1986-10-24

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House the recent ridiculous situation at the Kingston Penitentiary. Chuck Armstrong, Secretary of the Inmate Committee, dared to write a letter to The Toronto Star asking for donations of used books for the prison library. Not only did the prison warden refuse to accept the books, the inmate was thrown off the prisoners' committee for writing a letter to The Toronto Star, as the secretary of the committee, without having the expressed approval of the prison.
Illiteracy is a widespread problem, particularly among our prisoners. Where is there justification at Kingston Penitentiary in refusing books that libraries and citizens are more than willing to donate when there exists an amazingly high percentage of illiterates among the prison population, and when this is the Year of Literacy in Canada?
I call upon the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher) to have Mr. Armstrong reinstated and begin accepting books at the Kingston Penitentiary. What with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) decision to build a prison in Port-Cartier at such expense, any donation to prisons should bring a sigh of relief to the Government.


PENSIONS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: In his latest report, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General mentions that the Department of Insurance regulates about 560 insurance, trust and loan companies with over-all assets of over $200 billion, and 750 employer-sponsored pension plans valued at $28 billion.
His audit has revealed that the Department of Insurance surveillance of pension plans is a lot less strict than it is with respect to financial institutions. He points out that current surveillance methods do not allow him to have enough control over the solvency of pension plans, so much so that department officials could indeed improve considerably their monitoring of financial institutions.
They should also devote more time to forecasting future trends in this sector and singling out new sectors which may present some risks.
Therefore it is imperative to exercise stricter control over these institutions to prevent surpluses from being used for private investments and avoid speculation with the pension funds of employees, as was the case with respect to Argus Corporation President, who used those funds to buy a daily newspaper in England.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


FINANCE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the recipient of our tenth great untaxed corporation award is Coseka Resources Limited. This company's ability to use generous Liberal and Conservative tax concessions has resulted in current tax credits in every year from 1978 to 1981 on millions of dollars of profits. From 1982 to 1985 the company was granted the right to pay no income taxes at all on $33 million in profits. Had the tax system been fair and equitable, and had this company been required to pay a tax rate of 25 per cent on its profits, Canadian taxpayers would have had their tax bill reduced by $8.2 million.
Canadians are looking for real action in the area of tax reform, not simply more consultation and vague promises about reform for another two years, as was indicated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) yesterday.

October 24, 1986


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, today is United Nations day. We would do well to remember the purpose for which the United Nations was founded. Forty-one years ago, as the world was emerging from six years of war, it was set up to create a system for the maintenance of international peace and security. In meeting that basic objective, the international community has, on balance, succeeded, but much still remains to be done. So long as people go unfed, so long as men and women are imprisoned for their beliefs, and so long as the world is threatened by violence and war, no nation or individual can afford to cease working for a better society.
There could be no better way for Canadians to mark this anniversary than by recommitting ourselves to the principles of the United Nations Charter and to the strengthening and revitalization of the organization. Let our renewed commitment be an example to all member states.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in their report entitled Progress Against Poverty the National Council of Welfare point to a significant decline in Canada's poverty rate among men and the elderly. While the over-all situation is improving, however, single and elderly women and others who are heads of families are getting ever poorer. Indeed six out of 10 single-parent families headed by women live under the threshold of poverty. The poverty rate among single mothers did not decrease in 1985. In this category poverty has been gradually worsening over the past five years. A single mother is five times more likely than a married woman to end up swelling the ranks of the poor. Inequality among single-parent families is glaring. A single-parent family headed by a woman stands four times as many chances of being poor as a family headed by a man.
In the light of this depressing situation, Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that the comments made last October 21 by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women were particularly ill-chosen; she stated that surely the Conservative Government has done something to improve the status of women in Canada, considering that a few women have been able to sit on Government benches-
Mr. Speaker. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her time has expired.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, some 3.5 million Canadians are disabled. This represents some 14 per cent of our population, virtually one person in seven. In spite of inherited financial difficulties, this Government has taken a number of positive steps to support further and encourage the handicapped.
The funding for the disabled persons' program will increase fivefold. A new housing renovation program will raise the maximum subsidy from $1,500 to $5,000. The flat rate disability payment will rise from $87 per month to $224 per month effective January 1, 1987. A broader definition of "disability" will enable an additional 120,000 Canadians to secure an income tax deduction, a deduction which has been increased by $250 this year.
These initiatives, which improve the living conditions of the disabled, are an integral part of the ongoing thrust of the Government toward greater social justice for all Canadians.



Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I know all Members of Parliament would want to join me in welcoming Rick Hansen to the National Capital today. He is an exceptional Canadian who has now travelled through 34 countries, including the Soviet Union, China, and Australia, a distance of 40,000 kilometres, on his Man in Motion Tour.
Rick Hansen has simply set out to prove that people who are disabled can realize their dreams, that life does not stop because of disability. He has been seeking to change the perception of Canadians and people around the world about those who are disabled. The disabled are our peers. They are our equals.
I, personally, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, want to pay tribute to Rick Hansen for the courage and the perseverance he has shown following in the footsteps, if I may say, of his friend, Terry Fox. I wish him well on his very difficult journey for the rest of the Man in Motion Tour until he reaches Vancouver.

October 24, 1986


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are wondering whether the NDP really do care about people and jobs.
The Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit is attracting investment to eastern Nova Scotia. A number of plants are under construction, and jobs during and after construction will result. Yet each day members of the NDP stand in the House and tell us they are against tax credits.
I can assure these ideological purists that the unemployed fully support these development incentives. To the NDP, the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit may be a loophole to benefit big companies; to the ordinary Canadians I represent, the Cape Breton Investment Tax Credit is a valuable investment incentive for our region that is resulting in jobs for the needy.
Are the NDP for it or against it? Come clean with Cape Bretoners!


SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few days representatives from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities have visited a number of Members of Parliament. This organization represents over 8,000 academics across Canada and is extremely concerned with issues affecting university education.
This year the group brought to the attention of Members of Parliament the fact that there is an urgent need to include research in the humanities and social sciences within the fiscal definition of research and development. Such a move by the federal Government would enable the humanities and social sciences fields to attract donations from the private and corporate sectors.
Now that the federal Government has seen fit to include social sciences and humanities as one of the granting councils, it is imperative that this group be given equal status to medical research and natural sciences and engineering research. Without this benefit the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will be in serious difficulty within a short period of time. Therefore, I urge the Government of Canada to give favourable consideration to the recommendations brought forth-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are following Rick Hansen's wheelchair tour across Canada with great interest and sympathy. In fact, Mr. Hansen will be in the National Capital area today. With his determination and great strength of character, Rick Hansen is an example to us all. He decided to make this tour for the benefit of others who are similarly handicapped, making the many sacrifices and overcoming the numerous problems involved in making such a trip.
Rick Hansen, on behalf of the Canadian people I wish you the best of luck in pursuing your goal, and I will most certainly continue to support your cause.
I was truly delighted to meet and welcome you when you stopped at Riviere-du-Loup on October 11, and we all hope your trip will be the success you want it to be.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, when will the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) pork-barrelling stop? It was scandal enough that the Prime Minister short-circuited the usual planning criteria of Correctional Service Canada to have an unnecessary and wildly expensive facility built in his riding in Port-Cartier, but now scandal piles upon scandal as we discover that the PM's interference continues in the construction of the facility at Port-Cartier. The Auditor General has stated that involvement of political officials in such a committee is abnormal. Everything about this project is abnormal.
Canadians will not accept pork-barrelling and political interference as normal aspects of political life. The Tories have learned the lessons of the Liberals well. Constructing prisons as job-creation projects is always unacceptable, and using the excuse that the Liberals did the same thing is an abdication of responsibility. The excesses of the Liberals live on, taken to new heights by the Prime Minister and his advisers. The Prime Minister had an option. He could have said no, but he said yes, to the shame of himself and all his Tory colleagues.

October 24, 1986
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in a long time the Auditor General had something positive to say about government management and spending. The Auditor General said he felt this Government was more concerned and interested in sound management practices than the previous Liberal administration. I know that there is always room for improvement, but I must remind Hon. Members that my Government remains firmly committed to a policy of deficit-reduction and to spending controls.
This improvement in management practices and attitudes was certainly not reflected in the programs and policies of the previous Liberal administation. For example, the Auditor General noted that a Liberal employment program did not necessarily create employment. Furthermore, the NRC, which is presently criticizing my Government for cuts in its budget, wasted about $2.7 million storing furniture and equipment it bought more than two years ago and still has not used. The money thrown away on storage and interest could very easily have covered about 15 per cent of the NRC's budget cuts.
The outlook is positive and the Auditor General has confirmed that this Government is a better manager than the last Liberal-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Yesterday the Minister of Finance made a long and expected speech in the House about Tory tax reform. Unfortunately, we know nothing more now than we did before.
I read the Minister's speech carefully and I found it to be full of generalities. It contains no specifics at all. I suppose the columnist from The Ottawa Citizen was right when he called it a flim-flam.
Will the Government guarantee Canadians that Tory tax reform will not increase, either directly or indirectly through other forms of taxes, the total amount of money paid by the average Canadian?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made yesterday by the Minister of
Finance was an introduction to the guidelines which will begin his consultation on tax reform. We are beginning consultation on all of these issues. We encourage Canadians to read this document and we encourage the Hon. Member to read this document. This is the beginning of the consultation and the laying down of guidelines.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, again we should note that the Government does not want to guarantee that taxes will not be increased.


GOVERNMENT'S INTENTIONS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in his speech yesterday, the Minister of Finance said he intended to abolish certain tax deductions now available to private citizens.
Since the Minister and the Government will be consulting Canadians on this matter, could the Minister of State for Finance inform the House what tax exemptions or deductions his Government intends to abolish? Is it the deduction for dependent children, the married deduction or the deductions currently allowed for unemployment insurance premiums or union dues? Could the Government, since it intends to consult with Canadians, be a little more specific about its intentions?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to that question. First, in terms of over-all marginal rates for personal income tax, the Government has said that the purpose of this reform is to lower those rates. Second, there are certain preferences and deductions at which the Government must look in terms of any comprehensive tax reform. We are finally doing it.
I would ask the Hon. Member if he is against what we are trying to do. We are trying to simplify the tax system. Is he against that? We are trying to promote fairness in the tax system. Is he against that? We are trying to improve the balance of federal taxes. Is he against that? We are trying to encourage economic growth. Is he against that? All of these guidelines are here. Please, as the Hon. Member for Beaches often says, come clean with us. What does the Hon. Member want-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give judgment on the proposal but there is no proposal on the table. We do not know what the Government wants to do. There are so many generalities that it is like motherhood and cream pie.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TABLE PROPOSAL
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that a real, meaningful consultation requires a clear and detailed proposal by the Government. Otherwise Canadians will not know on what they are consulted. Will the Government undertake to table such a detailed proposal and
October 24, 1986

hold public hearings before the Finance Committee of the House of Commons?
[DOT] (M20)


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was not a Member of the House some years ago when there was another attempt to reform taxes, but not comprehensively. The problem was that they did not consult. They acted unilaterally.


Raymond Garneau: I was part of it.


Thomas Hockin: We are not acting unilaterally. That is why we are consulting. For us to come up with detailed proposals before we even consult would be quite wrong.


Raymond Garneau: That is completely wrong and you know it.


SALES TAX-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the previous proposals, the Carter Commission that the Minister has just referred to, pointed out very strongly that income tax which is geared to ability to pay is a much fairer way for Government to get revenue than a sales tax which bears more heavily on the poor. Will the Minister, therefore, explain to the House how he can claim that the emphasis is on fairness when in fact the Government appears to be moving much more in the direction of consumption tax and away from income tax?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there are two obvious answers to that question. The first is to judge the future by the present. We have brought in a refundable child tax credit. We have brought in a refundable sales tax credit for low-income families. That is where we stand with respect to the poor. That particular commitment is there, and in many other aspects of what the Minister of Finance has done. As to the future, those ideas that the Hon. Member proposes can be brought before the standing committee, and can be brought before the consultative mechanism that is going to be set in place.


CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, a single parent earning $20,000 and caring for two children will lose nearly $500 this year because of the Conservative Government's tax increases. This family is not eligible for the sales tax rebate. Can the Minister explain to the House how we are to see a promise of fairness in this?


Thomas Hockin: The very first objective that the Minister of Finance is aiming for in this whole process of tax reform and consultation is the improvement of fairness. All ideas to improve the fairness are very welcome.
Oral Questions CORPORATE TAX REVENUE


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It arises out of the proposals made by the Minister yesterday on tax reform. Does the Minister of State recall that in the 1985 budget paper on corporation tax the Government gave a preview in which it indicated that it wanted to wipe out some corporate tax loopholes and, therefore, reduce the rates, but it then went on to say:
The suggested approach is deliberately structured to raise the same amount of revenues as does the current system.
Is that still the goal of the Government, that is, not to get extra dollars from the share of corporation tax, or has the Government now come to the New Democratic Party's view which is that the share of corporate tax is inadequate and should be raised substantially?


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, comprehensive tax reform means looking at all aspects of taxation: corporate income tax, personal income tax, and sales tax. We are trying to broaden the base and to make it more fair. In terms of corporate income tax reform, it is very wise for us to look at various aspects of corporate income tax reform that should be improved, especially certain resource preferences, certain capital cost allowances. But I remind the Hon. Member that in this past year 13,000 companies in Canada are now paying tax that never paid tax before, so our commitment to getting corporations to pay tax is already bearing fruit.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am glad to hear that from the Minister. That leaves only 67,000 companies in Canada which are profitable and are not paying taxes. It is about time they paid taxes as well.


CORPORATE AND PERSONAL TAX REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Is the Minister aware that the Government's own figures show that between 1984 and 1990 personal tax revenues are anticipated to increase by $28 billion, and corporate tax revenues by only $4.5 billion? The share from corporations is falling. Is that still the Government's intention, or will it be increasing the share that is paid into the federal treasury from corporations, so that we have real fairness in the tax system?


Thomas Hockin: I know that the Hon. Member will not expect me to accept the premise in terms of the numbers that he has given, because I will have to verify them. The purpose of this whole exercise is to consult. That is what this document is trying to begin. All ideas to improve the corporate tax framework are very welcome. But remember that we are trying to broaden the base, not just load up one pillar with excessive taxes. We have already given the understanding to everybody in this paper
702

October 24, 1986
Oral Questions
that lower rates of tax on the personal income side are in the offing.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF MINIMUM CORPORATE TAX
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this will be my final question for the Minister of State for Finance. The figures I just quoted were sent over by the Minister.
Since the U.S. Congress has just imposed a minimum tax on corporations to avoid a situation like the one that now exists in Canada, where thousands of profitable companies are not paying taxes at all, will the Government consider imposing a minimum tax on corporations to ensure they pay their fare share of the Canadian Government's revenue?
[DOT] (U25)


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as for the minimum tax in the United States, it is not working very well and it is very trivial in most instances. If that is the direction the Hon. Member wants us to take, then he should say so. We have a tax system in Canada which, compared with that of the United States, is entirely different for very good reasons. The Hon. Member knows why the two tax systems are different, and corporate tax rates are an example of the difference.


PENITENTIARIES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada. In a conversation which we had with him this morning, the Auditor General stated that the nomination of Mr. Simon Landry, a political adviser in the Prime Minister's Office, to sit on the planning committee of the construction of the Port-Cartier prison was in his view-and he repeated it today-abnormal. Could the Government tell the House today who appointed this individual? What specific qualifications did he have which made his nomination normal? Will the Minister not admit that this was a partisan political move to partake in patronage?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House that, pursuant to Chapter 140 of the administrative policy manual, there is provision for the setting up of a planning committee. The people who become members are those who are interested, and that in fact was the procedure followed in this particular case.


