1986-10-03

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec shipyards are now going through a very serious crisis: 5,000 workers are in a predicament as a result of the inaction of this Conservative Government and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote).
1 do hope that all Conservative Members of the House will bring pressure to bear on the Minister so that he will withdraw the mandate he had given Mr. Peter Paul Saunders to streamline shipbuilding operations; second, that he will award the Caribou II contract to the Lauzon shipyards; and third, that the Government will take immediate action with respect to the TRUMP program with a view to providing work for the maritime shipyards and creating jobs for the 5,000 workers who are anxious to have gainful employment in Quebec.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in August, 1985, the Soviet Union initiated a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and invited the United States to join it. Unfortunately the United States Government has not yet taken up this offer, despite resolutions supporting a test ban passed in the United States Congress.
The Soviet Union has twice extended the moratorium which will now last until January, 1987. It has also proposed a system of on-site inspection and verification. In this respect I hope our Foreign Minister had a chance to discuss these proposals with Mr. Shevardnadze yesterday.
Considering the Summit planned in Iceland for October 11, it is important that our Government make a public statement urging immediate negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty. To this end the Minister should prepare a resolution for
this House, so that Parliament can declare itself on this important issue before the Icelandic Summit.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, this week when American Motors distributed applications for
3,000	jobs which will be available next year, 43,000 people from Newfoundland to British Columbia lined up to apply. This proves that Canadians want to work, are ready and eager to work when they are offered jobs at good wages.
On the same day, Mr. Speaker, newpapers reported that hotel and restaurant associations complained that they could not get workers to fill their vacant jobs. This is not surprising since most of those jobs pay very little more than minimum wage which provides people with an income less than the poverty line.
Canadians are willing to work, but they are tired of the Government's program which has provided part-time jobs at low wages. They are calling on the Government to bring forth plans for real jobs, but those plans were conspicuously absent from the Throne Speech.


INNOVATION IN TOURISM
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Today, Mr. Speaker, we are proud of our Canadian students who took part in the Challenge '86 program.
When the 1986 Quebec tourism major awards ceremony took place last week, the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region paid tribute to its regional laureates in Amos, and first prize in the touristic innovation category was awarded to a Challenge 86 project sponsored by the Val-d'Or Chamber of Commerce in co-operation with Val-d'Or's Office du tourisme et des congres.

October 3, 1986
5.0.	21
During the past season the Office sponsored a program to welcome local and other tourists, held a special reception for the 10,000th visitor, and aired various radio broadcasts.
The participants, led by Yves Devost, include Joel Cotten, Helene Frenette, Monique Gervais and Stephanie Beauchamps; they will represent the region at the Quebec tourism awards provincial gala in Montreal on November 21.
Mr. Speaker, young Canadians are striving for excellence under the Challenge '86 program.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure for me to travel to northern Norway last week to observe Operation Brave Lion. Operation Brave Lion was an exercise of our Canadian Air and Sea Transportable Brigade held in northern Norway, which saw over 5,000 Canadian troops and over 2,000 pieces of equipment transported across the Atlantic to combine forces with the Norwegian army.
This exercise illustrated to all of our NATO allies our ability to assemble and deploy equipment within the time frames outlined in our bilateral agreement with Norway. But it illustrated something further, Mr. Speaker. It showed the world the outstanding calibre of Canadian troops in a seven-week exercise held in frosty sub-zero conditions. This exercise was the largest single movement of Canadian troops and supplies to Europe since the Second World War.
Members of this House and, in fact, all Canadians should be justly proud.


AIR TRANSPORT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, only a few weeks ago we heard the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) saying that the Lester B. Pearson International Terminal 1 is in crisis. Then, lo and behold, only three days ago the same Minister proudly announced that he has agreed to allow another airline to land in Toronto at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, this at a time when a $50 million facility in the city of Hamilton is lying in waste with an average passenger load some days of only 40 to 100 people.
Will the Minister of Transport listen to the regional council, listen to the City of Hamilton, and designate TAP Air Portugal as an airline which comes to Hamilton? Will he make
sure that any further international carriers given landing rights in southwestern Ontario are asked to land in the heart of the Golden Horseshoe, in the city of Hamilton? Otherwise any talk about fiscal responsibility by the Government is simply a farce.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday a decision will be taken in an American boardroom which could have serious repercussions on the future economic development of the town of Hinton, Alberta. On the line is the projected modernization and expansion of the Champion Forest Products mill. Also on the line are many, many important jobs. At issue here is the CNR's non-competitive freight rate and a $350 million investment that will be lost if the Government does not act.
[DOT] (UlO)
In spite of numerous representations both from the company and the Hinton Chamber of Commerce to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), as well as to the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), there has been no significant action taken on this dossier. We urge the Minister of Transport to take action this weekend in order to save what is an important development project for Alberta and for Canada.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Government of British Columbia, about which you probably know something, has said it wants to take over Vancouver International Airport and establish a special enterprise zone around it. The new Premier of B.C. has indicated that he wants to abolish minimum wage legislation, and the former Industry Minister has said that he wants special enterprise zones in order to keep unions away from organizing workers.
This is a wingy and dangerous idea of the Social Credit Government. I call upon the federal Government clearly to dissociate itself from this wacky idea, or is this Government prepared to go ahead and let the Socreds take over the airports in B.C. and consent to wage-slave ghettos around them?
Women make only two-thirds of what men make. They constitute 75 per cent of Canada's poor. Special enterprise zones would result in below poverty line wages for women and
October 3, 1986

will cause a further deterioration of women's standards of living.
This is the heart of the B.C. Government's economic strategy. It is in conflict with the free trade policy of the federal Government. There does not seem to have been any consultation. I think the federal Government should reject this idea, and it should say so now.


DIESEL RETAIL PRICE IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, oil companies are charging Canadians too much for diesel fuel. Before current prices fell, diesel sold for three cents to four cents per litre less than gasoline. Now prices are three cents to four cents more than gasoline in most of Canada.
There is an even more outrageous situation in Prince Edward Island. Consumers are paying 55 cents per litre for diesel at retail pumps while our neighbours in New Brunswick are only paying 36 cents per litre.
Oil companies have no reasonable explanation for this 19cent per litre or 85-cent per gallon spread. Prince Edward Islanders and Canadians are being gouged. I call for the support of this House to pressure oil companies to drop diesel prices.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, our country is presently benefiting from a sharp influx of capital from foreign investors. Recent figures show that S4.7 billion entered Canada in the first six months of this year. This is compared to the $5.5 billion invested in the whole of 1985, and the $2.6 billion invested in 1984. This is an unprecedented increase in just two years. A lasting change in attitude on the part of our Government is a major reason for this, together with the replacement of FIRA by Investment Canada.
Investment Canada has a mandate to encourage foreign investment and has done just that. It has reported an increase of 25 per cent in the number of applications by foreign investors in the agency's first year of operation.
Canada is fast developing a reputation for being a safe and attractive country for foreign investment with dramatic growth potential for the future. This is another dramatic example of what good Government can do.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, Charlie McCarthy is alive and well and lives in Ottawa. The Government will spare no money to try to offer the best show in town.
We now have a ventriloquist and dummy act to be featured on a daily basis, with matinees on weekends. The new dummy act featuring ventriloquist Dalton Camp and Canada's favourite dummy will be performing for the Canadian people from now on. Of course, tickets are free for all Canadians who have already paid for the contract of these artists. Unfortunately, this act is coming soon to your home. Check your local listings for time and date. I am sure you will enjoy the dummy's empty rhetoric and his acute psychological need to embellish the truth.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, an April 23 announcement of a federal grant of more than $40,000 to Sherwin Peterson, a Saskatchewan MLA and also legislative assistant to the Premier of Saskatchewan, prompted inquiries from some of my constituents about the method used for awarding these grants as they apply to fertilizer blending operations. I wrote about this matter to the then Acting Minister of DRIE who is now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). He passed it on in July to the new Minister. I was told by the new Minister that answers to my questions on this matter would be forthcoming some three months ago. We have waited four and a half months, Mr. Speaker, and I am still wondering.
[DOT] (ins)
Can the Government assure me specifically that this grant had nothing to do with Mr. Peterson's position as a legislative assistant to the Premier or as a Member of the Legislature? If not, why was his application the only one, of more than a dozen such applications, to get approval?


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents and Canadians in general will welcome the

October 3, 1986
Oral Questions
various economic and social initiatives proposed by our Government in the recent throne speech. Considering the irreparable harm being done to our youth by drugs and alcohol, the people of Temiscamingue will be very pleased with our Government's intention to take effective measures against drug trafficking and to set up an action plan to deal with alcohol abuse. People in my riding will also certainly agree with my Government's plan to take effective action againt child sexual abuse, child prostitution and violent forms of pornography.
1 can assure my constituents that their Member will be taking very active interest in these initiatives and that he will fight diligently against these scourges of our society.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the Right Hon. Prime Minister made an about-face on free trade.
My question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. After heading off in the wrong direction, he doesn't know where he is going anymore. He has just abandoned the cornerstone of his policy. What is going to be left of his credibility?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no about-face at all. The dialogue on trade is now under way with the United States. I believe five major meetings have already taken place. We are now entering a new phase and recently Ambassador Reisman expressed confidence in the ultimate outcome. As far as we are concerned, the Canadian Government remains convinced this is an important and welcome initiative for Canada.


LUMBER EXPORTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should never have allowed his Minister for International Trade to knuckle under to the Americans on lumber at the very time that the American tribunal was seized with the case. This morning the Americans are laughing at us because we conceded the case before it was decided. Why did the Prime Minister allow his Minister of International Trade to make such a naive offer to the Americans at this time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there was no knuckling under at all by the Minister of International Trade. If my right hon. friend wants to call Mr. Shultz, he will find out that that was the case.
An approach was put together by the provinces and supported by the labour unions. The Minister of International Trade, also a British Columbian, took this position to Washington and a lobby group rejected it. The ultimate answer will come in due course. As Premier Vander Zalm and Jack Munro indicated yesterday, I think we are all satisfied that the result will be a good one for British Columbia and Canada.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister, George Shultz may be my friend but he is not my boss.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOBILE AND STEEL INDUSTRIES
John Napier Turner: Now that the Prime Minister has knuckled under to the Americans on lumber, what is next, the Auto Pact or steel? Will he assure the hundreds of thousands of Canadian auto workers and steel workers that he will not cave in to American interests in the same way as he did at the expense of our lumber workers across the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I say with respect to the Right Hon. Member that, if George Shultz is not the leader's boss, he had better check with Keith Davey.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The trade negotiations are being conducted vigorously and we believe very well by Simon Reisman and his excellent team.
On the political side, I think the ability of the Minister for International Trade and her representations are well known to my right hon. friend. I am sure he will be satisfied that Canada's case, be it Canada's brief in steel or any other industry, will be extremely well defended by the Minister for International Trade who, I think he will recognize, did an enormous amount as Minister of Energy to correct serious problems in the energy field. She will be doing extremely good work in this area as well.


CANADIAN LUMBER OFFER
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Last Tuesday she made a final offer which she said the Americans could not refuse. The American industry has refused that offer. Now the British Columbia Premier and the Ministry of Forestry are saying that we must make another offer and have the negotiations continue.
What does the Canadian Government intend to do? Will it make another final offer, or will we return to the previous position and go before properly constituted trade tribunals to argue the merits of the case?

October 3, 1986


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is fully aware that our case is continuing before the trade tribunal. He should be aware that that process has not resolved the problem in the past. This issue has been constantly before fact-finding committees, trade tribunals, other institutions and it has not resolved the problem.
We made our only offer to the Americans and, as expected, that offer has been rejected in part by the American producers. At the same time they have said that they wish further information. It is a package supplied by the four provinces concerned. Today our officials are meeting to find out exactly what concerns were identified by the U.S. producers who brought the action against us. We are willing to supply further information to the industry but we are not prepared to enter into negotiations on this issue before October 9.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would only say that the Hon. Minister has just compounded her initial confusion by saying that it was a final and only offer, but now we are back negotiating another final and only offer. What in God's name is she trying to do? Where is the trade strategy of the Government? Why are we going outside the general trade talks to negotiate these separate issues? When will the Minister establish a clear and cohesive approach to trade for this country?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion about the Canadian position. The Canadian position is aimed at saving thousands and thousands of jobs in our biggest industry. We are taking that position with the firm support of the provinces, the firm backing of the industry involved, and with the support of the labour union involved. This has been made clear to the Hon. Member.


CANADIAN PROPOSAL ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and also concerns the matter of jobs in the same sector. Not many months ago in Washington, with great fanfare the Canadian Government released hundreds of pounds of documentation allegedly proving beyond any reasonable doubt that our softwood lumber was going into the United States without any subsidy whatsoever. At that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs properly cautioned Canadians not to comment, not to discuss, not to change the proposal because it would undermine what was being argued before the tribunal. Is the Prime Minister aware that when the Minister for International Trade made her proposal on Tuesday of this week, it completely contradicted what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said should be done, and risked 25,000 Canadian jobs?
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, what changed between the position in June and the position in September was the industry's position. In June the industry was prepared to maintain the position it had in 1983. In August and September it was not. It is worried about the job impact of possible tariffs against industries and their towns, as a lot of New Democratic Party Members know. So what has changed in the position between June and the position in August and September is that the industry, with the support of the union involved, asked us to try to seek an out of court settlement. That is what we are doing. It is not helpful for the NDP to be undermining jobs in British Columbia.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister that it is she who changed her position, who undermined her case that we were assured in this House not many months ago was completely irrefutable. She has now sent another signal to the tribunal which is considering the case that she no longer has confidence in the case put by the Government of Canada. She is undermining once again the case she should be putting.


IDAHO SENATOR'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: I could provide a whole list of Americans who have said in the last 24 hours that the Government's case now lacks any credibility. Specifically I want to ask the Minister about this comment put forward by the Senator from Idaho who said:
Their proposal is a de facto admission that they are engaged in unfair trade practices.
Does the Minister agree with that? If so, I ask her again why she is risking thousands of Canadian jobs?


Pat Carney: We
are moving to save thousands of Canadian jobs, a lot of them in British Columbia. I make the point that the Hon. Member does not seem to understand, that when we won this case before it did not resolve the problem. We have had this case before us for about five or six years, creating a lot of uncertainty, a lot of harassment, affecting investment decisions and worrying a lot of people in Canada.
What we have done, with the support of the provinces, the industry, the labour union, and the U.S. administration, which is also trying to seek a pragmatic response to this problem, is to resolve the problem on a permanent basis and to protect this industry and these jobs from continual harassment.


DETERMINATION OF CULPABILITY
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know exactly what the federal Government's policy is on this very important issue. The American senator said that the Government's decision on Thursday represented an admission of the Canadian Government's guilt. And now for my question.
30

October 3, 1986
Oral Questions
Does the Minister agree with this view? Is the Government of Canada guilty, is our industry guilty, yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may speak for the Senator from Idaho but I am speaking for the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: I can only repeat the point I have made in this House that the position-as I say, it is our only offer-which has been presented to the Americans has the support of the provinces involved, the industry involved and the union involved, and was taken forward to the American administration to see if it could persuade the lumber producers who brought this action not only to withdraw the action they have taken against us but to stop the harassment. That is the position that I think is the only reasonable, realistic, and pragmatic position that any Government can take when it is being asked to move on behalf of Canadians in an industry under attack.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Wednesday's Speech from the Throne contained a number of platitudes about the Government's commitment to agriculture. However, to the amazement of Premier Devine, and almost everyone in western Canada, there was not one word about deficiency payments to our western farmers. Will the Minister stand in his place and make amends for this great omission by announcing a deficiency payment of at least $2 billion to western Canadian grain producers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we need not make any apologies for the strong commitment given to the agricultural industry in the Speech from the Throne.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: I challenge the Hon. Member to seek the help and advice of the Library of Parliament. I am certain he will find that this is the first time in the history of Canada that the agricultural industry was mentioned first in a Throne Speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Something which the Hon. Member cannot deny is the statement that, in terms of agriculture, "my Government will spare no effort".
That is a very firm commitment to the agricultural industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture spare no effort to ensure that the commitment is made known to the farmers? Will he tell us that he has failed in his battle with the Minister of Finance, that there is no money for farmers and, therefore, they will not receive the kind of commitment about which he has been telling us for the last ten months?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Government has spared no efforts since the day we were sworn into office. I ask the Hon. Member to check the record, and the facts will bear this out. The Government made 16 campaign commitments: we have fulfilled 15 of them. To date we have delivered some 320 achievements and commitments, transferring over $5 billion to the agricultural industry and, ladies and gentlemen-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: -and, Mr. Speaker, we have only just begun.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It would appear that CBC correspondent Michael Mclvor was the target of a Daniloff-style set-up in Moscow. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he summoned the Russian Ambassador to his office to protest strongly this extraordinary and incredible action? Will he tell us whether or not he has instructed our ambassador to deliver a note of protest to the Kremlin?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, naturally we are deeply concerned about the reports relating to the CBC correspondent in Moscow, as I am sure are all Members of the House. This morning the Soviet Ambassador to Canada was called into the Department of External Affairs. Our deep concern about this matter was registered to him. We have asked for an immediate explanation. As soon as we have further details, naturally, I will make them available to the House and to the country.

October 3, 1986


CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs telling us that he himself has not spoken to the Russian Ambassador about this incident? Can he also tell the House whether steps are being taken to protect Canadian journalists in the Soviet Union against harassment of this type?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, excuse me, this is a rare difficulty I have in the House of Commons, as Hon. Members will know.


Lloyd Axworthy: Being choked up?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, I am rarely choked up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have not seen the Soviet Ambassador myself. I instructed officials to do that this morning because I thought it urgent that it be done immediately. I was not in a position to see him myself, and it was done urgently. My impression is that he was not informed or advised of the circumstances. He is seeking information which he will give to us. We will take every action that is necessary, including every precaution that is available to us, to protect not only the safety but, more important, the rights of Canadian journalists in the Soviet Union.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister knows that due to low prices grain and corn producers throughout Canada are facing the most devastating year since the 1930s. Prairie Premiers have been calling for a deficiency payment for months. Can the Minister say when the Government will announce a deficiency payment?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Government is well aware of the economic problems facing the Canadian farmer. The Government has always stood by the Canadian farmer, and we intend to do so in the future.


SITUATION OF GRAIN FARMERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture talked about sparing no effort. What the farmers want to know is when the Government will spare over $1 billion for a deficiency payment.
Last month the Government was able to find over $1 billion for 25 of the largest oil companies in Canada. Why can the Government not find the money for a deficiency payment for
Oral Questions
140,000	grain farmers who are facing not only the loss of their farms but the loss of their homes and their livelihoods? Prices in Canada are half what they are in the United States due to the deficiency payment system in place in that country.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure from where the Hon. Member obtains his information or his idea that we have denied the implementation of a deficiency payment. Before the House adjourned for the summer recess we said, in response to questions posed primarily by members of the New Democratic Party that, indeed, a deficiency payment was an option. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that ensuring fairness and equity when making some type of compensation payment is a very complicated and complex issue. If the Hon. Member understands the complications, then I am sure he will realize that it will not be dealt with fairly and equitably simply by means of a deficiency payment but, rather, that it might take a program made up of three or four parts.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This morning Canadians learned that the Prime Minister announced the building of the prison in Port-Cartier, which is in his riding, two weeks before the decision was approved by his colleagues in Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has said that this was a government decision, when will he admit that every Canadian knows that this was but a blatant pork-barrelling move to his riding undertaken following the direct involvement of himself and his office?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to answer my hon. colleague's question. As the Hon. Member clearly indicated, the announcement was made on June 18. It was an announcement of government policy. A policy decision which was fully consistent with over-all government policy, and fully consistent with the Correctional Services capital budget, had been taken. It came to Treasury Board for the required approval of detailed estimates of cost. That approval was granted on July 3 on a preliminary basis and it was given effective project approval on April 10, 1986, which is very normal in capital projects of this type.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister is saying is that the Government is prepared to spend $60 million of Canadian funds without it being authorized in advance by the Treasury Board. That is pretty shameful.


