1986-10-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing for first reading a private Members' Bill which would give protection to all employees in the federal workplace, the House of Commons and all federal agencies, to all employees of airline companies, trains, and all carriers under federal jurisdiction and to the federal public which use services under federal jurisdiction, the House of Commons, the Senate and so forth to have a smoke-free workplace, and an objective standard has been incorporated into the Bill.
Finally, my Bill includes a measure to ban advertising and promotion of all kinds of cigarette products.


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.

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this Bill was introduced in the last session of Parliament, it went to committee but did not come
out of committee, one way or the other. This Bill will protect railway stations across the country that are considered of heritage value. It is high time that we had a Bill of this nature.


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.

Gordon Edward Taylor: for leave to introduce Bill C-206, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will reinstate capital punishment for those who deliberately plan and kill another human being.


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.

[DOT] (mo)

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Foreign Insurance Companies Act and the Winding-up Act.


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

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Bouchard


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Thomas Hockin: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Loan Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Bank Act with respect to certain regulatory matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed Friday, October 3 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) and the sub-amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 57).
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege, today, to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne as the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Nevertheless, it is, in my opinion an even greater privilege to rise in the House as the Member for Roberval, which is what I am first here in the House. I think my Quebec colleagues are well aware of my feelings of pride for the riding I represent, the riding of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, which to me is one of the most important elements of the Francophonie inside this country.
Now, for the first time in the history of this riding, it has a Member who is a Minister, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. And naturally, the riding of Saguenay-Lac-
Saint-Jean wants to thank the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) for his particular concern for the regions of this country.

I wish to extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your election to the Chair of the House. That I, as a Quebecer, can rise in my place to congratulate a favourite son of British Columbia is a small but powerful reminder of the diversity and greatness of the country. I look forward to working with you, Sir, as we all strive to ensure that the House honourably and vigorously reflects this diversity and greatness.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne proposes a major challenge to this House and to Canada, that of building an increasingly vigorous economy and above all, a tolerant and caring society, a society where all Canadians will reap a progressively larger share of the benefits of this country's development. However, the dream of equitable distribution of wealth will never become a reality if we do not produce that wealth by involving all Canadians in the process, in other words, by meeting the challenge of providing employment.

The most consistent message of the Government has always been that a healthy economy creates employment. As a result of the economic course set by the Government, we have achieved truly remarkable results. According to the most recent economic survey carried out by the OECD, Canada has been remarkably successful in creating jobs. Employment growth last year was again the fastest in the whole OECD, being well over twice the OECD average. Just as important as the creation of jobs is the need to prepare Canadians for these jobs. I want to applaud vigorously the energy and commitment of my predecessor in forging a new approach to prepare Canadians for these emerging opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, what we inherited was of little value. All we had was a set of empty and ineffective policies which did no more than make Canadians ripe for unemployment insurance, which failed to hold out any hope for stability or economic improvement and what is worse, totally unrelated to the real needs of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have made a concerted effort to restructure those policies, and we came up with the Canadian Job Strategy. Today, after only one year, 400,000 Canadians-Mr. Speaker, I repeat, for the information of my colleagues opposite-400,000 Canadians have been part of this remarkable success. Our approach is simple but fundamental, and it is to link training with the jobs and employment. All countries that have experienced significant development, whether in Asia, Europe or America, have understood this fact.
Here in Canada, the same holds true. That is why we have responded with six programs: Job Development, Job Entry, Skill Investment, and so forth. In fact, these programs link
October 6, 1986

training with employment. And those are the realities of 1986, Mr. Speaker, and we are not alone in thinking this way. All Canadians are beginning to understand that this is what we must do to keep up with other countries.
Ten years ago, of course, it was widely believed that the labour market was stable. Long-term unemployment was rare, and short periods of unemployment were seen as the norm. They were usually associated with the ups and downs of the economy. Governments were not expected to be imaginative or to create new approaches. The recession of the early 1980s changed all of this. It forced us to confront the changing reality of the market-place. No longer could we sustain our faith in short-term job-creation projects and unemployment insurance as solutions. Unfortunately, the belief in this old approach to the problem has been a long time in dying.

I agree that unemployment insurance, and there are many good reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, must be maintained as a safety net for all Canadians, and I can assure you that will continue to be the case. However, only a growing and healthy economy and an employment policy that is based on cooperation with business will help us build a strong country, where these realities are understood.

The global economy is changing and this brings change to every Canadian home and factory, every store and office. It means that individual Canadians will be called upon to adapt and seize new opportunities throughout their lives. For some, the challenges are greater and this Government has responded and will continue to respond to assist first those with the greatest needs. Older workers, young people, women, the disabled, visible minorities and natives all have special needs and the Government is committed to removing obstacles to their full participation in the workforce.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy is designed to focus on individuals. We realize that the old ways are no longer adequate. A global, bureaucratic plan in Ottawa does not relate to the problems faced by an unemployed woman in Ontario, a laid off miner in Manitoba, or a Newfoundland fisherman. Canadians do not want the old make-work projects. They not only offered old solutions, they were wasteful and diminished the dignity and self-respect of the individual. Canadians deserve better.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Job Strategy offers much more. It offers the solutions of the eighties for the problems of the eighties. Practical training and job experience lead to permanent jobs. The strategy concentrates on what works across this country. It does not fall into the trap of short-term jobs, which are jobs in name only. And above all, it involves everyone:
The Address-Mr. Bouchard
employers, workers, training institutions and all levels of government.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the figures are there. Canadians have responded enthusiastically. On average, over 80,000 people are trying daily to acquire the requisite skills to fill permanent jobs.

In Prince Edward Island, for example, a woman with nine children, who had worked as a labourer and was subsequently injured, began a training program in retail sales. She was hired by a local employer before her training period had ended. In Newfoundland, fishermen who were laid off by a fish processing plant were able to develop new products with assistance provided by the Canadian Jobs Strategy. As a result, they were not laid off.
There are thousands and thousands of examples across this country of Canadians who have successfully participated in the Canadian Jobs Strategy and who are now contributing their talents to the labour force.

Mr. Speaker, my work as Minister of Employment and Immigration is to take advantage of that momentum and to work towards progress with all my colleagues in this House. We do not claim to have the answers to all our problems. A great many remain unsolved, we do not wield a magic wand, but we can see that the outlook is more promising than it was two years ago. Time has come-and I hope the message will get through, Mr. Speaker-to stop seeing dark clouds on the horizon, especially in the employment sector.
There has been notable improvement over the past two years and statistics are there to prove it. But Canadians must change their mentality, and this can only come about if, in turn, individuals and the community accept this responsibility. The Government can lend support for such initiatives, but the future of the labour force depends on concerted action.
Quite obviously we are aware of regional realities. For example, I know that training does not come easy in some of the smaller villages in my own riding because the link between the economic reality and any business is not immediately apparent, and the community is poor, something which can be said about many ridings throughout the country.

For this reason I applaud the creation of an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and I look forward to the participation of my Department in this important initiative. I look forward also to meeting my provincial colleagues to discuss the situation in areas like the Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario, northern Quebec and other regions. I will listen carefully to their suggestions, particularly those regarding the Canadian Jobs Strategy. One thing is certain. We must evaluate the problems of particular regions carefully and we must integrate our efforts into the local economy.

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Bouchard

Basically, Mr. Speaker, this country reflects our differences and the course we Canadians are steering. We must keep in mind that Canada is a whole made up of various parts. Nothing in the employment strategy is engraved on stone. If current trends continue, we will have to acknowledge that Alberta and British Columbia are now experiencing hardships in terms of employment and to come directly to grips with their problems. Our provincial counterparts can count on our full support. Each community must strive to seek solutions to its own problems. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the point: each community, each region must make an effort to find its own solution to employment problems, and the Department of Employment and Immigration will be there to lend a hand.

As we in the House go forward with the business of the nation we must recognize that our first duty is to face reality. We must face the world as it is and, equally important, the way the world will be tomorrow. Only by looking ahead can we prepare the ground for the future.

Still, Mr. Speaker, we can also dream about tomorow, and I would even suggest we must do just that. This is the seed of hope in our future as a nation and we all know that the labour market will have changed substantially in ten years from now, at about the turn of the century. Are we really quite prepared to face this reality? Of course a number of Canadians will continue to think that tomorrow is yesterday and that the labour market owes us everything without anyone having to do his or her share. Some people will continue to believe in a static economy, powerless to compete and where governments always seem to come up with the right answers. Yet others will not accept the responsibility of taking an aggressive stance in the game of vested rights and compromises because, apparently, it is not up their alley.
I remain personally convinced that the majority of Canadians understand and support the need to develop new approaches to the world of work, where each has a responsibility to assume, where the collective efforts of Canadians are required in order to confront international competition, where we must sustain measured progress and maintain the momentum of a dynamic labour force.

Mr. Speaker, if our different backgrounds is such a vast country do create misunderstandings now and then, I am firmly convinced that, being all Canadians, the world of tomorrow will reflect our affinities.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how he can justify the fact that, under the Challenge '86 program, funds have been allocated to a few businesses such as La Ronde, in Montreal, while certain non-profit organizations have been harshly cut off and have been prevented from sending even a few children to the summer camp for handicapped children. Can he justify this conservative policy?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) will certainly understand that it would be extremely hard for me to give a reply to such a question this morning. She has quoted facts out of context and without any references and said that funds have been allocated to La Ronde but not to certain non-profit organizations. This is essentially a general assessment. The Hon. Member says that money has been given to some people, but not to others. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Challenge '86, as Challenge '85 before it, has been a great success. Whatever the Hon. Member may feel, and I am convinced that she is herself happy about it, we have been able to give young Canadians an opportunity to work during the summer, when they are generally available. I believe that Challenge '86 has been a good experience, especially as the young people involved were mostly associated with businesses which have to appreciate the abilities of young people in this country. Whether we are speaking about La Ronde or about non-profit organizations, many people have received help from this program. Generally speaking, I believe that people appreciate the Challenge '86 program.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Minister's speech and found it to be most informative. We always appreciate his attempts to keep Members informed of statistics on a weekly and monthly basis with regard to how the Department is performing in lowering unemployment. I would like to ask for one small point of clarification. Having looked at the unemployment figures for the last few months it seems to me that the unemployment figures for the last reported period were up slightly over the previous period. I think it was 9.3 or 9.5 per cent. In his Throne Speech address the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that unemployment is at its lowest level in five years. Is it correct that in a sense he was not quite accurate?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think that was a global evaluation. The trend for the unemployment rate is not regular. It may be down for July and up for August. I think that generally the trend was positive. The rate of unemployment in the country is generally the lowest for the last five years. My understanding is that the reference in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) speech was in this sense.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your new position.
October 6, 1986



I would like to congragulate the new Minister for his excellent speech which reflects a philosophy that I wholeheartedly support.

What 1 heard the Minister saying is consistent with a report which a special parliamentary committee presented to this Chamber in the fall of 1981. That committee was chaired by members of the previous Government and it was completely ignored by their Cabinet. I heard the Minister saying that there will be an intensification of things which are already started, that there will indeed be an increase in local decisionmaking, that the Government views communities of the country as having local labour markets with local opportunities for development of jobs, that we are composed of communities with somewhat different educational backgrounds and that communities will be able to decide how best to spend federal money so that people who live in those communities can acquire the skills which will lead to placement in jobs within their home communities. Is it a fair summary to say that the over-all approach of the Government is local control of decision-making in order that local people can attain skills relevant to where they live and would like to work?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to re-emphasize what the Member said. Jobs Strategy would like essentially to deal with the employment problems we had until 1984. I know that my colleagues on the other side are aware that the old job programs were a failure. We need only look at the figures from 1984.
The issue of training must be joined with the issue of jobs. The people of Canada are becoming increasingly more aware that we cannot give a strong thrust to job-creation programs and employment if we do not join this with training. This is the concern we have in all six streams of job creation. Job development, job entry and so on must always be mixed with training for the benefit of the future of the country. Young people are getting training in our universities in order to get jobs in the future. Our older workers have to be moved out of the industries because they do not have the necessary skills to get further.
In my speech I committed myself, and I think I can say I committed the entire Government, to continuing to deal with the question of training. My colleague speaks about New Brunswick. I am deeply aware of the problems that we have in the Atlantic provinces. The Prime Minister made his speech on Friday. The Hon. Member said that we did not have specific programs but I think the Speech from the Throne is not the place to give specific programs. It is the place to give the philosophy of the Government. The Hon. Member should be very pleased because he did not see such things before 1984.
The Address-Mr. Bouchard


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congragulate the Minister on his appointment and say that we hope that we can continue to be able to work closely with him, as we did when he was Secretary of State.
He mentioned the fact that unemployment affects certain regions in Canada more than others. I would like to point out, for instance, that our capital, Ottawa, had an unemployment rate of 9.2 per cent last July. There are 7,000 more unemployed in the national capital than there were in 1984 when the Progressive Conservative Government came to power. Of these, 35 to 40 per cent are young people who are unable to find work. Moreover, 20 per cent of the families in Ottawa- Vanier are single parent families with dependent children, and most of these families, or 95 per cent, are headed by women.
I would like to know what the Minister can tell us about this. First, what can he tell my constituents, such as a woman with two children who has no job and who needs training and development programs. Can he give her some encouragement? Would he tell her today: Madam, this Government will see to it that programs are made available at Algonquin College or elsewhere to give you retraining and enable you to find work and earn a decent living?
As for young people, many of my constituents go to Ottawa University, Carleton University or Algonquin College. There are 21,000 students in my riding. What can you tell them about their careers? Can they expect this Government to be sensitive to their needs and to implement real job-creation and training programs which will give them an opportunity to earn a decent living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister may give a very brief reply.


Benoît Bouchard: In my speech this morning, Mr. Speaker, I tried to address this concern. I think that the Ottawa region, for the very specific reasons you referred to, is faced with the same problem as a great many other regions in this country. This morning, I made every effort in my speech not to imply that we had found solutions to all problems, including those experienced by young people coming out of the university, not to mention those of women who are trying to return to the labour force and for whom it is a fundamental desire. However, as you know, the current situation is becoming increasingly more difficult. A reference was made to New Brunswick and Newfoundland, which does not lift the obligation to solve your problem, but first of all, we must try to help the areas where unemployment rates are as high as 15 or 20 per cent and which would be faced with a very difficult situation indeed if the Government failed to act quickly and effectively.

October 6, 1986
The Address-Ms. Jewett
However, once again, it is a very great and considerable endeavour, but I do understand the issue which you are raising, because it is just as bad to be unemployed in Ottawa as it is to be out of work in St. John's, Newfoundland.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you on becoming the new Speaker of the House as a result of a democratic election process that we have not known in the House before. I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we found it to be an extremely rewarding experience that your peers should make the decision as to who should be Speaker of the House. It was one of the most exciting and democratic proposals of the reform committee. While we all agree that a few small procedural changes must be made, the principle is one that I know each Member of the House cherishes.
Let me also say that I thought the speeches by the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply were very ably given. I particularly want to mention the speech of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) in moving the Address in Reply since in addition to being an extremely able person she is a British Columbian like you and I.
The Hon. Member for Capilano said that 70,000 new jobs had been created in British Columbia since September, 1984. However, she did not mention that thousands upon thousands of jobs have been lost in British Columbia since 1984, particularly in the forest industry. In light of the current situation, it would seem that thousands more jobs will be lost in our key basic industry of forestry. Also, she did not mention that of the
70,000	new jobs that were created, practically all of them are not highly productive jobs but minimum wage jobs in the service industry.
It is widely known that British Columbia has the lowest minimum wage in Canada at $3.65 an hour, and according to the Premier it will be even less or abolished altogether in some areas of work.
Therefore, I suggest that it is perhaps exercising a bit too much hyperbole to put such stress on the creation of new jobs because they are not in the productive part of the British Columbia economy or in the potentially productive part of the economy. They are certainly not in the key resource industry of our province, the forest industry.
In fact, neither the Throne Speech nor the Member for Capilano indicated very much at all about the forest industry, which was a bit of a surprise to the rest of us from British Columbia and other Members from provinces in which the forest industry is important. It is one of the key export industries of this country, but there was only a fleeting reference made to it by either the Hon. Member or the Speech from the Throne.
This is no doubt because both the federal Government and the provincial Government seem to be in a state of some chaos on the question of the industry. Many of us in the New Democratic Party have said many times in the past year or
more that Canada and the United States should conduct negotiations on the forest industry, including our access to American markets and whether or not stumpage needs improvement. We have often said that the stumpage system needs improvement. We have not suggested, nor do we believe that it is an unfair subsidy. Indeed, the International Trade Commission did not believe it was an unfair subsidy in 1983. However, improvements certainly could be made to the stumpage system and we, as well as the IWA, have been arguing for some time that improvements could and should be made and that direct negotiation should be undertaken with the United States Government and the lumber industry in both countries. This was not done and suddenly we have seen a last minute flurry with a so-called offer to the United States directly relating to stumpage fees, which was inevitably turned down.
I suppose the problem facing the Government is that it was so hung up on free trade and the idea of everything going under a comprehensive trade negotiation-even though we are supposed to have had free trade in the lumber industry for 50 years and President Reagan indicated to Senator Packwood that he would resolve the softwood lumber issue for the American lumber producers-that neither the Canadian Government nor the British Columbia Government realized that they would be outsmarted and that they should have stopped talking about a comprehensive agreement and addressed the immediate issue. Of course, the immediate issue concerned negotiations in the lumber industry itself.
Little has been said about this and we are now in the midst of a very confusing scenario which may yet, and I believe will, lead to satisfactory negotiations. However, that certainly has not been the case up to now.
Another industry of great interest and concern in British Columbia, although not as major as the forest industry, is the shipbuilding industry, which we would like to see enhanced. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Capilano also mentioned that the Polar 8 icebreaker, promised in the Speech from the Throne, will hopefully be built on the West Coast. She suggested it would be desirable that the awarding of the contract be to a firm on the West Coast. That is a most estimable wish but, as the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) pointed out on Friday, the desirability of having the icebreaker built on the West Coast would have been enhanced enormously had invitations to tender been limited to firms on the West Coast.
Indeed, the Hon. Member for Victoria, who is here in the House today, asked in 1983, as he reminded us on Friday in the House of Commons, the then Minister of Supply and Services if the tender for the Polar 8 icebreaker would be limited to the West Coast and he was assured that it would be. However, this Government has not done that. Now we are in a situation where, lacking that kind of action, the Government is going to have to make the decision on political grounds such
October 6, 1986

as, for example, where it is going to put a prison. That is extremely unfortunate.
There has been a lot of other shipbuilding in other parts of Canada, for instance in Saint John and on the St. Lawrence River, yet no attention is really being paid by the Government to the shipbuilding needs on the West Coast.
There were items in the Speech from the Throne which I and other Hon. Members, I know, were very encouraged to hear. The recommendations in relation to science, technology and post-secondary education were superficially, at least, encouraging. In the case of scientific research, $1 billion over five years in funding is promised. That is about the only specific in the Speech from the Throne. That was good to see, although, as we all know, practically all of that is catch-up since scientific research has been so under-funded. Also promised in the Speech from the Throne was a strategy for technology and a variety of other proposals. We will have to see whether or not these will be elaborated upon further in the weeks and months ahead. We can only hope so.
The Government promised that it would call a national forum on post-secondary education early next year to help meet the challenges facing higher education. Again, this is a desirable proposal, one which we have been making for some time. It would, of course, have been more seriously taken by us had we felt that the present Government has a serious commitment to post-secondary education. We find that its commitment is really not a particularly serious one, when as recently as June of this year it pressed through with Bill C-96 which, as we all recall, significantly reduced the rate of increase of federal support for post-secondary education. Nor has the Government made any response to a suggestion made by many people in the field of higher education that there should be a Minister of State for post-secondary education in the federal Government. That is something for which the New Democrats have been calling for some time. I speak of New Democrats in this connection, Mr. Speaker, because both federally and provincially we have been particularly strong proponents of accessibility to post-secondary education as well as fairness and equity, adequate funding, a better loan and grant system and all the other important matters relating to post-secondary education if we want a society where we have genuine equality of opportunity.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we objected very strenuously in 1977 to the open-ended federal funding proposals which were passed at that time. That meant that provinces could spend the money on any matter they wished rather than spending it strictly on post-secondary education. Provinces have been very remiss in keeping up their full share of the costs of post-secondary education, particularly the Social Credit Government of British Columbia which has been extremely remiss. It has been cutting back very seriously on accessibility to higher education. I am curious to know what would happen, and I hope I never see it, if our current premier, who was a disastrous Minister of Education, should attend the national forum on challenges to higher education because, quite
The Address-Ms. Jewett
frankly, the current Premier of British Columbia, as became quite clear in a television newsclip the other night when he appeared at a meeting with students at the University of British Columbia, really has no interest or concern about the issue of equality and accessibilty in higher education. Nor, indeed, does his Minister of Education. I was shocked to read a day or two ago that: "B.C. Education Minister, Russell Fraser, says poorer people should examine their priorities and consider putting off post-secondary education if they are unable to afford it".
Post-secondary eduation is as significant for those of us in British Columbia as the forest and shipbuilding industries. We would like to see a full debate on this in the current provincial election. The New Democrats, as I said before, both federally and provincially, have creative programs for post-secondary education. Our British Columbia leader, Bob Skelly, outlined in detail our post-secondary education policies at the University of Victoria last week. It would be desirable, it seems to me, as it does to him, to have the current premier debate with him-and we have been urging this in our province-issues not only of forestry and other matters of job creation but also the accessibility of education to young people, and we still hope to see that happen.
The Speech from the Throne also addressed another subject in which many of us in this House have a great interest, that is, the equality of women in society. It is rather disappointing, however, that it is difficult to find in the Speech from the Throne any real, strong and genuine commitment to, for example, universal child care. It had some things to say about wage equity in the Public Service but there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne which address the problem of ghettoization of women in low paid jobs in the Public Service, nor anything about the problems of the part-time worker, most of whom are women, the impact of technological change on women, or the enormous problem of women in development in the Third World. I feel that the commitment of the Government to the equality of women at home and abroad is not a very deep one.
I was interested to note that in the listing of the Ministry as reported in last Wednesday's Hansard no one is listed as being responsible for the status of women. I thought that the Hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mrs. McDougall) had been given that responsibility-but apparently not. Beside her name in the list there is mentioned only her responsibility as Minister of State for Privatization. Indeed, if one looks at the alphabetical listing of Members set out in last Wednesday's Hansard one will see that beside the Minister's name there is no reference to her being Minister Responsible for the Status of Women as well as being the Minister responsible for privatization. So someone who did not know what was going on here, and I suppose from time to time that includes many Canadians, would not know that the Government had anyone responsible for the status of women. Perhaps that shows the Government's priorities. It is difficult to understand, particularly in view of

October 6, 1986
The Address-Ms. Jewett
the fact that two other Ministers with dual responsibilities, that is, Forestry and Mines on the one hand and Small Business and Tourism on the other, had both their responsibilities listed beside their names last Wednesday.
The Speech from the Throne made some mention of Canada's role in the world community. I might say that it provided an encouraging outlook and attitude to which my Leader referred last Friday during the Leaders' debate. I would like to enjoin upon the Government a few more steps other than those outlined in the Speech from the Throne and those set out in the contributions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) with respect to international affairs.
With respect to South Africa, for example, although the Government has been strong in its condemnation of apartheid in the work it has been doing with other Commonwealth countries, it has not yet responded to the resolution of the allParty committee which met this summer. I refer to the committee which studied the matter of human rights and which, in effect, called for a complete legislated embargo on imports and exports of goods and services to and from South Africa. To my knowledge there has been no response to that unanimous recommendation of the committee-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired. Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) obviously wants to wrap up her speech. I do not think there would be any objection to allowing her to wrap up her speech. Questions and comments could then follow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to wrap up her speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I gave the Hon. Member the five-minute signal, the three-minute signal and the one-minute signal. I hope that Hon. Members will watch the Chair in order that they will know when to wind up as we progress through the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my warmest thanks to the House. I had lost track of the time.
The few minutes that I have left will not be long enough to cover the huge subject area of international affairs. However, I would like to say that there are other areas about which we would like to know the Government's position. For example, there is Namibia and the issue of aid to the front line states. We would like more detail concerning the Government's revised policy on the export of military and strategic goods, particularly in relation to Chile. Above all, we would like to know what the Government's position is with respect to arms
control and disarmament. Many of us are distressed indeed that Canada has not yet placed at the top of its agenda urging the United States to join the Soviet Union in a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. It was a pity that we abstained from the UN resolution of last December which called for the immediate cessation and prohibition of nuclear weapons testing. I say that because, on the one hand, we say we would like to see it, and yet, on the other, we abstain when a vote comes. It is somewhat like saying that a nuclear freeze is great, yet we vote against it at the United Nations.
We say from time to time that we cannot do much about nuclear testing since there is a problem of verification. That is the Reagan argument. However, virtually every seismographic expert outside the U.S. administration believes that test ban verification can now be assured. We would like to see the Government move in that area.
Finally, and because I know I am short of time, the one other area I will mention, and which I will debate at greater length on another occasion, is with respect to the failure of Canada to resist the resumption of Cruise missile testing. How can we begin again to allow air-launched Cruise missile testing when the United States, for whom this is being done, has said that it will violate the SALT II treaty by increasing its number of Cruise-missile-capable strategic bombers? This makes us complicit in breaching the SALT II treaty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton).