AWARDING OF CONTRACTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. They are representatives of interested Departments, Departments which have an interest in the project. Would the Minister tell the House how the Prime Minister's Office is an interested Department in this project? Is it not a fact that this gentleman sits on the board so that at least eight contracts can be awarded within the Prime Minister's riding, bypassing other guidelines of the Treasury Board, other than the ones which have been broken right now and we proved were broken yesterday?


Stewart Donald McInnes: I can
obviously say no, Mr. Speaker. This particular committee was set up to allow the process of regional development to crystallize. At the request of the local Chamber of Commerce and the local construction association, meetings were called to allow local contractors to have the opportunity to bid on the Port-Cartier construction. This was done in that region, and this was applauded by the people of that area.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the only thing which is crystallizing is the stench of patronage over this particular Government.


ALLEGED PMO INVOLVEMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General who is not prepared to admit that there was no interference by the Prime Minister or his officials. What was the earliest date upon which there was involvement by any official of the Prime Minister's Office in the decision to construct this prison in Port-Cartier, Quebec? What was the earliest date the Prime Minister's Office became involved?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member has been absent on other duties out in British Columbia.


An Hon. Member:: Did it do any good?


James Francis Kelleher: Far be it from me to comment on the success of that venture. However, were he here, he would have known that I discussed it. I went back to my officials and I was advised by them that there was no record whatsoever of any involvement by the Prime Minister or any member of his staff in the location of the prison at Port-Cartier.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there may be no record, but the people of Canada know well exactly what has happened.


LOCATION OF PRISON
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Does the
October 24, 1986

Solicitor General agree with his colleague from Quebec East who suggested yesterday before the Public Accounts Committee that because the prison is being built in Port-Cartier maybe people will think twice before committing crimes because the penitentiary will be so far away from families and professional services. Does that represent the opinion of the Solicitor General and the Government of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I was not present at the hearings yesterday. I can tell the Member that the prison is being located in Port-Cartier for good and valid reasons. First, there is a need for protective custody cells. Second, it is to assist an economically depressed region of the country. I am sure that the Member and his Party are not against policies of that nature; certainly the former Solicitor General was not.


PARTICIPATION OF SIMON LANDRY IN PLANNING COMMITTEE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It is reported that records in the hands of the Government show that on April 15 of last year a special planning committee created to monitor the Port-Cartier prison project had as one of its members, Simon Landry, a PMO policy adviser. If that was the case, can the Solicitor General explain why months later, last September, the press secretary to the Prime Minister, Michel Gratton, answered written questions about the Port-Cartier project and said: "There was no interference by the Prime Minister". How can the Solicitor General explain this obvious contradiction?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the fact is easily explained. This particular implementation committee was set up three months after the decision had been taken to locate the penitentiary at Port-Cartier. Any information given to this planning committee was exactly the same as was given publicly to the local Chamber of Commerce and the citizens of that area.


TREASURY BOARD CONTRACT GUIDELINES
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In the Treasury Board contract guidelines-

It is stated that before a contract is awarded, the contracting party must put out a call for tenders, in accordance with article 9, except in cases of pressing emergency where any delay would be harmful to the public interest.
I want to ask the Minister: Can he explain to the House what kind of pressing emergency prompted the Government's decision to ignore this guideline?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, there was no particular emergency. I can say that all
Oral Questions
of the appointments made were made pursuant to Treasury Board guidelines. I can unequivocally advise, and with confidence say, that this procedure was followed in this particular case.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Again it concerns the whole notion of tax reform as introduced by his Government. We heard the Minister of State for Finance today underline the fact that the importance of the initiative is based on fairness. As well, I remember the Minister stating in this House that all taxes will be looked at in a comprehensive way. Is the Minister of State for Finance prepared to state whether the half a million dollar capital gains tax exemption will also be on the table and will also be up for reconsideration?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that any comprehensive tax reform examination will look at all aspects of tax reform. We are trying to bring about a better balance among the three major elements in the federal tax system. This reform will result in no increase in take-home pay for Canadians. That is the bottom line.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: We are trying also to simplify the tax system. Does the Hon. Member support simplifying the tax system? Does he support us in making it simpler and making it more fair?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Regina East. REQUEST THAT EXEMPTION BE RECONSIDERED


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, let me get
back to the same question again. I did not quite hear an answer to it. I am asking for a specific yes or no. Is the Government prepared to put the capital gains tax exemption that is costing some S600 million a year in lost revenue and which is helping the rich Canadians, those who have half a million dollars in capital gains-


Mr. Mazankowski:: The farmers?


Simon Leendert de Jong: -on the table for reconsideration? Yes or no?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is doing it again. He is taking one part of this whole package and singling it out.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is it going to be on the table? Answer the question.

October 24, 1986
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: This is a comprehensive review. 1 encourage the Hon. Member to look at it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Is it going to be on the table? Answer the question.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of External Relations. Yesterday, you stated your intention to open up CIDA to Canadians. Will this mean that organizations or agencies with an interest in international development, and there are many in my constituency, will be given the means to take part in the fight against poverty throughout the world?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the Hon. Member for her question and for her interest in the development of Third World countries. As I said yesterday, I believe that governments alone cannot do everything and that we should open up CIDA to look for new partners and allow a greater number of Canadians to take part in our work to provide assistance to the Third World.


PENITENTIARIES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Supply and Services. Given that he has admitted this morning that he and his Government violated the tendering guidelines for the contract of the Port-Cartier prison-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Another misrepresentation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -will he now agree to refer this whole mess to the Public Accounts Committee so that Members of Parliament can have some accountability instead of the kind of pork-barreling that we have seen by the Prime Minister and his cronies in the Prime Minister's Office?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should correct the record and advise the Hon. Member that I am the Minister for Public Works. Perhaps I could also indicate to the Hon. Member that at no time did I indicate today that there was any breach of
appropriate procedure, and, more important, of Treasury Board guidelines.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the administrative policy manual states quite clearly that, before any contract is entered into, the contracting authority shall invite tenders except in need of pressing emergency. The Minister this morning said there was no emergency. It is a clear violation of the guidelines. I ask the Minister once again whether this whole mess will be referred to the Public Accounts Committee so that every Member of Parliament can examine the kind of politics behind the Prime Minister's pork-barreling.


Charles Joseph Clark: Another misrepresentation.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Member might want to read on.


Charles Joseph Clark: She is an expert at partial quotation.


Stewart Donald McInnes: There are a good number of provisions that direct how Public Works should proceed in the awarding of contracts. Any contract over $100,000 goes to public tender. For anything below, there is a committee of civil servants who make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister makes the choice. Any contract under $15,000 is chosen by the bureaucrats in the particular region. Those procedures were followed in every instance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a $41 million plus boondoggle.


AIR CANADA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to have a report on the response given to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning his meeting with Air Canada on Air Canada's action in circumventing the Canadian and American sanctions on travel to South Africa.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the Hon. Member for his question, both today and two day's ago. After his original question I spoke to Mr. Pierre Jeanniot, President of Air Canada. Air Canada, in fact, did not act in any way that undermines the sanctions policy of the Government of Canada. However, in order to ensure the more extensive effectiveness of those guidelines, Air Canada gave notice yesterday that it is ending its general sales agency agreement with South African Airlines in Canada and with a private agency in South Africa.
October 24, 1986

Accordingly, Air Canada will no longer be involved in facilitating travel to and from South Africa.
Air Canada has agreed that when South African Airways closes its Canadian offices on November 1, Air Canada will not undertake to act as the South African Airlines official agent in Canada. I think those are very positive steps by the Crown corporation. I expressed my appreciation of them. I express my appreciation of the Hon. Member for raising the question.


APARTHEID
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there are certain impediments to the effective implementation of our sanctions represented, for example, by the role of travel agents in this activity, and certain impediments represented in the Common Carriers Act and the National Aeronautics Act. Does the existence of these impediments in our own legislation and international regulations not clearly demonstrate the need for the Government to introduce legislation in this House as recommended by the Human Rights Committee, to give effective implementation to Canadian sanctions, instead of relying on voluntary attempts at accomplishing much less than could be done by that other vehicle?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is my view that for a variety of reasons it is preferable for us to proceed with voluntary measures which, by and large, have proved effective. Some questions with regard to international regulations are being looked at now. Air Canada legal authorities are studying I AT A regulations to learn what their obligations are under IATA.
I would like to make two other observations on this matter. I will be writing to other Canadian airlines commending to them the action which Air Canada has announced it has taken. Finally, there was an assertion in the House the other day by the Member for Hamilton East that the President of Air Canada had written to union officials saying he was waiting for a directive from the Department of External Affairs. That statement by the Hon. Member was false.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will produce the letter.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR GRAIN FARMERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In the Auditor General's Report he reveals that the Western Grain Stabilization Act has fallen from over $ 1 billion two years ago to over a $100 million deficit. Can the Minister confirm that the much ballyhooed $1 billion aid program for grain farmers will in fact be only the regular statutory payments due to farmers under the Western Grain Stabilization Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act as a result of the low grain prices?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, obviously Question Period does not allow time for an adequate explanation of the shortfall suggested in the Auditor General's Report. However, I have an explanation. This is due to many fluctuating factors, but primarily to the fact that it is impossible to estimate the number of eligible producers.


Mr. Benjamin:: The farmers fluctuated again.


John Wise: You are right. With regard to the latter part of the Hon. Member's question, I refer him to our original statements that no existing agricultural program will be cut and no existing agricultural funding will be reduced.


GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION UNDER WEST GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister planning to make a special payment to grain farmers in order to reduce the payments which farmers would normally be eligible for under the Western Grain Stabilization Act? Is it the Government's plan to avoid its statutory obligation under the Western Grain Stabilization Act by making a special payment outside of that, thus reducing its obligation under the Act which has been estimated at over $1 billion?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no, because that would be a violation of our stated commitments to Canadian farmers. When this Party makes commitments to Canadian farmers, it fulfils those commitments.


UNITED STATES IMPORT TAX-PROVISIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT ACT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade who has now had the opportunity to review the Employment Support Act. She knows it was designed to protect Canadian workers and their companies from unfair trade action by, in particular, the United States Government. Will the Minister now use this

October 24, 1986
Oral Questions
tool, which the Parliament of Canada has provided her, to prevent lay-offs in the sawmill industry across Canada?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is administered by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who is not in the House today. I have looked into it and have found that, although this legislation is effectively on the books, the regulations under it have lapsed. It does not seem to be an effective vehicle at this time. In my view it is premature to make decisions about what kind of assistance measures we should take in this case until we have a better idea of the impact. Our efforts are now directed to getting a reversal of the decision.


PROTECTION OF LUMBER WORKERS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, two weeks after my colleague, the Member for Essex- Windsor, raised this matter this spring with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, those regulations disappeared from the books. The Minister knows full well that there will be layoffs in the Canadian industry while she is trying to convince the American Government to drop the imposition of the tax on Canadian lumber going into the United States. Will the Minister use the principles within this Act, even if amendments are required, to protect the workers who will be laid off while she is negotiating with Washington?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member was already aware that this legislation was not appropriate, I wonder whether it was appropriate for him to raise the question. In response to the Member's suggestion, I can only repeat what I have already said. It is too early to assess the impact of the decision on the industry and we are directing our efforts to having it reversed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Timiskaming for a question supplementary to the questions of the Hon. Member for Algoma.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he inform the House whether grain producers other than those in western Canada will qualify under the $1 billion subsidy which he announced earlier?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. This is a federal program which is national in scope.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. We learned today of another hare-brained scheme of the Minister which would destroy the National Research Council and basic research done in government labs across the country. Thousands of researchers would be put out to Tory pasture. Will the Minister confirm that he will not pursue his plan to destroy world-renowned research activity across Canada?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am totally unaware of the document to which the Hon. Member is referring. There are dozens of consultation papers in circulation in industry, universities, and among government agencies. None of these papers would provide substance for the fear-mongering question which the Hon. Member asks.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for two years for a full response of the Government to the report of the Wright Committee. Will the Minister confirm that no changes will be made and no policy will be implemented regarding government science without full public consultations with private sector clients of government labs, the National Research Council and other agencies, and the scientists themselves?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if I made no statements and we brought in no policies, we would simply be following the 20 years of deliberate policies of neglect of the former Government. We will act.


UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN LUMBER
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade and is supplementary to my colleague's question to which the Minister replied that it is too early to assess the impact of this lumber decision on workers. Is it too early to recognize that an economic disaster has hit British Columbia, northern Ontario and Quebec, and requires action from the Government? Why is the Minister not prepared to act?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may be interested to know that we have a variety of assessments of what the impact of this particular tariff will be on the forest industry. In the case of British Columbia, the head of the IWA feels that there will be no impact. Other people suggest that there will be some
October 24, 1986

impact. We are assessing the situation before deciding what measures are required.
The answer to the problem is to seek to reverse the decision. That is what the industry, the union, the provinces, and the federal Government are seeking to do. I am surprised that I do not have the Hon. Member's support for that position.


REQUEST FOR ACTION IN CANADA
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we have had evidence in front of the House already of about 20 per cent of the workers in northern Ontario being laid off and 1,500 shipyard workers across Ontario being affected. Clearly this is an economic disaster.
I ask the Minister yet again if she will not do anything but act within the American system, which is the system that she herself says is an attack on our sovereignty. Will she not instead take action here in Canada for some change that will make the United States pay attention and reverse its stand?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that we are seeking to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States which will deal with just these kinds of issues. That is the kind of protection that we need in this country. That is the kind of mutual benefit that we will have from a trade agreement.
May I point out to the Hon. Member that the Economic Council report states that freer trade with the United States will generate 376,000 extra net jobs by 1995, and if we stay on a protectionist course we will lose 500,000 jobs. That is why I wonder why the New Democratic Party does not support the position of the Government on this issue.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I think the whole world has been watching with concern the court proceedings in the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs comment on Britain's breaking of relations with Syria today, and Canada's response to that?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, earlier today the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, announced in Westminster that Britain was breaking diplomatic relations with Syria as a result of evidence adduced in a court case relating to terrorism. The Government of Canada fully supports the action of Great
Oral Questions
Britain in this regard. I want to indicate to the House that today I have been in touch with our ambassador in Damascus, calling him home for consultations. I have arranged to speak to Sir Geoffrey Howe later in the day, and I will keep the House of Commons apprised of other actions we might consider.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for Canada Post, I shall address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
On October 22, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business wrote a letter to the Minister for Canada Post to express its strong opposition to any increase in the postal rates.
Why is the Government congratulating small business for having created 70 per cent of new jobs on the one hand and planning to impose them higher costs by increasing postal rates on the other?
How can he explain this contradiction?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Post Office has said in the House and outside the House many times that it is the desire of the Government to improve service and reduce the deficit of the Post Office. To that extent a new corporate plan is being developed and should be tabled very soon.


GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIVE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister not believe that it is wrong to bail out Canada Post from its current deficit problem by applying another stamp tax?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, improving service is one way of reducing the deficit as well as making the Post Office operation more effective and efficient. I am sure the Hon. Member would not disagree with that objective. I simply remind him that there is no Government that has done more to support small business than this Government, and we will continue to support small business.

