that something else should be done instead. This is a very civil Speech from the Throne. Nonetheless, it is not a good Speech from the Throne. It is not an effective Speech from the Throne. There are not enough concrete measures. It is not specific enough. There is no action in the Speech from the Throne. There is a false diagnosis of our problems and so there are false solutions to those problems.
October 23, 1986


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


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned the problem of smoking and alcohol and I share her concerns, as she knows. I wonder what she would specifically propose that the Government do about the heroin problem which is so severe in the province in which she was born, British Columbia, and about the question of other illegal drugs. What specifically would she like to see the Government do concerning an industry which, as she knows, amounts to $9 billion or $10 billion a year in illegal sales to Canadians, particularly young people.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. It is a subject on which I used to do some work. I was a research associate for the inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs some years ago and certainly the heroin question was very important. At that time there was considerable debate and it is ongoing. There are no answers with unanimous support from scientists or practitioners who work in this area. Methadone maintenance was certainly the fashionable solution at that time. It has had some success in Britain and it has certainly had some effect in cutting down on the black market. I do not know how appropriate a solution it is for Canada. There has also been the problem of that drug finding its way on to the streets. It is then perhaps the substitution of a less serious problem for a more serious problem, but it is not a solution in and of itself.
I would just say that we need to look at this question in a very broad context. Studies done for the Le Dain Commission showed, and they continue to be borne out, that the drug culture goes past legal and illegal boundaries. Anyone who uses one drug is more likely to use another drug. The more drugs one uses, even if they are legal drugs, even including tea or coffee, the more likely one is to use other drugs. That is not to say that people necessarily move all the way up the scale, but there is something of a drug culture and when people get into it and drugs become a solution for what is probably a human problem, then people are more likely to seek that out in other ways. I think we have to attack the idea that there is a chemical solution to human problems, and that is the way I would go after it.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member with considerable care. I suppose it is inevitable that a member of the Opposition, after a Throne Speech is brought down, would attack it for being general and vague and pious and platitudinous, lacking in specifics and lacking in details. That is the formula response from an opposition Party. I suppose if the truth be known, when this Party was in Opposition we trotted out the same formula rhetoric.
The Address-Ms. McDonald


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We remember it.


Thomas Michael McMillan: That does not make it any more valid and its repetition this afternoon does not add any veracity to it.
I wonder if the Hon. Member appreciates what a Throne Speech is. It is not legislation. It is not a Budget. It is not an economic statement. It is an indication from the Government, through the voice of the Crown, of the path the Government intends to follow. It is not, to use the metaphore, a detailed road map.
She will know, since she read the Throne Speech carefully, that in the environmental field there were several iniatives which go well beyond the platitudinous. There was a firm commitment to bring in early, as a government-wide priority, a new Environmental Protection Act which will focus on toxic chemicals. Earlier this week in Ottawa I released some of the details of that Act, and before very long, in Parliament and outside, I will be sharing with the House and the public at large the legislation itself in draft form as a consultative tool.
The Throne Speech also makes a commitment to bring in the first major set of reforms to the National Parks Act since it was devised in 1930, some 56 years ago. That is a firm commitment, not just piety and not just platitudes.
I do not think the Hon. Member would have expected the Throne Speech to give chapter and verse about the Environmental Protection Act or the National Parks amendments, otherwise we would still be sitting in the Senate Chamber listening to Her Excellency reading the document. In so many areas touched upon in the Throne Speech we indicated where we are going and how we intend to get there, but obviously there was not room in such an institution as the Throne Speech to dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.
I am just wondering if the Hon. Member is appreciative of what a Throne Speech is. She indicated, I am sure unintentionally, that she had another vision of the institution than that which I have just described.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that I had another vision, although I do in fact have one. I said I thought this was a Throne Speech without vision. Where it deals with the environment, I would commend the Minister. I think there are relatively concrete, relatively specific measures in the Throne Speech. The Minister will also know that in the time allotted to a Member, apart from the first three speakers, that being 20 minutes, it is not possible to deal with every aspect of the speech. The part dealing with the environment is one of the better parts of the speech. It takes us further from where we are now.
As to how specific the Speech from the Throne should be, that is a question of degree. Obviously it cannot include a detailed analysis of proposed legislation. No one would suggest that. I was simply expressing a disappointment that it was not more precise in stating what measures would be taken. I was disappointed that quite a bit of space was given to what I would call rhetoric. There were nice sounding phrases but no

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Ravis
real content whatsoever. A Speech from the Throne cannot be highly detailed, but I think in the time constraints that the Governor General has in that formal situation it would have been possible to put more content into that speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the Elouse for the first time not only on the Throne Speech but in this new session. I want to congratulate you on your reappointment as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. It is nice to see you back in the Chair.
I want to focus on the theme of science and technology as it relates to the Throne Speech. The riding I represent is a thriving technological community as well as having one of the leading educational and research institutions in North America, the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon. I am delighted that this Government has demonstrated once again through a strong commitment that this issue is a priority. Having said that, I would like to commend the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) for his superb efforts in staying the course and fighting for scarce financial resources around the cabinet table.
I would first like to talk about the high technology community since that is an industrial sector which has had considerable impact on Saskatoon and whose success has been recognized in the Speech from the Throne. In Saskatchewan there is a clear recognition that industry is the driving force which pulls technology out of the labratory and launches it into the market-place. That is probably best demonstrated by the University of Saskatchewan and the private sector in Saskatoon which have been at the game of technology transfer now for probably 15 to 20 years, and I will expand on that in a few moments.
The City of Saskatoon, and my province in general, are well known for their creative and innovative entrepreneurs. To date, there are 164 high technology companies in Saskatchewan, which is an increase of 40 firms since 1982. There are over 90 technology firms in Saskatoon alone. This new development means the creation of hundreds of jobs. Saskatchewan technology firms have expanded their own sales substantially. For example, Develcon Electronics had $5 million worth of sales to NASA in one year and $4 million in sales to Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. SED Systems, which grew out of the University of Saskatchewan, had S19 million in sales of earth stations to Brazil. It had $26 million in sales on the Canadian Frigate Program. SCI-TEC, another company, had sales to Germany, India and the United Kingdom. Northern Telecom has its world fibre optics production and sales operation in Saskatoon, marketing that unique technology around the globe.
These people put new ideas to work, turn advanced technology into new products or processes and convert these into wealth through aggressive selling in very competitive markets. This can be done in an area of high cost. There is a great deal of financial risk in building an advanced technology business, but risk is what free enterprise is all about. The Government of Saskatchewan is a supportive partner of such entrepreneurs and shares in the financial risk of such ventures. That partnership between business and Government has rapidly made my province one of this continent's most attractive, advanced technology locations for innovators and investors.
Perhaps some people are wondering why I am not talking about our wheat and potash in Saskatchewan. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that things have changed in our province, thanks to some good leadership from Grant Devine's Government and thanks to a lot of people at the University of Saskatchewan and entrepreneurs who saw the challenge and certainly accepted it.
Communication is the key to implementing this partnership, especially in federal-provincial relations. For example, the new technology steering committee is responsible for the over-all co-operation of science and technology activities in Saskatchewan by the federal and provincial Governments. This is a positive enforcement that federal and provincial growth can be achieved by working together. I look forward to working with the re-elected Government of Grant Devine in the Province of Saskatchewan in the next four to five years. This committee was instrumental in co-ordinating and promoting funding decisions for research and infrastructure such as the CadCam Centre at the Saskatchewan Research Council, a proposed potash research centre, a microelectronics centre and others. Under the auspices of the committee, science and technology and DRIE have worked together to develop the ERDA subagreement on advanced technology which was signed in 1984. Again, this was the first one in Canada. The agreement will deliver $33.2 million over five years to accelerate the growth of Saskatchwan's advanced technology industries. Indeed, this is support to industrial and technological development and diversification in the west. It is an excellent vehicle for growth and development in the field of science and technology.
A new research infrastructure has been established to support advanced technology development in Saskatchewan through federal and provincial funding. Let me name a few key achievements. There is the Canadian Centre of Instrumentation which has allocated $1 million over the next five years to the Saskatchewan Research Council. The National Plant Biotechnology Centre recently opened a capital project of $6 million, with $2.4 million of operating funding. This is located in Saskatoon and is the only centre in the country that is doing research in the area of agricultural biotechnology which probably holds some of the new technology that will lead us into diversification of our current wheat and barley crops. There is the western Centre of Toxicology, with a $2 million capital expansion at the University of Saskatchewan. There is
October 23, 1986