Mr. Crofton:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the representations of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). Early in her remarks she drew attention to the excellent speech made by our colleague from British Columbia, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). She suggested that the speech given by the Hon. Member for Capilano contained some rhetoric with which she had some difficulty. I must say that the speech I heard this morning is one which gives me some difficulty.
Unquestionably, the economic situation in British Columbia is difficult. British Columbia is also my home province. No area of activity in the province is in greater jeopardy at this time than is the lumber industry. Expressing concern about the job situation is clearly a marked and important step taken by the Government to overcome, in part, that difficulty. However, the Hon. Member indicated in her speech that somehow we should be taking a sectoral approach to the forestry problems in British Columbia, an approach which is in defiance of the American position. The Americans have said on a number of occasions that they look to comprehensive negotiations in respect of our trade difficulties. They have said that they are not interested in sectoral discussions. As a Government we have worked very hard to promote a co-ordinated approach to our forestry problems. The four main producing provinces and the federal Government have been working hard to deal with this issue. Is she saying that she is in support of that? Is she or
October 6, 1986

her Party not in support of increased stumpage fees, something which at long last will perhaps put the necessary money into reforestation and silviculture? After all, stumpage rates are under provincial jurisdiction, they are not something over which we as a federal Government have any jurisdiction.
Clearly these are all moves designed to assist and promote the forest industry in British Columbia and to create the very jobs the Hon. Member has correctly said are needed. However, the views she presented this morning seemed to go contrary to known fact and the activities of the Government.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my hon. friend for his questions. Indeed, the reforestation agreement is an important one. Compared with what was done in the past when the forest industry was basically ignored both by the companies themselves and by the Liberal Government, this is a step forward. It is just that because of this long neglect, so very much more is needed, and I am sure my hon. friend would agree.
The Hon. Member said that the Americans are not interested in a sectoral approach. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. What the Americans are trying to do is pick off one sector after another. That is what they are doing and that is what they have been doing. That is what we must not let continue. It is like we are giving them the opening to pick sectors off. We have to get in there ahead of them. We have to know our own position on each sector without simply allowing the Americans to pick each of them off.
Finally, on the subject of stumpage fees, I said that for years we had wanted to have the entire stumpage system looked at. We think it has inherent deficiencies. One of those is fees. I think it is a pity that only the question of fees has been addressed, particularly since fees were not found to be a subsidy in the 1983 ruling of the ITC.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am just a little bit confused. I am not sure what the Hon. Member is saying in terms of the NDP position. Is it the NDP position that we should condemn the agreement which may or may not be reached in these negotiations before we see it? That seems to be the position of the CLC. That position is that any kind of new trade arrangement with the United States which might be agreed to by negotiators on our behalf and on its behalf should be condemned and condemned outright before anyone has seen it.
It seems to me to be perfectly logical to hold our fire on whether or not to accept an agreement until we have seen what it says. Is the Hon. Member saying that we should condemn it because somehow, in her mind, she thinks the process is flawed and therefore a flawed process cannot produce a good result? Certainly in this Chamber we see many flawed processes. We see many bad results but we see many good results coming out of flawed processes. Is she condemning the process or is she condemning the potential agreement before we see it and before we have had a chance to vote on it in this Chamber?
The Address-Ms. Jewett


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, we do have some doubts about what might come out, particularly because if the so-called free trade negotiations result in some kind of an agreement and the Americans continue to insist on having the power to countervail, I do not see that we will be very far ahead in the forest industry or any other industry. How can we wait to hear of the private negotiations on this so-called free trade deal? They are going on in private. We do not know what is going on. In the interim, the Americans are taking all these protectionist actions. The Hon. Member is asking me if I question the process. What I am questioning is his position which seems to be one of waiting until the negotiations are all Finished. We cannot wait. We simply cannot wait.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that under the GATT the Auto Pact was an exception as a sectoral agreement. We were given a special exemption. I wonder if the Hon. Member thinks that the sectoral approach favoured by her Party is consistent with the GATT. A GATT official told me that he doubted very much that we would ever again be given an exemption for an Auto Pact agreement between Canada and the United States. I wonder if the Hon. Member really believes that it would be possible to get another sectoral agreement through the GATT while being consistent with GATT which, as she knows, would certainly not be possible.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I think the auto agreement is entirely different and the kinds of guarantees that were given under the auto agreement for the production of automobiles are entirely different from those in an agreement that would be negotiated in the forest industry. The agreement that is to be negotiated in the forest industry would presumbly be an agreement relating to market sharing and matters of that kind. I do not know that one would even ask for the kinds of built in guarantees that are in the automobile agreement as I understand the Auto Pact. I really do not think the question of a negotiated agreement would violate GATT. Indeed, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the Hon. Member's own colleague, is already, in a sense, in negotiations. It is just a little late. Is she violating GATT?


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the presentation made by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) but I am rather curious about the amount of time the NDP are giving in the House to the provincial election in British Columbia as compared to the time given to federal business. I listened carefully to what she had to say about the election in British Columbia. Being a Conservative from British Columbia, I can take a very detached viewpoint from the sidelines. I wonder if the Hon. Member would agree with me that putting Mr. Skelly up against Mr. Vander Zalm is about the worst mismatch we have seen since Buddy Baer fought Joe Louis for the championship.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Hon. Member asked that question. I think there are people in public life who occasionally choke up when they are faced with a gaggle of television cameras and a hustling, pushing horde of

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Romp key
reporters. Maybe the Hon. Member does not do so, but some people do so occasionally. Bob Skelly did choke up twice, I believe, when faced with a horde of television cameras and pushing and shoving reporters. Frankly, I am surprised at the Hon. Member for thinking that that should be the gauge by which one judges a person's abilities.
We have heard what the Leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia has said in debate and today I have read press accounts on post-secondary education, the forest industry and the creation of jobs. Those can be compared with the absolute emptiness of the performance of the Social Credit Party. It is all style and no substance as the current premier has said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congragulate you for your election as Acting Speaker of the House of Commons; I wish also to congragulate the Speaker of the House of Commons (Mr. Fraser). Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important for an Hon. Member to congragulate in French the Hon. Members for Edmonton North and British Columbia.

I hope you understood that, Mr. Speaker.
I am also pleased to see the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) present in the House and to see them conferring. 1 hope they are talking about Goose Bay and the necessity for establishing a mechanism for monitoring control going to the Armed Forces, something which we all support but which needs to be done carefully and with the consent and involvement and information of the people of Goose Bay. I am very pleased to see them discussing that this morning.
I would like to address particularly the impact or lack of impact of the Throne Speech on the Atlantic provinces, and particularly on my own riding of Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador, a riding which I have had the honour to represent for the last 14 years. I have to say that I am very disappointed with the lack of attention given to the Atlantic provinces in the Throne Speech. I have rarely seen in 14 years a Throne Speech which has addressed so little the real problems of the Atlantic provinces.
We hear about the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency. That seems to me to be an admission that the billion dollar loan fund announced in the last speech for the Atlantic provinces has not been effective. We do not know what this agency will produce. We hope it will be some sort of new panacea, but, although we have tried a number of different mechanisms in the past, they do not seem to have worked.
I do not see any new policy coming, nor do I see the addressing of some of our problems. First, there is no mention at all of the development of hydro power. Yet this, I know, was an issue of great importance to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I asked him on April 19, 1985 in the House about the development of the hydro resources on the Ungava Peninsula in his riding and in mine involving the rivers that flow through Labrador and the rivers that begin in my riding and flow through his down to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in 1985:
-I put forward a proposal which I thought would be fair to Newfoundland and Quebec, which would allow for the development of those rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence, particularly from Labrador west, which would provide unique benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador and to the lower St. Lawrence and eastern Quebec. In fact the project as we set it out would have cost about $25 billion in 1979 dollars and created thousands of jobs and opportunities for Labradorians and Quebecers.
With regard to this specific point, I have met with Premier Levesque and I have met with Premier Peckford. I have offered the full services of my office and myself to see if we cannot find a tri-partite mechanism whereby the three Governments can proceed to the development of this enormous resource which will benefit both provinces and create thousands of new jobs.
That, Mr. Speaker, was in 1985. The water is still flowing to the sea. It is still flowing untapped, and meanwhile we are buying expensive oil. That hydro-development for Labrador and for Newfoundland is the single greatest opportunity for economic development and the creation of jobs that we have in our province today, Hibernia notwithstanding. It is the single greatest opportunity for the creation of jobs. Yet a resource which would be good not only for our province but for the Atlantic provinces and for the eastern seaboard of the United States is not mentioned and there is no policy of the Government of Canada toward that important alternate energy source.
I notice that farming had four paragraphs at the beginning of the speech with specific initiatives, and I congratulate the farming community on that. I am happy that the people in western Canada particularly, the farmers in Ontario, Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces will have something of value to look forward to. What, on the other hand, did the fishery get, Mr. Speaker? It got one line on page nine, and what does it say? In English it says that the Government is committed to improving the administration of Small Craft Harbours. That is it, the administration of Small Craft Harbours. There is, however, a difference in the French translation, which indicates there will be some sort of infusion of funds, that it will improve the funding of Small Craft Harbours. That is what it says in French but in English it says we will improve the administration of Small Craft Harbours. There is a difference between what the Throne Speech says in French and what it says in English. If the English is the original and is the policy the Government is following, it is a promise that will not be hard to keep because if funding of Small Craft Harbours is no better in the future than in the past then there will be no wharves and breakwaters to administer.
There was no mention of the very serious crisis in the inshore fishery, not just this year but in the future. Small boat
October 6, 1986

fishermen, particularly on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and on the coast of Labrador, are worried about their future and what is going to happen to the inshore fishery. That problem was not mentioned or addressed in the Throne Speech.
There was no mention of the serious decline in ground fish stocks off the Atlantic Coast and what this means for the fishing industry, another serious problem. Is the Government committed to extending the 200 mile limit, for example, over the nose and tail of the Grand Bank to get better control of ground fish stocks? These are things we wanted to hear, what my people wanted to hear and did not.
What about oil, Mr. Speaker? Oil rigs have left the East Coast, and Hibernia is stalled. What did we find in the speech for solving this dilemma? Only that the Government has signed the Atlantic Accord, and that will take care of the situation. But that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. We have the Atlantic Accord, but Hibernia is not going and the oil rigs are leaving the East Coast. Let me quote what the President of the St. John's Board of Trade said as reported in the Evening Telegram for September 12, 1986. This is just to show you, Sir, that this is not simply an opposition voice crying in the dark. The Board of Trade President Geoff Tooton told the Kiwanis Club of Cabot:
-that Ottawa must come up with more incentives to keep exploration drilling alive.
The loan rig operation offshore Newfoundland right now is expected to stay around for only another 10 months. After that the term "offshore" may mean fishing only for some time.
Hard hit by the unforseen collapse of oil prices, oil companies and business leaders across the country are now asking Ottawa for help to save what is left from the deregulation experiment.
-there's a need for more incentives to keep up at least a minimum of offshore drilling, if only to help delineate already proven reserves.
It's time for the federal Government to reassess the situation in the frontier lands of Canada's energy industry and act decisively today.
There is no mention, Mr. Speaker, of how the Government wants to address this problem. What is needed is a made in Canada price or some financial incentive to the oil companies so they can start drilling again and Hibernia can get going. It must not be allowed to drift.
Like my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), I found some things of value in this Throne Speech. I think that congratulations are in order to the Government for mentioning a national forum on postsecondary education, and a forum on technology; the latter being something I have been urging for the last two years. It is an important issue in Canada. The Government of Canada must address it and it must not be left to the provinces. I was very pleased to see that the Government will call a national forum on post-secondary education. I think this Party can take some credit because our leader has been stressing postsecondary education in his speeches, not just since this Parliament began but before. At the present time we have a national Liberal task force on post-secondary education. However, I congratulate the Government for this. It is the first
The Address-Mr. Rompkey
time that a Government has made mention of it in a Throne Speech and it is very welcome indeed.
I was also pleased to see the attack that is going to be made on illiteracy in Canada. There are economic pay-offs to solving the illiteracy problem. It is a situation that exists all across the country which must be dealt with, and dealt with soon.
I was also glad to see the reference to the Government's intention to improve water quality to bring in the Environmental Protection Act and to take other measures to improve water quality. I was pleased because the Exploits River Sytem in my riding, a very important river system, is in great danger at the moment. As some people will know, there is a very important paper mill on that river and there is effluent going into it. As well, there is salmon enhancement taking place. This river could become the greatest salmon river in North America, so it is important that we come to grips with these problems. We will be asking the Government to follow through, not only with its verbal commitments, but with its pocket-book, because we will need $22 million to solve the problems in the Exploits River system.
There were some good things in the Speech from the Throne, but I have to agree with the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) that there were things we wanted to see but did not see. For example, I wanted a firm commitment to the advancement of the equality of women in the workplace and in society. What did we get from the Government? The Government made the statement that it hoped the private sector would follow the example of the Government of Canada in advancing the equality of women. I do not think that is good enough. I think there must be more than that. There must be legislation, guidelines, and some use of the levers of the Government of Canada to ensure that the private sector indeed follows the example of the federal Government in advancing the cause of women. There was no commitment to day care, which is a growing issue in my riding and across the country.
On the question of youth, there will be more consultation with the provinces. That is not good enough. In my province close to 50 per cent of eligible young people are unemployed. That is a national tragedy. The Senate report just told us that young people are in danger of becoming a lost generation, yet the Government says it will have more consultation with the provinces. As I said, that is not good enough. It is a serious and real problem which needs the attention, help, and support of the Government of Canada.
There are some good things in the Speech from the Throne, but on the whole I found that it did not address, in a realistic way, the very real problems in the Atlantic provinces. I hope the Government of Canada is not taking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) seriously and is not being guided by what he said. He suggested recently in the Atlantic provinces that we should possibly compare ourselves with the Third World when we talk about economic and social advancement.

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. White
The fact is that we in Atlantic Canada are Canadians. The only yardstick by which we can go is how we compare with other Canadians. When we look at our situation, we find there is still inequality and a need for the direct intervention of the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada cannot leave it to the private sector or to private enterprise to solve our problems. Historically we have been dependent upon the direct intervention of the Government of Canada. We do not like it, but it is a fact of life. Until such time as fundamental and structural problems can be solved, that has to be the case.
I hope the Minister of Transport, having as he does a very responsible position as the regional Minister for Newfoundland, was speaking more out of frustration than anything else and speaking in a tone of levity for which he is well known. We are not at all prepared to accept that comparison with the Third World. We are Canadians. We expect help from the Government of Canada, and that help was not apparent in the Speech from the Throne.
I want to see more vision and direction as to how the problems in the east and in the rest of the country will be solved. Therefore, I cannot support the Throne Speech and I must associate myself with the amendment of our Party, particularly wherein it indicates the following:
-when the oil and gas industry is trying to hang on; when regional inequalities are being worsened by government inaction;-
I can only hope that after the Throne Speech the Government will look seriously at the very real problems in the oil industry, in the fishery, and in hydro development, in particular, to try to create some real jobs in the Atlantic area, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope that following the Throne Speech there will be initiatives which may not have been enunciated in the Speech from the Throne but will be spelled out in legislation in the House of Commons by the Government, because the problems are very real and will not go away by themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. Since there are no questions or comments, on debate the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White).


Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating Your Honour on your reappointment. I wish you well. You certainly have the confidence of the House.
I am very pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It has been barely two years since the Government received a manadate of reform from Canadians. Since that time we have made major progress toward achieving the four goals spelled out in our first Speech from the Throne almost two years ago, namely, national reconciliation, constructive internationalism, social justice, and economic renewal. In particular, significant action has been taken to rebuild the Canadian economy, and I should like to mention a few items.
On September 4, 1984, for example, the rate on five-year mortgages was 14.25 per cent. Today that rate is 11.25 per
cent. The rate on loans issued under the Small Businesses Loans Act is now 10.75 per cent, compared with 14 per cent on election day. Consumer confidence is at its highest level in 21 years, according to the Conference Board. Housing starts have risen by 40 per cent since September, 1984. Canada's inflation rate has been in the 4 per cent range now for two years, the most stable price environment we have seen in Canada since the late 1960s. The number of Canadians living below the poverty line declined by 300,000 last year, the first such decline since 1981. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) mentioned on Friday, it is not a miracle, but it is real progress.
The Government inherited a deficit of $38.3 billion. Last year that deficit fell to $34.5 billion. This year the deficit will be approximately $32.5 billion. It will be the first time in 16 years that the deficit has declined for two consecutive years.
Internationally we have also done very well. In the past two years Canada has moved from eleventh to sixth position in the world's 24 top competitive developed nations, and that is no minor accomplishment. It is clear Canada is in an international position of strength and growing stronger, led by the present Government.
What about our record of putting Canadians back to work? During the election campaign of 1984 a corner-stone of our message to Canadians was jobs, jobs, jobs. We believed that a P.C. Government could introduce policies to increase employment, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled an economic statement in late 1984 to begin that process. How have we done? In September, 1984, 11.7 per cent of the Canadian workforce was unemployed. Today the unemployment rate is down two full percentage points to 9.7 per cent. In that period over 560,000 Canadians found work; 318,000 of them were women and 85 per cent of the jobs were full-time jobs. I might add that all of this was despite opposition predictions that thousands of jobs would be lost. Certainly there is much more to be done, especially for our youth. It is equally clear that the Government offers Canadians the brightest future.
We are taking the initiative on international trade. As the Prime Minister said on Friday-and I think quite aptly-trade is not just a theory; trade means jobs for Canadians. Also technology, research, and development mean jobs for Canadians. The Throne Speech clearly states the commitment of the Government in these areas. It can then be applied to all industries, for the benefit of all Canadians. Canada has made great progress in economic renewal, and the Throne Speech sets out the agenda for future progress.
However, there is an industry in Canada which has not shared in the economic renewal and finds itself in very difficult times. I am speaking about Canadian agriculture. Representing as I do the rural riding of Dauphin-Swan River in west central Manitoba, the agricultural economy is of particular importance to my constituents and I. Why should Canadians be concerned at all with farming? Agriculture is much more than just an occupation; agriculture is a way of life. Canadian agriculture is dominated by the family farm. At the time of the
October 6, 1986

