1986-10-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of Burnaby residents expressing their concern that the telephone pricing scheme known as local measured service, charging for each local call, would significantly increase telephone costs and they call upon Parliament to direct the CRTC to deny telephone companies, such as B.C. Tel, the right to local measured service.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that has been properly endorsed. It is from a group of Canadian volunteer firefighters, most of whom are from my riding of Kent. They humbly pray that there be a commemorative postal stamp designed to honour the many volunteer professional firefighters who have protected property over the years and often rescued Canadians.



CRIMINAL CODE


Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Gun Control).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the present law relating to firearms acquisition certificates to the ownership, possession and use of firearms and to change the name "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" to "Firearms Possession Certificate".
Stronger and more effective gun control legislation is essential to help reduce the level of violence involving guns, especially handguns, in our society.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member 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.


Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Abortion).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to recognize that the fundamental decision to terminate a pregnancy belongs to the woman concerned in consultation with her physician.
I would note that today marks the opening of Dr. Henry Morgentaler's Supreme Court challenge to Canada's abortion laws. Let us hope-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A brief explanation of the Bill is appropriate but I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that it should not go beyond that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, to conclude my explanation of the Bill, I would suggest if in fact politicians do not recognize the injustice of the current abortion laws, let us hope the courts will do so and strike them down.


Ms. McDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I am not the seconder of this Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the House. There seems to be a little confusion, but we will have it sorted out. The Chair understands that this Bill is being seconded by Mr. Riis. Is that the wish of the Hon. Member for Burnaby?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Allmand


Mr. Nunziata:: No.


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


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-209, an Act to control smoking in public buildings and facilities.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is really a measure aimed at improving the indoor environment, and is also aimed at introducing the doctrine of reasonable accommodation. This is the same Bill that 1 introduced in the first session, but it has been improved through further work and I am happy to bring it before the House now.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member 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 V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek some direction from the Chair. A few moments ago the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) introduced a Bill in the House concerning abortion. As I understand it, unanimous consent is required in order to have the Bill printed. At the time you asked for consent 1 shouted out "No, Sir". I simply ask the Chair whether I am correct in my assumption that unanimous consent is necessary?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention but I must advise the House that unanimous consent is not required.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 6, 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 and of the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 44).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating you on
your election to the high post you now hold in this House. I personally want to wish you the best of success in this most difficult position and assure you that I and my colleagues will do our best to co-operate with you in bringing more order, more discipline and better decorum to this House. I want to repeat, though, some of the things I said briefly the other day and I would like you to keep them in mind, as I know you will as a fair-minded person.
In allocating time in this House we must always keep in mind the rights of the Opposition and the need for opposition points of view to be properly expressed. One cannot always make judgments based on the distribution of Members in the House, the fact that there are 211 Conservatives and only 40 Liberals and 30 members of the NDP. One must remember as well that although that is the distribution because of our system of election, in the election itself the Conservatives got a little under 50 per cent of the total vote and the opposition Parties got the rest.
However, the important point is that if we are going to have a proper discussion involving opposing points of view in Parliament, one must make sure that the opposition Parties, although they are small in number, have an ample opportunity to put before you as fully as possible views which are opposed to the Government.
In this respect I would ask you to keep in mind the way things were done under Speakers Sauve, Jerome and Lamou-reux. If you look at the record, the opposition Members, even with majority Governments, were given ample opportunity to put their views before this House.
We have before us now a Speech from the Throne which has the same sweet words as the Speech from the Throne of 1984, in fact the same sweet words that we read in the Conservative campaign material during the 1984 election. However, of what value were those sweet words in the form of action and decisions? What happened as a result of more than 300 promises written in such a fine fashion in the Conservative campaign documents? The answer is, virtually nothing. The Government is very good with high-sounding words, image politics, photo opportunities and motherhood rhetoric, but its performance in translating that into action is dismal and its credibility is strained.
I could go even further by suggesting that this Government is even more guilty in that it often cynically makes promises and raises expectations on which it knows it cannot deliver, and perhaps has no intention of delivering. If we look at the Speech from the Throne in 1984 and the promises of the 1984 election, that is one conclusion we could come to.
However, the Canadian public is catching on to this type of image politics. We have a Gallup poll taken in September and reported on October 6 in which the newspaper headline is: "Tories' Record Rated Poorly by Majority, Gallup poll Says". Some 51 per cent of Canadians disapprove of the record of the Progressive Conservatives according to this Gallup poll, and only 26 per cent approve. That should send a message one
October 7, 1986
[Stage Direction]
would think it would send a message-to the Conservatives that form is not enough. What is required is substance, commitment and action.
The Government can say over and over again that it stands for this type of motherhood or that type of apple pie, but when it comes down to presenting Bills in the House, when it comes down to voting on issues, when it comes down to putting teeth in the measures placed before us, that is another thing altogether. The credibility gap is growing, and growing each day.
I counted in the Speech from the Throne we have before us today some 57 promises, more or less commitments to do things. Some of them are very specific. For example, the construction of an ice-breaker for the North is very specific, although there is no timetable for construction and no amount of money is put forward. In any case, it is a specific promise and we will be watching it. However, we also have among those 57 promises some which are extremely vague. For example, I refer to page nine of the Speech where the Government says:
-in full co-operation with the provinces, my Government will seek to achieve high standards of excellence in education, technology development, and innovation.
Who could disagree with that? It is a goal we are all interested in. However, the Government says nothing about how it is going to do it. Is it going to introduce legislation, draw up budgets, or plan meetings for such and such a date? No, it simply makes that commitment. That, I submit to you, is part of the Government's image politics, it is rhetoric without substance.
We know what happened to the 338 promises made by the Conservatives in the 1984 election campaign. Most have been postponed or ignored. Very few of them have been implemented or passed by this House.
On page 2 of this hollow document, the Speech from the Throne, it says:
Two years ago, my government-
Meaning this Conservative Government.
-received a national mandate-a mandate for reform. It was a mandate that summoned Canada to the tasks of national reconciliation, economic renewal, social justice, and to a constructive internationalism. Today, my Ministers believe these goals are within reach.
That statement is so unbelievable it is almost laughable. Does the Conservative Government in fact believe that social justice is within reach? I will give further examples of the gap between what it says and what it does. It says that social justice is almost within reach, yet it cut back the moneys available for employment programs and training. The Government tried to deindex the Old Age Pension but finally backtracked because of the massive opposition in the country. In effect, the Government cut back on the indexation of family allowances. It also cut back on the rate of increases for
The Address-Mr. Allmand
education and health care in the provinces through the EPF programs.
We are beginning to see the results of that all over the country. In my own city of Montreal hospital beds and radiology departments are being closed and people are not getting the medical care they need. At the universities and community colleges fees are being increased. Young people cannot go to university because it is becoming too expensive. All of this is happening under a Government which says that it was given a mandate to achieve social justice and that this is almost within reach.
The same Government cut back Katimavik, a very good program to help young people adapt to the modern world in which we live. This Government raised taxes for the middle and lower-income groups in the country while giving an exemption of $500,000 for capital gains. The Government compensated bank creditors who had credits over $60,000 when we had two bank failures.
The Government that did those things said in the Speech from the Throne that it has almost fulfilled the mandate it was given in 1984 to achieve social justice. That is so unbelievable it is almost laughable. As a matter of fact, as the Governor General was reading the Speech I wrote beside that comment in the Speech "Ho, ho, ho". That is the only reaction one can have to such a claim.
Another example of that type of rhetoric with regard to social justice is seen on page 12 of the Speech. The Governor General, on behalf of the Government, said:
My Government will continue to enlist the support of all in pursuit of the common goal: a modern, tolerant, and caring nation in which its citizens are secure and prosperous.
Now, isn't that a fine statement. Who would disagree with that fine statement? The same Government that said it wants a caring nation cuts unemployment insurance benefits for the thousands and thousands of people in the country who have severance pay or early retirement pensions and are still looking for work. They may be in their 50s and have children in university and college. The Government has slashed unemployment insurance benefits for them. As a matter of fact, members of the Conservative caucus stood up and said that they opposed this, but they refused to vote against those cuts on an opposition motion of the NDP.
The statements in this speech about a caring nation and the achievements of social justice are nothing more than hollow rhetoric. I think the Canadian public is beginning to understand this because through polls they are beginning to tell the Government what they think about it and its record.
I would now like to discuss the Government's claim with respect to jobs. During the election campaign one of the Government's big promises was "jobs, jobs, jobs". Again yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) boasted about the great number of jobs which he has created. Of course, he did not say too much about the quality of those jobs, the level of pay, or the fact that many of
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Allmand
them are temporary or part-time. He did not refer to the unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent. The Government is very crafty. It keeps comparing today's unemployment record with the record of the Liberals in the pit of the recession of 1982 and 1983. There were rates of unemployment in the 12 to 13 per cent range all over the world at that time. Britain, with a Conservative Government, still has approximately 12 per cent unemployment.
The point is that that is a ridiculous comparison. If we are coming out of the recession as the Government claims, why do we still have an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent? The rate of unemployment in 1981, the year before the recession, was 7.5 per cent. Why does the Government not compare the present rate with that 7.5 per cent which was achieved under a Liberal Government? Why does the Government not refer to the fact that during the Trudeau and Pearson years from 1965 to 1980 the rate of unemployment was 5.6 per cent? As a matter of fact, in my first year in Parliament in 1965 the rate in the middle of the summer was 2.9 per cent.
These are goals to strive for but the Government is trying to mislead Canadians by comparing the 9.7 per cent unemployment rate, which is nothing to brag about, with the 10, 11, and 12 per cent rates of the pit of the recession in 1982 and 1983. The Government cannot even bring the rate down to 7.5 per cent as it was in 1981 immediately prior to the recession.
Of course, the reason the Government is not doing that is that it has no real commitment to a program to create jobs and help the unemployed. That was made clear in the speech given yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration in which he more or less said that the Government leaves it up to the regions, the private sector and individuals to take care of themselves. That is a real Tory philosophy and one that they may want to defend. However, it is not what they promised in the last election and it is not the type of policy which has been traditional in Canada where there has always been a good partnership between the state, the private sector and unions on job creation.
Twice since World War II Liberal Governments have made a commitment to full employment. That commitment was made under Louis St. Laurent in 1949 and full employment was achieved for three consecutive years. The commitment was made again under Mr. Pearson in 1963 and full employment was achieved for three to four years. It can be done again but the Government does not have the political will to do it. That is the way it seems, because the Government is abdicating its responsibility for the unemployed and saying that is better left to the private sector and others. The private sector has a role to play but it must be assisted by the Government in a very meaningful and effective way.
The Government did not mention many of the other problems before us with respect to jobs. The Government's own Department of Employment and Immigration published a report in August of 1985 entitled "Older Workers, An Imminent Crisis in the Labour Market". Those are not our words, Mr. Speaker, those are the words of a report published
by the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. This report with respect to older workers that was submitted to the former Minister said there was an imminent crisis in the labour market with respect to these workers. It made several recommendations for improvement and, according to my count, the Government has promised to do something about one of the recommendations in the report but has not done so yet.
Another employment issue that the Government did not mention in the Speech from the Throne and which the Minister of Employment and Immigration did not mention yesterday was that despite a slight lowering in the unemployment rate, down from over 10 per cent to 9.6 per cent or 9.7 per cent, the number of those unemployed for more than a year has doubled since the end of the recession in 1984 and has quadrupled since 1981. There are four times as many people unemployed for more than a year in 1986 than in 1981, but that problem was not mentioned either.
Therefore, we have the matter of older workers, long-term unemployment and the trend to part-time unemployment. In his speech the other day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that the great majority of jobs being created under the Conservative Government are full-time jobs. Again, he is comparing that record with the years of the recession under the former Liberal Government, which is a bit dishonest. If we go back to the time of the former Liberal Government, starting at approximately 1980 or even before, there has been a growing trend to more and more part-time jobs. That trend continued upward and it is no solace to those people who are forced into part-time jobs for the Prime Minister to say that there is a smaller percentage of part-time jobs in 1986 than there was in the pit of recession in 1983 or 1982. All economists will certify that the long-range trend is upward. It is a fact of life about which nothing is being done.
The problem with part-time jobs is that very often they are minimum wage jobs in which the people are non-unionized and have no access to pensions or other employee benefits. While some people want those part-time jobs, there is an increasing number of people who want full-time jobs but cannot get them and take part-time work because it is all they can get. I suggest that it is no solution to slough off the problem.
Let me deal with a few other matters in the Speech from the Throne, such as the whole question of national reconciliation. The Government talks of the Charter of Rights and the fact that it would like to have Quebec assent to the Constitution, but it does not deal with any detailed matters. For example, it does not mention the desirability of removing the notwithstanding, or non obstante clause, in the Charter of Rights which was really imposed on the Government and Parliament because the parliamentary special committee on the Constitution did not agree to have a notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights. In order to arrive at an agreement in the final negotiations, the provinces imposed that clause on the
October 7, 1986
[Stage Direction]
Government. Our Party has taken the position that we should work toward the removal of that notwithstanding clause.
There are very few specifics with respect to language rights and education. The Government indicated in the Speech from the Throne that it will introduce legislation to deal with language rights, but what is needed is further amendment to the Constitution with respect to language rights because the current provisions are inadequate. As a member of the joint committee of the House and Senate on language rights, I can tell you that many of those groups who came before us suggested amendments, including removing the words "where numbers warrant" with respect to minority language education, and other refinements.
We will wait to see what the legislation says with respect to language rights, but legislation is not enough. We need further initiative by the Government with respect to constitutional amendments. It is only in the Constitution that one can be assured that one's rights are protected and that those rights will not be amended away by a future Parliament or future government.
Another issue that I am deeply concerned about and which is only touched on lightly in the Speech from the Throne is the matter of aboriginal rights. The Government says that it looks forward to the next constitutional conference on aboriginal rights. However, it does not say much more than that. It simply says: "In co-operation with the provinces, my Government will exert every possible effort to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion". That is essentially all it has to say about aboriginal rights. There is not one word in the Speech from the Throne with respect to the Coolican report on native land claims. That is a very important report from a commission that was established by the Government. It has made no positive statement on that report and it remains in limbo. I must say that from the feedback I am getting, that report and the issues contained in it are the ones that are of greatest concern to aboriginal groups in this country.
At the constitutional meeting on self-government and aboriginal rights which is scheduled for next year, the Government must take note of the fact that the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, George Erasmus, has stated that he does not intend to attend further planning meetings for this constitutional conference unless the attitude of the Government changes. Again, the Government gives no indication in the Speech from the Throne that it will change its view with respect to the entrenchment of these native rights. It was reported that after the conference in Newfoundland, George Erasmus, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, stated that: "The constitutional process is going nowhere and until it is going somewhere we do not intend on participating. We will not give any credence to that process." The Government must deal with that but we have heard nothing so far with respect to these important issues.
Let me move on to the other so-called main plank in the Conservative agenda, which is economic renewal. Just two years ago the cry of the Conservative Government with respect
The Address-Mr. Allmand
to economic matters and economic growth was the development of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. The Conservatives described it as a comprehensive free trade agreement and the Americans described it in the same way. However, in the Speech from the Throne, as reported at page 12 of Hansard of October 1, the Government states:
Such pressures emphasize the importance of my government's pursuit of a mutually advantageous trade agreement with the United States.
What a backtracking operation. While no one in this country is opposed to a mutually advantageous trade agreement with the United States, that is completely different from a comprehensive trade agreement. Again, it is all part of the Conservative image politics and rhetoric rather than policies.
In addition to this new wording to describe what the Government is doing with the United States, we also see in the speech an emphasis not only on bilateral trade with the United States but on multilateral trade. When one puts that all together, it almost sounds like what the Liberal Party proposed in response to the Government's comprehensive free trade proposals two years ago. We said that we wanted to pursue a more advantageous trade arrangement with the United States, but we thought that it should be done in the context of multilateral trade agreements. This is again rhetoric with no substance.
The Government was going to give us a whole program on tax reform but it spent two years piling taxes on the middle and lower-income groups, giving $500,000 exemptions to those with capital gains and bailing out the higher creditors with respect to the banks.
I see my time is just about up. One could go on for a long time tearing the Speech apart and I would be quite willing to do so. But in conclusion let me say that we delayed Parliament for one month to hear the Speech from the Throne, and I really believe the postponement happened so that we could have no Question Period before the two by-elections, the one which took place in St. Maurice and the one which took place in Edmonton. After waiting one month we hear a Speech from the Throne which-
Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.
For questions and comments, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: My colleague indicated in his closing remarks that the Government decided in early September to prorogue Parliament for the stated purpose of preparing a Speech from the Throne. Now we have the benefit of the Speech from the Throne, which took some 30 days or 40 days to prepare. Presumably the Government was thinking about

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Allmand
this particular Speech from the Throne throughout the summer. I would like to ask my friend and colleague whether in his view the Conservative Government of Canada has produced for Canadians, and for Hon. Members of this House, the vision of Canada for which Canadians are looking? The critics of this particular Speech from the Throne are numerous. One of the main criticisms is that the Speech from the Throne is lacking in a definitive vision for Canadians. I would like my colleague to comment on that major criticism.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne with its 57 promises is very much like the Conservative election campaign material in 1984 with its 331 promises. The Conservative Party promises almost anything to any group- not all of them but darn near all of them. As a result it does not have any comprehensive goal or direction. As I said, there are many high sounding promises in the Speech from the Throne with which no one could disagree. They are like motherhood and apple pie. But the Government has certainly not convinced Canadians that it is serious. The Canadian population heard those same high sounding phrases and promises in the Speech from the Throne in 1984. They heard them in the election campaign of 1984. Yet very little was done about them. Although the Speech from the Throne is in some respects a high-sounding sweet-worded document, it contains very little credibility. Some Canadians are very cynical about the promises of the Government. They want to be shown. They are from Missouri in spirit, even if they are not from Missouri in physical fact.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne does make reference to proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. The Hon. Member in his speech talked about the whole question of social justice. One of the amendments which I believe to be a very important amendment to the Criminal Code, indeed, so important that I introduced a Private Member's Bill on the subject today, is with respect to the Criminal Code provisions relating to abortion. As the Hon. Member knows, today in the Provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island there is no access whatsoever to women for safe therapeutic abortions. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what his Party's position is with respect to the current provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion? Does his Party support repeal of those provisions, allowing this very important decision to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor as recommended by the Canadian Medical Association and many others?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne there are some provisions relating to amendments to the Criminal Code. They refer to child sexual abuse, pornography, child prostitution and so on, but they do not mention abortion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What is your position?


William Warren Allmand: What we have here is more or less a reenactment of the Bill introduced in the last session which was not passed or completed. I expect we will see that Bill again.
With respect to abortion, the position of my Party has been that the law as it stands, a situation which came about after a lot of debate and many views expressed on the subject, should not be touched at the present time. That is the position of my Party. I consider this to be a sort of free vote situation. I personally believe that the present law is not adequate, but I see many failures in it. In my own province, despite the law, juries acquitted Dr. Morgentaler on two occasions. In addition, there is no consensus on the present law in the country, it is very difficult to enforce and is causing a lot of difficulties.
I know the Hon. Member brought in a Bill this morning, but I have not had a chance to look at it. This is a complex and very emotional issue and, while I do not support the present law personally, I would like to see it re-examined, perhaps by a committee of this House. I was on the committee that did a very intensive study of this issue in 1966 or 1967 which finally resulted in a Bill that did come to the House. It was a compromise Bill, we admit. I do not think, without reading the Hon. Member's Bill, I can stand up now and say that I agree with it, but I do agree that changes should be made to the present abortion legislation which should be the subject of an intensive study by this House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Hon. Member. He has referred to the promises made with respect to previous legislation affecting the Criminal Code. One of the most controversial Bills introduced was the Bill introduced by the previous Minister of Justice dealing with the question of pornography. The Hon. Member's colleague recently issued a position paper suggesting that he did not agree with the Fraser Commission's recommendation that the so-called third tier of pornography, that is, explicit erotica, should not be the subject of criminal sanctions. What is the Hon. Member's position with respect to this question of Criminal Code sanctions against explicit portrayal of sexual activity which does not involve either violence, degradation or children?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has an advantage over me. He is the official critic for his Party in justice matters. I am the critic for employment matters. I am afraid that I am not as much up-to-date on the very specific parts of the proposed amendment to which he refers. I am extremely interested because I was involved with the committee on Justice but I cannot remember the details of the Bill and I do not want to answer the Hon. Member's question at the present time without making a proper study of that amendment.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. friend. There is a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne that deals with official languages and bilinguism, and it reads as follows:
October 7, 1986

"Appropriate legislation will be introduced in this Session to ensure, as well, that this Act conforms with the Canadian Charter of Rights."
I know my hon. friend as a diligent member of the Committee on Official Languages, an area in which he and I have taken a special interest.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Crombie), in response to questions by the press finally announced, at least as reported by the Montreal La Presse:
"I will likely be working very hard on that aspect," the Secretary of State said yesterday, and he intends to table legislation before Christmas.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member, considering his involvement in these issues, and the fact that since 1969 at least, he has taken a special interest in official languages, has been a member of the committee, has a special interest in the language-of-work issue and how Quebec Anglophones are represented at the Public Service level, and also has demonstrated his interest in the issue of the primacy of the Act over all statutes, and feels that Section 2 of the Act must be given teeth to make it executory and not just declaratory, I would like to ask him: Is he confident that between now and Christmas, the Government can-has he himself been approached officially for input in this major review of the Official Languages Act involving possible amendments by the Government?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that the last Speech from the Throne contained promises similar to those made in the 1984 election campaign.
Now this year's Speech from the Throne contains promises that the Government will table a Bill or rather amendments to the Official Languages Act.
So I think that we may have a Bill or rather an amendment in this respect, but whether it will be really acceptable and provide a solution to our problems is another matter altogether. For instance, we know that in many other areas, action was always short of his promises.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The period provided for question and comments has now expired.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). [English]


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to participate in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Before I begin my remarks may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the high office to which you have been elected in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Epp


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You, Mr. Speaker, along with a number of us came into the House in the same year. We have gone through some of the same issues over those years. We have seen your dedication not only to your province and to your country but also to issues that touch the individual lives of Canadians, some of which I will be addressing today. I wish you well and God speed.
Many commentators have suggested that only now in the latter half of this mandate has social justice emerged as a theme for the Government. At the same time they suggest that many of the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne are repetitions of earlier promises. The commentators, and I would suggest the Opposition, cannot have it both ways. The facts are these.
First, social justice has been a priority of the Government from day one. We take a back seat to no one when it comes to a concern for the well-being of our people and of Canada's social fabric.
Second, we made a number of commitments two years ago in the social policy field. Today, the record shows that those commitments have been honoured. I checked the previous Speech from the Throne myself and my checking bears out these points.
Third, social justice is not something that can be delivered as a service. It is a quality and a characteristic of our society which must be achieved over time and not by Governments alone. The standard against which performance should be measured is progress. Every session of Parliament in which any of us in this House have sat has embraced the goal of greater social justice. What is different is that this Government faced the reality of unprecedented and severe fiscal constraint. The mark of our commitment to a better society is seen in the social progress that has been made, in spite of such financial pressures.
Fourth, social justice cannot be achieved in isolation from economic renewal or national reconciliation. These terms have been greeted with some cynicism. Does it really matter whether we call support for farmers or help for Canadians living in Atlantic Canada or the Province of Quebec a "social initiative" or an "economic measure"? They are people who need help for a particular problem, people with families, members of the community. To the extent that we can help, justice, whether economic or social, requires that we do so.
I would like to briefly illustrate these facts. On September 24 Statistics Canada reported that in 1985, for the first time since 1980, the average income of Canadian families rose. The same report also told us, again for the first time since 1980, that there was also a decline in the number of Canadians living in low-income households. Furthermore, for the first time since 1981 the lowest income fifth of Canadian families increased their share of total family income after three consecutive years of receiving a smaller share of a then shrinking pie.
Many people questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) when he said "jobs, jobs, jobs". There is a close