BANKS AND BANKING
[Stage Direction]
cwrnnM.iH'jHTAii .Mix.it-.«ajwiBinn«*i mriiiavnsiBAWK caxaiim
Mr. W„ Pont MtCnmnm (Yiwt-hcarkwramgkic Mir. Spcakes. my apsmi« * for line Mimiisnes af 'Stone far Hammer. ]t was immioEnewi "lessesday iibam Lknyds Barak C.imaMia: wimumi be acajaumnmg line operathniins af line Comiinigaiaiil Baumk. Since true } (0! Ter cemn imamrimnniiTiT laremgio owmessitiiniiB Unstomm am Seaedunie A banks has mb affect. because i faeciigM owned Sciedaiie 3 bn™* k line jsourciaises. uk arnee uhc Gatcnoiniieain has MRi ;<es pmbtisied ins *ctMnjipiceiensii'ie wunerskici aosimm: am tiimmu-raii iimaiianiMimt will tine Miuamstes seek s. osMnnunnanuamcaiiil tram® Lksyds aamniibiir :® tihan admanmed fnanm lumaama winei consented. inn owamce. to obey imy icsuhainns am awmessinif) imrotirreed bn ike fbutmire?
Hou. Tom tiocui Miuister rf Slate iFaam;)c Mr. Speakes. I know line Bowse k is pease® is I ua train tie ioeseasmiE heaiiti usd itotaffliri af amr limncicaai iysseam Of saeiiise laif aeaii k rwnai lilmsurainioiii rf toe *wanM-viae CTsuft-destce atedc s bead in line CirEMtem xniti rr«y cym.nn ] irrimi it k dear k* d Meaaoess a* 'Jse Homse taat beeaase -af 'dm aeaii aaiSEomess .and hspodmore tnffl be *etl senred. Tibe .ncerrtaaociaL ierrshoe sruea *i3 be iewesed wiffl be seeand t® jome. In uma la ike Hem.. Meanuaes',f jntesoum. ne Save a ceiimia mb itewi far Sekedme B bames nim rrow, ima irutr mswers my Emiastiar osmeesns re may raise.
KOOVAiL ECWmOAIIC KSPAiNSKMM
SJESJIUIKr FffiK CL.ASKBfriCAiraam 'OBWIOiSMiilMffii RBtMESmW MKIWE
'ill 3EMHEN.TI11A1K.T
B#a. Jeam Lwcert Sieififortt)- Mr. Sojeako-. nay apesaiiam k abbrascSiBd kb uhc Riipht Ham. tie ftfsmie Mimikiies. lad ] waaud tsk him mas kb hinde tedminncal hk Miimktess susd Kb hawe tine mb lEdaad sga.
1 wound liiita- tie PnimiBC MiinmtHies 1® tdi me iw*« be cam jiuHniify tie inresfomsulaie descabani le nnnKaie-locwsiubstoiadnKe saminri mnhwee tas tie caammairy sod leigairdliiess af tie sdniiimamaii "HT-rrmi-ia iiiTfi. sarwiahiaaB

KB tswikicAi tie Uniiiimriinmid U jesmiiteaiiUia-ry pusajeeS Kb hk s?*m rnafim®..
3t$K K«o. Brian *><warwKy 3*-iate bditster : As ] had tie
aqnpgitBaiiity t<m iodikattc bn wies dneanonstoiDDES. Mr. Soeaukes. is was * beesHMii made by tie GuwesnnniKsini of Camada. lie dmuhe ekadied GkiwenmmeErai. .At oties gangs nummUs tew: 'bone bn Mies anoanMaEBCics. iihk OnBuermimtoiiii iitamdad t® booiJd fedesail faealiiiuies bn nsmiae taigaams of tie aamminx. jamncniainiy tiiase wthdii me band hk by rssrr- imiigiu Mraonnimninesni. TlhEsrfiane 1 .'osKHdes iibaa tie beaatasm of lie Giiwemmnttafli of r.iniminitn faced wikii tie anmaiiiiam im I*on!-Curates wiese tie Miesonindytiiiennit rane was ubeuis. 32 or 3S jjes cestui, iff I in® mm aaktaikesL, and wtsese lie canoiimEnniEy hns tanfessetni jieati ensaneimnic bairdsamipi 1 dsmsides lican. in was. m any dew. it wise obciHdm otnuHkiiasiin wmi mnr tradiinBiHis windb ddnane tdnam Onwesimneant bescssMi® laike tie lejjnamaii eBDoamne 'sapMSBKSi facssw non® ini-pidwraminm
CE®VS3BX.lMIE,iTr 'POSinnKWii
Boa. Jen Lapieerw Sherfswu): A wnMkesnnemnairi iuescon. Mr. Sjwaaar. Tie Prnme Miacnsnes k taytang tiaa tie deraaom bad iffl'iie wtkib reasconiim sDamnnoDK; smaunsBam. Does k mream tteit Mies fflennntetniaines will be buaitt bn Vtf*wr,.m rrrlh m.?' Tie ?nane Mibniisnes s tanUfimng js litan k was n Gasesimnneinn desssiiom.. Hkw* cam be 'ecomcaie ink reaatanks whtit tiwse af ink Mibmsnes off matinkn^ win® maned tinas k .bad beem bns jessamati detoHdm. timn oemies tie Prime Mionstes anr tie Gniwesnnniieau bad imyttAnknjg t® ho wikii it. ubai ie took fkiil lesoauBBibcnity iar it? Here k wmi I waat to framnw franm tie Pmsme Aiomstes:: Cam be snamd tn* and TKflniib bis heesno* t® waste itaatnes S3 5 amilKMiL jHiins S3 oniiiiKiim .rossse -.esesy rearB
Hob. James Sesfenef Sudicbior General H Ctoatm: Mr. Sfeakes. is tae Pmnne Mimistes has uiineadv Maned, 'ibis was r $owiesnmeaii heotem. W« uiways take aa aaoMdessnaon. no makemg rowerntneac hecssHMis. wetur-ccsjocamrc canaktons imd legKMiiai! htscatmus tarorngaomt tie amntry. Tins ias been tie practice m" GorenmnaUs .itimee CamiederaiKMi. It is tie traettee of tins GuMemconeinL und ] know k will ccaiciiiti.e :® be tie tracnice im® consmesaition o' .Jovesnmerits tor tie test mamy yeairs to aaose. We make so roodogies fur trynag ta -eietre KotKimtc listran ny im lie -oBiniiiary.
Ctaaafeer 3.,
COIMMOlXS D>E&ATES
PEOTinEMIlMBHES
cmsmuicim^iQF ™ nmh]cou.wm!h rmmms
Vfr. J*.*b VtMincua (Tnrik Stenili-Wiesrontc Mr.. Speaker., imy fuesBABB k dimmitmi! t® Ae Pninme Mikiiffiler.. Tie tteesteini to taimud Ae tnnkssnt im Isk mafiiHg k nwantsg, antd be bat®*** it. St oubiikhi be jiiamiiikBiL. Ill makes jkb sense

ms sEBnaffinmc tense. hg>
monsu! teaser. litotes 'Ac I^rrijamc MiAittner Teak- raped CantBaiiBaas. to bedioe: titan ine ^did asa persenatilllw interfere A Ac deckum to tmuuM Ac janktsnt A hk iMA^. amnniaffy to ail Ae Canaaiairo wites 'Sfiqwisaai Ac demuoin.?
Hw. James. Ibthtef i.SmSkskm Genera* «tf Canada tc Mr. Speaker. I And it band t® taafiote tfat Aey d® nrnt etpumse Ac pasaasni af teyiAg to rdScrc {Eeotkmmc dkpamky.. As ter sis I turn, link was alwiaw Ac pssAtnitfflni <af Ac Summer Giwercmmeaiii.. Iff I may. 1 stannic! Sike m q®8Htie Ac Ham.. Meander far Y'ank Centoc. tie Aem Starinaar Gesnerai, Witteat be appearm before ike Stiamdiimg Cjaammibniee «® JasOike and Lagan! Afffkms im May.
i& icqwmrtcd A VAAaonc M an paste 4$.. A nfamSmg wmA Ac imninny mf Ac Renams faoiily,, be isaujod::
Tlte fans' '.was iuhroem i tearing fir, unnui tajnsuitarjiouiw *nf lejgiuiiaai itewdunimaTtL
is wall is ajirwiihirdiGiuns af aHTwasnomti, tec 'Ite unuimr wifi iQimi Srann nw
WliuifiBirA.. Im Sbul, I flfcink ewer* U&Dffiirannsnc uf ate {sunanniraniL af Qmute
iiiiHtT .3QD lUite :uisQunt «af THnunaji (rispnilfy *tt. iteutnjg ' vinlfc ins <otmh nrnmnoesv
Saw Ham. Mtanars: Hear. team!
KESJOiESTTMAT OMNSMSIiOMM iE mOlE®
Mr. Joan Swutaia York Stmcd-Wesitfa tc Mr.. Seeiser. I baw a tmntptefflneriiiiary itpesnKm. Tbe Pnamc MiAtsser kwuKs Amt tree does non iwtiiild jetsams- im order to iciiiioe jsKaicmEic oiiktpariiitiies..
Sonne How. Mesnaei'tt Oft. «k!
Mr. **tHr,Ms«3.- I stannW Ske- to dared my sffifffltesmemffiiry onaesiLBtm to Ae PnAse Mimiisier.. 1 Ktowiid bone that be has Ac cawtraigr tostamd aiad answer.
Mr. Swaierc W.ijuuld line H«tm, MemniiBcr jnn ins atniesctam. jstease?
Mr. Vamian:: October 3, 1986


GRAIN HANDLERS' DISPUTE-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO END WORK STOPPAGE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerning the Thunder Bay dispute is for the Minister of Labour who will know that prairie farmers already devastated by low international grain prices can ill afford to pay while the grain companies and the unions play. Will the Minister consider today giving the required notice of intention to bring forward legislation putting an end to a stand-off which has the potential to cost Canadian farmers millions and to undermine Canada's export reputation?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is because of my colleagues' concern and the concern of all other colleagues in this House on the Thunder Bay situation that 1 appointed the best person in the land to go to Thunder Bay to get the parties together and mediate the issue. It would be premature for me, I think, to comment on that option at this point since there is progress.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Speech from the Throne suggests a program of comprehensive tax reform. Will the Minister of Finance shortly be producing a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals for this comprehensive tax reform? If so, when will the paper be available and will the Government be expecting the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to conduct public hearings across the country to get public input to the reform?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the direct answer to the Hon. Member's question is that at some time during the course of this month I propose to make a speech on the question of tax reform to try to give some guidance to the country on the direction we want to go as a Government in tax reform. I hope this will generate a good deal of discussion and debate which will help in the course of the normal consultations that I have during the fall. Following that I will be preparing some specific proposals to put before the House.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, may I have a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: It is unusual, but in the spirit of generosity, which I hope will be noticed, I shall allow a supplementary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: May the spirit forever remain in the House, Mr. Speaker,
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Was the mediator given a deadline to resolve the dispute?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Wrong question.


Mr. Speaker:: My generosity has had to be brought abruptly to a close.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Member's supplementary question should have been addressed to another Minister.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
How can the Minister justify supporting a decision that puts 650 workers at the CN workshops in Moncton out of work, without having read the internal study on CN's repair facilities? How can he justify supporting this decision?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have made no decision in connection with the matter to which the Hon. Member refers. That was a painful business decision made by the Canadian National Railway Company which, in 1978, was directed by the then Liberal administration of this country that it had to get on its own. It was going to be relieved of certain debts at that time and from then on it had to operate to make a profit, break even, or generate its own cash resources itself.
The CN Railway Company has come to a decision based on the fact that it has certain heavy car shop facilities. Of the three facilities it has in Canada only one is needed in future, the one that is located in the west where most of the business now is. That decision was CN's. We are, and CN is, doing everything to ameliorate that decision in Moncton. We will continue to do that and to encourage the re-employment of as many people as possible of those who must be laid off.


PEOPLE OFTHE ATLANTIC PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same Minister.

October 3, 1986

The Minister says that he does not support the decision, but his failure to act confirms that he does support the decision by CN. Does this decision to put 650 workers out of work reflect this Government's policy on regional development? Is that how this Government intends to treat people in Atlantic Canada, where at this time we feel we are being treated like Third World countries?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that I am simply continuing the policy set by the previous administration. There were many thousands-


John Edward Broadbent: You are supposed to change it.


Mr. Riis:: We are supposed to have something different.


John Carnell Crosbie: There were many thousands of CN employees laid off across the country during 1980 to 1984 at which time the then Government did not intervene, thousands of them in Atlantic Canada. This is a great pity.
If CN has to compete against U.S. railways and other modes of transportation and must make it on its own, that is the way it has to be. I cannot overrule the board of directors and management of CN in business decisions that they had to come to themselves. We will do, and we have done, everything we can to ensure that the workers affected are assisted. It is a pity at the present time there are some impediments in the way, but we are hoping they will be overcome.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Although we are some two months into the new crop year most prairie farmers have not been given any permission to deliver grain into the new crop year because there have been no quotas. Since quotas generally follow sales commitments, are we still making sales? Why are there no quotas?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I have to point out to the Hon. Member that yesterday we had extremely good news for Canadian farmers concerning sales. Our best customer saw fit to renew a five-year grain agreement that calls for a minimum of 25 million tonnes of grain over five years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: I should also point out that that is the minimum amount. Over the last five years the Soviet Union bought 36
Oral Questions
million tonnes. That is certainly good news. The sale is worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion a year, even at today's prices. Hopefully over time prices will improve so it will be a multibillion dollar deal.
I am well aware of the concern which the Hon. Member raises. We have been moving grain and some quotas will be announced very shortly.


SALES CLEARANCES INQUIRY
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that there are really only two major grain buyers left in the world, Russia and Japan. My question is more specific. What has happened to our sales clearances and our clearances for the first two months of the crop year in comparison to previous years? Generally we have had quotas offered much sooner than this. This is a near record in not being able to deliver grain as far as the farmers are concerned. How are our clearances compared to previous years?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a former member of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee and I would have thought he would have had his facts together. The Canadian Wheat Board sold grain last year to something like 60 countries. When he says that we have only two customers, he insults Brazil, Japan, and all of the other customers-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I said major customers.


Charles James Mayer: -that buy a tremendous amount of grain from us.
We are making sales. As evidence of that, at the end of the crop year last year we went into it with the lowest on-farm carry-over on record. The Canadian Wheat Board has been doing an extremely good job of marketing and with the support of this Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Charles James Mayer: -it will continue to do a very good job.


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister is aware that the price spread between leaded and unleaded gasoline is substantially higher in Canada than it is in the United States. Will the Minister give the House his undertaking that he will ensure that this substantial difference is eliminated?

October 3, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Mazankowski


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, because of differences in the tax structure of our two countries-I am referring both to the federal governments and to the provinces or states-plus the matter of marketing structures in the various regions, where outlets may be more or less numerous, plus the matter of how far people are from the refineries and the pipelines, so because of all these factors, the price of gas differs from region to region inside Canada and from one country to another on the North American continent, and I am referring to the United States and Canada.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to remind him that in addition to the 650 maintenance employees at the CN workshops in Moncton who have been put out of work, there are 2,000 at the workshops at Pointe-Saint-Charles in Montreal whose jobs are at stake. I would also like to remind him that history tells us about a man called Pontius Pilate who decided to wash his hands-
Since the Minister claims that CN made this decision on its own, is he prepared to table here in the House CN's internal study on the maintenance of rolling stock?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is slow in exhibiting concern. Over 7,000 CN employees were laid off during the term of the last Liberal administation.
With respect to Pointe-Saint-Charles, there are no plans of which I know for any lay-offs there, though there may be temporary lay-offs from time to time. CN plans to utilize that facility and to continue utilizing it to do all the kinds of work that it can do with outside third parties. That is the plan for it, and CN has no reason to doubt that it will be a successful plan. There is no plan to close that facility, and CN and we will make every effort to ensure that it continues in full production in the coming years.
[Translation)


REQUEST THAT STUDY BE TABLED
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the Minister's good intentions and his assurances that the workers at Pointe-Saint-Charles do not have to worry. However, I am going to ask him to answer my question, since he failed to do so.
Is the Minister prepared to table before all Canadians the study by CN on maintenance of railway cars and locomotives, so the Canadian public can see for itself whether there is any real justification for laying people off-in Moncton that is already the case, and it may happen in Pointe-Saint-Charles- because I am not entirely convinced by the assurances that I have just been given?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot table in the House confidential reports prepared by CN or any of our other Crown corporations in connection with their work, reports that their competitors would dearly love to see, including U.S. railways and others. The suggestion is jejune and juvenile.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I hope that you will find it consistent with the spirit of goodwill and generosity on which you had elaborated earlier, particularly within the spirit of the desire on the part of, I believe, all Members to set a new tone in the House of Commons consistent with the rules, traditions and practices of parliamentary procedure.
I simply want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the type of questions that were put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). They were, I believe, inconsistent with the standard rules of procedure as outlined in Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition. I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Citation 359 which reads as follows:
"(1) It must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation,
argumentation, nor debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is fine. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the questions-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The answer must not be a lie.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, furthermore the question must be brief. Second, a supplementary question should need no preamble.
I merely draw these points to your attention, Sir, because I think it would be in our interest to try to conduct ourselves consistent with the rules of parliamentary practice as outlined in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 3, 1986


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Citation raised by the government House Leader refers only to guidelines which the Speaker who made out those guidlines decided to use in exercising his own discretion with respect to Question Period. If I am not mistaken, those guidelines were given some 20 years ago. Since that time, successive Speakers have recognized over and over again questions, of the very kind about which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) complains, when they came from Conservative Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I say that it does not sit well in the mouth of the government House Leader now to raise these points when, through the questions of his own side, he and his colleagues have established this precedent.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the goodwill which we all accord to you, that you recognize what has developed in past years through questions accepted by the Chair from Conservative Members and use that point of view in carrying out the discretion given to you by the House. To do otherwise at this point would certainly undermine the spirit of goodwill and co-operation which I think we all want to have from here on in.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that this has taken place today. This is our first day back and a new Speaker is in the chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The government House Leader has a responsibility to act as an example and to set a tone. We have regular meetings of House Leaders. If he had some concerns to raise today, there is an appropriate forum in which to raise those concerns. This first day in the House with a new Speaker in the chair is certainly not the place.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, consistent with what has already been said and the reference made to the precedent, I think we all understand that those guidelines have been set down and we all try to follow them. We are talking about now, and I appreciate that the Chair admonished cabinet Ministers to keep their answers short; that is fair ball. However, I would particularly draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the second question put by the Leader of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) which included two argumentative preambles, a reference to the Minister undermining Canada followed by a quotation from a U.S. Senator in a U.S. newspaper. Then the question was asked.
We are saying, Mr. Speaker, that this is within the spirit of reform and I am not being argumentative at all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is the new civility, I take it.


Mr. Murphy:: Maybe we can have the PMO leak something.
Introduction of Bills


Philip Derek Lewis: I can handle that too. This Question Period is for all Members of Parliament to hold the Government accountable. Short questions and short answers allow more Hon. Members to do so. More members of the Opposition can participate, as well as more members of the Government. I would ask you, Sir, to consider this representation when you make any sort of a ruling.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this is an important question. I would ask you to take note of the fact that in Parliament, adequate time must be given to opposition Parties to properly present their points of view. To make a suggestion such as this in a Parliament which has the greatest majority in favour of government Members is completely ridiculous. When those Hon. Members were on this side, in a Parliament which was much closer in numbers, they asked questions which were even further out of order and longer and did not respect the points made by the House Leader today. If there is to be a change, it should never be made in a Parliament in which opposition Parties have as few Members as they have today. I would like you to consider that in making a decision, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to thank Hon. Members for bringing their concerns to my attention, and I accept with a certain amount of satisfaction the expressions of goodwill that have been made during those representations. I will, of course, be having regular meetings with representatives of all Parties of the House and I will be making special efforts to meet with individuals, groups of individuals and private Members. I will take into careful account the representations that have been made here today. I welcome the comments and the suggestions, and we will gather together to discuss what seems to be differences in approach which are properly expressed, especially to your new Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce for first reading three separate Private Members Bills dealing with the subject of capital punishment. Each Bill addresses different aspects of this important matter. For instance, one Bill focuses on first-degree murder and treason, while another establishes capital punishment for acts commonly known as terrorism.
In addition, the most recent Bill which has just been drafted provides for execution by the method of lethal injection as

October 3, 1986
Motions
opposed to hanging. Finally, all three Bills reflect the appropriate provisions of the Young Offenders Act.
I present these Bills on behalf of the 80 per cent of my constituents as well as the majority of Canadians who support the return of capital punishment for first-degree premeditated murder as a reasonable form of justice.