October 24, 1986
Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In Wednesday's debate the Minister agreed with the Member for Winnipeg North that our research efforts should be concentrated in areas where we already have expertise, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and mining. Why is his Department preparing policy guidelines that will effectively gut research in these line Departments and cost up to 1,000 jobs in each of these Departments?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, we are doing no such thing. Instead, we are mobilizing the collective energies of all Canadians to prepare a place for Canada on the new frontier in the next century.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, this jargon about mobilizing collective energies will mean that thousands of research people will be laid off and any attempt at replacing them will be like trying to fit round pegs into square holes. It will not work.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister make a commitment now that any guidelines will come before the Science and Technology Committee before they are implemented so that the committee can approve them and ask the proper questions?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member take control of his lively imagination. There is no intention to break down those inherent strengths. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North did nothing more than to requote what I said in my speech 10 minutes earlier, which was to build on our national strengths and resource industries and to revitalize our regions with the tools of science and technology. That is what we are doing.


INSURANCE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Many of my retired constituents, and indeed many retired Canadians, want to be assured that supervision of pension funds is adequate to ensure the security of their incomes after retirement. In light of the Auditor General's remarks in his most recent report, what assurance can the Minister give the House and those Canadians that their post-retirement income is secure in pension funds?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for his close interest in this question. The Auditor General's Report was a reflection on what could be done in the future for federally registered pension plans. All of his suggestions are being examined and a number of them are already being worked on by the Department of Insurance. I assure him that the problem with federally registered pension plans up to now is that they are producing huge surpluses, not problems.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister for International Trade, stated that over 100,000 new jobs would be created as a result of the energy policies that were implemented when she was Minister. We learned this week from a report submitted to the Alberta and federal Governments that over 50,000 jobs will be lost this year in Alberta and 6,000 additional jobs will be lost throughout Canada. Will the Minister contact his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and his provincial colleagues, to see what corrective action might be taken to deal with this serious employment situation?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. Everyone is aware of the employment situation in Alberta, which is the result of the problems in agriculture and the oil industry.
We are closely monitoring the employment trends in the province, and with the co-operation of all Cabinet members, especially the Minister of Industry, and taking into account the options open to me, as I have already said on a couple of occasions, we may be able to find special applications of our jobs strategy for this province.


JOB-CREATION FUNDING FOR ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister respond to the charge by Mr. Oman, a Minister in the Alberta Government, that Alberta is not getting its fair share of job-creation money-only 1 per cent of the job-creation money-when Alberta's unemployment average is higher than the national average? How does he deal with that allegation that the Alberta Minister levelled against the federal Government?
October 24, 1986
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would not have expected the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East to give me an opportunity to tell him that the programs mentioned by Mr. Orman were programs implemented by the previous Government in 1982, and I can give a series of examples of these programs. Some of them have already been mentioned in the newspapers this week. All are programs and projects authorized by your Government which we have replaced by the job-creation program.
Mr. Orman was therefore referring only to the job creation programs in effect from 1982 to 1985.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the fourteenth report of the Public Accounts Committee.


CCB AND NORTHLAND BANK
Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the inquiry into the collapse of the CCB and Northland Bank presented by Mr. Justice Estey.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I believe you received notice of my point. During Question Period the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement in the House in which he accused me of having made a false statement with respect to the position of Air Canada and its decision not to cut off links with the South African airlines and other South African connections.
Privilege-Ms. Copps
For the purpose of the House, I would like to table a letter from the Chairman of Air Canada in response to a request from the union. I am sorry the Minister's correspondence is that far behind.
In a letter dated November 20, 1985, in response to the union call to sever connections with South African airways and any air links to South Africa, the Chairman stated:
These activities are the subject of bilateral and multilateral agreements made on a country-to-country, designated carrier to designated carrier, or multilateral basis in which all airlines participate. Unilateral action by Air Canada is, therefore, inappropriate.
The Chairman further stated that he had been in touch with the Department of External Affairs in order to ascertain this. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the statement made in the House today which was false was not my statement but the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like to table the appropriate document.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to have the document tabled. It will then let Members of this House read the document for themselves in light of the statement which was made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) in which she said that the President of Air Canada said he was waiting for a directive. That is a false representation of this letter. I am quite prepared to have it tabled and have it judged by every impartial observer.
I hope-let me put it this way-that the standard of integrity practised by myself and by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East might come closer together. I do not intend to move.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say we have no objection whatsoever to this document being tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with some care to the comments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), the Minister and those of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). It is not the usual practice in this House for Private Members to table documents, unless I am compelled by an extraordinary show of unanimity in this House by all Parties that that is what they wish to do in this circumstance.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Let the record show for itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is unanimous consent in these circumstances to table the document?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will abide by the wishes of the House, but point out that I am abiding by the wishes of the House, that

October 24, 1986
Committee Reports
the House has quite clearly decided to move outside the usual practice.
I would now like to deal with the question of privilege. I must say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), having listened very carefully to her representations and the representations of the Minister, that in the view of the Chair the matter is not a point of privilege. It is an argument over facts. The facts may or may not be more elucidated by the tabling of the document. In that regard, I am, of course, as always, your servant and in your hands when there is unanimity* * *


STRIKING
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Striking Committee.


BELL CANADA ACT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-13, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada.


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.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek unanimous consent for the introduction of Ways and Means Motions Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the name of the Minister of State (Finance), you will find there will be a disposition to have those motions put.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Thomas Hockin: that a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Excise "Tax Act, laid upon the table on Thursday, October 2, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Hockin: that a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Excise Act, laid upon the table on Thursday, October 2, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think I got entwined in a double negative in an answer to a question put during Question Period by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). I do not want to mislead him. I meant to say that there would be no decrease in the take-home pay of Canadians. I hope I did not say, although I might have, that there would be no increase. Therefore I want to make that clear. I do not know whether or not the record will be changed, but I wanted to make it clear.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate today. There are a number of issues which I consider to be of vital importance, not just in terms of my constituency but in terms of Canada, that I would like to raise today. However, since this is the first opportunity in debate that I have had to address Your Honour, I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your election to the position of First Commoner. It is a delight to see you in the Chair.


October 24, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address the issues of social justice and issues related to women. In the context of the Speech from the Throne I would like to read into the record the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, with compassion and understanding, described the goals of the Government on matters of social justice. He said:
My government will continue to enlist the support of all in pursuit of the common goal: a modern, tolerant, and caring nation in which its citizens are secure and prosperous. Canadians would want their governments to give the highest priority in social policy to those who are in greatest need. As well, Canadians expect to enjoy the highest quality in health care and other social benefits that have become fundamental to our national quality of life.
When I reflect on those remarks I must say that we have come a long way since the Parliament of 1974 to 1979 when my colleagues and I, and in particular the distinguished Hon. Stanley Knowles, repeatedly espoused the cause of widows, spinsters and other women in like condition, that major element of society which lives below the poverty line. Their condition has been improved, but not by the Government of that time which remained entirely insensitive to the pleas, urgings and requests of Members of Parliament from our Party and from the NDP.
We can see them today still, those who are in this unfortunate condition. We see them in supermarkets-quiet, proud, dignified, and poor. We see them as they examine the contents of their change purses before they take their purchases to the check-out counter. They look at the figures on the till adding up and they look at the nature of the food that they can afford. We all know that while we are clearly better off than many nations there are still those in that an element of society who continue to have to ration themselves both in terms of quantity and quality of food.
When I think back to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare in the period 1974-79, I can only say that it was a dusty demonstration of concern ignored by an insensitive Government. Speaking of insensitivity, it should be noted for the record that at that time it was the Hon. Marc Lalonde, the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, who represented a profligate Government which was insensitive to this type of need.
Anomalies still exist within this group. Our Government has passed legislation that extends eligibility for the spouses' allowance to an additional 50,000 low-income widows. This has been most helpful in capturing a major portion of society that has been in difficulty. The question has been addressed on many occasions, how we will manage the balance. I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has addressed that issue, both in the sense of his appreciation and understanding of the problem and in describing how he would seek to resolve it. On February 4, 1985, the Minister of Health said, as reported in Hansard, the following:
This Government is the first to acknowledge that there are other near-elderly persons in need who remain excluded from the important financial protection provided by the spouse's allowance program. However, as was recognized by the
The Address-Mr. Brisco
all party Task Force, the Government of Canada, in other words the Canadian people, cannot at this time go much beyond the proposals we have made.
What we can do and must do, given current economic circumstances, is to take this next logical step in extending the spouse's allowance program. The other most logical step after this legislation is seriously to take the pension reform proposals that have been made by both the task force and by other groups and give them life over the course of the mandate of this Government.
Nothing could be more heartening than to understand that there is a Minister of Health with an understanding of these conditions who indicates his intention, given the first opportunity, to address that particular circumstance. There are many benefits, the system of benefits of spouses' allowance, widows' pensions and CPP that escape this element of society. I say it is important that we address them, that they be included in the social safety net at the earliest possible opportunity.
There are other groups in society who need help. I would like to quote again the words of the Prime Minister as set out in the Speech from the Throne. He said, again in the area of social justice, the following:
Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the suffering of battered women. This intolerable affront to human dignity and personal security compels my government's commitment to work with the provinces to implement on an urgent basis the most effective means and methods of action.
Clearly, the most effective means and method of action is to encourage the provinces to increase significantly their funding to transition homes for battered women. This increase, to be matched by the Government of Canada under the Canada Assistance Plan, is a part of the federal-provincial cost-sharing plan.
Further, the provision of a means test in this circumstance should be removed. Battered women come from all walks of life, from positions of poverty to positions of wealth, from women who are childless to women with children, either one or several. In many cases when a battered woman flees the threatening home environment she flees with no possessions, no suitcase filled with clothes, no purse with money. She leaves with only the clothes on her back and her children clutched in her arms. There is nothing there, nothing else for her. I could never be convinced that, given this type of circumstance those women who may come from a home that is comfortably well-off, or wealthy, should be subjected to a means test. Are we to say, "Yes, you can stay here, but after three or four days we expect you to start carrying your weight"? Let us hope that in a circumstance of that nature the family problems will be sorted out and resolved, and that those women who are in a position to afford the type of care that a transition home can provide will ultimately make a contribution.
The record shows that this problem crosses all elements of society, rich and poor alike. The Women In Need Society of Trail, British Columbia, makes an amazingly excellent contribution to the emotional and physical hurts of women in need in Trail and district. I say an amazing contribution because excellent care is provided with such limited resources. I have had the opportunity to visit that home on a couple of

October 24, 1986
The Address

Mr. Brisco
occasions and I have been very impressed, not only with the facility itself but with what has been done with the limited resources available. Therefore, I would be the very first to endorse a program which provides in a meaningful way for federal and provincial assistance for these people.
I have spoken of women who are in need and who need care when they are being threatened or battered. I have spoken of that element of society composed of people who are 50 to 65 years of age and who do not have a social safety net. There is a third element of society of which I would like to speak. One might say that I am changing gears regarding the groups of which I am speaking.
I would like to speak now of the deaf, the profoundly deaf and the inadequacies of the appeal system as well as the failure to understand the true nature of the disorder of the deaf. I speak of the deaf in the context of applications or appearances before appeal boards when a decision has been rendered that an individual does not qualify for a Canada Pension Plan disability benefit.
Let me tell the Elouse of but one example. About two or three years ago now, one of my constituents was discharged from his employment with the Canadian Pacific Railway because a foreman had spotted him wearing a hearing aid. When one works in the railway business and is around railway cars, hearing aids are not permitted. I can understand at least in part the need for such a regulation, and more particularly when a test will ultimately determine that the hearing aid itself is of little benefit to the victim.
After 17 years of service, my constituent was discharged. Efe had no other means of support. He was not skilled in other fields. When he made his first appeal, it was determined that because he hunted and used a rifle, like I do and like many other Members of the House and our constituents do, his habit of sighting his gun and doing occasional target practice was what had most materially contributed to his deafness. The fact that in his early life he worked on farms and with farm equipment that can clearly be demonstrated as affecting hearing was also raised. What was carefully ignored, in my view, was the level of decibels to which this man was subjected both in engines and cabooses of trains. That was not a consideration, yet clearly that was the source of the greatest volume of noise.
Regardless of those circumstances, I would like to tell the House what happened when this man appealed before an appeal board. An expert witness whom I had been able to retain described to the appeal board the nature of this man's disability and how he was affected by it. There was also a Crown witness who testified, a physician who had never examined this man but who had examined his records. When the Crown witness was asked as a physician what this man
could do for a useful occupation, she said that he could be a commercial painter and could do sand blasting. She also pointed out that the man would have to wear ear-muffs while he was doing this to protect his hearing. The fact is that the minute he put on ear-muffs, he would have no hearing at all. He would be totally deaf. If he were to have some hearing so that he could hear the cry of someone else or a word of caution, he would have to remove the protective ear-muffs. The noise of spray painting and the machinery that operates it as well as the sand blasting would increase and aggravate the deafness.
Given the fact that he could not very well do painting and sand blasting, the physician suggested that he would make a good gunsmith. She suggested that because he hunted. I wonder how many hunters are familiar enough with their guns to properly disassemble them. Certainly this man had an awareness of his rifle but that clearly does not make him a gunsmith or an apprentice-gunsmith.
When my expert witness was asked what gainful employment this man could have, his response was, and I suppose it was ironic and perhaps a touch sarcastic given the previous testimony, "Well, Your Honour, he could probably address envelopes and seal them". That statement spoke volumes about the condition of this element of society. The deaf and the profoundly deaf are ignored by those of us who have that treasured gift of hearing.
The doctor who served as a witness on behalf of this individual said something to me which I found very profound and shocking. He said: "If I had a choice to make, and thank God I have never had to make it, between having a child who is deaf or a child who is blind, I would choose blindness over deafness because having the ability to hear provides the ability to communicate and opens the world whereas deafness is a lifetime of loneliness".
What is not understood in so many of these cases is that simply turning up the volume on a hearing aid does not solve the problem. Turning up the volume, although it increases the volume, also increases the distortion heard by a deaf person. A deaf person does not hear noise the way you and I would hear it, Mr. Speaker. It is totally distorted and is like moving the radio off the station.
What I seek to put to the Government, the House and my colleagues is that this is one area for which we need more advocacy to Parliament. I urge Hon. Members to consider that. I urge Hon. Members to talk to the organizations in their constituencies which deal with the deaf and profoundly deaf. I submit that under the disability provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, the deaf and profoundly deaf are dealt with unfairly, and I think we should resolve that problem.

October 24, 1986



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Hockin: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies of a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, together with technical notes pertaining thereto, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.



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.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments on the Speech from the Throne.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to compliment my colleague on his presentation to the Chamber this morning. I was particularly impressed by the fact that he chose social justice, particularly because of the importance of that role as it relates to battered women. It was a very reflective presentation that he made to the House.
I noted in passing that in his presentation he touched upon the role of volunteers in the community. We all should note that this was a highlight in the Speech from the Throne. In my own community volunteers are very important and vital persons. They operate our local libraries, and our local fire departments. They run most of our recreation programs in minor sports. They are deeply involved with local historical societies and local museums which are dramatically important in reminding us of our culture and our heritage. Volunteers are very important persons in my community.
I was delighted that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Ministers saw fit in the Speech from the Throne to find ways of highlighting the role of volunteers. Will the Hon. Member comment further on the significance in his eyes of volunteerism in Canada, particularly in his constituency?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reply. Last weekend in my constituency, in Castlegar, I listened to an address by a woman who was very well informed
The Address-Mr. Brisco
on the subject of volunteerism. She was speaking to a large group of people principally interested in recreation, but who were involved in volunteerism in the community. Her speech was to provide the volunteers with an opportunity to attract others, and sell volunteerism. One of her remarks that I thought was both thoughtful and profound was that many years ago civilization started with the agricultural revolution. After the agricultural revolution we moved into an industrial revolution. From the industrial revolution we moved today into what is known as a period of energy revolution. She then went on to say something that really struck home: "By the year 2000, I submit to you that we will move into a new revolution, a revolution of humanitarianism." The volunteers in our communities must and will be a vital part of that. We have all heard the trite phrase that you only get out of something what you put into it. That may be trite, but it is certainly very appropriate in terms of volunteerism. I am delighted that our Government is taking every initiative open to it to encourage that particular philosophy, the philosophy and the principle of volunteerism.