1981 census, 87 per cent of Canadian farms were operated by sole proprietors and 9.3 per cent were partnerships. Less than one half of 1 per cent were owned by corporations whose shares were not held by single families. Two-thirds of operators owned all the land they farmed. Including the processing, wholesaling, and retailing sectors, food and agriculture account for more than a quarter of all economic activity in Canada. Approximately 500,000 Canadians are directly employed in agriculture, and approximately 1.5 million people are employed directly or indirectly in agriculture and food. Last year agricultural exports generated $9 billion in foreign exchange. After subtracting imports of $6 billion, Canada had a positive agricultural trade balance of $3 billion. Agricultural exports last year were equal to an average of $28,000 per farm, and farm cash receipts in 1985 totalled $20 billion.
However, there is also bad news. On paper the average farmer had an equity of $416,945 in 1984. However, the paper value of a farm will not buy groceries, furniture or children's clothing. In that same year the average income from all sources for farmers was $15,596. This means that an average farmer could more than double his or her total income simply by selling the farm and investing the proceeds in long-term government bonds. Although people might be inclined to point their fingers at grain farmers when the price of bread goes up, the farmers' cash receipt from a 24-ounce loaf of bread is barely enough to make a sandwich.
At the end of 1984, farm debt totalled $21.6 billion. The annual number of farm bankruptcies rose from 125 in 1979 to 551 in 1984, an increase of 341 per cent. Last year the number of farm bankruptcies declined by 8 per cent to 508, but that is still far too high. Total farm equity fell from $100 billion in 1981 to 95.6 billion in 1984, a decline of more than $4 billion.
Significant gains have been made in agricultural productivity over the past several years. The high productivity of our agri-food system means that Canadians on average spend less than 16 per cent of their income on food, the second lowest percentage in the world. As you can see, agriculture is important to all Canadians, not just western Canadians and those involved in agriculture.
A western farmer told a reporter recently that he worked on the farm to feed 90 people and his wife works in town to feed him. I think that is a sad irony and an all too common tragedy which has forced many farmers and farm families off the farm, and Canada cannot afford to lose productive farmers.
The reason for all of this is a total upheaval in the international agricultural economy. In recent years world agricultural trade has been strongly influenced by debt repayment problems in developing countries. There have been protection policies, export incentives for surplus production, and increased production in many parts of the world. In fact, many of the countries we used to export to are now net exporters themselves. These factors have created tough competition for export markets and driven down world prices for many farm
The Address-Mr. White
commodities. As a result, farm income from market sources is declining.
Prairie grain producers, who have been particularly hard hit by low commodity prices, have also suffered low crop yields due to drought, flooding and grasshopper infestation. Based on expectations of growing export markets and higher prices, many farmers borrowed to finance farm expansion and modernization in the 1970s. These heavily-indebted farmers were crippled by high interest rates in the early 1980s and many have subsequently been unable to meet their financing costs. Thus it is quite apparent that our prairie grain producers are innocent victims of an international trade war. This Government understands the situation. It has assisted and it intends to do much more.
What has been our record over the past two years in response to the needs of agriculture? Many of the initiatives I will mention are in direct response to the commitments we made during the 1984 election campaign. Since coming to office this Government has brought forward over 235 separate initiatives which will benefit Canadian agriculture at a cost of more than $5.1 billion. I want to mention a few important examples.
Through a system of rebates the Government has effectively removed all federal sales and excise taxes from diesel and gasoline farm fuels for an average annual saving of almost $200 million for our producers. In fact, the elimination of the fuel tax was announced by the Prime Minister on April 30 as part of his western initiative. The Prime Minister, by his actions then and now, has confirmed his personal commitment and that of his Government to agriculture.
When was the last time any Canadian saw a Prime Minister of Canada stand up and speak on behalf of Canada's farmers? I feel that our Prime Minister has his finger on the pulse of Canadian agriculture. In the past all we got, most of the time, was just the finger.
Legislation has been passed to set up farm debt review boards composed of people who have knowledge and experience in farming and financial matters. Farm families who have no choice but to give up farming because of financial difficulties can look to the Canadian Rural Transition Program for assistance. The program is worth over $46 million. Charges that this program will force families off the farm are totally ludicrous. Being self-employed, farmers have generally not been eligible for this type of federal assistance and this program is only one part of a total farm policy package as developed by Agriculture Canada and Employment and Immigration Canada after consultation with provincial Governments and farm organizations.
However, despite all that has been done, serious problems still exist. In the words of our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in a speech he gave on August 28: "I would be the first to admit that despite all of our initiatives problems in agriculture persist. At one time the measures we have taken would

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. White
have been more than enough. Today there is a legitimate concern that more needs to be done."
At the root of the problem, as farmers and the rest of the agricultural community understand, is the European Economic Community common agricultural policy and, by way of response, the U.S. Farm Bill. This subsidy battle between them has resulted in unrealistically low world grain prices. As is so apparent, when the price of grain declines, so does the economy of western Canada. These prices bear no relation whatsoever to any kind of production cost figures.
The opposition Parties do not seem to be able to grasp a basic understanding of the problem. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), for example, talks about European and American farmers being protected by these subsidies. Anyone who knows anything about the agricultural economy knows that these subsidies are the cause of the problem and not a response to it. Without these huge subsidies, in a world of truly competitive agricultural trade, the farmers of Canada would prosper. They have proven in the past that they are among the most competitive in the world.
Let us put the subsidy picture into prospective for just a moment. According to Agriculture Canada calculations, in 1985, for every one dollar in Canadian funds which our Government spent to support wheat production, the U.S. spent $2.57, and the EEC almost $3. It is also estimated that for 1986-87, for every dollar Canada spends the EEC and the U.S. will spend nearly four times as much. Obviously Canada does not have the treasury to compete with the EEC and the U.S. The long-term solution is to end the unfair subsidization of the EEC and U.S. farmers.
The Canadian Government has taken a leading role in international talks on agriculture trade to help alleviate the problem. Prime Minister Mulroney, for example, made this matter Canada's top priority for discussion at the Tokyo Economic Summit. The debate took hold and every member nation recognized that the spiral of subsidy must be stopped, and only by acting together could it be stopped. External Affairs Minister Joe Clark and finance Minister Michael Wilson raised the matter when they met their counterparts at the OECD spring session in Paris. The OECD subsequently launched a study on subsidies and their effects. Former trade Minister Jim Kelleher raised the issue when he met with his colleagues in Seoul, Korea, earlier this year. There was wide agreement that the proper forum to deal with the problem was mulilateral trade negotiations under GATT. In Uruguay very recently our Government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is reading verbatim from a document. He should, when he mentions a Member, leave off the name. If it is the Right Hon. Prime Minister, that is fine. He does not have to say "Brian Mulroney". The same thing applies to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any other Minister. He does not have to mention the name. I think we should start this session off with that kind of decorum, and I would
appreciate it if the Hon. Member would remind himself of that when he is speaking. Thank you.


Brian White: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not reading verbatim in all my comments. I have been using some of the notes. However, I will take into account what you said and I appreciate the intervention.
The Government has taken other steps on the international scene. The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) was in Australia in August with other nonsubsidizing exporting countries to seek solutions to the trade problems. We have also entered into important trade negotiations with our largest trading partner, the United States, in an attempt to secure a deal which will secure agricultural markets and, hopefully, open more up. The recent protectionist measures taken by the U.S. only serve to underline the urgent necessity to establish such a trade deal with the United States. Such a deal would ensure that Canada is no longer a victim of the American trade policies that are really aimed at other countries, particularly the European Economic Community. The second thing you can be sure of is that any deal which is signed by Canada with the United States concerning agricultural trade will be good for Canadians and, in the area of agriculture, good for Canadian farmers.
That is what the Government is doing for the future of Canadian agriculture. Most recently there have been two major announcements in keeping with our Throne Speech commitment to help alleviate personal hardship in our farm community. First, two or three days ago Canada signed a multi-billion dollar wheat sale to the Soviet Union which is very good news for wheat producers in Canada. It is a major sale that is great news for all of western Canada, not only the farmers. Second, on Friday the Prime Minister announced the development of an agricultural assistance program which could total more than $1 billion. Over the next month a package will be devised in consultation with the provinces. I believe it was urgent that the announcement was made during the debate on the Speech from the Throne in comments by the Prime Minister to give the producers in western Canada some indication of the assistance that will be coming their way.
As a final observation on the Speech from the Throne, I was also personally very pleased to see the Government's commitment to action against drug and alcohol abuse. The illegal drug trade is a $10 billion industry in Canada. I personally believe that we must also support programs to prevent and treat alcoholism. Alcoholism is a problem which overshadows all other drug abuse combined. I am pleased that it was mentioned in the Throne Speech.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Government has made significant progress in the past few years. The Throne Speech is a clear indication of a blueprint for further progress. I am proud to be a member of the government caucus and I am proud of the accomplishments the Government has made.
October 6, 1986

Canadians have every reason to greet the future with great confidence.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused because the body of the Member's speech dealt with the litany, indeed, the travesty of the situation currently facing Canadian farmers. Yet, the Member is defending the Government's record by saying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a three or four paragraph reference to this in the Throne Speech. On the one hand the Member lauds the Government's bilateral talks. On the other hand I assume that he does not support supply management which is the position of the Canadian Wheat Board as it relates to the sale of wheat, not only in Canada but abroad. Could the Member specify what his position is on supply management?
Second, does he feel that it is an absolute coincidence that following a 5.30 a.m. call from Grant Devine the Prime Minister finally came onside last Friday, when it happens that there is going to be an election in Saskatchewan? There are those cynics among us who felt that the PGRT announcement in Alberta was linked to the Alberta election and those among us who feel that the announcement made by the Prime Minister with respect to the supposed $1 billion fund, the details of which have not yet been worked out, was more related to the Saskatchewan election than to the Throne Speech.


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I can see why she would be somewhat confused. The Canadian Wheat Board is not considered supply management. It has been very beneficial to the farmers, but it is definitely not supply management.
I am very pleased that the Member mentioned the accusation that the announcement on the farm aid package was in response to the Saskatchewan election. I believe that any help for western agriculture must involve the provinces, and Saskatchewan has been a leading proponent of support for agriculture. I compare that to the platitudes which have come from the Manitoba Government, with absolutely no help. The idea of help for farmers in Manitoba has been an indication that farmers there owe more money to the Government. That is the only thing which has been done. I am pleased that the Government of Saskatchewan has followed its words with action. Ontario has school tax relief for farm land which Manitoba could easily implement. We speak about Saskatchewan for good reason. It has done a great deal for the farmers of western Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Member avoided my first question. Does he or does he not support supply management with respect to Canadian agricultural produce?


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I support organizations like the Canadian Wheat Board. I think it is too simplistic a view of Canadian agriculture to make a blunt statement that you support supply management. There is much more to it than that.
The Address-Mr. White


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I also listened very carefully to the Member's speech and I thank him for laying out some of the specific problems of the Canadian farm producer these days. I have three questions for the Member, all of which are related. He made reference to the agricultural assistance program which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) introduced the other day in his speech on the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech. This assistance program v/ill consist of up to $1 billion. Is this the long awaited deficiency payment that the Government has been promising? Is this new money? In other words, will this $1 billion be in addition to the moneys already involved in a variety of agricultural support packages? Is this for western Canada or for all of Canada? Durum wheat growers in parts of Canada other than western Canada are also experiencing serious difficulties.


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. As I mentioned in my presentation, the assistance package announced on Friday was important in that it was an indication to western farmers that help is on the way. It is also important to note that consultations will be had with the provinces. I believe that help for western agriculture must be a federal-provincial matter. With regard to it being a deficiency payment, that may be the wrong wording for it. I have been unable to find a consensus within the farm community of the best way to bring forward the assistance. I think it is far better to announce that the assistance is on the way, to bring confidence back into the farming community, then to sit down with the provinces and farm organizations in order to try to discover which is the best program for the benefit of western farmers.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to commend my colleague, the Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White) on his very excellent presentation. He comes, as I do, from a constituency which is largely agricultural. From that perspective I certainly have great interest in his remarks. I was reminded very much of the Prince Albert declaration put forward by our Party in July of 1984 which laid out a framework for the future and gave some hope, for the first time in a generation, to western Canada. Coming from that Prince Albert declaration was the promise that the west would be brought back into Confederation. Over the past couple of years a great many initiatives have been undertaken by the Government in order to assist in bringing about the reunification of the country.
We are entering into a new era of co-operation rather than confrontation. The other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that farmers expect the Government to sell their grain and he said "By God, we are going to do it". Contrast that with the words of a previous Prime Minister who went out to western Canada and said to the farmers "Why should I sell your wheat?" I think that is the essence of the whole thing. It is a case of co-operation versus confrontation.
Could the Hon. Member expand on something for me? He mentioned very briefly that one of the major announcements of

October 6, 1986
last week was a grain sale of enormous magnitude. He comes from a grain-growing constituency, as I do. I would appreciate if he would enlarge on the details of that and what it means for western Canada and the agricultural community.


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek for his question. The grain deal announced last week was indeed a major deal. Grain markets are difficult enough to find these days and the grain deal in question is for a minimum of 25 million tonnes over the next five years. In the past the Soviets have shown that they are purchasing far in excess of that. We are talking about a sale in the magnitude of $5 billion plus.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, in last Wednesday's Throne Speech the Government promised to take effective action against the grave and growing threat posed by the traffic in illegal drugs. Last Friday, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) announced a new customs postal service which runs directly counter to the stated intentions of the Throne Speech.
The new customs postal service cuts 120 jobs and adopts a naive honour system which allows mail to be released prior to the payment of duties. Canadians want a customs system that does not impede legitimate corporate and personal importation. But Canadians also want a system that ensures prohibited goods will be ferreted out and duties owed will be paid.
The customs and excise union argued strenuously against the adoption of the new honour system. Their brief to the Legislative Committee on Bill C-59 stated that: "The message being transmitted to Canadians engaged in the importation of illegal substances and materials is that the Government, in the interest of "down-sizing government operations" will reduce your chance of getting caught".
The Government's war on illegal drugs has begun not with a bang but with a whimper.



LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, has Premier Vander Zalm of British Columbia and his Minister of Forests sabotaged the Canadian softwood case? In a few days the U.S. International Trade Commission will make a provisional ruling on whether Canadian stumpage fees actually amount to a subsidy. A few weeks ago Premier Vander Zalm and his Forest Minister publicly announced that B.C. stumpage fees might indeed be too low and that he, as Premier, would request a review of the province's stumpage rates.
Surely these public musings hurt the Canadian case and force the industry, workers, and provincial Governments to make an eleventh hour offer which only worsens the situation and places more than 25,000 Canadian jobs at risk. The federal Government admitted guilt, admitted a lack of confidence in the Canadian case, and as a result, the U.S. Senators accused Canada of unfair trading practices and of being caught with its hand in the cookie jar.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Vander Zalm's careless comments were made prior to the preliminary ruling and have sabotaged Canada's case.



&quot;I AM A CANADIAN&quot;


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in Canada I do not go much for English power, French power, Vietnam power, Chinese power, Spanish power, et cetera. Canada's population of native born Canadians is augmented by people from almost every country in the world and when immigrants become citizens of our country, the judge invariably says: "Now you are a Canadian", and they become a brother or sister to every other Canadian.
Canadians embrace many philosophies, religions and creeds; their skin is white, black, brown, red, almost every colour in the spectrum. They are individuals and not state clones. But when they travel abroad they travel as Canadians. When they speak, whether in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, in the west or north, they speak as Canadians.
That is Canadian power. Yes, Canadian power.

The Canadian power!
October 6, 1986



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in 1982 when the previous Government changed the Farm Credit Corporation from a lending institution to assist young people get started in agriculture to a banking institution, now ranking fourteenth in Canada, little thought was given to the consequences. Their advisers must have thought interest rates would never come down. Today interest rates are too high, especially in view of world commodity prices.
High penalties are being charged when farmers want to pay off their mortgages early, and in my constituency there is over $500,000 in this category. Chartered banks are forgiving penalties. It would be unparliamentary to repeat what farmers think of the 6 per cent commodity based loan. I call upon the Government to review the Farm Credit Corporation's policies and bring them up to modern times.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With respect to the official languages, Mr. Speaker, the champions of the linguistic cause in this country have been disappointed to note the backward step taken by the Government in its Speech from the Throne.
In answer to a question I asked in the House April 15 last, the Prime Minister promised, and I quote: "-in the near future, the Government will-make-announcements with respect to-an action program to promote official languages". Yet nothing concrete has been done for two years. The 1986 Speech from the Throne is indeed a backward step, given the firm commitment made by the Government in 1984.
On October 19, 1985, at the "The Minorities: A time for Solutions" conference, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Bouchard, said: "The time for analysis is over; now is the time for solutions." We must therefore take action, Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to waver.
It has become imperative, first to give primacy to this legislation over all other federal statutes; second, to give teeth to this legislation, particularly Section 2, and make it clearly binding rather than merely declaratory; third, integrate the language of work into the Official Languages Act; and finally, give more power to the Commissioner of Official Languages so he can do his job.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, residents of my riding are being shortchanged by Canada Post. They were given little notice of postal changes which will have a negative impact on their postal service. Cut-backs will mean letters mailed on a rural route will sit for 24 hours before pick-up. The mail will arrive much later in the day and the local newspaper will reach some residents a full day after it is published. That is shabby treatment.
Does the Government not understand how important a prompt pick-up and delivery service is to rural residents and business operators? How many city residents would put up with such reduced postal services? Prince County is a depressed area. There are few jobs to be had. Why is the Government cutting federal services in an area which is already disadvantaged?
Prince County residents are not accepting these cuts quietly. They have organized. They have voiced their opposition. As a result, Canada Post has delayed the cut-backs for a month. But a delay is not enough. I demand that the Government reverse its decision and maintain full postal services for Prince County residents.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is Saskatchewan's misfortune that in this hour of crisis, brought on in part by falling oil and grain prices, we have Conservative Governments in Ottawa and Regina. The ineptness and mismanagement of these two Governments are forcing Saskatchewan into bankruptcy. Take, for example, the issue of deficiency payments. It has been some time since the federal Government become aware that the U.S. Farm Bill would depress the international price of grain and that a deficiency payment would be essential if thousands of family farms are to be saved.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has not announced a deficiency payment. Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) told reporters that the Government would do anything to win the Saskatchewan election for Grant Devine. To play politics with the livelihood of western Canadian farmers clearly demonstrates the contempt this Government, and that of Premier Devine, have for thousands of farm families. If a deficiency payment is going to be paid, get it into the hands of farmers now. Stop playing politics with the future of western Canada.
94



REFUGEES

[Stage Direction]
October 6, 1986

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for Canadians to learn that our country will receive the 1986 Nansen Medal for protecting and helping refugees. However, Canadians are understandably frustrated with our system of refugee determination. Canadians can no longer tolerate a process which seems to reward greed instead of need. They cannot understand why our genuine desire to help becomes a mockery of justice. For the sake of legitimate refugees all over the world, and for the sake of our respected reputation as a nation that cares, we need to change our system of refugee determination.
I join with millions of Canadians in welcoming the announcement in the Speech from the Throne that action will be taken and I join in applauding the resolve of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) to prosecute those who break our immigration laws. Let us tell the world we care, but let us also tell the world that we are fair.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the plan of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to impose a licence fee, really a tax, on ground handling and other service contractors at Transport Canada airports is, I am afraid, rather unfair and ill-considered.
Not only is a charge of 5 per cent of gross revenues excessive, but the proposed system is inequitable because it would apply to services provided by contractors but not to services provided by an airline for itself or for another airline. This tax seems to be deliberately designed to put contractors out of business. Therefore the Minister of Transport must reconsider this rather crude proposal.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the questions before Canadians today are: When is a butler a porter and when is a porter a butler? Was the butler watching the luggage or was the butler watching the RCMP? Where was the maid, or was she a maid? When is a maid a maid? What is the difference between a butler and a maid? If
the butler and the maid were on the trip, where was the nanny? What is a nanny?
This mystery is absolutely perplexing. The only person who knows the truth for sure is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). But then again does the Prime Minister know the truth or will we have to ask the butler? As far as I am concerned, the butler didn't do it.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Thank you Mr. Speaker, the regional disparities that currently exist throughout Canada can no longer be tolerated. The wealth of our great nation must be distributed evenly to the benefit of all Canadian people. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as do all the Members of this House, the economy of Mission-Port Moody and that of British Columbia as a whole is almost entirely based on natural resources. As a result, external factors which are beyond our control greatly influence our ability to maintain a healthy and vibrant economy.
Today I would like to commend our Government for recognizing both the need to address the tragedy of regional inequity, the need to diversify the western economic base, and for making these a top priority in the recent Throne Speech. Mr. Speaker I know that my constituents, the people of Mission-Port Moody, are poised and ready to work in cooperation with the Government on positive initiatives such as these.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne was lacking in many areas, especially with regard to any real action toward promoting equality for women. Understandably, both the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Government's own Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women have expressed more than disappointment with the Government's reluctance to announce any concrete actions on the topics of child care and battered women. Another major concern of women is the lack of any mention at all in the Speech from the Throne with respect to improving the working conditions and benefits for part-time workers, most of whom are women. Indeed, 72 per cent of part-time workers are women.
The Wallace and the Abella Reports both recommended that the Government take action on prorated benefits for
October 6, 1986

women in part-time positions. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women listed that as one of its five priorities.
The Government talks about social justice as a cornerstone for equality, yet it has refused to act in any way whatsoever to improve the law concerning part-time workers.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the Province of New Brunswick and particularly the riding of Westmorland-Kent were honoured by a very famous Mr. Rick Hansen.
Indeed, I had the honour and pleasure of talking with Rick when I accompanied him on his journey from Port Elgin to Cap-Pele.
Rick Hansen's courage is a source of inspiration for all those who meet him and wave to him along his way.
Needless to say Rick Hansen's cause deserves our support and I take this opportunity to convey his invitation to meet him and even accompany him when he goes through your community. He has invited you, be there.



REAL CAOUETTE


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: On September 26, in Rouyn-Noranda, Mr. Speaker, I dedicated on behalf of the Department of Public Works a federal building as a memorial to Mr. Real Caouette.
Real Caouette died on December 16, 1976, and I think the House should, on occasions, pay tribute to our great politicians who, like him, spent part of their lives in Canadian politics.
He was elected for the first time on September 16, 1946; he returned in force to the House on June 18, 1962, following his greatest victory, and he was to sit here until 1976. Real Caouette was not only a great parliamentarian and the leader of a national Party, he was also and above all a man who dedicated his life to the welfare of his fellow citizens; he was a great Canadian, he loved his country passionately and he was very proud of his mother tongue.
Thanks to this ceremony which was held on September 26, Mr. Speaker, Real Caouette will live forever in the memory of the people of my region whom he served and represented so very well here in this House.
Oral Questions



AGRICULTURE


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, over the past two years the Government has amended the Western Grain Stabilization Act to permit timely interim payments, instituted an immediate lifetime capital gains tax exemption, doubled the advance payment for crops, enacted federal farm fuel rebates in excess of 30 cents per gallon, improved Canada-provincial crop insurance programs, put over $200 million into crop and livestock drought assistance, and negotiated the inclusion of agriculture into the GATT talks. These initiatives, coupled with those of the Government of Saskatchewan, have injected over $2 billion into the Saskatchewan economy alone.
Now there has been a commitment in the Throne Speech to work with Premier Devine and other provincial Governments and with farm organizations to devise an appropriate assistance package that will deliver an estimated $1 billion to enhance the cash flow of the Canadian grain farmer. Never before in our history have any two levels of government, working together, made such a response to Canadian agriculture.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister confirm that the announcement he made on behalf of western grain farmers during the course of his intervention in the Throne Speech debate last Friday was made only as a result of a 5.30 a.m. phone call from Premier Devine to two federal cabinet Ministers during which the Premier is quoted in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix as having said: "If I lose over this, it's going to be damned tough for Mulroney next time around"? Is that the reason why the Prime Minister made a last minute, undetailed effort on behalf of western grain producers?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the initiative that was set forward followed a meeting of Agriculture Ministers in Victoria held on August 27, 1986, at which the Ministers supported the need to examine all options including deficiency payments which could be in excess of $1 billion to maintain the competitive position of Canadian producers in the immediate future. There was at the conference a clear, collective commitment to take action to support the agricultural sector and all the jobs it represents across Canada during this damaging trade war. That meeting was held on August 27. There were meetings subsequent to that,

October 6, 1986
Oral Questions
and the announcement 1 made on Friday was perfectly consistent with our objective of helping Canadian farmers.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister's announcement was also remarkably coincidental with the Saskatchewan election and that call from Premier Devine.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister explain what the Deputy Prime Minister meant when, outside his office, he said with respect to the Prime Minister's farm announcement: "Anything to win elections, you know"?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, a cynical question deserves a cynical answer.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have that on tape and so does every reporter in the gallery. If the Deputy Prime Minister wants to set himself up as an authority on cynicism, he has the award going away on this particular issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL FUNDING INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances may 1 ask the Prime Minister a second supplementary question? When will he reveal the details of how much new federal money is involved, how much of the money is recycled from existing programs, and how much the hard pressed western provinces will have to contribute to any result?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the August meeting and subsequent meetings on the agricultural and finance levels in regard to the problem in western Canada in particular, I am happy to advise my right hon. friend that on Thursday or Friday of this week there will be a meeting of the Deputy Ministers of Agriculture to refine this matter further and produce the information required to help western farmers.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Last Friday the Minister said the Canadian lumber concessionary package was: " .. . our only offer to the Americans," and in the same breath she went on to say: " ... as expected, that only offer has been rejected." That begs the question, Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister make this
damaging concession and undermine our case before the American tribunal one week before it makes a decision if, in her own words "as expected" they turned her down?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question in this House. I can say that I did expect the Americans to reject an offer in the hope that they could jack up the price. It has been made very clear to the Americans that there is only one offer on the table and there will be no other.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister digs a deeper hole for herself. Her logic is shot through with confusion.