MEASURE TO AMEND
William Henry (Bill) Domm: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

William Henry (Bill) Domm: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

John Wise: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an Act to amend the Radio Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Flora Isabel MacDonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Railway Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the other House Leaders with respect to the reinstatement of certain Bills. I think that you will find unanimous approval for the reinstatement of Bills C-92, C-94, and C-95 as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the following Bills introduced in the First Session of the Thirty-third Parliament be reinstated forthwith in this Session as follows:

October 3, 1986

An Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read a second time, referred to and reported by a Legislative Committee with amendments, and ordered to stand on the Order Paper for consideration by the House at report stage on or after Tuesday, October 7, 1986 (Bill C-92);
An Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee (Bill C-94); and
An Act respecting the Archives of Canada and Records of government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act, be deemed to have been introduced, read the first time and ordered to be printed, read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee (Bill C-95);
And that the evidence adduced and documents received by any Legislative Committee of this House in the First Session of the Thirty-third Parliament in relation to these Bills be deemed to have been referred to a Legislative Committee in this present Session.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what a contrast between this motion and the previous remarks of the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski). With respect to this motion, there were consultations with his predecessor before the Hon. Member became the Government House Leader. We discussed it further with the Government House Leader when he assumed that position. There have been extensive discussions. This is quite a contrast, as I have said, with his unwarranted assertion with respect to the Question Period based on outmoded guidelines which were totally superseded by guidelines issues by the immediate predecessor of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member would want to address the particular matter that is before the Speaker. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that I got his point earlier.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In any event, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there have been consultations with respect to this motion. I must say that, after listening to the Government House Leader on his point of order, I was having second thoughts about the way we should deal with his motion if he happened to present it. However, in the spirit of good will and co-operation, we will give unanimous consent to the motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation and in an effort to facilitate the business of the House, we agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Address-Mr. John Turner Motion agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 2, 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.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, first, in keeping with the traditions of the House, may I congratulate the mover and seconder, the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) and the Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard), on their speeches in support of the Address yesterday. They were well delivered, full of verve and style, and I admired them even more because they had to defend a hopelessly empty document that is now before the House.
In rising to respond to the Speech from the Throne, first I would like to pay my respects to its author. Of course, we had expected a higher standard from Dalton Camp after reading his column for many years, first in the Toronto Sun, then in the Toronto Star. In those days we used to get it for 25 cents. Obviously Mr. Camp has had to surrender some of that style to the rigours of committee authorship. The rhetoric is attractive, the phrases are flowery. There is even a touch of humility here and there. It raises vagueness to an art form.
Of course, Canadians have one question to ask: was it really worth waiting one extra month for this document, this speech? I think citizens right across Canada will say no, it certainly was not worth the wait.
Nobody quarrels with the intent. There is a sentence, a phrase, and sometimes a paragraph for every group in the country, every interest and every region. But where is the plan? Where is the working agenda? There is nothing new.
It is a recycled speech from a recycled government that is two years old and already tired. The Government spent the last two years breaking its promises, and obviously, from this document, it will spend the next two years making new promises. It is an invitation to Canadian voters to embark on a second honeymoon when Canadians are already talking about a divorce. This explains why the Government had to call in the three puppeteers- Dalton Camp, Lowell Murray, and Norman Atkins-three powerful non-elected backroom boys who are now supposed to act as marriage counsellors to the Government and the Canadian people.
The Throne Speech is supposed to be the Government's new platform. We know what happened to the last one. The Conservatives tore it down so quickly and completely that there was only enough wood left to build a presidential style podium for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That is the
m


COMMONS EJEMXES
[Stage Direction]
Gctotoer 1, E1*
The Athkmsa-Mr. JusOm. Tmrmer
amliy tiring tttaal Ik realty kept from tire pteffsnrna irf trmw yean am
fi tire mKssigK in nrt gssstJniaqg tteroujgii as tire Prase Mimiwtm-iro® Isas psfitaHsrs, [ Ireare lie testtenB w tire nnnssssg; gteest to hwnm toy tire rotes <af SEiamt-MaairicE *md Pasmtemsi «at Mtenwitfiy. Wbm Ire xml hniis auirainscs sit damns xnd amalron? tire iressnte ®f tire®: toy-diseitwnB (they mil sat that tinat samppffiBt was cant im tea® [ hefcre that refects tire sir* that im jmst traro stosart scats tins Gswrannnoiit teas fenisad Ctisimaiefaiiiift t® grow weary <tf a Gicwcnanimamt that Stems! Swanr scaniiai w sawdaL a CkonanEMOnit. Stoat te premrmpiied with fans «mmc kmag: am! polls sund te wmatolii: to present to tire ownniiry a dear $n#d amnsteteot rfiiiiggaimi
This me* Ttarraare Spaecfc is teased tapas what tire Prime Miamncr tosses to team tthe tfonar plkais: ratirtBal racmroritaiwiL. scwonaiK renewal social jmstiiee jure! amstomcaiw; MtamtoHm-alnsniL Tire proWe®. is that we have tosand iit all before. We heard iit dnaring tire dtcctwHi eraapaiigi and we teeamd it im. tire first Thiraare Speech.. Oajmaiitams ate rightly asking winy they sitrtmtoi tnnast the Gwwanmmeat mm.. Tteev see wtiarate like "matMnai ictoMdiiiaiiMiii' cansteng front time saare parson wire catted stinkers iat Alteeria ssmirasisis. They see w'owfc iiike "eoomosMic snarem-al" canming front ittoe same GmcmaDomt whichi has tesMMimsalljy' cast tes aid to tte: regasra; ©f nine casiiiitrs anui abandonee farmers. fistanmreii; ami umimars. They see wsandts Iiike "sacral niastac:''' oaxmrag from time same Gwnsrmiraant that teas drasticalib act social programs what it owce called ttteam a saarad tnmsL It tried to decodes lfcw aW ajge peHtsw® arod sfflocsedkai as detmteesiBg ttoe daimiliy alkowaroct. Time Crorai-nmant steattoned tlwse OMmiwtaieffiaK,.
CaatadiaiK see wosrdK Eke "otMSBniactiiw; iratesriiatBaraiaiissnn'" infflai tine saiae people wteo nmow teawe gtrate iunto iiockod ssep with line anurrant LCS. adimniiEitsinratafflE «w akoost ewery tssme. Ttoe cstpscssboe nssod tc tee ttoat when tine Ci-S. seneentes r.-*mania catches ooti Tinat has ieea gwee. a wimoie anew iaterpinesatkm Kinder this GcwarEttmeiUL It seetms that whet RcmaM Reagan has i dung pEnoblisffi Camada gets an epodannsc
The Piicme Mimnstcr shosiki not wonder if Canadnams are cymtca! abotit the latest attannpt to set! theac a new casage
We mndetstami that pair of time strat^y its to keep the Prime Minister Kinder ooitirol. to keep him o«it of the Honase It is called damage oomtiroL. The theory is tinat he will do less harm to hss Government if he is out on the naad doing "what he does best' -we are still waiting to see what that is-than he would be if he was tn the House of Commons. Perhaps the events of the iast two weeks will force the Prime Minister's advisers to reverse that strategy. Some observers have even come to the conclusion that he is running for nay job as Leader of the Opposition.. Why not? Everyone else is.
Some Hon. Members:: 
COMMONS HSEBLATES
[Stage Direction]
task usS ssamiffliKiwiB- That hade ®f msnfefaiHB is ShI. there. I bo must mnffl ithmt «iim*lll dnaiqgi, allttasnigii ttine Mhmsier of Ftaffinre ((Me. Witanti) msiigimL
The femmer MkmitflKT ®f tine Eawwajiiiiiiioiiit msaigrotsi after -spcnjifiiiing ttlncHisaimiiB ®f Bail ritmUitBirs on i qroesmomataie tnriip 0® EasMspe. fe that a wimnlll tthimpg? A Mtamster af FttfimesiEi is foaroad to resign! fflwer a frimna sramfai must. Sir, tasramiss ysa list the terna gso <sm ttta ataetaes but tocra®*: fm. disagreed with ttta Primne Mhmtsttsr as too mho brook than raff the itodraes.
Me. Speaker Ckbec. I «siM tape that im debate, which mmast fee vigroroms and, of crammst, very fear raagfemg, Horn. Meambess nrmiiylmt Itsawe ttta Speaker out of ttta tmidS of the Gsunttwarw bscamist, I nmitst assure all Hon. Mamberj- there ate same things wwr Speaker mnaltd just as soon put behiniod hnnmn
Mi. Turner (Yamcwuuer Qudnite I wil take that point, Mr. Speaker, toasaase the Hawse derusted t** mights ag® what iit ttawigtot about that puirtncultar dispute. ata derided Simmiiy im wwtr irawwic.
So mmnicfe for the sural things, so called. Wlrat atocwEt the big thing; suck as the ocmsasimy. trade, raathoaal insaaradihatim arod tax reform?
Let os task at ttta ecamanmy. Where are we a® ttta taffiot? Deftest redmctiwM was gracing to fee a mrairar thrust of this Government. Im his last Budget the Mratister of Ftaamce nrojected that his bog aostraBiofehiistcmt wtjulid he to rednuo: the deficit this wear to $2$ .5 btliksiL We toiid him that his propsc-thorns were wrong. We triid hitutt that his assssmptkms an afi prices and interest rates were way off. I think mast casramemta-tffln in the country would recognize that, butt the Minister did not admit it because the number was pat there far pahtucal ata cosmetic reasons, too keep bag business happy and to get am nimiiitkal approval KM that particular Badges; from hag business. Now, jiust seven months katec, the Minister has a mew ptrojee-tion which is $2.5 billion higher and we are back tup to $32 baliaon. How is that for targeting.?
Despite massive iratoervemtiom im foreign markets our ddliar has dropped daring the coarse of this Government from 77 cents US. to somewhere between 71 amid 72 cents UJS.
The economic recovery has beer. uneven. It has centered maimly im urban Ontario and urban Quebec. Western Canada is im recession. Atlantic Canada has been cut adrift. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crasbie) say®; "Don't oounpiaiB.. You are taster off than Bangladesh1". That is one of the most insensitive comments ewer heard im this country, even from that Minister. All the people of Atlantic Canada want is equality of opportunity with the rest of Canada, not with the Third World.
Im its Throne Speech, the Government is proposing am Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency , adding more levels of bureaucracy when what Atlantic Canadians want, and what they need, is more iota
Ths JkMmesz-Mr. Jutohm comer
(TmamstowE]
The ftritmu; Mfemstorr Bikes tec brag about the Muamtar of jttfes he has aneatsei, butt for ttbcmsaBAi of Gamsditm mnai ata wwnmea ttta sad ttamtth is that there has bees a met toss of aitnmsst HJB iusini smna: Jkaaniiary tthniB ytsan. atai tttaas; juMes CaimaduamB wbh ttta PriMK Mnmiister w®bM stoop rntteriimg mmasksadmig stoEteamenitts jatoflmt ptOTitonus admnimitstratiKiaiK ata wunM tmmpjjeimKait pisfciies aamsi pmmcirBmnK itasagaiKsd tos ffluaramtee they wiM tee afeie tos mejismii ttta kabffiHiir fiotce.
|]Em^Siisb]
Let ms tank at anKStttar bog tthimng, trade. Free trad; wmttit ttta □miitoad States was ttta mrajwr eoanMnmiic tthrmst of ttta Gtwerm-nnneant It has been foottetad ata bmaj^ted right froms. ttta begin-mmaag w. a wer>
big way. Nggpriatw-r have been tl-tnntnied, fflU-mitgmayiH ata aSi-prepared. Imsttead of qmtat cdSebnrre dfeptamacy im. pastsmitt of asmetbie, dear oliqedisres, ttta Goseffttammemt has set ®s on a tayped-mp oamopirdiieoiiBre fefliatteral treaty megcffimtiHar. with the Umitad States withomt any debate im tbits Homs: of Cffltnmmnfflms amid with mmadeqmatte cantsmilifiattiisM with «amr ptrom-iimeas.
It its mwiw dear that the Prime Miumitster katmetad these ttaifcs im that aosmeak jibnmt dedaraticn with ttta President of the United States, im Quebec City without madegseamdeng eothcr the hnitiative or Canada He its mow tryumg tM extricate imammsdlt by feiianmng ttta .Americans, but Canadians are seeing the tmth. They know that the Prime Minister did mot know what he was daring when he inegam this whole affair. Now the wwdts "free trade"', those ringing wwdts im the jiaint dediaratioE.. have teecome, tea use the words of the Throine Speech " the pursuit ot a snutualiiy advantageous trade agreement with the United States". The Gtwemment its baffling out, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were going to stop baffling, and fix the boat. Was that mot what Dalito® said?
Where does that leave us.? We are unlikely, im. my view, too achieve am agreement with the United States which adequately protects Canadian interests.. Equally, too walk away from these megotiatioiK now may produce countervailing measures against us. Goodness knows, we are getting costtttervailiing achoc unliiateraliiy from the United States even during the course of the negiatkms. What has happened is that the Prime Minister has painted Canada into a comer. Let us take yesterday. Through the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney') we knuckled under om the lumber issue. We admitted the American case on stumpage. We submitted the ofter during the deliberation of the American tribunal which is going too deride im a few days. We conceded the case. We have now given the administrators south of the border the evidence to deride the way they want to deride. All I can say to the Prime Minister is, what a negotiator! He boasted in Saskatoon, when the new Minister received her portfolio: "Pat Carney has the tall now. Hold on to your tap". Despite that unhappy metaphor, the Minister fumbled on our two-vard line, that is what she did.
Some Hot. Members: Hear, hear!
[Stage Direction]
October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. John Turner
John Napier Turner: I continue the metaphor. She must now understand what the words "level playing-field" really mean. So far as the Americans are concerned in their negotiations with our Government they can sense weakness. They can sense stumbling and lack of preparation. For the United States "level playing-field" has always meant better rules, a better referee and a better ball. Our Minister does not know how to play the game.


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


John Napier Turner: A number of our major economic sectors are now experiencing difficulties which are not about to vanish. Most of them, such as agriculture, energy, mining and forestry, are based in Western Canada. Then there is the fishing industry on Canada's east and west coasts. Concerted efforts on the part of the two government levels and the private sector are a must if this country is to come to grips with the challenges facing these industries.

Regionally balanced economic growth matters to Canadians in a way that it does not matter to Americans. As I have said, they talk about a level playing-field. A level playing-field to Americans means no special regional incentives. To us it means the exact opposite. To us attacking regional inequality is part of a key role that any Canadian Government has to play.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want to say this to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues. Free trade is not a substitute for a comprehensive national economic policy. I say it is about time for the Government to start to understand and recognize that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I would now like to deal with another one of the big topics. I would like to talk about national reconciliation.

One of the major commitments made in the previous Speech from the Throne had to do with measures aimed at paving the way for Quebec to endorse the Canadian Constitution. The Government had then promised, and I use the words of the first throne speech, to "-work to create the conditions that will make possible the achievement of this essential accord". We were promised a new era of harmony in federal-provincial relations. But what are the intentions of the Prime Minister? What are his proposals in response to Mr. Bourassa's initiatives? Why is he shifting into reverse in this Speech from the Throne, and I repeat the words of the speech, by stating that " ... should there appear reasonable prospects for agreement, formal negotiations will proceed ... "? In other words, Mr. Speaker, give us the answers and we will provide the questions. Is that leadership?

Another big commitment of the Government was in terms of tax reform. In 1984, in its first Speech from the Throne, the Government said the objective was to make the tax system simpler and fairer. The reality is that in two successive Budgets the Minister of Finance attacked lower and middle income groups and gave tax breaks to the rich. Those Budgets widened the gap between rich and poor and, moreover, encouraged a concentration of economic power. Those Budgets were sneaky and unfair. And in the Speech from the Throne which is before us the Government talked about concentration of economic power. Why did it not do something about it last spring when the competition legislation was before the House? I raised the issue fully in a one-hour speech before the House. I have talked about it inside and outside. Now, we finally have some recognition of it in the Speech from the Throne. I want to say again to the author of the speech: "Dalton, wherever you are, give me a split on the royalties before the day is over".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Under the present Government, individual tax rates have gone up while corporate rates have gone down. Fairness was not the overriding principle in the last two years. Why should Canadians really believe that the next two years will be any different?
[ Translation]
We agree that our tax reforms must take into account those implemented by the Americans. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has not taken the same route. Where the Americans propose taxing capital gains, the Minister is making the rich in this country a present of $500,000. Where the Americans are reducing the tax rate, our Minister of Finance is imposing a surtax.
The Speech from the Throne does not even mention the transaction tax, which would constitute a massive tax on consumption and would replace the sales tax. This kind of tax is not only regressive, it is almost invisible. Canadians would pay this tax without knowing it.
What effect would the tax have on low-income Canadians? On small businesses? On the construction industry?
The promise to reduce the income tax rate is very attractive, but the Minister has a duty to inform Canadians about the deductions he will eliminate to replace the lost revenue. Will it be the basic personal exemption? The exemption for senior citizens? The exemption for dependent children? The registered retirement savings plan deduction?
Tax reform is a very attractive measure, but I would not want to see us fall into the trap of simplicity at the expense of justice.
October 3, 1986



The Prime Minister was also going to usher in a new era of pristine non-partisan appointments. Gone would be the days of political patronage. That was the shortest-lived promise on record. Some 20 minutes after he and his colleagues were sworn in the Tory patronage parade got underway, and it has been gathering speed ever since.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Yet the Prime Minister wonders why he is now criticized for packing government boards, agencies and tribunals with his cronies and Tory friends. 1 can only tell him that he did not have to do it; he could have kept his word. He had an option.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: While I am at it I will give him another option. Please give up the presidential style. I do not believe Canadians want their Prime Minister to have all the superficial presidential symbols, the flying wedges of mounties with the earphones, the motorcades, the official seal on the podium, the Hercules aircraft to carry the video equipment, the self-promoting embassy publications, and now the personal valet and maid on all foreign trips.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: It seems it would not do to have any wrinkles on the emperor's new clothes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister, if you cannot tie one of those black ties I will send you a clip-on one. The Prime Minister hopes now that his political valet, Dalton Camp, will do the same for his policies that his personal valet does for his shirts. He now has one to press them and another one to stuff them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I returned to public life for two reasons. The first was to help to rebuild a great national party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: That is coming along just fine.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The other reason was to lead. I am trying to respond to a feeling which I think will be shared by all Members of the House. I know that it is shared by most Canadians, after having spent another summer on the
The Address-Mr. John Turner
road. The feeling is that as a nation, somehow, despite all the benefits and the great heritage, we have not reached our potential as a nation. We have inherited the most bountiful heritage on the face of the globe in terms of land, water and resources. We have a sense of space, a spirit of the frontier, two languages, many cultures, a respect for the rule of law and a flourishing parliamentary democracy. We have seen bravery in four wars. I believe we live in the freest country in the world. Yet despite that we have not reached our potential. Our children feel it; they sense it. They feel that when they get out of school or college they will not do as well in life as we have done. They also feel that somehow we have let them down.
The Throne Speech proves that the Government has no agenda. I want to share some of my beliefs with the House and with the country. We must stand up for our country. We must reassert our patriotism and we must reassert our sovereignty. Some of us may wince when we see an American stand up in the morning and salute his flag or when we see an American stand with his hand over his heart when the national anthem is sung, but I think we need a little of that in this country. We need to stand up for Canada, to say that we are proud to be Canadians, and to assert that sovereignty. Nowhere should we assert that sovereignty more than in the current trade negotiations with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We must think smarter and work smarter. We must focus on education, training, retraining, and research. I am flattered that the Government has stolen the proposal which I made months ago for a conference on post-secondary education; it is a good idea. However, if it continues to cut funding at the rate it has been cutting it, there will not be anything to talk about. When those discussions come up with the provinces, we must negotiate national standards on post-secondary education with them. We must marshal a national campaign against illiteracy. I am pleased that the Government is at least giving lip service to a program which I mentioned months ago. But, where is the program?
We need a national apprenticeship program to train our young people on the job so that they will have skills for tomorrow. We need to redefine our unemployment insurance scheme so that we have room to train and retrain Canadian men and women who have been laid off their jobs because of technological advances. We must learn to encourage and to reward excellence.

Third, we must achieve true equality of opportunity in Canada. The last two federal budgets widened the gap between rich and poor instead of narrowing it. We must reform our tax system and make it fairer, simpler and more equitable. We must look at the concept of a guaranteed annual income, to help the neediest in this country live with dignity. We must

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
also make every effort to end the welfare cycle. We must fight discrimination in every form. We must restore the liberal policy of regional equality to ensure that all Canadians are given the same opportunities, wherever they may live in this country.