Mr. McKenzie:: I would like to congratulate my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), on the excellent points he made on the improved social programs that have been introduced since 1984. I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record the excellent work that this Government has done on behalf of Canada's veterans.
One of the most beneficial programs to veterans is the Aging Veterans Program which was introduced a number of years ago. We have improved on that. The name of this program is now called the VIP program, or the Veterans Independence Program. This program helps veterans stay in their own homes, therefore, they do not have to be placed in institutions. Since we took office, another 18,000 veterans over the age of 65 and in receipt of War Veterans Allowance became eligible for the program as of January 1, 1986. We will be expanding on that particular program.
There has been other legislation passed since we formed the Government. We have the improvements for compensation for former prisoners of war. We have improved the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. We have also improved the Canadian Pension Commission and the Pension Act. The Veterans' Land Act has also been improved. Veterans' widows are now eligible for VLA assistance. We have improved the War Veterans Allowance Act. This program provides financial assistance on an income-tested basis for veterans and their survivors. This is certainly a great improvement to the problems we had with the previous administration, where we had great difficulty getting pension applications processed. It was taking up to seven years to process pension applications. We have streamlined that dramatically and we are now processing veterans pension programs within months, not years. This has been well received. We also passed Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Pension Act, containing long overdue amendments. This will benefit veterans and their families.

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. McCurdy
These important changes came about within six months of our taking office.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke to me personally when he formed the Government and became Prime Minister. He told me one of his first acts would be to allot an additional $22 million toward veterans' pensions. He fulfilled that promise and that was the start. A great deal of additional money has been provided for veterans through improvements to their pensions. I have been involved in veterans' problems for the last 14 years, and I have received a lot of mail during that time. Very rarely today do I receive a letter from a veteran about a pension, because we have improved the conditions within the Department of Veterans Affairs. This should be on the record to show the excellent performance of the Government in helping out war veterans across Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.
(Translation]
The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin).


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I had a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is a
pleasure to participate in the Throne Speech debate for the second time. I would like to talk from the perspective of the City of Windsor in that the southernmost part of our country. It is a city that is almost embedded within the territory of our neighbours to the south. The implications of this location are not often appreciated by the rest of Canada. Sometimes Windsor feels as isolated from central Canada, Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa, as from parts of the west and parts of the east.
When Governments send out tour groups to significant Canadian industrial cities and forget Windsor, again our isolation, the apparent unconsciousness about our existence, and our peculiarities are emphasized. We can reflect upon the fact that Air Canada and VIA Rail often seem to regard us as easily dismissible. This often leads to significant errors. For example, the rather cavalier nature of the treatment of Windsor by Air Canada. Its treatment should have been based upon the abundant market in that area as represented by Windsor combined with Detroit. However, Air Canada flights were cut, leading to the development of a market in Detroit for Republic Airlines. Now the situation is that Air Canada lacks what could have been a very lucrative market, while Republic Airlines flies eight hours per day between Detroit and Toronto and often offers the public a much more convenient route
between Ottawa and Windsor than the ones offered by Canadian carriers.
We sometimes feel isolated. We are sometimes puzzled by the reaction of others in Canada to our situation. We are often accused of having an American accent, as if being where we are and talking as we do somehow makes us less Canadian than other Canadians. If we compare, as we did yesterday within the context of our knowledge of the United States which is much more intimate than that of most Canadians, some of the things occurring in the United States with our own situation, we are accused of being too pro-American. On the other hand, if because of our familiarity with the United States we criticize it or. express reservations about bilateral trade negotiations, we are accused of being anti-American. Of course it is an absurdity. Windsor, with all its isolation and with all the ignorance in the rest of Canada it must face about what we are like, what we do, and what goes on there, really has the same concerns as the rest of the country. Some of the decisions and some of the policies of the Government of Canada are brought to crystal clear focus there.
The Government has chosen as its mechanism for economic development to place a huge focus-indeed, we would suggest that it is an imbalanced focus-upon opening our borders with the United States to free trade. Often we hear, this town which has benefited so much by the Auto Pact, how the Auto Pact represents the model of what we are trying to achieve across the broad spectrum of trade. We are puzzled by this. On the one hand we are puzzled because the Auto Pact represents a trade arrangement with certain rules in respect of Canadian content and employment. On the other hand, we do not see this sort of thing being aimed for in the bilateral trade negotiations. We think that they are a mistake because we should be facilitating international trade, multilateral trade.
If we look around us we see that the Government is undermining the very model it would present to the world as the model of what can be achieved in the negotiations with the United States. We see offshore producers from Japan and Korea coming into the country, often with the financial inducement of Governments, to assemble automobiles under circumstances where parts are not being manufactured or acquired in Canada. This is in contrast to what happens in respect of domestic manufacturers regulated by the Auto Pact.
Although we in Windsor feel particularly concerned about the issue, we are not the only ones who are concerned. We see the unions involved. We see the chief domestic manufacturers, such as Ford, Chrysler, and GM, asserting that this represents a danger to the domestic automobile industry and to employment in an industry which provides jobs, not only by automobile assembly, but by parts and machine tool manufacturing. The same fact has been reiterated by those who represent parts manufacturers and machine tool manufacturers.
It is not as if we were crying foul only from Windsor and only among a minor sector of the community. It has been repeatedly called to the attention of the Government that in the economic context the present demand for automobiles will
October 24, 1986

not go on forever. There will certainly be over-production in the future, creating a situation in which we will be trading one job for possibly three jobs produced by domestic manufacturers.
We are concerned about this rather conflicting message which is communicated to us about the Auto Pact. On the one hand it is used as a model, and on the other hand actions are taken which would undermine it. We understand that in a completely free bilateral trade environment between Canada and the United States there is little likelihood, under the rationalization processes in which major American companies are engaged, they would allow for very long the continuation of manufacturing by their subsidiaries in Canada. When we think about that, we think about the hundreds, nay the thousands of jobs over the years which have been lost in Windsor by virtue of decisions made in the interest of rationalization by American management. These decisions will be repeated many times over in a future free trade environment with the United States.
The Government introduced and passed the Investment Canada legislation which increased the measure of American ownership of our plants and increased the power they had in respect of the jobs of our citizens. When we note that so far this year there has been a 50 per cent increase in the rate of acquisition of Canadian companies by American owners, we wonder if the Government has a notion of where the real potential for economic development resides.
The day before yesterday during the opposition day debate on science and technology policy, I said that, viewed from the perspective of the need for Canada to develop a science and technology based industrial future, free trade is perhaps the last thing we should be seeking. We should not be looking at Washington and New York for answers to our economic development problems. We should be looking at home, at the creativity of our own people, at what can be done with our own resources, at the enhancement of our creative ability, and at what knowledge can do as a tool within the confines of our own country, before looking elsewhere to create future employment and future economic growth.
Surely the argument can be made, Mr. Speaker, and it is an argument that I would advocate, that we should not even contemplate entering into a free trade arrangement with the United States until we are in a position to compete with the Americans scientifically and technologically, and until we are able to make our resources work for us by virtue of knowledge. We should not open ourselves up to what could be an abortion of our science and technological growth by the massive quantities of moneys available to the Americans through investment and defence research, constituting 77 per cent of American government investment in research. We cannot now compete against that and ensure the survival of those who are necessary for our future.
The Address-Mr. McCurdy
Although we have a number of concerns as well, we are representative of the rest of the country, though we are far from the consciousness of so many in government and elsewhere. We have, for example, serious concerns about the environment. We are conscious of the agreement between the President of the United States and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the issue of acid rain. This is an agreement that demonstrated, not so much how much progress we have made on trans-boundary pollution but how little we have in controls to ensure that what goes into the air from United States factories will not hurt citizens here.
We have been frustrated for weeks because the City of Detroit is about to construct a huge incinerator, an incinerator that lacks the essential controls to ensure that the citizens of Windsor will not be subject to poisoning from the atmosphere from the burning of garbage in Detroit. Yet we find that not only has the Environment Protection Agency in United States been ineffectual, there is little on the basis of which one can mount an effective fight. At least so far there have been no solutions forthcoming.
We need to have sound agreements on trans-boundary pollution that will protect not just those of us in Windsor but citizens of Canada generally. Quite fairly it has to be said that there is an interest on the part of the citizens in the United States that our air pollution will not descend upon them. One should look at already existing agreements with respect to the Great Lakes water quality. We should consider the scandal of pollution in the St. Clair River. Then we should look at the failure of the international water quality agreement to do its job effectively. In order to bring about an effective solution to the problems already identified, it will cost us about $8 billion by the mid-1990s. We should consider the basic ineffectiveness of our agreement so far to deal with the problems we have in the Niagara area, in the St. Clair basin area. This situation gives us pause with respect to what will be necessary to ensure that the battle of air pollution will be fought to a successful end.
It should be said about the area represented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and myself that the area is extremely flat. You would not want to go there for downhill skiing, Mr. Speaker. You could only contemplate cross-country skiing. I should say this too, that the land is not only flat but it is low, and it could fall victim to serious flooding. Lake levels have risen to unprecedented levels. We have repeatedly in this House, as have others in our community, called attention to the need to take effective action in the face of, if not present danger, certain future danger, from serious Great Lake flooding. We have asked that the broad question of how to control the levels of the lakes be looked at to determine the degree to which they can be controlled. We have also asked that the federal Government engage with the provincial Government and the municipalities to ensure that not just those who live on the shores of the lakes but those who live in Essex county and nearby counties living considerable distances from the lake will not have their lands

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. McCurdy
flooded or towns destroyed because of a failure to deal adequately with this very serious problem which affects both sides of the border.
This is an international issue, a municipal issue and a provincial issue. Related to environmental questions in one part of our city, in the Turkey Creek watershed area, we have a serious problem of biological pollution derived from the fact that most homes in that area are using septic tanks. The only way this situation can be corrected is by considerable investment. Something in the order of $35 million will be needed to correct it. This is an environmental problem of serious concern to our particular municipality; but it signifies the kinds of problems that so many municipalities in this country have, of serious infrastructure deficiencies for which they have no funds to correct. They have looked to the federal Government as you know, Mr. Speaker, and have asked for the expenditure of some $10 to $12 billion dollars over the next five or ten years to address some of the infrastructure deficiencies that our cities have. I think this is a matter that the Government should look at seriously, not only on its own merits but from the point of view that there are serious unemployment problems, and a need for economic development, and an important contribution the Government could make would be to ensure that those needs are met. This should not be done simply by the unilateral provision of funds, but in co-operation with the municipalities that are willing to pay their share and the provinces that ought to pay their share.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would my friend opposite permit a short question before one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. McCurdy) has one minute left.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I will see if I can wrap it up in 30 seconds, 15 seconds for the question and 15 seconds for the answer. The latter, of course, is impossible, Mr. Speaker.
Windsor, like any other community in this country, has its problems for which it looks to the federal Government for help. It is no different than any other community. There is a perception that there is a certain unconsciousness about Windsor's needs. There is also a more crystallized notion about many of the problems in Windsor, because of its location, that will affect all Canadians and on the basis of which we ought to be able to develop policies more in the interests of Canada.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite from Windsor-Walkerville speaks strongly against free trade. I do not share his fears of economic or cultural domination by the United States. Can he kindly tell me how many Canadian jobs and workers are employed in the building of a Mazda automobile? What would he say to Canadians who buy those cars?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would say that any Canadian ought to be able to buy a Toyota, a Mazda or a Hyundai in Canada with the assurance that those cars have been built with the participation of Canadian labour here based on the
conditions of the Auto Pact, namely, that there be 60 per cent . Canadian content, a matter which the Government has refused to address.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When we adjourned at one o'clock there were nine minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) and I both have very large ports in our ridings. A lot of people residing in both of our communities work in the United States. In view of his attack on free trade, would he advocate that the border be closed and that people living in Canada not be allowed to work in the United States?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion previously to comment on the necessity for reasonableness in debate. The Member knows, of course, that the issue to which he refers is one of immigration. It should, however, be recognized that there are problems appearing at a number of border areas because both Canada and United States have imposed limits on the extent to which we will receive immigrants or temporary workers in our jurisdictions.
I would call to the attention of the Speaker the fact that workers are being imported from the United States to Windsor, through the misapplication of immigrant rules, to carry out skilled trade work which Canadians could well do. From time to time we have had occasion to call attention to that circumstance which we consider to be a serious problem in the construction field in particular. Time after time the construction trade unions have called attention to the far too facile provision of licences for such workers to work in Canada.
My constituency shares problems similar to those which the Hon. Member has cited, but I repeat that the issue of working in Detroit when one lives in Windsor and vice versa is quite distinct from the issue of free trade. We look forward to a serious debate on free trade rather than the irrelevant issues which might be raised with respect to that topic when it comes into question.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on some of the points raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy). During his debate he said several things about the Windsor-Essex County area. I am very proud to represent the area of Essex County along with Kent County. I would not like the House to be left with
October 24, 1986

the impression that the Windsor area is up to its neck in water, although that is partially true, that there is an incinerator in Detroit spewing pollution into the Windsor area and that we have a very bad air transportation system making it very difficult to get down to that forgotten land. The Hon. Member seems to want to portray Windsor as an area which has been forgotten by the Government.
I am sure it was an omission by the Hon. Member that he did not point out that in the past two years the Windsor area has been one of the greatest recipients of the prosperity brought forward by the Government. Unemployment in that area is down to approximately 5 per cent. When this Government came into office the unemployment rate was approximately 13 per cent. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that. That area has also been the recipient of several IRDP grants with the automotive industry expanding and new companies being brought in. 1 would not like the Hon. Member to speak lowly of the Windsor-Essex County area. We want to encourage people to go there and see the prosperity which the Government has brought to it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, my hon. colleague from Essex-Kent has missed the point. The intent of my speech was to demonstrate that Windsor does experience a certain isolation from the rest of Canada, largely in terms of the knowledge which this and previous Governments have about our neck of the woods. However, I would like to make it clear that not only is Windsor much warmer than most parts of Canada, the hearts as well of the people there are much warmer than in other parts of the country.
I believe my hon. colleague attempts to exaggerate the role of Government in that area. He indicated that Windsor, along with other communities of the country, has been the beneficiary of certain programs. It is true that Windsor has a relatively low rate of unemployment. However, the suggestion that Windsor is experiencing its present prosperity as a result of federal government initiative could only come from someone who fails to read the newspapers or fails utterly to understand the economic situation in which the country finds itself and, most importantly, fails to understand some of the initiatives which the Government has failed to take with respect to the Auto Pact, which failures could seriously affect our city in the future. Surely the most valid test of the validity of this interjection will come at the next election when we revert to our usual pattern in Essex County of not having one single Conservative Member.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not seem to believe that unemployment has come down since the Government came to power, but I think he will have to admit that. Prior to the last election Windsor had the distinction of having three Liberal Cabinet Ministers located in that area. Were things better under those three Ministers than they are now?
The Address-Mr. Valcourt


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am often astounded by the claims made by the Government about events that have occurred since its entry into power. I suppose the next thing for which the Government will claim credit is the fact that we have had more rain this year than last year.
I am certainly not standing here before you, Mr. Speaker, to defend the record of three Liberal Cabinet Ministers who we had in Windsor. I would ask the Government to undertake a serious policy study so it may come to the conclusion, as so many have, about what is appropriate for Windsor's future. I have said it is true that the unemployment rate of Windsor is presently at a relatively low level. However, it is not inevitable that the low unemployment rate will remain unchanged. It is clear that there will be changes with respect to the automotive industry. The generation of over-capacity in particular will severely change the automobile industry in Windsor and other parts of this country. Therefore we must have an industrial strategy that is not based on central decision-making in Ottawa, or free trade, or any of the other simple answers of the past. There must be more emphasis on providing local communities the wherewithal to engage in future economic planning so they may use their resources to develop a new economic future that will enable them to replace the jobs that will inevitably disappear in the automobile industry, particularly if the Government continues its present policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Resuming debate. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt).