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Epp
relationship between economic renewal, more jobs, and the lower incidence of the number of Canadians living below the poverty line. That is why I say that the record should not only be judged, but it verifies what the Prime Minister has said and what the policies of the Government have been.
In short, 1985 was a year in which the standard of living of the average Canadian family rose. The poorest Canadian households not only shared in the over-all improvement but actually began to reduce the gap between their living standards and those of the average Canadian family. I believe that the Prime Minister can legitimately claim some credit on behalf of the Government for that progress. It is what it is-it is progress.
We made policy decisions to provide a fiscal and monetary environment under which real growth exceeded expectations in 1985. It was only exceeded by one country, namely, Japan. That was an investment in the Canadian people. What is pleasing to me is that Canadians realized the dividends by responding to that environment. If any additional credit should be given, that is, primary credit, it should be given to Canadians who understood, appreciated and developed their own plans within the environment outlined by the Prime Minister for the country. We fully accept that no Government can take full credit for these trends. By the same token, our critics cannot indicate that the Government is totally responsible when the trends are in the opposite direction. We are encouraged by these figures. We commend the efforts of individuals and businesses across the country who have made them happen.
Time permits me only to briefly review for the record a few of the Government's priorities for the next session. I apologize to Hon. Members for that. Therefore I will not cover the whole social policy area. I look back briefly only because the principles of social policy that we have followed are borne out in the initiatives that have been carried out in this place and across the country.
We believe that social justice demands that the greatest help should go to those in greatest need. We believe that social justice demands that government policy should be an investment in people, in order to enable them to plan and achieve their own goals. We believe that social justice involves more than the benefits that people receive through the state. The majority of public issues emerge from people's private troubles, and the solutions are not always or even primarily financial. Fostering a social environment of caring, respect for the law, freedom for individuals, preserving the values of family and community, tolerance for others, and balancing rights and responsibilities involves every part of our population. We obviously believe Government to be a player, but not the only one.
I would like to bear out in practical terms these principles. The principle that the greatest help should go to those in greatest need is reflected in two measures that have already been announced in this Parliament. One was the extension of the spouse's allowance which benefited approximately 50,000
of the poorest Canadians, most of them women. The refundable sales tax credit has been welcomed by social groups as timely and innovative. Low-income families will be the beneficiaries of this new measure, as well as of changes the Government has made to the child tax credit in terms of higher benefits and advance payments.
We do not intend to stop dealing with the issue of fairness, however, just because we have made progress. The process of tax reform is intended to achieve greater fairness than that which exists today in the tax system, and any reform will take into account those provisions of the tax transfer system relating to social benefits. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has spoken to this issue and I need not comment further except to emphasize that when the Government puts forward plans for tax reform, it is social justice as well as economic renewal for which we are striving.
The second principle, that social justice seeks to help people by investing in them, is reflected in the process that has been made on pension reform. For a decade, Governments have debated changes to the Canada Pension Plan and the rules governing private pension plans. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have reached an important milestone in these changes that deal with early retirement, disability benefits, part-time employee participation and credit splitting to name some of the changes that have been brought in.
On behalf of the Government, I am pleased to reiterate that on January 1, 1987, these major changes will come into effect in Canada and many Canadians are already phoning our offices, not only to endorse the changes but to thank the Government and the Prime Minister for the leadership that was taken. It comes down to national reconciliation. It was only possible to do this with provinces, some of which have different political philosophies than us, but all which know that national reconciliation as led by the Prime Minister is good for Canada, and good for the people. That is why we got an agreement on the Canada Pension Plan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Pension reform is important because it represents an opportunity for people to invest in their own futures. We want people to take greater responsibility for their retirement because their futures are at stake and because people should be not limited in retirement to enjoying only that which can be provided through the state. What is interesting is that the Canadian people believe that too. It is not only us who are saying it. When talking to ordinary Canadians, the same thing applies.
The same principle applies in the area of child care. When the Martin Task Force reports to the House on child care, and when the Government responds to that report, we will be judged in part on how well we have invested in the future of our children and their parents.
October 7, 1986

I know members of the Opposition did not expect the child care package to be mentioned in the Throne Speech because they had a certain fixation about what they thought the Government was all about. I want to tell them that the Prime Minister made a commitment in the debate held during the 1984 election campaign that, if elected Prime Minister, he would collectively, with the provinces, with parent groups and with child care advocacy groups put forward a task force, not to debate once again if there should be child care but how best we could implement it, how best may we help families and how best we may help women who are in the paid workforce. He tied it together as well with pension reform, making a total package. I am proud to be serving with a Prime Minister who fulfils his commitments and promises.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just today, the Prime Minister and Mila launched Family Week. Why? Because we-I hear NDP'ers chuckling.


Mr. Riis:: There are 51 other weeks for families as well, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Shame, shame. That is just the point I was going to get to. He said that it is not only one week but 52 weeks. Would Hon. Members not want to support, and should Hon. Members not support a Prime Minister and a Government that has put forward positive models of success? I wish Hon. Members would support that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Tell that to the family farm out in your own province, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Now that I have their attention, perhaps we may continue. We have talked about pension reform. We have talked about the need for child care. I have said very clearly to the House today that the Prime Minister will be carrying forward this agenda item at the First Ministers' Conference in November, and we look for support, not only from the provinces and from various groups but, we would hope, from both Opposition Parties which have made this point an issue as well.
The other point I wish to address today is that social policy concerns a number of problems that deprive so many Canadians of a secure and happy life. These are the problems of family violence, child abuse, pornography and juvenile prostitution. I realize, and I am sure other Hon. Members as well realize, that we cannot and do not believe we can resolve or remove, through the Government only, drug abuse as a social evil. However, we have especially sought to emphasize prevention and to help people pick up the pieces when prevention has not worked.
The Government has moved strongly in the area of child sexual abuse and pornography legislation which will be brought back into the House and will include legislation dealing with juvenile prostitution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will have more to say about that. These programs
The Address-Mr. Epp
and their success will be achieved only as we look at lives that are put back together and as potential abuse is prevented.
In the remainder of my time, I wish to address the issue of drug abuse, a continuation of our desire to improve the quality of life in the nation's communities and in our families.
The Prime Minister referred earlier this fall to the Government's intention to develop a national drug strategy. I and my colleagues, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) as well as the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) have all been working since the spring to develop a comprehensive approach to the problem of drug abuse. Our concern about drugs is not recent. Hon. Members of the House know of my own campaign in the areas of tobacco and alcohol abuse. These too are drugs and their abuse costs Canada millions of dollars in health care and a price that cannot be calculated in personal and family tragedy.
I would suggest that we are winning in the war against inappropriate advertising particularly targeted to youth of tobacco and alcohol and there is an unparalleled awareness of the dangers of smoking and the abuse of alcohol. We are making good progress, but the problem of illicit drugs is more profound because of the international networks, the hidden character of drug marketing and the enormous risks of drug dependency which include medical emergencies and, of course, death.
We do not believe that the problem of drug abuse is uniformly reflected across the country. Any Hon. Member of the House who has visited our communities knows that that is the case. What is important is that the Government is determined to attack this urgent problem and we will do so methodically and in keeping with the Canadian way of responding to social needs. It is the Canadian way to deal with a problem like this by emphasizing public education and awareness, rehabilitation of the victims of drug abuse and primary prevention of the demand as well as to rely on law enforcement and legislative measures to curtail supply.
We do not see the victim of drug abuse as having no responsibility for having used or misused drugs. We are aware, however, of the pressures that often lead people down that slippery slope to drug dependency, and once they have begun that slide they have for practical purposes become victims. If we cannot be completely effective in primary prevention, we must emphasize rehabilitation of victims.
Action must be taken on several fronts. First, there must be federal leadership in bringing together the efforts of the provinces and communities in reducing the demand for drugs.
Second, there must be increased efforts to stop the production and distribution of illicit drugs. Reduction measures will include public awareness, education, research and hopefully a variety of provincial acitivities.

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Epp
I am placing drug abuse on the agenda of two federal-provincial conferences to be held later this fall with Health Ministers and Social Services Ministers in order to explore with them areas in which our Governments can work together through our schools, parent-teacher associations, neighbourhood and community groups, provincial addictions agencies and business organizations, just to mention a few.
The Government will introduce changes to legislation dealing with illicit drugs, notably to the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, to consolidate and modernize the legislation underpinning enforcement efforts. Some of these changes will enable us to respond more swiftly to rapid changes in the drug market. This will give us a basis for dealing more effectively, for example, with the problem of so-called designer drugs including angel dust and MEM.
Third, there must be involvement in international efforts to combat drug abuse, just as the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport did in Dublin last week, and we commend him for his efforts. It is clear that the drug problem is an international one. I will be asking my fellow health Ministers in the Commonwealth to address the issue of drug abuse at our meeting in Nassau next week. Canada will increase its funding for the United Nations fund on drug abuse, and Canada intends to accede to the convention of psychotropic substances of 1971. This action will be welcomed in the international community, as well as our active participation in the UN 1987 world ministerial conference on drug abuse and illicit trafficking.
The effects of drug abuse can be devastating for families, and young people in particular, as can an inappropriate response which sets one generation against another or blames the wrong people for the problem or fails to take into account our unique national fabric.
I said that our Government's performance in the social policy field reflects our views that economic growth and social justice are mutually reinforcing, and that success must be measured in terms of progress, not perfection. However, the Government does not wish to take the credit for social progress, because we have tried to make it clear that our vision of social justice involves all partners in society. We are confident that our social agenda is on track. It is in tune with Canadian traditions and Canadian values. We intend to proceed with it, and I thank the House for its time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister is recognized as an honest man. I credit him with that reputation, but because of it I ask him if he feels that the following statement in the Speech from the Throne is a truly honest one. It reads:
Two years ago, my Government received a national mandate-a mandate for reform. It was a mandate that summoned Canada to the tasks of national reconciliation, economic renewal, social justice, and to a constructive internationalism. Today, my Ministers believe these goals are within reach.
Can the Minister honestly say that the goal of social justice is within reach in this country? I give him that improvements have been made; improvements have been made under his Government and improvements have been made under our previous Governments. However, to me that statement is so far out of line that it is unbelievable. I do not see how a Government and he, as a Minister of that Government, can say that the goal of social justice is within reach. What is his reaction to that statement in the Speech from the Throne?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for acknowledging that progress has been made. In my speech I used the word "progress". I am one who believes very sincerely that perfection in a human state will not be achieved. However, I believe that as humans with a responsibility in the House we must move forward in the areas of social progress, some of which I mentioned today, some of which I did not mention today but support, and others that maybe the Hon. Member feels are more important than the ones I stressed.
The Prime Minister put forward four points to Canadians in the 1984 election campaign. If we look at each one of those points-what the Prime Minister put forward and what Canadians adopted and accepted by giving him a mandate to lead the country-we can honestly say that good progress has been made. We can argue about degree, but let us at least accept one thing. On the four principles put forward by the Prime Minister, Canadians today have seen legitimate progress when they compare the record of September, 1984 with the period of the Throne Speech in 1986.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister about some of the past policies, since he said that the Government would be judged by how much it has done for children. I think that is a very valid criterion to use because we all know that children are the future of society and of the country. I am somewhat concerned about the philosophy which he always espouses, that the Conservative Government is really concerned with children and families that are in greatest need. If they are really concerned about children, it seems to me that they should be concerned about all children and all families in Canada.
The particular policies which were reflected in the family benefits reforms took away the indexing of family allowances and reduced that program for all children and all families. I think it was really a reflection of how little value is put on the importance of all children and on the cost of social programs for which all taxpayers in Canada have to pay.
I think of another example. While there was some slight increase in the child tax credit, the eligibility for that credit was reduced, so that average families, and in fact very marginal families do not receive any child tax credit. Would the Minister reconsider those two policies? Does he plan to reindex the family allowance? Would he consider increasing the eligibility for child tax credit?
October 7, 1986

I should also like to include in my question that I agree with the Minister that we are all very much concerned that there be action as quickly as possible on the whole matter of child care.
I would hope that he would endorse our position, and I think the position of the committee, that we allow for federal initiatives and that we do not have to await the approval of the provinces.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's first point dealt with the partial deindexation of family allowances. She did not place, for instance, as much emphasis on the changes to the child tax credit. There has been a fundamental difference between her position and my position on that point, and that has not changed. I say to her that as a Government we removed in part the full indexation of the family allowance and increased-and I would suggest that it was not insignificantly-the child tax credit.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Only for the poor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As I said, it was not insignificant. At least that is my interpretation. If we look at the social value of the child tax credit, I think my point remains. Additionally, we are moving forward the payment of the child tax credit so that parents will receive two payments in a given calendar year. In fact, they will receive a payment in the November-December period. That in itself is an advantage and has been endorsed.
I should like to make a third point-and I do not think the Hon. Member can deprecate it-that the best benefit for all children is a better employment picture. I do not think we should lose sight of that. If we want to look at a balanced view, I think we should look at that point additionally.
Also the Hon. Member referred to the child care task force of which she has been a member. I commend her and the other Hon. Members for the many hours they spent on their report. Obviously it would be important for me as Minister to keep my counsel until I have received the counsel of the task force before endorsing any position.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) give an overview appraisal of social justice and the importance of it to the Government, particularly when he referred to matters like spousal benefits, family benefits, and pension improvements for veterans. They should be put into the context of a Party with a social conscience and a Government to which social justice is a very important dimension. It is in that context particularly that I was happy to hear the Minister address the national crisis of drug addiction.
I should like to ask a specific question which has to do, at least in my view, with getting at the very root of the problem. The RCMP has estimated that the profits annually in the country from the drug trade are $10 billion, that is, ten thousand million dollars annually in Canada. Could the Minister outline any further steps which the Government is prepared to take, not only to regulate in the way he outlined,
The Address-Mr. Epp
which I support, but to get at that profit that is certainly a big part of the cause of the drug crisis in the country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member uses a figure that I can only affirm; by all the estimates we have received the profits are in the billions. That is on the financial side. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has announced publicly that he will be bringing in amendments to the Criminal Code, which is another part of the drug strategy that we have, relating to profits from crime. I will not outline it any further. I believe that that is within the mandate of the Minister of Justice and he should be doing that. I hope it will commend itself to all Members of the House.
There is one point, Mr. Speaker, if you just give me a moment, that is important for me to stress. I have been, as a Member of this House, not discouraged but disappointed; disappointed not because of criticism the Government might receive on issues, for instance, of a drug strategy. That is legitimate, I understand that and I have been here long enough to know that. But I have been disappointed that on the one hand our newspapers and electronic media, day in and day out, are full of the tragedies of alcohol abuse, drug abuse and the effect that abuse is having on families in our communities. On the other hand, I have been disappointed that when the Prime Minister or any of us in this House, from both sides, bring forward programs which relate to those issues they are criticized or judged only as a political response. I have more respect for Members of this House. We have our differences. We know that. But there are certain fundamentals and certain assessments in society on which we agree; specifically, when all of us leave this place we hope that through our initiatives, whether legislation, committee work or whatever, society will be better for it. I am convinced that whether it is pornography, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse or, drug abuse, Canadians agree with parliamentarians who want to improve the state of the average Canadian, that the abuse in these areas can be reduced and that we can put forward positive models to Canadian youth rather than the cynicism I so often see.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask further questions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I know the Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to tell the Hon. Member, to the Chair's knowledge unanimous consent has not been given.
[Translation\


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which concerns another point of order. I believe you gave the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) the floor, and I can accept that. I would remind the Chair that the motion before

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
the House concerns the amendment moved by my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), and that the question is to be put on this motion tomorrow afternoon. I might also remind the Chair that yesterday, the Liberal Party had only two speakers, the New Democrats, three and the Government, five. Today, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give some Liberal Members the floor so that we too can comment on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have duly noted the representations made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to call to your intention that the intent of the reform with respect to the question and answer period was that, in this case, Members on the government side would only be recognized when there were no Members from Parties other than the speaker rising to be recognized. What happened just a few moments ago, Sir, is that you recognized a Member of the Party of the person who had been speaking when there were two or three Members from Parties not of the Party of the speaker rising to seek the floor. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Without wanting to get into a debate on this matter, and I have discussed that point with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), it is my view that during the question and comment period the priority should be given to Members of a Party other than that of the speaker, but the priority is not to the point of exclusivity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 can understand very well the position of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. That is why in this particular case, after the Hon. Minister had finished his speech, I did choose a Member of the Official Opposition first, a Member of the New Democratic Party second and a Member of the government side third. However, 1 would be willing to discuss this matter further with the Hon. Member and, of course, with the Speaker.
On debate, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating Mr. Speaker on his election to the office of Magistrate of this House. I also want to add my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and to the two assistant Speakers who occupy the Chair from time to time. I believe that all four of you will treat us well and fairly and will serve this House in the interests of the Members of this House.
I want to begin by first commenting on a situation that is presently confronting the people of this country, particularly the people of western Canada. It concerns the lock-out of the longshoremen in Vancouver Harbour. I want to say that I have no intention of getting into the details of the dispute, other
than to say that it essentially is about the handling of containers. When a container contains products destined to two or more shippers somebody has to unpack them and repack them, according to the shippers and the destinations. That is what the dispute is about, and it is something that needs to be resolved between the employers and the union. 1 will not discuss that any further.
I want to say that a major part of the operations of the Vancouver port can be, should be and must remain in operation. These operations have nothing to do with containers and containerization. People in the three Prairie provinces are extremely concerned about the complete shutdown overnight of grain movement to Vancouver, a situation which did not even happen on grain movement to Thunder Bay just a few weeks ago-at least some grain moved. But in this instance there is a complete shutdown. As a result, thousands of employees on the railroads and in other aspects of the industry have been laid off.
What has to be brought to the attention of this House is that I, in my examination of grain terminals in Vancouver or anywhere else, have yet to see a container and the handling of bulk commodities like grain having anything to do with the dispute. The essential part of the dispute is between the longshoremen and the employers about container handling. Similarly with lumber, I have seen lumber being loaded and unloaded, and all other kinds of lumber products, and I have yet to see that they have anything to do with a container. This operation has nothing to do with the essential part of the dispute going on at the moment.
As a Member of this place from Saskatchewan, the whole western half of which moves grain to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, I call upon the grain companies and the union to immediately open the grain terminals and move the grain. As far as I am concerned there is no excuse whatsoever for the grain elevators in Vancouver to be closed down. I understand from news reports today that the union has offered to keep moving the grain but not the containers. Mr. Garcia, the union president, said they are prepared to work the grain, but if the employer closes the doors they cannot get at the work. So there is no excuse whatsoever for the grain elevators in Vancouver to be shut down. It has nothing to do with the current dispute.
I suggest the same thing applies to most if not all of the movement of lumber out of Vancouver Harbour. Little if any of that product is moved by container. There is no reason whatsoever why everyone else involved in the production of grain and lumber should be victimized by a dispute which has nothing to do with them. Therefore I have to say that the elevator companies, and this includes my friends in the cooperative elevator system, the Prairie Pool and the UGG, that they must open their terminals immediately and move the grain.
As I understand it, of the 3,700 longshoremen in the union, not more than a handful, probably about 20, are required to
October 7, 1986

handle ships loading grain. I doubt if there would be more than 40 or 50 required for the handling of lumber. Therefore, the lock-out should be for what the lock-out is about, namely, the handling of containers and their contents. That is what the lock-out should be confined to.
Thank goodness the Government finally got the the two sides together in Thunder Bay. Mr. Kelly banged a few heads together and made them keep sitting until they reached an agreement. I see the former Minister of Labour sitting across the way. I am beginning to wish he was still in that portfolio. 1 did not think I would ever say that. However, I wish he still was the Minister so he would load Mr. Kelly on the next plane to Vancouver where he could bang a few heads together, make them sit up all night until their bladders are full and finally reach an agreement.
I also want to say something about another area of concern.
1 am particularly distressed about what occurred during Question Period yesterday concerning the issue of deficiency payments. If there was ever an issue which is not political in its principle, it is that issue. All the political parties, all the farm organizations, all the elevator companies agree that there must be a deficiency payment so grain producers can remain reasonably competitive and viable in the face of what is being done to them by the U.S. and the EEC. It is not a political issue, it is something on which all sides agree. I submit the payment should be at least $2 a bushel starting with number one red spring and prorated amongst other grains. The money is sent to the Canadian Wheat Board which then raises initial prices to the producer by that amount. That is the way it should be done and that is the way it is done. That applies to all grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, wheat, oats and barley. If the Government is willing to include flax, rye, canola and other specialty crops, they will get no argument from us. However, the major part of our export market is wheat, oats and barley.
That is what has to happen but what do we get? Yesterday, in response to my Leader asking whether assistance for grain producers was going to be new money or old money, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said:
It will be new money and good money in the pockets of the farmers.
A few minutes later the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), in response to a question from my colleague from Regina East, said:
The money which is being talked about will be additional money for
agriculture within the fiscal framework.
A few minutes after that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), in response to the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), said:
It will be a reallocation within the given fiscal framework.
What the devil will it be? Will it be new money? Will it just be within the fiscal framework? Will it be a reallocation of funds only within the Department of Agriculture, or does that include other Departments? The Government does not know what the hell it wants to do. Does it mean the Prairie Farm
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
Rehabilitation Act is wiped out? Do funds from that program go towards the deficiency payment? Surely that is self-defeating. Does it mean that other agricultural programs will be reduced or cancelled in order to provide a deficiency payment? Surely that is self-defeating. We need to know in the next day or two.
Since the issue of deficiency payments is not political, it can have nothing to do with an election in Saskatchewan or anywhere else. However, what is political is whether the Government is deliberately playing fast and loose with the concerns of grain producers in western Canada, indeed, the concerns of agricultural producers all over Canada, for the sake of playing some simple political game. We need to know whether the $1 billion is for all agricultural producers across the country, because an excellent case can be made for corn producers and other agricultural producers in Ontario and Quebec. A case can be made for agricultural producers in the Atlantic provinces and the interior of British Columbia. What does it cover? Who does it cover? We cannot find out.
Agricultural producers in the country resent being treated as though they were a bunch of ignoramuses who can be hoodwinked, fooled and handled with the utmost of cynicism. Therefore the Government must say today, and I hope it will at two o'clock, or tomorrow at the latest, what it will be, who it will be for, when it is going to happen and where and how it will get the money. I have a suggestion. Cancel half a dozen of those fighter planes, which we do not need and do not use very much anyway, and we will have the money. In any case, the Government is all over the lot on this issue and it is about time it made up its mind on what it wants to do, on how, when, and where and for whom it is being done.
I want to mention another item. I wish the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) were here. I wish him well in his new portfolio. Frankly, I do not think it is something he really wanted or is really interested in. I do not think it is something he gives a darn about. He was placed in the wrong slot. I support him in keeping the Newfoundland railway. However, if he is going to keep it, he had better do something with it. A large capital investment is required to make something out of the Newfoundland railway in order that it can serve that province properly and become viable. That will require rebuilding the road-bed, standard gauge track, straightening curves and a host of other things. If those are not done, it cannot succeed. It is designed to fail.
That brings me to the other item I want to mention, namely, the situation regarding VIA Rail. We could not get a copy of the Rail Passenger Action Force report regarding VIA Rail. Last week the consumer organization, Transport 2000, made public a copy of that task force report. When I read that in conjunction with what is called "The Last Spike" or "The Last Straw" namely, the Progressive Conservative Party task force report on rail passenger service, I begin to think it was not the Conservative Party that got elected to the Government.