We need equal pay for work of equal value. We need affirmative action for women. We need a national child care program, not just further studies, as the Throne Speech indicates. I say to Ministers opposite: why do you not just get going? We have studies coming out of our ears; let us have a little action.
If we read the Throne Speech carefully, we find that they are backing down on pensions for women. We also need to become more competitive as a nation, concentrating on research and development, but also providing more harmony in the workplace. We need joint labour-management goals in terms of quality of work, profit sharing, and equality on the job. We need a more competitive economy. Competition is the best fuel of excellence.
Finally, we need to restore confidence and trust in Government and in our public institutions. We need to restore faith in the integrity of those we as Canadians elect to transact the public business of the country. I want to say to the Government and to the Prime Minister that people's trust has to be earned, that people's confidence has to be gained, not by improved rhetoric or flowery phrases in a speech, but by what we in every corner of the House do.
The Prime Minister is now asking for a second chance to show Canadians that he can be trusted. We are skeptical because the Government has violated that trust so blatantly and so brutally for the past two years. We are skeptical because this is a Government which has shown itself incapable of rising above pettiness and manipulation to confront the real issues we in Canada face. We are skeptical because we do not believe it has the competence to run the country as it should be run. It is for all those reasons that I should like to present an amendment to the Speech from the Throne.
Canadians have no confidence in the Government. Canadians have no confidence in the Prime Minister. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), that the following be added to the Address:
The House regrets, that at a time when 1,250,000 Canadians are looking for jobs; when the Canadian family farm is threatened; when the oil and gas industry is trying to hang on; when regional inequalities are being worsened by government inaction; when young people, elderly women and single mothers face extraordinary hardship; when average Canadians face huge tax increases while giant corporations get tax breaks; and when Canadians, from one end of the country to the other, are crying out for leadership and direction, the Government is trying to tackle the nation's problems with empty words and aimless rhetoric.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find the amendment to be in order, and debate is now on the amendment. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I noted that my friend, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), had no substantial references in his speech to the plight, for example, of western farmers, but he had time to comment upon my clothes. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the problems he was having with regard to the leadership of the Liberal Party. I just want to tell him that he can count on our unwavering support.
I want to commend you, Mr. Speaker, on your election. I could tell on that night when we all spent 10 hours or 11 hours here, that it would have a positive effect upon the mood of the House. As I was going around for one of the votes, I overheard a Conservative Member of Parliament say to another: "Do you spell Copps with a C or a K?" I think the Right Hon. Leader mentioned that he had the opportunity to vote for some Conservatives. Perhaps some Conservatives voted for others as well, and I think that was healthy.
Mr. Speaker, the Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons contains a quote that is particularly interesting, in fact there are several, but I am referring to the one that appears on page 11, in which Bill Blaikie, the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, says the following:
I think one of the reasons why a lot of people run for Parliament is that they feel they have something to say. I always thought that if I could just get to say these things in the House of Commons, that would be significant, it would matter... However, since I have come to Ottawa, everything I say is suspect, if it is listened to at all. So there is this incredible fustration. What ought to be the pinnacle of exchange of ideas is in fact the black hole in which nobody listens to anybody.
That was a statement by an Hon. Member from Manitoba, a cry from the heart that did not fall on deaf ears, and I had the privilege of designating a committee on parliamentary reform, chaired by the distinguished James McGrath, ably assisted by the Members for Papineau, Winnipeg-Birds Hill, Argenteuil-Papineau, Peace River, Prince Edwards- Hastings and Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Messrs. Ouellet, Blaikie, Mrs. Bourgault, Messrs. Cooper, Ellis and Friesen).
Mr. Speaker, I believe that even if there are times, and we had that experience the other night. . . personally, when I was listening to the Members, specially the backbenchers who were all present and who resisted every temptation to quietly leave the House at one or two o'clock in the morning or to cut the procedure short-the fact is Hon. Members were anxious to affirm their sovereignty over this House. It was the Members of this House who exercised their authority as Members by
October 3, 1986

electing you, Mr. Speaker. To me it was a historic gesture and a wise reform that will serve Parliament and Canada well.
I was proud to be able to appoint this committee, and as Prime Minister, I endorsed all its recommendations. The new procedure whereby the Speaker is elected, the scrutiny of appointments by Governor in Council by the standing committees-here we have a major opportunity for the Opposition to question Government appointees. We have had appointments where the Elon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) had the dignity, the great dignity to say that although perhaps partisan, the appointment was a very good one, in referring to Mrs. Windsor.
It was an opportunity to bring these people before the parliamentary committees, and to do so instead of making acrimonious statements in the House. We are using this new procedure to ask Canadian men and women to appear before the Members of this House.
I urge the Opposition and in fact all Members to make use of this instrument, which enhances the independence, powers, resources and responsibilities of the standing committees of the House. Private Members will have greater influence and independence as a result of these changes in the powers of committees and in the way private Members' Bills are dealt with, and also through opportunities for representations to the Board of Internal Economy.
This Government had made a commitment, in fact several ... we are getting there, a basic commitment which may not be headline news, but it directly concerns the core and cornerstone of our democracy, namely the House of Commons, and as Prime Minister, I had the privilege of appointing this tripartite committee and endorsing each of its recommendations, and I think that perhaps not today, but in the years to come, when we look back ... I think parliamentarians and Canadians will look at the McGrath Report and say: We had then a Prime Minister, a Government and a Parliament who were trying to improve our parliamentary system, and I think that is something to be proud of, Mr. Speaker!

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago we set objectives for national reconciliation, economic renewal, social justice and constructive internationalism. These are matters of great substance. If you are successful with regard to these, you conclude with a noble vision of Canada. It means you have done a job for Canadians. What could be more noble than those four principles that we set out? I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that in the minds of some it lacks the panache of a big society, a just society, a good society, a good deal, a fair deal or a big deal. But what this does is, it represents solid and substantial accomplishment for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My Right Hon. friend is quite right when he says that we ought to take a look at the record. I agree with him. We have never said that the record would be perfect. We
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
never campaigned on a platform of perfection. The Liberals had that market cornered. All we said was that we would work hard in a serious, sustained way to try to improve the lot of all Canadians.
National reconciliation deals with federal-provincial relations. What have we done? We have annualized First Ministers Meetings; we have quarterly meetings on trade with provincial participation. For the first time the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) arranged to have provincial representatives along with him in a federal delegation at the meetings of GATT in Uruguay.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As to historic ERDA agreements, over 100 have been signed. Four billion dollars has been put together in joint programs with federal and provincial governments; the Western, the Atlantic and the Nova Scotia Accords.

The final solution to the problem, the ultimate solution to the eternal problem of French-speaking people-and I come at the right time to say more about this-which problem has been disturbing Quebec and Canada for two decades because Quebec was told: You Quebec Francophones will heed only the guidelines laid down by Ottawa. We, the Government in Ottawa, will tell you what to do. As a result our relations with one of our mother countries, France, nearly broke up. The Government which I have the honour to lead with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and others found a formula not only to solve the eternal problem of French-speaking people but to do so with every consideration for Canadian unity, and so we attended the first summit of French-speaking people and the second will take place here in Canada, in Quebec City.

Federal-provincial relations are very important, Mr. Speaker. In my judgment they are the laboratory of a federal state within which great things can happen; economic progress, social progress? Nothing can happen when the well is poisoned. Anyone who stands up here and tells you he has all the answers has a real problem. Anyone who tells you that he can run this country by issuing directives from 24 Sussex Drive has a very poor understanding of Canada. It is tough. It is difficult. The easy way is to issue directives. The easy way is to say it is going to be Ottawa's way and that is it. The tough way is to take the time to listen, to take the time to meet, to understand the regions and to respect their points of view. It lacks the panache. It lacks the headlines of the brutality of saying you are going to do it my way. It takes patience, it takes respect and it takes skill. That is what we are doing because it works and it is good for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Mulroney


Martin Brian Mulroney: On his trading mission in Japan the other day, Premier Peterson of Ontario told prospective investors that we had created in Canada a new and positive working relationship. I want to tell Premier Peterson that I am grateful for his words and his support because that is important to building Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, we have made progress in the area of federal-provincial relations.
The next item we touched upon was economic renewal. These are facts. My right hon. friend can check them out if he disagrees with them. I think he would agree that today the bank rate is the lowest it has been in eight years. Interest rates are down significantly across the board from the prime rate to mortgage rates. Unemployment is at its lowest in five years. The deficit is down for the first time in six years. Program spending is down substantially for the first time in 40 years. Clearly, we are on track. Clearly we are going about it the right way. Perhaps it lacks some glamour and pizzazz but it is tough, hard, brutal work trying to put one's arms around government spending that was out of control, bringing it back-


John Edward Broadbent: Trying to put your arms around it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I must say that when the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) admitted the other night that his father was a Conservative, I was tempted to put my arms around him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now, Mr. Crosbie, is that legal?


John Edward Broadbent: You are supposed to ask Ray now.
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what happened in other countries-and Canada ranks among the 24 leading industrial nations, those where the employment rate has been rising most rapidly-last year our economy grew at a rate which only Japan was able to surpass. I should think that this is a spectacular performance on the part of Canada. Our competitors are now beginning to realize that Canada is growing stronger still. I think that such a success does all Members of the House very proud.

I suppose that if one wants to get an idea of how we are doing, and if one does not want to listen to the Government or to the Opposition, then perhaps one should listen to our competitors, the people against whom we do business in a friendly way around the world. According to the 1986 report of the European Management Forum, Canada has moved in two years from eleventh to sixth place in improving our competitive position among the 24 leading industrialized nations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When the assessment involves attitudes to Government, political stability and general wellbeing, Canada jumped from thirteenth place a year ago to seventh today. In categories examining such things as research and development, so vital to the welfare of our children and their future, the possibilities of regional expansion-

For instance, in certain regions of Quebec where research and development are so important, as is our commitment to universities through federal-provincial co-operation, people are wondering how our competitors who also focus on research, development and productivity can be in a position to appreciate what we are doing. So there you are.

In the category examining such things as research and development and adaptability to future requirements, the ranking of our abilities to innovate and look forward, Canada climbed to ninth place from fourteenth two years ago and that is solid accomplishment for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not know. Maybe I am wrong and maybe I will hear a less flattering impression from the Leader of the NDP, but who knows? He said he voted Conservative 11 times the other day. I was a little concerned because, as we found out in Pembina, with votes like that, with the NDP voting for us, when the Conservatives get a majority of 232, the NDP declare a moral victory and go home.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You lost 33,000.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to be careful.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't count on it. We will see you in two years there.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do want to be careful.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thirty-three thousand down the tube.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Was that someone from B.C.? Did 1 hear from a socialist from B.C.? I thought he would be out there helping the cause.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The way you helped in Pembina?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Where are they all, anyway, those NDP'ers?
I think they are all knocking on doors out there in B.C. and, you know, that was a smart move. I think the boys need the help.
So this is how others see us and judge our performance, on vital, objective international standards. Clearly, as the OECD pointed out, and as the EMF pointed out, when we are judged according to international objective criteria, Canada is in a position of strength and is growing stronger.
October 3, 1986

Oh, yes, one thing about which some Hon. Members like to talk and regurgitate, with good reason, is the phrase: "jobs, jobs, jobs". We have created 560,000 of them since we came to office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And no less important is the fact that- and this gives one an indication of the fundamental differences between the approaches-85 per cent of that record number of jobs are full-time jobs whereas, of the small number of jobs created by our predecessors, only 19 per cent were full-time jobs. That is the fundamental difference between the Conservative and the Liberal approaches.
Also important and consistent with our commitment is that, of the jobs that have been created, 318,000 jobs went to women. That too is important.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will not waste much time with regard to comments made by the Leader of the NDP or the Leader of the Opposition, but I would just point out to those who will hear criticisms of us today and will hear predictions of gloom and doom and catastrophe around the corner, just remember that when we brought in our Budgets and economic statements, the Leader of the NDP said that in terms of jobs, the net effect of the change in programs the Prime Minister promised would unquestionably be a net loss during the next fiscal year of between 50,000 and 100,000 jobs. Wrong again, Mr. Leader of the NDP. We created jobs.
The Leader of the Opposition indicated that we would lose
125,000	jobs as a result of the Budget of May, 1985. Not only have we not lost 150,000 jobs, not only have we not lost 50,000 or 75,000 jobs, we have created in excess of 550,000 new jobs for Canada and that, I think, is good news for all Members of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With respect to social policy, I am referring to the social policy for our fellow Canadians and the quality of life in this country, well of course we are going to maintain our social programs which all of us consider as vested rights, the fruit of a social consensus, they are an integral part of the very fabric of our society.
Our programs can be improved and adapted to meet new requirements, of course. The problem, if we want to be reasonable and serious, still lies in the fact that we must find the money to finance these programs. It is not easy. If we print money, it has a direct impact on the debt and on inflation. If we make cut-backs, then we create social problems. If we borrow, our young Canadians will be burdened with a heavier
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
debt to repay. This is a complex and formidable dilemma for any Government.
We are trying to proceed by widening our economic base and creating more jobs, creating enough jobs so that the number of contributors will increase at the same rate as the number of beneficiaries.
For one thing I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that post-war Canadian men and women who have built Canada as we know it today are entitled to enjoy peace of mind, and financial security, and enjoy it they will.
We also raised the issue of women during our election campaign, and I think that the Speech from the Throne highlights a whole series of challenging possibilities to promote justice at long last with respect to the status of women.
We had also indicated that we would quite simply double an element of a wide-ranging program in favour of women, that during our first mandate we would double the percentage of jobs held by women on boards, agencies and federal councils, including as I said later the positions of deputy ministers in the upper echelons of the Public Service of Canada. 1 can tell you that our objective to double such numbers has almost been reached, and we will be doing even more in the course of our mandate. Considering our performance, you will see that we have already done better than our predecessors in two years and we are well on our way to setting records in this vital sector.

In the area of social justice we are all trying to build a society which is more tolerant and more caring. There is important news on this. We know that in Canada important news does not always make it to the front pages. However, last year the average income of Canadian families increased in real terms for the first time since 1980 and the incidence of low income among families declined for the first time since 1980. That is not a miracle, but it is solid progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have tried as well to serve the men and women who have served our country so well-our veterans. I pay tribute to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) who does an outstanding job on their behalf.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 
Mr.   Mbranty@: We have .*strerngltaaed our N ATO anratiritaat-tion im Europe. We have accepted mrw peate-kaepsag responsibilities k time Sinai. We finally gained admisnoe Ear Canada into tire G-7 at Tokyo Afterwards a famous Harvard pras'esar observed im bits Tummhc Star antainm tiaat "Canada won aa important economk victory-. He adked tiaat "estabEshing tire G-7-may be tire most contUiictne intematinnal economk; development since Bretons Woods im 1944". [ want to thank Tamm Axworthy far tiaat.
Some Ham. Members Hear, near!
Mr. Mriraaer Im time family it was always known that Tom was a mam of discernment and judgment. Spend mote time with the kid. It will do yos. good..
On the question of leadership oc South Mika, front Nassau to London, Canada played a vigorous and oorastmetire role. Canada packed up from the leadership provided by the Right Hon. John Dietenbakec. We have continued to wage a struggle against the evil of apartheid. We have waged a struggle on behalf of all Canadians against racism, against the concept that if von are black yon are inferior. This is fundamentally unacceptable to Canada and to Canadians and we shall persevere.


Some Hon. Members:: 
Mr.   Mtokrawey@: 
Martin Brian Mulroney: October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
drugs in the first six months of 1986 exceeded the total value for all of 1985 by some $90 million, when the cocaine conviction rate doubled between 1980 and 1984, and when dangerous new drugs like crack are becoming prevalent in the United States and are now readily available in Canada. I do not care what some fancy Dans think, I am telling you that drugs are a problem in the workplace, in the schoolyards and on the street corners, and it is time that Canada recognized the gravity of this problem.
We will move in a number of areas, including education and enforcement. We must reduce both the supply and the demand. All of us in public life must provide the leadership, from the community level to the national level.
We are also confronting social challenges, including day care, battered women, drug abuse, missing children, child sexual abuse and pornography. I was dismayed to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party suggest that there was nothing new, nothing of importance in the Throne Speech when, in fact, I believe I heard some other commentator say that if the Government is able to follow through and find the money for a number of these programs, the Government has put its finger clearly on the most debilitating problems confronting Canadian society, the Canadian family and Canadian women. The commentator states: "Bravo, if you can do this or do part of it, you will have done a great deal for Canada".

But there is still much to be done, Mr. Speaker, in other areas such as small businesses and entrepreneurship, science and technology-and I think there are more practical references to that in the Speech from the Throne-competitivity, deficit reduction, tax reform, international trade strategies, the Canada-US trade initiative, and regional developement.

We talked about Arctic sovereignty and regional development. The Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, very simply asserts complete sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic and will take the appropriate measures to ensure that we can implement that. We recognize that it is not easy. We recognize it is an enormous area, that sovereignty requires a visible, national presence. Canada will begin by constructing one of the most powerful ice-breakers in the world to enhance our sovereign rights and to contribute to the development of the North.
Other measures include more research on polar conditions, defence training exercises in the Arctic and the establishment of a national park.

In the area of regional development, federal Governments have for too long applied their policies as they pleased. The result has been lengthy delays, undue waiting periods, a
mountain of frustration and probably many good opportunities wasted.

One way in which we can do this is to improve upon the decision-making process. The best way we can do this is to give more responsibility and authority to our officials who are working and living, for example, in the Atlantic area. We happened on a situation which I am sure my friend, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), encountered when he was in the ministry. We put together a package with regard to the Atlantic Enterprise Fund a few months ago. A few weeks ago at Cabinet when I made my regular inquiry as to how it was going, how it was helping small business in the area, I was told-and these are the kinds of problems which have nothing to do with partisanship, but have to do with life-that a small businessman in Atlantic Canada who was seeking that kind of assistance to create jobs was told that he needed 14 signatures by 14 different levels of government before he could get the money to create a few jobs in Chatham, New Brunswick. That is what is killing regional development. We have to go to the regions and let the people in the regions begin to decide what is good for them.
What regional development has lacked, I think, is flexibility, accessibility and sufficient authority on the ground in the region to get the job done. To achieve that, our response in this area and elsewhere is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. I know there have been other agencies. I know there have been other tries. There has been a lot of money thrown at the problem. We acknowledge without partisanship that it has not worked. If money solved the problem, there would be no one unemployed. If the other agencies worked, there would be prosperity in the Atlantic Provinces. If traditional formulas had any benefit whatsoever, everybody would be at work. We just listened to the Member of Parliament for Restigouche (Mr. Girard) who is from a riding where 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the people are out of work and have no hope.

But there is no hope in Northern New Brunswick. However, it is not because of a lack of officials. It is not because of the programs themselves, of the financing or of dishonesty, but rather because people do not understand that the best results will come from the regions themselves in co-operation with the provinces, the municipalities and the various other groups in our society, and no true federal Government would say:

You are going to do it our way. The federal Government is now going to say: "Let us devise a way together. You take the lead. We will create the atmosphere and co-operate with you to create jobs".
I know that one of the most daunting challenges we still face as a nation is the issue of trade. It is daunting for us and daunting for the Leader of the Official Opposition who has the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Forst Garry (Mr. Axworthy) as his trade critic. But it is important. Canada is a trading nation.
October 3, 1986

We export nearly 30 per cent of all we produce as compared with only 10 per cent for the U.S. and 15 per cent for Japan. We are the only major industrialized nation without secure access to an internal market of 100 million people. We are told we are going to lose our culture. That should be explained to Charles de Gaulle. Does one think that Charles de Gaulle

-the President of the Republic, the great defender of francophony and universal France-

-would have taken France into a common market, into a liberalized trading bloc, if he thought there was any doubt as to the defence of the French language and French traditions? I say it is nonsense. Canada's culture and dignity are strong enough to stand up in international trading blocs, create jobs at home and strengthen our culture and identity. We are not afraid to get out and try our best to compete with the best in the world. We know there is not a market big enough to provide the jobs we need.
The Government has managed to bring unemployment down since we have been here, but not enough. How are we going to do it? Trade is not a theory. Trade is not something that some professor goes on The Journal to talk about in abstract terms. Trade means jobs. Trade comes from investment, foreign and national investment. Trade enhances our productivity. It makes us more competitive. It strengthens us and gets us into new markets.
There is the diffusion of technology. It strengthens the cash flow of companies. There is a reinvestment factor which creates employment as well. Trade means jobs.
There is nothing exclusive about it. We are not talking about trade with the United States to the exclusion of trade around the world. On the contrary. The initiatives we have launched with Japan, with the Pacific Rim, with China, Korea and around the world, with the leadership, if I may say, provided by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the GATT, indicates we are on two tracks, international, multilateral initatives at the GATT, where we hope further to liberalize international trade and create opportunities, and a new deal with our largest trading partner, the most dynamic and richest market in the world on our doorstep. We say we can make a good deal for Canada which will bring benefits to Canada and provide new opportunities for growth and jobs for Canadian youth.
Fet the timorous and the fearful fret. Fet them say that Canada cannot compete internationally. Fet them talk about the protectionism they want here. "Protect us", they say, "we are not big enough. Protect us against les mechants de I'exterieur. Give us the protection. Build tariff walls". This is for the weak and for those who care not about Canada. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are competitive. Canadians are courageous. Canadians are daring, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when the history of this day is written, it shall be
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
recorded who the daring were, and the daring were those who had confidence in Canada and in themselves.
We are moving as well in the area of comprehensive tax reform. We want a system which is more equitable and comprehensible.
As regards the Constitution, we have begun preparation for a new round of discussions which could bring Quebec finally to sign our Constitution under completely acceptable conditions. We all agree that this is a serious gap in our national life and that the situation must be remedied. The Constitution is the supreme social contract of our nation; it is, in fact, the deal made by the Fathers of Confederation. We all have a responsibility, which I readily accept, to convince the Premiers to consider the claims of Quebec with understanding and flexibility.
We are not going, as I mentioned in my speech in Sept-Iles and as I have been saying continuously since then, to reopen everything, and the Quebec Premier is in complete agreement on this point. We must proceed with care and Senator Murray, federal Minister Murray, together with his counterpart Mr. Remillard, is taking positive steps in this direction. Unless we feel there is a reasonable chance for all parties to carry out the negotiations to a successful conclusion, we will not reopen the constitutional debate. There is no doubt that Canada will have ultimately to find an acceptable formula for Quebec, for the Quebec of today. It is indeed a province with a difference. We have different roots, a different culture and the French language which is different. .. Thank goodness, it is a language which contributes to our Canadian identity.
All First Ministers who are now unavoidably involved in the constitutional game and negotiations should consider this new formula positively, with open-mindedness and generosity, because all Honourable Members would certainly agree that we have a strong, noble and even moral obligation to try and find a proper formula which would make it possible for Quebec to definitely return to the Canadian fold.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the Government and on behalf of our Party I say something that I suppose is obvious. We have never claimed in this Party or in this Government to have any monopoly on virtue or wisdom. I suppose that is clear. We came into office, as we said at the time, with our imperfections. We did not ask for a lifetime contract; and I suppose it is unlikely that we will receive one. However, we are striving day in and day out for a better Canada. We are the trustees of those things which our people hold dear, the aspirations of one generation for the next. Our Government's Speech from the Throne, like the legislation which the distinguished Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) will set out before the House, has but one goal, that is, to build a

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
stronger, fairer, more united Canada to face the great challenges of the next century.
Our program for renewal is about change, about catching up for time lost, for rebuilding our economy, our regions, to boost competitiveness, productivity, technology and new market opportunities. The Government does not accept a second rate approach or a second rate Canada. Our record shows what we can do as Canadians-opening up the North, strengthening our regions, building our cities, and developing technology and communications for all Canadians.
Canada must continue to grow to be able to give comfort to those who need it. That is the nature of our citizenship. We do not turn people away; we give people help. Canada needs the kinds of new industries and new technologies which break the old patterns of regional disparities and social inequalities so that Atlantic Canada, northern Canada and western Canada have the same kinds of unrivalled economic possibilities that we now see in Ontario and other regions of the country. We are happy for that prosperity in central Canada.
I am concerned and convinced that we can do better by working together, management and workers, our scientists, our farmers, our forestry workers and our industries which are ready to meet the challenges which await us.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated and I say so without hesitation that we are not the sole and quiet possessors of the truth. We know that we can count on the most formidable resources: Canadians themselves. Together with them, we will build a country which is stronger, more united and just, more daring in its ideals and more dedicated in its efforts to achieve them.