Mr. McDermid:: Question.


POSITION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Government of British Columbia stated on Friday that it regarded the final offer as the beginning of continuing negotiations. Will there be other final offers? Will Canada get down on its knees one more time for the expected response, as expected?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, I think, is inadvertently misleading the House because the Premier of British Columbia, who represents the Government of British Columbia, is totally supportive of the position taken by the Canadian Government.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and stems from his announcement on Friday that there would be some kind of overdue financial assistance for Canadian grain producers. Specifically, in terms of this announcement the Prime Minister used the figure of a billion dollars. Is the billion dollars to be new federal money? Is it to be in the form of a deficiency payment, and is this money for grain producers on the Prairies only?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the amount is pretty well that mentioned by the agricultural Ministers in their communique on August 27 to deal with the serious problem in western Canada.
The meeting to which I have just referred of Deputy Ministers of Agriculture on Thursday or Friday of this week is precisely to put together the data required to be able to respond with precision to my hon. friend.
October 6, 1986


SIZE OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that the meeting of the western Premiers last May, followed by the meeting in August attended by all provincial Governments, asked for a minimum of a billion dollars new funding from the federal Government alone. My question to the Prime Minister now concerns the amount of money coming from the federal Government, not necessarily the details about how it is to be spent which could be sorted out Thursday, but is this a billion dollars of new federal funds that will go to prairie producers or will it be spread across the country? Or, is it old money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I already indicated to my hon. friend in a statement in the House on Friday that we would be meeting with the provinces in the shortest possible time to work out the best way of meeting these commitments that were raised, as I say, by the agricultural Ministers and have been the subject of discussion since. We will take whatever action to be helpful to the western farmers. They are going through, as I have indicated, through no fault of their own, a very difficult situation, and the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, will help them out. The reason for the meeting on Thursday or Friday is to work out the modalities as to how best this can be done.


John Edward Broadbent: Working through the modalities of that answer takes some doing, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he has answered the question. He has not told us if it is new money. He has not told us if it is going to prairie producers only. He has not answered the question at all.
Will the Prime Minister deal with those questions now because the producers all across Canada, and on the Prairies particularly, want to know where that money is coming from and how much. Since it took the Government 48 hours to make a decision that sent bankers a billion dollars, will he please make up his mind in no more than 48 hours about getting money to grain producers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to some of the points that have been raised by my hon. friend. He knows that they are quite unfair observations. I will tell him this. He is asking whether it is new money or old money. It will be new money and good money in the pockets of the farmers.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the oriental trip and the butler and the maid. In reference to the trip, the Prime Minister is quoted as having said over the weekend "I didn't take the butler, I didn't take anybody", while Mr. Lortie, one of his aides, and Mr. Doucet both said that there were in fact such people. Could the Prime Minister clear up the butler mystery? Which version is the closest to being the correct one? Will we have to ask Mr. Doucet, Mr. Lortie, or the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has put his question.


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could assist the Hon. Member. I should like to advise him that what the Government does on prime ministerial travel is dictated in large measure by security requirements for our Prime Minister and his aides and for the people who meet with him. This is a fundamental requirement. What was done by the people referred to was pursuant to instructions and advice received from the security unit of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


BUTLER'S DUTIES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that raises an interesting question. If the RCMP is paid to be watching the luggage and, according to Mr. Doucet, the butler is watching the RCMP, then who is watching the butler? Will we have to call the butler before the Bar of the House to find out?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the Hon. Member, as the Solicitor General of the Government, that the RCMP, which is under my control, insists upon strict adherence to all security precautions and requirements on trips of an extensive nature that the Prime Minister takes.


AGRICULTURE
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Saskatchewan farmers are quite concerned. They want to know what type of future they are facing, and the types of answers which they are getting from the Prime Minister and the Government are just creating further confusion. My question requires a simple yes

October 6, 1986
Oral Questions
or no answer. Is this $1 billion of new federal money which will go to prairie grain producers?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the only confusion is in the mind of the Hon. Member. He will know that the record of the Government is very substantial in terms of agriculture. We have met needs of agriculture before by reallocating resources. That has happened in the past and it will happen again in the future. The money which is being talked about will be additional money for agriculture within the fiscal framework. I hope that is simple enough that he can understand it.


FEDERAL FUNDING INQUIRY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the farmers of Saskatchewan will be making their decision on October 20, whether or not that is clear. Perhaps the Minister or the Prime Minister can help them. Is this $1 billion of new federal money which will be going to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta grain producers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the same thing happened a year ago- and a lot of the benefits went to the Hon. Member's province-when the federal Government came forward with some S200 million to assist farmers faced with drought. It happened when we took off the gas tax on farm fuels. Some 30 cents per gallon have come off since the Government has been in office. As the Prime Minister said, it will be new money in the hands or pockets of Canadian farmers. They will realize, appreciate, and take that into consideration when they vote in the Saskatchewan election on October 20.


PENITENTIARIES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Port-Cartier prison. I would submit that the Prime Minister owes a duty to the House, and indeed to Canadians, to answer questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister may or may not owe a duty to answer questions, but the Hon. Member will have to put his question.


John V. Nunziata: I would like to put my question to the Prime Minister, not to the Solicitor General or to any other Minister. I would like to ask the Prime Minister very specifically whether he or any member of his staff intervened in the decision to relocate the prison from Drummondville to Port-Cartier. If so, what was the nature of the intervention?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that the decision to locate the prison in Port-Cartier was a government decision. It was made by this Government to assist a depressed region of the Province of Quebec.


REPORTED MEETING ON ISSUE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John V. Nunziata: -I would like to put my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can he confirm that there was a meeting in his office within the past two weeks to discuss the Port-Cartier prison issue, and is he prepared to table in this House all the documents there were considered at that meeting?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer I have already given. The decision made was a government decision and it was designed to assist a depressed region of Quebec which has extremely high unemployment. We have no apologies to make for taking action of that kind.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This morning he was given six confidential sworn affidavits by Tamils of Canada indicting Brigadier General Tissa Weeratunga for the torture of Tamils in northern Sri Lanka in 1979. Given this serious new evidence presented to him today does the Minister not think it time to invoke the Vienna Convention and declare Brigadier General Weeratunga persona non grata?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, just this morning I received the six affidavits in question and I will naturally look into them. Our inquiries so far on the first affidavit have not turned up any information to corroborate allegations against the High Commissioner. Our inquiries are, naturally, continuing.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said he would, if necessary, launch a full-scale investigation rather than the informal investigation he has hitherto conducted. Will he now at least launch a full-scale investigation given the serious new evidence presented to him today?
October 6, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we will look into the allegations contained in these affidavits to see what further action they merit. I understand the delicacy of this matter and we will proceed in that context. I intend to have discussions with the six persons who have filed the affidavits to see if there is any way which will protect their security and allow the information they have conveyed to me this morning to be made available to Sri Lankan authorities. As the Hon. Member and the House will know, it is only in Sri Lanka that the final legal authority to adjudicate these matters resides. I will, naturally, not take any action that would cause injury or damage to citizens of Canada.

[ Translation]


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last Friday, he replied that the decision to relocate the prison from Drum-mondville to Port-Cartier was made because the unemployment rate in the Port-Cartier area was about 37 or 38 per cent, which is the same answer he gave the press on Tuesday, September 17.
Could the Prime Minister tell me where he got those figures?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only advise the Hon. Member that indeed the unemployment rate is very high in Port-Cartier, as everyone knows. I think that is a very reasonable and valid ground for relocating the prison to that area, to assist in the development of that region.


PORT-CARTIER UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Solicitor General makes these statements when his own officials have told him the Prime Minister grossly exaggerated the statistics. I want to ask the Prime-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members may not understand but that is getting argumentative. I ask the Hon. Member to put his question.
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: My question is quite simple. What is the real unemployment rate in Port-Cartier? My question is directed to
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister. I hope he knows about these things, since it is his riding, I believe.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is the kind of question that should normally be submitted in writing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate I inherited as the Member for the riding of Manicouagan, after the 1984 election, and the fact that nothing was done about it, is a social tragedy, and we have decided to take steps to alleviate the problem.


FINANCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Throne Speech promise that fairness will be a guiding principle in the Government's proposals for tax reform. Does the Prime Minister consider it fair that, while Canadian farmers are hovering on the brink of bankruptcy, there are some 79,000 corporations in Canada which are profitable but which paid no income tax at all? What does the Government intend to do about the multibillion dollar loss of revenue entailed in that situation?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows we are now undertaking a major review of tax reform and questions of that sort, and the larger questions which affect corporate income tax will be part of that review.


TAX PAID BY ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister or the Minister of State aware that one bank teller working in the Royal Bank on Sparks Street in Ottawa paid more income tax earlier this decade than her employer, the Royal Bank of Canada, with 1,500 branches and 98 billion dollars in assets today? How long does the Government intend to tolerate that kind of unfairness in our tax system?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the question of fairness and unfairness is part of this study of tax reform. It includes all questions such as deductions and tax levels, and our hope is to produce at the end lower marginal tax rates for all Canadians.

October 6, 1986
Oral Questions NATIONAL REVENUE


DEPARTMENT'S DEFINITION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I met recently with members of the high-tech community in Ottawa and they expressed their concern that in an information bulletin recently issued by his Department the phrase "research and development" has been so narrowly defined that it could exclude legitimate research and development efforts from the tax credit provisions of the Act. Such disallowance could result in the loss of thousands of high-quality jobs.
Could the Minister indicate whether or not he or his officials have met with members of the high-tech community and, if so, whether they will continue to meet with them with a view to arriving at a fair, mutually advantageous, and workable definition of research and development?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because it permits me to point out to the House that indeed that is exactly what has been occurring. I met with my colleague, the Minister of Science and Technology, this morning, and I want to reassure the House that the guidelines, which were formulated after intensive consultation, are not meant to be interpreted in a rigid or dogmatic fashion. They are meant, rather, to facilitate the eligibility for proper deduction for research and development purposes and they will not be interpreted in such a way as to be an obstacle to the scientific community or the research and development done in this country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am happy to hear that he has promised in the House today to meet specifically with each individual Tamil who has tabled an allegation. Can he explain to the House why, when this information was brought to the attention of his officials more than two weeks ago, there was absolutely no follow-up at that time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member would not want to let her misstatement stand. I did not quite give the undertaking which she just attributed to me. If it becomes useful for me to meet personally with the six individuals concerned, naturally I will do that.
The Hon. Member knows that she is dealing here, in the question of agrement, with a very complex and delicate question of international practice. Other Members of the House have raised questions about this situation before. I have
suggested to them, as I have suggested to her, that if they would like to be fully informed about the matter, I am quite prepared to arrange briefings for them and for her.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has suggested nothing of the kind to me. In fact, he has failed to answer two letters which I have written to him on this particular issue.
Given the fact that the Southeast Asia desk has already recommended against the arrival of Weeratunga in Canada, does he not think that it is at the very least necessary to clear the air and have this matter referred to an independent investigation by the human rights branch of the Department of External Affairs?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it may be that my letter of response to the Hon. Member has not yet reached her office or has not yet reached her eyes. If she says that is the case, I will accept that.
I remain of the view that it would be useful for the Hon. Member to be informed of all the circumstances before she raises this question and pursues it in the House or recommends a course of action that may prove very destructive, not only to Canada but also to international practices respecting agrement.


PATENTS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the weekend the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Government was reconsidering its proposed amendments to the Patent Act insofar as generic drugs were concerned. Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House that the Government has listened to the thousands of Canadians who signed petitions over the summer months and that it does not now intend to proceed with those amendments?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on the television program Question Period the Deputy Prime Minister stated: "The Bill is still being refined". That remains the position.


REQUEST THAT AMENDING LEGISLATION NOT PROCEED
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Government has admitted that those amendments are in conjunction with the proposed discussions on a free trade deal with the United
October 6, 1986

States. Will the Minister, or the whole Government for that matter, stand up in the House today and admit that it is shameful to be using the deep concern and anxiety that is felt by many thousands of Canadians across the country about what-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order! Perhaps the Hon. Member could help this House and let us know just exactly what the question is.


Neil Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, what I and many thousands of Canadians across the country want to know is whether or not the Government will assure them that it will not proceed with the amendments to the Patent Act insofar as generic drugs are concerned.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the anxiety the Hon. Member talks about is being initiated by himself and the rest of his Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: Shame.


Harvie Andre: In fact any impartial examination of the legislation would show that there will be absolutely no increase in drug prices as a result of this legislation.


Neil Young: Six hundred and fifty million dollars.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: We are going to hold you to that.


Harvie Andre: I know the Hon. Member would not like to leave the misinformation before the House that this is tied to the free trade talks which are going on.


Neil Young: The Prime Minister said it.


Harvie Andre: In fact, in 1983 the previous Government announced the change to the Patent Act. That was long before any trade talks were undertaken. We need to do this for the benefit of Canadian research and development so that Canadian scientists can have that research and development in this high-tech biotechnology area here in Canada, and that is why we are proceeding.


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State (Finance). In recent weeks, the Minister of Finance made two major public statements, one in Washington about tax reform and the other
Oral Questions
in Toronto on the state of our public finances. My question is as follows:
Could the Minister inform the House whether in future, the Minister of Finance intends to announce the Government's economic and fiscal policies outside the House, and whether this is part of the new presidential style adopted by the Prime Minister?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the question, I have to answer no.


TAX ON COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
Raymond Garneau: If the
Minister of State (Finance) rejects the presidential approach taken by the Prime Minister, could he inform the House when the Minister of Finance intends to provide as many details to the House on the commercial transactions tax as he gave in Washington on September 5 of this year?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, those details will be presented to this House very shortly.


&quot; TRADE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The United States Government, claiming "national security reasons", has refused to let U.S. branch plants of Canadian companies like Northern Telecom sit on their advisory committees for trade talks. In view of this, why has Canada appointed at least 15 representatives of U.S. subsidiaries here to our trade advisory committees?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we have appointed representatives to our trade committees because we want to ensure the broadest possible consultation with all sectors of Canadian industry, Canadian provinces, and Canadians generally on the issues before the negotiators to ensure a free trade agreement which meets the concerns of all Canadians.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister in fact approve of this double standard which is hurting our subsidiaries in the United States and creating an unfairness between the two countries with respect

October 6, 1986
Oral Questions
to branch plants in both? Does she approve of that double standard?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I and the Government approve of the process of consultation on a national issue which affects all Canadians.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Finance) and is with respect to the Government decision to assist Canadian farmers financially in order partially to-and I think we should note "partially"-offset EEC and U.S. export subsidies. What effect will this assistance have on the existing Fiscal framework?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reiterate what the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board have said. The Government has reallocated priorities before for drought assistance and livestock assistance and it is doing it again for this particular problem. It will be a reallocation within the given fiscal framework.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to Atlantic Canada the Speech from the Throne said "regional disparity is completely unacceptable". Yet the Minister of Transport said as recently as today on the radio in Newfoundland, reiterating his statement of a month ago, that Atlantic Canadians should not always compare themselves with the rest of Canada but should compare themselves with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Order! The Hon. Member will put his question.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he think that Atlantic Canadians are going to believe that the Government is concerned about regional disparity when the Minister of Transport is asking Atlantic Canadians to think about Bangladesh and compare themselves with Sri Lanka?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I received an important communication in regard to the question raised by my hon. friend. I received a telex which says: "You are to be commended for an approach which
reflects our experience that the regional development efforts of Governments succeed to the extent they build upon the entrepreneurial insights and energies of the private sector in its relationship to the resource base", signed the Hon. Joseph Ghiz, Premier of Prince Edward Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will get to the supplementary question. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion says there is no new money for regional development. My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. What is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency going to do, a loaves and fishes act?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Premier Ghiz points out the following: "Your commitment to an Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in the Speech from the Throne based on maximum participation of other Governments and organizations in the area holds promise for the people of our region". That is what it plans to do, Mr. Speaker. It is an instrument designed to meet the needs of the regions in intimate consultation with the Premier of Prince Edward Island and other Atlantic Premiers, based on the notion that the people in those regions can best design programs to help create employment for themselves. The federal Government is a partner in the economic development of Atlantic Canada. I think that meets with the approval of everyone, including my hon. friend.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. People in this country are concerned about the rise of child abuse and violent pornography. As well, people want to see other hard core pornography controlled. Will he assure the House that we will soon see legislation covering all aspects of pornography and child abuse?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls who has had a very leading role in terms of pursuing this area of concern which I believe is shared by all Members of the House. The Speech from the Throne underlined the priority which these initiatives take in the view of the Government. I propose to come forward with legislation at an early date. I know it will have the support of all Members of the House because we want to deal with these important areas of concern to all Canadians.
October 6, 1986


SHIPYARDS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Since the Throne Speech does not suggest any strategy for regional economic development, will the Minister indicate a definite commitment to maintain in operation the three Quebec shipyards, without redirecting them towards other production areas?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the shipbuilding industry in Canada is presently experiencing difficulties, as is the case in several of our trading partners. The Governement is very concerned about this situation. Of course, we are closely following the negotiations and discussions, but we think that a restructuring is necessary and should come from the industry itself. We are therefore open to all recommendations or proposals.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF FINAL REPORT OF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ON FUTURE OF MONTREAL
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Concerning the economic development of Montreal East, will the Minister do its utmost to make public the final report of the advisory committee on the future of Montreal?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Bord):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the report of the advisory committee on the economic development of Montreal is made available to the cabinet committee, it will be made public.


AGRICULTURE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It arises from the answers given by the Minister of State for Finance, who said there would be just an allocation of existing programs to western grain producers, and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board who said it would be done within the existing framework. How can the Prime Minister insist that there will be new money if the existing framework will be maintained? He knows that, if there is new money, that framework must be rearranged. He is in direct contradiction to the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of State in charge of the Wheat Board.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my right hon. friend listened to the answer. The response that I gave was that the farmers were suffering and, indeed, the money that would go to the farmers would be new money in their pockets. What we are concerned about here-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There are smiles on the other side but this concerns putting money in the hands of the farmers who are hurting. We will devise a program that will put more money into the pockets of Canadian farmers. That is what it is all about.


SOURCE OF FUNDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister on the same subject. He has now said that the farmers will get new money in their pockets from the federal Government. Will he assure us that this will not be as a result of directing money that was already scheduled for other farming programs? Is it a reallocation from other agricultural programs, or is it entirely new money going from the federal Government into the pockets of grain producers so that they will not pay for this in some other way? Is it new money for the farmers, not taken from other agricultural programs? Will he tell us when they will get the cheques?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is not a reallocation of existing aricultural programs. When a farmer gets a cheque that he did not have before the farmer will say "That is new money".


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it deals with Dalton Camp, a long-time Tory pundit, who now is a policy adviser to the Cabinet. Will the Prime Minister give us the undertaking that he will table in the House the job description under which Mr. Camp was hired? Second, does he not believe that by naming Mr. Camp he has indeed made a very partisan nomination and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to ask the question, as he has, or even ask the second part of the question. But I would ask the Hon. Member not to get into an argumentative exchange.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The question is simple.

October 6, 1986
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Ask it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: To a bunch of simple people like you. Does the Prime Minister not believe that by naming Dalton Camp he has politicized the Public Service of Canada in a partisan manner? That is the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that if my hon. friend asks Michael Kirby, he would say no.


REQUEST THAT APPOINTMENT OF DALTON CAMP BE REVIEWED BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Concerning Dalton Camp, I feel, Mr. Prime Minister, that you have politicized in a partisan fashion a major issue, namely, the civil servants' political activity. This whole issue of politicizing the Public Service could cause tremendous problems. Will you give your word that this appointment will be reviewed by a parliamentary committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The preamble is too long.
assure the hon. gentleman that I have the interests of VIA Rail and the rail passengers very much at heart and I will act as quickly as I can. Matters will be coming before the House before Christmas.