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
Almost none of the recommendations of the Rail Passenger Action Force or the task force report of the Progressive Conservative Party on rail passenger service have been implemented and the Government has been in power for two years. All of the ills which the former Minister of Transport, the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and myself have been pointing out repeatedly every year since 1976 are still there.
No self-respecting businessman or self-respecting Government would start up a business operated with old, worn out, written-off equipment. If you were to ask a bank manager for a start-up loan for such a business he would laugh you out of the store. That is exactly what happened to VIA Rail in 1976. It got stuck for $80 million for old equipment owned by CN and CP.
The Rail Passenger Action Force was chaired by Dr. Hugh Horner; you could hardly call him a raving socialist. That task force could not understand why the taxpayers of Canada who already owned that CNR equipment had to pay for it a second time. They say the same thing about station facilities and other facilities. They could not understand why the people of Canada had to pay a second time for something they already owned. If that is the sound business practice of which the Conservatives talk, no wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket. For two years the Government has failed to put a stop to that nonsense. The Government should be requiring Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to refund the money that the taxpayers paid for the second time for that equipment and for station facilities.
The only alternative to re-equiping VIA Rail, as recommended by the action task force, is to close down the entire system outside the Quebec-Windsor corridor. We still do not have the new locomotives on stream. The orders for the new railway cars have not yet been placed in spite of announcements annually since 1976 of the purchase of new railway passenger cars. All the Minister could say in response to me yesterday was that he hoped to have a chance to make an announcement like his predecessors. That is not good enough. It remains designed to fail. If the Government wants to have, as it says it does, a rail passenger system worthy of the name, it will have to put some money where its mouth is and it will have to make something of it so that people will use it.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to comment and ask questions on many parts of the Hon. Member's speech, but I particularly want to focus on those comments the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) made early in his address which are of concern to anyone whose constituency reflects the prairie grain industry. In particular, I share the concern he has about the grain handling capacity at our ports. I will ask only three questions in order that I do not take more than my share of the time.
Does the Hon. Member subscribe to the view that there ought to be some third party liability in conjunction with labour union strikes? Would he favour a system of declaring
the movement of grain, bearing in mind its importance to our national economy, an essential service? Does he subscribe to the view that in the areas where there are farmer-owned co-ops the farmers should be able to handle the grain during strike periods and be their own handlers? I would find it helpful if the Hon. Member could respond to those three questions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. gentleman is talking about when he talks of third party liability. I just do not know what he wants to know. I would be happy if he would elaborate on that question. I do not understand the purport of his question with regard to grain movement.
The Hon. Member asked about the movement of grain being an essential service. The same thing can be said about a host of other goods and services in Canada such as railroads, the post office and airlines, or lumber and forest products. All are services to the public and the nation, and are essential services. However, one must allow the collective bargaining process to proceed. When it breaks down and fails then it is the responsibility of the Government of the day and all political parties to come to a conclusion as to whether or not it requires government and parliamentary intervention. That intervention should always be used only as a last resort.
We cannot simply pick out the movement of grain as an essential service because one can make up a list as long as one's arm about what are essential services. If that principle is applied in law, then the collective bargaining process is negated, along with the rights of employers and employees in most if not all of the workforce in Canada that works under a collective agreement. It would apply to all municipal, provincial and federal employees. Where would it stop? What is considered an essential service?
I can understand taking such action in a war situation, but otherwise it seems to me that each case must be judged on its own merits. If the collective bargaining process completely breaks down and all resources of the Government have been exhausted, of course, any responsible Government of any political party will have to move in and declare that sector an essential service for the good and welfare of Canada. However, this cannot be done ahead of time.
As far as farmers handling their own grain is concerned, first I want to say to my hon. friend that they have enough trouble handling their own grain on their own farms. They are having enough trouble harvesting it. I have read news reports of farmers from Alberta who wanted to go to Thunder Bay and operate the grain terminal. I found that strange, because hardly a bushel of Alberta grain goes to Thunder Bay anyway.
I thought it was just posturing of the dumbest kind. Furthermore, of all my good farmer friends, who are my friends, I do not know of one who knows what to do or how to work in a grain terminal in Thunder Bay, Vancouver or anywhere else. It is a dirty job and requires different capabilities than what it takes to take off the crop and put it in the granary.
October 7, 1986

Again, it seems to me that the problem is that the farmer-owned grain companies need to be told by the farmers themselves how they want their own facilities operated. The farmers need to retake control of their own elevator companies.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, 1 am quite surprised that the Hon. Member for Regina West would say that the farmers do not know how to handle grain.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not say that.


Arnold John Malone: Read Hansard tomorrow.
With respect to the bargaining process, the Hon. Member said that it must work, but that when the problem is serious enough a government of any political stripe must act. Bearing in mind the serious potential on the West Coast, is that time now, and do we have the Hon. Member's support that it is time to act vis-a-vis the West Coast situation?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, I certainly do not believe that the time is now. If the hon. gentleman was listening to my speech he would know that all the grain could still be moving through Vancouver. There is no excuse whatever from either side of the dispute for it not to be moving. Similarly, most if not all the lumber could be moving because it has nothing to do with the current dispute. That is why I said that grain producers in Alberta and the western half of Saskatchewan are being victimized by the employers' association in Vancouver Harbour. It is time for the Government of Canada to call upon the elevator companies to open their doors and tell the longshoremen to get in there and handle the ships.
There are several more steps yet to be taken yet in the dispute, including mediation and conciliation. As I said, Mr. Kelly should not be brought back to Ottawa but sent on to Vancouver from Thunder Bay so he can knock some heads together in Vancouver Harbour.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, first of all-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the Hon. Member, because I think it is entirely proper she should have the floor, but I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Citations 301 and 302 in Beauchesne are very clear on the matter of alternating government and opposition speakers. Once again, I would remind you that yesterday, we did not have the number of speakers we would have wished. We had only two, while the Government had five. And today, when we are discussing a motion to amend the main motion, an
amendment moved by my leader, I think we should not be put in a position where we are unable to speak to that motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I quite understand the objections raised by the Hon. Member. However, where the Hon. Member refers to the principle of alternating, I think that up to now we have upheld that principle. However, I remember what the Hon. Member said earlier about what happened yesterday, and I am bearing that in mind.
Debate. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate you on the way you have performed your duties as Deputy Speaker in the past, and I wish you every success in the continuation of those duties.
1 would like to avail myself of the privilege of making my speech at three o'clock, since we have hardly 30 seconds left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Jews throughout the world are ushering in their calendar year 5747 with the prayer of hope that this new year may bring with it greater political will by all world leaders to negotiate toward peace, toward a sense of personal security, and toward political stability for all mankind.
There is a phrase in our Rosh Hashanah liturgy which says "All men will come together in unison to respond whole heartily to divine will". This truly is the universal wish of all people, for peace on earth, goodwill to all.
A first step in that direction would be the release of Soviet refusniks, particularly those who are suffering from terminal cancer, to allow them the dignity of dying with their loved ones at their side. We insist that the Soviet Union honour its

October 7, 1986
signature on the Helsinki Accords, that it act in a humanitarian way and let them leave. Otherwise such oppression diminishes the Soviet Union as a nation in the eyes of all Canadians. May we see progress toward these goals in the coming year. 1 take this opportunity to wish all my coreligionists a healthy new year, "Le Shana Tova Tikatayvou".



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, last month the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) officially opened Canada's newest national park on Ellesmere Island. I would like to take this opportunity to advise Canadians of the costs involved in visiting their new park. The return airfare between Montreal and Resolute Bay in the High Arctic is $1,600. The charter rate from Resolute Bay to Ellesmere Island is in the neighbourhood of $1,750 per person. Add another $500 for meals and accommodation and the travelling expenses alone come to an astounding total of $3,250. If you include other costs such as outfitting and pocket-money, the total easily comes to $4,000.
A private outfitter in Resolute Bay told me that the majority of travellers are European, Japanese, and American, with Canadians making up only 10 per cent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who in his right mind will travel to the park when one can go around the world with that kind of money? I think it is high time for the Government to look into making remote areas accessible and affordable to our citizens.



MUSEUMS


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Progressive Conservative women's caucus is holding an event at the National Museum of Natural Sciences. The proceeds from this event are to go to the museum trust fund and certainly since our museums are under-funded, any additional funds will be welcome. However, a few questions must be raised. Why should public servants, paid by the taxpayers' hard-earned money, be diverted from their normal duties to organize an event for a political party, however worthy otherwise the event may be? Why should exhibits be moved and the normal work of the museum be disrupted for an event sponsored by a political Party? Why should money raised by the museum on time paid for by the public, on premises paid for by the public, be diverted into a special fund which does not go through the normal budgeting
procedures and which is not scrutinized by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture?
I ask the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to put partisan advantage aside and clean up these improper practices.



NEW BEAUCE


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: In 1736, Mr. Speaker, France's King Louis XV ratified the granting of three seigneuries located along Quebec's Chaudiere River. They were called Nouvelle-Beauce.
This year, nothing will be spared to celebrate this 250th anniversary in the Beauce region. It will be an opportunity for all Beauce residents to proclaim their identity and their Canadianism, and to demonstrate their dynamism in the economic, social and cultural sectors.
If only because of their typical accent and their independence, the people of Beauce have left their mark in the history of Quebec. The Beauce region was the first territory which the French colonized along the shores of the St. Lawrence River.
For a long time during the 20th century the Beauce region was the symbol of a catholic and rural community, faithful to Quebec traditions. Still, the spirit of initiative and the entrepreneurship of Beauce residents were epoch-making, and the region is still the hub of small- and medium-sized businesses in Quebec.
Happy 250th anniversary to all Beauce residents!



HUMAN RIGHTS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday Dr. and Mrs. Yuri Orlov were allowed to leave the Soviet Union for New York under the terms of the so-called Danilof deal.
Dr. Orlov is a distinguished high energy physicist who has suffered persecution, imprisonment, and harsh internal exile for his efforts to expose human rights violations in the Soviet Union. He founded the Helsinki Watch Group in 1976, for which he was arrested in 1977 and charged with treason against the Soviet state.
October 7, 1986

Since his arrest thousands of people around the world have worked for his freedom and that of his wife, Irina. Nowhere has this effort been more intensive than in Canada where hundreds of academics and others have worked to secure Orlov's release from the Soviet Union.
I want to bring this long and successful effort to the attention of the House, and of all Canadians, as we celebrate their first few days in the West. I congratulate those, including colleagues in this House, who worked long and diligently to put pressure on the Soviet Government regarding this subject. I particularly wish to note the efforts of the Canadian Committee of Scholars and Scientists and its secretary, Professor Israel Halperin, of the University of Toronto.



NARCOTICS


Elliott William Hardey: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is correct in moving now to wage a campaign against the spreading use of narcotics by Canadians. Even though seizure of illegal drugs was valued at $335 million by June of 1986-$100 million more than the total in 1985-the traffic goes on. The volume of drugs being consumed by Canadians is going up, taking a tragic toll in wasted lives, broken families, and spreading crime. For more than two decades Canadian young people have grown up in a climate of tolerance, even the promotion of drug use. Consuming drugs has now become acceptable among successful professionals.
To change this attitude the Government must enlist the help of all leaders of society, including artists and entertainers. When we infuse in our culture a truly persuasive bias against drug use, only then can enforcement of laws against narcotic trafficking have much hope of success.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the sinking of a Soviet nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed submarine once again points out the contempt for the future and for questions of inter generational morality that is involved in the commitment to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons characteristic of both East and West.
An American general is quoted as saying that we do not have to worry about the fuel inside the sub's reactors because
it is encased in a heavy metal that will "likely"-and I draw attention to the word "likely"-deteriorate only over thousands of years. Even if this were true, how would we feel if huge doses of lethal poisons had been needlessly scattered and stored throughout the world by ancient civilizations in order to meet short-term economic and military goals, and these poisons were only now being released into the environment? Would we not question the morality of such civilizations? Indeed.
So we should question the morality of our own generation and civilization for putting at risk the natural environment and the human health of future generations, all this in the name of a so-called cheap energy that is actually more subsidized than any other energy option and which will only be viable for several decades in any event, and in the name of a nuclear deterrence strategy that can only end in global disaster. Let us have the courage to step off the nuclear treadmill-


Mr. Speaker:: Sixty seconds, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, western Canadians can be pleased with the Government's continuing commitment to our region in the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's response to it.
Unprecedented emphasis on agriculture and international negotiations, domestic measures in co-operation with provincial Governments and farm organizations and the development of an effective $1 billion financial assistance program to enhance the cash flow of Canadian grain farmers are welcome news.
In energy, besides important measures already taken, there is a promise for co-operation with producing provinces and industry to sustain Canada's energy prospects.
O)
There is renewed emphasis on trade with Pacific Rim countries. Special emphasis will be given to diversifying the economic base of western Canada, for this provides the key to sustained and lasting economic growth, insulating us from the volatility of world commodity markets which now plagues us.
The Government has committed itself to preserving our traditional industries while making fundamental changes that will result in stability as well as prosperity, things in which all western Canadians and, indeed, all Canadians can share.

October 7, 1986



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, on September 17 I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) urging him to make a clear statement calling upon the United States to halt its nuclear testing immediately to match the Soviet moratorium and asking the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union to begin negotiating a comprehensive test ban without delay. This weekend Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan will be meeting in Iceland. I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to seize the opportunity presented by this meeting and to provide the people of Canada with a means of sending a clear message to those two leaders through the Parliament of Canada.
I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to introduce a resolution in the House forthwith exhorting the super powers to initiate concrete steps this weekend in Iceland, steps that will lead to a comprehensive test ban treaty in the near future. Canada's voice is respected. Surely there is no better occasion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology to commend the Government on the emphasis placed in the Throne Speech on science and technology and especially on the establishment of a National Advisory Board for Industrial Technology to be chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Research and development are fundamental components of the Government's plans for economic and social development.
Working with provincial Governments, universities, and the scientific and industrial communities, the Government has set in motion a program which will lead Canada into the next century. Many have predicted that gloom and doom would be the result of technological innovation and automation. In fact, as an Economic Council of Canada study recently noted, exactly the opposite is the case. Innovation produces competitive companies, and the markets of competitive companies expand and their sales grow, generating economic prosperity for all Canadians.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, dramatic changes have occurred in Canadian families over the past decade, changes which require new government initiatives. Over 60 per cent of women are in the workforce. They need affordable child care. Over 11 per cent of families are headed by single parents, many with very low incomes. They need incomes which are above the poverty line and opportunities to get out of the welfare trap. Ninety per cent of our children are cared for in unlicensed situations or care for themselves. We must have an accessible, universal child care system.
The federal Government should celebrate Family Week with deeds, not just with words. I call on the Government to recognize all families by reindexing the family allowance and extending the child tax credit to assist average families with the cost of raising children. I thank all parents for the contributions they are making to the future of Canada.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my shock and disappointment at the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) who stated his intention not to implement any make-work projects this winter. Make-work projects are not a solution by themselves but they serve a useful and important role by providing much needed income to the many regions of the country that are not fortunate enough to be a part of the boom economy of central Canada.
I am not alone in urging the Minister of Employment and Immigration to take this action. People from many towns in eastern Nova Scotia have written to the Minister asking that immediate action be taken to deal with this serious human problem. The Minister has chosen to turn his back on this plea for assistance.
This Minister is no better than his predecessor. I had hoped for a more caring and compassionate Minister who would see that blindly following the Canadian Jobs Strategy has caused untold hardship to thousands of Canadians. All Canadians have been cheated, not only by this Minister but by the previous Minister.


October 7, 1986



THE LATE RABBI ABRAHAM FEINBERG

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday Rabbi Abraham Feinberg of Holy Blossom Temple, Canada's largest Reform Jewish Congregation, passed away at the age
of 87.
For 33 years Rabbi Feinberg was a determined man who championed any cause which affected the disadvantaged of our society. He was a natural leader who led the fight for world peace from Canada. He fought hard for the elimination of poverty, for an effective and constructive role for the aged, and for racial harmony. Rabbi Feinberg was the social conscience of our society, and Canada was truly fortunate to have had this outstanding individual make very significant contributions to our society.
To all individuals who will be paying their respects at tomorrow's memorial service honouring this great man at Holy Blossom Temple, I wish to add Canada's.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the crisis affecting western grain producers. Of course the latest threat is the lock-out in the Port of Vancouver. The Government should have been able to anticipate this situation for months. Of course the union has been in a legal position to strike for the last two weeks. Why is it that the Government has been so inactive to this date, failing to anticipate an additional major crisis affecting our grain producers?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, within hours of a negotiated settlement or tentative settlement in Thunder Bay, we were faced with a lock-out situation at the Vancouver and Prince Rupert ports, mainly over the container clause. Today we sent a telex to the authorities of the ports to ask them to let the grain be transported, particularly because it does not concern the container clause and also because of the willingness of the longshoremen to transport grain.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, again concerning the crisis in the grain industry, I should like once more to direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to payments to grain producers.
What does the Prime Minister intend to do to find the funds required for these payments? Increase the deficit, slash other farm programs, or reduce social programs?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the program to which I referred on Friday will be financed within the fiscal framework in the same way that we financed such new initiatives as the fuel tax rebate, drought assistance, and commodity-based loans, for example, assistance to sugar-beet farmers. I would point out that we have been able to respond to these needs in the past at the same time that we have been able to maintain our spending targets. The program about which we have been talking will put a billion dollars of increased cash flow into the hands of Canadian farmers beyond that which they are now receiving.


SOURCE AND DELIVERY OF FUNDING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if there is an additional cash flow to farmers, it either comes at the expense of the deficit of the Minister of Finance, or from a reallocation of other programs already dedicated to farmers, or at the expense of some other program. Where is the new money coming from, and when will western farmers receive that money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated that we are meeting on Thursday and that we hope to have further meetings with the leaders of the agricultural organizations beyond that. This is new money in the hands of farmers, and I know my right hon. friend will not oppose that.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday in his speech to the House the Minister suggested that the private sector, the provinces, and individuals should have the principal responsibility for job training and job creation in Canada. In abdicating his federal responsibility in this respect, was the Minister forecasting further cut-backs in the federal employment
[Stage Direction]
October 7, 1986
Oral Questions
budget, which has already been cut by S300 million since 1984? Is that what he is suggesting?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East had been here yesterday to listen to the whole speech. I said that, as Government, we must share the load with the private sector, with the various interest groups, I did not say that they would be on their own to develop programs, with the support of the Government. And the results speak for themselves. I am referring to the results of the employment strategy, and I must commend my colleague for putting up the kind of sound structure about which you had been dreaming for years.
[DOT] (M20)


TRAINING OF WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I read his entire speech this morning. While 1 was not here yesterday, I read it several times and he did say: "Practical training and job experience lead to permanent jobs". Was the Minister really serious when he made that kind of statement? Does he not realize that there are thousands of workers in Canada who are trained, who have had experience but still cannot find jobs? Doesn't he realize-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please put his question.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, can my hon. colleague tell me that without training these workers would be working today?


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister also on the matter of assistance to Canada's hard-pressed grain farmers. The Government did indicate in response to a question from me yesterday that the money would not be coming from existing agricultural programs. I would like to clarify two other potential sources. Will the Prime Minister give assurances that the funds for spending to aid our grain producers will not come from cutbacks in other federal programs nor will the provinces, already hard-pressed, be asked to contribute?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the funds will be into the hands of the farmers who
need the help. I know my hon. friend will support what we are trying to do. They will not come from existing agricultural programs but from within the framework.


SOURCE OF FUNDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Prime Minister had for lunch, but we are not getting very far today. I acknowledged that the Prime Minister said yesterday that it would not come from agricultural programs. We are asking for assurances that the funds will not come from existing federal programs, social programs, other programs, housing programs, and we are asking for assurances that the Government of Canada with all its resources will not be asking the provinces to pay.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that my hon. friend is doing everything he can to prevent a Government from helping farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: It is going to cause trouble.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Why throw all these road-blocks at a Government that is trying to help farmers? What we are saying is that we intend to meet on Thursday and again next week. We are devising a program that will be within the fiscal framework which will not diminish existing agricultural help to farmers, and we are seeking a method to put additional funds in the hands of the farmers. I would hope that my hon. friend will stand up and support a Government that is supporting farmers.


REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF CORPORATE TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the Leader of the Opposition nor has he answered me today or yesterday on funds from other sources or from the provinces.


John Napier Turner: One more try, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: I will try a third question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that his friend, Ronald Reagan, has increased corporation taxes by $120 billion in the United States and that we have 79,000 profitable companies that are not paying a cent in tax, will the Government of Canada, instead of cutbacks in other areas and instead of going to the provinces, bring in a reasonable corporate tax to get a minimum of $3 billion in additional revenue and use that money to aid Canadian farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if he waits until the Budget maybe he is right.
October 7, 1986


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns butlers and maids.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Yesterday the Minister said that the presence of Miss Narcisco, the maid, was required on the Oriental trip because of security requirements on a trip of an extensive nature. In view of the fact that Department of National Defence records indicate that the same person travelled to Quebec City for the Shamrock Summit, can the Minister tell us if he considers Quebec City to be a foreign destination and a very heavy security risk? Or, would he admit that a butler is a butler and a maid is a maid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Crosbie:: And a squalid nuisance is a squalid nuisance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has put his question and I hope that all Hon. Members will let the Minister to which it is directed respond.


John Napier Turner: We can hardly wait, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: I think, Mr. Speaker, given the world we unfortunately have to cope with today, that no reasonable person would want us to in any way deny all the necessary security arrangements for the head of our state, the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: He is not the head of state.


BUTLER'S DUTIES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he put an end to the mystery of the butler and, the maid? Will he tell us who done it? We want to know. No ifs, ands or butlers.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker-


John Napier Turner: You are looking after the baggage, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: I wonder if I might try to lift the Liberal Party above trivia.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss MacDonald:: That is their Leader's task.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is one heck of a job.


Charles Joseph Clark: During the trip in question agreement was reached to have Canada become part of the G7, which had never been done under a Liberal Government. During the trip in question a process was started that resulted in having agriculture considered under GATT, which has never been done before. During the trip in question the Prime Minister took the opportunity to express directly to Korean authorities our concerns about human rights in that country. Those matters might not be important to the Liberal Party and their experts in trivia, but they are important to the people and the future of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MALAYSIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Dato Rais Yatim, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Can the Minister confirm that in 1983 there were 79,000 corporations in Canada which had a total profit of more than $13 billion but paid no corporate income tax? Will he also confirm that if these companies had been taxed at the average rate for corporations they would have yielded some $3 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member must know that questions which require a detailed response of that kind are not appropriate for Question Period. Perhaps the Hon. Member can put his question again.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister agree that if corporations that were not taxed had paid tax three years ago, they would have provided $3 billion in revenue which could have been used to help farmers in western Canada today?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make some inquiries in order to

October 7, 1986
Oral Questions
ascertain the accuracy of the allegations in the question. After 1 do that I would be very happy to respond.


DEPARTMENT'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could explain why, when this information, which is based on statistics from StatsCan, was made available to his Department two weeks ago, his Department did not go immediately to look at this source of revenue which could be helping farmers in western Canada who are suffering today?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat today what I said yesterday. Tax reform is a major objective of this Government. Consultations and work towards that are beginning now and will continue over the next few months. We will take into consideration findings of that sort.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Prime Minister again to justify the 38 per cent unemployment rate he gave for Port-Cartier. The Prime Minister was probably exaggerating once again and probably included the sick, pensioners and pregnant women as part of the unemployed population. My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: Could-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I think it is very important to realize that if you have a question, it should be put directly. An argument about statistics is not an appropriate subject for oral Question Period.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but when a sentence starts with the words "Est-ce-", that means it is a question. Could the Prime Minister inform the House why he has misled the House and Canadians? May I ask him why he doesn't correct this bad habit of exaggerating?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shefford wants statistics. He will have them. What the people of Manicouagan have heard today is that 38 per cent of the people of a riding, who in 1984 received part of their income from unemployment insurance are not people-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Answer the question!


Benoît Bouchard: I let you ask your question-let me answer it. I am trying to understand the Hon. Member's logic. Thirty-eight per cent of the population of a riding, plus people on welfare, or the labour force, if you prefer, plus people receiving
welfare, plus people who are no longer seeking employment, isn't that enough to want to take care of what your hon. colleague called regional disparity? Even in the riding of the Prime Minister of Canada, we have to take care of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF WORKS UNDERTAKEN IN PORT-CARTIER
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration doesn't know what he is talking about, because the statistics the Prime Minister used were not the unemployment statistics. However, Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General. I would like to ask him why and at what cost the work at Port-Cartier has been speeded up so that it will be completed by September 1988.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said on many occasions.


John V. Nunziata: Quit stonewalling.


James Francis Kelleher: The decision to move to Port-Cartier was a government decision. It was made to alleviate the economic disparity which persisted in that area. I am quite sure that the Hon. Member would have no objections to such a laudable objective of the Government.


CONSTRUCTION OF PRISON IN PORT-CARTIER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is on the location of the Port-Cartier prison in the Prime Minister's riding. If in fact the rationale for the location of this prison was the high rate of unemployment in that particular constituency, can the Solicitor General explain why the prison was not located in Rimouski which had a higher rate of unemployment, in Chicoutimi which had a higher rate of unemployment, or in Gaspe which had a higher rate of unemployment? Why this particular goody to the Prime Minister's constituency when other ridings in Quebecc had much higher levels of unemployment?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Of course, Mr. Speaker, when the
Government... I am trying to see the logic of the New Democratic Party. You want us to help regions that need help. In the riding of Manicouagan, we are dealing with an employment situation known to everybody in Quebec. Everybody knows the North Shore is one of the worst off areas in terms of jobs. And Members opposite are to blame. So what else can we
October 7, 1986

do? We are helping the people on the North Shore, and later we will help the people in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.


INQUIRY WHY PRIME MINISTER CHOSE HIS RIDING AS LOCATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, everybody in Quebec knows full well that the Prime Minister made a gift to his riding when at the same time ... Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the people of Quebec why he chose his own riding when there are so many others where the unemploymnent rate is much too high? Why?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when any riding experiences high unemployment and economic hardships, why should we forget it, because it happens to be the riding of the Prime Minister? I am asking the question to Members of the Opposition.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. What steps are being taken to change the policy of the Farm Credit Corporation with regard to penalties on early mortgage pay-backs?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question and his ongoing interest in the financial difficulties which Canadian farmers face. It is our assessment that indeed chartered banks continue to charge a penalty for early payment. The Farm Credit Corporation does have a policy, however, which will eliminate such a penalty under certain circumstances. If the Hon. Member wishes to bring specific cases to my attention I would be happy to inquire whether the cases he has in mind would qualify.