As we build the new wealth the country requires we shall expand the hopes and dreams of our citizens for a new Canada. I speak of the health care system that protects us when we are sick, of the pensions that help us when we are old, of the social system that supports us in times of difficulty, of equalization payments that ensure that in Canada a disadvantaged region is never a second class region, of a commitment to women who deserve a fair shake and to new Canadians who arrive at our shores and who deserve nothing less.
As we proceed into the next century we seek, as I am sure do all Members of the Elouse, advances in health care technology which hold the promise of controlling disease and easing the pain and suffering which afflict so many here and around the world. We seek the ability to begin the process to feed a hungry world and begin the eradication of poverty and racism from this planet. We seek a world united in its approach to space exploration and development. In our Speech from the Throne we indicated Canada's desire and willingness to play an even more comprehensive role in the peaceful pursuit of space. We seek a better quality of life, a cleaner environment, a renaissance of the arts and the learning. We seek an end to arms escalation, and we seek the pursuit of a more durable peace.
We are embarking upon a national endeavour to try to prepare this nation for the new world of the 21st century. It is an undertaking no less important and no less grand than the carving of this nation out of the wilderness and the bonding of it by a narrow strip of steel, the bringing in of western Canada, the building of the heart of Canada. Like any great undertaking it will require sacrifice, steadfast resolve and a clarity of purpose from us all.
As a former Prime Minister and a distinguished Member of this House, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, enunciated over 30 years ago:
We have but one love, Canada; one purpose, its greatness; one aim, unity of
Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Leaders of the three Parties and I think you would find agreement to provide, as we have in the past, sufficient time for the Leader of the New Democratic Party to complete his speech, notwithstanding the understanding with respect to the length of speeches.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is suggesting that the speech of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) be allowed to continue beyond the normal time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to observe at the outset that I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) quote very early on in his remarks favourable comments about the performance of the Government of Canada, all of which originated outside of Canada. He then went on to quote none other than Tom Axworthy of The Toronto Star. I wish to say to the Prime Minister that the last time I heard only foreign sources quoted about a favourable performance of the Government of Canada and then heard Tom Axworthy quoted it was by Pierre Elliott Trudeau when he spoke just before the 1979 election. I am not sure that the direction of his thought is the most constructive for the longevity of his Government. However, I now wish to get on to the serious matter before us, which is the debate on the Speech from the Throne which we heard here in Ottawa two days ago.
Canadians heard, as indeed they did again today, the words "national reconciliation", "social justice", and "economic renewal". The Prime Minister not only used those words again in the House today, but he said that they were laudable in terms of establishing goals for Canada. I should like to say in terms of my Party that we as well think they are quite laudable goals. And if we did a survey on all streets in Canada, the people of Canada would agree.
October 3, 1986



If we talk about this with Francophones in the Province of Quebec or with people in British Columbia, they will all agree with the Canadian Government's objectives.

However, if one wants to look beyond general phrases which men and women of good will in all Parties can accept, one must look at the substance of the detail which is intended to flesh out such laudable goals. If one looks at the Throne Speech for the substance of details which concerns the ordinary person in the land, one finds things lacking.
1 will come back to some favourable things I want to say about the Government in terms of foreign affairs, reconciliation, and its attitude in discussions with the provinces. Indeed I say to the Prime Minister in this context that I am on record as admitting that I was wrong in the past in my forecast about job creation. I say right now that the Government has not been all bad. However, if one looks at what most concerns the average person in the land, man or woman, senior citizen or young person, if one looks at the details intended to flesh out those general goals in the Throne Speech, one will find them remarkably deficient.
Let us look at the question of jobs. We find no commitment on specific levels of job fulfilment or unemployment reduction. We find no job targets. That is indicative of what the Government is all about. The deficit targets were repeated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). We find deficit reduction targets but no targets in terms of reducing unemployment levels.
Let us look at the question of income and taxation. Just a moment ago the Prime Minister boasted that in 1985, for the first time in a number of years, real incomes had actually risen. However, he forgot to mention that net disposable income went down. Why did it go down? It was because the Conservative Government imposed some $1,300 in taxes on the average Canadian, the worst increase by any Government in modern history. This is why disposable income went down.
Let us look at the issue of women's equality, which is profoundly important to Canadians of our generation. What they are most notably pressing for, apart from affirmative action programs with teeth upon which the Government reneged, is a specific commitment to child care-day care services. We did not get a commitment in the Throne Speech to the kinds of minimum spending for which men and women and groups across the country have called. Once again we got a commitment simply to talk further about the possibility of establishing child care.
I come now to the question of farmers, particularly grain producers. In his speech the Prime Minister said something about the idea of a deficiency payment. I want the farming people of Canada, particularly those of western Canada, to note with care what the Prime Minister said. Grain producers in this land, second to none in the world, are facing intense competition with an American Treasury which is subsidizing
The Address-Mr. Broadhent
American farmers and with European Treasuries which have been bailing out European farmers. They wanted a deficiency payment. They wanted a commitment. What did they get from the Prime Minister today? Did they get a commitment of an additional $1 billion in funding from the federal Government to go into a deficiency payment? Not at all. If we listen to the words with care, we find that we got another commitment to talk about the need to provide financial assistance to grain producers in the neighbourhood of $1 billion. Again it raises all the questions about the credibility of the Government. Is it new money? Is it to be coming in the form of loans? Is it to be coming in the form of existing programs? Is it to be cost shared with the other prairie Governments? All these questions must be asked. If the Government wanted to deliver, as the Government of Canada ought to want to deliver in terms of the agricultural crisis, the Prime Minister ought to have risen to his feet and said: "Here is the money. It is new federal funds and farmers will get it", not that it will be talked about.
We can now expect-and I will be very blunt in this-all through the coming days in the election which is taking place in the Province of Saskatchewan that the Government of Canada will negotiate. That is what it will do. It will negotiate. It will talk about its package. Maybe we will have some new money; maybe we will not. Maybe it will be loans; maybe it will not. Then, after the election is over, we will find out the truth. The people of Canada found out the truth about the Government and about how many promises it has broken in the past two years, and the people of Saskatchewan will not be taken in by this.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is doing some heckling. I hope he returns to Saskatchewan on the weekend and explains what the Prime Minister has said. More concretely, I hope he goes back to Saskatchewan and says on behalf of the Government of Canada: "Here is the money, here is the cheque, made out by the federal Government". There should be no negotiations. He should say: "Here is the money"; that is what he should do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will be there.


John Edward Broadbent: I will believe it when I see it. At this point I want to say, because I think it is appropriate in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, something about what we in our Party understand the people of Canada really want from their Governments. It seems to me that it is not too complex. I think the people of Canada, not unlike democracies elsewhere in the world, want honesty. They do not want miracles. They do not want false expectations provided by Parties of the left, right, or centre. They want some straightforward talk and some straightforward promises. Then they want the Government to live up to them. Also I think the people of Canada want-and they share this aspiration with people of other democratic lands-access on the basis of equality to all the means which a rich land such as ours has at

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Broadbenl
its disposal for them to develop their capacities and talents, for them to have a qualitatively rich life, and for them in their private pleasures or their co-operative endeavours to have a higher level of human existence.
I should like to refer to something which is key or fundamental to the notion of equality. Our young people, whether they be in Cape Breton or on Vancouver Island, in southern Ontario or anywhere else in the land, ought to believe that they have the same chance of fulfilling their aspirations as anyone else.
When we read a novel or a short story by Alice Munro, watch Wayne Gretzky, listen to Angela Hewitt, or see a new movie by Denys Arcand, we as Canadians are proud of the high level of creativity in our land. I have simply named four people in diverse fields who have achieved not only high Canadian standards but high standards in the world. Canadians are proud of such accomplishment. In this context I say particularly for those who have come of age since World War II, that what they expect is for all of us in this land to have equal opportunity to reach such high individual standards of performance. That is key.
Finally, I think what the people of Canada anywhere in our land want is fairness. They do not want a free trip. They do not want something for nothing. A distinct minority wants that, just as I think it is a distinct minority who is greedy. The average person simply wants fair treatment. He or she wants fair pay for a fair day's work. People want a fair chance to get ahead to be whatever, a good plumber, a good hockey player, a good violin player, a good novelist, whatever they can be on the basis of that broad and pretty understandable criterion of fairness. If we take these broad goals, Mr. Speaker-and I do not think they are nebulous because they are broad-I think that we should apply them to the Throne Speech. We should have a look at our nation and ask the question, where have we been going? Have we really made progress in the implementation of these kinds of values without miraculous expectations or have we been going in the opposite direction? I think that when you look in a hard way, without gloom and doom but without rose coloured glasses either, but look honestly at what has been happening, it is not encouraging of the notion of equality and the concept of fairness.
Let me digress just for a second. If you say that the real test of a government ought to be what it was while in the 19th century when democratic governments first came into being, what was talked about then was that the goal of a democratic government ought to be to maximize the wellbeing of what then was called the common man. We have made some improvements, thank God, since then. We no longer use the phrase "common man". We are more likely to say the average man, the average woman or the average family. Without doubt the goal of democracies has been to use power fairly. The appropriate goal has been to use political power not to preserve elites, not to extend special benefits for those who already have
them, but to use political power to break up some of those unfair advantages, to change the law which gives an unfair distribution of power and income in society to make it possible for the ordinary person to realize himself or herself.
It is for this reason that one asks such basic questions of a Throne Speech. Is it more likely that a farmer is going to continue farming as a result of this? Is it more likely that a young couple starting out in this land of ours is going to be able to buy its own home? Is it more likely now than 10 years ago that the son or daughter of a cab driver is going to be able to afford to get to university? Is it more likely that the gap between the rich and the poor, not only between the rich and the poor but the growing gap between the rich and the average in Canada, is going to be reduced? I think that if you ask these questions, Mr. Speaker, in looking either at the performance of this Government over the past two years or at the specifics, more particularly the absence of specifics in the Throne Speech, I regret to say the answer to all of these questions is in the negative, that the cab driver's children are facing a situation totally different from that which existed when I graduated. They can hardly afford the fees to go to university. If they come out of university, not only are wages in the manufacturing sector 5 per cent lower now than they were a few years ago but it is almost impossible to get a job. Women, contrary to some of the mythology that a lot of well-meaning people believe, still have the lowest paid jobs. Regrettably, the tendency is getting worse not better. The gap, as I indicated a minute ago, has not been changed yet by this Government. It is not even committed to change in the Throne Speech. The gap between the rich and the average in the country, not to mention the gap between the rich and the poor, will widen and not narrow.
I say that any test of fairness about Government-what democratic government is all about, especially in this very rich land of ours-that comes up with this conclusion should cause a government to move quickly and profoundly in concrete detail to change this pattern. But the truth is that Canada is becoming not more fair but less fair. The truth is that this need not be the case. The truth is that we had better start going in the opposite direction, let me say to the Prime Minister.
I just want to spend a few minutes on each of these particulars, to minimize in this context, if you like, the rhetoric but to raise what I think are appropriate questions that ought to be raised at this point in our history, such as about jobs and wages, for example.
I have already indicated that the recent trends are not encouraging. Wages in manufacturing are going down not up in comparison with the past. Women continue to be overwhelmingly working in low paid jobs. But what about jobs in general, without making the distinction in some circumstances that we ought to be making between men and women, and we must always keep in mind the inequality that women are experiencing?
I always ask myself when I see this kind of Throne Speech or Budget brought down by Ministers of Finance in the past,
October 3, 1986

as I have seen in previous Liberal Throne Speeches and Budgets, why is it that this nation of ours at the federal level can set targets for inflation reduction, but not for unemployment reduction? We had a six and five program on wages and we set targets for deficit reduction. I will be polite; I do not know what kind of preoccupation the Minister of Finance has. We can set targets for deficits and for inflation, but we cannot set targets for jobs. If we can set targets for inflation and for deficit reduction, it is time in Canada that we set targets for reductions in unemployment levels and live up to them. I say that now, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the national context.
My home is the Province of Ontario. I grew up here, but I think that I now have a pretty good feeling for my nation as a whole. I have been relatively pleased that in the Province of Ontario, at least there has been economic growth, which is encouraging. But I noticed that there were 45,000 men and women lined up the other day trying to get jobs at an auto plant. Forty-five thousand in a line up. This is the 1980s, not the 1930s. If that is Ontario, think of the rest of Canada in recent years.
Think of Atlantic Canada which for so many years has been neglected economically. I know it is not easy to change that reality and I will come back to that point in a minute. I am just saying that the reality in Atlantic Canada is very bad for job opportunities. What about British Columbia our most western and most beautiful province? British Columbia took it for granted that among the top three in this land it was economically well off. Persistently now B.C. unemployment levels are the same as in Newfoundland. B.C. has been going downwards economically, and persistently so.
What do we get from this Government, Mr. Speaker? We get a new agency for Atlantic Canada. I even forget the name of it. It is a new bureaucratic structure. I do not knock bureaucratic structures as such. Bureaucrats if they do a job, do a good job. What I am saying here is that we have the name of a new agency whose job will be to provide jobs or organize for jobs in Atlantic Canada, but we did not get a penny of money committed to it. We are saying to the people of Atlantic Canada: "Here is a new agency, but do not ask us for any direct input or financial wherewithal to make it possible for more young people in Atlantic Canada to get jobs".
This attitude has to stop. We cannot just allow one part of Canada to continue to grow solidly while the rest sort of drift off as a result of unfortunate incidents in international market forces. A Government that cares has to intervene and do something about this. I say to the Prime Minister to put his fantasy of free trade behind him and make regional job strategy the number one priority in Canada.
Then there is the issue of income distribution and taxation. Anyone is naive if he or she argues at some time that there will be a complete equality in incomes. In other circumstances, I would be prepared to offer a moral argument as to why in fact that is not even desirable. However, what no one on either side of the House would contest is that the gap between the rich and the poor ought to be narrowing.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
Because the rich are getting richer, we see interesting market trends. On the one hand, there are shops exclusively designed for people whose family income is around the $100,000 range. There has been a great growth in gadgetry, in the clothing industry and in very expensive automobiles on the one hand, and on the other hand, stores for the poorest of markets are developing. There are new markets at both ends of the extreme. This is commercial development that reflects the increasing polarization in the distribution of income. That, Mr. Speaker, is not desirable.
I could put it in quantitative terms. Some 20 years ago, the bottom 40 per cent of Canadians in terms of income distribution had only 16 per cent of the income and the top 40 per cent at that time had 65 per cent of the income. Now, 20 years later when surely to God we ought to have been making progress on this, we find out that the middle-income family has dropped back somewhat in terms of its share of the income, the top or richest Canadians have increased their share by 3 per cent, and of course the poor have less. I add right away that while this trend was going on in the last half a dozen years, it has been exacerbated in the past two years. Since the Conservatives have come to power, rather than reversing this increasing inequality in Canada, things have gotten worse because of very specific policies introduced by the Conservatives. I say to the Prime Minister that instead of worsening the situation and giving increased benefits to upper-income Canadians, it is time we stopped this drift to a more unfair society and made fairness the fundamental goal of Canadian politics.

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the Government said it wanted to improve the revenue balance between personal income and other taxes. If we look at the figures, Mr. Speaker, we see that the two conservative budgets this Government has already given us have put a heavy burden on the average family, as I said before.
The average family with two children, for instance, will experience a considerable drop in non-taxable income within the next five years. A family with an income of $40,000 will lose almost $4,000 as a result of the fiscal policy of the Conservatives. A low-income family will lose more than $2,000. And meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the incomes of the rich are increasing. We have here a perfect example of Conservative justice: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Mr. Speaker, my party and I cannot accept this Government's version of reality.
Mr. Speaker, what do the words: "improving the revenue balance" mean? They are in the Speech from the Throne. They don't mean that the average family's taxes will be reduced. They mean that the family will pay more by way of indirect taxes. That is what is happening. The Conservative Government, according to the Speech from the Throne, intends to reduce personal income tax, but at the same time, it is quite clear that this Government intends to increase all other


Sir.   BmKseftean@: October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
Capilano (Mrs. Collins) and the Hon. Member for Restigou-che (Mr. Girard) indicated the very great depth of talent that the Government has in the House. I do not recall in many Speeches from the Throne ever hearing two of the calibre that we were pleased to hear yesterday.
I also want to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, on your electoral success of the other night. I believe that some provinces can hold provincial elections faster than we were able to proceed, but the results justify the length of time that was taken. I am sure that you assume your heavy duties with the best wishes of everyone in the House.
I am pleased to participate in this debate as our Government embarks on the second half of its term. It is a time when our policies are well into the implementation phase. The economic and social indicators are sending back positive signs, as well as identifying which matters need further adjustment.
The people of my riding of Victoria have sent me to Parliament five times over the last 14 years. I believe that this is because my interests and views coincide very closely to the needs and views of my constituents. A large number of people of Victoria are senior citizens-I believe about 22,500. Others are retired individuals, both civilian and military. Many of them are from other parts of western Canada.
The diversity of those in the working age group in Victoria always astonishes me. However, it reflects the basic fabric of Canadians everywhere. Much of my time and effort in Parliament has been directed toward ensuring that the social benefits of the retired population are enhanced to the extent possible and are safeguarded. I have been fortunate to have made some contributions in the areas of pensions and veterans' legislation through debate, through representation, and through a Private Members' Bill. Among my constituents, those who are retired as well as those who are still in the workforce, are many who are or have been involved in the military. I count myself in this group, having served in the Armed Forces for a considerable time. Consequently, I have always had a keen interest in our forces and in the Department of National Defence and the Government's priorities in this area, which I will expand upon later.
Every Member of Parliament must be concerned about the economic health of his or her riding and will therefore keep a watchful eye on any measures taken by the Government which affect the constituency's ability to create or sustain employment.
Victoria has had some difficult times since I have been a Member. The rate of growth of the area reflects this because, despite the benign climate, the finest in Canada, and the seaside location, the growth rate of Victoria's population in the past 15 years has been only 1.25 per cent compared with Canada's growth rate of around 14 per cent. Unemployment is very high in Victoria, at 13.3 per cent, which is above the provincial average, which is also far too high. The slow growth indicator signals a need for more employment opportunities in
Victoria. I have given a high priority to assisting the riding in that respect.
One of the problems we are facing in the direction that our future growth should take is the choice of industries that we wish to have in a city such as Victoria. We are severely disadvantaged in attempting to have any heavy industry on an island on the West Coast. The freight rates for finished products from the East and the industrialized part of eastern Canada to the West Coast are much cheaper than the freight rate from western Canada to eastern Canada for the same products. This places us at a real disadvantage. Furthermore, the shipment of heavy goods to Vancouver and the subsequent shipment to Victoria by water vessels only increases our difficulties.
That leaves us with some industries that are well suited to Victoria. Tourism is probably our best asset at the present time. Educational institutions are gradually growing and developing in Victoria, and we are becoming known for the high quality of educational institutions in our city. High technology is another area on which we can concentrate because high technology generally does not require heavy equipment and expensive freight rates.
Finally, the provincial Government is located there and we seem to have a plethora of municipal Governments. There is a continuing debate as to whether or not we should consolidate them. We have many government workers there, and I was amazed at the size of the federal contribution to government workers in Victoria, particularly when one includes Esquimalt and the naval base. It makes for a substantial payroll, which is of considerable help in our province.
In the area of tourism, we were fortunate to receive a grant from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, which represented a keystone for our convention centre which, believe it or not, was first considered as a project in Victoria some 80 years ago. Eventually, everyone within a considerable distance of the site of that convention centre were able to agree that it should be built. This included four municipalities which gave up their rights to grants that were being allocated by the provincial Government as an offset for Vancouver getting Expo 86, which has been so successful. However, talking four municipal Governments into giving up grants for the benefit of one municipal Government indicates the depth of co-operation that existed. One incredible gentleman, Alderman Frank Carson, spearheaded it all with the co-operation of all the municipal councils and the provincial Government. The first of the earth has been turned and we expect to have the convention centre finished sometime in 1988. We feel certain that this will be a great help to our employment problems.
There has been a very co-operative attitude on the part of the federal Government, not only with respect to the convention centre but with respect to other incidents with which I am sure all Hon. Members are familiar. In Victoria the Victoria Machinery Depot, which has been in business for over 100
October 3, 1986