ORDER FOR NEW PASSENGER CARS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, what the heck happened to the order for new rail passenger cars which his predecessor announced twice this year and four other predecessors announced annually? What happened to that order for 130 new rail passenger cars?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have the privilege of announcing the same matter myself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

* *
*


VIA RAIL
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport for the first time, in his first time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You only have four minutes, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In light of the rail passenger action force report which was made available to the public by Transport 2000 and which makes several serious allegations about the management of VIA Rail as well as several serious recommendations, will the Minister state what action he has been taking on the recommendations of that task force and what is being done about the orders for new railway cars?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if it takes me as long to answer, we will be here until tomorrow evening. I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his question. He is a well known transport critic.
The matter of VIA Rail is now under consideration by the Government in all aspects that have not yet been dealt with. Many of these aspects have been dealt with by my predecessor who, as the hon. gentleman knows, put rail passenger transportation legislation before the House. It will be reintroduced with some changes and improvements, hopefully later this fall. I can


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: As it happens, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the farcical Minister of Transport.
Last week, when I asked him to table the CN internal study to justify shifting railway car and locomotive maintenance work from the Pointe-Saint-Charles shops to some other place in Canada, the Minister replied that my question was jejune and juvenile. May I give him a further opportunity to shed more light on the reasons which prompt the Government to undertake such serious changes, or does he expect the 2,000 workers whose jobs are at stake to take such juvenile answers for facts?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the position is that this is not a decision taken by the Government. The Government has appointed a board of directors for Canadian National, and also top flight management. Its responsibility, laid down for it first in 1978, is to operate the railway without any financial assistance from the Government of Canada. In doing that, it conducted an internal study in 1985 of its repair shop requirements. As a result of that study, CN decided, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to close the Moncton shops and concentrate all heavy repairs of CN equipment at the Transcona shops in Winnipeg and turn the Pointe-Saint-Charles shops in Montreal into a contract facility. That is its decision. That is what it is in the process of doing.
October 6, 1986

There are a number of reasons, but one of the basic reasons is that over, I believe, 67 per cent of all the business of CN today is done in the West. That is why Transcona will be the principal place for heavy repairs to CN equipment. 1 have not read the report myself but I have been thoroughly briefed on the report.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE INFORMATION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, this answer is a slight improvement over what I heard last week. Still I should like to ask the Minister-after all he did approve the CN decision, as did the Minister of State (Transport), since both of them said they were not prepared to intervene- whether at least he would table in the House the information which will enable Members here to judge whether or not CN officials made a sound decision. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, I have another suggestion, namely set up a meeting between him and the Pointe-Saint-Charles workers just so he might answer them directly.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the way in which the hon. gentleman could be most helpful to the employees of Pointe-Saint-Charles is to assist and back CN in its efforts to ensure that contract work is obtained for the Pointe-Saint-Charles shops, which is what it is determined to do. It now gets the work from VIA. It is launching a marketing effort to go after business from the United States and the Hon. Member's support, I am sure, would be very helpful to it in that task which will ensure that employment continues for everyone who now works there.



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 the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 44) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 57).
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne to discuss certain of the initiatives this Government has undertaken in international affairs in the first two years of our mandate and some of the challenges which lie ahead. One of the reforms of this Government was precisely to open up debate on foreign policy in Canada. On nine separate occasions in our first two years, my colleagues and I have taken advantage of ministerial statements in Parliament to allow this Parliament to discuss
The Address-Mr. Clark
international questions. In the four years previous, our predecesssors did not once make use of that instrument. We established for the first time in history a means for a joint committee of this House and the other place to invite individual Canadians to express their hopes and views about what we should be doing in the world. The rules of Parliament do not oblige me to respond formally to the report which ensued, but in the spirit of our parliamentary democracy I intend to table a full response within the next few weeks.
We believe that one of the great untapped resources of Canadian foreign policy is the interest, expertise and concern of individual Canadians who want to help to build a better world. This is an international country. Just look at this House. You yourself, Sir, as Speaker, were born in Yokohama. One of your Deputies was born just outside of Crakow. One in seven of our citizens has family roots in Eastern Europe. The origins of fully one third Canadians are neither French nor Anglo-Saxon. We come here from everywhere and we are thereby connected by a strong and human bond to perspectives and opportunities which more limited nations cannot enjoy.
The personal tradition of Canadians has been to reach out to the world. One can see it in our missionaries, our merchants and the small army of Canadian aid and development workers. One sees it in our businesses which build schools, dams and highways, extending technology on every continent. One sees it in our soldiers fighting for freedom in war, working for peace now.
Personally, I and my colleague, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), will never forget the generosity of the Canadian response to the crisis of the boat people who were cast adrift to die on the China Seas. That direct involvement in the world is as much a part of the Canadian character as our cultural diversity, our bilingualism and our history of triumph over hard geography. That is a tradition on which this Government is determined to build. We began with the extraordinary Canadian response to famine in Africa. The Government mobilized quickly and I believe effectively, but the people of Canada led the response. So it was on a smaller scale that Canadian individuals responded so quickly and so well to natural and political crises in Mexico, Haiti, Colombia and the Philippines. As their Minister, I salute the public servants who go extra miles and work extra hours when crises arise abroad. In their names, I want to also thank the thousands of individual Canadians who follow their generous international instincts when these crises occur.
We are taking other steps to mobilize this Canadian vocation for constructive internationalism. As one example, a group of six members of the Canadian Young Presidents Organization will depart for Manila on November 14 where they will work with officials of the Philippines to devise and identify programs and opportunities that will let the world's private sector help President Aquino consolidate the great reforms she has begun. We are also, of course, helping the Philippines in all the traditional ways. However, the real need now is the kind of economic performance that will win

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Clark
international investor confidence. Canadians can help reach that goal, so we, Sir, are sending some of the very best.
We are also breaking new ground in the use we make of official trips. In Beijing, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) opened the meeting of the Canada-China Trade Council adding immense authority to the idea of economic co-operation between our two countries.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian investors did not traditionally accompany my predecessors on their trips. They do on mine. Together, we have opened up opportunities for sales, investment, joint enterprises and technology transferts from India to Uruguay, from Pakistan to Cairo, from Thailand to Tokyo and to the Pampas of Argentina and all over the world.
Last month, I had the honour of leading the Canadian delegation to the GATT ministers meeting. Some excellent federal officials were on our team, but there were also leaders from the business and financial world, as well as provincial ministers from all parts of Canada.
We are in this together. Our Government intends to exercise its leadership so as to make the best possible use of the exceptional talents available in the public and private sector and thus advance the interests of Canada.

My colleague, the Minister for International Relations (Mrs. Landry) will be speaking later in this debate. I intend as well to seek an early occasion to report to Parliament and to seek the views of other Parties on the most important issue on the world's agenda now, the control of arms and of weapons. We are all encouraged that President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev will hold a preliminary meeting at Reykjavic on October 11 and October 12. We hope that will lead to agreements later. The superpowers are at centre stage and must be given every encouragement and opportunity to make progress, but there are also important areas for which Canada must continue to show initiative and leadership, in chemical weapons and verification technology, to name only two.

In passing, today in Ottawa there opened an historic meeting looking at verification technology. This is one of the rare occasions on which Soviet representatives will be present with representatives from the West to take a look at this important matter. It is not without significance that that meeting is taking place here in Canada. I look forward to discussing these questions more fully in a statement in the House next month.
In the remainder of my time in this debate today there are four particular matters to which I wish to refer. They are the reform of the United Nations; greater attention to the potential of the Commonwealth and la francophonie-, the fight against agricultural subsidy; and the question of human rights, particularly in South Africa. Canada is a strong and consistent
friend and supporter of the United Nations. Although our population is only the thirtieth largest in the world we rank fourth in the size of our financial contributions to the UN system. We intend to continue that active and outspoken support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is precisely to strengthen the UN that we urge reform. The Secretary General has before him recommendations from 18 experts who can begin the administrative reform which, in our judgment, is essential to the survival of the United Nations. That report is a package, carefully constructed; it should not be unravelled. It should be implemented both as proof that the UN is serious about reform and as a big first step toward change.
Ambassador Lewis, and others, are working to reach agreement on the even more central challenge of establishing effective budgetary and planning mechanisms. They work and speak with the full support of the Government and, I believe, the full support of this House and the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The UN is the most important of our international institutions because it can draw together the whole world. Other more regional organizations are playing an increasing and encouraging role in establishing co-operation among neighbours. Canada is particularly impressed by the success of ASEAN in the Pacific and of the increasingly effective work of SADCC in Southern Africa. SADCC's unity and purpose will be strongly tested in the months ahead. Canada is happy to provide approximately $100 million to the SADCC countries to help them build the infrastructure that will enable them to assert their independence of South Africa. We are encouraged by the initiative in Dhaka last year to establish the South Asian Association for Regional Operation.
However, if there have been encouraging developments in regional organizations around the world two of these groups have particular significance for Canada. One is the Commonwealth and the other la francophonie. Canada is both a western country and a developed economy. But among that company we are virtually unique in our reputation. Our only association with colonialism is that we were once a colony. Our interest in development and our respect for different systems are known to be genuine. Those are considerable assets, assets which should be applied, not simply prized.
This Government has acted deliberately to give more prominence to the Commonwealth as an institution uniquely able to cut across the lines that have come to divide countries. At Nassau, and in their historic meeting this August in London, the Prime Minister and his colleague Prime Ministers were able to make of the Commonwealth the one institution able to act with credibility in seeking an agreed non-violent solution to South Africa. The Eminent Persons Group was rebuffed by Pretoria, but their conduct moved the institution
October 6, 1986

of the Commonwealth out of the shadows of nostalgia and into relief as an agency of real potential in this post-colonial world.

The Francophonie has the same potential. The two organizations are different because the colonial powers were different originally, and the same applies to the member states. In a way, the Francophonie summit is a direct result of the national reconciliation policies adopted by the present Canadian Government.
I am not exaggerating when I say it is largely thanks to this Government that the first summit came into existence. It had been discussed for years, and no one had been able to organize one, partly because Ottawa and Quebec were unable to agree on the participation of that province. We changed all that.
The Prime Minister has announced that the second francophone summit will be held in Quebec City next September. It will be a major event in Canada next year. More than 30 heads of state and heads of government will come to the Old Capital to discuss politics and economics, development and cooperation. During those few days in September, Quebec and Canada will be the focus of the francophone world.

I want to mention agriculture, not just because it is important but because our success in agricultural trade demonstrates that, even in this highly complex world, determined initiatives can pay off. The largest single threat to Canadian farms is the growth, in the United States and in Europe, of agricultural subsidies which we cannot match. Once, the efficiency of farmers determined success in international agricultural trade. Now, success is determined by the size of the subsidies. Canada has the most efficient farmers in the world; we do not have the biggest treasury. So we have to move the rules back toward a balance that gives our farmers a chance. The Prime Minister began that process when he raised the issue of agricultural subsidy at the Tokyo Summit, the first time agriculture has been discussed in that forum.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have followed the initiative of the Prime Minister vigourously through meetings in Vancouver, in Thailand, at Cairns in Australia, and finally in Uruguay at the GATT. In Punta del Este I said, "The GATT has had the bad habit of putting agriculture to one side." That bad habit has now been changed. Subsidies and agriculture will be a priority consideration in the new GATT round, and for that Canada can take a great deal of credit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The promotion of human rights is fundamental to our policy. The Prime Minister was forthright in his statements on human rights during his Asian tour. I have spoken out repeatedly on human rights both here and abroad. We have also taken concrete actions to back up our words.
The Address-Mr. Clark
Last month, we changed our export controls policy to ban the export of military equipment to countries whose governments have a persistent record of violating the human rights of their citizens. On June 12, I reported to the House on the Government's reaction to the report of the Eminent Persons Group of the Commonwealth. In August, the Prime Minister and six other Commonwealth leaders met in London to examine that report and to recommend future actions. All agreed that the authorities in Pretoria had shown no inclination to end apartheid. Six of the countries, including Canada, agreed to put in place a series of 11 measures aimed at inducing the South African Government to reconsider its position.
The United Kingdom agreed separately to implement two national measures and another measure with its European Community partners.
The six of us recommended certain actions and commended our list of measures to the rest of the Commonwealth and to the wider international community, particularly those countries with significant economic relations with South Africa. We have been in touch with those countries directly, the Prime Minister and I, and others. We are pleased that the United States, the European Community and Japan have all announced measures to increase pressure on Pretoria.
At home we are implementing the London program. Some measures, such as the cancellation of the double taxation agreements and the removal of Government assistance to trade and investment, were already in place. In co-operation with the business community we have invoked a ban on new investment and the cessation of bank loans. I have issued notices to importers under the Export and Import Permits Act to prohibit the importing of agricultural products, uranium, coal, iron and steel from South Africa. Implementation of the remaining measures is virtually complete and will be fully effective in the coming weeks. As the House will know I asked that the South Africa Tourist Office close its doors in Canada, and that is being done.
Regarding wheat, Canada is not selling wheat now to South Africa. We have instructed the Wheat Board that there should be no sales to South Africa to take advantage of actions taken by other countries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are considering the other measures that Canada will take. We profoundly hope that the growing weight of world opinion will cause the regime in South Africa to move out of isolation, to move away from violence, to move against apartheid. We believe the process of consistent, steady pressure offers the best prospect of ending an offensive system while protecting the immense economic potential of Southern Africa. Canada intends to continue our leadership against apartheid.
Constructive internationalism is Canada's response to our independence. It recognizes the legitimate interests of other

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Clark
countries but never loses sight of the Canadian national interest. It is the projection abroad of our own national enterprise of compromise and consensus building. It expresses confidence in our ability to promote the best of what Canada has to offer. It weds realism and idealism. We think it accurately reflects the wishes of ordinary Canadians right across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we all appreciated very much that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) entered the Throne Speech debate. Obviously he could not cover every single issue, but since he did cover our actions vis-a-vis apartheid in South Africa, perhaps he could give us an indication of what further assistance Canada might give the front line states which of course will be very damaged by the absence of grain imports from the United States if South Africa refuses to accept grain imports, since most of those imports went to the front line states. Is further action going to be taken to assist the neighbouring states? Could the Secretary of State for External Affairs recommend any furhter policies that Canada might pursue with respect to South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia?
I will not ask any further questions in order to give other Hon. Members time. But, while I am on my feet, I would like to say that the Minister could not to any extent today touch on arms control and disarmament. He said earlier today that he would be responding to the joint committee's report. I would draw his attention particularly to page 54 of the report in which the Special Joint Committee said that it thinks the Government should encourage the U.S. Government to undertake a moratorium similar to the Soviet Union's on nuclear testing for a period long enough to determine whether agreement could be reached on a comprehensive test ban, and I would ask him to respond to it. Will he give us the assurance that that kind of encouragement will be given to the United States both privately and publicly in view of the fact that virtually all seismographic experts except those in the U.S. administration say that such a test ban is now verifiable?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in replying to those questions. The first question deals with the situation of exposure in which countries in front line states find themselves and how we might be able to help. One of the very effective organizations that has been developed in southern Africa is the organization known as SADCC which is comprised of members of the front line states. This year, we are already contributing something in the neighbourhood of $100 million to SADCC and we intend to increase those contributions.
There were discussions at the Commonwealth heads of Government meeting in London as to the steps that might be taken in the event that the reaction of the South African Government was of a kind that caused particular hardship and
disruption in the front line states. While no firm agreement was reached at that time because it was thought that there was a need to have a better idea of what precisely those problems would be, the Prime Minister of Canada volunteered that Canada would be prepared to be active in providing direct financial support to those front line states, although he said that he would prefer it if we were able to act in concert with other countries of the Commonwealth, thinking naturally of Australia and others. We are having active discussions now as to how that can most effectively proceed. That action, were it to be taken, would be in addition to the aid that is now directed toward SADCC.
I should just make one thing more precise. There have been questions raised as to whether or not Canada would be prepared to offer some kind of military support. We would not. In London in early August I had the opportunity to speak at some length with representatives of the African National Congress. I told them that I thought it was essential that they continue to seek peaceful means to bring an end to apartheid, and I indicated that that is very profoundly Canada's desire and would guide actions that we might take with regard to the situation in southern Africa.
With regard to the moratorium, I really should not get ahead of myself in responding to the report of the Joint Committee. I will make an exception in this particular case with respect to the proposal on the moratorium. 1 do not have the exact language of the recommendation in front of me.
Our view, as we begin the week in which Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan will meet in Iceland, is that the real test in these agreements is to find something to which both sides can comfortably agree. That is not likely to happen in the case of a moratorium so we believe the encouragement that Canada must give is to the United States to continue along the path that was signalled by the President in a speech made to the United Nations two weeks ago today indicating a willingness to now ratify treaties that some months ago the United States was not prepared to ratify. We think that that step-by-step movement toward an end to testing is more likely to be practically effective and, frankly, our interest now, as it has always been, is in seeking measures that will have practical effect.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) referred, of course, to the very strong action that our Government has taken with respect to imposing sanctions on South Africa. There are at least 20 different countries to which Canada has decided not to deport refugees who arrive in Canada because they also have indicated extreme examples of violations of human rights. Many Canadians are asking themselves, as well as me, why the Government does not impose sanctions on those other countries which are also violating human rights. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the Government will consider imposing sanctions on those countries, and if it has rejected that idea, why?
October 6, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is an important and legitimate question and one asked frequently across the country. Let me express both a personal view and a government policy, that sanctions rarely work. We are resorting to sanctions in the case of South Africa because we think there is no other instrument that will be effective in causing the regime in South Africa to move away from apartheid.
I have some experience with sanctions, as Hon. Members of the House of Commons may remember, from 1979. Our experience in 1979 was that those sanctions did not in fact have the effect upon the Soviet Union that the Government and, indeed, other Governments implementing them thought would be the case. I will not elaborate by giving more instances of this, but that is generally the case with sanctions. We think that they are generally an ineffective instrument. We believe that in the case of South Africa, nothing else will work and something must work.
If one would ask what distinguishes South Africa from other regimes that conduct practices intolerable and unacceptable to Canadians, I would say there are two things that distinguish South Africa. One, it purports to be a democratic country, as we do, in the way most other countries practising those kinds of violations of human rights do not. Second, it is the only regime in the world that has racial discrimination written into its constitution. Apartheid has that constitutional sanction, and we believe that when South Africa is prepared to incorporate in its law such an offensive principle and is so unprepared to respond to reason in changing it, then we have to resort to actions such as sanctions.
One last word on this. I believe that it might have been possible for people to say that other ways had not been tried adequately before the activities and the report of the Eminent Persons Group. I think any fair observer of events in the world would know that the Eminent Persons, including Archbishop Ted Scott of Canada and others who were drawn together in that work over a long period of time, went to see literally everyone who was interested and effective in that process, came up with reasonable proposals and were not only rebuffed but were rebuffed under circumstances of violence. I think that if a group like that is going to fail, then we must resort to other measures. In this case, the only measures that we think will work are sanctions, and we believe that they have to be applied step by step, gradually increasing the pressure. As I said in my remarks, we are pleased to see that there has recently been movement in the United States, movement in the European community and, importantly, movement in Japan to maintain that pressure which we think and hope will finally lead South Africa to put apartheid behind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on a question or a comment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question regarding the making of sanctions more
The Address-Mr. Robinson
effective. As he knows the front line states have to rely on South Africa to bring in their imports and send out their exports. Is Canada, alone or in concert with other countries, going to do more about upgrading ports and railway lines to the Indian Ocean shores of west Africa so that South Africa can be bypassed by the front line states and not be held up to ransom by South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to consider that. Other countries are. We have some projects, some capacity and some expertise that could apply in those circumstances. The best way to proceed we think would be to get the judgment of the front line states themselves as to the areas in which help might be most effective, having regard, among other things, to time frames that are involved and having regard also to the limitations unhappily attached to budgets of Canada or other countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I would like to recognize the next speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Before starting my remarks, may I say how pleased I am to see Your Honour back in the Chair. It is certainly a statement of the affirmation of respect in which all Members of the House hold Your Honour in that very important position. As well I should like, particularly as a British Columbia Member of Parliament, to congratulate the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) upon his election, after a very trying ordeal, to the position of Speaker of the House of Commons. I know that all of us felt honoured by this election.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I also want to congragulate the Hon. Member for Vercheres (Mr. Danis) on his appointment to the position of Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. He has done a very good job and all the Members of this House congragulate him.

The tradition of the Speech from the Throne is that it provides the Government with an opportunity to set out a new sense of vision, a new sense of direction and a new sense of hope for Canadians. As we in this House are summoned to the other place to have the Speech from the Throne read to us, we look for signs that the Government has been responding to the hopes and aspirations of Canadians as expressed to them over the past couple of years.
I listened with care to the remarks of the Governor General as she read the Speech from the Throne. Unfortunately, that concern and those hopes have not been listened to by this Government. Canadians were looking for a change in direction. Canadians were looking for a new sense of fairness and integrity. Most important, they wanted a sense that the Government recognized their priorities for job creation in

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Robinson
tackling the very serious economic crisis facing the country. That was not to be. Canadians were looking for a new direction and for a change. One need look no further than the results of the recent by-elections, the by-election in your own province, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Alberta, in the constituency of Pembina.

-and the results of the by-election in Quebec where the constituents of Saint-Maurice sent a very clear message to the Conservative Government. They said: We, Quebecers, want some change; we want the jobs promised by the Prime Minister two years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I personally canvassed door to door with our candidate Claude Rompre in Quebec. I heard the views of the Quebecers and it was very obvious that they are not at all happy with the policies of the Progressive Conservative Government and that they want some change.
If the people in Saint-Maurice and throughout Quebec heard the throne speech, they were certainly very disappointed because it does not promise any change. It promises the same direction and reflects the same lack of respect for priorities and for people not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.

I want to say a word about the process of the Speech from the Throne as we all traipse down to the other place, stand there and listen in awe in the plush surroundings of the Senate Chamber with its collection of hacks, flacks, bagmen and cronies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), which surely constitutes an embarrassment in a democratic society. Some of us ask ourselves if it is not about time to abolish the institution, abolish the Senate and put an end to the charade of these appointees of Prime Ministers making decisions that vitally affect the lives of ordinary Canadian men and women.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Down with the Senate!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, as my friend from Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is saying: Down with the Senate! The time has come to abolish the Senate.

This Government will be judged and is being judged on its record, on jobs, on fairness and on integrity. On each of those criteria, however, the Government has failed.
I want to take a moment to remind this House and to remind Canadians of the remarks of the Prime Minister to the people of Alberta, and through them to the people of Canada, when he spoke recently during the by-election in Pembina. The Prime Minister said:
There have been difficult times in this country. This is not one of them. This is a piece of cake.
When the Prime Minister of Canada tells Canadians that this is a piece of cake, that life is easy, there are no problems for the people of Canada, he is insulting the intelligence of
ordinary Canadian men and women. They know better. The farmers in Pembina and the farmers in the province-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that, with his reputation, the Member who is speaking would not want to mislead the House on the impact of those remarks. I was at the meeting. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was not talking about Canada. He was talking about the conduct of the meeting itself. I am sure if the Member had been there-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. It is not a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Get up and make your own speech.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Calgary will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. I have the words of the Prime Minister in front of me.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is a newspaper report.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am just going to repeat the words of the Prime Minister. I think Canadians have a right to know what the Prime Minister said.


An Hon. Member:: You are dishonest.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Conservatives do not want to listen, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Malone:: We were there.


John Horton McDermid: You weren't there. You were at your hairdresser's.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Conservatives are embarrassed by their own Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I think these words speak for themselves. The Prime Minister said this:
There have been difficult times in this country. This is not one of them. This is a piece of cake.
What kind of statement is "This is a piece of cake" to the people of Canada?