the Linear Accelerator Laboratory expansion at the University of Saskatchewan for just under $6 million. There is the National Centre of Hydrology which I had the pleasure of opening on behalf of the Minister just a matter of weeks ago. This is a $17 million facility that was built on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. Many exciting things are happening in this area thanks to the co-operative efforts of this Government and the Province of Saskatchewan.
For more years than I can imagine, businessmen have continued to look, not to the provinces but to Ottawa for leadership in science and technology development, and for support in creating an environment that is conducive to success in R and D. Deaf ears were turned to such enterprises prior to September, 1984 but, as the Speech from the Throne confirms, now Canada has a Government and a Prime Minister committed to scientific and technological development.
In addition, the Government supports science and technology through activities such as tax incentives for industrial research and development amounting to some $500 million annually, federal-provincial sub-agreements on science and technology amounting to $100 million over the next five years, and other sub-agreements with science and technology content amounting to $327 million over the next few years.
The Conservative Government used its common sense when it eliminated the Scientific Research Tax Credit in the May, 1985 Budget. Indeed, the Liberals introduced the SRTC in 1973 to encourage scientific research. It proved to be an expensive program characterized by abuse because research was so ill defined. The Liberals failed to establish a pre-audit or approval process. Without built in security measures, the program was open for this kind of abuse.
The Government is acting in other areas to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the tax system to safeguard and ensure that tax rules are not used in inappropriate ways to avoid taxes. Instead of abusing the system, the Government introduced more effective and better targeted provisions to support research and development.
The federal Government is the single largest financial contributor to science and technology in Canada. The Government has announced in the Throne Speech an initiative that will provide $1 billion in new funding for science research over the next five years. This funding will focus on many things, including research and co-ordination between universities and the private sector. I can assure you that the University of Saskatchewan and the many small scientific research companies will look forward to sharing in some of that funding.
We spent $4.2 billion on science and technology in 1985-86. These activities support a number of objectives, including industrial development, protection of the environment, health and safety of Canadians, national security, and basic scientific research. These are all positive steps to strengthen science and technology's role in creating jobs and improving the quality of life for Canadians. That is what I call a commitment.
The Address-Mr. Ravis
Those are not just my sentiments, Mr. Speaker, they are the feelings of a number of journalists and high technology experts. For example, our great newspaper friends at the Toronto Star have written: "No Canadian Prime Minister has ever made this kind of personal commitment to promoting high technology development". Roy MacGregor of The Ottawa Citizen called the Throne Speech: "An imaginative and welcome announcement that this country now agrees with the rest of the world in acknowledging the value of research and development".
I want to indicate that approximately a year ago I was invited with a number of my colleagues from the science and technology caucus committee to attend a dinner at one of the larger embassies in Ottawa. After completing our meal we were asked to discuss Canada's science and technology policy. I must say that it was embarrassing for us to say that the previous Government had not really developed a policy and that we were just in the process of developing one in the next couple of years.
In general, Canada's high technology industry reacted favourably to the four point platform increasing support to science and technology. A national advisory board for industrial technology, chaired by the Prime Minister-a first for any Government-and composed of some of Canada's leading industrialists and scientists will definitely raise the profile of leading technology initiatives. This committee will assess national science and technology goals and policies, and their application to Canada's economy. The Government will seek to achieve high standards of excellence in education, technology development, and innovation. The introduction of a new federal science and technology strategy, building on the initiatives undertaken to date, will encourage necessary reforms within federal administration to promote Canada's international competitiveness. For example, international exchanges have been initiated with a number of countries, including Japan, the United States, China, Australia, and western European countries.
The Government will also convene a national conference on techology and innovation to assist Canada to define new technology goals. This is what I call leadership. Research has always been intact but the development end has been lacking in the past. That point was well put to me at a dinner I attended in Saskatoon recently. A number of people from the business sector did not complain so much about research and development; they said the research was being done, but we were not spending enough money on the development side of the equation. It is all a matter of marketing and manufacturing our technology, getting the research off the shelf.
Canadians should be proud of our technological goals and achievement which this Government is committed to development. The Canadian Advanced Technology Association applauded the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for "committing his own time to assessing and setting national policy".