DAY CARE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for the status of women. In her absence, I direct it to the Prime Minister. During the election campaign two years ago the Conservative Party singled out day-care services as a priority. The Speech from the Throne makes reference to launching discussions between the Governments of the various provinces, the private sector and the unions. Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us
Oral Questions
when these endless discussions will stop and when his Government will take action concerning day-care services? What kind of concrete action does he intend to take and when?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government has turned to concrete action.


John Edward Broadbent: Just turned to concrete.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: During the election campaign the Prime Minister made two commitments on child care. One was a task force, not on whether but on how to best implement it. The Hon. Member has been sitting on this task force. We expect that report at approximately the end of November.
Second, in this Throne Speech the Prime Minister has clearly indicated that he is now moving from that commitment to the next commitment of implementation. The Hon. Member surely recognizes that there are a number of partners in the relationship for the provision of child care. We hope she will support the Prime Minister and the Government on the actions that have been taken.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER NEW FUNDS WILL BE ALLOCATED TO DAYCARE
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know-if such services are indeed a priority and we are about to enter the second phase-whether the Government is prepared to guarantee that new funds will be set aside for daycare services in the next Budget instead of simply redistributing the money already earmarked for social programs. Are you prepared to allocate new funds to day-care services?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will not relate to the next Budget, that is not my mandate. 1 will say, as 1 said in my speech earlier today, that possibly the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party did not expect this strong positive action to come so soon. It is coming. The Hon. Member should start supporting the very things to which she gave lip service and to which the Prime Minister is giving action.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. How soon does the Minister expect to award the contract for construction of a Polar 8 ice-breaker which his predecessor was hoping to announce last spring?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure all Members of the House know, the

October 7, 1986
Oral Questions
Government is committed to proceeding with the Polar 8 icebreaker. A contract for that purpose will be awarded and announced as soon as the contract is ready, the contractee is ready and the contractor is ready.


TIMING OF CONTRACT ANNOUNCEMENT
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, how many more times does the Minister expect the Conservative Government to be able to make this announcement without having awarded the contract?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when the time comes for me to make the announcement I hope the hon. gentleman will be as pleased with the announcement as I will be pleased.


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to all my colleagues.
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
During the Liberal Party public hearings on pharmaceutical patents, most witnesses stated that the Eastman Commission recommendations were an acceptable compromise.
Now that the Minister is revising his Bill, can he assure us that the Government will bring the legislation in line with the Eastman Commission recommendations?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me personally welcome the Hon. Member back and say that she has made an amazing recovery and we are all very pleased.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: What I indicated yesterday is what the Deputy Prime Minister indicated. There will be some refinements to the legislation but they will not be major changes. We are convinced that the package basically provides far more benefits to Canadians than costs. When one makes a change where the benefits outweigh the costs by a considerable margin, then it is a worth-while thing to do.


PRICE OF NEW DRUGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same Minister.
In answer to a question yesterday the Minister indicated that there will be absolutely no increase in drug prices.
My question relates to new drugs. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no price increase for new drugs?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to talk about increases in drugs that are not yet discovered. Increases over what? However, the legislation provides for a drug price review board which will be chaired by Doctor Eastman to ensure that the prices of any drugs not yet discovered-but hopefully including some discovered in Canada to benefit the health of Canadians-will be reasonable. That is the purpose of the drug price review board. We feel confident that the mechanisms we will have in place will guarantee that.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. His speech in the House yesterday was disappointing to people in Atlantic Canada. Since the Government has come to power, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for August in Atlantic Canada went from 13 per cent to 15.9 per cent. What new measures is the Government willing to introduce to help the people in that region?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, we announced the creation of a special agency for the Atlantic provinces. Naturally, the Department of Employment and Immigration will be working very closely with this agency. I said yesterday in my speech, as I said in the regions, and especially in the Atlantic provinces, that after a year of implementing the job strategy, we now intended to consider, while maintaining the basic principles of the strategy, how certain adjustments could be made, especially for the Atlantic region, so that we could provide special assistance for these provinces, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister recently.
That is what we intend to do, but I wish the Hon. Member would understand that after only one year of implementing the job strategy, it makes sense to maintain the strategy before we look at its impact and make the necessary adjustments.
October 7, 1986


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in that one year the unemployment rate has gone up in Atlantic Canada. Will there be new money going into Atlantic Canada to reduce unemployment? Will there be new money going into the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or is it money that already exists and goes to that region? Is it new money?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, looking for new money seems to be very popular with the New Democratic Party Members today.
What I am saying is that the Government, and that is the question-yes, Mr. Leader, you asked and we are going to answer. You are asking whether the Government is going to do anything special for the Atlantic provinces. You may be anxious to bring the unemployment rate down, but we have already started, and I can give you the figures after the Question Period. Our goal is to keep up the good work.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. It concerns the engineering and maintenance support contract for the CF-18. Will the Minister tell the House what other considerations, other than price and the capacity for technical competence, are being evaluated by the Government in the awarding of this very important contract in the various regions of the country?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that the matter is still being considered by Treasury Board. The issue is a very complex one, and of course we intend to take into account all the factors involved. As soon as the study is completed, a decision will be made which we will be delighted to announce.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that the Minister would have outlined the various considerations that Cabinet will be considering. However, in the spirit of openness and civility that the Government wishes to demonstrate, will she table in the House for the benefit of all Members, correspondence and records of
Oral Questions
telephone calls that she has received from the Premier of Nova Scotia with regard to IMP Group Ltd.?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that whatever that decision may be, its focus must be on Canada's industrial interests as a whole. Failure to focus on those interests would be an affront to the electorate of this country.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Given the rhetoric in the Throne Speech about water quality in Canada, why, in his recent meeting with provincial Environment Ministers, was the Minister unwilling to make a commitment on behalf of the Government to spend-I am sorry to use the phrase again-"new money" on upgrading sewage treatment facilities across Canada? Incidentally, this is something which is badly needed in the Atlantic provinces and which, if done by the Government, would increase employment in those areas? Why the lack of commitment to take that very necessary step?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will realize that when they put a perfectly good question there is no particular need to repeat it.


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the Hon. Member's question is false. It is not true that I resisted overtures from my colleagues to have the federal Government assist the provinces and, through the provinces, the municipalities with municipal infrastructure. In fact the federal Government is up to its eyebrows in such support. Last year in Ontario, for example, 1 signed an agreement with Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment in that province, for a $65 million subvention from the federal Treasury for municipal infrastructure support in the Great Lakes region alone. There are agreements with other provinces amounting to tens of millions of dollars. The federal Government is totally committed to helping the provinces and the municipalities in that and other ways.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad that you liked the question. I do not want to ask the Minister of the Environment about what he has already done, but whether or not the Government is ever going to give the kind of massive commitment that will be needed to upgrade the sewage treatment facilities in Canada. Why was there no

October 7, 1986
Oral Questions
commitment to spend that kind of money which the Minister knows is greatly needed?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I really am puzzled because at the meeting of the Council of Environmental and Resource Ministers we agreed that all the jurisdictions involved, including the federal Government, the provinces and municipalities, would have to link arms to lick this problem. In fact the federal Government has spent millions of dollars in the past, is doing so now, and will continue to do so.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Canadians are encouraged by the Government's intention to abolish mandatory retirement. However, one of my constituents who is approaching the age of 65 was recently informed by his employer, the CBC, that the corporation's mandatory retirement policy is still very much in effect. Given the Government's support to end mandatory retirement, when can Canadians expect legislation on this issue, and will it apply to Crown corporations?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the mandatory retirement policy which is embodied in the Public Service superannuation regulations applies to government Departments, corporations and agencies subject to the Public Service Superannuation Act. These regulations were repealed as of July of this year. However, the Crown corporations continue to be subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act which refers to the normal age of retirement.
As Hon. Members will know, there has been a response to Equality for All, and we are committed an early introduction of amendments to the Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure Ministers would want to respond briefly and to the point.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the meeting this coming weekend
between General Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan, would the Secretary of State bring a resolution to the House for adoption by unanimous consent of all Parties exhorting the superpowers to take concrete steps at this meeting in Iceland leading to a comprehensive test ban treaty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I respect the spirit in which that suggestion is offered and I hope the Hon. Member will also respect the spirit of the response. I think what is of interest to us all is to encourage the two superpowers gathered there to come to an agreement on issues where they can find agreement. I do not think it would be much help to us, or to other countries, to offer advice which might be seen as gratuitous to the two superpowers as they meet.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any issue which affects all of the world and mankind more than a comprehensive test ban treaty. I had assumed this was the policy of the Government. It seems to me the opportunity is available now to speak with a clear voice to both superpowers and the best way to do that is through a resolution of this House. Would the Secretary of State not agree?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that there is always an opportunity to speak. What is unique about the meeting in Iceland, and the meeting we hope will follow, is that there will be action forthcoming. What is clear about the state of the world now is that the action the world needs is action which can be taken by those two superpowers meeting together.
We should be doing everything we can to encourage a constructive result of that meeting. Lecturing from afar will not necessarily add to a constructive result.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office in Winnipeg is holding a series of meetings regarding the closure of the Norwood Post Office. In these meetings the Post Office has separated seniors, ordinary citizens, and business people. It has closed a meeting except to a handful of residents by invitation only. Will the Minister intervene to open this meeting to any resident affected by the closure of this post office, and to open the meetings to the press as is appropriate in a democracy?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the Hon. Member that this was a corporate decision.
October 7, 1986

We have been informed that the customers involved have indeed been consulted and that a decision will be announced in due time.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister consider that discussions with 60 of the
4,000	residents involved constitutes real consultation? When he entered public life, did he not assume responsibility for effective consultation?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that we have been asked to reduce the postal deficit and that the Minister of Finance has instructed us to try to do so by 1987-88. Such decisions must therefore be made by the Canada Post Corporation and we do not intend to interfere.

Oral Questions
prepared to intervene in this matter with CN to prevent the worst from happening at Point St. Charles?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague very accurately described this week what the circumstances are at CN in Montreal. The company has made a number of corporate decisions which I think were justified. It said its locomotives were in better shape than ever before and needed fewer repairs. That is why the corporation has closed down a number of plants or repair shops. On the other hand, CN has announced that it is seeking contracts elsewhere, in the United States, to improve, not worsen, the situation in Montreal. Do not forget that over 100,000 jobs have been created in Montreal by the private sector, and CN can do the same.



Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister will not intervene either. I wonder why a Minister, the Minister of State (Transport) is so reluctant to rise in the House and defend people in his province who are being threatened by the actions of a Crown corporation. That I cannot understand, but perhaps the Minister would care to explain.


JOB-CREATION CAPACITY
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister has been quoted as saying that energy is not a job-creation sector. Does this mean that his Department has dropped the objective of energy as an engine for growth?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the development of the energy sector is a reality in every country. First of all, energy is the basis of a country's industry and can also become an export. The energy sector is therefore a tool for job creation in a country, but it is not an objective of the Department of Manpower and Immigration that the energy sector be used to create jobs.


RAILWAYS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Transport), and that is because his senior Minister has refused outright to intervene in this matter and persuade CN not to transfer activities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question.


Jacques Guilbault: Although his senior Minister refuses to do so, is the Minister of State (Transport)


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Liberal Member is dramatizing the issue, as there have yet to be any lay-offs in Montreal. A statement was made by someone, not with the CN, who said that something might be happening, but CN's response was positive and with regard to the creation of new enterprises and new forms of management to preserve jobs and improve the job situation in Montreal.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It refers to the intolerable delays which native people are experiencing in being reinstated under Bill C-31. Would the Minister tell us what progress has been made since May in reducing the predicted waiting time of three to four years for these people to get reinstated?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, the waiting period has been reduced. There were original estimates of some 65,000 or 68,000 applications for reinstatement to status. The reinstatement to status is something the Department and the Indian people take as being very important.

October 7, 1986
Question of Privilege-Mr. Bouchard
There has been up to this point some 12,000 people returned to status. We hope to be able to continue that. However, it is an important matter and sometimes there is research necessary which is very important with respect to a return to status.


REINSTATEMENT PROCESS-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, since in the first year of reinstatement only one in five applicants have been reinstated, would the Minister advise the House what additional resources he is prepared to grant both to his Department and to the native organizations which are doing so much of the groundwork so that the reinstatement process can be speeded up?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, there is a process for creating band membership. There is money to flow to those bands once they have established a membership code to allow them to continue to monitor and maintain that membership. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that the Department, my officials and myself are doing everything we can to ensure the return of those people to accurate status and that there is nothing which would jeopardize the original status.
V *	*


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I am pleased the Minister has acted on behalf of prairie farmers. However, will he tell us how soon he will give direction to the Port Authority and the unions to act on behalf of Commissioner Larson's recommendations? The port is shut down, which is a very valuable tool to the economy of western Canada and to all of Canada.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, considering the requests 1 have just made today, I will at least wait until 1 receive an answer, and act accordingly.

[ Translation]


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct an answer I gave earlier to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).
Regarding the 38 per cent figure referring to persons who at some time during the year 1984 drew unemployment insurance, this of course applies to Port-Cartier only. And it supports what I was telling the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), namely that it is quite considerable. So the 38 per cent does not apply to the whole riding of Manicouagan but only to the town of Port-Cartier.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne the House Leader for the Official Opposition raised a question of privilege. 1 would like to submit that his question of privilege fails on three brief grounds.
First, the point was raised well after Question Period in the middle of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, some two hours later. Second, the telex was raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and not the House Leader. Third, the question of privilege was raised as a result of a reporter allegedly being refused a copy of the telex by the Prime Minister's Office and not a Member of Parliament.
The Prime Minister was reluctant as a matter of courtesy to release the telex without permission from the sender with respect to the entire message. However, immediately the matter was raised by the reporter, inquiries were made. I understand that this morning discussions were finalized between the Prime Minister's Office and the office of the Premier of Prince Edward Island. We are pleased at this time to table the said telex on behalf of the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all Members of the House would join with me in congratulating Members for having resolved this question of privilege, as it started out, and which 1 think probably was a point of order, in the very civilized way in which it has been resolved.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the Session; and of the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 44).
October 7, 1986
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the House took recess at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) had the floor.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, please permit me to congratulate you on your recent election as Speaker of the House of Commons and to wish you good luck in your new function. Many responsibilities are given to you, but 1 am certain that you will respond to them with much dignity and reassurance. Personally, I assure you of my entire co-operation.
It is with great pleasure that 1 rise in the House this afternoon to make a few comments on the Speech from the Throne opening the second session of the 33rd Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I rejoice at the course which this Government intends to steer during the coming months. As Michel Roy wrote in Le Devoir of October 2: "It is a good speech. It spells both continuity and change." Continuity, because the major themes already featured in the 1984 legislative program remain a priority: national reconciliation and economic renewal; change and something new, because from here on in more emphasis will be put on social policies.
Now that economic recovery is definitely under way and considering that economic conditions are constantly improving, this Government, with its usual sense of fairness, is now endeavouring within its means to further improve on the existing social system, to the benefit of each and every Canadian man and woman.
The proposals in the Throne Speech reflect the realistic concern for justice shared by the Cabinet. Economic conditions now make it possible to address social measures, and this is what we are doing inasmuch as we can.
Mr. Speaker, when I decided to run for election in the riding of Louis-Hebert well over two years ago, my idea was to promote in particular four goals that were of special concern to me.
The first was to have Quebec sign the constitutional agreement and resume its rightful place in Canada, and to see that its rights are respected. The Mulroney Government had promised to work with all Canadians towards national reconciliation.
Within two years, tremendous progress has been made. The Francophonie Summit, which I had the opportunity of attending, is indisputable proof that this Government has succeeded in launching open and frank discussions. Before our Conservative Government, this summit which was so important to the French-speaking world never could have been held because federal Liberals would not agree with their Quebec counterparts to determine Quebec's participation. Thanks to the efforts made by our Prime Minister and the Cabinet, that
The Address-Mrs. Duplessis
first summit was organized and it met with tremendous success. Moreover, we are already planning the second one to be held in Quebec City in September, 1987. The practical results of such co-operation are a subject of no little pride to me as a Member from the Province of Quebec and the Quebec City area.
In that same line of thought, we see in the Throne Speech that this Government is committed to holding constitutional negotiations with Quebec, and that the consultations that have already begun are of utmost importance in the expectation that Quebec will take its rightful place as a full partner in the Canadian federation.
I am therefore highly confident, because past deeds speak for the future. Based on the improved relationship developed over these last two years, I feel certain the forthcoming months will be most promising.
I want now to tell every man and woman in Quebec that I will continue working arduously on that important matter. To me this has been and still is a high priority, and I want to spare neither time nor energy to ensure that our two levels of Government come to an agreement.
My second objective was to work toward helping Canada, as an industrialized nation, take on a leadership role on the world scene. To achieve this, it was necessary to ensure that the elected Government would bring the Canadian economy back on track, promote the expansion of modern and competitive industries, and make technological progress the engine of this modernization. This would be an essential component.
After two years in Government, our record is quite impressive.
Our government has created some 563,000 jobs in Canada since September 1984, a record that no other government has been able to achieve in the past two decades. As a matter of fact, jobs are created at a faster rate in Canada than in any other OECD country.
The unemployment level is lower than it has ever been over the past four years, interests rates are substantially down and the rise in consumer prices has also been held in check.
These results clearly demonstrate that we have kept our promises. Last Wednesday, however, our Government has indicated its firm commitment to promote even more strongly the economic recovery by continuing to stabilize our public finances, taking new trade initiatives and carrying out a reform of the tax system.
My third objective, which has always been and continues to be very important to me, was to ensure a promising future for our young people by creating new jobs. That is why I see in the pursuit of a free trade agreement with the United States a major challenge for Canada. The important negotiations in which we are involved now will make it possible for Canadian corporations to enter a market twelve times bigger than our own, making it necessay for them to become more competitive, again by updating and developing new technologies. We are
158

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mrs. Duplessis
living in an era of internationalization, where our own future well-being will depend very largely upon international trade. That is why our Government is trying to find new and secure markets for our exports and carrying out bilateral negotiations with the United States. As a member of the committee on Canada's international relations which held public hearings throughout Canada, I can assure you that Canadians share our government's view that successful negotiations would guarantee future generations of Canadians a promising economic future.
Finally, my fourth objective was to make it possible for women to play a more significant role in our society. Because we represent 52 per cent of the Canadian population, it is quite normal to see to it that our interest is adequately promoted.
Our Government is quite sensitive about the advancement of women in our society; that is why in implementing the new Canadian Jobs Strategy, we will set up for the first time objectives focussing on the participation of women, greatly helping them to find a long-term and productive job.
The Throne Speech has revealed the high priority which the Government is placing on the elimination of obstacles impeding the full and free participation of women in our national life. We are happy with the significant increase we have witnessed these past few years in the number of women appointed to the highest levels of the Public Service and to various Federal boards and commissions. However, this is only a first step towards full equality. I would urge the private sector to follow this example, and we need the co-operation of the private sector to guarantee the success of our endeavour.
Adopting the employment equity principle, as outlined in the Abella Report, is entirely in line with the Government's commitment to full equality for women. The measures announced to ensure that Crown corporations, federally-regulated businesses and contractors providing goods and services to the federal Government give women and visible minorities better employment opportunities have already been adopted by the House of Commons.
Personally, 1 am one of those who firmly believe women must be encouraged to set their sights increasingly on decisionmaking and executive positions, and not only in the traditional sectors but also in the sectors of the future.
As you probably know, 1 am very interested in the high technology industry. During the last election campaign, 1 was anxious to see carried out one of the most important projects in my riding, namely the creation of a National Optical Institute at Sainte-Foy. So I was of course very proud to have the privilege of taking part, with the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec, in the official announcement made on June 5, 1986.
Mr. Speaker, the institute will provide for the creation in Canada of many new and permanent jobs and for stable economic development, both at the local, provincial, national and international levels and it is further proof of the national reconciliation that has taken place.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that women should obtain jobs in high technology sectors, and I think that this major project is a unique opportunity for them to find employment in these sectors. This project will also be a way to promote and encourage co-operation between governments, universities and the private sector in the field of research and development. This goes to show that our Government is aware of the increasing importance of developing science and technology in Canada and that it will spare no pains to promote its expansion.
Mr. Speaker, as the Member for a riding where the technology sector is a very important one, this announcement was very welcomed indeed. As a woman, as a former teacher and as a wife and mother, 1 am very glad to note that our Government has emphasized the need to eliminate obstacles to a full and free participation of women in our national life and to promote social justice and the family unit. As 1 often point out, I firmly believe that the family unit is the basis of our society. For me, family life is an essential aspect of the normal development of any individual and any society.
As stated in the Throne Speech, the Mulroney Government is resolved to defend and strenghten the institution of the Canadian family.
We in this House may have a special understanding of the importance of family life. 1 am certain that we have all realized at one time or another how difficult it is to reconcile the exigencies of a heavy workload with the desire to be with our families. We all know the importance of the support, the encouragement and the understanding we receive from our family if we are to do our job in this place.
In addition, we all understand how important it is to improve the quality of our time with our family, whatever its quantity. For most Canadians, the family is a place where there is a climate of love and trust and where each member can achieve a balance between his personal needs, the requirements of his social position and the pressures put on him by the need to get an education or to earn a living.
We ask a lot of our family unit and it asks a lot of us in return since we are responsible for ensuring its success and survival. When something threatens the family unit, there can be tragic consequences for its members. In our efforts to strengthen and support the family, we must not idealize the family unit or view it so narrowly as to exclude the experience of many Canadians. It is true that most Canadian families are what some would call traditional families. There is no doubt in my mind that when both parents participate as much as necessary and whenever possible they do the most to promote the development of their children.
However, Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that there are many single parents in our country who work hard to provide a positive family environment for their children. These men and women must meet special challenges, including what still remains of the stereotypes they represent for people with outdated attitudes. In addition, we must also recognize the role of
October 7, 1986

the women and men who have the love and understanding needed to act as step-parents.
Our society has produced many variations of the traditional family unit and entertaining a narrow view of the legitimacy and viability of these new families will not change the fact that they exist.
Of course, the family is not living in a state of perpetual harmony. The various pressures which it is exposed to both from outside and inside can potentially ruin the ability of even the best parents and that of their children to adapt. But now that the public has become aware of the problems resulting from the various types of violence against children, women and old age people, increased efforts are being made to prevent and eradicate this violence and understand its causes and consequences. 1 believe that in the difficult times we are living, we could do a lot by giving families and their members the necessary means to tap their own resources as groups and individuals.
Mr. Speaker, it is in that perspective and taking into account the fact that our society is only beginning to adjust to the new dynamics of family relationships and responsibilities, due especially to the increased number of families where both parents are working, that the Government, once the committee on child care has tabled its reports, will propose to Canadian men and women steps to make available adequate child care services.
In order to put together the best possible proposals to meet the needs of our community, discussions will be initiated with the provinces, the business communities and the unions to implement a concerted approach to child care.
As a wife of 27 years and as a mother of two children, I am delighted with this excellent initiative, because I am aware of the impediments which an active professional life can create to a rewarding family life.
Therefore, I recognize the value of the initiatives entered upon and I will wholeheartedly support any step aimed at making it easier for women to enter the labour market by providing them with the peace of mind of knowing their children are safe and well cared for.
I must also refer to the statements concerning effective action against child sexual abuse, violent forms of pornography involving women and children, child prostitution, and the serious and growing threat posed by the traffic in illegal drugs. As a former teacher, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the use of drugs by young people, having been confronted with dramatic situations in which young people would lose control of themselves and even become violent. This is why I will support any measure put forward by this Government to stop that scourge. The future of our society is at stake. The Government has already indicated it is firmly committed to taking efficient measures against the serious threat of hard drugs. To that end, we will propose a national strategy for fighting against drugs, and our Government will continue to work in this country and abroad to stop the use of drugs by
The Address-Mrs. Duplessis
amateur athletes. These men and women often serve as examples for other young people who look up to them, and often envy their success. This is why we must be especially alert in that area. Certainly all Canadian parents will welcome those initiatives. Thus we will build tomorrow's society.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say without reservation that I am very proud of the proposals contained in the Throne Speech. Those policies are a true reflection of the realistic sense of fairness and justice that is guiding the Mulroney Government. That is sound administration. The dawn of this new session is quite promising, because every Canadian man and woman are assured that the Government will spare no effort to follow up on the work already started, forge ahead on the initiatives already introduced, and introduce new ones. It is a privilege to be part of this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments? The Hon. Member for Verdun-Saint-Paul (Mr. Chartrand).