Blaine Allen Thacker: It was the meeting that was a piece of cake.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Or, Mr. Speaker, we have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who went to the other side of the country to Atlantic Canada where people are suffering from record levels of unemployment. He did not say that this is a piece of cake. No, he said: "This isn't Bangladesh. They have got it a lot worse in Bangladesh. Be grateful for your conditions". The Minister of Transport says: "Be grateful because you are not as poor as the people of Bangladesh". The Minister of Transport insulted the people of Atlantic Canada with that kind of remark, just as the Prime Minister insulted the people of Alberta by saying that this was a piece of cake. Canadians will not accept that kind of nonsense. We know better.
***
October 6, 1986

In the Province of British Columbia today we have a Premier who says the same thing. He says that everything is fantastic and that this is a piece of cake. The people of British Columbia know better. They know that what we want in the Province of British Columbia is action-action on unemployment, action on cut-backs in health care, and action on cutbacks in education.
Let us look at education for a minute. We have a federal Government which is cutting back on transfer payments to the province and cutting back on education. Also we in British Columbia have a Minister who has the audacity to suggest that poor people should think twice before going on to pursue post-secondary education. Yesterday the Social Credit Minister responsible for post-secondary education suggested that poor people should examine their priorities and consider putting off post-secondary education if they are unable to afford it. What kind of approach is that from Bill Vander Zalm, Rus Fraser, and their Social Credit colleagues to accessibility to post-secondary education in the Province of British Columbia? What he is saying to the poor is to forget it, that if they cannot afford a decent education, they should not bother applying to college or university. We in the New Democratic Party who have fought for years and decades for universal access to quality education will not accept that approach. We believe that there must be a change, and I am confident that there will be a change in the Province of British Columbia after October 22.
We are looking as well-and I am speaking now from the perspective of a Member of Parliament from British Columbia-at the whole question of fairness and equity for women. We are looking at the whole question of pay equity and legislation, enforceable legislation which will ensure that women are not treated as second-class citizens in the workforce. Recently we saw legislation on employment equity tabled in the House which left a great deal to be desired. It was toothless legislation with no enforcement mechanisms whatsoever.
As well, we see in the Province of British Columbia a Social Credit Government working hand in glove with the Mulroney Conservatives-


Arnold John Malone: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -saying that they do not believe in pay equity or in fairness for women. Once again the people of British Columbia will be passing judgment on that kind of Neanderthal approach to equality for women on October 22.
One of the most important industries in the country-and it is by far the most important industry in the Province of British Columbia-is the forestry industry. We have seen a succession of promises made and broken by the federal Government. We are awaiting effective action in the forestry sector. We know that our forests are being destroyed and that there is not adequate reforestation. We call upon the Government to put
The Address-Mr. Robinson
money into effective reforestation programs. Instead, we have more studies and no action. I am proud of the fact that in the Province of British Columbia Bob Skelly, the Leader of the provincial New Democratic Party, has said that we would work with a federal Government which takes its responsibilities seriously in this important area, and that we would create thousands upon thousands of jobs in the forestry sector through effective reforestation schemes. That is the kind of approach to job creation which we as New Democrats support and in which we believe.
There are those people who ask where we will get the money from for these job creation programs. I will tell the House where we will get the money from. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) clearly documented the fact that thousands and thousands of corporations in Canada are not paying one penny in income tax despite the fact that they are making very great profits on a year to year basis. It is about time that we got serious about tax reform and recognized that the corporate sector should be paying its fair share of taxes. That is one source of funds which the Government could use to create jobs. Another source is the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. Whom does this benefit? It directly benefits those who are the wealthiest, those who are the most affluent in society. Of course that creates no jobs at all for the people of British Columbia or for the people of Canada.
Another area in which there should be changes is the whole area of waste in government advertising. For example, we have seen in the Province of British Columbia some $20 million being spent by Bill Vander Zalm and the Socreds on blatant political advertising at the expense of British Columbia taxpayers. Instead of taking taxpayers' money and spending it in that kind of arbitrary way to promote re-election, we suggest that the money should be taken and put into effective job-creation programs.
One example of that is the youth job guarantee program which has been suggested by my provincial colleagues in British Columbia and by Bob Skelly, the Leader of my Party. As well, it has been actively supported by the outstanding team of NDP candidates in British Columbia, people like Joan Sawicki in Burnaby-Willingdon, Ron Johnson in Burnaby- Edmonds, and Barry Jones in Burnaby North. They are talking about working on priorities to create jobs and about a youth job guarantee program. The suggestion is that we are failing our young people in the country by not allowing them to have any hope, by not providing any optimism, and by not providing any sense of vision for the future. The youth job guarantee program says that when one reaches 17 years or 18 years of age, one will have the option of being able to pursue post-secondary education, of having a job, or of being able to go into some sort of training to help find a job. It is that kind of guarantee which will help to create hope and a sense of confidence in our young people in British Columbia and throughout the land. It is that kind of inspired leadership by my provincial colleagues which I am hoping will lead to real job creation in the Province of British Columbia.

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Robinson
In my capacity as justice critic for the federal New Democratic Party, I want to touch for a moment-and I know that time is limited-on a number of issues on which we will be looking for action in the upcoming session of Parliament. We hope the Government will take effective action to deal with the very serious concerns of Canadians, particularly those in the Maritimes who recognize the inequities in Canada's current laws on abortion. In both the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Newfoundland there are no facilities whatsoever for women who seek access to safe therapeutic abortions. Surely that kind of situation represents a denial of equality to women and must be changed.
We are also looking for effective action on changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Government has promised that changes will be made. We hope that these changes to strengthen the protections accorded minorities in Canada and to look at the whole area of systemic discrimination will be made in the very near future.
We must look at the crisis facing the Canadian prison system. We in Canada imprison far too many people for far too long. Our prisons are over-crowded. We see double bunking in many cases and we see the spectacle of prisons being built in the country as job-creation projects far from the families of prisoners and far from qualified professional staff. Once again that is unacceptable.
The Prime Minister has spoken of his war on drugs and the drug epidemic in Canada. All Canadians share in the concern over the abuse of drugs in our society. However, I suggest that we have to look very seriously at the abuse not only of illegal drugs but of perhaps the most destructive drug of all, that being alcohol. How many of our families have not been touched by alcoholism? We know, for example, that alcohol has caused tremendous waste and human suffering. Some 66 per cent of fatal accidents in Canada are alcohol-related. Over half the suicides among young people involve alcohol. A great proportion of accidents in the home are alcohol-related. I could go on and on about the destructiveness of alcohol, so when the Prime Minister talks about a war on drugs, let us ensure that he is prepared to take action with respect to the abuse of alcohol as well.
Let us also hope that he looks very seriously at the archaic laws dealing with marijuana. Under these laws today our young people can still go to jail or receive a criminal record for possession. Changes to those laws are long overdue.
There are a number of other concerns. We have the matter of sexual abuse of young people. Our freedom of information and privacy legislation remains far too weak. The Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General is studying this legislation and we hope the Government will move to strengthen it significantly.
Dealing with pornography, we hope the Government does not come back with the kind of repressive, sledge-hammer
legislation which totally fails to distinguish between erotica and violent, degrading pornography. I think the Government may have gotten the message, but it is important that it not yield to the forces of reaction, the dinosaurs in the Tory back benches, who insist that the previous Bill be brought back intact. We will await with interest the government response in this area.
You are signalling, Mr. Speaker, that my time is just about up with respect to this response to the Speech from the Throne. I just want once again to indicate how important we in British Columbia view the next two years to be. The Government was given an overwhelming mandate, not just by the people of Canada but also by the people of British Columbia, and so far the Government has blown it. It has not responded to the concerns of the people of British Columbia about job creation, or fairness and integrity in Government. We in the NDP intend to continue fighting on behalf of the concerns of ordinary Canadians, ordinary British Columbians, together with our colleagues at the provincial level, people such as Bob Skelly of the provincial NDP. We hope that together there will be real changes, both federally and provincially.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Hon. Member ended his remarks with the issue of integrity. He and I arrived in this House at the same time. He has built a formidable and positive reputation, for the most part. However, making unsubstantiated allegations in this Chamber in the past has caused him, on at least one occasion, some difficulty. He has made the allegation that the Prime Minister of this country, in the Pembina by-election in the City of Edmonton, said that handling the problems of this country was a piece of cake.
I was there, Mr. Speaker. There was a very small group of people in attendance whose sole purpose was to disrupt the meeting and make sure that democracy and freedom of speech were denied. From the beginning of the meeting, every time someone tried to get to a microphone, that small group of people chanted "bullshit! bullshit!", as loudly as they could.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Order!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is what they did. The Prime Minister of this country, when it came to be his turn at the mike, said to that audience that there were indeed real problems in this country, difficult problems for Canadians, but handling a rowdy bunch whose sole purpose in a meeting was to chant "bullshit" and attempt to interrupt democracy was not a difficult problem, that it indeed was a piece of cake.


Mr. Keeper:: Distortion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I simply ask the Hon. Member: Was he at the meeting? Has he listened to a tape? Does he have the evidence-and he should remember his own history-that the Prime Minister said what the Hon. Member said he said in the
October 6, 1986

context in which he used it? If he does not have that evidence, will he attempt to seek it out? If he finds it is not available, will he quit misusing the statements of the Prime Minister of this country in that way?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting in question in Pembina there were a significant number of unemployed workers from Gainers, men and women who have been out of work for a number of months, people who were fighting for their economic survival. Their employer, Gainers, is attempting to smash their union and their way of life. Those people attended at the airport where the Prime Minister appeared, hoping to be able to speak with him there. He dodged out the back door and refused to meet with them.
Following that, those same workers from Gainers showed up at the meeting in Pembina. Yes, they used strong words. They are frustrated, they are angry, they are desperate about their future and the future of their children. The response from the Prime Minister to those working men and women from Gainers was to accuse them of being separatists. That was a shameful response, an inexcusable response. He then went to the Province of Quebec.

-and in Quebec, he suggested that the NDP in Alberta had provoked these people and shouted the words which the Hon. Member repeated in this House. This is quite false and irresponsible.

The words of the Prime Minister speak for themselves. He was not saying that he had been in difficult meetings before. He was not saying he had taken flak before. What he said was this: "There have been difficult times in this country. This is not one of them. This is a piece of cake."
Those words surely speak for themselves.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, they do.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I was also there that night. I would remind the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister met with Mr. Werlin after the meeting. Members of our caucus met yesterday with Mr. Werlin and other members of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Alberta Federation of Labour, and I think they were very grateful for that meeting. I think we had a very productive meeting.
I listened with interest to the Hon. Member talk about the Throne Speech and the British Columbia election campaign. Would he tell us where he stands personally on the issue of hard core pornography? Does he, for example, think there is a causal link between hard core pornography and crimes against women and children? Where does he stand on the issue of heroin and other hard drug abuse in his province, bearing in mind that when I lived there it was the fifth or sixth largest industry in the province? Can he enlighten us with respect to both of those issues?
The Address-Mr. Robinson


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have more time to respond to the concerns of my hon. friend. One of the real concerns we have in British Columbia is the fact that the Government of that province has cut back dramatically on treatment programs for those caught up in that vicious and painful cycle of heroin addiction and other drug abuse. Instead of cutting back on the treatment programs, they should be expanding funding for those programs. Instead of making it more difficult for the individuals who are trying to end their addiction to heroin through the use of methadone, they should be expanding the opportunity for those people to break that cycle. I am very pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), has given me this opportunity to point out that the Social Credit Government in the Province of British Columbia has cut back dramatically on funding for alcohol and drug abuse in the Province of British Columbia.
With regard to the first question raised by my hon. colleague, certainly we in the New Democratic Party support the proposed changes to the hate literature provisions of the Criminal Code which would include sex as a prohibited ground of discrimination in those sections. So much of this multimillion dollar industry is, in effect, institutionalized discrimination against women. That is why the inclusion of the word "sex" in the provisions is something that we welcome, something which has been called for by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member, who is the justice critic for the New Democratic Party, advise us on two items? First, is it the policy of the New Democratic Party that the Criminal Code should make no reference to abortion and that abortion should, therefore, be available on demand? Second, is it the policy of the New Democratic Party that the possession of marijuana or its derivatives should not be an offence?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it was my former colleague, Grace Maclnnis, who stated that the decision as to whether or not a woman would have an abortion is a decision which should be made by that woman in consultation with her doctor. That has been a longstanding policy of this Party and it remains the position of the federal New Democratic Party. Certainly we believe that those provisions of the Criminal Code which are not in accord with that fundamental principle should in fact be changed.
With respect to the question about marijuana, we believe that the current provisions of the Narcotic Control Act are indeed in need of fundamental change. It is wrong that hundreds of thousands of Canadians should be subjected to a criminal record and, in a number of instances, to lengthy terms of imprisonment for simple possession of marijuana. Yes, Mr. Speaker, those laws should indeed be changed. At the same time we believe it is fundamentally important that there be education with regard to the effects of drugs in our society.

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
Once again I call upon the Government to recognize its responsibility, not only to wage war on drugs but to take preventive action by educating Canadians on the effects of a wide range of drugs including marijuana, alcohol, Valium, Librium and many other drugs in our society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has expired. The Elon. Member for Jonquiere.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to take part in this debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Before proceeding I should like to extend my most sincere congratulations to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on his election as Speaker of the House of Commons. I wish him well in the discharge of this onerous responsibility and I want to express my full respect and confidence.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to tell my distinguished House colleagues and all Canadians, especially the people of my riding of Jonquiere whom I humbly represent, about the various points which drew my attention during the Speech from the Throne delivered by Her Excellency the Governor General, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean were honoured to play hosts to Her Excellency the Governor General on the occasion of her short stay in our region last week. She is an extraordinary lady to whom I pay my respect. During her visit in our region she expressed particular concern about the way ordinary people look upon politicians. She stated that in many cases people do not think kindly of men and women in politics, yet the only aspiration of these men and women is their will and desire to serve.
The remark is very relevant and the Governor General is indeed an eloquent representative to convey such a message to Canadian men and women with respect to the world of politics.
In response to the various issues raised in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote an article published in last Thursday's La Presse and signed by editorial writer Michel Roy:
A fresh start
he wrote.
The Speech from the Throne opening the second session of the Mulroney Government highlights both continuity and change.
Continuity, because again it features the major themes advocated by the same Government in its 1984 legislative program, namely national reconciliation and economic renewal;
Change, because Mr. Mulroney and his colleagues focus on a perspective they had neglected two years earlier: the social policies which mean so much to Canadians.
Considering the balance he was able to give to his speech, balance between economic and social priorities as well as national and international issues, the Prime Minister proves that he has a clearer view of the expectations of Canadians. The shift towards social matters and the large number of concrete measures announced in the speech, from tax reform to day care centres, reflect a new realism.
The legislative program is full of possibilities.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what are these new policies the Government intends to advocate during the second session? A radical change has to be our firm intention to give special consideration to new social measures.
The new policy on daycare centres, to be implemented following the tabling of a report by the committee responsible for studying needs in this area, is one example of our resolve to be progressive in terms of family policy.
Improvements in pension plans, an adjustment program for older workers, measures to promote volunteer work, the Government's firm resolve to take effective measures against child sexual abuse, violent forms of pornography involving women and children, child prostitution, and the grave and growing threat posed by the trafficking in illegal drugs, will all be on the legislative agenda in the months to come. These, and many other social policies such as those relating to the intolerable affront to human dignity suffered by battered women, compel the Government's commitment to work with the provinces to implement the most effective means and methods of action in response to the concerns of the Canadian people.
Other important issues were raised in the Speech from the Throne, announcing the Government's firm intentions of developing new policies and injecting additional funds for promoting research and setting up a national advisory board for industrial technology and improving the quality of postsecondary education, with a view to achieving excellence and providing equal opportunity. Similarly, active internationalism and increasing trade remain an absolute priority.
The Opposition may be fond of showering criticism on the free trade talks, but if we fail to conclude bilateral agreements on the various activity sectors in our respective economies, Canada's economy is in grave danger of being partially paralyzed. And all because of the increasing number of protectionist measures now being put before the U.S. Congress. The trend is growing and may result in the loss of many jobs. Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear: negotiate. Justice and good faith still have their place, and I believe that between friendly countries, agreement is always possible.
Canada's exports to the United States are worth more than $94 billion, while U.S. exports to our country are worth about $75 billion annually. The stakes are high, since millions of jobs depend on the outcome, and every time the Americans impose new protectionist measures, men and women stand to lose their jobs. The Opposition has taken a very negative stand, but I remain convinced that the talks offer a better perspective than doing nothing or just letting things happen.
Further, Mr. Speaker, an agreement inviting Quebec to take the honourable route towards becoming an active partner in the Canadian Constitution remains one of our major objectives and we hope this agreement will be ratified as soon as possible.
And what about the trend towards adjusting our policies and programs in terms of specific regional needs? This desire to
October 6, 1986

take into account the differences and specific needs of all of our regions should not be just a case of Government priorities and policies. It should also be the objective of our major businesses and our Crown corporations, which should adapt their expansion and investment policies to regional differences and disparities.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention one example, the position taken by Bell Canada which this summer, through its director general, announced to the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean that the company intended to allow for the regional entity in its policies for the development of regional services, instead of considering various aspects such as the community of interests and distance or contiguity, and that it would consider local conditions in every region. In fact, a region consists of municipalities, and when we talk about developing regional services as opposed to inter city services, we must try to increase the cohesiveness of the towns within the region. And Bell Canada's President himself did recognize that principle, that is the importance of regional association, and Bell has agreed in the Saguenay area to have a pilot study conducted for the purpose indeed of finally regrouping all communities in the Saguenay MRC. This will be a first, Mr. Speaker, and I am very happy with Bell's new outlook. I also urge the CRTC, when the time comes, to change the parameters so that from now on, when talking about developing regional service, the actuel needs of the population be addressed and the regions be taken into account.
Mr. Speaker, other major changes were announced, including tax reform. A first measure already has become law, imposing a minimum tax. Accordingly, 79,000 more Canadians will be paying taxes, people who until now have succeeded in paying none, availing themselves of all kinds of tax deductions. These loopholes have now been plugged by our Government. And soon the tax reform will simplify our tax returns and lead to lower income tax for many Canadian men and women, a highly desirable goal, Mr. Speaker.
All in all, this is a promising Throne Speech, the key elements of which will be introduced over the coming weeks and months as so many pieces of legislation.
At the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I quoted from a columnist, Mr. Michel Roy, who referred both to changes and to continuity in the Throne Speech of this our thirty-third Parliament. Continuity refers to what has been started. And if I may, I would like to remind Hon. Members of the numerous achievements of this Government and the progress made in terms of economic performance.
Much too often, Mr. Speaker, we are criticized and even taken to task, I would say. The nit-picking is so well schemed that people lose perspective. But our record is impressive. I could mention national reconciliation recalling that the provinces seldom had such good relations with the Canadian Government. What a change from the arrogance and contempt that prevailed for years!
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
Our Government has also reached a number of sectorial agreements with the provinces, for instance sectorial agreements on transportation, and my own region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, will be benefitting, to the tune of $25 million provided by the Quebec Government and the Canadian Government, actually towards a project in our area, the Alma-La Baie expressway. Those $25 million will not be enough, but a major hurdle has been passed with that agreement entered upon by our two Governments.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to speak about the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which emphasizes training and co-operation with the private sector and programs to create permanent jobs with a training element. Among the employment development programs, let me mention Challenge '86, under which students can find a summer job in their own field of study to help them to innovate and acquire new qualifications, and so on. Several billions of dollars have been invested in these job creation programs in the last two years.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, our strategy is bearing fruit since the unemployment rate has gone down from 11.7 per cent to under 10 per cent in two years to reach 9.7 per cent last August. We are creating nearly four times as many jobs in a month as the previous Government. Our Government is creating nearly
25,000	new jobs each month.
As for the interest rates, they have also gone down under 10 per cent, and the inflation rate has decreased and is still at about 4 per cent. These are all good economic results and we shall go on as we have begun.
According to the OECD, Canada will have the highest employment increase this year among major industrialized country and the second best rate among the 25 member countries of the OECD. As for the economic performance in my own region and in my constituency of Jonquiere, it is also positive. For instance, there is the pulp and paper company Abitibi Price, in which $150 million have been invested to modernize facilities and produce a new type of fine paper. This is encouraging and shows confidence in the economic future of our region and our country. Three plants, Cascades, Abitibi Price and Alcan, employ nearly 8,000 people or 19 per cent of the labour force in the Jonquiere constituency, which greatly depends on a vigorous market for aluminum and for pulp and paper.
It is easy to see that economic recovery is essential for the welfare of our regions and that our policies must take regional disparities and differences into account. We need to have a complementary approach to diversify the economy of each region in the country, and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region is no exception to the rule.
At this point, I would like to point to SOCCRENP, a business sponsorship corporation set up recently, thanks to the co-operation of big business and small-and medium-sized businesses in our region and the two levels of government. The corporation's goal is to stimulate the creation of new businesses in the region. Last week, the first business created with

October 6, 1986
The Address-Ms. Copps
the help of SOCCRENP was launched, under the name Spectube. The business is in fact concerned with aluminum processing.
It is very encouraging to see the business world taking the initiative. I think we can expect a great deal from this kind of corporation, whose objective is also to create businesses and thus create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other priorities in the riding of Jonquiere, and as the Member for this riding, I am working very hard to deal with them. Some examples are relocating the post office in Jonquiere or relocating the employment centre. It has been several months, Mr. Speaker, that I started working on this file, and I don't intend to drop it, because all this is very important to my riding, since it is a matter of improving services for my constituents.
A second important issue is the rationalization of railway transportation in the Upper Saguenay, which will mean removing certain tracks which are no longer being used in the Jonquiere area. This is another important matter on which I am working very hard. Today, negotiations are going on between Canadian National, VIA Rail and Roberval-Sague-nay to reach an agreement, and I expect to make some major progress very shortly.
In any case, I am prepared to use all my energy and effort in the defence of the interests of the people of the riding of Jonquiere and to promote its economic development.
Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in this Government which has clearly shown its desire to listen to the regions and do everything it can to distribute economic wealth more equitably in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost I should like to thank and congratulate all those who have already taken part in this debate, particularly the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for your commendable effort during the election which lasted until two o'clock in the morning.
We had an extra month, Mr. Speaker, to kind of get back to reality. I think a lot of us in the House of Commons, both on the government side and the opposition side, realize that we sometimes get caught up in the politics of Parliament Hill and forget what the people back in the ridings are saying. In this particular instance, we had the benefit of one extra month because the Government was going to go back to the people, back to the drawing board, back to the grass roots and find out what the people were really saying about the first two years of the greatest mandate in the history of Canada. In fact, this
month would have been well spent had we seen a specific response in the Speech from the Throne to some of the concerns being expressed by Canadians. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I am a little cynical, but it was almost like deja vu. When I was in the Ontario Legislature I used to read the recorded ruminations of people like Norm Atkins. He used to write beautiful speeches for the Premier of Ontario who was very successful at being all things to all people in all parts of Ontario. It was almost "Campkaesque", the fine imprint of the Dalton Camps of this world, that we could see written all over that Speech from the Throne. We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who is responding to women's issues, to drug abuse, to alchoholism, to the economy, to the unemployment problem. He is going to be all things to all people. Frankly, I think we should congratulate him, except for one fatal flaw. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) knows I would bring in the one fatal flaw.