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased with this opportunity today to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, in my capacity as Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
I may point out that this Speech from the Throne reiterates our Government's strong and continuing commitment to two important sectors of our economy: small business and tourism.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne revolves in part around the theme of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit which this Government sees as the principal tool for the development of small businesses and tourism in this country. In its quest for economic renewal, the Government's focus has been and remains the promotion of entrepreneurship.
Mr. Speaker, where the previous Government did nothing but talk to assuage the concerns of small entrepreneurs and developers of tourism facilities, we have taken action. We have recognized the rich potential among our vast community of small entrepreneurs, and we have also adopted rigorous marketing methods for making Canada internationally attractive to tourists.
Mr. Speaker, as my fellow Francophones outside Quebec and my fellow Acadians pointed out upon my appointment to Cabinet, I am the only Francophone outside Quebec sitting in

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. Valcourt
the Cabinet. Having grown up as part of a minority group in New Brunswick, I feel I am particularly well-equipped to deal with a difficult task, namely to be responsible for the Native Peoples Economic Development Program.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, our Government is committed to economic autonomy for native peoples, and that forms the basis for my commitment to this program.
The Throne Speech also promises the Government will introduce changes to the Official Languages Act. My goal as a francophone outside Quebec is that the Government, in addition to recognizing language rights in the Act, go one step further to ensure that these rights become a reality in the lives of francophone minorities across this country.
Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about native peoples economic development programs or the tourist industry or expanding small businesses in this country, our main focus is to promote entrepreneurial values.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has long been the vehicle chosen by independent business entrepreneurs to address their concerns, their needs and their aspirations. For much too long federal policies were implemented without regard to their impact on small business. This Party and this Government have changed that unacceptable situation.
The first Budget of the Government, introduced in the spring of 1985, is widely known as the budget for small business because of the many measures it contained to encourage investment in small business. The 1986 Budget continued along this vein by reducing further the tax burden on small businesses, and by announcing a major incentive to encourage research and development by small business.
We added $1 billion to the amount available for loan guarantees under the Small Businesses Loans Act and we have extended the small business bond program to the end of 1987.
More important, however, the Government has moved to create a better economic climate for the growth of small business. Interest rates, which are of such concern to small businesses, are at their lowest level in years. The climate of confidence has led to increased investment in Canada, has benefited, and will continue to benefit small business operators across the country. In addition, the Government is increasing the amount of government purchasing of goods and services directed to small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General on October 1 attests to our lasting commitment with respect to small business.
Reflecting the achievements of our Government since the election, the Speech from the Throne proposes a fairer and simpler tax system more finely atuned to our economic environment. Our Government is considering new initiatives to strengthen the competitiveness of our businesses; it wants to
remove obstacles to economic growth by reducing the burden of paperwork and regulation; it will press for the removal of barriers to interprovincial trade; and it will introduce programs to promote small business and entrepreneurial values. To this end, it will take measures to improve procurement procedures, to strengthen unsolicited proposals, and make it easier for small business to have access to the technology of Government laboratories.
Mr. Speaker, intent as we are on promoting the entrepreneurial spirit, we must be careful not to smother it. We must keep in mind that our entrepreneurs do take risks, they work long hours, they are at once owners, executive directors, marketing experts and accountants, and because of these many responsibilities they always have hard decisions to make.
I am sure Hon. Members will agree that it is difficult enough for an entrepreneur to launch a new business and make it prosper without having to cope with interference from governments at various levels.
Mr. Speaker, this is why, having recognized these facts, our Government identified the need to reduce red tape and to ensure that Government regulations become a tool to help businesses rather than to hinder their growth.
My predecessor, the Hon. Andre Bissonnette, initiated a federal-provincial survey of the bureaucratic problems which hinder the small business sector. Over 1,100 small businessmen throughout the country were also asked for their views on this question: Who in their opinion impeded their efforts to expand their business?
Mr. Speaker, I shall be meeting with my provincial colleagues next week to assess the results of this survey, and I can assure the House that our Government will develop an action plan to attack squarely the obstacle to entrepreneurship posed by red tape.
We shall improve further our procurement methods which I have already mentioned by formulating a policy for the efficient promotion of subcontracting to small businesses in both the public and private sectors. The Small Business Secretariat is sponsoring a debate on subcontracting in the private sector at the Small Businesses Show which I inaugurated this morning in Montreal. The forum provided by our Department at the show will allow small and large businessmen to exchange ideas on how subcontracting can promote and enhance small businesses while benefiting larger companies.
We are also on the point of completing a major study to determine to what extent small and large businesses can cooperate in the development and transfer of new technologies through business associations. This is something which we intend to pursue because we are convinced that it could provide a means to improve the competitiveness of small businesses.
As a Member from New Brunswick and more especially the Madawaska-Victoria constituency, Mr. Speaker, I cannot
October 24, 1986

outline my action plan as Minister for Small Businesses and Tourism without first commenting briefly on a vital issue for Atlantic Canada and New Brunswick, as well as for many other regions throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to regional development.
The Throne Speech clearly shows this Government's commitment to meeting the challenge of reducing regional inequalities, and in a novel way. This Government's approach, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) referred to in his speech in this debate, is aimed at recognizing entrepreneurship as the way to salvation.
Development policies of the past have failed miserably. We believe the development policies that work are based on the potential of local entrepreneurs. Also, the time has come to recognize the need to coordinate Government efforts and harmonize them with the initiatives of entrepreneurs on the regional level.
Mr. Speaker, that process reflects this Government's new approach and Prime Minister Mulroney's commitment to regional development and to the citizens of Atlantic Canada.
Our objective for reducing disparities in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere, for instance for diversifying the Western economy, necessarily entails the development of small businesses. The latter are a key component of this objective and we must spare no effort to reach that objective.
I would now like to comment in a somewhat more detailed way on the means 1 propose to recommend to the Government, first to help promote Canada's small businesses. Second to fully exploit the tourist potential of our great country, and finally to support native self-sufficiency.
Mr. Speaker, only since this Government was elected has the potential of our tourist industry been recognized in the Canadian economy. Only since this Government was elected has support been forthcoming for the efforts made by our resort operators who are attempting to put this country on the international map by promoting Canada as a tourist destination area. Mr. Speaker, 1986 will have been an excellent year for tourism in Canada, and by far. More than two million tourists visited our country during the first eight months of 1986. This means our tourist trade deficit has decreased 92 per cent, with gains of more than $200 million for the Canadian economy. That remarkable recovery was obtained because of the ability and leadership of my predecessors in this function. They turned Tourism Canada towards foreign markets and established a new relationship with the tourist industry, the Provinces and the Territories. Such a success is also due to Expo '86, which we have supported financially, and also to the organizers of Expo '86, the British Columbia Government and, of course, the City of Vancouver.
Thanks to them, this year, that world exposition brought a great many visitors to Canada. I must also recognize, however, that another factor explains the record number of tourists who came to Canada this year. I refer to the marketing effort directed at the United States by our department on the theme Canada, the World Next Door. An assessment, of this new marketing approach, Mr. Speaker, has revealed that this campaign has made Americans much more aware and
The Address-Mr. Valcourt
informed concerning Canada as a tourist destination and that, thanks to this awareness, they were much more eager to come here. The importance of the tourist industry in Canada demands an aggressive approach focussed on our successes. A great many people do not seem to realize that the tourist industry in Canada contributes $20 billion to the Canadian economy and accounts for over 600,000 jobs for Canadian men and women. Well, we have to build on this resource.
To achieve this, I intend to continue working closely with our partners in industry and our provincial colleagues to ensure that our joint tourism efforts remain co-ordinated, stable and representative of the needs of the industry. I will also continue our focused marketing effort on the international front, particularly in the United States where our biggest market lies within a day's drive from our border. Next year, with Expo 86 over and the Calgary Olympics a year away, we must be even more aggressive in promoting Canada in our key foreign markets.
While 1986 was a great year for tourism in Canada, the benefits of this year were not felt evenly across the country. I will, therefore, be examining ways to spread these benefits more broadly in all regions of the country. I believe now is the time to have more regionally-sensitive marketing campaigns which will show off all regions of the country through specific products grouping. This will, of course, come under our major umbrella marketing campaign.
We will continue to explore new ways to market Canada abroad through our partners in industry under joint cost-shared efforts. We will continue to manage the tourism subagreements with the provinces in the fields of product development, marketing and planning, thereby ensuring top-notch tourism facilities across the country. Tourism can be a strong regional development tool. It seeks to promote the best Canada has to offer in terms of culture, hospitality, leisure activities and scenery.

Mr. Speaker, I should like now to advise you and other Hon. Members of what we intend to do concerning small businesses. My first and foremost priority will be of course to assume fully all my responsibilities as defender of, promoter of, and spokesman for small businessmen in this country. I shall assume these responsibilities by working in close co-operation with my Cabinet colleagues who will strive to implement the various measures announced in the Throne Speech. All Hon. Members will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the forthcoming debate on the tax reform announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will affect directly all small businesses in Canada. The Minister of Finance with whom I have discussed this issue is very well aware already of the needs and concerns of small businessmen in this area of utmost importance. I intend to consult with him frequently and, as the reform process is progressing, to submit to him the options most likely to benefit small Canadian businessmen.

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. Valcourt
As I have already indicated, we will table soon a detailed action plan to solve the problem which heavy paperwork is creating for small businesses. The plan will deal more specifically with the needless duplication of forms.

We must also take steps to improve delivery of financial assistance programs to small businesses. This means simpler application forms, reduced bureaucratic red tape, particularly for lower levels of assistance, and faster turnaround of each application. We will continue to find ways to meet the financial needs of small businesses across Canada. Existing financial mechanisms will be assessed for their ability to provide adequate debt equity and venture financing to small businesses. In particular, we must look at the financial needs of our smallest small businesses and find new ways to anchor equity investment in their start-up and future expansion.

One of the most important contributions of the small business community is related to industrial innovation. Entrepreneurs are by definition innovators. It rests with the Government to see that its policies promote that role.
With respect to another program for which I am responsible, the economic development of native people, we will have to carry on along the same lines despite the fact that some people will claim the results are not very sensitive.
I agree that much work remains to be done in the efforts to promote economic self-reliance among our native populations. By necessity, that work must begin with existing native economic development programs. Therefore, I am considering measures to improve the delivery of the Native Economic Development Program, to expand the eligibility criteria associated with the program and to ensure a greater regional balance in its efforts by encouraging more projects from the North and from the Atlantic region. Each of these improvements has resulted, and will continue to result, from close consultation with native leaders and with the Native Economic Development Board itself.
Why do we attach so much importance to small business? Because small business is responsible for 70 per cent of the new jobs that are created. It is largely in small business that the spirit of Canadian entrepreneurship manifests itself. Indeed, the dynamism of our entrepreneurs has now become the main source of employment and economic growth in Canada.
Another important aspect is that women entrepreneurs, who are playing increasingly important roles in our economy now, own one out of three small businesses, up from 18 per cent a decade ago. Studies also show that the success of female-owned small business is almost double that of their maleowned counterparts. The Government will do everything possible to create an environment in which these businesswomen can create jobs.

Similar efforts will also be made to encourage our young people to contribute to the prosperity of our country by instilling into them that spirit of entrepreneurship and by providing them with that institutional framework which without restricting their independence and their creativity will still allow them to see their dreams come true.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I seek the Minister's comments with respect to the Canada-Alberta tourism subagreement. I speak for southern Alberta when I make this comment. As the Minister knows, although in a sense it was before his time in public life, relations between the federal Government and the provincial Governments were at an all-time low. I suspect that one of the major reasons he became involved in politics was because of this. However, as a result of the Progressive Conservative Government coming into office with the feeling that federal-provincial relations were at an all-time low we have now signed, I believe, over 50 economic regional development agreements in the Province of Alberta. One such agreement was a tourism subagreement. I want to tell the Minister just how well that agreement is working.
As the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills it is an absolute delight to attend meetings at which there are tourism officials from the City of Lethbridge, a city of about 60,000 people, and officials from the surrounding towns and villages, including Waterton Lakes National Park. It is a pleasure to watch these people finally come together under the auspices of this tourism subagreement. They now look at southern Alberta as a whole as opposed to the City of Lethbridge competing with the Town of Cardston or Crowsnest for these tourists. They are now coming together to develop plans by which people can make a circle tour and spend a day or two in all parts of southern Alberta. This is an absolute delight to watch, and it would not have occurred without the tourism subagreement.
The tourism subagreement has permitted people with all sorts of good ideas and energy to come forward with innovative projects and make applications for up to 35 per cent capital contribution from the tourism subagreement. As a result some very innovative projects have been approved in my riding. I know that this is happening in other parts of Alberta as well. On behalf of the people who come to me involved in this tourism subagreement, whether they be tourist officers, motel owners or small business people, I wish to thank the Minister. I wish to express to the Minister their appreciation for this approach.
October 24, 1986

1 would now like to ask a question of the Minister. Can the Minister tell us how many other provinces have these tourism subagreements? If the other provinces do not have such agreements, then I would strongly urge the Minister to press them for this type of agreement since it works quite well.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the Hon. Member raises this important point since it must be fitted into the general framework of what the Government has been trying to do. Our detractors laughed when we talked about national reconciliation. If we cannot work with the provinces, our partners in this federation, how will things work? We have signed tourism subagreements with every province in Canada and with the Territories. They are working very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: It is one thing to serve people well with words and another to serve them well with deeds. I have toured the whole country. I have met many of my provincial counterparts. All the agreements that we have signed with the provinces are working very well. We are being told that for the first time they have a sense that the federal Government realizes the importance that tourism plays in the economics of Canada. We are talking about an industry which involves
600,000	workers. In terms of input, it is a $20 billion industry. We are keeping in close contact with our provincial counterparts. I am sure this is for the better interests of the people of Lethbridge, Alberta and everywhere else in the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) for a question or a comment.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt).
I was delighted when I heard the Minister emphasize the number of businesswomen and underline the fact that there are more businesswomen than businessmen. Yet, I should like the Minister to tell us what his Government has done to help these people, because I do not think it is thanks to this Conservative Government that the proportion of businesswomen is so high.
I should like him also to tell us what his Government is prepared to do to maintain this proportion.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend opposite is probably asking the most important question. What has this Government done for Canadian businesswomen? Well, we have taken budget and tax measures, put Government expenditures in order, embarked on a deficit reduction program that has created something which neither the Liberal Party nor the New Democratic Party could measure: confidence in the Canadian economy. The interest rates currently are at their lowest level in eight years. That is exactly what the hundred or so businesswomen whom I met last week in Winnipeg told me they needed. Those are the steps we are taking.
The Address-Mrs. Pepin
Everywhere in this country, when we consider-


Lucie Pépin: It is not because of this Conservative Government-


Bernard Valcourt: The Hon. Member is saying that it is not because of this Conservative Government. What is significant is the number of business ventures; but what is still more significant is the number of these new business ventures which fail. That is the criterion for judging the effectiveness of a Government. If my hon. colleague cares to check the facts, she will realize that with interest rates at their lowest, there are fewer business ventures operated by women which are going bankrupt.
As to the steps we are planning to take in the future, I can say that we will maintain the same direction and promote the same healthy economic climate. For instance, we now have pilot projects which are opened to young business people throughout this country, both men and women. Before long, I hope to introduce a policy which will, I am sure, benefit all business people who will have access, we hope, to such business centres throughout Canada.