Mr. Chartrand:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make a few comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis), in order to add to her statements. She referred to high technology in Canada. The time has come in my view to realize how important it is for any civilized country, any progressive country to have very advanced technology, to increase its research and development effort, because employment will be so much better for our young people if that effort is made, if technology advances. This is what this Government has been doing since the beginning of its mandate-we have been trying to give the maximum for people to carry on the research needed, to improve on the quality of all Canadian products.
In the area of jobs, it is a fact that this Government has produced jobs at all levels over these last two years. Creating jobs can only lead to one thing: the unemployment rate goes down throughout Canada, people are happy because they can work, they can feel useful and indeed prove to their family and all their fellow citizens that they are doing something for their country, that they are making a worthy contribution. Who is the real winner in all this? If people have steady jobs, make money and are prosperous, if technology is progressing, if new products come on the market, I think that invariably the consumer stands to gain, as the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert pointed out. He or she will benefit from everything Canadians and the Government of the day have to offer.
The other major issue which she underscored is the reform of the Canadian tax system. Precious few former administrations had the nerve to acknowledge that our tax system is due for a thorough overhaul. Our Government had this in mind and came to grips with the matter so that the reform will soon take place. I would suggest that the Hon. Member displayed sound judgment when she said that the tax system reform is one of the highlights of the Speech from the Throne.

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
And then, 1 am greatly concerned about young Canadians. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert was quite right when she told the House that work is what young people are seeking now, they want to be able to work, they want to be able to study, but do so to make a success of their lives; they want something to do so they will feel useful to their fellow Canadians. What we have been giving them in the past two years is experience, practical experience which will lead to satisfactory and gainful employment, they will be able to work and feel useful in the future. There again the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert proudly pointed out that the Speech from the Throne will pave the way for more new jobs and better training for youths.
She also paid particular attention to free trade. Free trade means very long and hard negotiations, but the only people who really stand to gain anything are Canadians because we have a huge market in the United States and we must corner it, something which no previous Government, particularly the last one, tried to do. On the contrary, they were always fighting against the American Government.
With respect to foreign trade, the world at large is aware of the quality of our work and of our products. Therefore, as the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert put it, there is every reason to produce even more and export all our products, for this will create more jobs for Canadians.
Another significant issue about which she spoke at length is the role of women in our system, a very important role. As she so aptly put it, once again our Government has given women employment equity. Women will always be very sensible persons, with plenty to say not only from the back benches but from the forefront, of every society, of every Government.
There is one thing all of us are a little jealous of, and I mean the National Optical Institute which was set up in her constituency. I want to commend her for securing the National Optical Institute. This is something to be proud of. All Members in my view can be jealous of that achievement because again it points to this Government's commitment to research and technology.
Turning now to the matter of drugs, this is one of the most important subjects in the Throne Speech. It is highly important in my view that our Government should spare no effort in controlling drug abuse in Canada. This is just about the most nefarious thing for our youth, that propensity to drugs, the propensity to evasion. I therefore feel she was absolutely right in stating that the use of drugs is something that should be assailed, and this Government will do it. And I am certain we will succeed.
Finally, I want to say that I am very pleased with the speech made by the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert, and I congratulate her for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) have a comment?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: I greatly appreciate the comments made by my colleague. In his remarks, I think he left out the most important subject, that is national reconciliation, the successful discussions we will be having with Quebec so it can take its rightful place as a full partner in the Canadian federation and sign the constitutional agreement.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some remarks about the Throne Speech. First I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the position of Deputy Speaker. As well, 1 should like to congratulate the Speaker on his election last week. We on this side of the House certainly wish you and the Speaker well in your deliberations over the next two years. We as members of the Opposition are convinced that, given the co-operation of Hon. Members on all sides of the House, we can in fact make this place work a little better. We have had some difficulties in the past, but I sense a genuine willingness to make this place work and to try to cooperate with all Hon. Members.
Having said that, I should now like to turn to the Speech from the Throne, a document that was introduced to the nation last week with considerable fanfare. It seems that the bottom line is that the Speech from the Throne is simply an exercise in rhetoric. It is a lot of high-falutin phrases and promises. Given the track record of the Government, Canadians are asking themselves whether in fact the Government will deliver on the 57-odd promises contained in the Speech from the Throne. As you know, the Government decided it needed an extra month to allow Mr. Dalton Camp the opportunity to review the public opinion polls and to draft a Throne Speech that would set a new course for the Government. Given the fact that the Government needed an extra month, Canadians expected from this Throne Speech a vision for Canada, some indication from the Government where it wanted to take the country, some definitive action. Instead, what Canadians were given was simply a Throne Speech that for all intents and purposes was similar, if not identical, to the one delivered two years ago. It was a warmed-over Throne Speech. It was recycled with some consideration given to the public opinion polls.
Canadians no longer trust the Government. It is obvious from the public opinion polls that Canadians have lost trust in the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and in the Government. They made some 330 odd promises during the election campaign in 1984, and upon taking office the Government started breaking the promises one after the other.
The Prime Minister still has the audacity to speak about the Liberal record of Government of the last 16, 18 or 20 years. The Prime Minister and the Conservative Government now have a record of their own, and Canadians know what that record is all about.
October 7, 1986

To refresh the memories of Hon. Members opposite, I would like to tell them what the Conservative record of government consists of. It consists of bank failures, tuna scandals, ministerial resignations such as you have never seen before and broken promises. I do not want to waste any time being specific about the Conservative record of government, but it was clear that what was needed for this Government was major surgery. It brought in the doctor and the nurses. Dalton Camp, Atkins et al were brought in at public expense as civil servants to give advice to the Government of Canada on how it could get itself out of a very serious mess. Parliament was prorogued because the Government was adrift, wallowing in a quagmire of scandal after scandal after scandal. The plug was pulled on that session of Parliament to give the Government a fresh start. That the Government should prorogue the House would suggest a recognition that something was wrong and that the Tories wanted to embark upon a new honeymoon, if you will.
While it may have been possible for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party to hoodwink the people of Canada in the election campaign of 1984, no longer do Canadians trust the Government.
The Government in its Throne Speech talks about social justice. A Member of the government Party earlier this day made a statement that the Conservative Party is a Party with a social conscience. Really, who are the Conservatives trying to kid? There is a whole section in the Throne Speech entitled Social Justice. It is Part 4 of the Throne Speech. I challenge the Prime Minister opposite and Members of the governing Party to provide for the Opposition and for Canadians a definition of social justice and why the Conservatives think that their Party is the Party with social justice. I went to the dictionary, Mr. Speaker, and I went through some of the political material that has been written over the years to try to get an understanding of what is meant by social justice. What does the Government mean when it speaks of social justice? In order to get an understanding of what the Conservative definition of social justice is, it is important to look at the Conservative track record of Government. Let us analyse it for a moment and see what the Conservatives mean by social justice.
The Conservatives speak about deindexing senior citizens' pensions. Yes, that is a Conservative definition of social justice. If one truly believes in social justice, one does not try to deindex senior citizens' pensions. That is not just, it is not equitable and it is not fair. It was only after many weeks of national debate that the Government recognized it was unjust and it backtracked on that particular proposal. For the Government to start talking about social justice would lead one to question its credibility seriously.
Social justice, according to Mulroney-


Arnold John Malone: Order.


John V. Nunziata: -means de-indexing family allowances, which the Conservatives did. Is that fair, is it just and is it
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
equitable? Of course it is not when you have hundreds of thousands of single parents in Canada having difficulty making ends meet and the Government decides to take money away from them. That is not social justice. Is it social justice when the Conservative Party of Canada decides to take money away from families and those in need in the same Budget in which it gives a $125,000 cash bonanza to the wealthy in society? That is what the Conservatives tried to do and did. Yet they have the nerve today in the Throne Speech to talk about social justice. It is not social justice. It is not economic justice. Canadians can see through the facade. If this Conservative Government thinks it can hoodwink the people of Canada on yet another occasion, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have another thing coming because Canadians no longer trust them. The Conservatives have frittered away the mandate given to them two short years ago.


Mr. Berger:: Two long years ago.


John V. Nunziata: Two long years ago, as my friend and colleague points out. What is left of the mandate given to the Conservative Party is but bodies in the House of Commons. The Conservative Government no longer has the mandate that it received two years ago.
We have been sitting in Parliament in this session for but a few days. We have found that the Government intends to carry on with its old ways. We know that Mr. Camp et al are trying to convince the boss, the Prime Minister, not to come to the House of Commons any more, to stay separate and apart, at arm's length with the House of Commons, because they fully recognize that when the Prime Minister speaks the Conservative Party is in trouble. They have looked at the public opinion polls and told him to stay away from the House. We have been told that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) fully intends to run the nation's business on behalf of the Government of Canada. The Deputy Prime Minister was not elected by the people of Canada to carry on the functions of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was elected for that, and he has a duty to Canadians to come to the House of Commons and be accountable for the Government and answer questions put to him during Question Period.


Arnold John Malone: He has been here every day.


John V. Nunziata: What we have found over the last several days is that the Prime Minister has sat on his hands. When questions are put to him, he has refused to answer. One would have thought that, given the Sinclair Stevens scandal and the attempt to stonewall on that issue, the Government might have learned a lesson. That lesson is that it is incumbent upon the Government of the day to be forthright and provide answers to Opposition questions put in this House.
Another issue which is causing the Prime Minister and the Government some embarrassment is that of the prison which will be constructed in the Prime Minister's riding. As you know, that particular maximum security institution was

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
scheduled to be built in Drummondville. That location was chosen on the basis that it met certain criteria and on the basis that the new institution would complement the existing institution in Drummondville. That is why the original institution was built where it was, in comtemplation of a second phase. However, the Prime Minister decides he has to help the people of Baie Comeau, Port-Cartier, and Manicoua-gan, the people of his riding, because he made a lot of promises during the election campaign and he has to deliver. So what does he do? He calls the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) and tells them to move the prison to his riding. As if they had not already had enough, he wanted a $60 million prison built in his riding.
What is the cost to Canadians of this decision to help out the Prime Minister? We know it will cost $15.8 million more in construction costs. That is a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. That is not the end of it. It will also cost an additional $3 million a year in operating costs. Where is this Government's sense of economic justice and fairness? To satisfy the Prime Minister, the taxpayers of Canada are being forced to pay an additional $15.8 million in construction costs and an additional $3.3 million every year in maintenance costs. The Auditor General is examining that decision and he will be submitting a report to Parliament on October 21. There is no question that he will be severely criticizing the Government for that decision.


Arnold John Malone: How do you know?


John V. Nunziata: Simple logic tells you, my friend, that if you move a prison in order to satisfy the Prime Minister's wishes at an additional cost of $15.8 million, the Auditor General is going to be highly critical of that decision.
That again leads me to question the credibility of this Government. It seems to be concerned about the deficit. We on this side of the House recognize that it is important to be fiscally responsible.


Arnold John Malone: When did you think of that?


John V. Nunziata: Yet the Government is prepared to fritter away $15.8 million initially and $3 million annually because of the Prime Minister. Yet does he have the nerve to stand up in the House and answer questions? No, he does not. He does not have the courage or the backbone to stand up and try to defend that decision.


Arnold John Malone: 1 rise on a point of order. First, to suggest that any Member of this House lacks courage is unparliamentary and Beauchesne's will show that to be the case. Second, any review of Hansard for the past week will show that the Prime Minister has answered questions every day. The Hon. Member says he answered no questions. That kind of misrepresentation ought not to be allowed to stand in Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not consider the points raised by the Hon. Member to be points of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Hon. Member is res ipsa loquitur. I will stack my credibility and integrity against the Prime Minister's any day.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Any day, my friend.


Arnold John Malone: What a mouldy bottom of the stack you would make.


John V. Nunziata: The Prime Minister also indicated in this House, and I know he did not intend-


Arnold John Malone: You do not deserve to be here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We have been doing well for the past week. Let us continue, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I know Members opposite are getting a little bit-


Arnold John Malone: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot.


John V. Nunziata: Indeed, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). They are getting a little bit touchy, but when one starts striking at the truth, the reaction we get is obvious.


Arnold John Malone: You could not spell "truth" if we gave you the five letters.


John V. Nunziata: All I can say is res ipsa loquitur.
The Prime Minister said to this House on Friday that there was a 37 per cent unemployment rate in Port-Cartier. 1 know he did not intentionally mislead Hon. Members. I know it was a mistake. The unemployment rate in Port-Cartier is not 37 per cent or 38 per cent as the Prime Minister said in this House and elsewhere as the reason for justifying the decision to relocate the prison. The unemployment rate, if he should check the record, is 15.8 per cent. He was either being innocently naive or deliberately dishonest, but I am not going to suggest he was deliberately dishonest because it would not be appropriate to do so.
You are indicating that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I would be prepared to answer any questions from my hon. friends and colleagues opposite. The Speech from the Throne leaves something to be desired. As you know, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has moved an amendment to the Throne Speech indicating non-confidence in the Government of Canada. All I can say is that while we may not have the numbers in here to succeed on that particular amendment, 1 am convinced we have the numbers in the country to defeat this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) on a question or comment.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech the Government indicated its desire and intention to rid this nation
October 7, 1986

of pornography, particularly hard core and violent pornography. I just want to ask the Hon. Member, given his speech today, if he would indicate to the House whether we have his support in our efforts to eradicate that serious problem in this country?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that the Official Opposition fully supports effective legislation to deal with the problems of pornography in Canada. In fact, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, 1 responded to the legislation introduced to the nation before the summer. 1 indicated then, and I will indicate again, that we in the Liberal Party believe there is no penalty harsh enough for those who would sexually abuse children. There is no penalty severe enough to deal with those who would resort to pornography, violence and degradation. We fully intend to support any legislation brought forward which will combat the problem of pornography in Canada. We are committed to that goal.
The Government said in its Throne Speech that it is committed to stopping the importation of pornography into Canada and that it is declaring war on pornography and drugs. However, let us examine what it has done over the last number of months which will make it much easier to import pornography and drugs into Canada. The Government has adopted a new honour system within the Post Office. Parcels coming into Canada no longer have to be picked up by the addressee. The Post Office now delivers the parcel and subsequently invoices the individual for the duty. We all know that that will make it much easier for smugglers to bring more illicit drugs and pornography into Canada. The Government also cut 120 custom inspectors. If the Government is serious about the control of pornography and illicit drugs, it should increase the number of customs inspectors. The Government should rescind its decision on a new postal honour system which will make it easier to import narcotics into the country.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) with respect to the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to move the proposed prison at Drummond-ville, Quebec, to Port-Cartier in his own constituency. Many of us in the House share a sense of concern at this waste of taxpayers' money, both in terms of capital cost and of annual operating costs. There is as well, Mr. Speaker, the question of the remote location of this prison. It is far away from the families of prisoners and from the support services which are so necessary.
I think the Hon. Member for York South-Weston will want to look a little further back in history than to the Port Cartier decision. Canadians remember very clearly that a Liberal Government made exactly the same decision with respect to the prison at Renous in the Province of New Brunswick. Another prison was to be built adjacent to Dorchester penitentiary but because of blatant political patronage on the part of the then Liberal Member for
The Address-Mr. Nunziata
Miramichi, who is no longer in the House, at substantial additional cost to the taxpayers of Canada the Atlantic institution was being constructed at Renous. Lo and behold, that prison as well was far away from the necessary support services and involved substantial additional costs.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston is quite right to say that the Auditor General is examining the decision with respect to the prison at Port-Cartier. I suspect that the Auditor General will also have a thing or two to say about the waste of taxpayers' money involved in constructing the Atlantic institution at Renous, New Brunswick, for blatant political reasons as well.
Let us cut the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party on the issue of the location of prisons. They did the same thing when they were in power as the Conservative Government is doing today. That is why it is time for a real change in this country to an NDP Government to end these phoney arguments.


John V. Nunziata: You have to hand it to the NDP, Mr. Speaker, they like to dream. We recognize the criticism which was leveled at our administration when we were in office. We did something about it. We commissioned an inquiry into the issue of the location of prisons in Canada. I know the Hon. Member is extremely familiar with the Carson Report. It was tabled in this House on November 30, 1984. That commission recommended that correctional institutions in Canada be located based on correctional considerations rather than on a need in the Prime Minister's riding or on political patronage. The Government has failed to respond to the recommendations of the Carson Report. It has also failed to respond to the report of the Nielsen task force which recommended a moratorium on all prison construction.
We recognize that Canada has one of the highest incarceration rates in the western world. The goal is to reduce the prison population in Canada. Of course, we must keep those who present a danger to society incarcerated, but we must try to reduce the prison population because of the extraordinary costs involved in constructing prisons and keeping inmates incarcerated. It costs $40,000 a year to keep an individual in jail and in excess of $70,000 to build an additional prison cell.
We on this side of the House adopt the recommendation of the Carson Report and that of the Nielsen task force report. We believe that there should be a moratorium on all future prison construction and that we should direct our efforts toward finding ways of decreasing the prison population in Canada.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member of the Liberal Party from Toronto speak so strongly against regional development initiatives. This confirms the long-held suspicion that Atlantic Canadians had about the Liberal Government which was in Ottawa for the last two decades. The Liberals do not want to spend any money to bring about regional economic development. The Hon. Member cited the figure of $15 million and suggested that

October 7, 1986
The Address-Miss McDougall
such a cost should not be paid for regional development initiatives.
The Member spoke about the isolation of the inmates and the lack of support services. Is he not aware that the people of northern Quebec must leave their homes and their support systems to find employment? Atlantic Canadians have done this for decades as well.
This position is, of course, supported by the New Democratic Party, which perhaps best explains why we have not been successful in the last two decades in solving the regional economic development problems of Atlantic Canada.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member has given me the opportunity to remark further upon the issue of the Port-Cartier prison. As I indicated in my original remarks, the unemployment rate in the Port-Cartier region is 15.8 per cent. 1 am not for a moment suggesting that I support the placing of prisons based on regional economic disparity. However, if you want to locate a prison using that consideration, surely you would not place it in Port-Cartier where the unemployment rate is 15.8 per cent, but rather in Cape Breton where the unemployment rate is 25 or 30 per cent. 1 am surprised that the Hon. Member has not stood up for Atlantic Canada in order to receive more funding for his part of the country in view of the extraordinarily high rate of unemployment there.
In closing 1 would like to point out that if the location of this maximum security institution was based on correctional considerations we would note that there is no double-bunking in the Province of Quebec. However, in the Atlantic region, in Ontario, in the prairie provinces, and in the Pacific region there is considerable double-bunking. Therefore, if you want to build a prison based on need, you would not build it in Quebec.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today, particularly following the address by the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I think there are some things the people of Canada would like to hear about social justice, particularly the women of Canada whom I intend to address.
This is my first statement in the House since 1 was named Minister responsible for the Status of Women. 1 want to make it quite clear how delighted I am to be carrying issues forward on behalf of Canadian women, the issues and the people 1 have been closest to and have cared about the most all my life.
Before turning to the details of the Throne Speech, let me remind Hon. Members that this month marks the fifty-seventh anniversary of the Persons Case, the famous court decision which granted the status of a person to women and thus made them eligible for appointment to the other place. In 1979, the Persons Awards were established and these awards recognize
outstanding contributions toward advancing the status of women in Canada.
I am proud to inform the House that this year's recipients of Persons Awards have just been named. They are Elizabeth Carr of Don Mills, the Hon. Muriel Fergusson of Fredericton, Denyse Rochon of Montreal, Berenice Sisler of Winnipeg, and Helen Yeo of Charlottetown.
Today's women are now officially persons and we, in our day and age, cannot imagine it otherwise. However, there are still many areas where it is difficult for women to be fully accepted as we would like them to be, as persons throughout our society. Our Government is committed to ensuring that across every spectrum women are indeed persons with equal rights and equal opportunities.
The view of the Government, as confirmed in the Speech from the Throne, is that issues of concern to women are an integral part of all our objectives; national reconciliation, economic renewal, social justice and constructive internationalism. Whether we are talking about science and technology or about regional development, our Government is committed to ensuring that women are equal beneficiaries of and participants in government programs and initiatives. The particular priorities outlined in the Speech from the Throne as well as those already under way are child care, immigrant women, pornography, and wife battering.
1 am very proud to say that last week's Throne Speech represents another step forward in our Government's comprehensive package of initiatives for women. There is no simple definition of women's issues. They are variously described now as social issues, family issues, societal issues, and social justice issues. However, let us always remember that the issues we are talking about were put on the agenda many years ago and put on that agenda by women. They were not well addressed by former Governments. We recognize, of course, that the complexity of these concerns requires a variety of responses, a variety of solutions. We have worked hard to ensure that issues of particular concern to women are part of our cabinet discussions and that we seek women's views in our economic policy development at every stage.
We put a high priority on removing the barriers that have prevented women from participating freely and equitably in the mainstream of Canadian life. We came into office with a plan to meet that priority, and two years ago we announced that plan in our first Speech from the Throne. Since then we have built a solid record of achievements, and now we are moving forward again. We are using those achievements as a base to continue our efforts to address women's inequality.
Let me name just a few areas where we have already made some substantial progress. In the first Speech from the Throne, our Government made a commitment to pension reform. Since then, we have moved quickly toward the goal of ensuring a more secure retirement income for all Canadians, but especially for women who are hardest hit by poverty as they grow older. In my last portfolio as Minister of State for Finance I
October 7, 1986

worked very closely with my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to put an end to 10 long years of debate on pensions and to forge an historic pension agreement with the provinces. As a result, beginning in January, 1987, Canadians will receive improved benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, including mandatory credit splitting on marriage breakdown. We have made other pension changes to ensure earlier vesting, portability and better pensions for women in employer sponsored pension plans.
In another area, we will give first priority in this new session to legislation authorizing prepayment in November of the 1986 child tax credit. We have pressed forward as well with our ongoing commitment to women in the labour market where they have often lacked opportunity to work and contribute at full capacity. Our employment equity legislation has been designed to counter the long years of women's underemployment and to give women a chance to capitalize on their abilities. Through employment equity, we have taken an important first step in ensuring that companies under federal jurisdiction meet the challenge and reap the benefits of being equal opportunity employers.
We have also amended the Indian Act to remove its discriminatory references to native women, and passed legislation to facilitate the enforcement of support payments. In keeping with our earlier commitments, we brought forward women's concerns at all national discussion tables and will continue this when First Ministers meet next month in Vancouver.
Our Government is proud of that progress. But we know there is still much to do. It is clear that problems faced by women cannot be solved overnight, but we have acted faster and more sensibly than the previous Governments, and we will continue to do so.
The last decade has witnessed deep changes in labour market structures in this country. The massive influx of women in the labour force, especially mothers of young children, has changed our economic and family life. Women still shoulder the heaviest part of the burden of family responsibilities.
In our first Throne Speech, we committed ourselves to giving women equal access to the labour market. True to that commitment, we have established a parliamentary committee on child care. We have made sure that the committee has everything it needs to complete its work and we are impatiently looking forward to the tabling of its report next month. The report will be our plan of action in the field of day care. The recommendations of the parliamentary committee will guide us in our discussions with women's associations, the provinces, business circles and labour unions.
The Speech from the Throne has reaffirmed the conviction of this Government that time has come indeed to have women
The Address-Miss McDougall
participate fully in all stages of the decision-making process. We were committed to increasing the number of women appointed to various federal councils, boards and agencies, and we have gone a long way towards that goal. Already, more than 25 per cent of our discretionary appointments involved women. We have also intensified our efforts to increase the number of women in the upper echelons of the public service. Right now, 381 women are among senior management in the Public Service. When we came into office there were only three women at the deputy minister level; we now have seven, including some who were appointed more than once over the past two years. As deputy ministers, all these women hold key positions. My own Deputy Minister for privatization is Mrs. Janet Smith. Our Government is determined to set an example for the private sector of a fair and equitable administration.
And now, Mr. Speaker, allow me to emphasize the determination of our Government to give women more ready access to better employment opportunities. For too long now the labour market has taken advantage of the fact that women are underpaid. We must help them leave the traditional job ghettos and secure jobs which are fully consistent with their experience, their education and their aspirations.

We are determined to ensure that women receive fair compensation for their work. Within the next few weeks the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be publishing additional guidelines to facilitate compliance by employers to implement the legislation requiring equal pay for work of equal value in federally-regulated industries. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), is working very closely with Public Service unions to fully implement this legislation within the federal Public Service.

When we came to power two years ago, we quickly realized that federal employment programs did not meet the needs of Canadian women. We immediately undertook a complete review of these programs and replaced them with a new training and employment strategy known as the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
The positive effects of this initiative are now starting to be felt. For the first time, the federal employment strategy includes employment equity measures such as targets for women's participation. These targets have helped women and unemployed people find lasting and productive employment.
Over the next two years, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of our programs, to make sure that Canadian women fully avail themselves of these training possibilities.
While dealing with training, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that I met this morning here in Ottawa my provincial and territorial counterparts. We discussed ways by which the two levels of Government could co-operate to improve training programs available to women. The results of our discussions will be submitted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and

October 7, 1986
The Address-Miss McDougall
the provincial premiers to be examined next month at the next First Ministers' Conference.