Don Boudria: It is your duty.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You always try to find fault.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Achilles' heel is that the Prime Minister has told us in the course of his Speech from the Throne that we are going to see more of the same. He has said he intends to continue his Government's policy of fiscal responsibility.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Does that have anything to do with butlers?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that the same Prime Minister who is promising the continuation of fiscal responsibility, in the course of his government responsibilities as the Prime Minister of this country sees a prison moved at his whim because he thinks he is going to receive more votes in his own home riding? Without receiving consultation from the Government, the Prime Minister intervened in an unfair fashion. I was out in Pembina, and I heard from people in the oil industry who were hurting. They asked where the Prime Minister was, when was the Prime Minister bringing in the removal of the PGRT? It took a by-election to bring that about. At the same time, when it came to moving a prison into his own riding, without the advice of anyone in the penal institution, against the advice of his own fiscal advisers, because it is going into his own riding and will be his own pork-barrelling, bang, he does it just like that, just as he said in Fortune Magazine.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What does that have to do with pork-barrelling?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Someone asks what it has to do with pork-barrelling. Well, it seems to me that when one introduces a move of a prison simply to satisfy the issue of unemployment, that issue is being attacked in a completely wrong fashion. It was a wrong-headed decision. It was a political decision and it was a partisan decision made by the Prime Minister specifically because he wanted to pad his own constituency. That is the
October 6, 1986

same Prime Minister who talks about fiscal responsibilty. I remember back in the great City of Hamilton when the now Prime Minister gave an interview to CHCH television. He lambasted, he blasted the former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, because Mr. Trudeau had a nanny for his children who was on the public payroll. He said: "Never will I, Martin Brian Mulroney, have a nanny on the public payroll".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been here for a couple of years and she knows that she should not be using the name of any individual in this House but referring to him or her only by his or her constituency or title. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) would please maintain a little decorum, I would appreciate it greatly. I know we all would.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That was a direct quote from the royal "we". However, I accept your admonition and in future I will try to adhere. The Hon. Prime Minister said he never would have a nanny on the public payroll. A few weeks later, he gets elected and the first thing he does is to run out and hire a nanny at the taxpayers' expense. But she is not really a nanny. She is a staff person who interfaces with the children on a habitual basis. 1 will be able to speak shortly from first-hand experience, and I would love to have a staff person who interfaces with the children on a habitual basis. Let us call a nanny a nanny. Let us call a butler a butler. Let us call a maid a maid. 1 think my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), made a moot point when he suggested that he did not realize the Prime Minister's underwear had become an issue of national security. The Prime Minister said he absolutely had to have a valet and a maid on his trip to the Far East for security reasons, even though he had an RCMP officer, among others, who was there simply to watch the bags and to make sure there was in fact no security breach. It now becomes part of public policy that the maid and the valet have to follow the Prime Minister around.
In the last session, when it was revealed that the taxpayers of Canada paid for a Hercules for a film crew to travel around and catch every last precious moment of the fleeting mandate of this Prime Minister, the pay-off for that came from the taxpayers, and the Prime Minister again cited reasons of security. It seems to me again that while he talks about budgets and cut-backs, the Prime Minister intends to continue the practice he began increased his own office staff by some 54 per cent when he was first elected. We hear rumours and press reports that now it is not enough for each of the Ministers to have a chauffeur. There are now certain Ministers in the Government-and its back-benchers will want to hear this- who want their assistants to have chauffeurs. It is not enough that their chief politicos have a salary increase which is far higher than the average Canadian would have received, but certain of their assistants believe they should have chauffeur-driven limousines to carry them about.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It sounds like a good story.
The Address-Ms. Copps


Sheila Maureen Copps: It sounds like a great story and you will probably find out about it in the very near future.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is easy to say that in the House. You cannot be sued in the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will repeat it outside the House. I do not think I will be sued if I say it outside the House. I am telling the truth. If the Hon. Member for Mississauga South would like to pursue it outside the House, I would be most happy to comply.
I think it is important that the government back-benchers be aware that this is the same Government which is preaching Fiscal restraint. It is the same Government which said in the Speech from the Throne that it wants to introduce new measures of fiscal responsibility. There is an election going on in Saskatchewan. What has the Government done with respect to wheat subsidies? We have heard nothing specific in the Speech from the Throne. There was nothing definitive. It takes a 5.30 a.m. phone call by the Premier of Saskatchewan who on bended knees said: "Please help me out, because if you do not, you will not be able to count on us in the next election". It is the height of cynicism for the Prime Minister to announce the withdrawal of the PGRT only because of a by-election. It is the height of cynicism for the Prime Minister to announce wheat payments which will come from existing funds. He is merely shuffling the deck. That is the height of cynicism.

Mr. Speaker, referring to the files which I have been asked to study as Party critic, we discovered among other things that older workers are hardest hit by the unemployment climate in Canada. We know that, even since the end of the recession, the number of unemployed workers over 50 has doubled, which means that these people do not find work, all they find is despair.
We remember quite well that about a year ago, in the month of February when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled his famous Budget, he promised he would replace the LAB program, the Labour Adjustment Benefits program.
They cancelled that program and promised that as early as August 1986 we would have a new program specifically designed for unemployed older workers.
He proposed that he would introduce a new program for older workers by August of 1986. We now see that he is reannouncing the same program for older workers.

This is exactly the same program which was promised in February when they dropped the Liberal program for older workers which had been in existence before.
How can people believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who is telling us in his Speech from the Throne that he will give us the very same policies we have had for two years? Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 6, 1986
The Address-Ms. Copps
Speaker, we already know that the polls reveal that Canadians are wary of the Prime Minister's word, they do not believe him anymore because he tricked them too often, saying one thing to some people and something else to others.

The public is sceptical, with good reason. If we look to the area of housing, which is another area within my responsibilities as critic, there is not a single mention in the Speech from the Throne with respect to the plight of the thousands of Canadian homeless who will be facing a very cold winter. What we have seen again is the divestment-

The Government is shirking its responsibilities towards the provinces because the federal Government does not want to provide the housing services such as had been promised by the former Liberal administration.
For example, if we look at British Columbia-

We know that the Government in British Columbia is not committed to social housing. In fact, I was shocked to hear the words of the Minister responsible for education in British Columbia who said that he felt that maybe poor people should rethink sending their families to college or university.
I would like to take a few moments to tell the House why my family and I became Liberals. My father was one of six boys raised by a widow in northern Ontario back in the mid-1920s. At that time my grandmother was struggling as a court stenographer to raise her six children. She was anxious to send one of them to school, but she did not have the money to pay for the examination which had to be taken to follow up on post-secondary education. She wrote to the Minister responsible for education in the Province of Ontario at that time and said: "I am a widow with six sons. I would like to send at least one of them, who wants to be a veterinarian, to school so that he can achieve his goal". The Conservative Minister at the time wrote my grandmother and said: "Madam, in your circumstances I think it is highly outrageous that you should even consider sending any of your sons to a post-secondary institution". My grandmother became an ardent Liberal from that day forward. She believed that any Government, including the Socred Government of British Columbia or the Conservative Government then in Ontario, which would say to poor people that you cannot afford education and that there should not be universal accessibility to it, should not get her vote. I think this political philosophy is a hallmark of what we are seeing here in Ottawa.
With respect to housing, I received a letter today, and I think other Members will be receiving ones in the same vein. They should be aware of the new housing policies of the Government which targets the so-called core needy. The letter I received was from Dora Hilton who lives in Whitby, Ontario. She received a rent increase of 50 per cent in 1985 and another rent increase of 50 per cent in 1986. She is a senior citizen who,
in just two years, has had her rent increased by 100 per cent. Her rent is now almost $500 a month. The people in her building are extremely upset, but this is the dilemma they face. They have no place to go. Through its sad omission of any reference to housing in the Speech from the Throne the Government has shown it is abandoning a national strategy for housing. It is content to leave the question of housing up to the provinces. I am sure we will have a chance to say more about this subject in the future. However, I draw the matter to the attention of Hon. Members because I think there is a national crisis in terms of housing. Anyone who lives in a major urban centre will be aware of the crisis. Frankly, they will be shocked, as am I, that the Government has made no reference to it in the Speech from the Throne.
As the only opposition Member in the area of Hamilton, the lone voice of Opposition now that the former Member for Hamilton Mountain has departed-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am only 10 miles away.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is not from Hamilton, Mr. Speaker. Close, but no banana. He is from Brantford, the home of Wayne Gretzky. We cannot lay claim to Wayne Gretzky. Thus the Hon. Member cannot lay claim to being a Hamiltonian.
There are certain issues currently taking place in the Hamilton area which bear national scrutiny. One deals with the Hamilton airport.
Terminal 1 at the Toronto Airport is in a state of absolute crisis. Most Members have probably been through Terminal 1, and I ask Hon. Members whether or not they agree that Terminal 1 is a disaster area. Terminal 1 is a joke. It is an insult to any person arriving on an international flight who is en route to the southwestern Ontario area. I agree that we need to do something about the overcrowding problem. At the same time, only a few kilometers away in the City of Hamilton there is a beautiful $50 million facility which is lying waste. It was cited by the Auditor General as being one example of our not receiving value for our dollar. It just does not have the necessary passenger loads.
Before the daily trips to Vancouver last summer the total number of passengers travelling through the Hamilton airport was 40. At the same time we were seeing an overload of 4 million passengers only a few kilometers away in the City of Toronto. The then Minister of Transport attended an emergency meeting at the time. He very kindly agreed to receive our Mayor and our Regional Chairman who laid out the problem to him. He was sympathetic, as only he can be. Heaven knows, at times he can be sympathetic and at times he can need our sympathy. We are never quite sure which it is. Nonetheless, he was sympathetic. He said that he would do something about the problem. Only a few days later he issued a press release in which he said that he was proud to announce that he was giving permission to another airline to land at Terminal 1 in the City of Toronto. That airline is TAP of Portugal.
October 6, 1986

It seems to me that if there is one facility which is lying waste and another which is completely crowded to capacity, then this is an unimaginable situation for anyone who has experienced it on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday night. Why did the Minister of Transport not say to TAP that we would be very happy to see it land in southwestern Ontario but that it will have to be at Hamilton and not Toronto? There are many people living in the vicinity of the Hamilton area. We are the hub of the golden horseshoe and not that far from Toronto. It would certainly be easy to set up a shuttle service between the two airports, thus permitting people who want to fly beyond the southwestern Ontario area to proceed to their connections. However, there is a Minister who really revealed his true colours when he went to Atlantic Canada and told Atlantic Canadians that they should stop complaining because they have it better than those in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. He said the same thing when he came to Hamilton. He said he would deal with our concerns and try to assist the airport, but within the short space of a few days he agreed to let another airline into Toronto while this particular airport is being neglected.
There is one reason for this, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could give some positive advice to the Prime Minister. Those in Hamilton need a cabinet Minister from the Hamilton area. The Minister who is currently designated as the Minister for Hamilton is the Hon. Member from Oakville. His designation escapes me because he comes to Hamilton so seldom that no one even knows who he is. I am sure that if I were to ask 10 people at Jackson Square who the Minister responsible for Hamilton is, they would not know that it is the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek). I suppose that is the only association he has with Hamilton. We do have a good football team and shortly we will have an NHL franchise.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we need a cabinet Minister from Hamilton.


An Hon. Member:: What about you?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would volunteer but I am on the wrong side of the House. My services are available as a consultant, but unfortunately I am on the wrong side of the House.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No, the other side.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The other side, that's right.
When decisions are to be made about transport and airports, if we had a cabinet Minister from Hamilton we would hear a Hamilton voice. Right now Hamilton is voiceless. It is without representation in Cabinet and we are getting the short end of the stick. To be blunt, we are getting the bone job. The only way to remedy that is to get a cabinet Minister from Hamilton who will fight for us. I will have more to say on this in the coming weeks.
The Address-Ms. Copps


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal, the Leader of the Hon. Member's Party, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), was quoted as saying that only the Liberals have the courage to address squarely issues such as the Constitution, free trade, environment and energy. I know that the Hon. Member is a leading spokesperson for her Party and a firm and strong supporter of her Leader. I wonder if she would be kind enough to tell us definitively of her Party's policies with respect to the Constitution, trade negotiations with the United States, the environment and energy. And while she is at it, perhaps she could tell us of her Party's position with respect to the deficit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I do not know what the first part of the question put by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) meant in regard to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). However, I will let it go this time. I would hope that the Hon. Member would keep it in the context of what the Hon. Member has just finished saying.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, of course, with the unanimous consent of the House to extend my discussion period, I would be very happy to answer all those questions. However, the point made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was a very valid and positive point. In the context of multilateral discussions, the Liberal Party has been the only Party that consistently, from the beginning, has said that we should not be putting all our eggs into the bilateral basket. If we spent the kind of money that we are currently spending on sending Simon Reisman to Washington with his team and keeping Mr. Reisman and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) singing from the same hymn book on other things, we would be a lot better off in terms of international trade.
With respect to the Constitution, there has been an extremely positive resolution from the Quebec caucus as well as the Quebec wing of the federal Party, a resolution which will be debated at length at the policy convention which will be held in November. That particular position has been enunciated with some modification by our Leader in an extremely informative article-

-in the newspaper Le Devoir which I would be very pleased to send you. I think that the Liberal policy on the Constitution is the only clear policy, the only policy which endorses the concept that Quebec has indeed certain different characteristics. Having worked in Quebec, I can say that I unreservedly support the statements made by Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) in the newspaper Le Devoir, and I look forward to a very interesting debate during our convention in November.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), who has good relationships with the Liberal Peterson Government of Ontario, would not agree that the major problem with the

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Witer
Hamilton airport is that it is nearly as hard to find and nearly as hard to get to as Mirabel and that there is no decent highway to that airport. There could be, with a two or three-mile road connected to the 403, a first-class access to the airport. Since there is no such access, it is virtually impossible for anyone to find that airport and it takes a great while to get there.
Would the Hon. Member use her best influence with the Peterson Government to make the airport more accessible? After all, highway transportation is a provincial responsibility. The federal Government has put its money up for the terminal. Surely to goodness it is time the province did something about the highway.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I live in Hamilton's east end and I can tell the Hon. Member that I probably know the road system a little better than he does. I can be at the Hamilton airport, barring a few speeding tickets, within about 15 minutes coming from the far east end of Hamilton. Those Hon. Members who are familiar with the airport will know that it is located in the far southwest end. Transportation is not the problem. Designation is the problem.
When it comes to transportation, the Hon. Member will realize that the new Liberal Government in Ontario, which will obviously be elected with a majority representation in Ontario very soon, has only been in power for a little more than a year. It will have been in power for two years by next June. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, that Government was handed such a mess when it came to the transportation system of Ontario that while it is trying its darndest, it is finding it tough. The Government will continue to try its darndest but such a mess was left behind that it will take a little longer than a year and a half to fix up the situation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know that you would not want me to let this occasion go by without congratulating the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for making what is obviously the finest speech we have heard today if not for a long time in the House of Commons. I see that the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) agrees and his wisdom tells me that I am correct.
I would like to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, about the footwear and textile industries. I have noted, of course, that in the Throne Speech, the Government did not address either of those two issues. These issues are very important to the constituency of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East as they are to mine, particularly in the face of the devastating Tory policies which have caused the loss of so many jobs in the footwear industry in Alexandria which is in my riding, areas in the riding of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and other areas of the Niagara Peninsula which do not have the good fortune of being represented by as good an Hon. Member as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.
I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell us, on behalf of those other ridings that do not have the benefit at this time of
someone who speaks forcefully in the House of Commons, how many jobs have been lost in the footwear industry as a result of the devastating Tory policy that was passed in the House of Commons a year ago. Perhaps she could tell us as well how many jobs are left in the footwear industry as a result of those unfortunate Conservative policies.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of participating in a footwear task force which travelled through southwestern Ontario. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I am the lone Liberal MP located between Toronto and Windsor so my interest in these matters spreads beyond the City of Hamilton. Obviously I have to find out what is happening in Cambridge, Kitchener, Mississauga and other areas most directly affected by the footwear cut-backs. I think the most difficult situation is that being faced by a number of workers who have been laid off. There have been plant closings in Oakville, in the Halton region, in Cambridge, in the City of London as well as in the City of Hamilton. The Government made a lot of promises about having new programs for modification to get the workers, primarily older workers, back into the workforce. Unfortunately, not only have hundreds of jobs disappeared, but no displacement programs have been put in place. That is why I referred in my speech to the absolutely uncaring attitude of the Government that cancelled a program dealing with older workers and employees of the footwear industry, namely, the LAB Program. Those workers could have been covered under the previous Liberal program if there had been a closing or if there had been significant lay-offs. That program was cancelled following a promise by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that we would have another older worker's program in place by August, 1986. The program is still on the drawing boards and we now see the Minister of Finance blaming the provinces for not participating. That obviously has to be a first priority. I will be holding the Government to account on the lack of its fulfilment of its promise to older workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer).


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, first, allow me to extend my sincere congratulations to you on your re-appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. I am confident that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that Parliament will be well served by your acknowledged experience and ability.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrew Witer: I would also like to extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on his historic election as Speaker of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 6, 1986


Andrew Witer: Today I have been given the opportunity to speak on the Throne Speech, a task I undertake with conviction and confidence. The Throne Speech is not a detailed plan of action, it is a statement of intent. Therefore, a true assessment of the impact of a Throne Speech can only be determined by an examination of the Government's record following the speech.
On November 4, 1984, the Governor General presented the first Throne Speech of this Government setting a theme of national reconciliation, economic renewal and social justice. In the 23 months following that speech, much has already been accomplished toward those goals, even as we recognize the long road ahead, if we are to achieve the lofty aims that we have set for ourselves. That is why I am especially pleased to see that last week's Throne Speech did not forget the promises we made, but renewed our commitment to achieving their fulfilment.
One of the important commitments made in both speeches was the achievement of economic equality for women. In order to allow women the opportunity to attain their full economic potential, we must ensure that women have equal access to employment and opportunities to advance to the most senior levels of management. The adoption of the employment equity principle outlined in the Abella Report is a prime example of the Government's commitment to full equality for women. We have acted to ensure that Crown corporations, federally regulated businesses and private companies which have contracted to do business with the Government give women better job opportunities. In just two years the Government has increased the percentage of women appointed to federal boards and commissions to over 25 per cent from the previous Government's record of 15 per cent. Our Government has made good on its commitment to improving economic opportunities for women in Canada. The facts speak for themselves. Since September, 1984 unemployment among women has fallen by 90,000, a record on which this Government is seeking to build.
The future of young Canadians is being addressed as well. We have dedicated ourselves to working with the provinces and the private sector to enhance job opportunities for our young people. We are committed to encourage initiative and the entrepreneurial spirit among the youth. A few months ago I received a letter from a young student who was interested in pursuing a career in scientific research. He requested my advice on the likelihood of career opportunities in his chosen field. Looking to the Throne Speech, I answer him with a resounding yes. There is a future for those seeking a career in the scientific or high-tech fields. We have committed ourselves to expanding opportunities for the future. Once again, the figures confirm our commitment to Canadian youth. The record shows that since September, 1984, unemployment among youth has fallen by 109,000. We are backing up our promises with action.
The Address-Mr. Witer
Parkdale-High Park is an urban riding with a population of approximately 92,000. While the unemployment rate in our constituency runs at about 4.7 per cent, we do not consider ourselves to be free of difficulties. We have worked hard to achieve that rate, and the response to my householder questionnaire indicates that unemployment is one of the single most important concerns of my constituents.
There is no doubt that we have benefited from programs such as the Canadian Jobs Strategy and Challenge 86 which have contributed to our relatively low unemployment rate. Since 1985, the Government has allocated $900 million over and above the resources already available for training and employment programs to implement the Canadian Jobs Strategy. During the past two years, the total number of unemployed has dropped by 215,000, with the unemployment rate dropping a full 2 percentage points from 11.7 per cent in September, 1984, to 9.7 per cent in August, 1986. The Government recognizes that those percentage points translate into real people who face very serious hardship in providing for the needs of their families. Whether the rate of unemployment is 9.7 or 4.7, Canadians deserve and demand the right to provide for their needs with dignity. Percentage points are insignificant to someone who does not have a job.
In the 23 months since our election we have created 563,000 jobs, 80 per cent of which are full time. The OECD forecasts that Canada will have the largest rate of employment growth of any major industrialized nation this year. That is the record of our Government, the record on which this Throne Speech promises to build.
The Government has recognized in this Throne Speech and, indeed, in the previous one, that Canada does not exist in a vacuum. We cannot hope to create the economic opportunities we seek for Canada without looking to our trading partners. That is why we have undertaken negotiations with the United States to open up opportunities for freer trade between our two nations. We are determined to open up trade opportunities not only in the United States but with Japan and other Pacific Rim countries.
Our efforts to attract investment to Canada as a source of jobs has not gone unrewarded. In the automotive sector alone since 1985, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda and General Motors have all announced plans to build plants in Canada. We are committed to building on these success stories by continuing to encourage investment and development in Canada.
Our involvement in the international community brings with it responsibility and opportunity. The Throne Speech underscores our efforts to take an active role in world affairs. In 1988, leaders of the seven major industrialized nations will meet in Canada for the annual economic summit. Our admission to the Group of Seven has given Canada a unique opportunity to take a leading role in world economic affairs.

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. Witer

With Quebec and New Brunswick, we set the stage for the very first francophone summit, and now Canada will host the second summit in 1987.