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Ravis
However, Mr. Speaker, even a group of high technology experts like those in the Canadian Advanced Technology Association will admit that industry cannot be driven by Government alone. Success in such a competitive field depends on a number of factors, but especially on a strong and vibrant university research community. Without such a community, much of the pure research which eventually results in marketable products and processes would never occur. I know as well from my experience in Saskatoon that without universities, industry would never have a steady group of highly qualified young men and women to fulfil its personal requirements.
University research has been a priority of this Government and also a priority of the Progressive Conservative Government which was led by the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). In 1979, the Clark Government gave stability and consistency to the budgets of the three university research granting councils. Not surprisingly, this commitment was forgotten by the Liberal Government which followed, which continues to press the Government today for policies that it never thought of initiating in its own 20 years in office.
In February of this year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) restored that principle and established a five-year plan of consistent funding for these granting councils. No previous Government has given the granting councils such a solid commitment. Not only that, the Minister also committed the federal Government to matching the private sector's funding of university research on a dollar-for-doliar basis up until 1991. This will mean up to $.75 billion of increased research funding for Canada's universities.
This strong commitment to research and development is a clear and positive signal for Canada's university community. It is a plan which provides much needed new funds for university research and also builds a bridge between the demands of industry and the skills of university students and professors. No longer will a potentially lucrative mechanism or process sit on the shelf of a university or Government research laboratory. Technology will now be defused and applied to industrial needs in a way which is mutually lucrative and supportive without hindering the advancement of basic science.
The Government firmly believes that putting more money into R and D at the university level is an investment in the future of Canada. The University of Saskatchewan has previously been a leader in establishing partnerships with the local high technology sector. As I mentioned earlier, SED Systems in Saskatoon is probably one of the best examples. It employs hundreds and hundreds of people and is involved in some very interesting programs, including space research.
The Government's initiative will only serve to augment the university's efforts. I am sure other Hon. Members who are fortunate to have universities in their ridings will find this to be the case as well. The matching formula, coupled with the initiatives noted in the Speech from the Throne, is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to research and its sensitivity to technological change. Technological
change is pertinent to our survival and illustrates progress in our record of economic renewal.
A healthy economic future has been initiated throughout the country. In particular, our Government has enhanced job opportunities for our youth. There is a decline in youth unemployment. The task is by no means completed. There is still much to do in the area of youth unemployment. But it is encouraging to see that youth unemployment has dropped almost three points since we have come to office. More programs will be introduced to promote entreneurship amongst our youth.
All these commitments to R and D, linking job promotion for youth, are stepping stones to improve employment prospects as well as our standard of living. Once again, this is leadership through commitment, consultation and co-operation; indeed, a process for growth. In these steps to restructure our economy, we must all work together. The Government has clearly demonstrated its ability to work in co-operation with industry, universities and provinces in enhancing Canada's industrial strength in partnership with our young Canadian researchers.
In closing, I would like to say that these benefits can be shared by all Canadians. When we talk about research and development, we are not just talking about scientists and technicians. We are talking about all the jobs which spin off, from secretaries to people in the service industries. I think it is important that we understand that this is something which has value for every Canadian, union people, non-union people, technicians and scientists. This partnership can only mean a healthy economic future for all of my constituents in Saskatoon and for the country in general.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis), made reference a few moments ago to the Scientific Research Tax Credit Program which was introduced, I believe, in the year 1983 by the Liberal Government. I am not overly familiar with it and I wonder if my hon. colleague could elaborate for the House some of the reasons he thinks this program failed?


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by being very fair to the previous Government because I think it recognized that research and development is a very important building block. It is essential, if we are going to talk about economic recovery. As I mentioned, it was unfortunate that a well intended program dealing with research in universities and in the private sector, was so ill defined and had so few guidelines or safeguards attached to it that it was abused to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In actual fact, it is probably going to cost the taxpayers very close to $1 billion in terms of tax credits which in fact did not achieve any research.
When I talk about poorly defined research, I am alluding to a definition which permitted things like fancy research parks, fancy office buildings, and people who abused the program to such an extent that they put money into fancy cars. Many of those people have now fled the country. In all fairness to the
October 23, 1986

previous Liberal Government, while it really wanted to achieve many of the same goals we are achieving today, the safeguards were not put in place. An election was coming and the Liberals wanted to get this program out to show the private sector that it really wanted to address this problem, and perhaps in all good faith it hoped the program would work, thinking it might cost Canadians about $200 million. The program got off the rails and, unfortunately, it turned out to be a disaster. I think that is something this country will have to pay for for many years to come.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis). 1 know of his commitment to the universities and to the research and development sector in Canada.
I was particularly pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne a renewed commitment to post-secondary education with the announcement of a forum on post-secondary education which will be held in the coming year. From my own point of view, 1 think it is important that there is a national focus and emphasis on post-secondary education so we all really get behind it. That is so important. As my colleague, who has a university in his constitutency, indicated, our future resources really are human resources. We are not going to have the accomplishments in the industrial sector unless we have young people who are highly trained and educated and who can compete internationally around the world. I feel we really have to put some renewed focus and effort into the development of our whole post-secondary system. I know the Hon. Member shares that commitment as well.
I agree with him that the kind of initiatives outlined in the Speech from the Throne with respect to research and development are certainly long overdue. 1 look forward to the emphasis being placed on the private sector in working with universities to develop a great many research programs. I know that in British Columbia we have had a very positive response to such an initiative.
Does the Hon. Member have some comments with respect to the fact that two years ago when we formed the Government there was a great deal of interest in research and development and yet it has taken all of those two years to achieve the focus that we now see in the Speech from the Throne and other specific initiatives which have been taken? Will the Hon. Member comment on why it has taken this long? How long will it really take to implement some of these new initiatives?


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to address the issue raised by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). She has many professors and staff members from the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University living in her riding. These people have a very keen interest in this issue. In all fairness, the Government could have come in with a science and technology policy or a change in that regard in September of 1984. In other words, let us not look at what the
The Address-Mr. Ravis
problem is and how serious it is, let us just act on it. Rather than doing that, the Government decided it wanted to try to reach some consensus out there in the country, because there was a fear that there was a great deal of duplication, as there so often is when federal flags and provincial flags are being waved. In many cases we are stepping on each other's toes.
In the development of this consensus I have seen the present Minister and the previous Minister assemble a great many people from across the country, including union leaders, university professors, people from the private sector as well as provincial Ministers. They have sat down to arrive at a consensus, which I think is so important. The area of science and technology is a very complex area. In the process of reaching this consensus we have been able to establish some priorities. We have been able to find out what each one of the sectors is saying. We have been able to establish sort of a nation-wide consensus. In particular, the meeting held in Winnipeg last year provided a forum for 200 people to sit down and grapple with future policy. There was talk of a White Paper on science and technology being brought down in the House this fall. I think that all of the meetings and consultations that have been held in this regard go to prove that it was time well spent.
One other subject I would like to elaborate on is that the establishment of a Standing Committee on Science and Technology has been beneficial to Members of the House of Commons. This is the first time that the subject has been given such priority.
To conclude, the Hon. Member asked me how long I think it will take. I think we are very close. I think we are possibly as close as four to six months in terms of coming out with a policy which will recognize all of the talking and consulting that has gone on in the country over the last two years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that I missed the beginning of the hon. gentleman's speech. However, I caught the last ten minutes of it. In those ten minutes I heard the Hon. Member say something about improved, continuing and enlarged assistance for basic research at universities. I presume he includes the National Research Council in that remark. He talked about developmental aid after basic research has been done. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whatever happened to the free market private enterprise principle which says that it does its own development and then markets that development. Does the Hon. Member say that the private sector cannot function by itself and that it has to have governmental assistance on development after basic research is done?