My Government fully intends to tap and build on the economic strengths of women. In recent years we have seen a large number of women launch small businesses of their own. We are taking steps to encourage further and nurture the entrepreneurial spirit which has been shown not just by men but by the women of Canada. We intend to simplify regulations, improve procurement procedures and strengthen the Unsolicited Proposals Program for small countries and entrepreneurs.
I have spoken at some length about the measures we intend to take to address women's economic inequality. However, 1 want to stress that our commitment to women includes social justice, and that is equally firm. As the Speech from the Throne stated, we are dedicated to the pursuit of one goal, that of a modern, tolerant and caring nation in which its citizens are secure and prosperous. To this end we intend to bring before the House some important legislative initiatives to support and strengthen the institution of the Canadian family, among them the introduction of measures to end violent and degrading forms of pornography involving women and men, legislation to take effective action against child sexual abuse. We intend to address the problem of child prostitution and initiatives against the traffic in illicit drugs, which will help to improve the quality of life for Canadian families, for Canadian parents and, in particular, for Canadian young people.

Over the past several months, our Government has been working to develop a national strategy to completely wipe out the drug abuse problem in our society. As my colleague has already indicated, the problem of drugs, especially the illegal ones, has been aggravated by the existence of an international distribution network, contributing to a growing social crisis.
Our Government recognizes that this problem is not limited to the illegal drugs, but results also from the abuse of various chemical substances and medication. Unfortunately, this abuse problem is widespread and affects much too many Canadian men and women throughout this country. Accordingly, the Government will devote a lot of time and energy to solving this urgent problem. We will put the emphasis on public awareness and education generally and the rehabilitation of drug abuse victims.

A great many social justice issues affecting women require joint federal-provincial action. We have worked very hard to establish a good working relationship with the provinces. Federal, provincial and territorial working groups have been set up to facilitate joint action in the areas of child care and wife battering. We intend to continue and enhance these relationships to take effective action in other areas of mutual concern. One pressing area which I will be discussing with my provincial colleagues concerns the needs of immigrant and visible minority women. I am looking forward to taking part in
a national conference to be held in Winnipeg in November to address these concerns of immigrant and visible minority women which are special among the needs of women as a whole.
We also intend to work closely with the provinces to provide assistance to the victims of crime, and I firmly believe there must be a stronger sense of the special needs of women as victims of crime, as well as support for police programs to prevent crimes against women. Clearly, this will be a full and productive session of Parliament and, as Minister responsible for the Status of Women, 1 intend to ensure that women continue to make progress. I will do my utmost in that direction. I seek the support of all Hon. Members of the House in achieving that goal. After all, women make up half of our population. That is common knowledge. At the same time, our Government recognizes that half the talent in Canada, therefore, also rests with women. We as a Government, and as a country, intend to assemble this talent and provide opportunities for its meaningful expression in the home, the workplace and at all of the tables in our Government in dealing with our future because we know that as a country we need that talent. We need its creative expressions and we will be the poorer if we do not use it.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I welcomed the words of our Minister as she expressed her concerns for women. I listened with a great deal of interest. I sincerely hope the agenda which she laid out will be realized, and the sooner the better.
If I may correct just one point, the Minister said that women make up 50 per cent, or half the population. It is a miniscule point, but we are 52 per cent. As a majority, therefore, I sometimes wonder if we have forgotten that we have a majority of talent which needs to be used in the most constructive way.
There were a number of issues my colleague referred to in the House. I am curious to know how she would respond to those particular issues. She talked about social justice, about a modern and tolerant nation, and a society which would be built with the best interests of this partnership in mind. I think that is a fine goal. However, if that is the Minister's goal, and I think it probably is, I would like to see some amendment of attitude and a different kind of attitude and thought with respect to issues which do impact upon women. For example, I would like to see the kind of mentality which would suggest that the deindexing of the Old Age Security would indicate a lack of appreciation of the fact that the majority of people over 65 years, and particularly those over 75 years, are women. The obscenity of our generation and our society is the poverty in which women live today, particularly older women. It is really key that this issue be addressed, especially in terms of the deindexation of the old age pension, which was tried and, fortunately, did not succeed, and in terms of the deindexation of the family allowance and the cut-back with respect to the child tax credit. The measures primarily affected middle-income families. They had a definite impact on that level of our society, and it is of great concern. The Minister talked
October 7, 1986

about putting these social justice issues on the parliamentary agenda.
I would refer the Minister to another piece of legislation which her Government brought forward, namely, Bill C-62, the Bill dealing with employment equity. I hoped it would have teeth in it in order that it could actually promote the role of women, native people, immigrants and the handicapped so that they could obtain justice and equity. Unfortunately, all the right words are there but the Government has taken no concrete action. When legislation has no teeth in it, nothing remains but hollow promises. I hope the Minister will watch this area over the next year and bring forward the type of amendments that will put the needed teeth into it, especially in terms of punishing people for not acting as opposed to not filing a report.
1 would now like to deal with the child care program. 1 see across the way one of my colleagues who sat on the committee which prepared the Equality for All Report. The committee travelled across the country at great cost to Canadians. It was an important undertaking. We heard about the basic building blocks to allowing women, in particular immigrants and native women and families, the partners in society, the right to equal access and equal opportunity. That right comes with child care, regardless of the type. Quality affordable care enables these women to enter the market-place. It is well known that a family today needs two incomes to meet the family budget. Our task force looked at the subject, as did the Cooke task force. It has been under consideration since Senator Florence Bird chaired the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which was set up in 1968. Since that time it has been a major plank in the discussion, and one about which we are still talking. 1 know that we each build on the strength of the other, but since the release of the last task force report, the time has come to promise at least some new dollars, not recycled ones, for the area of child care.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Will the Minister please reply.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for the hopefulness that she expressed concerning my role in the Government. 1 can assure her that it is well placed-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I was about to go on to say that it is well placed because I know I have the support of my cabinet colleagues for the measures we wish to undertake, and the support of the Prime Minister.
In dealing with the Hon. Member's last point first, let me say that the Government and I regard child care as a major priority. It is an issue which has been around for a long time in my life, even before the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. It was a silent issue for many years. I agree with the
The Address-Miss McDougall
Hon. Member when she says that it should be a priority of the Government. It was very much a forward looking part of the Speech from the Throne. I would be disappointed if the Hon. Member expected the Government to move ahead of the parliamentary task force which, as I understand, is doing some extraordinarily good work in this area. I am looking forward very much to seeing what will be contained in the report. I think it will round out the examination which can be carried out at our level. It is something on which the Government is fully committed to move forward. I agree with the Hon. Member that there is no point in having equal pay for work of equal value if one cannot get out the door. There is no point in having good training programs if one cannot get out the door. This is an issue which we fully intend to look into.
The Hon. Member raised the issue of employment equity and of there not being any teeth in the program. We are somewhat ahead of the Hon. Member in that we are monitoring the progress of the program, and we will continue to do so. I am proud to say that this approach is working. Things are happening. Putting teeth into legislation without allowing people a chance to respond is inappropriate. The Hon. Member knows as well as 1 do that once something is put into legislation it is difficult to remove it. The Government's hope is that by the time the Hon. Member and I are older and looking back on our political careers this type of action will not be necessary. At that time Canadians will take it for granted that women are equal participants because of the things we are doing today, things which are being done by this Government.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on her appointment as Minister responsible for the Status of Women. It is obviously a key portfolio. I have two brief questions for the Minister.
The Minister referred to the Government's commitment with respect to pornography legislation. Specifically, she referred to the Government's intention to move forward in terms of violent and degrading pornography. Does this mean that the Government will not proceed with the other element in the Bill of the former Minister of Justice which dealt with what has been called explicit erotic pornography involving adults in which there is no violence and no degradation but consensual adult activity? Is it the intent of the Government to move away from the repressive proposals in the Bill put forward by the former Minister of Justice?
My second question is in respect of another area of glaring inequality affecting women. 1 refer to the current abortion laws in Canada, laws which effectively deny women in the Provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, as well as many women in other parts of the country, access to safe therapeutic abortions. Instead of being coached by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) perhaps she could address these two important concerns of Canadian women.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, with regard to pornography, as the Hon. Member knows, and 1 thank him for raising this

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Riis
issue, it has been the subject of fairly lively public debate. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has said publicly that he is reviewing this issue. I know for a fact that he is undertaking such a review. He has said that he will be looking at some of the questions concerning the area of definitions.
I would also like to tell the Hon. Member that when one enters into this type of issue, no matter where the line is drawn someone will say that we have gone too far and someone else will say that we have not gone far enough. I caution the Hon. Member by saying to him that when the Minister of Justice comes back, after having reviewed the issue, this debate will go on no matter where that line is drawn. I think that the point which is important to the women of Canada is that we are committed to doing something about violent and degrading pornography.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: With respect to the Hon. Member's second issue, once again, it is an important one for Canadian women. As the Hon. Member knows, the issue is presently before the courts. It is a matter which 1 will be watching with great interest, as 1 know he will be, and all Members of the House will be. However, until it is dealt with I would prefer not to comment on the issue.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how she will move in her own caucus to assure the promotion of women when, in the Public Service, we have seen a nomination which is a very politicizing one for women since Maureen O'Neil left this particular sector. CBC had two nominations open and the Government named two men to the positions. If we want to move women into these sectors based on credibility and confidence, and when sex stereotyping in the media is such a serious issue, then the CBC board could do with some women on it.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is not suggesting that all those Liberals who were appointed for years and years were incompetent.


Mr. Forrestall:: You cannot have it both ways.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The new co-ordinator of the Status of Women is one of the most highly regarded activists in the women's movement in this country. I am proud that Kay Stanley is reporting to me. With respect to appointments in the Public Service, 1 can read to the Hon. Member the list of deputy ministers, all of whom are highly qualified. I refer to Margaret Catley-Carlson, Treasury Board; Huguette Labelie at the Public Service Commission; Maureen Law at National Health and Welfare; Jennifer McQueen at the Department of Labour; Genevieve Sainte-Marie at Environment Canada; and Georgina Wyman at the Department of Supply and Services. I think this is a record of which we can be very proud. I think we can be equally proud of the other appointments of women we have made. I look at the boards and commissions of the
Government and the women who have been appointed to them. First of all, the percentage has increased-


Sheila Finestone: Just because they drive cars on an Air Canada board?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Director of Air Canada was the mayor of a major Canadian municipality and a highly qualified woman. The percentage of women appointed through Governor in Council appointments has increased from under 18 per cent under the previous Government to 25 per cent today. I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that we are, therefore, doing a good job at some of these appointments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in my seat in the House of Commons with a very, very heavy heart. I, like many, many Canadians, feel betrayed. I am saddened by the actions of a Government which has, in a sense, turned its back on the people of Canada.
Over the summer while Members of Parliament were in their own home constituencies, we were telling our constituents that we were awaiting a new Throne Speech from the Government. As a matter of fact, the Government asked us to take an extra month to enable it to prepare a thoughtful Throne Speech that would indicate a new direction for Canada. The people of Canada were anxiously awaiting this Throne Speech because they really believed and hoped that the Government would show a new direction for the country to take and would be taking Canada on a new course. They hoped the Government would be establishing a new and clear direction for our future.
The people of Canada were hoping that there would for the first time be a new vision of what one of the richest countries on the face of the earth could accomplish in the next weeks, months and years ahead. However, when the Governor General read the Speech from the Throne, that was not there. It really only provided for the status quo continuing in the future. There was no direction, no clear idea of where the country was going.
As a Canadian, and particularly as a western Canadian from the interior of British Columbia, I was looking to see if there was something in the Throne Speech that would indicate a commitment to providing assistance to the hard-pressed mining and exploration industries. There was nothing like that there. I was looking for some indication that the Government had intended to take seriously the plight facing the forest industry of Canada. There was nothing in the Throne Speech for the forest industry. There was nothing in it to assist the tourist sector and the farmers and hard-pressed cattle ranchers of western Canada. There was nothing in it of particular interest to the small business sector or to small manufacturers, particularly those in the regions struggling during these very difficult economic times.
October 7, 1986

It was a real disappointment, Mr. Speaker. That can be added on to months and months of disappointments. I suppose we were hoping for a Government that cared, that had integrity and that would be honest with the people of Canada.
I remember hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) time and time again say that we are going to have to change this system of patronage. In the famous debates of 1984, he went on at some length about patronage. Have things changed? They have changed. They have gotten worse. Now we find that the Prime Minister is appointing well-known, high profile Canadian Tories like Dalton Camp to the Privy Council Office, not a political office but a government office.
Then the Prime Minister said that the kind of pork-barreling to which we have grown accustomed under the Liberals would have to change. We have seen unbelievable levels of pork-barreling in Canada of late. The most obvious example that has received much consideration recently is the intervention on the part of the Prime Minister to move a prison into his own constituency, a constituency in Quebec that has already received tens of millions of dollars worth of federal support. I would ask my friends opposite, particularly those from the regions of Canada, have their constituencies received tens of millions of dollars worth of federal Government support? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case, but the Prime Minister's constituency has.
We have seen the arts of patronage and pork-barreling taken to a new level. I remember the Prime Minister of Canada pointing to the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and saying that the kind of political office that he had created by surrounding himself with 60 political hacks would have to change. No longer would that be appropriate under a new Conservative Government. He was right. It was not appropriate. The present Prime Minister has doubled his staff and now has 120 political hacks surrounding him.
When we consider the kinds of changes the new Government has brought in, we find that it has essentially worsened the situation that we came to know under the previous Liberal administration. I as a British Columbian am particularly concerned with the lack of action shown in the Throne Speech.
British Columbians have been hardest hit by an uncaring Government. British Columbians have had their lives set back many, many decades as a result of the programs of the provincial Government. Something happened just the other day, hard on the heels of an already very harmful step taken by the federal Government which, through Bill C-96, significantly cut back on post-secondary education. Millions and millions of dollars that traditionally would have gone to the provinces to help train young people were cut back. Provinces like British Columbia will, in the next five years, have cuts from transfers for post-secondary education in excess of $60 million.
What was the reaction to that on the part of the Minister responsible for post-secondary education under the Vander Zalm Government in British Columbia? The Minister, Russ
The Address-Mr. Riis
Fraser, said, as reported in the Vancouver Province of Sunday, October 5:
Poor people should go to school only if they can afford it-
-Russ Fraser, the minister responsible for post-secondary education, says it may be time people changed their priorities.
"Maybe they should put off their education if they can't afford it,"-
This is from an individual from the Province of British Columbia who has been given responsibility for post-secondary education. He is saying that if one is not from a relatively wealthy family and cannot afford education, then one should forget it for now. This is occurring in one of the richest parts of one of the richest countries in the world. The Minister of postsecondary education is telling us that we are going to have an elitist system and that only people from relatively wealthy families will now be able to benefit from post-secondary educational opportunities.
Mir. Robinson: He's a Tory.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He is a Conservative. I would like to tell my friends opposite that if they do not change their minds and start bringing in programs that will help compensate for the regressive legislation in the Province of British Columbia which is being brought in by the Social Credit Government, they ought to heed the advice of one of their former colleagues, Mr. John Reynolds. Mr. John Reynolds sat in this House for some time. He recently ran for the leadership of the Social Credit Party in British Columbia. He was not successful, but he did say that the Prime Minister understands only one thing, polls, and that the federal Government takes 12 per cent from British Columbia and gives only 3 to 4 per cent back in terms of federal procurement. "The Prime Minister said he would change", said Mr. Reynolds, "but he let us down and he ignored British Columbia". He said that nothing has changed from the previous Liberal administration and if the Tories don't change their programs, there will not be a single Tory Member of Parliament elected from the Province of British Columbia.
I think John Reynolds was right. Unless the policies of this Government change in favour of the regions of Canada and in favour of all Canadians, there will be no Conservatives elected from these parts of the country.


Arnold John Malone: Reynolds for Leader of the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: 1 hear sniping from the benches opposite. Unfortunately, the Minister who spoke recently has just left. I was going to remind her of the kind of morality that her Government presumably brings to Canada.
a (1640)
Not long ago in a speech in the City of Toronto the Minister was quoted in a major metropolitan newspaper as saying "There's one underlying motive in business shared by all-it's greed". She also said: "There's nothing wrong with that. We support it wherever it happens". That was the then Minister of State for Finance saying that the Conservatives supported

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Riis
greed whenever they could and wherever it occurred, that that was the motivating force in the country. 1 want to dissociate myself and my Party from that position; we do not believe that greed is a motivating force or that it ought to be supported wherever and whenever it happens.
We have many concerns when it comes to the practices of the Government. We notice that today increasing numbers of Canadians find it very difficult to pursue post-secondary educational plans, whether it be in a vocational school, a technical school, an institute, a college, or a university. This is especially so in the Province of British Columbia where the provincial Government has seen fit to cut back on grants to students, making it an almost exclusive responsibility of the federal Government's loan program. It is not uncommon for young people to be graduating from our post-secondary institutions with $25,000 to $30,000 of debt and being unable to find employment in the areas for which they were trained.
I find it rather odd that Governments which say that they cannot afford to maintain support for post-secondary education, such as the present federal Government or the Government of British Columbia which says that it must cut back on post-secondary education, can find substantial amounts of money for selected groups. I remind my friends and colleagues that it was only over a weekend that the Government was able to commit itself to $1 billion of taxpayers' money to assist a number of uninsured depositors and to help bail out two Canadian banks. Who were those depositors? There was a number of small depositors; there is no question that we ought to have assisted them. However, should we have assisted the Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, the Bank of New York, and the Bank of Japan? They were large international banks which had millions and millions on deposit. In some cases they had in excess of $25 million on deposit. Should we have used taxpayers' money to support and bail out those depositors? I think not. If a Government can find $1 billion over a weekend to assist such depositors, surely to goodness that same Government should be able to support young people in post-secondary educational institutions to develop their talents and expertise.
As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia I am particularly concerned about the actions of our Premier of late. Canada had a case before the International Trade Commission, before the Department of Commerce, in response to a countervail threat which would in fact result in the loss of somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 jobs in the Canadian forest industry. The Premier of British Columbia decided to indulge in some public musings. He and his Minister responsible for forests went around the province saying that perhaps our stumpage rates were too low, that perhaps we were subsidizing our industry, and that perhaps we should carry out a review. That forced the federal Government, the industry, the unions, and the provinces involved in this countervail threat to make an eleventh hour proposal to try to rescue this sabotage effort by the Premier of British Columbia. The American forest companies have responded with a no, now
that the Canadians have essentially admitted to unfair trade practices. One American Senator said that Canada had been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. They have now got us, in that essentially the Government of Canada, at the encouragement of and in response to the initiative taken by the Premier of British Columbia, was forced to concede that we were guilty before the verdict had been delivered.
It is of concern to us all when we consider to what extent this is a fair and caring Government. What kind of Government would introduce legislation, as the present Government plans to do, which would result in additional drug costs to Canadians of up to $650 million per year by 1995? The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association tells us that if the patent law legislation is brought forward and passed, the people of Canada will be paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for their drugs each year. That will place a very heavy burden not only upon our various health institutions across the country but particularly upon elderly Canadians. Again that is something a fair, caring, and concerned Government would not be introducing, to say nothing of the unemployment insurance changes which were brought in where people who had paid into the insurance for years and years were unable to take advantage of it as a result of legislation. It is a bit like purchasing fire insurance on one's home and not being able to collect it if the home burns down. In the spirit of fairness that provision should have been deleted, certainly removed retroactively.
On a daily basis we hear of our farming sector being in grave difficulty. I know from speaking to the people who produce food in my own constituency that they are under extreme pressure. However, one of the major programs brought in by the Government does not provide assistance, support, or long-term low interest money. It provides money for people to get out of farming. In other words, the Government wants the number of family farms to be reduced. It wants people to get out of farming. Essentially, if we continue as we are today, the agricultural sector of Canada will be left to the large corporate sector, and we will have agri-business in place at the expense of the family farm.
What about the promise of the Polar 8 ice-breaker contract to British Columbia? We could argue about it, but the previous Minister said that an announcement was coming shortly. The previous Minister of Transport indicated that tenders would be restricted to West Coast shipyards. We waited for weeks and weeks, months and months, and as late as today the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) still had nothing to say about keeping that government commitment of many months ago to the people of British Columbia.
What about real support for reforestation, silviculture, fisheries enhancement, or for the development of urban infrastructure? Today we heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) say that they wanted to assist in real job development in Canada. There is no better way for the Government of Canada to invest in the future of Canada and to provide serious long-term training opportunities
October 7, 1986

than to invest money in reforestation projects, in fisheries enhancement projects, in urban infrastructure developments across the country, and in assistance to West Coast shipyards through the contract for the Polar 8 ice-breaker. These are the kinds of initiatives which the Government could take at this point. They would not be make-work programs. They would not be spending money; they would be investing money in the future of Canada. Rather than having hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are dependent upon UIC or welfare, they could be gainfully employed in long-term jobs and could contribute to the future of Canada.
We have urged the Government on a daily basis to take that kind of approach, yet all we see are cuts and cuts. The Minister of Employment also said that the regions would have to fend for themselves. The Throne Speech indicated a concern about unemployment in the regions of the country and that another bureaucratic structure would be created in Atlantic Canada. There was no money, no support, no financial endorsement; just the creation of another system of bureaucracy. That will not result in economic development, new economic opportunities, and consequently long-term jobs.
The people of Canada wanted to see some action and some commitment. For years and years under the previous Liberal administration we saw very little in terms of any direction for Canada. People were sick and tired of the floundering around. They wanted more than a Throne Speech which tried to cover all political bases to allow the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet and members of the Government to go out and say: "We are concerned about you. We are interested in your region, your particular part of Canada". Rather than try to cover all political bases, the Government ought to have identified three or four critical areas so that the people of Canada would perceive a clear direction unfolding. We did not see that. The Government says that it cannot afford it. We can afford it in part through a reform of the tax system. We have found out that 79,000 corporations were profitable over the last number of years and did not pay a single cent in income tax in some years.
We see the unfairness of the tax system evolve. Rather than 50/50 per cent from the corporate and the personal side of the tax system, it is now 82/18 per cent, with 82 of the tax revenues coming from individuals, not corporations. We see the bias in favour of the large corporations at the expense of the small manufacturers. We see the bias in our tax system, the bias toward large corporate central Canada at the expense of the regions of Canada. That is the kind of unfairness that Governments have built into the system over the years. The people of Canada wanted to see that change.
As a result of consultations with people like Howard McDermid, Kenna Cartwright, Peter Ralston and Gordon Priestman and many, many others in my constituency, ideas, programs and thoughtful policies were suggested which would
The Address-Mr. Riis
create the much needed jobs, provide a fairer form of Government and a fair set of opportunities for Canadians, particularly British Columbians. Those are the things we ought to have. When the people of Canada elected a Tory Government to run the country, they did not mean ruin the country. Basically what we are seeing today is a continual deterioration of the hopes and aspirations of Canadian families and individuals.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bring back Ian Deans.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is time that we had a change of government focus, a new initiative and a real direction for our country. I do not think there is an individual in this House who would not say they were fortunate to live in the best country of the world and the most prosperous. All it requires is the will to get on so that all Canadians can benefit in its valuable and rich resources.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed that members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties can give these scathing speeches and then wind up saying that Canada is the best nation in the world. Obviously, everything cannot be done wrong while still having the best country in the world.
Would the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), after having asked us in our Speech from the Throne if we could have focused on only three or four critical areas, give us his commitment, if at some future date there are only three or four focused directions of a Government, that NDP Members will not rise and say we should have done more, that other things should have been in the Speech and list what should be covered? Is it the Member's view that three or four is the right number and that he will never again rise in his place, if that is done, and say: "Gee, you ought to be talking about some other issues that are not there"?


John V. Nunziata: You are being absolutely ridiculous.