years, got caught in the draft when the research tax credit scam was on, and ended up being bought by someone who over-mortgaged it, with the resulting collapse of the company. Through the good offices of everyone we could co-opt but, most particularly, the then Minister of Transport, now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), we were able to work out a deal whereby the employees took over the firm. Now the company has started up again and is on its way to its former greatness. We all wish it well.
1 would like to speak about another project in the Victoria neighbourhood which is so ably represented by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton). The graving dock, which is located at the Victoria naval yard in Esquimalt, has been there for decades and decades and is a great centre of employment. However, for some strange reason, in the last year it was decided that the Polish fishing fleet should have the servicing of its ships transferred to Vancouver where there would be less of a security risk. This facility's workload was dramatically decreased and studies by the Department of Public Works indicated the facility should be sold off or closed down with the resultant loss of several hundred jobs. Representations were made, and I am pleased to say the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) has said that it is not contemplated that the facility would be closed down in the foreseeable future. It is to stay open, and I hope some day that we will be able to rethink the question of whether it is dangerous for us to service the Polish fishing fleet that close to the Navy yard. Perhaps, then, we will once again service these customers whom we have already serviced for over nine years.
I would like to speak about our defence problems and achievements, as I see them. First, I would like to state that I am very pleased with the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) who was appointed this summer. I know him well. He has been a Member of this House the same length of time I have in spite of the considerable difference in age. He has a very fast brain and another characteristic, which is much rarer than a good brain around here, that is, he has a lot of common sense. I look forward to some very good years for the Department under this new Minister of National Defence.
I have been concerned that Canada's defence is all it could be with the resources available. We must always try to see that the resources for that Department are spent as efficiently as possible. The Department has suffered from money malnutrition for a very long time. In the 1970s, a number of factors led to the downgrading in priority of defence, and the result was a steady reduction in the number of Armed Forces personnel, severe deterioration of equipment and demoralization of personnel, both civilian and military. Real defence spending was also hampered by the ever-increasing inflation rates of the time. Constant questioning of these issues elicited little positive response from the various Ministers of Defence or from the then Prime Minister.
Major programs were delayed year after year as resources dwindled. Our Government, with a higher priority for defence,
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
has done considerably better, although the available resources have not increased as anticipated due to financial constraints imposed by a deficit not of our making.
The Government has adjusted its previous commitment of 6 per cent real growth in the defence budget to a more realistic 2 per cent for the next few years. While this will no doubt create some hardship for realizing programs, I have confidence they will be implemented, if over a longer time frame. A review of the 1986-87 defence Main Estimates reveals that over 40 additional major capital projects have been identified since the previous year's Estimates. Yet, strangely enough, this did not include the one project which has received most public attention, namely, the low level air defence, or LLAD, as it is more commonly known. It would provide sorely needed weapons systems to protect air bases and deliver area air defence. At the present time, our bases overseas are vulnerable to attack, having only inadequate and ancient guns which are really left-overs from World War II. The LLAD program is a fine example of two aspects of defence policy which will benefit all Canadians, industrial benefits or offsets and high technology development.
With this program, along with the frigate program, Canada has acquired new industries which have created jobs all across Canada. A new system, the ADATS, Air Defence Antitank System, will be manufactured in Canada, which gives us an opportunity to supply this system to other countries which choose to purchase it for their own defence operations. If offsets are involved when procurement is done offshore, the companies involved must present a package of proposals which would ensure that an equivalent amount of money spent on the equipment will accrue to Canada by putting money back into Canada's economy through the manufacture of goods here, or the provision of other economic benefits.
The size and location of Canada adds many complexities to the formulation of defence policies. Besides our domestic defence priorities, including sovereignty protection, we are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and with the United States, we participate in North American aero-space defence, NORAD. At a time when many Canadians had ceased to consider that sovereignty over our own land, waters and air space was an issue, that sovereignty was brought into question by the use of the Arctic passage by the American ship Polar Sea in the summer of 1985. That incident brought to the fore the continuing need to ensure that our rights to this area of Canada remain firm and that further use of the passage would require prior consultation and approval of the Canadian Government.
The Department of National Defence has increased overflights of the Arctic, and we now have a firm commitment that we will build a powerful ice-breaker to patrol Arctic waters. It is not yet clear which Department will provide the resources for this costly ice-breaker or whether the Department of National Defence will task it adequately. However, the need for such a vessel is unquestioned. I would only add my plea on behalf of my province, together with a reminder of an

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
earlier Government's promise in June of 1983, that an icebreaker would be sent out for West Coast tendering only. The West Coast shipyards have not had an opportunity to participate in a major shipbuilding project emanating from government for many years. I hope this fact will be kept in mind when proposals for an ice-breaker are before the Cabinet for evaluation. The crisis in the shipbuilding industry is a real one but the country would be poorly served if all the expertise and economic benefits such an industry brings were to be concentrated in one area.
I would like to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano, for her splendid campaign to ensure that everyone in this Parliament understands that the West Coast needs and deserves the Polar 8 contract.
Since the election we have increased our troops in Europe. One of the first activities of the Government was to send 1,200 additional troops to Europe in compliance with an agreement made during the campaign. The CAST exercises have taken place. CAST, the Canadian Air Sea Transportable group, is scheduled to go to Norway if there is an emergency. I point out that this has been the subject of a great deal of puzzlement and worry on the part of serious strategists. They do not know whether we can deploy Canadian forces to Norway in a crisis, whether it would be possible or practical, or whether it might even be destabilizing. The practical aspects were certainly considered by former Defence Ministers. In an article in The Citizen in October, 1977, Jo Anne Gosselin, quoted the Hon. Barney Danson who said:
He did not want Canadian troops left in an exposed position that is not reinforcible or supportable.
She went on:
The time lapse involved in moving Canadians into position and ensuring their ongoing support was, in his estimation, neither satisfactorily defined nor militarily practical.
I feel that it is time that Canada admitted that there is a question here. I for one am glad that we now have the experience of this recent exercise, Brave Lion, to help in coming to the proper solution. It should have been undertaken ten years ago. We shall now want to examine the lessons learned. This examination should take place before the Standing Committee on National Defence as soon as possible.
There are four items about which the standing committee will want to inquire. The first is whether or not the commitment is viable. The second is whether in this real world there are any specific situations that would automatically require this commitment to be undertaken. Third, did the exercise indicate that Canada could reinforce and resupply the CAST force and the brigade at Lahr, Germany at the same time? Fourth, was there any indication that the movement of CAST to Norway in a crisis might of itself be destabilizing?
I can tell Hon. Members from personal knowledge that in 1979 there was a very uncertain situation obtaining in the world. The U.S.S.R. had moved into Afghanistan. Iran was in
revolt and the Shah had fled. With few exceptions the Americans in Iran were being held hostage. Many people were wondering if, indeed, the U.S.S.R. might be moving down toward the warm water ports which it had envied for ever so long. Surely, in a crisis such as that it would think that that would have been the time to start talking about when we should move our CAST forces to Norway. The truth of the matter is that it took us all of ten seconds to determine that that would be the most destabilizing action that Canada could possibly take in a situation such as that. The rest of the world looks to Canada for sober and intelligent judgments, not to destabilizing situations.
I wish the Minister well. I look forward to seeing him, his colleagues and his senior officers in front of the standing committee as soon as possible. I must say that if anyone can carry out the CAST operation, Canadians can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as always, I listened with great interest and attentiveness to the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I have the greatest respect for him and for his knowledge, particularly with respect to defence matters. I have been aware for some time of his great experience and expertise regarding that time dating back to the Second World War. I was interested in his comments with respect to the area of defence and, in particular, two aspects of it.
The first aspect related to the Canadian commitment to NATO in Europe, both in continental Europe and in Norway. There has been a good deal of discussion of late concerning the possibility of a revision to our NATO commitment which would transfer those troops and the Air Force arm of them out of Europe altogether. I refer not just to those in the Norwegian commitment but to our whole commitment to NATO in terms of maintaining forces in Europe under NATO and to shift that, perhaps, in the direction to which the Hon. Member referred.
He referred to our Arctic and to our North and the maintenance of our own sovereignty and perhaps the defence of it in the Arctic and northern regions. The Hon. Member may want to leave this question with the standing committee. However, does he have any views which he would like to put forward this afternoon which might enlighten us with respect to changing our NATO commitment in such a way that we might shift our focus from Europe to our northern Arctic?
The second area in which I am interested has to do with the North and the Arctic. It deals with the recent suggestions of two recently retired generals of our forces that the location of the proposed northern warning system is wrong. They have said that, in fact, we should station the northern warning system bases farther north on the Arctic islands rather than along the continental shore of North America. They have said that in that way we would have an earlier warning. If enemy

October 3, 1986
forces were intercepted in the North, they would be intercepted not over northern Canada but in the Arctic archipelago. Will the Hon. Member give us the value of his experience and views on these two matters?


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, at one stage of the Hon. Member's remarks he asked whether or not the standing committee should take up this matter. That was very well put. However, I would like to comment on that point. One of the great things about the reform of Parliament is that under able leadership standing committees are able to decide for themselves what they will investigate and on what they will make reports. As soon as the appointment is official I will be in touch with the Chairman of that standing committee. I do not expect to have to go too far to find him.
The question with respect to whether we should have the Air Force and the Army both in Europe has been around for years. This is compounded by the CAST obligation to go to Norway and whether or not it will detract from our ability to reinforce our troops at Lahr. I think this matter should be the subject of an intensive study to determine just what are our options. We managed CAST. It drew its guidelines and went at the appointed time. However, it was peacetime. There was a year of warning. It could not be said officially whether anything took place until a certain date. However, the force did not have to be resupplied and reinforced. This raises the question of whether or not we will take our best trained troops and send them all overseas at the start, leaving no way to train the troops that will need to be trained. Some people may consider this a 40-year-old dogma with respect to training reinforcements. Some people may say that that day is over, and they may be right. However, we have two different scenarios to consider. The first is with respect to conventional war, and the other is with respect to nuclear war. Today, I have only considered conventional war.
As far as the retired generals are concerned, I know one of them quite well, General Beattie, who is a very thoughtful person. He has a very good record in terms of being the type of general to whom attention should be paid. He makes the simple point that if we were to mount the early warning line along the edge of the archipelago, we would be in a much better position. He does not emphasize the cost with respect to this proposal, which would be considerably higher than what was actually proposed. That is another subject on which I do not think people who just read newspapers should express too many opinions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). As usual, I enjoyed his interesting and thoughtful presentation to the House. I appreciated many of the points which he made. However, I guess my two questions are directed to him more as a Member of Parliament from British Columbia. Like the rest of us, I am sure he shares in the many concerns of that province in terms of difficult economic times.
One point on which he did not elaborate very much in his Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was the
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
pending decision to construct the Polar 8 ice-breaker. I know his colleagues in his Party, like all of us from British Columbia, have been lobbying in whatever way possible to encourage the federal Government to consider the hard-pressed shipyards on the West Coast and therefore to give consideration to their bid in the issuance of this contract. I would like to ask the Hon. Member about his views on the chances of this contract being approved so that we will see the construction of at least the major part of the Polar 8 icebreaker being done in West Coast shipyards.
Also, while he is on his feet, I wonder whether he could respond to something which I am sure concerns us all in terms of identifying and understanding the sequence of events. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) was required to make an offer to the United States forest industry in an effort to head off what appeared to be a pending decision which would go against Canada. My question to the Hon. Member would be: What precipitated this process and the calling of this eleventh hour meeting or this eleventh hour overture? From what I have read and from what I understand, it was the public musings of the Premier of British Columbia a few weeks ago, saying that it was time that we re-evaluated our stumpage fees in British Columbia. In my estimation this in a sense pushed the IWA and the forestry industry to have to agree with the Premier, which in turn led to the federal Government having to make this last minute overture. I would appreciate the Hon. Member's thoughtful views on that question as well.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I find the second question to be rather unusual, coming from my distinguished friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I should like to compliment him upon his new position in the NDP. I am sure that he will carry out his functions with an ability which we have become quite accustomed to expecting from him.
However, my understanding of the rules is that a question should be about my speech, not about the Speech from the Throne. I do not recall having become embroiled in the ongoing discussion of this matter between the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and people from the Hon. Member's Party. I recall that some two or three months ago, Mr. Munro, known in union circles on the West Coast, came out with the same idea about stumpage fees needing to be increased.
Turning to the Polar 8 about which I spoke, I am sure that we share the same hope that the work will come to the West Coast. If I might boast a bit, in answer to one of my questions in the House in 1983 about contracts for six frigates all going to the St. Lawrence Valley and the East Coast and nothing going to the West Coast, the then Minister of Supply and Services promised that the Polar 8 would be tendered on the West Coast only. I think that was one of the strongest arguments we had in favour of it. It is our turn and we deserve it.
62

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Foster


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my congratulations to the new Speaker. Certainly his election the other night was a unique occasion for all of us in the House. I compliment him on that achievement. His experience, know-how and goodwill were instrumental in his elevation to that position. I must say that all Hon. Members who participated, including the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, played a very active role in choosing a new Speaker. I hope the House will operate very well under this system. Whenever the time comes to fine-tune the system, 1 am sure we will have a mechanism in place to reduce the 11 hours to something less.
As well, I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder. Although the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) represents a B.C. riding now, she used to live in Sudbury in northern Ontario. She and the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard) made excellent speeches in the House of Commons.
The Throne Speech of Wednesday afternoon clearly lacks any indication of what the Government wants for the country. It seems to demonstrate the Government's focus on short-term political problems rather than contain any clear vision or direction for the country. This week we read in the newspapers that the Speech from the Throne was based upon polls. I suppose we can give Allan Gregg and Dalton Camp some of the credit for writing the Throne Speech. It seems that that is what is wrong with it. It covers all bases. It has a little bit for everybody but no specific commitments with regard to funding. At least it mentions a pot-pourri of items. It referred to the establishment of councils, national conferences, and consultation, without spelling out the exact action the Government wishes to take. Because it does not focus sharply upon those items, the Government really tends to lose credibility in the whole exercise. It does not have a specific plan of action.
In fact, the Speech from the Throne seems to change dramatically the Government's direction. We learned from its first Budget that the primary direction of the Government was toward the whole energy sector where hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created. A year ago last spring the then Minister of Energy was committed to this. Today, instead of seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs created in the energy sector, we see that sector being more devastated than it was in the early 1970s. That is not only the case in communities in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is also evident in communities like Sault Ste. Marie where we see 800 people laid off from a tube mill. We see a brand new $370 million tube mill ready to go to work but with no work to do. As I said, the thrust of the first Budget seemed to be in that direction.
However, during the past year the whole emphasis has been upon free trade negotiations. The Government alleged that hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs would be created by putting together a free trade agreement with the United States. In fact, when we read the Speech from the Throne, that seems to be downplayed. Now they are talking about a mutually beneficial trade agreement with the United States.
The whole concept of a massive free trade agreement with the United States seems to have been lost in the Speech from the Throne.
Let us look at proposed tax reforms. We on this side of the House welcome those tax reform proposals. We talked about fairness and a comprehensive tax system which were in sharp contrast to the initiatives in the first two Budgets. We saw regressive taxes imposed upon cosmetics, non-prescription drugs, fuel, and other items. Also we saw the deindexation of the income tax scale. If the Government is making a 180 degree turn in tax reform wherein it will shift the burden from low-income Canadians to big business, it will be a welcome turn of events. However, it will probably take a year or two to overcome the damage which has been done. Many studies I have read indicate that the average family will pay from $1,200 to $1,500 in additional taxes over a two-year to three-year period as a result of regressive tax moves in the first two Budgets.
I guess the other area I am very concerned about is the uneven economic development. Clearly many areas, such as northern Ontario, western Canada and Atlantic Canada have not benefited since 1983-84 from the economic recovery. This Throne Speech, although it talks about a new economic opportunities council in Atlantic Canada and talks about economic diversification in western Canada, clearly forgets and has nothing about northern Ontario. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we face very, very serious economic difficulties in northern Ontario.
Before I go into that, I want to talk briefly about agriculture. This Speech from the Throne contains four short paragraphs about agriculture, which is better than the previous Speech from the Throne which had only one word in one paragraph about agriculture. Unfortunately, it does not spell out any specific actions for agriculture. There is no commitment about a deficiency payment, for instance. There is a great deal of talk or background about what the Government is alleged to have done, actions which might have been taken, but there is no specific commitment. This is at a time when we are facing the lowest grain and corn prices and prices for many other agricultural commodities since the 1930s.
I was especially concerned today in Question Period when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) seemed to be skating around the whole question of deficiency payments. This idea of a deficiency payment at a time when Canadian grain prices are the lowest since the 1930s is something supported by all provincial Premiers in western Canada. It is supported by the pool elevators and by all farm groups. We have to satisfy ourselves with statements like: "The Government will spare no effort in seeking to protect the interest of farmers". The Minister of Agriculture skates around saying: "We have to negotiate this with farm groups and with provincial governments". Earlier this afternoon we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speak. He talked about funding of $1 billion
October 3, 1986

for the hard pressed grain industry. He talked about negotiating funding with Premier Grant Devine of Saskatchewan. I hope this is not a total election ploy by talking about it in the House of Commons knowing that the topic will be carried into the hustings in Saskatchewan. Will it be negotiations on and on and on and after the election nothing happens?
It seems to me that the Prime Minister suffers from incredible lack of credibility. The vast majority of people simply do not believe him. If he really wants to be believed, he should have come out full and fair and proposed so many new dollars, stated whether the money is a loan or a grant, and said exactly what assistance is available from the federal Government. We know that he cannot commit the provincial Governments, but he can say what his Government is willing to put forward in the face of this tremendous crisis facing western Canada. We are very concerned with whether the Prime Minister is just eyewashing or giving us another smoke and mirrors show.
If we look back to the Government's performance up to 1986, the average Canadian, not a farmer, listening to the news and reading headlines would have understood that the Government had provided some $730 million in the February Budget. The average Canadian would have known a little later that the Prime Minister called a hurried press conference at the end of April and that another $350 million had been allotted to the hard pressed agricultural industry. But if you look behind those announcements, you will find that either there is nothing there or that the actual commitment by the Government is very small. I just hope that the kind of announcement the Prime Minister made today, the right to negotiate funding, is not as phoney as those in the Budget and in his press conference of April 30. If we look back at the Budget announcement of $730 million, there was no new money. It is just existing farm credit loans with some interest assistance to be provided under certain circumstances, but in the long run the farmer will get no subsidization of interest. Even in the short run, the total cost to the Government is in the order of $50 million or $65 million. That is the kind of canard that we worry about with the Prime Minister. We know that the Prime Minister's minions in the PMO know how to draft beautiful press releases which sound as if the farmers were getting something, but when you check into them you find that there is very little assistance there, if any.
I draw the attention of the House to the announcement of April 30 when the Prime Minister seemed to be giving several hundred millions of dollars to farmers when he announced that he was changing the range of the domestic price of wheat. He was not changing the domestic price of wheat, which would have provided additional funding by the consumers of Canada to farmers. He was changing the range. He made a big thing of it. It was going to involve several hundred millions of dollars. He did not actually change the domestic price of wheat. That money never went to the farmer.
The Prime Minister also announced at that time that he was going to remove the excise tax on farm fuel by 2 cents a litre.
The Address-Mr. Foster
He actually said 5 cents a litre, but 3 cents had already been given. If you look closely you will find that a year ago now the Government put 2 cents a litre on gasoline effective September 1, 1985. That levy was kept on during the full harvest and during the spring when farmers had to fill their fuel tanks. Dramatically, the Prime Minister removed it around June 1. But during that period, September to June, he probably extracted $50 million or $60 million. What he should have done was not only take it off but take it off retroactively to September 1 and apologize for imposing it because the farmers could not afford that cost.
The third peg in the Prime Minister's announcement of April 30 was to freeze freight rates. That would save Canadian farmers $42 million. We checked that out with the senior grain transportation agency. We were told by its representatives that that was not freezing freight rates, just recalculating the volumes of grain to be shipped. Instead of shipping 32 million tonnes, only 28.5 million tonnes will be shipped, so no increase is necessary. This is the kind of phoney baloney we get from Mulroney which drives the agricultural sector wild. It drives the agriculture sector wild because not only does it get no benefit from it, the perception is left with Canadians that the Government actually did something. However, no actual cash ever comes to the farmer.
I just hope that there is some substance to the dramatic announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that he will get together with Grant Devine to provide some kind of funding to assist farmers who are in the most difficult financial position they have been in since the 1930s. It is simply not fair to the farmers to fool the rest of the country into believing that the farmers have been provided with some assistance when in fact they have not been at all.
I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, an interesting experience I had this fall. I had the opportunity to visit Alberta after the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) had just spoken to a farm group there. The Deputy Prime Minister and I, as were you, were elected in the famous Class of 1968, and we are all good friends at a personal level. One of the farmers at this meeting said to me: "You know, I went there and listened to Don and he told me how much they had done for us and how great everything was and how we should all be happy, and all I could ask myself was, you know, if they have done so much and everything is so great, why do I feel so bad?" I think that is what many western farmers feel as they face perhaps the most uncertain future they have faced in many years.
We know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced a $46-million program with the Department of Employment and Immigration designed to take farmers off the farm. He announced that there would be 9,000 farmers leaving the farm.
The Government has done very little to cope with the farm debt crisis. As I described it a few moments ago, the farm commodity based mortgage will cost the Government very