Mr. St. Julien:: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. I have two questions for him, the first one concerning native people.
Reference has been made to the James Bay Cree/Naskapi agreement, and we know that yesterday Great Chiefs Ted Moses and Billy Diamond made a few comments about the economic situation. My question has to do with James Bay and the Native Economic Development Program. So far the Government has done a lot for the James Bay Cree. Does the Minister intend to make changes to the native people economic development program, or may we expect assistance for the northern Abitibi region?
My second question relates to the Canada Tourism agreement with Quebec. Abitibi is a huge riding, the largest in all ten Canadian provinces. Some changes should be made to this agreement, so does the Minister expect to review the agreement with the Quebec Government? Under this $100 million five-year agreement with Quebec, the only sectors concerning Abitibi are hunting and fishing, and we would like to have some changes made to the agreement. Will the Minister be meeting with the Quebec Government in the near future?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's first question concerning the Native Economic Development Program. I can tell him that since I took over this portfolio we have launched a thorough review of the program, in close cooperation with the native people themselves of course. As you probably know the program is administered in part by a council made up mostly of native people, and they have made representations to me concerning the program delivery, which could stand improvement, and its eligibility criteria.

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mrs. Pepin
Consultations with native people and other departments involved are taking place now, and I should be in a position to make an announcement about this in the not too distant future.
As for the Quebec tourism agreement, it is so successful that, after only a few years, the funds are being quickly exhausted. Hon. Members should know that there remains one aspect of our tourism agreement with Quebec to be settled, that of hunting and fishing outfitters.
The Hon. Member is asking us to consider the Abitibi region, a large region in Quebec with admittedly a lot of tourism potential. His representations will certainly be discussed when I meet with my provincial counterpart, Mr. Picotte, whom I have already met once and should be seeing again in coming weeks. At that time, I shall certainly consider it my duty to discuss the issue raised by the Hon. Member with Minister Picotte.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall pursue the debate with the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin).


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to give you my comments on the Speech from the Throne.
Mr. Speaker, my first comment concerns the order in which the various issues were approached by the Government in the Throne Speech.
The Conservative Government started with national reconciliation, followed by economic renewal, constructive internationalism and, finally, social justice.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I doubt that Canadian men and women are more concerned about Canada's international role than they are about social justice. In fact, many polls have clearly indicated that the main concerns of the Canadian people are unemployment and social needs. I am afraid, however, that the rank given social justice in the Throne Speech is an accurate reflection of its place on the Conservative Government's priority list, despite the Government's flowing rhetoric on the subject.
Where the status of women is concerned, the Conservative Government has announced some intentions that are indeed of interest. In the past, however, statements by this Government have seldom been translated into concrete action. It would seem this time will be no exception.
I am delighted that the Government has at last recognized the need for adjusting to structural changes in the family unit. Indeed, only about 15 per cent of our families consist of a husband who works while the wife stays home. If we look at the structure of our families today, we must not forget that a number of years ago, women did not work outside the home and had an average of four children-I am talking about 25 years ago-and if we look at today's birthrate and the profile of the traditional family, we realize that the picture has changed quite a bit. We must remember that the traditional
family, where children are living with their biological parents and the father is the sole breadwinner, accounts for only 10 per cent.
Single-parent families constitute 29 per cent of Canadian households. And according to Statistics Canada's figures as of November 1985, 57.5 per cent of women with preschool children are on the labour market; 67 per cent of women who have paid employment are working full time although they have young children, and the majority of women in their optimum childbearing years are on the labour market. In 1984, 69 per cent of women between the ages of 25 and 34 were on the labour market.
Considering the various roles played by women in our society, I think we should introduce a series of measures aimed at helping couples to cope satisfactorily with the needs of their families. Among these measures, daycare is a priority. Perhaps I may add that the need for daycare centres is recognized in the Speech from the Throne, but instead of announcing specific measures, the Government has simply decided to undertake some vague discussions with the provincial governments, the unions and the private sector. In brief, a lot of rhetoric but little action. Canadian men and women expected much more on child care from this Government, because we are now facing a real crisis. Indeed, there is only room for 9 per cent of our children who need those services in the child care system. People who work there are paid less than zoo attendants.
Mr. Speaker, that situation is totally unacceptable. Thousands of people have testified before the Special Committee on Child Care. Men and women from all across Canada have explained to us their dismay at the difficulties they experience, the enormous problems they are facing to have their children cared for when they have to go to work or attend classes. What the Canadian people need and are now looking for is action, not empty words.
When you see what this Government is doing for pension funds, you ought to look closer into having homemakers covered by pension plans in Canada. That was one of the many promises made by the Conservative Government during the election campaign, and made again last year by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). The shifting phraseology I noticed in the Throne Speech is worthy of ancient Greek philosophy. In fact, they are now talking about admitting spouses of existing contributors into pension plans rather than all those who look after the household, those who are without a spouse.
This, Mr. Speaker, discriminates against the heads of singleparent families, 72 per cent of whom are women. The most insidious aspect is that once again women are discriminated against, based on whether or not they have a spouse. It seems to me that in 1986, the Government should be ready to change all that.
October 24, 1986

If we take a closer look at the National Council of Welfare report we can see that the poverty rate for the elderly and for men has declined, but unfortunately poverty is getting worse with respect to the condition of women who are single, elderly and heads of families.
I should like to remind the House that, unlike most other groups of Canadians, six out of 10 single-parent families headed by women live under the threshold of poverty. The rate of poverty among single mothers did not go down in 1985, quite the contrary, they have been getting ever poorer over the past five years. Compared with a married woman, a single mother is five times more likely to end up among the poor. Women account for nearly 60 per cent of underprivileged women between ages 16 and 64. Although they make up 51 per cent of the population, seven poor and elderly persons out of 10 are women. These women represent 83 per cent of low income, single and elderly people. Such disparity is even more obvious among single-parent families. A family headed by a woman is four times more likely to be poor than another one headed by a man.
I think this is an altogether discouraging situation and I am somewhat upset to hear the Minister responsible for the Status of Women say that the Conservative Government has done a lot for women. It may be that she has done a lot for women who are fairly well-off or who belong to the middle class, and it would seem that the Government is taking a rather socialistic and elitist approach, because I suggest that Government action with respect to the poor and low-income families has been minimal at best. Not a word in the Speech from the Throne relates to homemakers.
There is also a reference to the number of women appointed recently to the highest levels of the Public Service and to federal boards and commissions. I admit this came as a great surprise to me, because I monitor these appointments very closely, and I would like to know which statistics the Conservative Government was using to be able to make those claims. Personally, I take a different view of the situation, since hardly 20 per cent of the appointees are women.
Another promise made by the Conservative Government concerned part-time work. The Prime Minister spoke very firmly on the subject and said several times that one of his priorities in helping women would be to establish a definition of part-time work and to require employers to provide fringe benefits in proportion to the number of hours worked. Unfortunately, two years later, still not a word, not a single reference to part-time work. Not even in the Throne Speech. We all know that today, many families need that second salary, and in 42 per cent of families with two parents and two children, most women have to work because one salary is not enough to keep them above the poverty line. The Conservative Government had promised to take action in this regard, but there is not a single mention of it in the Speech from the Throne.
The Address-Mrs. Pepin
If we look more closely, we find that there might be legislation to eliminate violent forms of pornography. I trust that this legislation will not suffer the same fate as Bill C-114, which died on the order paper.
Finally, how can we talk about assistance to battered women when the Conservative Government is willing to subsidize only halfway houses and shelters which operate under pilot programs? I was rather surprised to note that the Conservative Government is now saying that it will provide some assistance to shelters for battered women because the excessive cutbacks to this program in the last two years have resulted in the closing of many such shelters.
Last June, a meeting of the national women's groups was held in Ottawa, and the then Secretary of State, Mr. Bouchard, met with their representatives who told him how harmful the cutbacks had been. Naturally, the Minister replied that the Government would take care of everything and that there would be no recurrence of the problem. Recently, we heard about all the women who had to be refused admission to the shelters. In Edmonton, 250 women who had been the victim of family violence had to be turned away because of a lack of space. The same happened in Calgary and it is happening now in the Yukon and in Winnipeg. The Government is now saying: We shall deal with it. I think that it would be more honest for the Government to say that the problem it has created will be corrected because the situation of shelters for battered women is quite disastrous.
The Government also states that the family is the foundation of our society. That is all very well, but I hope that the Government will act on it because, after its two Budgets, we found that a family with two children and an income between $18,000 and $25,000 was paying substantially more taxes than before, which was certainly not the case for families which much higher incomes.
When I look at what the Throne Speech says about women, I have the feeling that it is mostly paying lip service to this issue. We are told that the Government has taken action, that it has done something useful in introducing the Employment Equity Act. Yet, all the groups that appeared before the committee said without exception that the Bill would be totally ineffective because it has no teeth. I only hope that the Government will stop talking and finally take some action to help women. We want to promote women and give them their rightful place in society, but the most important element to consider is the economic position of women. Without good day-care, without part-time work, without work-sharing and without an affirmative action program, it will be extremely hard to give women the place they deserve in our society. I hope that the Government will stop being content with promises, consultations and discussions and that it will take concrete action.

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mrs. Pepin


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) is concerned with women's issues and I would like to congratulate her for that commitment. Although no parallel is perfect, Mr. Speaker, as is often said, I would like to draw one just the same. This parallel I would like to draw between the serious problems faced by women, especially single-parent women and the disintegration of our forests in Quebec. You will understand why. Twenty years ago the then Government should have done something; it should have foreseen what was going to happen to our forests. There should have been some legislation put in place twenty years ago, specific projects to help restore our forests in Quebec, and especially a reforestation effort.
Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal Government ten years ago should have had projections made on the quality of life of today's women. Tomorrow's problem was not solved yesterday, especially by a government. A government must have longterm projections, what with all the scientists and researchers around. The problem has been there for a long time. Now it is hitting us straight on.
I too, Mr. Speaker, am the first to be sorry, I feel like crying when I see those single-parent women, when I see those errant women in Montreal who do not even have a place to live. I am shocked that fellow women, girls just like me-some my age, 35 or 36-have no homes. We did not foresee that the breakdown of families would lead to that today.
Now this Conservative Government is being blamed for that. Well, I am sorry. I am sorry, but it is not this Conservative Government's fault. It is the previous Government's fault.
I would like to ask my colleague for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) a question: What about her Government, at the time, exactly five years ago, not two but five years ago, what did they do to anticipate what is happening today? Today, if there had been an accurate projection, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we would not have to face the problem. But then here it is and we must do something about it.
Indeed and I am the first one, and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, (Mrs. McDougall), is the first one to work on that. The Prime Minister said so on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious problem, a societal problem, a problem that involves each and every one. We must address it.
1 would like to ask the Hon. Member the following question: What did her Government do five years ago to anticipate those things?


Lucie Pépin: Mrs. Speaker, I think comparing the problems of single-parent families with the problems besetting our forests is tantamount to dismissing them as an ecological problem.
I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the Liberal Government did more for Canadian women than her Government has done so far.
Today, Canada is recognized as one of the countries with the most progressive legislation for women, and this did not come about under the Conservative Government.
The Hon. Member wants to know what my Government did. I am going to ask her what her Government did with the housing program. You made major cuts, especially in this program which affects single-parent families. Today, it has become a major problem.
How about Bill C-62 and employment equity? I was on that committee, and I saw some of my Conservative colleagues, whom we had not seen throughout the committee's proceedings, come and vote against our amendments. Not a single Conservative woman on that committee supported the 30 amendments which were specifically proposed to help women. Not a single one.
What the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says and what he does are two entirely different things. And there, as you say, you have a problem. We had done some important preliminary work which you have totally destroyed. You say that today you feel sorry for all those poor and battered women, but there was a program, and you made cuts, and you did so ruthlessly. You made all these cuts in subsidizing shelters for women. Now, you say, we are going to take care of them. Obviously, now you have to pick up the pieces.
If we look at this Government's good intentions, there are plenty, because that is all we have been hearing about for two years. But if you look at what the Government has actually done, it does not amount to much, if you don't mind my saying so.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I must remind the Hon. Member that what I said when I made my comparison was, that 20 years ago they should have foreseen these developments and acted accordingly. They should have passed legislation to keep our forests in Quebec from deteriorating as they are today. That is what my comparison was based on.
The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) referred to the housing program. I may remind her that for the very first time, the federal Government has concluded agreements with the provinces. After all, wouldn't a provincial government be better able to identify housing needs? The federal Government couldn't do it at the time, because of the endless quarrelling which kept the parties from sitting down and negotiating important agreements. Unfortunately, people today tend to forget this.
Quite possibly the women of Quebec mentioned by the Hon. Member for Outremont, those battered women, are the victims of these quarrels. Five, six or ten years ago we should have been able to sit down with the provinces in an attempt to come up with adequate and constructive programs to help these people rather than look for problems elsewhere in the Third World. I can appreciate that Third World countries have problems, but then we too have serious problems right here.
October 24, 1986

For the first time, Mr. Speaker, we sat down with the provinces. We put an end to the bickering, we took a look at the situation, and we made a concerted effort to set up a federal-provincial housing program. One thing I can say for sure is that I discussed this matter with Quebec MNAs and they are pleased, just as I am and just as we on the Government side are pleased about this new housing agreement. Preference will be given to co-operatives and housing for single-parent families. A great number of housing units have been built in the past, but we must continue to build because our population is getting older and there is an urgent need of housing for senior citizens. However, there is also a great need of housing for single-parent families. It is in this area that we must focus our energies.
Once more, my colleague is very concerned by women's issues. She is very knowledgeable in this field as she was President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. She is more familiar with these issues than anyone else in this House. However, to avoid any partisanship, the Hon. Member should recognize that this problem is not new. It may have come to the forefront recently, but it has been around for a long time. Because we sit on different sides of the House is no reason to blame each other for this problem. We should sit down together and try to find the means to help women and to channel our energies as women parliamentarians. We should sit down together more often. I regret that partisanship sometimes seems to be stronger than anything else. The Hon. Member and myself, as well as the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who is also very concerned by this issue, should put aside any partisanship and say: When shall we meet to discuss what could be done? This is what we should do to solve the problem of our sisters in trouble, Mr. Speaker.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my hon. colleague's comment. May I add that when I called a meeting last year of women Members of the three Parties, very few came. Perhaps if I did call one again this year, more would come.
My hon. colleague has stated that provinces used to quarrel and that there appears to be a difference since this new Government came to power. May I remind her that all provincial Governments are quite irritated by the Government's attitude concerning equalization payments. As evidence of this, I should like to point out that in Quebec, Mr. Levesque, the Minister of Finance, has indicated that the cuts imposed to them by the federal Government were unacceptable. There is also the Minister of Energy and the Prime Minister of Alberta. The provincial Governments are not any more in agreement with this federal Government than they used to be with previous ones. At any rate, when we are working and putting forward resolutions or moving amendments in committee to try and help women, I should like all women, and also all men in all three Parties, but more particularly women in the Progressive Conservative Party to
The Address-Mr. McCain
attend and support our amendments. Unfortunately, it is always the opposite that happens.
We saw what happened with Bill C-92, the Bill on prostitution and pornography: all the women voted against it. Therefore, we could start helping ourselves by supporting these goals when dealing with Bills.
[DOT]	(1500)