Arnold John Malone: Would the Hon. Member give that commitment so the people will know how much he is committed to the words that he says?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have had lots of questions put to me in this House. This is a very interesting question, which is all I can say, interesting in that I can think right off the cuff of four or five things that the Conservatives would likely have as critical planks in their platform that I could never support. I could imagine a whole number of points that I could not support. I believe it is time that the Government provided us, through a Throne Speech, a Budget or whatever, with a mechanism with a very clear direction that will launch Canada into a new era of economic prosperity, fairness, justice and honesty for all, and if that were the case, then you bet, Mr. Speaker, I would support it. But to support a number of the policies that I know the Hon. Member holds very dear to his heart, I could not bring myself to do that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the very thoughtful remarks of my colleague, the

October 7, 1986
Adjournment Motion
Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). 1 know he was back home in his constituency in Kamloops touring the riding this past weekend at a very critical time in the history of British Columbia, consulting with people like Howard McDermid, Kenna Cartwright and Peter Ralston. Would my colleague elaborate a little bit on what some of the major concerns were of the people in his community as he travelled around the community, particularly focusing on the failures of the Government of British Columbia to address those concerns at this critical time in B.C. history?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to respond to the thoughtful question put forward by my colleague. When speaking with these individuals, including a fine, upstanding contributing citizen such as Gordon Priestman, 1 found that their concerns primarily are that the provincial Government, in co-operation at times with the federal Government, has failed to address some of the serious problems facing the people of central British Columbia. I am thinking of access to educational and training opportunities. The biases that are built into the system make it very difficult if not actually prohibit many, many people from average income or less than average income families to pursue educational and training opportunities. Then there is the lack of commitment to assist the agricultural sector, the small struggling farmer or rancher. There is simply nothing there to give them the courage and support to go on. One could easily add to that the small business and small manufacturer who has to compete with the giants in a very unjust and unfair system.
Perhaps the greatest concern is the concern that these individuals hold about the lack of support for the long-term development of our forest resource. It is the forest resource in central British Columbia that holds the long-term promise, the long-term economic and job-creation hope. Yet provincial and federal Governments have for too long let us down in maintaining that resource so that we could be guaranteed a sustained yield of production.
Serious cuts have been incurred by the Social Credit Government which have cut back on services people require. 1 know that this is a very general attempt at a response to my hon. friend, but in economic and social matters a great deal should be done and must be done by a Government that puts people first, not corporations first.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his comments this afternoon. Over the last two years 1 have grown to admire the Hon. Member. It is of some regret to me that he is not a member of our caucus. Perhaps the future might bring us together as colleagues in the same Liberal caucus.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap is also a neighbour of sorts. I am originally from Revelstoke. Kamloops is not far from the good Town of Revelstoke. I just want to bring to the attention of the House that that part of the country seems to produce good parliamentarians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: But mistakes are made every now and then.


John V. Nunziata: 1 want to ask the Hon. Member about the so-called four pillars in the Throne Speech. The speech itself is based on what the Prime Minister loves to term the four pillars: national reconciliation, economic renewal, social justice and constructive internationalism. 1 know that the Hon. Member agrees with me when I say that we have heard it all before. I would like the Hon. Member to give me and this House a western perspective with respect to the pillar known as national reconciliation. As he knows, not long ago a Conservative Premier started talking about western separatism. I would like the Hon. Member to comment about that particular pillar and whether he believes, from his perspective in western Canada, that there has been national reconciliation over the last two years.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two things to say in response to my thoughtful friend. One is that just the other day the Prime Minister was visiting western Canada. When a number of Gainers employees who are struggling for their very economic existence were attempting to make a point with the Prime Minister, he called them separatists. That did not go down well in western Canada. I think that the view reflected by the Prime Minister in terms of his unthoughtful nature was best reflected in statements uttered by the Premier of British Columbia and the Premier of Alberta over the last few weeks that in a sense the present Conservative Government has abandoned western Canada. In terms of any national coming together of east and west, I am afraid that the policies of the present Government have widened that gulf. So now the feelings of alienation, in fact even "separatism" as expressed by our Prime Minister, have crept back into the vocabulary of many western Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Energy-Price of gasoline; the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens)-Pharmaceutical Products-Recommendation of the Eastman Commission-government position, (b) Price of new drugs-government position; and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Penitentiaries-Reasons for locating prison in Manicouagan. (b) Reasons of Prime Minister for choosing his own riding.
October 7, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the Session; and of the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 44).
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech contains some very good news for New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada. For the first time in a very long while the special needs of Atlantic Canada are being recognized in the Speech from the Throne, and for this I am extremely grateful.
The Speech calls for positive proposals for new policy initiatives from those who live and work in the region, and in my remarks today 1 intend to respond to that call. Whether my proposals or others are implemented is not important. What is important is that a giant stride forward has been taken in meeting the challenge of regional disparity and in doing something about it.
The Speech points to the establishment of an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The agency will be constituted to facilitate and co-ordinate federal development initiatives. It is designed to make use of the expertise available in the Atlantic region and it will invite the maximum participation of other Governments and organizations. It will be an important development instrument.
At the present time, the economy of the Atlantic provinces appears to be going through a "crisis of confidence". This crisis is both economic and psychological. It has become clear that a substantial stimulus from offshore oil and gas-if it comes at all-will be delayed into the next century. Employment in many traditional industrial activities is declining. In addition, because of severe financial constraints, the rate of growth of federal transfer payments-in recent years, the major determinant of the region's rate of economic growth-is scheduled to decline.
These factors have, of course, their adverse psychological effects on an economy suffering from high levels of unemployment and a heavy burden of taxation. These psychological effects depress both consumer spending and investment spending and help promote a business climate where the emergence of many young, vigorous entrepreneurs is most unlikely.
It is thus imperative that the Government of Canada undertake a new initiative to expand and diversify the economic base of the Atlantic region. This new initiative by the federal Government must be strong and determined and, by its nature, must be seen to be strong and determined. It,
The Address-Mr. Howie
too, must have its economic and psychological effects, but they must be growth-promoting and confidence-building.
Since the creation of the Atlantic Development Board in 1962, substantial amounts of money have been spent by the Government of Canada to encourage economic development in the Atlantic provinces. Very little of this money, however, has gone to the private sector to encourage directly the expansion of employment in manufacturing. Most federal funds have gone to provincial Governments to expand the infrastructure or the social overhead capital of the region. Any survey of federal spending for regional economic development in the Atlantic provinces over the past two decades will reveal that direct incentives to industry have been relatively small, indeed, so small as to be most unlikely to have any significant impact on the process of economic development.
The fact is that there has never been a determined and realistic effort by the Government of Canada to expand and diversify the industrial base of New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces. Industrial incentives, in aggregate, have been relatively weak, weak in relation to those available in central Canada and, perhaps more important, the will in Ottawa to promote industrial change in Atlantic Canada has been extremely weak. Citizens of New Brunswick and other Atlantic provinces contrast the enormous efforts and expenditures made by the federal Government to expand the automobile and aircraft industries of central Canada with the puny and perfunctory efforts at industrial development east of the Quebec-New Brunswick border.
Industrial development can only succeed if there are strong incentives for industry and if there is the will in Ottawa to assist in using these incentives to promote economic change. Regional industrial development must become an important and pervasive objective of all the key economic Departments of the federal Government. In the past, industrial development in the Atlantic region has only been of peripheral interest.
The situation can be perceived by considering the two major federal industrial initiatives of recent years: automobiles and aircraft. Both have been very expensive for the federal Government and both have failed to provide any direct benefits for the Province of New Brunswick. Indeed, there has been no attempt to utilize these industrial initiatives to promote economic development in New Brunswick. The people of New Brunswick may accept that most direct benefits of indusrial initiatives by the federal Government will go to central Canada. They find it very difficult to accept that all direct benefits will always go to central Canada. In the future, major industrial initiatives by the Government of Canada must have an Atlantic dimension. This means that an attempt must be made to direct at least some of the benefits of such initiatives east of the New Brunswick-Quebec border.
In the situation where directing activities into the Atlantic region requires additional incentives for the private sector, this should be done as long as the over-all benefits exceed the overall costs. If benefits to the Atlantic provinces do not meet this

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Howie
criteria, the federal Minister concerned should be required to make a statement as to why this is the case.
It is proposed that a new federal policy to expand the industrial base of the Atlantic provinces should include the following provisions:
First, that in future all major industrial development initiatives of the Government of Canada must have an Atlantic dimension on the basis that I have stated. This means that Crown corporations, such as the Canada Development Corporation, in their industrial-promoting activities, must observe the provision of the Atlantic dimension. It, of course, means that DRIE, in its ongoing activities such as its encouragement of automotive parts manufacturers, would always meet the requirements of the Atlantic dimension.
Second, that a tax incentive be offered to manufacturing, including processing, companies establishing new, expanded or modernized facilities in the Atlantic provinces which would permit them to write off the full capital cost of such facilities against their corporate income tax payable from all corporate activity. This provision to be in effect for an initial period of 10 years.
Third, that a wage subsidy of 30 per cent in respect of persons employed by such firms be authorized for the first three years of operation, to offset the higher costs involved until such workers are trained.
I have some supporting arguments for an Atlantic dimension.
First, given the very high levels of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, it is most unlikely that Canada will ever achieve anything approaching full employment without a very substantial expansion of the industrial base of the region. Theories of market adjustment are interesting, but they ignore the effects of social justice legislation on labour mobility.
Second, at the present time, annual federal expenditures in the Atlantic provinces exceed annual federal revenues from the Atlantic provinces by roughly $9 billion. This is estimated at half the structural deficit of the Government of Canada. Given present national policies, the outlook for the private sector of the Atlantic economy is to remain very weak and for federal expenditures in the region to remain far above federal revenues from the region. More rapid economic development in the region can make a substantial contribution towards reducing the federal Government's structural deficit.
Third, the acceptance of the concept of the Atlantic dimension can lead to important demonstration effects in the Atlantic provinces. Demonstration effects are an important concept in development economics. They result when new industrial projects get under way and prove to be successful. This demonstrates that industrial projects can be successful and encourages other entrepreneurs to get projects under way in the region or area.
Fourth, successful industrial projects deriving from federal initiatives will also demonstrate that the federal Government really is interested in the economic wellbeing of the Atlantic provinces. This, of course, promotes national unity. At present many citizens of the Atlantic provinces believe that the federal interest in industrial development stops at the Quebec-New Brunswick border.
Fifth, studies have shown that many corporations in central Canada, when planning expansion, never consider locating in the Atlantic region. The Atlantic dimension policy would greatly increase the consideration given to industrial expansion in the region.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, 1 would be remiss if I did not mention that I represent one of Canada's most historic ridings. In my constituency is located the City of Fredericton, seat of government for the Province of New Brunswick and home for the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University. Both have distinguished alumni sitting in this House.
Now under construction in Fredericton is a multimillion dollar forestry complex involving the Government of Canada, my home province, the University of New Brunswick and the other maritime Governments. When completed, this complex will open a vital window on research for the forest industry, the primary producer and employer in the region. I want to recognize the tremendous leadership which Canada's Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) (Mr. Merrithew) has given and continues to give to this vital project.
While forestry is well represented in my constituency, so too is agriculture, and I am very pleased with the emphasis placed on agriculture's indispensable role in our national economy. Fredericton is the home of the Dominion Agriculture Research Station, which is of tremendous assistance to the agricultural industry in New Brunswick and the region.
Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, which is the largest Army training area in the British Commonwealth, is also located in York-Sunbury. In addition to providing good training facilities for Canada's Armed Forces and those of other Commonwealth countries and NATO, it is a principal employer of skilled and semi-skilled persons in central New Brunswick.
Many members of the Armed Forces retire in York- Sunbury and, because of their circumstances, seek later employment to support their families. The pension-UI regulation which was referred to the Forget Commission for study and report caused a great hardship for many people who were between jobs and in this category. I met with those hard-pressed retirees and took their representations to officials in Government and to the Forget Commission. I am looking forward with great anticipation to the Forget Report which I hope will relieve all of us of our agony by dealing fairly and justly with all of those former military personnel who so ably served their country. I hope that Mr. Forget and the Minister
October 7, 1986

will do everything in their power to bring forward constructive and remedial measures as soon as is humanly possible.
York-Sunbury is the home of Process Technology Ltd., the St. Anne-Nackawic Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., the Research and Productivity Council, and the Hartt Boot and Shoe Co. Ltd., all of which produce world-class products.
During the life of the last Government I was successful in introducing two resolutions to deal with the child battery syndrome and inter-family violence. Both these resolutions resulted in studies being held by a standing committee of the House with recommendations coming forward and many of them being acted upon. A later motion to consider challenges facing the institution of the family and the erosion of traditional resource supports was not successful. It is, therefore, gratifying to me to see our new Government pick up those threads in the Throne Speech and move forward in this very vital area.
The dedication of the Government to effective action against child sexual abuse, violent forms of pornography involving women and children, child prostitution and a serious and growing threat posed by the traffic in illegal drugs is a highly commendable move. This move will be strongly supported by my constituents and, I believe, by all Canadians.
Finally, I do not think that too much can ever be done for our war veterans. The Veterans Independence Program will be broadened and new legislation will be introduced to streamline the pension process to provide faster and more efficient service to veterans. Our veterans are richly deserving of the improvements which are mentioned in the Throne Speech. I would be remiss in my duties if I did not indicate to the Minister that as I visit the excellent veterans' hospital in Fredericton and talk with veterans I hear high praise for his performance.
The Throne Speech is a broad statement of the potential that can build a solid foundation for future growth in Canada while at the same time strengthening our moral fabric and disadvantaged regions. Its proposals are a giant step forward down a necessary road that must be travelled.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been listening with interest to the Member's description of his own riding and the needs of the Atlantic provinces for industrial development. We all appreciate these needs. It is not only in Atlantic Canada that there are needs for investment to occur and for Government to do all it can to ensure that development will occur, but certainly Atlantic Canada is one such area. I am sure the Member shares with me the concern about how little his Government is going to do about those needs. The Atlantic Provinces Opportunity Council, as the Throne Speech suggests, seems, on the face of it, to be little more than an opportunity for people in the Maritimes to ensure that they are not passed over with regard to contracts and other possibilities which might exist within the federal Government. It does not sound like an elaborate effort to ensure that the development needs of Atlantic Canada are met.
The Address-Mr. Howie
I would like to add a second thought and a question to those observations. I was struck, too, by the Member's concern with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Forget Commission Report which we are expecting shortly. He hopes that the Government will deal properly with the needs of military and other personnel who are forced to retire early and who expected, in the past, to be able to use unemployment insurance moneys as well as their pensions to make the very difficult transition to civilian life. I am sure he would have some very caustic observations about the hypocrisy which certain Ministers demonstrated in writing letters of protest to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) about this change while, at the same time, being part of a Cabinet which presumably authorized those changes in the unemployment insurance system which so cruelly cut off these servants of the Canadian people.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments and for the expression of his perception. His perception of a possible role of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is, of course, premature until the definition of the agency is known to us, its functions defined and its policies fleshed out.
1 choose to be more optimistic. 1 see the agency as being a facilitator of providing an opportunity for input from the region into the policy-making function, assisting in the implementation and attempting to focus the attention of all Departments of the Government and, indeed, of all Governments, on the problem of regional disparities by advocating a development dimension for every Department of Government and focusing attention of all Departments of Government.
We have seen only too often in the past good national policies that inflicted adversely on the Atlantic region. For example, while tight money is sometimes needed in the national interest, it means in the maritime provinces that policies of restraint become policies of austerity. We are the first hit, the hardest hit, and the last to recover from them. I am hoping that this new voice will help us to adjust and adapt to these policies and be a better focus for the resources of the nation on the problem of regional disparity.
Until the Forget Report is known to us, I think the best role we can play is to attempt, as I have, to influence a positive and constructive decision so that when it comes it will be something that hopefully all parties can support for to the benefit of all Canadians, particularly those whom the Hon. Member has mentioned, those who retire early and are probably in very great need of it. I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention.


Mr. Vankoughnet:: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) on his very informative and constructive presentation. Does he believe that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency proposed in the Throne Speech is consistent with the new incentive

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Howie
suggested by him as a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. 1 see the agency as a supplement to the existing provisions. In my speech I attempted to define what I think would be a good centre-piece for an effective regional development policy. Most certainly there are other components to it. I think that along with the system of grants and guaranteed loans, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Program in the Department of Supply and Services, a measure of this nature would also form part of the policy. In my opinion, the heart of it would be the proposals I have already made to the House, and I see the agency as being a facilitator of working with people in the area to resolve their own problems and bring forward recommendations which can be input into policies. I see the agency as facilitating the delivery of those policies fairly, efficiently and far more effectively than has been the case in the past.
These are the things I would like to see the agency do, and I welcome the opportunity to express my views in this regard so that as it is being developed and fleshed out, hopefully some of my thoughts on this matter will be reflected in it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to refer to the point of order made this morning by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) when he brought to the attention of the Chair that in accordance to the rule, which is relatively new, that there is a ten-minute question and comment period after a speech, attention should first be given to questions by members of a Party other than that of the Member who gave a speech. This is a new session and I would ask the Chair to give particular attention to this. My colleague was about to ask a question and, while I have no objection to members of the same Party asking questions, because the same would apply to us and others, that was the intention of that particular rule.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I agree entirely with what the Hon. Member has just said. He referred to the particular case where a member of the New Democratic Party and a member of the Conservative Party got up at the same time after the Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) completed his speech. I did not see the Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) get up. He got up the second time. That is why that Hon. Member was recognized. Now I will recognize the Member for Laurier on a question or comment. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is right.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that Process Technologies is located in the Hon. Member's constituency. I hope to visit that company shortly because up to now I have only had the opportunity to talk on the telephone once with its President, who I believe is George Jenkins, a member of the National Research Council. Has the Hon. Member been speaking to Mr. Jenkins lately and could he tell us what Mr. Jenkins feels about the $60 million cut in the Industrial
Research Assistance Program of the National Research Council? Could he state today whether he is willing to make representations, if he has not done so already, to members of Cabinet to have the funding restored to that very worthy program?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken to Mr. Jenkins lately and no, I do not have those representations. 1 will be going to the riding this weekend and I will call Mr. Jenkins and ask him his views and share them with the Hon. Member.


Mr. Mitges:: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that my hon. colleague, the Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), has a very good track record and has done some very valuable work in the field of family violence. What does he believe is the ultimate answer, if he has one, for a solution to this very important social problem?


J. Robert Howie: I thank my colleague for that very formidable question. I wish I had an answer to the question of family violence. 1 believe that we should search for the answer through research and should accelerate the research in that regard. While moving on that front, we should continue to develop an escape route for battered spouses and children. I am rather pleased to see the Government moving very well in that direction, with more transition houses coming on-line.
I am pleased to see the social agencies across Canada doing some excellent work in that field. I am pleased to see the police receiving instruction in this field and becoming more active in it and that secondary housing is being made available for people who find themselves in that very distressing situation.
Some research which has been done at the University of British Columbia leads me to believe that inter-family violence may be an attitude that is learned and therefore can be unlearned through therapy sessions. Some success has taken place in this field of research, and frankly I am very encouraged by it. I feel that ultimately we will discover that the answer is in the field of education, but I do not mean education in the traditional sense where we transmit facts, exclusive of the experience that creates them, to people in a classroom situation. I refer to a much broader concept of education in the home environment, in the play environment and in the school environment.
I suspect that a broad educational approach to it in the long run may provide us with an answer. I hope that answer is acceptable to the Hon. Member and helps explain my position on it.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, is the period for questions and comments for the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) over?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, it is.


Arnold John Malone: I have two questions on which I seek direction from the Chair. Basically, I am wondering if the House would accept the view that when there are points of order such as
October 7, 1986

that raised by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), we allow the question period for the Member who has spoken to be completed before raising it?
I seek more specific guidance from the Chair with respect to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). He raised a subject about which I saw no mention in the Throne Speech nor heard any reference to in the speech by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury. I do not believe that when a Member addresses the House of Commons he can be questioned on any subject. It is my understanding that the question is restricted to the subject matter in the Speech from the Throne or the Hon. Member's speech. I seek your clarification because 1 believe it is important as this House proceeds under the new rules that it be known to all Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To answer the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), let me say that my understanding would be that a question asked during a question and comment period would have to relate to something in the Hon. Member's speech.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, when I was preparing my remarks for this debate, I was looking for something suitably inspirational to say to start off with, given the new spirit which prevails in the House-


William Warren Allmand: Another Speech from the Throne.


David Berger: That is exactly what I was going to say. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) stole my punch line. I did not read the Speech from the Throne, but I want you to know also, Mr. Speaker, that 1 did not read Keith Davey's book, either. I went back and looked at a book I read a number of years ago. It is an autobiography by the late Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William O. Douglas. Mr. Justice Douglas grew up in the State of Washington in a rather remote area. His father was a preacher, as I understand it, and he would go around to the outlying communities for Sunday morning services. The first time he turned up in a small community by the name of Dot, which I gather was appropriately named because there were hardly any inhabitants then and I gather today there are very few as well. The first time he showed up at church there was only one person in the audience. He waited a while and then he began the service with a hymn and a prayer. He then said to the lone parishioner: "What do you think? Should I continue or should I wait a week until the word of my arrival gets around?" The lone parishioner stood up and said: "Well, Rev. Douglas, I am only a cowboy, not a preacher, but if I had 40 horses to feed, a load of hay, but could only find one horse, I don't think I would let that horse go hungry". So Rev. Douglas proceeded to deliver a sermon which lasted over an hour.
The Address-Mr. Berger


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Berger: I can see some of the Hon. Members concur. After the speech on his way out, the Rev. asked the cowboy how it went and the cowboy said: "Well, Rev. Douglas, I am only a cowboy but if I had 40 horses and a load of hay, and I could only find one horse, I would not have given him the whole load". Well, Mr. Speaker, we got the whole load in the Speech from the Throne last week.
The challenge for Canada, as 1 see it, and for the Canadian economy, has always been to increase the manufacturing or processing of goods in Canada, to create jobs in Canada and to reduce the exports of unprocessed raw materials Canadians, going back a century, have always tried to diversify our economy. We face the same challenge today. Our resource sector is declining and there is an inevitable move away from resources. There are a number of reasons for this. First, developing countries have increased the supply of resources such as coal, pulpwood, copper, nickel and iron ore. Second, this new supply of resources from developing countries has coincided with the slowdown in global growth. Third, there has been increased competition from what are known as new industrial materials. Copper is being replaced by fibre optics, and steel is being replaced by plastics and light metals such aluminium. The average man on the street knows that tennis rackets today are made out of graphite. The Macdonald Commission published figures which demonstrated that between 1964 and 1984 Canadian exports of food, mainly wheat, and crude and fabricated materials, dropped from 84 per cent of Canada's exports to 56 per cent.
Recently, the chairman of the Department of Food Sciences of a university in Western Canada asked me: "By the year 2000, will Canada export any wheat?" He provided his own answer. He said: "I doubt it". I would refer Hon. Members to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on September 20 which asks a rather startling question: "Should Canada quit farming?" I am not from western Canada but we have a lot of agriculture in Quebec. I am from an urban area, but I am sure that Hon. Members from rural areas would admit that this is a rather provocative and startling question. The article begins by saying:
Canada prides itself on being the bread-basket of the world, but the reality is something else.
Rank Canadian farmers with their international brethren, and they fall into place well down the line. France grows more wheat than Canada, and the value of farm products from both California and Iowa is greater than that for all of Canada. Even China and India, using little more than hand labour and Iron Age tools, outclass Canada when it comes to growing wheat.
I do not think I have to remind Hon. Members that the Government last month offered farmers nearly $50 million to go out of business. Anyone who has followed the trade talks- although the talks are being conducted behind closed doors-I think would agree that if there is any conclusion that can be drawn from those talks to date it is that it is going to be tougher to export our national resources and agricultural products. We are seeing, with the dispute over the export of cedar shakes and shingles, that either through voluntary

October 7, 1986
The Address-Mr. Berger
restraint or through increased stumpage or increased duties, the United States wants us to reduce our exports of lumber products. The only solution for Canada, the only way to maintain the high standard of living we have been accustomed to, is to use our knowledge and skills to better develop new products than the competition. This does not mean to say that we abandon our resource of our agricultural sectors, nor our textiles and clothing. On the contrary. We can build on our strength in these areas to develop new products.
This is not just theory. I recently spent a week or 10 days visiting a number of firms which have participated in the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program, the program I referred to in my question to the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). I visited a Toronto research company which has helped a number of firms in the agricultural and food industries use technology to develop new products for both domestic and international markets. For example, there is a company in the egg processing industry in Winnipeg which breaks one-half million eggs a day. It has developed a technology which removes water from the eggs and it exports powdered egg whites to Japan. The company also extracts an enzyme from the eggs which is also exported to Japan. That particular company is the largest producer of this enzyme in the world.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I also visited some plants in Saint-Valerien and Drummondville where new equipment has been developed for the lumber industry, not to mention snow blowers to be used on highways and on airport runways. 1 visited a company in Quebec City which has improved on existing products and has developed new ones thanks again to that industrial research program. The company is building industrial washers for hospitals and restaurants. In Montreal, I visited a company which has developed a new product to test jet motors for the Pratt & Whitney Company, a minimum investment by the Government of some $70,000 which has allowed the company to make sales worth $1.5 million this year.
I trust that these few examples demonstrate that we can build on our strength to diversify our economy. However, what is the record of the Conservative Government in research and development? First, I suggest that one has to go back to the promises made prior to the last election campaign and during that election campaign. We all remember the Prime Minister's best selling book-among Conservatives-entitled Where I Stand. The Prime Minister wrote the following in 1983:
The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit.
Research and development, and the resulting innovations, are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country.
He also urged that Canada's research and development efforts be exempted from government restraint programs.
Instead, he called for a doubling of research and development spending by both the public and private sectors.
Since the election, rather than increased spending on R and D, as promised, we have seen cuts in almost all areas of government scientific support. The Science Council had its $5 million budget cut by one-half. In 1984, the National Research Council had $70 million cut from its budget of $500 million. The granting councils which provide funds for university research and research training had their budgets frozen. In June, we learned that the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program, to which I have been referring, was cut by $60 million over five years. This represents close to 20 per cent of its budget. As a consequence of these cuts Canada's research and development effort fell in the first part of 1986, for the first time in 15 years, with the exception of 1983.