Also in 1987, we will be hosting the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver. Canada has played a major role in the Commonwealth over the years. Our membership has provided us with an important tool for exerting our influence in world affairs. Our efforts to abolish apartheid in South Africa is an example of the leading role Canada has taken within the Commonwealth.
Canada has an obligation to the international community to expose the gross violations of basic human rights in all countries including the Soviet Union where freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom of religious belief are restricted and denied and where families have been cruelly separated by the refusal of passports for those seeking to join relatives in the West. Canada has been in the forefront of the fight to maintain basic human rights for all.
The measures which the Government has taken against South Africa; the pressure which has been exerted by the Canadian Government on the Soviet Union in order to free dissidents such as Shcharansky, Orlov, Danylo Shumuk, Oksana Meshko, Viktoras Petkus and others; and the representations made during the recent visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister have all had as their aim the restoration of human rights to those who have been denied them. We have spoken out for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Our participation in the United Nations is central to Canadian foreign policy and has allowed us to press our position on such issues as verifiable arms reductions and human rights violations to an even larger international audience. My trip last year to the United Nations General Assembly in New York afforded me the chance to study the institution more closely. I am pleased to note Canada's renewed commitment to the UN. Through the UN, Canada has taken a leading position in pushing for verification of existing arms control agreements and for the negotiation of new accords. Verification is not an obstacle but is an essential component of any solution to disarmament issues. Our renewed commitment to the UN will allow us to continue efforts to strengthen the UN's capacity, to investigate allegations of non-compliance, and to expand UN involvement in the formation and execution of verification provisions.
My constituency of Parkdale-High Park has a vibrant and vocal ethnocultural community. Recent statistics show that some 60 per cent of my constituents have an ethnocultural heritage. Canada's commitment to a multicultural mosaic has provided this country with a rich and unique character and has made an invaluable contribution to Canadian society.
The Government has initiated a number of key accomplishments in the field of multiculturalism. One of the highlights was the first ever federal-provincial-territorial conference on
multiculturalism which was convened in 1985. The conference was an unqualified success, and the Government has since gone on to establish the House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
My constituents have expressed concern over Canada's refugee policy. I am pleased that their concerns have been addressed in the Throne Speech. The reforms as outlined in the Throne Speech will produce a system which is both fair and effective. It will assist genuine refugees in need of protection and discourage abuse of Canada's humanitarian tradition. It was the promise of freedom and justice which brought all of us to Canada. It is the fulfilment of that promise which makes us proud to be Canadians.
In order to fulfil that promise of freedom and justice, the Throne Speech addressed many important issues in the area of social justice. We have undertaken to remove barriers which have prevented women from participating freely and equitably in the mainstream of Canadian society. We have resolved to take effective action against child abuse, pornography, child prostitution, and the growing threat of illegal drug traffic. The Throne Speech has addressed the major concerns of my constituents. It has addressed the concerns of the region and of all Canadians.
Members of Parliament cannot limit their concerns and interests to issues which only affect those residing within the arbitrarily drawn electoral boundaries. Our responsibility lies in representing the people of our province and of our country. It is incumbent upon all of us to discuss issues and to make decisions which are good for Canada. Therefore, I will take a few moments to address the Government's commitment in the field of agriculture.
As a Member of Parliament from Ontario, I recognize the importance of the promises made in the Throne Speech. While my colleagues will recognize the singularly unique expertise of a Member of Parliament from an urban riding commenting upon agricultural policy, I can assure the House of my sincerity. Ontario is Canada's leading agricultural province with a gross production of over $5 billion, which amounts to over a quarter of the output of Canadian agriculture. Ontario is also the leading food manufacturing province in Canada with 10 per cent of our manufacturing labour force employed in processing agricultural commodities.
My constituents are aware of the problems which have developed in Canadian agriculture over the years, as many of them are employed in the numerous food processing facilities located in the Toronto area. I take particular pride in the Government's accomplishment in respect of the agricultural sector. The Throne Speech has made the strongest commitment to agriculture which has ever been made in a Throne Speech. Many of the problems which exist have been created by subsidies and preferential treatment being given to some commodities in the international market-place. We have pledged to protect Canadian farmers in the face of unfair practices conducted beyond our borders.
October 6, 1986

We were instrumental in having agriculture placed on the agenda of the Tokyo Economic Summit and helped to secure unamimous agreement on addressing subsidies in the new round of multilateral trade negotiations.
The Rural Transition Program has addressed the needs of those farmers who, through circumstance or choice, have decided to seek other occupations by providing counselling, training, and financial assistance during that transition period. We are providing farmers with the real substantial assistance they need to survive difficult times.
The Government's record is there for all to see. The question which begs to be asked is: Are Canadians better off today than they were two years ago? The record shows that the answer is a loud, unequivocal yes. Much still remains to be done, and I am confident that the objectives and directions set out in the Throne Speech, together with the commitment and dedication to accomplish them, will provide a better and brighter tomorrow for all Canadians.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quite rightly referred to a number of the accomplishments of the Government since it took office in September, 1984. In particular he referred to the appointments which have been made in respect of women. He compared the appointments made by the present Government with the appointments made by the past Government. He indicated that the past Government had appointed women to about 15 per cent of the available positions, whereas in two years the present Government has appointed 25 per cent.
I noted as well that he spoke about the multicultural aspect of his riding. I know he is most concerned about multicultural appointments. He is as well aware as I and other Members of the House are of the fact that about 30 per cent of the total population of this country come from non-Anglophone or Francophone backgrounds. I wonder if he could tell us whether he has any information concerning the appointment of people from the non-Anglophone or Francophone communities made by this present Government compared with those made by the former Government.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. The latest information we have is slightly outdated, being three months old, but as of June the appointments to the various boards and commissions made by this Government from third language group candidates is 13.6 per cent. That is an increase in total numbers of 50 per cent over those made by the previous Government. We are going in the right direction but we have a long way to go to get to that 33 per cent.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my hon. friend from Parkdale-High Park (M. Witer) on his speech and especially that part of it that was in French. I think he deserves to be congratulated on the effort he made, and I say: Keep up the good work. In his speech, he
The Address-Mr. Witer
mentioned that in his riding, the unemployment rate was one half the national average.
In New Brunswick, the unemployment rate is 15 per cent. Did I understand correctly that he said that in either case, the same effort should be made, that we should not do more for New Brunswick, where the rate is 15 per cent and in his riding where the rate is below 5 per cent? Did I understand correctly?


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of the inequities which exist in this country that this Government made a very special effort for Atlantic Canada. May I also bring to the attention of my hon. friend that the unemployment rate of 4.7 per cent in my riding has occurred since the coming to power of the Conservative Government. Since 1984, investment in this country has increased by something like SI 1 billion. Demand for building permits in the Metropolitan Toronto area has increased by something like 52 per cent. We simply do not have enough bricklayers, electricians and plumbers to fill the demand. We are grateful for the low unemployment rate we have but we can do better. We are also grateful for the economic conditions created by the policies of this Government.


Fernand Robichaud: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
How is it that we in New Brunswick did not see the development and everything you just described which happened in your riding? Has the Government forgotten Canada's remote areas and doesn't it have a regional development policy, in which case that explains why the unemployment rate has remained unacceptably high in our area?


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree with me that the objective of this Government is to have full and complete employment. It has happened in the Toronto area, not because of Government intervention but because of free market forces. We are well aware that those market forces may not create the needed jobs in all regions of Canada and that is why we redirect government assistance and programs precisely to those areas that need the assistance. I would be very happy to compare the assistance that goes to Atlantic Canada with that which may go to the Metropolitan Toronto area. I think the Hon. Member will find there is no comparison. His area would be significantly higher in the government programs and funds it receives than those in the Metropolitan Toronto area.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) say that, on the one hand, his Government, since it was elected, is responsible for the reduction in unemployment. In the same breath he says it has nothing to do with the Government, it is market forces. I wonder if he can clarify that contradiction.

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. de Jong


Andrew Witer: If the Hon. Member had been listening she would have heard me clearly state that the Government has created a positive economic environment in order for those free market forces to work. I attribute that positive attitude, and the desire of the private sector to invest, to the confidence which they place in this Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member has a pressing interest in agricultural matters since he referred to them in his speech. I wonder if he could tell us whether he supports supply management in agriculture.


Arnold John Malone: No, he does not.


Andrew Witer: A simple no will suffice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any further questions? Questions and comments are now terminated.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is of particular interest to me to participate again in a debate on the Speech from the Throne. As you and all Members in this House are aware, the Speech from the Throne is an opportunity for the Government to lay out to this House and the Canadian people its intentions and its broad vision of the future of this country. It is an opportunity for the Government to explain to the House and the Canadian people what it intends to do in a general sense in the upcoming session. I think all Canadians were somewhat disappointed with this document. I do not think we expected detailed programs to be enunciated in the Speech from the Throne, but I think we did expect a new direction, a new vision to be enunciated in the document.
Certainly the politically wise, meaning the newspaper columnists and people who follow politics actively, speculated that the Speech from the Throne would offer the Government a new opportunity to set forth new directions. It was noted that the Government's popularity in the polls has been declining on a steady basis and that it would use this opportunity to attempt to rally the troops and present a new vision. We did not get much of a vision at all. It was as though a pair of glasses had been put on by the Government and they were full of mist, grease and grime, and some very muddied notions were presented in the speech.
Let us first deal with the question of agriculture. I think commentators in the media have done special pieces outlining the deep crisis which exists in Canadian agriculture today. Various studies have confirmed this. A special committee of this House dealing with agriculture has held extensive hearings as well. We have known for some time that the U.S. Farm Bill would have dramatic effects on the price of grains on the world markets. That is nothing new, Mr. Speaker, the warning has been issued for some time. Thousands of Canadian farm families stand on the brink of bankruptcy. One of the backbones of this nation is in danger. You would have expected that the Party which has enjoyed long support from western Canada and western farmers would have come to the aid of the
farmers in western Canada. You would have expected the Speech from the Throne to have laid out in no uncertain terms that the Government would not allow western Canadian agriculture to slide into bankruptcy.
After all, the Premier of our province, Mr. Grant Devine, a Consersvative, assured the voters in Saskatchewan time and again that he has an agreement with the feds. He was telling us to wait till the Speech from the Throne. In fact, Mr. Devine took an afternoon off from his campaigning to sit in front of the television set to hear of all the goodies the federal Government was going to supply to the western farmers. What a disappointed Mr. Devine we had that day!
According to the Star Phoenix Mr. Devine got on the phone to official cabinet Ministers in Ottawa. He was overheard by a reporter to say over the phone that heads will roll unless the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) delivers on his promises. It was obvious that Mr. Devine was indeed disappointed and that the Speech from the Throne did not deliver on the promises that were made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would you believe desperate?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed Mr. Devine was desperate. You will remember that earlier this year Mr. Devine said that $5 billion was needed to ensure that western Canadian agriculture would remain viable. After some meetings of the Premier it is now down to "at least a billion, we need at least a billion right now". The Speech from the Throne did not make that quite clear. The Tories, who are polling every day, sent a message back the day after the Speech from the Throne saying that they were going to be wiped out in Saskatchewan unless something more substantial was said. On Friday afternoon we heard the Prime Minister make a vague reference to some aid package of up to $1 billion. He did not quite spell it out for us.
If the Government had been really sincere in its commitment it would have thought out this proposal. At least we are talking about big bucks, over $1 billion. The Prime Minister would have had something substantial to announce. He would have had some details. After all, the farmers in my constituency are existing with a tremendous amount of insecurity about their future. They do not need federal politicians to jerk them around. They want some definite answers. Their livelihood is at stake. They do not want to be pawns in some political game that the Tories are playing between Ottawa and Regina. It is serious, Mr. Speaker, it is their livelihood. It is not something to smirk about or to jerk them around with as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) did when he said, "Well, anything to win an election", grin, grin. And then afterwards he said, "Oh, no, I didn't mean it. I'm sorry, we're really sincere". We do not need the grins that we are seeing on the government benches today. It is serious. There are young farm families on the verge of bankruptcy and unless there is a real commitment by the Government they will go under. There are
October 6, 1986

thousands of these farm families across the Prairies that are on the verge of bankruptcy. These farm families have supported the Tories election after election. These farmers felt that the former Liberal Governments had totally betrayed them and ignored them, and they had. However, lo and behold, this bunch today is exactly the same as the Liberals were before. The farmers have become pawns in the political games the Governments are playing.
The Government did not have any trouble bailing out the banks. Over one weekend a group of bankers came together, stated their problem and got an easy solution. Over the weekend a quick decision led to more than $1 billion in federal moneys going to bail out the banks. A handful of individuals and a handful of institutions were bailed out with no problem at all. However, thousands of farm families are being twisted and turned around by the Government and its colleagues in Regina.
So much for the promise of deficiency payments and this $1 billion which we are trying to get a fix on. Is it new money? Where is it going to come from? Is it going to be for farmers across Canada or just for the few western provinces? We are trying desperately to get some details so the folks back home will know what is coming in order that they can start planning the future. We are getting all these evasive answers. We are told that it will require more studies and more meetings. For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings after meetings after meetings until they are coming out of their ears.
Western farmers need, want, and demand some answers, not more meetings, not more poppycock, not more committees, proposals, suggestions or studies. They want action, Mr. Speaker. The three western pools have called for a minimum of $2 billion if the viability of western Canadian agriculture is going to be restored.
I do not think the Government has the backbone to make that commitment to those farm families. It is willing to make commitments to the banks. It is willing to make commitments to the corporate sector in the country. It is willing to give the corporate sector all sorts of tax write-offs and easy loopholes. It is willing to lose billions of dollars in tax breaks. Two regressive tax measures, the $500,000 lifetime capital gains tax exemption and the significantly increased before-tax contributions allowed for the registered retirement pension plans are estimated to shift about $2 billion in tax burdens away from the well-off and onto the federal deficit. The Government is quite willing to do that, Mr. Speaker. It was a snap decision. To help the thousands of farm families that are desperate back home more studies and more meetings are required. The farm families have become pawns in the political games that the folks opposite are playing.
What more can we expect from Tory Governments? I will tell you a few things about the Tory Government back home in Saskatchewan. They were respectful businessmen. They were going to set things straight. They were going to bring business acumen to the Saskatchewan economy. They said that if they were elected they would bring all sorts of new developments to
The Address-Mr. de Jong
Saskatchewan and get Saskatchewan going. They certainly got Saskatchewan going, Mr. Speaker-downhill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Down the drain.


Simon Leendert de Jong: In fact, in today's Globe and Mail we see that Saskatchewan is losing people at the fastest rate in this country with the exception of another great Tory bastion, British Columbia. It is losing more people because of a faltering economy. That Tory Government came in when there was over $1.5 billion in surpluses which the people of Saskatchewan had put away for a rainy day. That province had consistently run surpluses in its budget year after year as a result of prudent management of the public revenues and resources. Now, after four and some years of Tory rule, it has a deficit of over $2.5 billion. They are the folks who always talk about deficit and fiscal responsibility. What they have done to the Treasury in Saskatchewan is shameful. Even the Liberals, during the Thatcher years, were not as brazen in how they dispensed the public purse and mismanaged the economy.
The Tories ruined the economy of that province to the point that we are in debt to the tune of $2.5 billion. Those Members think it is funny. Listen to them laugh, Mr. Speaker. It is a great joke to them, but it is a debt that the kids in Saskatchewan will have to pay for several generations to come as a result of the stupidity and mismanagement by the Tories in Saskatchewan. They are the Tories who knew all about business and knew how to run a provincial Government.
I suggest that it is hard to run a provincial Government seriously if one does not first believe in government. Under the Blakeney and Tommy Douglas Governments in Saskatchewan there was a group of people who believed that running a government required responsibility and professionalism. We went out and hired professionals, and the Saskatchewan civil service was one of the best in this country. It was difficult to attract professional people to a place like Saskatchewan, which was a small rural province that did not have a large population. Certainly, there was not much excitement and action there, unless one created a challenge. We created a challenge and acquired some of the best civil servants anywhere in North America.
The Tories do not believe in government and think that a second-hand car dealer can run the show. They came in and destroyed that civil service.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Who is a second-hand car dealer?


Simon Leendert de Jong: When the Tories went after the public service in Saskatchewan, it was one of the saddest moments in Saskatchewan's political history. When they fired all those people, not only did they go on a witch-hunt that affected Deputy Ministers and heads of Departments, they went down to the level of clerks.
126

October 6, 1986
The Address-Mr. de Jong
When I visit households in Saskatchewan I meet people who tell me; "Mr. de Jong, we will support the New Democratic candidate but unfortunately we cannot put up a sign because my daughter happens to be a clerk in the town corporation". They are afraid. People in Saskatchewan are afraid to express their political points of view because there is a vindictive, hateful Government that will stoop to the lowest of the low. It has stepped outside of the normal bounds of human decency to a degree that is hard to imagine. Those Members laugh.
Let me cite just one incident. One of the Members of the Legislature from my district, who used to be the Attorney General and is now the provincial treasurer, printed in one of his householders a year after he was elected the name of some 20 civil servants whom the Tories had fired and which jobs they had taken. That degree of witch-hunting of the individual in an attempt to destroy his or her life and professional career shows their pettiness and hatefulness. Those Hon. Members laugh and think it is a great joke. It is a crying shame and on October 20 the people of Saskatchewan will deliver a message that will be heard. It will be heard in this Parliament because it means an end to the type of witch-hunt, vindictiveness and hatefulness for which the Tories are known today.
What a difference from the Conservatives of the John Diefenbaker era! When we consider the new bunch from the right, the imports of the ideology from the U.S., the hate and venom with which they express their hate is abhorrent and foreign to this country. That is why that group will also be turfed out in the next election.
We in Saskatchewan believe that Tory Governments are something like Halley's comet, they come once in a lifetime. That is enough for us.
The Speech from the Throne also contained the promise of tax reform by the Government. A fairer taxation system is what the rhetoric is all about. Yet, let us consider the record of the Budgets that have been introduced so far by the Government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has in fact accelerated the trend toward unfairness. Direct taxes on persons are forecast to increase from $38 billion to $66 billion between 1984 and 1990, while, over the same period, taxes on corporations will merely rise from $12 billion to $16.6 billion. By 1990, individuals will shoulder 80 per cent of Canada's tax burden, while corporations will only pay 20 per cent. Currently, people contribute 75 per cent and 25 per cent.
The Government has promised tax reform. We are holding our breath because we are waiting for the type of tax reform the Government talks about. It is a tax reform that will mean a greater tax burden on working Canadians and greater tax breaks for the rich whom that Party represents.
We have seen a two-tier society growing in this country, with a greater number of people living in poverty while smaller groups of people are becoming richer.
Today, the top 20 per cent of Canadian families take 43.3 per cent of all income, while the bottom 20 per cent take 3.6 per cent of all income. The unfairness in our society is
accelerating and, rather than reversing that trend, the Government has accelerated it with its taxation policies and programs. That is why there is no doubt in my mind that on October 20 the people of Saskatchewan will have had enough of their Tory Government, and when this Government dares to face the electorate it will also be finished.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Today during Question Period, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) quoted at length from a telex sent to him by Premier Ghiz of Prince Edward Island. We on this side of the House assumed that if a request were to be made to the Prime Minister for the document it would be made readily available. However, I just learned that a request for the document from a reporter working with Canadian Press has been refused by the Prime Minister's Office.
I can certainly refer to the necessary citations, but I want to raise a question of privilege and indicate that it is contrary to the well established precedents of the House and privileges of Members for the Prime Minister to refuse to make a document available when he quoted from it in the way that he did in Question Period.
I would like you to rule, Mr. Speaker. I make this request with utmost respect, that the Prime Minister be called upon to table in the House as soon as possible the telex from which he quoted, purported to be from Premier Ghiz of Prince Edward Island.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I submit that the matter should be raised under Questions of Privilege, which should come up as listed on the Order Paper tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what has been brought up by Hon. Members and the Hon. House Leader. I will advise the Speaker. We will look at the "blues" and give a ruling tomorrow.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I presume the comments made on the point of order are not part of the 10 minutes allotted to my colleague. I would like the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) to clarify perhaps a situation which is very confusing to me. Today during Question Period we heard variously from the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board and from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with respect to the situation of prairie farmers. The Prime Minister kept on talking about how new money was going to be put into the pockets of western farmers who are in a very difficult situation. However, despite his comments in this House on Friday, he would not be precise and it is clear the Government does not have a plan. I wonder whether my colleague can perhaps elucidate the meaning of those comments? Are prairie farmers going to receive money for deficiency payments? Will it be new money? Is this simply a political piece of opportunism on the part of the Government which is concerned about its Conservative colleagues in the Province of Saskatchewan? Is there a genuine desire on the government side to ensure that
October 6, 1986

the desperate plight of prairie farmers is met? Or is their problem in terms of being left almost totally exposed on the world market to competition from the EEC and the United States just going to be ignored by the Government?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for that question. My interpretation of what has been happening is that the Government has no clear idea or program worked through to deliver deficiency payments on the level which is needed by western grain producers.
There was no mention at all in any of the answers that this program will be a deficiency payment program. There was no clear indication that this money will be new money but, rather, it seemed to me to be reshuffled money. There is no indication it is to be zeroed in just on western Canadian farmers. My sense is that the planners, the bureaucrats and some of the larger farmers, the tight groups represented in this Conservative Party, believe that the family farm is a dead entity and should be allowed to die and just fade away, and this is an opportunity for getting rid of some 20,000 or 30,000 farm families in Saskatchewan.
I genuinely believe that some of the thinking behind the Tory inaction emanates from the notion they have that family farming in Canada is not a viable operation and, therefore, we should allow them quietly to die away.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to put a couple of questions to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). I am mildly confused by some of the rhetoric I heard from him. I confess to not having heard all of it, but I heard enough to pique my curiosity. I believe I heard the Hon. Member going on at great length about what he called the "mismanagement" of the provincial Government in Saskatchewan, how it had ruined the economy, how it had gone into debt, and so on. At the same time it appears that here in Ottawa it is all right for the Hon. Member and his colleagues to call at every opportunity for massive government borrowings in order to assist every area of the economy. Of course, that would have the inevitable effect of raising the deficit and bringing about the kind of irresponsibility the Hon. Member ascribes to the Government of Saskatchewan.
I am curious as to how the Hon. Member can expect to have it both ways. It seems to me he fails to recognize the fact that the Saskatchewan economy is based mainly on agriculture and somewhat on energy. He ignores the fact that both oil prices and grain prices are at historically low levels owing to world prices and to conditions outside of Saskatchewan, conditions over which we have very little control. The Hon. Member knows very well that these historically low prices are not the fault of the Government of Saskatchewan or, indeed, the fault of anyone inside this country. Therefore, I am curious as to how he can gloss over these things and ascribe all sorts of
The Address-Mr. de Jong
misery and mismanagement to the Government of Saskatchewan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I will give the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) a minute to answer the question before I call it 5.45 p.m.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the reason we have the deficit, which we have been trying to explain over and over again, and the reason the Tories managed to run a $2.5 billion deficit in Saskatchewan in less than five years-the fastest growing deficit in North America brought about by the Tory Party in Saskatchewan-is that it gave the tax breaks to the rich and to the oil companies which is costing the Treasury of Saskatchewan hundreds of millions of dollars.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(3), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Riis, moved:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:
"and specifically, that this House condemns your Government for failing to
indicate its intentions with respect to,
1.	protecting the interests of Canadian workers in bilateral trade negotiations with the United States, particularly in the forest industry;
2.	positive initiatives to encourage economic growth, improve employment prospects, and provide for greater fairness for Canadians in those economically depressed areas of Canada; and
3.	improving the accessibility of affordable daycare for all Canadian working parents."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.