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Foster
little and could probably cost nothing in the end because interest rates rise as commodity prices rise.
The same thing applies to the current trade war. The Government does not give the impression that agriculture is a priority. There are too many things said, like the Government will spare no effort in seeking to protect the interests of Canada. What farmers want is for the Government to show its commitment. We cannnot have Canadian farmers receiving something less than $3 per bushel Canadian for wheat while American farmers are receiving something like $6 per bushel for their wheat and expect Canadian farmers to survive for very long.
The Prime Minister made a speech in Prince Albert on July 7, 1984, in which he said that the Conservative Government, if it was elected, would make Canada a super power in agriculture exports. Because Canadian farmers have been abandoned by the Government, they are today paying the full cost of simply surviving. The Government is not providing export subsidies in the way the U.S. Government does. The Government is not providing deficiency payments. It is fiddling around, talking about some kind of funding mechanism.
If the Government really wanted to have credibility with agriculture in western Canada-and in eastern Canada as well, because corn producers in southwestern Ontario are facing the same reductions in the value of their commodities as are the grain producers-it would move forward and these little exercises in publicity. It should really put its money where its mouth is. That is what we are waiting for the Government to do. Agriculture is a very important industry, and it deserves the complete support of all Canadians including the Government of Canada.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do this by way of comment rather than by way of a point of order because I know that the Hon. Member did not do it intentionally. I just want to draw to his attention that during the course of his speech he used the phrase: "phony boloney," and then followed with the Prime Minister's name rather than his position or riding. Once again, I say that I am doing this in the spirit of bringing it to his attention rather than trying to interrupt his speech. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the reason we do not use each other's names is to depersonalize the debate and keep it on as high a level as possible. This is an explanation that I heard from the former Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, Mr. Ian Deans as he now is, and I think it makes sense. As I say, I am sure the comment was inadvertent, but if we could continue to refer to people by their positions or ridings it will raise the level of debate and the level of the speeches in this place.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to congratulate the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for giving, as usual, an excellent speech in the House of Commons. He has blessed us with an excellent speech again today.
Is it not ironic that on this very day that we are discussing agriculture and such very important issue as the export of
agriculture, to which the Hon. Member for Algoma referred so eloquently only moments ago, the Government has tabled in the House of Commons that awful piece of legislation-pardon the language, Mr. Speaker. I know that is probably parliamentary, but I apologize for it anyway. The legislation the Government has introduced to abolish the Crown corporation Canagrex is awful. Would my colleague not agree with me that the Government should not proceed with the cancellation of Canagrex, particularly now that the U.S. Farm Bill is in place, with other legislation from other countries attempting to promote the export of agricultural products? Would the Hon. Member not agree with me that we in Canada should do our share for exports, and that a corporation like Canagrex could have been an excellent instrument for doing so, had it been given a chance?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has raised a very important issue, the question of agricultural exports. Clearly we are in a state of siege with regard to agricultural exports. We are faced with massive the United States instruments for assisting agriculture commodity exports. It is trying to take away our grain markets in Egypt and Syria. The United States has even put forward assistance to exports to China and Russia. Of course, many of those grain exports for which the Government is not providing any kind of assistance or subsidy are being captured totally by the farmer himself who puts his grain in through the Wheat Board at a lower price.
The Hon. Member refers to Canagrex, an agency which would be especially good for smaller commodities, those commodities that do not enjoy the same massive exports as dairy products or grain through the Canadian Dairy Commission or the Canadian Wheat Board. I refer to smaller volume commodities such as livestock, lentils, honey and a host of others. The value would not only arise from seeking out prospective markets, but in assisting in the co-ordination of activities with provincial governments. Often trade commissions include members from two provincial governments which sell the same commodity. A commodity-producer group could benefit through a national agency such as Canagrex.
I certainly agree with the Hon. Member. I hope the Government will not move to destroy Canagrex, because I believe it has a vital role to play in agricultural commodity export, especially at this time when we face tremendous trade wars in respect of agriculture.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, does my colleague remember the election promises of 1984? The Conservatives made numerous promises. I think I brought to your attention before that they made 338 promises. One promise was to establish a system of agribonds. The Hon. Member will recall, as I do, that there was an all-Party agreement to have an agribond system. This was recommended to the Government, it was subsequently neglected in two Budgets, and I saw no reference to it in this latest Throne Speech. Does my colleague want to give us his
October 3, 1986

opinion on whether the Government has broken this promise as well?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Government has broken a number of promises made in the 1984 election campaign. Promise number 11 was to expand agriculture research and development by providing greater assistance. The Estimates for the Department of Agriculture for this year show that the research budget has been reduced by $23 million. 1 think this is unconscionable because research will not provide a pay-back this year or next, year, but several years in the future.
The Tories promised to establish a national marketing board for tobacco, and that promise was broken. The Tories made a commitment to revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act to reflect the principles of equity. The Government, of course, has not acted on that. Promise number 14 was to allocate the necessary funding to assist producers in refinancing their loans at current prevailing rates. The current rate of the Bank of Canada is around 9 per cent. If the Government implemented that promise it would save farmers a lot of interest.
With regard to the agribond program, the committee studied this and came up with a very workable program but, unfortunately, it was not reflected in either of the two Budgets we have had since then, or in the Speech from the Throne on Wednesday.


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


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on your appointment. We were very pleased to have you for the past two years. I hope to see you there for another two years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Martin Oostrom: May I also extend my heartiest congratulations to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who was elected Speaker three days ago. I did not at all mind spending 11 hours here to elect the Speaker. The patience of all of us augurs well for the future. The manner in which our newly elected Speaker has conducted himself over the past three days, the wisdom with which he has spoken and the collective confidence that he has in us and we have in him also augers well for the future.

I also noted the presence of the NDP Members in the House this afternoon during the speech of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Forty per cent of the NDP Members were here, but only 5 per cent of the Liberals. This gives me a good idea of which party provides the real opposition in this House.

I would like to compliment the mover and seconder, the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) and the Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard). They gave very eloquent and in-
The Address-Mr. Oostrom
depth replies to the Throne Speech. My congratulations to both of them.
I represent the riding of Willowdale which is geographically located at the epicentre of Metropolitan Toronto. Willowdale is a very stable and hard-working community, the roots of which stretch back to the United Empire Loyalists. The community is now a multicultural mosaic and its people have become integral members of the community of Willowdale. I feel very honoured to represent them as their Member of Parliament because I am also part of that mosaic as I come from Holland. I am very proud to be their representative.
The constituents of my riding are very industrious, innovative and inventive. We need that spirit for the future of Canada. They are very proud to be members of the Willowdale community. Their pride is reflected in their residences, their strong community involvement and their ability to give of themselves unselfishly to many charitable causes.
Willowdale is the administrative and cultural centre of the City of North York and I am happy to say it is presently in the middle of an economic boom. The downtown core of the City of North York-the city with a heart, as our Mayor says-is beginning to rival that of Toronto in construction and economic activity. Willowdale, blessed with hard-working people and a favourable geographic location, is fast becoming the heart of Metropolitan Toronto,
Throughout the summer, as I have done in previous years, I went door-to-door in my riding asking my constituents what they thought of the Government and if there were any issues they felt should be addressed. I managed to visit personally over 6,000 households. The response by the people of Willowdale toward the Government and its policies was very positive. Although I got an earful on some issues, in general the response was very supportive.
The people of Willowdale were very impressed with the agenda put forth in our first Throne Speech. Our second Throne Speech will continue the Government's commitment to enacting legislation which will continue to benefit all Canadians. People remember the tough economic times they experienced prior to the 1984 election. They remember the high energy prices, the runaway inflation, the high interest rates, the high unemployment, the lack of economic direction, the massive deficit, and non-existent social justice.
In just two short years the Progressive Conservative Government has taken significant action toward rebuilding the Canadian economy. This is the best economic recovery that any western country has ever seen. Confidence has been restored and jobs have been created. Interest rates are down and the deficit is falling. Before September, 1984, 11.7 per cent of the workforce was unemployed. Today the rate is down two full percentage points to 9.9 per cent. This is the lowest level in four years. These are indeed big ticket items.

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Oostrom
Let me illustrate. Between 1980 and 1984, only 404,000 jobs were created. The Progressive Conservative Government has created over 500,000 jobs in less than half the time. More significantly, more than 80 per cent of the jobs which were created by this Government have been full time jobs, as our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated this afternoon. This is concrete proof that the Government is keeping true to its pledge of providing employment to the Canadian people. This has been done at a time when our deficit has dropped by $4 billion while the deficit in the United States increased by $40 billion.
During the past two years I have had many calls from people in my riding representing restaurants, garages, small factories, offices and crating companies, crying for people to come and work for them. These jobs are not at minimum wage as the Leader of the New Democratic Party stated this afternoon, but some at double the rate of minimum wage. Jobs are being created because our policies have restored confidence in the Canadian economy.
Canada's inflation rate has been in the 4 per cent range for two years now, the most stable price environment since the 1960s. Again, our economic management has allowed the inflation rate to remain very stable. No longer is there doubledigit inflation. This allows Canadians to maintain that purchasing power that they cherish and, therefore, contribute to the economy by purchasing more goods and services.
According to the Conference Board, consumer confidence is at its highest level in over 21 years and its second highest level on record in Canada.
As a result of renewed confidence and lower interest rates, housing starts have risen by some 40 per cent since September, 1984. This translates into 125,000 jobs in construction related industries alone. Today, mortgage rates are more than three percentage points lower than they were in September, 1984. The prime rate averaged just over 12 per cent in 1984, dropped to about 10.5 per cent in 1985, and today stands at 9.75 per cent. It is the lowest it has been in eight years. We can recall 1980 and 1981 when interest rates rocketed to over 20 per cent. How could Canadians afford to buy a home then? It is again possible to buy a home.
The facts speak for themselves. There is no real embellishment here because the facts I have quoted are real and are recognized, especially by other nations, if not at home. There is still more room for improvement. I believe that my Government can still do better. The economic direction of the Throne Speech will ensure that our election promises are fulfilled and that all our goals for a renewed vibrant economy are met and perhaps even exceeded.
Let me turn to the subject of taxes. It has been said that death and taxes will always be with us. I acknowledge, as do other Canadians, that our tax system is necessary in order to provide us with the wide range of social services that we enjoy. Through the years, the tax system has been allowed to become
regressive and inefficient by previous Governments. The Throne Speech makes it clear that federal tax reform will be one of our top economic and social priorities.
An efficient and fair tax system will give Canadians more disposable income which will help to generate more beneficial economic activities. The principal objective of changes made so far has been to broaden the tax base in order to lower personal income taxes. We will also restore a healthy balance among the personal and corporate taxes and, specifically, reverse the trend which has resulted in greater reliance on personal income taxes. The Government will begin by making the tax system less complex and, wherever possible, structure the system so that the burdens are shared in an equitable manner. We are embarking on a comprehensive reform of our tax system, much the same as the American Government is now experiencing.
After our election we moved quickly in ensuring that no taxpayer would ever again have to pay taxes in dispute before an impartial hearing had been concluded. The declaration of taxpayers' rights was the first step in overhauling our tax system. It was a step that had been long overdue. It was the first time since our tax system became so complex that the individual was given preference.
The Throne Speech provides a refreshing attitude toward social issues. The Government has resolved to defend and strengthen the institution of the Canadian family. We recognize the importance of keeping the family unit strong. Families are the backbone of Canada. Cohesive families give Canada strength and character, which make problems easier to face and solve. We are moving rapidly to neutralize the destructive influences that drugs and pronography have on the family. The residents of Willowdale are very concerned over the proliferation of pornographic materials. They are concerned that pornography teaches sexual deviation, abnormal behaviour, and promotes violence toward women and children. I strongly believe that pornography is nothing more than vicious anti-women propaganda, the sole purpose of which is to degrade by making women nothing more than objects.
The Government is determined to take effective action against the serious and growing threat posed by the traffic of illegal drugs. Tough action is the only way to deal with this growing cancer of drug abuse which is destroying the lives of many Canadians. There should be no question of our resolve in this matter.
The Government moved quickly in the first session of Parliament to pass Bill C-18, which produced a considerable reduction in the number of instances of impaired driving, the leading cause of both fatal and non-fatal road accidents. The stiffer penalties have caused many people to think twice before getting behind the wheel after drinking. As a result, there were fewer road accidents during the 1985 Christmas season than at any other Christmas in many years. We demonstrated to all Canadians that we have the resolve to deal with tough social issues.
October 3, 1986

We will continue to reform the Criminal Code so that it accurately reflects the importance that Canadians attach to such as respect for the law and the protection of innocent citizens. I strongly believe, as do the overwhelming majority of the 6000 households in Willowdale that I personally canvassed this summer, that capital punishment is one item that should be brought forth and debated in the House. Protecting Canadians against all forms of criminal violence is a main priority of the Government.
We acted quickly when the Bill on mandatory supervision was stalled in the Senate and held a very rare summer sitting of the House to resolve the impasse. This shows our resolve and determination.
For too long, our immigration system has been abused. This was not the case when I came to Canada with my father, mother and 12 brothers and sisters. We patiently waited in line until our turn. While we may have wanted to proceed faster at times, it was impossible. Complex, ineffective legislation enacted in the mid-1970s has allowed our immigration system to become abused. We have been making major strides in correcting this situation. We have simplified and improved the present refugee determination system. Entry procedures will be streamlined and a case-by-case administrative review was begun in July in order to clear Immigration Canada's backlog of some 20,000 claims.
Our legislation has been firm and fair and still maintains our humanitarian reputation in immigration matters. Our Government has increased immigration for the first time since 1980-81. It had slowly dropped to about the 80,000 level but this year it has gone up to 115,000 and hopefully next year it will be increased to 130,000. I am also pleased that the Speech from the Throne made mention of the fact that we are going to make improvements to the illiteracy rate in Canada. Last week I met with the board and staff of the North York Library to discuss this very point. I am very pleased that that problem was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the very strong leadership provided by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Under his direction, Canada is once again becoming a very strong economic power. No one can deny Canada's economic performance under his leadership. Our Prime Minister has brought harmony to federal-provincial relations, and his vision of a strong, prosperous and united Canada is being brought to fruition. I am proud to be a Progressive Conservative. 1 am proud to be led by Prime Minister Mulroney, and I am proud of the very deep and dignified speech he gave in this House this afternoon. He will be remembered as the Canadian leader who turned this country around, as a Prime Minister with the courage to lead.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I think I should bring to the attention of Hon. Members that we will abide by that one rule of not using the names of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
The Address-Mr. Oostrom
They should be referred to as the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and then the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) for questions or comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention in drawing to our attention the fact that we are not to refer to our colleagues by their names but by their constituencies or titles.
I appreciated with interest the comments made by my hon. friend. He mentioned the whole matter of the Government's commitment to tax reform. I want to ask the Hon. Member for his views on four items of importance in comprehensive tax reform. Would he give us his view on whether or not we should retain the $500,000 capital gains exemption? I do not think any other country in the world has this. Does he think that ought to be maintained? Second, I would like his personal views as to the fact that there are now in excess of 79,000 companies in Canada in a profitable position which paid no income tax at all. In fact, many of those companies have profits in the $100 million, $200 million, $300 million range, so we are not talking necessarily about small corporations at the moment but about some of the giants of Canada, some of which one can find listed in the top brackets of the large 500 corporations of Canada.
I would also like to have the Hon. Member's view of the fact that the tax revenue the federal Government now collects, has over the years shifted so that now virtually 82 per cent of all tax revenue is derived from personal taxes and only 18 per cent from corporate taxes. Just a few years ago this was in fact split 50-50. Now it is split 82-18. Fourth, I would like to know whether the Hon. Member is a supporter of the introduction of the business transfer tax or, as I call it, a fancy name for a value-added tax or a sophisticated sales tax?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked my views on the capital gains tax. Naturally, the capital gains tax as well as other measures will certainly be under review at the time the review takes place. We have instituted the $500,000 capital gains exemption, and the result has been 600,000 new jobs created in Canada. I think that is quite a performance. I am not sure whether this tax will continue. If we can create another 600,000 jobs in the future, by all means it should be continued. I would rather have Canadians working and contributing than have the high unemployment rates we have experienced in the past.
The second point was with respect to loopholes. As the Hon. Member may remember, during the past two years we have closed a number of loopholes in our tax system. Perhaps we have not closed them all. We would welcome the Hon. Member bringing these to our attention, perhaps in the Committee on Finance or to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), so that we can close these loopholes because I do not believe anyone should be able to evade due taxes.

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Althouse
The third question put by the Eton. Member was with respect to the shift of more taxes on personal incomes which has taken place over the years. As was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we would like to reverse that trend. I do not know whether it should be a 50-50 split. I am not that experienced in all matters of personal and corporate tax, but I think there will be a shift towards more corporate taxes.
Lastly, on the business of the transfer tax, there seems to be some success with this particular tax in Europe, and most of the industrialized nations have this particular tax. I do not believe we would go the same way as the European nations. I think, as usual, Canada will find a happy medium between the system we have today and the system currently in effect in the European Common Market.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague mention in his speech the possibility of bringing forth pornography legislation. He also mentioned pornography, and I would like to ask him about that in the form of a comment and a question. Pornography, of course, is a very subjective thing. One person's pornography is another person's titillation and another person's interesting reading. Is the Maclean's Magazine pornographic? Is Cosmopolitan pornographic? Is Playboy pornographic? Probably it is. Perhaps Hon. Members would agree that opposition press releases are pornographic if not downright obscene. Who is going to decide? I would ask my hon. colleague what pornography is. And who is going to decide how to enact it? It is such a subjective topic. Who is going to decide what pornography is in Canada?


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we in this House can put our collective thoughts together and come up with something which would please all of the Canadian population.
I would like to state that when I came to this country 34 years ago, the amount of pornography present now was just not there. I believe that the quality of life has gone down over that period of time. I would like to reverse that trend. I was happy to see 34 years ago that I had come to a country which understood that pornography would not be good for the young generation. We must have freedom, surely, to read and to view things we like. On the other hand, we must have a social responsibility. I find that the social responsibility which goes with the freedom we deserve has been lacking.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to lead off a debate following our Leader's intervention. I suspect that this is because of the procedure which was started in the Speech from the Throne. This time around it approached Canada's economy in alphabetical order. It first dealt with the subject of agriculture. My name begins with an A and I am the agriculture critic of my Party. I suppose I am the A for the New Democratic Party.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and government officials have been attempting to point out that agriculture achieved a new high priority in that it is the A, the first in the alphabetical statement of items which they felt like dealing with in the Speech from the Throne. They have pointed out that the amount of space devoted to agriculture is the largest in any Speech from the Throne given by this Government. Indeed, when one looks at the first Speech from the Throne of this Government one sees that it did not have too far to go. In that Speech from the Throne the word was mentioned in the middle of a sentence dealing with some other matters. So one can honestly say that less than one sentence was used on agriculture in that first Speech from the Throne.
In its second Speech from the Throne the Government uses four short paragraphs to deal with the subject. It is interesting to look carefully at what is stated in those four paragraphs. The first statement is a blanket one stating that agriculture is important to our nation. That disposes of the first mention of the word. I think that is something which everyone in Canada knows. It is nice to see it mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. However, I do not think it shows anything insightful in terms of the Government's commitment to agriculture.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Maybe it does for Tories.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: My colleague says that perhaps it is a change of heart for the Tories. I point out that for most of us it is not anything new.
The second paragraph in which the word "agriculture" is mentioned is a one-sentence paragraph which points out what the Government did in the last session. Thus it is past history.
The third paragraph dealing with the subject matter talks about the past, past history, back when the Liberals were in government. That paragraph spends some time knocking the Liberals. I suppose that Speeches from the Throne can be political statements, and they usually are. I guess that is fair game. However, it does not give us much insight with respect to the direction in which the Government is going in terms of agricultural policy.
I have now disposed with three paragraphs and I have not yet found out from the Government what it is proposing in this session. We then get to the meat of the matter in the fourth paragraph. The Government reports that it has put agriculture on the agenda for the upcoming multilateral trade negotiations, or that it at least moved to put it on the agenda. After dealing with the agenda it gets into what will be coming. I would like to quote from that paragraph of the Speech from the Throne which reads:
In meeting its commitment to Canadian agriculture, my government will
spare no effort in seeking to protect the interests of Canada's farming
community in the face of unfair pricing and subsidy practices conducted
beyond our borders.
There have been many questions asked and much pondering with respect to what that statement means. It was really not clarified in the speech made by the Prime Minister. He talked about having meetings with farm groups in the provinces to
October 3, 1986

find out what sort of aid package could be given to agriculture. He made some rather vague reference to that accumulated package being something in the order of $1 billion. He did not say whether that was to be $1 billion of new money from the federal Government, whether it was to come from the provinces, or whether it was to come from a combination of provinces, farm groups and the federal Government. So we are still not much clearer than we were before, in spite of the fact that members of the Government from the Prairies created a big expectation that we would be hearing something about the almost $2 billion deficiency payment once the Speech from the Throne was delivered. I expect Members representing portions of rural Canada did the same thing. However, since I live in the Prairies I know what members of the Government were doing there. While Parliament was recessed nothing was done except getting ready for this statement. Expectations were high. I must be frank with Hon. Members, there is a great deal of disappointment in rural Canada because it is not known where the Government stands on this issue.
The Government made some strong statements in this Speech from the Throne concerning the subsidization of agricultural products. We are no longer clear whether it is carrying the criticism of other countries' subsidy programs to the point where it will start living up to the policy line it has been preaching abroad by refusing to extend subsidies to Canadian farmers. The Prime Minister has not made that clear. Nor has the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) been particularly helpful. I do not think he has been given any clues at all by his cabinet colleagues in this respect.
During the course of the Prime Minister's speech today I sent a note to the Minister of Agriculture in which I asked: "Does this mean that you have now $1 billion to put on the table in these talks with farmers' organizations and the provinces?" I have a good rapport with the Minister. He usually keeps me right up to date with respect to what he is doing and what he is able to do. He did not even look up and smile to indicate that he had received my note, although I saw him read it. He did not indicate that he had matters in hand. He did not even reply to my note. After the Prime Minister's speech I phoned the Minister's office and found that his officials were quite confused with respect to the so-called $1 billion statement that had come out of the Prime Minister's speech. They did not know anything about it. They had not had briefings in that respect. They had received no word about it. In fact, they knew absolutely nothing about it.
We know that provincial agricultural officials are meeting in Toronto today for the second time concerning this and other subjects. Those officials do not seem to have any knowledge of there being $1 billion on the table. The whole matter is very confusing. It is very well couched in fuzzy terms, which is something we expect from Speeches from the Throne. However, sometimes when we have explanations from the leader of the country we expect the fuzziness to clear up, particularly when it concerns an issue such as this, which is
The Address-Mr. Althouse
important to hundreds of thousands of farm families right across the nation.
One of the threads that runs through the speech is one that is usually found in any successful political statement given in Canada. I refer to the issue of regional disparity. I began my remarks dealing with agriculture since that is the first subject dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. I also began with it because it is one of my chief interests.
When talking about regional disparity I think that we must consider that agriculture, fisheries and forestry are areas of our economy which have been traditional bases and that they are now in trouble. They are sectors of the economy which have been having some difficulty. They have been lending to regional disparity, which has once again been showing itself in our land. When the Prime Minister spoke about my region of the country, western Canada, he said that he had steadfast faith that we can build that part of the country. I have always had faith that we can build that part of the country. My parents have always had faith that they could build that part of the country, as did my grandparents and a few of my great-grandparents. Many of them felt they had built that part of the country. They thought that they had pretty well completed it.
I received a phone call today from a gentleman who happens to live in my riding. He is dealing with this same problem. He thought that he had built up a rather successful farm. He is now middle-aged. He has served on a number of boards in his community, including the review boards put together by the Province of Saskatchewan to decide whether or not farmers should be allowed to face bankruptcy. He now finds himself in the position of having to go before a federal board to decide whether or not he has any future left in farming. This is a man who was using new, up to date technology. It is the kind of technology we would expect would keep one competitive on an export basis, but he is about to go down the tube. He bought his land, some 30 quarter sections or about 4,800 hectares, in the 1970s, just before valuation day. He told me that if he sells out or turns his assets over to the bank, under Saskatchewan law he would be able to take one vehicle and some household furniture. His vehicles are now quite old. If he is able to turn those assets into money and the bank is able to get its money, something like $1.5 million worth of assets will be turned over. The land part of those assets before 1970 had a relatively low price, and it will be valued for tax purposes at that original price. He has been told by his accountant that although he is entitled to receive a $500,000 tax free capital gains from his assets, he will still owe the Department of National Revenue something like $90,000 when it is all over and if he sells them for enough to pay off the bank. That is for a lifetime of work! This person has contributed 3.5 decades to growth in that part of the country. The message being sent out is that modern technology in his kind of expertise-and he is a very well trained agriculturalist-is no longer necessary. The marketplace will not sustain that kind of economy.