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's question. He certainly knows about all of the activity that has taken place in Saskatchewan over the last four years in terms of science and technology. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that at the beginning of my speech, the part that he missed, I mentioned the fact that 140 private sector companies have flourished in Saskatchewan as a result of assistance from

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Rossi
the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Regina. I might add that this has been as a result of technological assistance and expertise that has come from the universities. In many cases university professors and technicians who have left the universities have gone out into the private sector to start companies of their own. In some of these cases there was assistance from the Government.
Let me return to the more important question of development aid. I do not know if the Hon. Member appreciates that we have millions of dollars worth of research sitting on shelves in government and university laboratories across the country. This is research that was done and yet nothing has been done with it. This is mainly because the mandate of government laboratories and university researchers is not to start manufacturing widgets and then sell them abroad. Their mandate is to perform the research. What the Government now recognizes is that if we can transfer some of this technology off the shelves then it will be useful.
I would like to give the Hon. Member a prime example of such a move in terms of what is happening in Saskatoon right now. At the moment a small company is taking some research from an agricultural laboratory which deals with biotechnology. This company is developing that research in its private sector laboratory and putting the products of that research into the market-place. That is precisely what we want to do. By the way, this company signed one of the first agreements in Canada to do with technology transfers.
I think the private sector is alive and well in Saskatchewan. Yes, there is some assistance, but if these people are given some of the research off the shelves we will see that they will do extremely well in developing that research into many jobs for our private sector.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the basic research on the shelves at universities and at the National Research Council is public property. I repeat my question to the hon. gentleman. Where is the private sector when it comes to development, marketing and manufacturing? Why would the Hon. Member even remotely suggest that there also needs to be assistance in the developmental area? Where the heck is the private sector? Where is the free enterprise system? It seems that those in the private sector want the taxpayer's help all the way through the game, I presume, to help sell their widgets.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks where is the private sector. I hope the Hon. Member for Regina West recognizes that research that takes place at universities in Saskatchewan, or in any other province for that matter, is the proper place for research. That is what these places are all about. I think that the private sector is doing a great deal of research. As a matter of fact, there are thousands of examples which illustrate efforts that have been taken to market research that have never seen a government laboratory or university. Such research has certainly seen the graduates from these facilities.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They come up from the United States.


Donald Paul Ravis: Perhaps they do. Another important point which I think I should tell the Hon. Member about research that was done in the public sector and is now being developed in Saskatoon is the fact that a royalty will be paid to the Government of Canada where the research was developed. In other words, public sector research will now receive full recognition by the private sector which will do the development. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with that. I think it is the type of co-operation that the Government is talking about in its Speech from the Throne, in that we can begin to harness our universities and the private sector through a more co-operative approach.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) for a very excellent address splendidly delivered. While the Hon. Member spoke about research, I could not help but think of the time when I was Chairman of the Alberta Research Council. One of the things that Council attempted to do was to make sure there was no duplication. For the benefit of the Hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), we would contact free enterprisers and the government Departments to work out who would pay the cost of the research that would benefit everyone. Free enterprise played a very important part in this.
As a matter of fact, in my own Department of Highways, I decided that at least 5 per cent of the Budget for construction of bridges would go into research. We co-operated with the contractors. Because of that research we were able to save the people of Alberta thousands of dollars when constructing bridges. We found that for years piers were being placed deeper than necessary. There was co-operation between free enterprise and the Department of Highways, each paying their proper share. The people benefited and that is the way it should be.
1 would appreciate hearing the comments of the Hon. Member. I thought I should mention that because it is right in line with what he was advocating.


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


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. First of all, I want to congratulate the Speaker and all other Members who will have the honour of sitting in the Chair during this session. I also would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to greet the people of the beautiful riding of Bourassa, and a special greeting to the people of Montreal North.
Mr. Speaker, the second session of the 33rd Parliament started with the customary Speech from the Throne, which
October 23, 1986

contains the new objectives of the Government of the day. But does it? Is this an original, brand-new Speech from the Throne? Or is it a Speech from the Throne full of recycled leftovers, reflecting the true nature and substance of a Conservative Government in its decline?
The Conservative Government has declined to the point that it needed a whole month to recycle the contents of its 1984 election platform. We recall, and all Canadians will recall, those pretty speeches and the 300 or so promises they made during the election campaign. What became of them? The people of Canada are not easily fooled. They can see through the tricks and trumpery of the Government opposite. And that is why the people in the riding of Bourassa and the people of Canada are wondering what will happen to the promises made in this Throne Speech.
Mr. Speaker, this Speech from the Throne mentions social justice. How can they talk about social justice? How can they talk about their social policy? Does this Government really think Canadians believe the Conservatives when they claim to be the party of social justice?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not easily fooled. A Government that has managed to reduce indexation of family allowances, cut back on the increases for transfer payments made to the provinces for education and health care, cut unemployment insurance benefits for thousands of Canadians who receive severance pay or early retirement pensions and who are still looking for employment, a Government that attempted to de-index Old Age Security pensions-and they call that social justice, Mr. Speaker, when they want to deindex Old Age Security pensions?
And speaking of Old Age Security pensions, Mr. Speaker, my riding of Montreal-Bourassa has large population of senior citizens. I am constantly fighting to defend their rights and I will continue to do so. Many senior citizens in Montreal North know how I respect and sympathize with them. Other people have tried to get at the senior citizens, but I won't name names in the House. The people who wanted to disturb the tranquility and peace of mind of these senior citizens know to whom I am referring and I don't have to name them in these precincts.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of Government cannot claim to be a Government that promotes social justice. It is a Government that takes from the poor and gives to the rich. When I say it takes from the poor and gives to the rich, I think a good example is non-taxable capital gains. This Government cannot afford to talk about economic justice, and Canadians know this only too well. They no longer have any confidence in this Government, after only two years in power.
Mr. Speaker, this Government is synonymous with wasting money and wasting time. Canadians have seen through the tricks of the Conservative Government, as indicated by the polls they are so fond of quoting. Take the results of the last poll published on October 6, which inform us that the majority
The Address-Mr. Rossi
of Canadians no longer have any confidence in the Government opposite. According to this poll, about 52 per cent of Canadians do not approve of the Conservative Government's policies. Not only has every Canadian or just about lost all confidence in this Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has also lost all credibility in this great country of Canada. I think that this is a rather serious matter, Mr. Speaker.
However, how could it be otherwise? The Conservative Party and this Government are without meaning and without any substance. The Speech from the Throne is a perfect example of a speech where appearances are more important than the substance, if there is any substance, a speech full of illusions which could become real only in a dreamworld.
Mr. Speaker, we Canadians live in a real world, in a country with problems which require real and practical solutions, but this Conservative Government is unable to understand this, let alone find these solutions.
Each day, the Members opposite ask us: What would you do? What would you do in such or such a case? However, it is you, Government Members, who must say what you would do, not us.
The Speech from the Throne is the proof that this Government has no action plan, that it is interested only in short term political and economic problems and that it cannot take its responsibilities and try to provide a clear direction for this country. Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had enough of Conservatives who can only make irresponsible promises, of actions which most often result in scandals, ministerial resignations and broken promises. As evidence, we have only to look at the bank failures under a Conservative Government.
We are telling this Government that Canadians no longer have any confidence in the Progressive Conservative Party. As I said earlier, Canadians no longer believe their high-flown and irresponsible promises. Canadians no longer believe that this Government has the authority, the respect and the ability required to govern Canada as it deserves.
Mr. Speaker, there are in my riding a great many senior citizens who are worried and concerned about the promises made by this Conservative Government and their decisions which are, as everybody knows, totally contradictory. They certainly remember and will remember, come election time, everything which could have happened to them. They have been duped. They have been deceived by this Government which would have them believe that this Throne Speech is better than that of 1984. It is not. One need only check what happened in 1985-86 to the unemployment insurance benefits for people on early retirement.
Why has the Government not accepted the proposal made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner)? Why has not the Government entertained an adequate and realistic policy for golden agers in the areas of health care, shelters,