The scientific community is frustrated and disappointed. They had put so much hope in this Government. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that those who support increased expenditures for research and development have failed to convince decisionmakers that research is of the utmost importance for the economic future of the country. It is also possible, Mr. Speaker, that the average Canadian finds it difficult to see any relation between research and his own job. The same could be said of the Prime Minister. He does not see any relation between his election commitments and the preservation of his own job. Well, I will try today to explain that relation.
During my visits, 1 met with many businessmen and I will tell you now about some of their comments. 1 particularly remember a conversation with a businessman from Quebec City, a founding member of the Groupement quebecois d'entreprises. This organization is made up of some 500 small-and medium-sized businesses whose turnover varies between $2.5 and $3 million and which have an average staff of 50 employees. During the last five years the group has made a substantial effort to increase its members' awareness of the importance of research and development.
I am told that initially, members of the group thought research was something for big companies. It was necessary to explain to members that for them, development was more likely to mean adapting existing technology to their products or their manufacturing processes.
I was also told, Mr. Speaker, that the typical entrepreneur is the guy who has a patent on his invention. It may not be perfect, it may not be high technology, but it is new, and the main thing is that it makes a profit. Often, however, the entrepreneur meets with obstacles. He has to deal with a problem in terms of product quality or the manufacturing process. For instance, he may have a welding problem, but the typical entrepreneur doesn't know about material resistance. He doesn't know about welding and he doesn't know how to solve his problem. He doesn't have the technical know-how.
October 7, 1986

Mr. Speaker, that is where the IRAP program comes in. The program makes it possible for entrepreneurs to consult experts, post-graduate students who come to the company to work on a specific problem for three or four months, to try and find the answer. Someone told me that IRAP is a small program that gives experts a chance to focus on a particular detail.
Mr. Speaker, the results are incredible. Companies that were not moving four or five years ago have developed new products which today are responsible for the majority of their sales. Often, experts or academics hired for this three-or four-month period have become research directors for the same companies. Today, they are leading a research team of four or five or more. That same Quebec businessman also said that IRAP and another program sponsored by the Government of Quebec have helped the entrepreneur to approach academics. At first, the entrepreneur thinks that the university is going to upset his business and he is afraid of the academic. It is necessary to overcome this mistrust and the entrepreneur must be encouraged to work on development. IRAP has often been successfully in doing so.
From the information I have seen, a number of companies would not be in existence today without research and the program sponsored by IRAP. Most new products did not exist four or five years ago.
Another point, all company directors I met were asked the following question: "Would you have done this research without the support of IRAP?" And the answer was unanimous: No. Why? Well, because these small businesses often lack the financial resources, and besides, the program gave them the kind of credibility that allowed them to seek financing elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, it is against this background that we should evaluate the new promises made in the Speech from the Throne. I must say it is encouraging to see the priority given to research, on paper. However, encouragement on paper doesn't pay for research on the factory floor. That takes money. Holding consultations, creating committees is all very well, but it all leads to nothing tangible.
I would like to quote one of the conclusions of the National Conference on Technology held in Winnipeg earlier this year. Everyone at the conference agreed that the Government should spend more on research.
Mr. Speaker, the Government keeps telling us that the existing budget must not be exceeded. However, I suggest that the cut-backs should be made elsewhere and that research and development funds should be increased.
I recognize that certain decisions are hard to make, but such is the mandate that the Conservative Government has received from the Canadian people. I now say to the Government Members: If you are not ready to make the necessary difficult decisions today, we shall do so in your place in two years.
I shall close by saying that in view of all that I and the Conservative Government have learned about IRAP, in view of
The Address-Mr. Berger
my own visits to these businesses and in view of the Nielsen and the Wright report which both praise this program, I ask the Government to show its good faith by reconsidering the decision to withdraw $60 million from the IRAP program. These funds should be reallocated or else the budget of this program, which is vital for the future of Canadian small businesses, should be increased.


Arnold John Malone: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to say to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) that I always appreciate the work that he does in preparing for his speeches and particularly the tone in which he delivers them. I think it is healthy for all of us in the House to bear his example in mind.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member of something. He tells us that France is producing wheat at levels much in excess of that of the Canadian prairies. He should bear in mind that therein lies one of the major problems we have with Canadian agriculture today. One must keep in perspective the fact that 70 per cent of a French farmer's take-home pay comes directly from that nation's Treasury. It is not the agricultural efficiency that is at question, it is rather the competition between international treasuries that is the problem.
The truth is that there is no place in the world, with the exception of the places in the United States where corn is raised, where agriculture is produced as efficiently as it is on the Canadian Prairies. With that in mind, may I ask the Hon. Member if he might consider that perhaps the most important avenue the people of Canada can take is the use of whatever sources are available to stop the trade war between the European Economic Community and the United States? Clearly it is, at least in my view, the central and single most damaging thing to agriculture in Canada today. I would appreciate the Hon. Member's response.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comment and I agree with him. 1 do not have any doubt that Canadian farmers are among the most efficient in the world or are perhaps the most efficient in the world in the limited areas in which we can devote ourselves to agriculture. However, I think the Hon. Member will recognize along with me that it is only a small part of Canada's land that is amenable to agriculture.
Yes, we have to take initiatives in the area of trade, and yes, it is extremely important to try to put an end to this trade war. The only thing I have to say about that, though, is that trade wars and subsidies of Governments of various kinds will probably continue in one manner or another. They will always find a different manner to get around various established trade rules. However, if one looks again at the general trend over the course of the past 20 years, it has been that agricultural sales have accounted for and are accounting for a smaller part of our export sales. My argument is that we have to be one step

October 7, 1986
Adjournment Debate
ahead of the game. We have to apply technology to our products in order to sell products about which other people have perhaps not thought yet.
1 do not have to remind the Hon. Member that canola is one of the great success stories of Canadian agricultural research. If we could have a couple more success stories like that, then perhaps we would be able to withstand the trade wars, the bad weather and all of the other things that are sent to make our lives difficult.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question to ask. The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) referred in his speech to a number of concerns that he had regarding the status of research and development through to production in Canada. I know that he spent a great deal of time researching this topic.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on the statements made by the present Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) on many occasions to the effect that in fact the Government has not cut in the areas of scientific research. There seems to be a contradiction here. The Minister says that there have been no cuts, and yet one continues to read in so many sources that there appear to be not only cuts but serious reductions in the support the present Government is giving to research and development, and particularly to R and D through to production.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. He does not have to believe me. He can look at independent sources. If he were to read articles which have appeared recently in The Financial Post or the words of any number of commentators, he would see that there have been substantial cuts in federal support for research and development since the Government was elected. As I pointed out in my remarks, this runs contrary to the undertakings made by the Conservative Party and by the then Leader of the Conservative Party prior to the last election.
As 1 mentioned in my remarks, in 1983 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that if there was any area that should be exempt from restraint programs, it should be research and development. Indeed, the comment that I hear on my travels and while visiting companies is that when times are tough, one must invest in research.
The president of a company located in St. Valerien told me that in 1981 and 1982, at the height of the recession, he was investing in research and was developing new products. Because of that, his company is in good health today, but some of his competitors who did not have the same foresight and did not make the same kind of investments at that time have gone out of business.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on a very well thought out and excellent presentation. What does he feel the impact of these cuts in research and development will be on our youth and on jobs, jobs, jobs for the future?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, again I can give some graphic examples of young people with masters degrees and doctoral degrees who have found employment in the private sector in the past few years thanks to the Industrial Research and Assistance Program. Without that kind of funding, these kinds of people are basically high and dry and on their way to the United States.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, over the past summer I spent most of my time talking with my constituents. Of course 1 talked with them in my office, on their own doorsteps, and at various community meetings. As Your Honour can imagine, there was a variety of subjects which were concerning them over the course of the summer. 1 am sure you will not find it a surprise that they talked with me about the Post Office, the question of capital punishment, the Tamil refugees, and even about building penitentiaries in the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Despite all those things, if there was one over-all recurring problem about which they spoke with me most, it was the whole question of gasoline prices. My constituents understand, as do all other Canadians, that the price of a barrel of oil has fallen very substantially over the past few months. Of course they understand that that is creating hardships for Canadians in the oil producing parts of the country. As well they understand that they probably must share some of the burden in order to help Canadians, who are suffering as a result, over the hurdle. They understand all that, but they do not understand, with the price of a barrel of oil falling and with the fact that other Canadians are out of work because of falling oil prices, why that is not reflected more in the price they pay for gasoline at the pumps.
Particularly they do not understand why there is such a difference between the price of gasoline in the United States and here in Canada. They do not understand why when they go to the United States they pay something like 69 cents American per gallon, or in Canadian terms 20 cents Canadian per litre, and when they return to Toronto they pay something like 36 cents Canadian per litre, or if they come here to Ottawa they pay more like 41 cents Canadian per litre.
I tried to explain to them that the difference probably was reflected mainly in taxes, taxes which provincial and federal Governments imposed in order to improve our lot in life and to improve our wonderful social security system which of course
October 7, 1986

Americans do not have. That very well may be the case, they say, but why is it that there is such a wide spread in prices between leaded and unleaded gasoline in Canada as opposed to the United States? They pointed out to me that in Canada the price spread between leaded and unleaded gasoline is something like three cents to four cents Canadian per litre, while in the United States it is something like two cents American per gallon or, in Canadian terms, one-half cent Canadian per litre. This means that the price spread is something like 5.5 times greater in Canada than it is in the United States, notwithstanding the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is shaking his head.
At the same time they pointed out to me that in a recent article in The Financial Post, Imperial Oil or Esso indicated that it only costs one-half cent Canadian per litre more to produce unleaded gasoline than it does to produce leaded gasoline.
1 answered them by saying that it was the taxes and the social security system which we have in Canada. They came right back at me and said: "Okay, but why is it that in West Germany unleaded gasoline costs two cents per litre less than leaded gasoline, even though it costs more to produce unleaded gasoline than it does to produce leaded gasoline?" The fact is, they say, that the taxes in West Germany make a heck of a lot more sense than the taxes on gasoline in this country. In fact this country is encouraging people to buy leaded gas instead of unleaded gas. Of course that is creating more acid rain and more pollution. I did not have a wonderful answer to that, so I came back to Ottawa and in our first Question Period I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) that question. After I heard his answer, I was just as confused as my constituents.
I am here today to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give me a better explanation so that I will feel more at ease and my constituents will not feel that they are being ripped off.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) who always represents his constituents very well here in the House of Commons. His concern for consumers is legend. I appreciate him drawing this matter to the attention of the House of Commons.
I think the Hon. Member will find that since there has been a dramatic drop in the price of a barrel of oil that the corresponding drop in the price of a litre of gasoline has corresponded to that drop. Also, this summer we experienced gas wars in our particular area of Ontario. These wars are going on in the West at the present and this has to do with marketing. Generally speaking, the price of a litre of gasoline has dropped from 52 cents a litre for regular leaded gasoline to 35 cents to 41 cents a litre for regular leaded gasoline, depending on the market.
Adjournment Debate
First, I want to emphasize that the Government does not set gasoline prices. They are dictated by the market-place. We are seeing that in this country with the various markets and the competition that we have. I just mentioned the prices which vary from day to day and week to week. It is very confusing when the consumer sees prices going up and down. But that is the market-place at work. It is the same as your shirt, your suit or a tie being on sale. Competition is at work in the marketplace. It is healthy and it helps the consumer.
Yes, there is a price differential in a litre of gas comparable to a litre of gas in the U.S. Forty per cent is made up of taxes and the other 60 per cent is market differential. There is no question about that and that explains the price differential.
With regard to the Member's question, namely the difference between leaded and unleaded gasoline prices, I am going to use figures for July because they are the latest average figures we have for both Canada and the United States on a comparable basis. The average price differential in July between leaded and unleaded gasoline was approximately 1.9 cents per litre higher in Canada than in the United States. At that time the average Canadian price of gasoline, in Canadian cents per litre so we do not have to do any conversions, was 41.5 cents for regular leaded-this is all Canada average-and 45.4 cents for regular unleaded, a 3.9 cent a litre differential. The corresponding prices in the United States were 29.8 cents and 31.8 cents a litre, a 2 cent a litre differential. Those are the facts, not the figures mentioned by the Member earlier.
It is interesting to note that the Canadian average is influenced by the higher unleaded gasoline volumes sold in Quebec where the leaded/unleaded differential is the largest in the country, which throws the average out quite a bit. Of the differential, four-tenths of 1 cent is accredited to taxes. The rest is the higher octane component which is more expensive to put into the gasoline. The Hon. Member mentioned a figure of one of the oil companies. I cannot substantiate that. Notwithstanding these products-costs differences, it is the market, not the Government, which ultimately sets the prices of both grades.


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS A) RECOMMENDATION OF THE EASTMAN COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION B) PRICE OF NEW DRUGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, if I take the floor this evening it is because the answer of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to my question concerning drug patents is vague, incomplete and open to interpretation.
When I raised the matter 1 wanted to know whether the Minister was considering the possibility of bringing his Bill in line with the recommendations contained in the Eastman Commission report.

October 7, 1986
Adjournment Debate
The Minister said no. But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is right to suggest that it was the Liberal Party which raised the possibility of amending the drug patents legislation. That is why we appointed the Eastman Commission. To us in the Liberal Party, the recommendations contained in the commission report seemed reasonable, and for several reasons. First, it was an independent inquiry and, as such, less subject to possible pressures from various interest groups. Second, the commission made recommendations which took into consideration the needs of all those involved in this industry, including consumers, innovating companies, generic companies, the scientific community as well as the provinces.
The Minister replied that he had considered the pros and cons of his solution. He came to the conclusion that the advantages of the proposition made last June are more numerous and significant than the existing advantage, which is control over declining drug prices.
So, Mr. Speaker, I find it necessary to go back in time and remind the Minister that price control is not the main purpose of the 1969 amendments. High drug prices in Canada before 1969 were nothing more than a symptom of an overly concentrated drug industry. This fact was amply demonstrated in three reports published before 1969. I will merely mention the report of the House of Commons Restrictrive Trade Practices Committee and the Harley report. Both reports dealt with the manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceuticals. They showed that the drug industry has made excessive profits and has imposed unreasonable costs to Canadian consumers.
What we have here is an industry which before 1969 had no hesitation making huge profits on the backs of Canadians. That industry asked the Government for changes, and those changes were studied by an independent committee. The latter recommended that steps be taken to maintain a balance between the various interests involved. Despite all those democratic efforts, the Minister has succeeded in giving all of the pie to the drug industry, claiming that the benefits of that policy are better than the recommendations of an independent committee.
As you will agree, Mr. Speaker, this is quite amazing.
The 1969 amendments were aimed at fostering greater competition in a monopolistic industry. There is every indication that we succeeded. We developed a situation where we have lower prices, greater choice in drug prices, and, above all, we set up the makings of a Canadian pharmaceutical industry, in the form of generic drug companies, without endangering the profitability of the general drug industry in the opinion of the Eastman Committee.
Today the Minister answered that the benefits of such drastic changes are better than the current situation, better than the Eastman report recommendations. The burden of proof rests on his shoulders. The Minister went further when addressing my second question. He would not say whether the prices of new drugs would be higher. He said: higher compared with what? Compared with prices paid now, Mr. Speaker.
More specifically, compared with those paid between 1969 and 1986. The Minister seems to rely on the good will of innovative companies. Also he seems to believe that price increases are not likely. He went on saying that he would set up a review board for drug prices. Which means that the Minister expects increases in the prices of drugs; otherwise, he would not have felt necessary to set up a watch-dog organization to monitor prices.
For that matter, during the public hearing held by the Liberal Party on September 23 last, the Consumers' Association of Canada advised us of its experience with price control boards such as the one proposed by the Minister.
In its opinion, price control boards make it possible for corporations to get away with huge profits at the expense of consumers. It is nothing but a legal front to justify high prices. The Consumers' Association of Canada told us that these monitoring boards are outright failures and that it is not much encouraged by the prospect of a new one.
To conclude, I repeat that the burden of proof remains with the Minister. If he should persist in not addressing the issues we are raising in good faith, he will give rise to a great many suspicions concerning these initiatives. The Minister should and must demonstrate the so-called great benefits which Canada would have got from his proposal. He should demand from the companies a copy of all feasibility studies or, better still, any concrete plan which would cause us to say: Yes, the Bill makes sense. In fact, we would appreciate any study in this area by the innovating companies, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and of course the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. You will understand that I am acting and speaking as an ordinary citizen when I ask you to show and explain the basis for your decision, Mr. Minister. The people are very wary of Governments these days. We must all do our share to try and improve this image. 1 hope the Minister is prepared to do his share, since otherwise, the Government's proposal will look like a conspiracy against the people of this country.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised, we will first be proposing measures to exploit the significant potential of the pharmaceutical sector, turning it into what we would consider to be a world-class, highly innovative industry characterized by strong growth in investment, employment, research and development and manufacturing activity. Second, and perhaps equally as important, we propose to ensure that Canadians will continue to benefit from reasonable drug prices.
These are our objectives. To reach them, the Government has built upon the recommendations of the Eastman Commission which concluded that our patent policy was in need of rebalancing in a manner that will provide strong incentives for new investment and growth in the industry while safeguarding
October 7, 1986

the interests of consumers. The prices of drugs already on the market will not be affected one bit by our policy proposals. It is also important to keep in mind that the benefit of generic drug competition will continue.
Remember that currently only 7 per cent of prescription drug sales are subject to generic competition. Canadians have no way of knowing if they are paying a fair price for the remaining 93 per cent of drugs on pharmacy shelves. The Drug Prices Review Board will have a mandate to review all prescription drug prices. The Board will be assessing drug prices in relation to factors such as the Consumer Price Index, the actual production costs of the drug and the price of similar drugs in other countries.
I would also like to draw Members' attention to a major provision of the proposed policy which requires a thorough review of this policy after a four-year period. If it is evident that the policy is not working or that the industry has not met its commitments, the Government will change the policy.
The innovative sector of the industry has made a firm commitment to increase its ratio of R and D to sales to a level of 8 per cent by 1990 and 10 per cent by 1995, which is double the existing level of less than 5 per cent. These undertakings translate into an additional investment in R and D activity of $1.4 billion over the next 10 years. In 1995, R and D outlays will exceed $600 million per year. Some 30 per cent of these expenditures will flow to Canadian universities, hospitals and research establishments.
In the process, we forecast that 3,000 scientific and research-related jobs will be directly created-opportunities that are badly needed for our university graduates. The manufacturing provisions are likely to generate additional new jobs in the chemical manufacturing sector. The added protection afforded pharmaceutical discoveries will not only foster growth in R and D, but should also translate into a greater volume of manufacturing and export activity in the Canadian drug industry. This, in turn, should have a highly beneficial impact on a closely-related field, medical research, where Canadians are at the leading edge, worldwide, in many specialties.
[Translation}


PENITENTIARIES-REASONS OF PRIME MINISTER FOR CHOOSING HIS OWN RIDING
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, and 1 am sure you will perform your duties with your customary distinction and style.
Mr. Speaker, today I put a question to the Prime Minister about the Conservative Government's decision to build a new penitentiary at Port-Cartier in the Prime Minister's riding. The Prime Minister tried to justify this decision by implying that the unemployment rate in his riding is very high.
Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, 1 gave some figures on the unemployment rate in many other ridings in the Province of Quebec and I asked the Prime Minister to explain to the
Adjournment Debate
House and to Quebecers why he did not build this penitentiary elsewhere if indeed the real reason was the high unemployment rate in his riding.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, in April 1985 when the Government decided to build the penitentiary in the Prime Minister's riding, the unemployment rate in Port-Cartier was 13 per cent. Much too high, of course, but then the unemployment rate was 22 per cent in Rimouski, 15.6 per cent in Chicoutimi, and 19.6 per cent in Gaspe.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that it was not because the unemployment rate was very high that the penitentiary was to be built in the riding of the Prime Minister. On the contrary, it was simply a gift made to the voters in the Prime Minister's riding. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a gift which is costing a lot of money to Canadian taxpayers-at least $16 million more in capital expenditures and at least $3 million a year to operate the penitentiary. Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, the question of the remoteness of families and correctional service professionals from this penitentiary in Port-Cartier. This is why all agencies related to correctional services unanimously censure the Conservative Government for making this decision.
Mr. Speaker, it was not a coincidence that the penitentiary is to be located in the Prime Minister's riding, some 400 kilometres from the major urban centre of Quebec City.
1 would note that the announcement of the prison at Port-Cartier was in fact made on June 18, which was over two weeks before Treasury Board approved this decision. That is no coincidence. As every Member of the House knows, the reality is that this was blatant political pork-barrelling by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to look after his own riding. It is one thing if that does not cost any extra money, but as I pointed out, what the Prime Minister is doing is looking after his own constituents on the North Shore of Quebec at the very considerable expense of Canadian taxpayers.
Not only that, he is locating a prison in an isolated area of Quebec in which services are lacking and in which the possibility of family reunification-that important and fundamental link between the families and friends of prisoners-is totally lacking. That has been condemned as well.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret)-
[ Translation]
Mr. de Cotret implied that the decision had been made in February 1984. However, Mr. Speaker, the facts do not confirm this. In February 1984 a Liberal Government was in office and it had decided to build the penitentiary in Drum-mondville, not in Port-Cartier. Apparently, the President of the Treasury Board made a mistake to protect the Prime Minister.

October 7, 1986
Adjournment Debate

But Canadians know better. Canadians are asking themselves if it is really necessary to build another maximum security prison in this country at all. Is it really a priority at this time to spend some $70 million to build a new maximum security prison? I suggest that it is rather obscene to have this battle between one region and another as to who is going to have the prison in their particular region. We do not construct prisons in this country as regional economic development projects. We build prisons if there is a demonstrated need and we build them where they are correctionally sound. This particular project falls down on both counts.
The Liberals did the same thing in building a prison in Renous, the Atlantic institution in the Province of New Brunswick. They said they were building it for economic development reasons and, of course, it was political patronage by the Liberals as well. It is time we placed a moratorium on the construction of new prisons in this country. It is certainly time that we re-examine the fundamental philosophy underlying the correctional system. We imprison too many people and in many cases sentences are too long. In this particular case, not only was the construction of the prison wrong, but the abuse of the Prime Minister's Office, for his own personal political gain at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, is shocking and shameful.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, and it has been stated in the House at various times over the past few days, this Government is committed to addressing the problem of regional disparity. Upon taking office in September, 1984, our Government ordered a freeze on major capital expenditures in order to determine which projects could best address the problem of regional disparity and to decide which projects should proceed.
The Correctional Services of Canada required additional beds for maximum and protective custody inmates. The Government decided rather than build another penitentiary beside Drummond in Drummondville, that in the interests of
regional development another site in a regionally depressed area should be chosen.
As the Hon. Member knows, parts of northern Quebec suffer from very high rates of unemployment. The Government chose to locate the required facility in Port-Cartier due to its high level of unemployment and to stimulate the local economy. The Government offers no apology for assisting the region.
It is estimated that the institution will directly employ 223 persons and it is expected to create an additional 200 jobs in the area. Many of these new jobs will go to local people and plans are well under way to accommodate this. The Port-Cartier facility will meet the need as identified by the Correctional Services of Canada for protective custody in Quebec. The need was identified and the Government, in the interests of regional development, chose a site where a prison could be built to achieve both CSC's requirement and relieve regional disparity. Just because Canadians happen to live in a Prime Minister's constituency, does the Hon. Member believe they should not be given the same consideration as other people across Canada?
In summary, the reasons for building the institution in Port-Cartier, Quebec, are relatively straightforward. First, there was a need for a protective custody penitentiary in the Province of Quebec; second, as Port-Cartier suffered from a very high rate of unemployment, it was felt that the penitentiary should be built in Port-Cartier to address the problems of regional disparity.
The Government has absolutely no apology to make for the decision to use the construction of a major facility as a measure to relieve regional disparity. That is the reason the Government made the decision and that is why this Government stands firmly behind its decision and its policy to assist depressed areas of our country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

Wednesday, October 8, 1986