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Althouse
I think that has been the total problem with the energy and agricultural sectors of western Canada. They were almost too technically efficient to survive a downturn in the economy. I see the Prime Minister has decided to set up a bunch of new committees aimed at bringing us to the year 2000. There will be a national advisory board for industrial technology. There will be a federal science and technology strategy and a committee to advise on that. We will even have a Canadian space agency and an Atlantic Canada opportunities agency. Yet, here we are in western Canada sitting on some of the most up to date technology and watching it go down the tube because the market-place will not sustain that kind of technology any longer.
The technology which has been put into place is largely energy dependent, in agriculture at least. When I look at the energy sector, I think that could be said for its technology as well. We moved people off the farms to specialize in being machinists, welders, fertilizer and fuel manufacturers, and distributors; to provide us with research into chemicals and feeds; and to provide specialists to give us advice on how to use these products. We trained veterinarians and technicians to provide egg transplants for livestock so that we could use only top producing males and females. The foetuses were put into less productive cattle so that when they hit the ground they were top quality cattle. All of this required a lot of training.
The technology used for the production of crops and livestock requires a lot of energy and it requires a lot of energy to produce chemical fertilizers. The nitrogen portion of most fertilizers in western Canada comes from the natural gas industry. As well our chemicals come from the petroleum and gas industries.
Let us look at the agricultural technology which we in North America use and compare it with the technology being used elsewhere. We see some great variances in where priorities have been placed. With our high energy agriculture, we turn out a great deal of product per man. The man or woman on the farm, the so-called producers, can chalk up thousands and thousands of tonnes of produce for their efforts with their huge tractors and chemical fertilizers. Great amounts of energy are used by these huge machines. When we compare that kind of agriculture which appears to be producing surpluses with the kind of ongoing agriculture in Asia, we see a completely different approach. Such countries have concentrated upon looking for better cultivars, plants, seeds, better ways of combining those plants and seeds, and for creating a better environment with water and heat and by changing the soil. They put a lot of individual energy into agriculture; they expend a lot of human energy. When we take away the advantage we get from petroleum being put into agriculture and put it down to what is produced by individual farmers, we find that farmers in countries such as China and India are more efficient on a per person basis than we are. If we take away energy input, they are producing more product that we are. Because they have taken this approach, it is probably no
surprise that India is now exporting wheat. China is selfsufficient and will be a competitor in wheat. In fact it has been exporting rice for years. Its first wheat imports from Canada were financed by rice exports to southeastern Asiatic countries.
I do not see any move in all the committees the Prime Minister will set up to expand the biotechnology to which we will have to adapt if in fact we are to become free traders in the sense of the recent free trade talks. We will have to find ways to make plants produce more without relying upon expensive energy. We will have to look at genetic improvements and at finding ways of using the earth, sun, and man's intellect to achieve that kind of production. The vision which the Prime Minister has given us of agriculture in expanding the country has missed that point entirely.
I see Mr. Speaker signalling that my time is coming to an end. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we seem to have heard an alphabetical kind of Speech from the Throne. If we revert to another area where the alphabet was used in our educational experience in school, I do not think I could give the Speech from the Throne an A; I think it is somewhere around an E.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Hon. Member was very complimentary to the Government in that we put agriculture very high on the agenda of international meetings and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took the time to go to Alberta to meet with farm groups. Also my colleague was very complimentary about the $5 billion wheat deal signed this week, and he made reference to the $1 billion assistance for farmers announced by the Prime Minister today. However, I am concerned that he suggested there was some confusion in the office of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). I wonder whether he would give us the name of the person to whom he talked who was so confused so that we can follow it up.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the name of the person. It was the Minister's assistant in his parliamentary office. The improvements which the Hon. Member cited are-


Philip Derek Lewis: Laudatory.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: They would be laudatory if they produced results. When the cheques are in the farmers' hands, perhaps they will begin to have an opportunity to produce results. I caution the House and the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) that simply moving to have agriculture put on the agenda at the multilateral talks is not a particular victory. The subject has been discussed at previous multilateral talks. The general disposition of most countries involved in GATT is not to attempt to do anything about subsidies for agriculture because it is too close to home.
As a legacy of World War II and the pre-war period a great many countries suffered physically, resulting in starvation through a lack of food. Most voters remembering those days
October 3, 1986

are not willing to give up their right to produce as much food as they can within their own boundaries. They will consider subsidies to achieve that result. While the subject may be permitted to go on to the agenda, I do not hold any great hope that we will see coming out of those talks in the immediate future any addressing of the problem that subsidies raise for a country like ours depending on exports. I see the Europeans and even the Americans being anything but free traders as in the coming round.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask my hon. colleague whether he wishes the item taken off the agenda?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. I simply raised a caution that having it there was not likely to produce any results in this round.


Mr. Halliday:: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Humbolt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) indicate the importance of biotechnology in the agricultural field and that that is what we should be pursuing. I was rather alarmed though that he did not give the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) recognition in the establishment of a special board on technology and industrial innovation which will do exactly what the Member is saying is absent from the Speech from the Throne.
In my view, perhaps the most important single item in the whole Throne Speech was the announcement that the Prime Minister now views science, technology and innovation as being the key to our future. Surely the Hon. Member for Humbult-Lake Centre would agree within the ambit of items dealt with by that board that biotechnology will be one of them.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, that is what I was attempting to get across in my speech. In that particular part of my speech I pointed out the four agencies to which my friend, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), has just referred. The technology we have been pursuing has essentially been an energy based technology. We have to wean ourselves from that kind of technology if agriculture is to meet the kind of competition which the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Prime Minister have been talking about when they go into ecstasies about free trade talks.
I would be more comfortable about these boards being established if I were not seeing research into that kind of technology being dropped through the last series of budget cuts.
There has been no decision to replace the Poultry Research Centre at Kentville, Nova Scotia which burned down, even though it has been gone for a couple of years. That institute did a great deal of technological research into biological functions. It is not clear at all whether the Department of Agriculture and the Government are intending to replace it and to keep it out in that very important region of Atlantic Canada.
The Address-Mr. Boudria


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in this debate on the Speech from the Throne of the second session of the 33rd Parliament. First of all I should like to congratulate the Speaker as well as all other Members who will have the privilege of occupying the Chair during this session. More particularly I want to commend all Hon. Members for the great wisdom they displayed when they selected the Speaker of the House in the course of the quite different election we had this week. I believe it was a very positive exercise, very different from what we had in the past. We may have experienced minor difficulties, for instance the fact that ballot counts took too much time, but still I think it is a good system which might be slightly improved but not radically changed. It was a very democratic exercise, and it was obviously good since we have chosen, in my view, a Speaker of outstanding quality, and I want to repeat the congratulatory remarks I made a moment earlier.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in September, 1984, the citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell elected me to represent them in the Parliament of our country. I have said it before and I will repeat it again, that the greatest honour any Canadian could have is to be here in this place representing his or her fellow citizens. The constituency that I represent is not far from Parliament Hill. At its closest point it is some 12 miles and at its farthest point probably some 80 to 85 miles.

It is a vast rural riding. The western part of the riding is home to a large number of public servants, the region of Orleans, while the rest of the riding is primarily rural, except for a few urban centres such as Hawkesbury, Alexandria, Vankleek Hill and Rockland.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the people who live in the rural reaches of my riding have suffered a lot in recent years. This is particularly the case of smaller municipalities in the eastern part of the riding, especially those where textiles and other industries were major employers. They had a hard time during the recent economic recession.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the agricultural community has been particularly hard hit.

If agriculture has suffered, there have at least been some sectors of the agricultural economy that have survived better than others. Coming to mind, of course, is the area under supply management. It has had at least a degree of certainty of revenue in the past. It has done relatively well compared to other agricultural sectors. I would not want to leave this House

October 3, 1986
The Address-Mr. Boudria
to believe erroneously that all people under supply management in agriculture are doing well. That would not be true, but by and large it is better than other sectors of the agricultural industry.
One area of agriculture that has suffered tremendously is cattle and beef raising and the cash crop business. Many farmers in my constituency had great expectations of this Government. No doubt you will remember the commitments made, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign because you and I had to listen to those partisan promises which the Conservatives made. They were promising everything to the farming sector. In my view, the Government has failed miserably in that regard.
Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? It is not because I want to be overly partisan. You know me better than that, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I want to bring a few matters to your attention, matters that lead me to believe the way I do.
First, the free trade initiative of the Government is one area which I think will particularly affect the agricultural sector. People under supply and management feel very much threatened. They do not know what is going to happen. Frankly, knowing how the Government operates, it is pretty hard to know where one is going because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government is operating like a ship without a rudder.
Another issue of course that troubles the agricultural sector is the fact that the Government had made specific promises such as the promise to amend Section 31 of the Income Tax Act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Have they done that?


Don Boudria: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), asks if they have done that. Well, no, as unbelievable as it may be, the Conservatives broke that promise as well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They promised that two years ago.


Don Boudria: They promised that during the election campaign and they promised it again in the first Throne Speech and did not do a thing about it. Conservatives also promised a system of agri-bonds to finance farms but they did not deliver on that promise either.
Finally, Conservatives promised that they would be aggressive in assisting agricultural exports. That is where they have failed the most. First, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), on November 8, 1984, a day that we now affectionately call black Thursday, the day the Minister of Finance stood in the House to introduce his book of cut-backs and inflicted those cut-backs on the people of Canada, announced that Canagrex, the newly formed agricultural export organization of the Government, would be shut down, dead in the water just when it had started. Not long after, of course, Canada was subjected to what was in my view a very offensive piece of legislation put
forward by the United States Senate known as the U.S. Farm Bill.
The U.S. Farm Bill places S70 billion worth of subsidies directly against our agricultural sector because the strategy of the U.S. Farm Bill is to subsidize U.S. agriculture so that it can go out on the world market and take away our customers and the customers of other countries. We must remember, of course, that this is being done right in the middle of negotiations for the so-called free trade or freer trade or liberalized trade, depending upon which day of the week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talks about it. During this same period, the U.S. Government perpetrated this act against Canada.
If that was not bad enough, what is even worse is that Canada did nothing in the face of these circumstances to even try to convince the U.S. Government that it was wrong in what it was doing. I see that the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) is here. He, of course, is very well versed in agriculture and is a very experienced Parliamentarian. I believe he has studied the U.S. Farm Bill as have I.
We asked the Canadian Embassy in Washington what kind of lobby Canada made to the U.S. Congress in order that it would not pass the U.S. Farm Bill. Who was the lobbyist hired? What was spent? What was invested in that lobbying activity? If we can hire Michael Deaver for acid rain, surely we can do something to assist the farmers. However, no lobbyist was hired. No special initiatives were undertaken. What is most unfortunate, of course, is that that legislation passed and we are now feeling its ill effects.
I would also like to speak briefly about the pharmaceutical industry. I would only say that in June, the Government tried to introduce a Bill in the House designed to give away the store to the multinationals in the pharmaceutical industry. It was designed to give to the multinationals this so-called protection that they pretended they needed and to abandon the Canadian consumer. What I want to know as a Canadian and what my constituents want to know is where is the mention of that in the Throne Speech. Does the Government still intend to proceed, yes or no?
I think Canadians have a right to know what is the plan of the Government. Surely the Throne Speech is the general outline of what the Government intends to do. Does the Government still want to follow through with this? I would like to know because I would like to mount a lobby against it as would my colleagues and my constituents.

But the Government still refuses to commit itself. It does not say a thing. Here we have a document, several pages long, which Her Excellency read for nearly an hour, but unfortunately, a document that is empty, that is full of generalities and that has very few specific references, while the important issues, and we may be for or against, are not even mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about regional development. As you know, the Government
:


October 3, 1986

said in the other place, through the Speech from the Throne, that it intended to help regional development. Why should they make an issue of this? There should always be help for regional development. In fact, the previous Government was aware of this and had set up various programs.
And who cancelled the programs? You guessed it, Mr. Speaker. The Conservative Government did away with the good regional development programs-
Mir. Valcourt: Which ones?
Mir. Boudria: Which ones? Mr. Speaker, here we have a Minister of something or other on the other side who wants to know, this Minister of something or other wants to know, and I forget the name of his Department, he wants to know which programs-


Mrs. Mailly:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: For three days we have heard Hon. Members waxing enthusiastic about having a new approach in the House and about showing respect for this institution. I don't think it is the Minister of something or other but the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt). I think that if the Hon. Member has any respect for this House, especially since he himself worked here before he was a Member, he should show it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member would call the Minister by his portfolio and we should have a little more decorum. I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has just said. I think Hon. Members will take heed and do the proper thing.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments and I intend to act on them, and I must say they are very wise, far wiser than those made by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).
Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the CIRB programs, in other words, the programs of the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. At the request of the Minister, the Minister who asked me the question earlier, but who unfortunately is not in the House to hear what I have to say-the Minister was asking me which program was so good. For your information, the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board's program was beneficial to the Hawkesbury area in my riding, a disadvantaged area which needed this kind of help. The CIRB programs consisted of two stages. On the one hand, the textile industry received some help to modernize, to purchase new machinery, to become more competitive, and on the other, new industries were found for communities which were very dependent on the
The Address-Mr. Boudria
textile industry. As the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism asked earlier: How useful was this program? It created 250 jobs in my constituency and brought $5.9 million in investments to our region from various companies.
Such were the very beneficial results of this Liberal program which was abandoned by the Conservatives when they came to power. The textile industry still needs help, Mr. Speaker.
I was just looking at a document which I received from Mr. Michel Drouin of the Canadian Textile Institute last week in which he tells me that textile imports are still increasing.
For example, sweater imports increased by 30 per cent last year, suit imports by 28 per cent and dress imports by 32 per cent.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the textile industry is still in danger and this Government is not doing anything, it has abandoned all programs. However, suddenly, in the throne speech, it points out that something must indeed be done to promote regional development.
Why is it that the Government took two years to realize this fact when we all knew it from the start?
Even the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) should know that, Mr. Speaker. But obviously this Minister did not know since he had to ask.

There are two or three more issues I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to talk about the crisis of confidence that the Government is suffering. It is not a crisis of confidence that this House is suffering and it is not a crisis of confidence that anybody else has. It is a crisis of confidence that, by and large, the Prime Minister has inflicted upon himself. That is the problem the Government is suffering from. It has tried every way to change the image of the Government and it is not working. Do you know why? It is because it is not the image that should be changed. It is the substance that needs to be changed. The Government is without substance. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to relay that message to the Prime Minister at the appropriate time.
Why has the Government suffered from this terrible crisis of confidence? It is difficult to say. Perhaps Professor Jean-Luc Pepin summarized it best in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine when he was asked whether the Prime Minister always said the truth. I will put it that way. He said that the Prime Minister suffers from an acute deficiency and need to embellish the truth. That is the way Professor Pepin put it at that time. That has been the biggest difficulty with this Government.

Mr. Speaker, many things have been said about other Prime Ministers in the past. Sometimes people agreed with the Prime Ministers, sometimes they did not. Still I think that in the past most people had faith in their Government and the Prime Minister, and they believed he acted in good faith.

October 3, 1986
Business of the House
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to take a minute to quote the words of a Liberal of long ago. This is a very old quotation, but it is true. Here is how it goes:
"I am a Liberal. I am one of those who believe that always and everywhere in any human endeavour there are abuses to redress, new horizons to open, and new forces to develop". Those were the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They were true in his days and they are still true today, Mr. Speaker. The work must continue. I would urge the Prime Minister to change his attitude towards Canadians so they may regain confidence in him and make this country more prosperous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please, I beleive the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has a statement to make. I will recognize the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the House Leaders opposite. In connection with the business for Monday, I would like to advise the House that I may be seeking consent of the House to proceed with legislation concerning the maintenance of ports operations. I am sorry that I cannot be more definitive than that, but it is really contingent and dependent upon what might or might not transpire this weekend.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear the Hon. Minister making that point. We understand, however, that both sides are proceeding with discussions and negotiations in a positive and progressive way. We are optimistic that sufficient progress will be made in the next number of hours in order that a settlement can be reached and this notice will be simply that.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and we agree. We hope that the Government House Leader will give us the benefit of advance notice on Monday morning so that we can get our critics ready and, if needed, the proper information so that we can proceed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, accede to that request.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Mary Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session;
and the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 44) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 57).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are still questions and comments for the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I will recognize the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested to hear the comments of the Hon. Member, particularly those that he directed toward the questions of credibility and consistency and the importance of those issues. I was struck by the fact that there was a good deal of inconsistency in the comments of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member spoke about two particular issues which concerned him and his constituents. One had to do with the pharmaceutical industry and the other had to do with the textile industry.
On the one hand, in referring to the pharmaceutical industry, the Hon. Member stressed the fact that it was very important to protect consumers. He was not supportive at all of any measures which would help the pharmaceutical industry, that would increase research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, or that would create jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. Contrary to that, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the textile industry he indicated just the opposite. He said that in that particular case we should be looking to protect the industry, the jobs in it, and to try to ensure that the industry remains healthy regardless of what that does to consumers. By doing that he was, of course, stating by implication, if not expressly, that we should not be protecting consumers, that we should not be acting in their interests, that we should not be trying to allow them to buy textile products at the lowest and most reasonable price possible.
Which is it, Mr. Speaker? The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. If he expects other people to be consistent, should he not be consistent too? Who is he interested in protecting, industry or the consumers? Or is he interested in protecting industry on one hand and the consumers on the other hand regardless of consistency?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will not pretend to understand Tory logic. It is beyond most people. However, I do not feel it is inconsistent at all to want to protect consumers when they are gouged by the pharmaceutical industry. When an item which is worth $4 in Canada is worth $145 in the United States, I do not feel there is anything wrong with trying to protect the consumers.
With regard to the Canadian footwear and textile industry, the industry has shown all of us in this House that the price of Canadian goods has not climbed out of proportion with the price of imported goods at all. The Canadian footwear industry and the textile industry are both worth saving. No one has ever suggested that protecting those industries is against the consumer. If the Tory policy is such that you cannot protect the textile industry, let the Hon. Member say that to
October 3, 1986

	The Address-Mr. Boudria
his colleagues from eastern Ontario, Quebec, and Winnipeg who are so dependent upon that industry. Let him say that loud and clear now in the House of Commons. I do not believe it is inconsistent to try to protect my constituents, whether they be consumers or workers in the textile industry.	[Translation] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Order, please. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1). The House adjourned at 5 p.m.

Monday, October 6, 1986