October 23, 1986
The Address-Mr. Boyer
long-term care, community homes, lodging subsidies, as well as a home services scheme?
Mr. Speaker, senior citizens are a political force in Canada, as the Conservative Party painfully realized in 1982 and will painfully realize again come election time.
Mr. Speaker, there were by-elections in Saint-Maurice and Pembina recently. If they have made an objective analysis of these by-election results, Members of the Progressive Conservative Party certainly realize that they have lost a major part of their electoral support. Mr. Speaker, these results have been brought about by two years of inconsistency in power and foolish promises.
For that matter, the Prime Minister's decision to transfer the construction of a prison from Drummondville to his own riding will do nothing to improve this Government's credibility. His decision will certainly not change the opinion of the Drummondville people.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) would not speak out and oppose the Prime Minister's decision to move this prison from his riding of Drummondville to the riding of the Prime Minister?
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Drummondville had originally been selected as the site for that prison. It met with the criteria, and it was meant to complete the existing institution.
How much will this cost Canadians, Mr. Speaker? It will cost them $16 million more, $16 million to boost the image and popularity of this Prime Minister who has lost all credibility. Canadians are finding this a little expensive. Would it be in order to boost his prestige with the people in Schefferville? Why is that prison built in Port-Cartier, Mr. Speaker? Would it be to somehow repair the damage? How can the Prime Minister try to have people gobble that one up, Mr. Speaker? By dangling those 37 or 38 per cent unemployment figures in Port-Cartier. But all Hon. Members in this House know very well that is false, utterly false. The unemployment rate in Port-Cartier is around 15 per cent.
And please do not try to convince the people in Port-Cartier that this will be creating prison guards' jobs in that great 1 prison which will be built in Port-Cartier. Let people in Port- j Cartier come and tell me how many guards' jobs this will ' create in their constituency. Let them also come and tell me how many guards were transferred from another prison to go to Port-Cartier. Do not fool yourselves, people of Port-Cartier. Do not fool yourselves. That will be no job creation exercise. Do come and tell me the number of guards who will be hired from the constituency of Port-Cartier for service in that prison.
I am telling you, it is my humble belief that guards will be transferred from other prisons in the Province of Quebec to Port-Cartier, rather than new jobs being created. Do not be fooled by the Prime Minister.
And before this goes on, I would like the Hon. Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault), the Member for Drummond who rises more often than not to speak about everything but real
issues to rise and uphold his rights. Now is the time, Mr. Member for Drummond, to fight for your people in Drummondville. Now is the time, Mr. Member for Drummond, to bring spin-offs if any to your constituency. Now is the time to get a move on. Now is the time to speak to your Prime Minister. Now is the time to rise in this House.
This might be an entertaining scenario, Mr. Speaker, but when we remember these are the kind of people who are at the helm, it is enough to make you cry.
By its very nature, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is an important document which should reflect the Government's social, political and economic policies, and indicate how they are going to be achieved. No, Sir, I think we have here a text of great literary value which does not spell anything out, which fails to advocate political solutions, all told a document totally devoid of meaning, vigour and realism. As we happen to know the authors, Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am a Liberal, I belong to the Official Opposition. I am the elected representative of the constituency of Bourassa and, as such, I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to change their attitute towards Canadians and not take them as the average Joes on which to try various policies for size, as the Government may see fit.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very serious and responsible people, and when they realize they are being led by an irresponsible Government they have every right to feel they have been let down and led astray, so they react.
Witness their reaction to the recent by-elections, and there will be more of the same next time around.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, talking about the next election, a moment ago I was listening to my colleague from Lachine (Mr. Layton) who was saying that, before the 1984 election, the people of Lachine wanted a change, and the sooner the better. All I can say to the Hon. Member is that he ought to travel around a bit, not only in his riding of Lachine but throughout the 282 constituencies of this beautiful country and he will see just how much Canadians want a change, a real change this time.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to many of the comments during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne I was thinking of the public musings of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) of not many days ago, that the problem with a Throne Speech is that by its nature it is given to general statements. Perhaps he was somewhat on the mark. The criticism I have been hearing of the Government's program, policy, and action to date, based upon the Throne Speech and the comments coming from the other side of the House, is that it is all too vague and too general.
October 23, 1986