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the Speaker and the members of his staff on the positions which they hold and the work which they are doing. There has been a will of the House to change the attitude of behaviour which was the practice of the last very few years. I think that that change of attitude imposed by the Speaker and his staff will result in better decorum and a better picture of the structure of the entire Government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you both on your office and the type of work you are achieving.
I should also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, as well as the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) who in his usual way and with his usual ability has represented the needs of his constituency and his province, while staying in harmony with the needs of the nation. That, of course, has been a characteristic of his since first being elected to this House. The Hon. Member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Valcourt), my colleague from New Brunswick, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, has made his first speech in this House as Minister. Again, he has taken a look at the national as well as the local requirement of the tourist industry and of small business. I think he is dedicated to his position in Cabinet and the results of his work will be positive in a better and stronger small business and tourist economy in Canada.
[DOT]	0510)
Let me address the speech itself for a moment, Mr. Speaker. This Throne Speech is an unusual one, unusual because it is a list of commitments for the Government. It shows the imagination and planning of Government in what it thinks are the ojectives which the Government should have for the well-being of our country.
One should not criticize the Throne Speech because it does not say how these objectives are going to be achieved. No Party in this House at any time has delivered a Throne Speech and bored the nation with all the details of how its objectives will be accomplished. Many Governments have given Throne Speeches which were a litany of bragging regarding the accomplishments of the past without any constructive planning for the future. That is why this Throne Speech is a pledge to the nation of Canada that things have been done but, what is more important and longer in list are the things which need to done, together with the dedication and the commitment to do them. Therefore, I think you have before you, Sir, and the

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. McCain
nation has before it, for consideration one of the most constructive, positive Throne Speeches which it has been my privilege to debate in the years in which I have been elected to office.
There is another group I would like to draw to the attention of this House, namely, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. It is a council, voluntary in nature, made up of a group of people dedicating their own time to the development of policies and objectives for Atlantic Canada. This group of able people has in turn engaged very able people to formulate and express the objectives and needs of Atlantic Canada. These people have established for themselves a credit in the eyes of the people of Atlantic Canada, which is extremely important to that area and should be recognized.
I think perhaps a constituent of mine expressed himself about as well as anybody that I have heard express himself as to what Canada needs and what our local area of Atlantic Canada needs. How it would be achieved was given in a speech that he delivered to the founding meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in the town of Woodstock. His name is Mr. W.C. Bull, Senior Vice-President of Corporate Planning of the Royal Bank. He was at one time a constituent of mine. He is now in higher office and has moved to another office in which he can exercise his new duties. The following is what he said to that Chamber of Commerce. I think it is a proper piece of advice and direction for Government and Canada as a whole. It reads as follows:
Shared commitment and mutual interest in the welfare of your community and region should bring you together. Coming together is a beginning but sticking together is the challenge.
That is the challenge and the objective of this Government, to get the people of Canada as a community to come together and to stick together. That is the challenge, and it is not being recognized or appreciated by the opposition Parties which are doing what they can as a group to divide and conquer the voters of Canada for their own particular end, without consideration for the needs of Canadians. The opposition Parties have instead followed a selfish political course which is not in the best interests of this nation. I plead with them to allow us to go forward to develop and create a better Canada not a divided Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: Let us not divide the voters of this nation. Let us not put culture against culture, region against region, man against woman, women against everybody and man against all concerned for political purposes and for the gain of votes. That is not being good Canadians, let alone good parliamentarians.
Let me carry on a little bit with what Mr. Bull said. He said:
First of all, dedicated people have to want to work together. This requires a high degree of teamwork.
That is what we should look for in this House of Commons, a high degree of team work and constructive input from the Opposition, not a critical and destructive input on a constant basis. To resume the quote, he said:
-the good of the community takes precedence over more narrow interests.
That is what this House and all its Parties must begin to address, the broader and major interest of the nation as a whole. Let us go forward with that.
We are undertaking as a Government negotiations to obtain a better trading situation with the United States and with the world at large. Of all industries that have suffered from bad trade negotiations in the past, agriculture is really at the top of the heap. It and its products have been the bargaining ploy that we have put on the table of international negotiation to obtain ends for other interests. In 1954 the imports of horticultural products amounted to $125 million. In 1985, 31 years later, we are now importing $1.1 billion worth of fruits and vegetables as a result of very favourable access for international suppliers in the Canadian market. This is something which must be brought to a halt. We must ask for fair play. We can no longer receive on the Canadian market bottles of wine from foreign countries, particularly from the EEC, at less than the cost of bottling in this country. I use this item because wine only arrives here with a subsidy, and it is the most extreme example that I can give.
However, let us come to the apple industry. We find that in the past we have received apple juice in the Canadian market-a product produced in Canada-at less than the cost of packaging and transportation. It is dumped into this market to the detriment of the Canadian industry.
It is then imperative that Canada seek fair trading opportunity in the world. Whether it applies to agriculture, fish or in whatever product we may trade, our markets in the world must be fair. We are a trading nation. We must seek to achieve world competence, world quality, world productivity and world competitive costs. That must become an objective of Government in leadership and an objective of unions, management, capital and financiers throughout this land. These are our objectives and on this basis we can compete in an international society. We must compete if we are to survive. This must be the tenet upon which all facets of our economy and our Government must base its future negotiations and retain a competitive position within our own market and a competitive capability in those items in which we can be world productive and competent. That has to be our objective. Then and only then can we be a prosperous nation as we should and wish to be.
In the horticultural industry, there are certain seasonal tariffs which are not negotiable as far as that industry is concerned. We have come into production in most of our horticultural crops at that season of the year when the United States of America is just about at the end of its production and is dumping any balance it may have on any market which it can find, and Canada is the handiest market. Therefore, producers of certain fruits and vegetables in Canada cannot hope to compete with the surplus stocks which are disposed of by the U.S. producers at the tag end of their crop. That is at the beginning of our crop when our prices should be at their
October 24, 1986

best. We must then retain an element of protection to retain some strength in that horticultural industry.
We must also take a look at what is the pesticide requirement within Canada and what is the pesticide requirement of products imported into Canada. Pesticides which are denied to farmers in Canada are permissible for imported horticultural produce. This is not right. International markets are using every barrier to trade that they can including pesticides used on horticultural products and medicines used in the feeding of animals. We should protect our producers to the same degree as foreign markets protect their producers. We are very weak in our protection of the trading structure of Canada.
It is impossible for us in this land to compete in many industries. Our apple industry was healthy. Although we always imported apples, our export of apples was major. We are now importing apples from the EEC and other sources and landing them in our stores at less than our cost of production. The market is therefore no longer available for the apple industry. Mushrooms are being imported from Taiwan and China. Apple juice will probably be imported from China in the near future. If we are to compete in horticulture and other aspects of agriculture we must extend to the agriculture industry an element of fair protection for their markets at home or economic assistance on a scale much larger than that which we have provided for the last several years.
What a pity one does not have time to cover all the subject matters which are so pertinent. However, I will speak of the fisheries for a moment. I want to issue a challenge to Government, unions and management involved with the Star-Kist plant in the Bayside, New Brunswick. It is time they sat down around the table with a dedication to put a good product back on the market. As far as consumers are concerned, the quality of that product is above question. Of the last 500,000 cans which were marketed prior to the CBC program, not a single can was returned by virtue of bad quality nor has a single can of product been found to be detrimental to the health of any consumer. This plant can continue to satisfy the consumer. It can once again produce 52 per cent of Canadian consumption with a minimum of complaint. Over the 20 years of its operation there have been a few cans returned with bitter complaint, but no sample has been returned to the company. The company has not seen a sample of rejected product.
1 appeal to unions, management and Government to sit down around the table and resolve the problem which is keeping 600 people out of work in an area with about 40 per cent unemployment. This is a vicious and unfair struggle which is taking place at the expense of approximately 600 innocent, low-paid workers who, before Christmas, find themselves without unemployment insurance, dependent on welfare and living in a community which is collapsing due to lack of cash flow. It is time that a meaningful interest was taken in these people in my constituency.
The Address-Mr. McCain
Of the fishery as well, I wish to say that there is a seal problem. It is important that Canada understand how great this problem is. There is a chart which indicates that the birth of seals has risen approximately 25 per cent in a five-year period. As the population of seals has risen the quota allowed to fishermen has decreased in almost direct proportion. The total seal population of the North Atlantic is such that it is now consuming 2.5 million tonnes of fish per year. I will not tell you how much fish is caught in the North Atlantic by the combined fishing fleets. However, if anyone has an honest interest they will look it up and learn that we are not catching 2.5 million tonnes of fish for human consumption. As the total allowable catch decreases and the seal population increases, poverty is becoming more and more embedded in the fishing communities of Atlantic Canada, the quality of fish available to world consumers is going down and our economy is suffering in a major way.
It must be recognized in this nation and internationally that the seal population of the North Atlantic Ocean must be controlled, regulated and reduced. Canada is not the only country interested in this subject because international quotas to fish within the 200-mile limit will either disappear completely or be so substantially reduced by Canada that there will be no international fishing within that 200-mile limit. We are not alone in our demand for an economic reconsideration of the devastation by the seal in the North Atlantic. Whatever means is acceptable to society must be found and that acceptable means must be used.
One could continue to speak of the fisheries for a long while because there is a great deal of requirement. We must consider the devastation to equipment of the fishing industry as well as the decline in fish stocks. A single fisherman in my community lost $100,000 as a result of seal damage to his equipment. That is a lot of money for one man to lose and it would not have been lost 15 years ago when Canada was addressing the seal population and keeping it under proper control. I certainly do not advocate extinction, but control of that population is vital.
The Post Office of Canada has probably regressed more as we became more electronically competent than one could ever have foreseen or imagined. The Post Office of Canada should be operating on the same basis as any other public utility. It should have to appeal to Government for permission to reduce services. It should not have the right, within its own management, to cut service without notice. The Post Office is a disgrace which the Government inherited and the Opposition must assume some responsibility for it.
In the 1920s I had an aunt who lived in Ottawa and wrote to my mother on a weekly basis. She mailed the letter on her way to work every Monday morning. Every Tuesday afternoon, almost without fail, it was in our rural mailbox. It got there via an old steam engine. It was picked up by a horse and wagon at the train station. It was delivered to the Florenceville post office for sorting and was then delivered by horse and wagon and arrived at our home at approximately three o'clock. What

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. McCain
became of this system which was so very competent with a steam engine and a horse and wagon?
I challenge labour, management and Government to put that system back in place. The modus operandi today is that every post office must be a profit centre. There is not a public utility in Canada governed by federal or provincial regulation which can lay claim to profit from every community it serves. The Post Office as well as the Customs offices are trying to make every centre a profit centre without regard for the services which the people of Canada require. That is a crass and brutal treatment.
In the Glassville area of my constituency six offices have already been closed and the seventh one is going down. Perhaps 1 could take another two minutes to add to those remarks, if I may. Not only is that office being closed, the service is being changed in such a way that there is another 48-hour delay in delivery of a letter in the parish of Aberdeen in the County of Carleton. During the 1920s a letter could be delivered from Ottawa to rural New Brunswick in 30 hours. Now one cannot respond to a letter for another 48 hours because of a reduction in service of Canada Post. That is not good enough for rural Canadians. I hope I did not impose upon the time of the Elouse and I thank you for the extension.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, rarely have I heard such practical solutions and comments with regard to Canada Post as those given by the Elon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). The system is a disaster. It is not only a question of our attitude toward the Post Office, but the attitude within the Post Office and the frustration of the public. I cannot think of a single issue, including taxes, social problems and others, that is more important intrinsically to Canadians than reliable mail service.
I can remember carrying mail at Christmas time as a young man. While I will not mention his name out of respect, our postman was a super person who gave good mail service, and everyone in the neighbourhood loved him. I can remember carrying the mail at Christmas as a young man because I was not quite big enough to carry the postman after he was given a small libation by the neighbours after providing a year of dedicated service. [ also used to finish the routes the odd time when he decided to pause for a rest.
I want to point out an incident that was brought to my attention and about which I had to write a letter recently. It concerns a mailman who refused to deliver mail to a particular household because of their dog. I know the household and can say that the dog was nearly blind. When the excuse for nondelivery was dropped off at the Post Office, saying that the dog was threatening, during that two-week period in which it was supposed to be threatening, the dog was dead and buried. The excuse was as dead as the dog. After the dog expired, another excuse followed which stated:	"White cat obstructing
sidewalk".
While I agree that such an attitude is shown by a limited few who serve the Post Office, how can we expect such attitudes to contribute to a resolution to the problem?
I want to change the subject for a moment and support the speech given by the Minister of State for Small Bussinesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt). There is a small business in my constituency that required the particular attention of the Minister and his Department in order for the business to proceed. While some Governments become hidebound in legislation and regulations, opportunities exist to take a second look and choose alternatives which may not be carved in stone. That is precisely what happened in my constituency, so that there is every assurance that there soon may be 40 jobs in a new industry. I want to thank the Minister and the people in his Department, both in Vancouver and Ottawa, who made that possible.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his support of my remarks. I would only add that Canada cannot prosper if we do not have a co-operative interest in the well-being of our society. All of us must have a basic interest and understanding of the needs of places like Montreal, Toronto, Saint John, as well as rural Canada. These concerns must be rolled into a package and become the common interest of Government, management and labour so that our postal service may work with the same historical degree of efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction to the public.
I ask all facets of the postal system to consider these service requirements. If we must bend a little to accommodate the public, that is our duty, whether it is management, the Minister or the letter carriers. All of us serve the public and we should do so with courtesy and effectiveness.
The Post Office has become the greatest promoter of electronic and courier services in Canada, at a massive expense to those who would still use the postal service exclusively if their letters could be delivered in 30 hours, as they once were. I do not know why management, Government and labour are no longer interested in making that kind of service available so that the Post Office could prosper.


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech. He made reference to the population explosion among seals in the northwest Atlantic. What do the fishermen in his area believe should be done to eliminate the problems in the fishing industry that are caused by seals?