For example, in her remarks this afternoon the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) down played the Government's statement in the Throne Speech dealing with the drug crisis. Yet, several days after the Throne Speech, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) rose in the House and outlined in great detail very concrete steps which would be taken. Similarly, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) talked about ways in which the Government would enact legislation to see that the profits now being made in Canada through illicit drug trafficking, some $7 billion to $10 billion each year, would be recoverable by the Crown. These are very significant steps. They are part of a positive response to the issues.
It is folly to think that general statements contained in a Throne Speech to outline the general thrust of the Government are the be-all and end-all of the program. The criticism which has been coming at the Government based upon the Throne Speech is falling far short of the mark. It does not accurately and reasonably deal with the broad course upon which the Government has set itself.
When I talk about the broad course, perhaps I would be permitted a moment or two to say what I think it involves. In 1984, when Canadians decided to change the Government in Ottawa, those of us who came to form and support the new Government found that there were two really deep-seated problems in Ottawa. One of them was that financially the Government of Canada was running out of control. It was like a locomotive with a full head of steam that had somehow come off the rails. We have talked about the deficit. Every debate in the House has had a lot of content relating to deficit reduction, whether cuts or reductions which were being proposed were appropriate. Very often we heard Hon. Members opposite bemoaning cuts and efforts to get the deficit under control, even though there is no alternative.
However, dealing with the deficit was only one of two very basic problems. I submit that in fact there was another major problem, equally deep-seated, concerning the philosophy which had developed in Ottawa over the previous 10 years to 20 years. Let us call it the "Ottawa mind-set". What did the Ottawa mind-set or the Ottawa philosophy hold? This attitude permeated not only the Cabinet of the previous Government but right down through the Public Service.
I think we can perhaps see three elements in the Ottawa mind-set. First, it said that Ottawa knows best, that the banks of the Rideau River and of the Ottawa River are where the great wisdom of Canada is reposited. That is why, for example, it was never possible for resources offshore Newfoundland to be developed in a way that was important for Newfoundlanders-Ottawa knew best.
The second component of the mind-set was that the problems of the country could be solved by throwing money at them or by spending money. Of course that was a contributing factor to the large debt with which the country is still saddled.
The Address-Mr. Boyer
The third component of the Ottawa mind-set was that if we could not solve a problem by throwing money at it, we could solve it by regulating it, by establishing a board or commission, by enacting further requlations, or by bringing about the kinds of things we saw in the National Energy Program, for example. Those were the three components-Ottawa knows best, solve the problems by throwing money at them or, if that failed to work, regulate it.
Those three ideas formed a philosophy, attitude, or approach which so permeated the operations of the federal Government that we have had a very serious problem over the past two years, since coming here as a new Government, to try to effect the change Canadians clearly want in overcoming that fundamental hurdle. It is far more difficult than the deficit because it is much harder to deal with the ideas which people carry in their minds. We are dealing with nothing less than a matter of changing attitudes.
I should like to note that in The Gazette of Montreal today, the editors provided two cheers for the Conservative Government. No editorial board would ever give three cheers for a Government, or there would be something totally wrong with them. It reads:
Two cheers to the Mulroney Government for earning praise from Auditor General Kenneth Dye after his sharp-pencilled review of the first full year of the Government's operations.
The Auditor General, an habitual scourge of government management, hailed the present Government for "bringing a sense of better management to the Public Service." Changing Ottawa's psychology of spending is a large Tory achievement.
Those were not the comments of a Member on the government side of the House. Those were the comments of the editorial board of The Gazette. They referred to "changing Ottawa's psychology of spending". It is evidence of what I am talking about when I say that the big battle before us is changing attitudes which are entrenched here.
I should like to refer to another problem. In dealing with many issues, Hon. Members opposite have been particularly interested in focusing on what I would call the small details or trivial matters. For example, the recent trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to Asia saw major accomplishments-the admission of Canada to the Group of Seven, agricultural issues being placed on the agenda for the first time, and significant developments in trade with China and other Pacific Rim countries. What have we heard about from the Opposition on those matters? They asked the following questions. What did the butler do? Did the butler do it? They went from the sublime to the ridiculous. Some members of the Liberal caucus might want to write a book on, did the butler do it? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is no longer as much the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as he is chairman of the Book-of-the-Month Club. The Liberal caucus is spewing out books at an incredible rate. Some of them are fine reading. I am sure the next book to come out will be called "Opposition Members Handbook to the Game of Trivial Pursuit". There has been so much noisy and disputatious comment coming from across the way that Canadians

October 23, 1986
Adjournment Debate
have had their attention diverted from some of the more serious matters affecting the Government.
In conclusion, there are four great areas in which the Government has set long-term action. There is the possibility of a new bilateral trade treaty with the United States. Reform of the tax system is now under way. The Government is dealing with regional development and disparities in a broad fashion and is generally dealing with the whole question of deficit reduction. Those four broad areas have set us on the right course.
I am happy to have had a chance to put my views on the record during this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before proceeding to the Adjournment Debate, I should like to advise the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) that he has 10 minutes remaining in his speech, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments, after Question Period tomorrow.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, there are so many other Hon. Members who have important things to say that I will waive any further time I have so that they might be heard from.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on October 9 and 16 I asked questions about the Government's approval of the takeover of the Continental Bank, which is a Canadian bank, by Lloyd's Bank, which is British owned. This takeover was unprecedented. As Members will know, it was not an outright takeover but an exchange of assets and liabilities in accordance with existing provisions of the Bank Act. My concern is not specifically with the details of this transaction. I am more concerned with the fact that yet again the Government has put itself in the position of having to make important, precedent-setting decisions involving financial institutions without the benefit of a policy framework.
For two years now, we have been hearing that the Government considers it a priority to update the legislation regulating banks, trust companies, insurance companies and the securities industry. There is no disagreement that new legislation is badly needed. Yet, after two years of Conservative Government, we are awash in studies and really no further ahead in terms of legislation in place than we were two years ago.
Concern has grown as over the past two years banks and trust companies have failed, a major non-financial corporation took control of Canada's largest trust company, a foreign-owned bank acquired ownership of a Canadian bank, and, in every instance, the Government was forced to act in an ad hoc way, flying by the seat of its pants because it did not have legislation in place to deal with the situation.
What is even more worrisome is that the longer the Government delays in bringing forward its proposals for legislation, the fewer options it will have. By delaying and allowing the industry and provincial Governments to take the lead, the Government is reducing its room to manoeuvre and is fast running out of policy options and time. All Canadians have an interest in how their financial institutions are regulated by government. Whether we speak of entrepreneurs and business people looking for capital investment, people looking to take out a mortgage or renew a mortgage, anyone shopping for a loan, or anyone with money in a savings account or RRSP, we all have an interest in knowing that the Government is acting to ensure that the rapid evolution in the financial services industry works for Canada and Canadians. Right now we do not have that assurance because we do not have legislation to give the Government any kind of a handle on the situation.
The question of ownership of financial institutions, for example, has come up with some regularity. Earlier this year the Government approved the industrial giant Imasco's takeover of Genstar Corporation, which owned Canada's largest trust company. At that time, the former Minister of State for Finance was quoted in The Financial Times as having said that:
-she had no difficulty with industrial groups controlling financial institutions.
That, Mr. Speaker, was April 5, 1986. Now there is a new Minister, and this Minister is quoted as having said:
I have great problems with the notion of non-financial institutions controlling financial institutions.
That is from The Financial Post of September 20, 1986. So there is really no telling where the Government stands on the issue of ownership. We just have to wait for the legislation which, as I am sure we are about to be told, will be introduced very shortly. That statement would carry a great more impact if we had not heard it so often in the last two years.
Tomorrow the Government will be tabling the report of the Estey Commission on bank failures and the regulation of the banking industry. I look forward to seeing that report and debating the legislation which I hope will follow before the Government is further overtaken either by events in the industry or the regulatory initiatives of other governments.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, after several months of negotiations, the Continental Bank of Canada and the Lloyds Bank of London announced on October 2 that they had come to an
October 23, 1986

agreement under which the Lloyds Bank of Canada, the Canadian subsidiary of the London bank, would acquire the majority of the assets of the Continental Bank and take over the majority of its liabilities.
This agreement was the result of the efforts made by the Continental these last few months to find a major banking institution with which to merge. One year ago, following the closing of the two Western Canadian banks, the Continental Bank unfortunately had to face substantial fund withdrawals by commercial and institutional depositors even though it was financially healthy.
The bank had to rely to a great extent on the Bank of Canada and the mechanisms offered by the major banks to replace the lost deposits. While the Continental was making progress in re-establishing the confidence of depositors and reducing its need for advances from the Bank of Canada, as the Hon. Member probably knows, its management was aware that a complete recovery would take a lot of time. To ensure that the operations of the bank could be carried out in the future in the best interests of its customers, depositors and employees, the management decided that the best solution was to join forces with a major international bank such as Lloyds.
While the Government was kept informed of the progress made in the negotiations and while it supported the efforts made by the Continental to come to an agreement, the Government itself did not initiate the negotiations. The agreement is strictly an initiative of the private sector. I repeat to the Hon. Member that the agreement is strictly an initiative of the private sector.
The transaction complies fully with the banking legislation, and as far as possible, all available information has been provided to Parliament and the public. The Minister of State for Finance has already appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to answer questions on the transaction.
As for the question about the advances, I would like to emphasize that, to ensure a harmonious transfer of the operations of the Continental Bank, the advances granted to the Continental by the Bank of Canada will be replaced by advances to Lloyds. Lloyds has agreed to reimburse the Bank of Canada within a reasonably short period, that is no longer than three months after completing its transaction with the Continental. This extension should help Lloyds find proper funding in an orderly fashion and lessen possible disturbances on monetary markets. Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to repeat the firm commitment made by the Government to amend the regulations applying to the financial sector. Our aim is to ensure consumer protection and enhance the integrity of the Canadian financial system which, as it should be noted, is one of the best in the world. The financial sector reform is a high priority for this Government and new legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
Adjournment Debate


INDIAN AFFAIRS-DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION-REQUEST FOR REFORM. (B) REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the House briefly on the subject of mismanagement and maladministration in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Many shocking revelations have come to light recently with respect to the operations and functions of that Department within the region of Manitoba. So bad was the situation of the Department's activities in that region that the Government felt obliged to take action.
The former Minister called for an outside audit, which resulted in the Currie Report. The Currie Report confirmed the allegations of the southern chiefs that the Manitoba region was maladministered and that the bands were paying a very heavy price in terms of the quality of services they were able to deliver to their people. These responsibilities had been transferred to them, but they lacked the wherewithal to provide a level of service that would be regarded as acceptable.
Further allegations and charges from the Manitoba region led the present Minister to call for an investigation by the RCMP into the activities of the Manitoba region. This was serious business. Further allegations followed that and, in answer to questions that I raised in the House, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said that Treasury Board would undertake a financial review of the Manitoba region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
We have had some action but, meanwhile, a large number of bands-some 30 or more-are in debt and are unable to serve their people.
I have argued consistently that the problem within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not merely a problem in the Manitoba region. If it were just an isolated problem, then everything that the previous Minister and the present Minister are doing would probably be acceptable, provided that those bands could somehow be helped out of their indebtedness. However, the problem is more widespread.
This problem exists throughout the country, in every region, in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I suggest that right here in the headquarters in Ottawa there is also serious mismanagement and maladministration. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that recently a former employee of that Department revealed that he worked in a division known as the Audit Division? There were 17 so-called auditors in that division and seven support staff. The total payroll of that little group was $900,000, or almost $1 million. The surprising fact is that they do not do any auditing.
What do they do? They seek auditors in the private sector auditors who will take on contracts to audit some particular

October 23, 1986
Adjournment Debate
project under the administration of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, These 17 people, many of whom are not qualified to be auditors, occasionally break away from their crossword puzzles or articles from the library to phone the private contractor who has been hired to do a certain audit to ask how it is going, if progress is being made and whether they can expect to hear something soon. In one year, 1985 to the present time, more than $2 million worth of auditing business from that Audit Division has been given to the private sector. These 17 people are only responsible for letting these contracts. That is maladministration.
If these charges were simply made by former employees of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or if these charges were simply made by this little band of Opposition Members who are valiantly fighting for good government, and that was as far as it went, perhaps the Government would be able to say that is what it expects to hear.
Recently we had confirmation of this charge of mismanagement and maladministration from no less a person than the most important servant of Parliament, the Auditor General. He has revealed in his recent report that the Department of Indian Affairs is a hopeless wasteland of confusion. It lacks clear policies and directions. The Department is torn between an antiquated and authoritarian statute of this House called the Indian Act on the one hand and on the other hand, there is the pull and attraction of leaders from the indigenous communities who are saying there has to be a better way. There has to be some way in which they can establish a new kind of working relationship with the Government of Canada. There has to be some way in which nearly half a million people can once and for all cease being depressed, colonized and dealt with as if they had no intelligence or capability to look after their own day-to-day affairs in their communities.
These people want to become partners in Confederation. They are sick unto death, Sir, of being pushed to the outer fringes of society and maltreated by Government after Government. This is not just a condemnation of the present Government because this has been going on for a very long period of time.
In response to what the Auditor General has revealed, the Minister has called for a major review of the Department's management of lands, revenues and trust functions. I have no argument with the Minister in what he is doing, but it does not go far enough. We have to go much further.
The answer to what we have to do lies in the meetings of the First Ministers in April of next year when we write into the Constitution of this country the right of Indian people and indigenous people to manage, govern and control their own affairs. Then we begin to negotiate bilaterally arrangements and agreements for carrying out the responsibilities, and these we will honour. We will keep our word and break the pattern
of broken promises, broken treaties and failing the first citizens of the first nations of our country.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honesty of the Hon. Member in saying this problem has been going on for a long, long time. In answer to the Hon. Member's question, let us recall the chronology of events in Manitoba which have led to the current allegations in the press of mismanagement and the response of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight).
In March of 1986, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development commissioned a special investigation because of allegations made by the Brotherhood of First Nations. The Ward Mallette report was submitted on June 9, 1986. A departmental response was released on August 20, 1986. It responded in detail to the findings contained in the Ward Mallette special investigation.
On October 8, 1986, the Director of Finance for the Manitoba region resigned and took with him documents which he alleges support the Indians' concerns regarding underfunding, mismanagement and misleading of Parliament. He also alleged that activities of a criminal nature were taking place.
On October 9, 1986, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asked the RCMP to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing referred to by Mr. MacPhee. Further, on October 15, 1986, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to undertake a comprehensive review of the Financial operations of the Department's regional office in Manitoba. Detailed departmental action plans have been developed and are being implemented to remedy those issues identified in the Manitoba special investigation.
In order to improve communications, the Minister has also agreed to meet with Chiefs on a periodic basis to discuss their concerns face-to-face in a business-like way. He recently signed a memorandum of understanding with 40 bands in northern Manitoba establishing such a process.
On August 27, 1986, in Winnipeg, the Minister made a commitment to the southern Chiefs of Manitoba that departmental officials were prepared to meet with bands on a case-by-case basis, if necessary, to discuss individual band indebtedness problems. As of this date, 39 of Manitoba's 60 bands have debts that require debt-recovery plans.
The Minister has asked that documents or evidence showing that contractual commitments have not been met should be presented to him. The Minister has also said unequivocally that where mistakes have been made, they will be corrected; where financial commitments have been entered into, they will be honoured.
October 23, 1986

With respect to the issue of under-funding, expenditures in the Manitoba region for Indian programs and services have increased substantially over the past 10 years-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary but his time has more than expired,


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-(A) REDUCTION OF FRANCOPHONE EMPLOYEES (B) POLICY RELATING TO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the question I put to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) on October 16 of this year, which concerned a publication called Pony Express, published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where we read that the policy to reduce the number of Francophones within the RCMP is an official policy, and I wanted to know whether the Minister and his Government had approved or supported this position.
To situate the issue, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the need to protect language rights at the RCMP is nothing new. I certainly did not make it up since, in his 1985 report, the Commissioner of Official Languages remarked, and I quote:
"Where official languages are concerned, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has a long way to go before its troubles are over. Its review of language policy threatens to slow the current pace of reform even further."
This was back in 1985, Mr. Speaker, so the Commissioner of Official Languages was predicting what might happen at the RCMP.
And that is exactly what we are seeing today, Mr. Speaker, if we are to believe the press and if we listen carefully to what the Minister says. In The Globe and Mail of October 16, we read that it is officially accepted policy that the percentage of Francophones within the RCMP will be reduced from 20.8 per cent to 14.1 per cent. And in the same article we read that Mr. William Spring, assigned to the Official Languages Program with the RCMP, wrote, and I quote:

The 14 per cent Francophone ratio is a more realistic policy.

Mr. Speaker, this statement was made by the officer responsible for official languages, following a series of discussions between Treasury Board and the RCMP. I imagine it has a measure of credibility, because there was an exchange of correspondence which we have here today and to which I have referred in the House, where we can read ... and I want to quote the last paragraph of a letter signed by Mr. Aquilina, not just anybody, who was responsible for official languages at Treasury Board, and I quote verbatim:

Finally, I would like to suggest, given the importance of the proposed changes, that we proceed on the understanding that a re-assessment of the situation could be made after two years or so. Since it was agreed, at the January 10th meeting, that it would be to our mutual advantage to formalize the agreements reached

Adjournment Debate

Mr. Speaker, it looks like a firm agreement in principle was finalized.
The Commissioner of Official Languages said in his 1985 report, and I quote: " The high percentage of Anglophone officers can be explained by the fact that nearly 85% work in the West." However, he qualifies these remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I quote again: "However, the question of geographical distribution should not make the RCMP lose sight of the fact that it is a national agency which should reflect the linguistic duality of Canada."
Mr. Speaker, "to reflect the fact that the RCMP is a national agency", I think the target of 20.8 per cent Francophones within the corps, the regular constabulary of the RCMP, would seem an acceptable minimum. And that was in fact the target agreed upon between the parties at the time, that is, the Liberal Government, the RCMP and Treasury Board.
So what is the Conservative Government doing with this problem? He says that there have been discussions, that these were unsatisfactory and that no official decision has been made. Again today the Minister told me there is no formal agreement, that if things do change he and his Government will continue to promote both official languages in the public service, and that he will make sure no attempt is made at reducing staff.
But, Mr. Speaker, it seems this is what they want to do through the back door. I do not care much for this because the House is about to consider serious amendments to the Official Languages Act which was adopted by the House in 1969 and which has not been amended in a significant way in almost 18 years.
When we ask the Minister what is going on with respect to the official languages we are told to be patient. When we ask the Minister to provide explanations about such important news as that mentioned in the RCMP Pony Express we are told there are discussions among civil servants. My God! Mr. Speaker, what are civil servants doing other than implementing the policies of this Government? What do civil servants do? Do they get a kick exchanging letters and documents, when they should be busy following up on the policies of the Government and advising its officials on how to proceed? I am somewhat concerned to hear the Government say: No, no, no. We wash our hands off. Like Pontius Pilate. We have nothing to do with this. Then in turn the civil servants say: Yes! Negotiations are under way and serious recommendations have been made.
Mr. Speaker, this evening I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary, in the hope that the Government will clear up the air and tell us in no uncertain terms: No! There is

October 23, 1986
Adjournment Debate
no policy aimed at cutting down the staff. No! We do not support this policy under which the RCMP francophone staff would be reduced from 20.8 to 14.1 per cent.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Robert de Cotret, has asked me to clear up the issue of Francophone and Anglophone membership in our great Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I would first like to repeat what the President of the Treasury Board said last Thursday in this House, specifically that policy changes proposed by the RCMP have not yet been submitted to his Treasury Board colleagues nor to himself for future consideration. In that respect, he invited his colleague the Sollicitor General to submit to Treasury Board, at the earliest opportunity, the amendments to its official languages policies as planned by the RCMP.
In that respect, according to our information, the Francophone and Anglophone enrolment is not the only item of its internal policies the RCMP intends to amend. This seems to be timely, because active enrolment cannot be separated from the general context of official language use in that important federal agency. We therefore expect the RCMP representations will also include initiatives to improve the situation as regards working languages and language training.
I feel certain the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier will recognize those are important matters that can be improved within the present framework of the Government's current policies. When Treasury Board reviews those documents, after they are submitted, it will be guided in matters of enrolment by Canadian Government policy, which remains equal access to Public Service Employment for all Canadian men and women of both official language groups. This means that opportunities for full enrolment must be exactly the same, both for French and English-speaking Canadians, whatever their ethnic origin or their basic mother tongue. That principle must apply both to hiring and promotions.
Of course, the Treasury Board cannot ignore that the RCMP has to deal with a complex mandate. It works across our vast land in every Canadian province, at the municipal and provincial levels, except in Quebec and Ontario.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for giving us this opportunity to clarify an important matter of concern to us all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 24, 1986