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. Historically, the population of seals in the presence of a national fishing industry has been taken into very careful consideration by the Government. When these policies of population control were removed by the Government, I believe the seal population in the North Atlantic, particularly among harp seals, almost doubled in approximately seven and a half years. This means that the number of fish consumed has
October 24, 1986

virtually doubled and will double again in the next five to seven years.
If this happens we will be in a situation which people on shore refer to as the rabbit and the fox. We can have seals or we can have fish, but we cannot have both. Seals consume a major source of excellent food that is needed in this country, in Europe, in the United States and in the Third World. The Government must find a way to address the population control of those seals which swim in the North Atlantic or that source of food will not be there.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about an aspect of the Throne Speech which I believe has received too little attention. I am referring to a brief paragraph which states: "My Government recognizes that security is the surest safeguard of liberty". It goes on to talk about increasing our NATO contingent in western Europe.
I am one who, against the general weight of feeling within the Christian tradition, was persuaded in World War II to join the Army in order to kill people for the opposition of facism. I have since then wondered very deeply why our country and our allies become engaged in war. I very much regret the one-sided emphasis in those words. I very much regret the exaggerated reliance which that paragraph places on terror, the suggestion that we will have liberty and, for that matter, peace through terror. There was once the Roman Empire. Those of us who studied Caesar will know the motto of the Romans was: "If you want peace, prepare for war". That was good in Julius Caesar's time when he had a growing and expanding empire. But that is long gone. Its power to terrorize its neighbours disappeared when it made its neighbours its slaves and no longer had the power to terrorize them.
I deeply distrust the continuation of the philosophy that we must terrorize whoever it is we think disagrees with us. The previous Prime Minister entertained a similar philosophy when he said: "What we have to do is scare hell out of the Russians". It did not work. The means used to scare hell out of the Russians are scaring hell out of us. I would rather place my reliance not only in the Christian and Jewish tradition, but I believe with the majority of the people of the world, in words such as these: The work of justice shall be peace and the effect of justice, quietness and confidence forever, keep judgment and do justice for my salvation as near to come and my justice to be revealed. In other words, while we struggle with our conflicting actual fears, the hope should be placed not in creating more fear. The hope for peace and liberty has to be placed on the creation of a more just world, not on the creation of more terror.
For that reason, I regret further that there is no warning in the Speech from the Throne against the dangers of militarization. We think of this as a country of peaceful people. Yet our economy and our Government are becoming militarized. By "militarization" I mean mainly the promoting of war-related
The Address-Mr. Heap
enterprises only for profit or income and without serious examination of the danger they pose to life, peace, the economy and even to the environment.
In the five years I have been in Parliament, there has never been a serious debate on defence. Neither this Government nor the previous Government has ever put forward a rationale for how our money is spent on defence to be debated in Parliament. There is very little public opportunity to examine the facts. There is very little listening to the millions of people in Canada who, in one way or another, have gone on record, and will go on record again this weekend, and who have been going on record daily during this week in Toronto, asking for peace, for an end to the arms race. These are people who hoped that there would be some result at the summit conference in Reykavik two weeks ago. They were disappointed when the President of the United States, our ally, stonewalled all the substantial offers made by the other side by insisting on his absolute right to conduct the crazy scheme of star wars. But it is not only our ally. This Government, under the excuse of restraint, starves unemployment insurance allowances, public day care, health and education expenditures, social housing and even the farming industry, giving too little too late to recognize disasters. The sake of maintaining our industry against subsidized imports, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, this Government starves the manufacturing industry. Perhaps it would like to see it disappear from Canada as has the clothing industry. Only one industry is actively supported by the Government. When the Government brings the shopping team up from the Pentagon and continues subsidizing the export of arms, that is where its heart is, in the high profits, not in defence. It gives critical backing to the terrorist policies of the United States Government in Nicaragua. It gives back-door support to star wars. It allows more and more nuclear-capable ships and submarines to enter our harbours such as Vancouver, Halifax and even Toronto.
The Government is planning more and more military bases and installations and even may bring the first NATO base to the western shore of the Atlantic Ocean at Goose Bay. The result is that the whole defence and armaments enterprise is being judged primarily by its profitability and not by any careful examination of how it contributes to peace. Of course, those who dare to criticize that enterprise are often accused of having doubtful loyalty to Canada without any basis for the accusation.
A principal example which has come to my attention in the last few months is the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, with the training in low-level flying under contract for NATO Governments, to the great distress and harm to the life of the native people in that area. For some years there has been a program of training pilots to fly low over the hills of Labrador. This is not for sport, of course, although they tend to make it a sport. They seem to like to scare the caribou herds, which can be fatal to caribou cows when they are calfing. They seem to like to scare the Indian and Inuit families when they are hunting, as they have done for thousands of years before we

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. Heap
interrupted them. They seem to like to pollute the air and lake waters with the exhaust of their low flying aircraft. The excuse is, of course, to train pilots to fly low over the hills of Eastern Europe and into the Soviet Union under its radar. In other words, this is to provide for a policy which the Americans sometimes call "deep strike" but which in fact amounts to "first strike".
The native people of this area for years have struggled with the Government over their land claims, that they should be able to exercise their right over the land as they did for a long time. Nevertheless, the Government has stonewalled them, and even when a vast iron ore deposit was opened up, little was done to ensure that it was a means of livelihood for the people who had lived there for so long. In fact, the company which was operating the iron ore mining in one part of Labrador decided to close it down shortly before the Canadian President of that American subsidiary decided to go into politics to become the Prime Minister of Canada. Now that those people have been deprived of that livelihood, they are being pressured into becoming hewers of wood and drawers of waters, or perhaps becoming servants in the cafeteria on a NATO base which the Government is willing to attract to Labrador by spending perhaps $100 million of taxpayers' money.
Our Government, and the people of Canada, have an obligation to respect all the cultures of our country, not only the French and the English, the Italian, the Chinese, the Ukrainian and others who have come here, but also that of the peoples who were here for thousands of years before our ancestors arrived. A year ago the Government heard briefs at a short committee hearing in Yellowknife from representatives of the Dene Nation and the Metis association in which they called for a defence policy and foreign policy of non-alignment. These people have, for many generations and centuries, tried to live in such a way as not to threaten their neighbours and not to pollute and destroy the land on which they live. They do not eagerly tie themselves to a boom and bust economy of competition and war. We should be listening to their wisdom and considering the question they ask. Is it really necessary for Canada to follow one of these two armed giants in the world?
Another committee of Parliament listened to a similar representation from a group which spoke on the matter of Goose Bay. The Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry in its report tabled in Parliament at the end of June addressed a motion to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) which stated that he should immediately halt all north shore and Labrador low-level military air flights and assess the effects of such flights on the environment in these regions as soon as possible. The committee, made up of course by a large majority of government Members, studied the protests of the native peoples against the pollution and the disruption of their lives caused by the low-flying planes. This was the direction the committee gave to the Minister of National Defence.
I think that the 120 days which he has to respond to the committee have just about expired. I hope he will soon tell us whether he respects the advice of the committee and the plea of the people in that area. By this motion the committee is defending Canadians, defending Canada's land, by asking the Minister to halt the flights now and to investigate.
The Government of Quebec is taking a similar stand. The Government of Quebec will not leave it to the slow-moving investigation to be undertaken finally by Cabinet. It will add its own investigation, too, since it is not only Labrador that is threatened by this low-flying program but also certain parts of Quebec. Church leaders in the Goose Bay area, and other areas, have publicly questioned who it is that will benefit from the half a billion dollars or more that would be spent on the NATO base and whether, in a starving world, it is right to waste so much money on armaments.
Of course, the argument of the Minister of National Defence and the military is that they believe they are defending Canada. But that is exactly the claim that many Canadians are calling into question. In the case of the base at Goose Bay, the pilots who will be trained to fly over the hills of eastern Europe and into the Soviet Union give the Soviet Union good reason to fear a first strike. It is common knowledge that if one believes in the effectiveness of the fear of first strike, then the response to that fear is to strike first. In other words, if we believe that the Soviet Union is willing to attack our country, then the danger of bringing that attack much sooner than we expect is increased by the provocative and threatening plan called deep strike, and by the training of our pilots for carrying out such a plan. This is of a piece with the Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe which are 10 or 12 minutes' flight away from Moscow, or whatever it is, depending on where they are based.
We have no such threat against us in North America. It is not easy to imagine what it is like to live in a country that has already within living memory been twice invaded by the armies of the West, once by what we called the Allies and once by a country we called the enemy but which was partly armed for that purpose by corporations, especially American ones. It is now threatened with the destruction of its major cities in a matter of minutes. There is no sign that the citizens of that country are being intimidated into surrendering their country. They have made an extraordinary move of unilateral nuclear disarmament. That is the only name that can be put on the moratorium on testing, since the United States claims that to stop testing would weaken it militarilly, to quote the words of President Reagan. The Soviet Union has been willing to accept a one-year cessation of its nuclear testing in order to invite the United States and its allies, such as Canada, to reach an agreement to end the testing altogether. There is no mention of this in the Speech from the Throne, which I think is unfortunate.
This is a debate which is being carried on in city after city in Canada, not only by people in their living rooms, by people in churches and other public places, but by members of city and
October 24, 1986

municipal councils. It is a debate that will be entertained by the Ontario Legislature within the next few weeks. It will entertain a motion to make Ontario a nuclear weapons free zone. Granted, a motion such as that was passed a few years ago in Toronto City Council, and in many other cities, which does not by itself bring about the goal that it states. However, it registers a strong, wide consensus of the people who believe that we do not get peace or liberty by terrorizing people on the other side of the world or on the other side of the border. If we find a threat which we agree among ourselves must be met, then let us use the means to meet it, as we did in World War II. But let us not continue piling up armaments endlessly in the foolish belief that somehow or other we will terrify the whole world into doing every little thing that President Reagan would like it to do. The belief that every country should turn its Government inside out to suit the President of the United States is an insane belief. It is worrisome that such a person should be the President of the largest country in the world. Canada must disconnect itself from that craziness. We can begin to do that by saying that there will be no NATO base at Goose Bay and no more low-level flying training at Goose Bay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I listened to part of the Hon. Member's speech. I wonder where he gets the idea that low-flying aircraft pollute the inland waters of the Labrador Coast. Could the Hon. Member perhaps cite some specific examples or give us some reference to verify his comment? Could he also tell us how well informed he is with respect to the migration of the caribou on the Labrador Coast or whether he knows anything about caribou migration at all?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I read the statements of people resident in that area and of representatives of the United and Anglican Churches who served in that area. I read the statements of social scientists who have gone there to study the situation I have described. There are many reports and eyewitness accounts of the very things I was describing. If the Hon. Member really wants them, I would be glad to send him copies.
The authority that I first heard speak about the migration of the caribou was the President of the Inuit Taparasat who spoke to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence a year ago at Yellowknife. It was he who warned that the caribou herds can be destroyed by careless application of low-level flying. I myself have not yet been up to the northland but I would be quite willing to send the name and address of the President of the Inuit organization to the Hon. Member if he really wants to go there to find out if that man is telling the truth about the part of the country he represents.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the other night, the CBC Journal broadcast an account of this particular Labrador issue. That program indicated that because of the size of the territory and
The Address-Mr. Heap
the population, the odds are that there would be an over-flight of a populated area about once a month on average. Could the Hon. Member tell me how an over-flight occurring once a month could possibly hurt the ecology or the population?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has said that the ecology has not yet been destroyed. That is true. It is being urged that we stop before we inflict increasing damage. It is being urged that the flights stop until there has been an adequate environmental study. That is the principal request of the people who live there, of our own parliamentary committee and, I believe, of the Quebec Government.
Even if there are only over-flights once a month in certain areas at present, the fact is that people cannot live the life they have preferred to live for centuries without knowing when they will be buzzed by these pilots. This considerably disrupts their attempts to earn their living in a normal way. There has already been an indication that there is a decrease in the wildlife available in the area of the over-flights.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his really quite fine speech. I would hope that other Hon. Members would recognize the sincerity of it and the research that went into the comments he made.
If I could, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question about the issue of militarization of which he spoke. If, as a country, we are to fight back against the militarization of the world, which frightens so many people not only in Canada but throughout North America and the entire world, what kind of steps and gestures would be useful? What kind of public demonstrations has the Hon. Member, a person who is deeply interested in these issues, seen in Canada in the past year? What would he recommend that Members of the House and people across Canada who are concerned with this militarization involve themselves in?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question although I will not be able to do justice to it in four minutes. I would mention three actions without trying to deal with all of them.
On Saturday, from Vancouver to St. John's, many of us will engage in a public walk calling for an end to the nuclear arms race. This is an old subject. Many of us were doing the same thing 40 years ago. We have not met our objective yet but there are a great many more people with widely differing political points of view who agree that we have to put an end to the arms race.
Second, I believe we should look to ways to build up our economy and to restore the growth of industries which manufacture goods for peaceful use. 1 am not ashamed to mention the clothing industry as being one which is important to the riding of Spadina. We must do this so that we do not become dependent on the export of arms for a significant part of our national revenue and so that we do not participate in the export of arms to countries which will see, directly or indirectly, that they are used for the suppression of human rights in

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. Corbett
places like Latin America, Africa and the western Pacific islands.
Third, I believe we should address our own fears by meeting with the people we fear like the people of the Soviet Union. We should all sit down, not only the two top men, to speak with each other. We should make much more use of the opportunity that exists in the Circumpolar Conference, a conference of the countries around the world that border the Arctic. Those three actions are the kinds of actions I would like to see Parliament discuss as ways of creating peace through justice and through the discussion of a just settlement between us and those we fear.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to participate in the debate on the latest Speech from the Throne. Certainly Canada is in such a state now that economic revival and renewal is something we all eagerly anticipate. 1 was extremely encouraged by several of the remarks that were made in the Speech from the Throne and would anticipate that indeed the serious issues of the day will be addressed.
The Speech from the Throne outlined the Government's three-part strategy designed to promote economic renewal through fiscal responsibility, the removal of obstacles to growth and the encouragement of new investment. We know that the initiative has been taken over the past two years since the election of the Progressive Conservative Government and we know that that initiative has been successful to a certain degree. Indeed, we have seen growth.
Approximately 24,478 new jobs have been created each month since the election of the Progressive Conservative Government. We have seen the Bank of Canada rate fall. We have heard the Conference Board of Canada state that consumer confidence is at its highest level in some 21 years and is at its second highest level on record. The inflation rate has remained pretty well stable at the 4 per cent range for the past two years and we are in the most stable price environment since 1971.
Coming from Atlantic Canada and the constituency of Fundy-Royal, I am no stranger to economic and regional disparity. It was of some concern to us before the Speech from the Throne that this Government perhaps had not moved in distinct enough fashions and ways to address those regional disparities. All of us from the Atlantic region were very pleased to see that the problems of regional disparity were clearly acknowledged in the Speech from the Throne. I believe it is high time that this Government, and most people, acknowledge that inequity is not acceptable to Atlantic Canadians, who generally come from a root stock of proud and self-reliant people determined to play a full and active role in Canada's national life and in this Confederation. Atlantic Canadians are not in the business of looking for more handouts. The fact of the matter is that we want to work our way out of the situation where we have such a significant and substantial dependence on others in this nation to assist us. We
must recognize that Atlantic Canada accepts from the federal Government something in excess of $9 billion more annually than it pays out. That sort of inequity is not justifiable.
There have been several initiatives taken by the Government to facilitate enduring economic development in the region, such as the Atlantic Enterprise Program which will provide $1 billion in loan guarantees; the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Program to promote and encourage government procurement by local firms; Enterprise Cape Breton; and economic and regional development agreements that have been in place now and have demonstrated some sense of success. The agency set up by Atlantic Canada Opportunities will co-ordinate all federal development initiatives in the area. It will have its roots in Atlantic Canada. It will tap the resources and ideas of Atlantic Canadians who will have a direct hand in the operation, policy, and program of development.
We have seen in recent days, and heard in recent hours, of other initiatives and programs that have been put into place. We heard today the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) talking about the virtues of small business and how they must be encouraged to establish in Atlantic Canada. In recent weeks, we have heard the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) from Saint John declare that the Port of Saint John has been given local port status. This will be a tremendous boon to the Port of Saint John and to New Brunswick as a whole.
More must be done. There is no question that the right steps have been initiated and the right steps have been taken. Atlantic Canada must realize more from this Government than we have ever realized from any of the previous Governments or administrations. Atlantic Canada is in a state of economic decline. It has been in this state of economic decline ever since the national policy was announced in 1879 when there was a determination by the then Government of the day to redirect the normal trade routes from north to south and concentrate in an east to west direction. This was harmful to Atlantic Canada. It was harmful to the maritime provinces, as they were known at that time. Atlantic Canadians and maritimers had been traditionally north-south traders. That hurt us economically, and we have never come back to that time when we did enjoy economic prosperity in concert and equally with the rest of our neighbours to the west.
I believe it is high time that we recognized that there has to be a special relationship between Canada and Atlantic Canada, and recognize the special status that Atlantic Canada has played in the past in the development and creation of this nation.
Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting to you that at this time in our negotiations with the United States when probably the future of the nation, let alone of Atlantic Canada, has never come more into prominence than it has today, that Atlantic Canadians be accorded that special status and recognition which I am calling for.
October 24, 1986

The New England states represent a market with which the maritime provinces are associated and, geographically speaking, we are a natural part of the New England states. It has a population of something in excess of 48 million people. It has a market potential that is twice the size of the entire nation of Canada. Maritimers have had a long historic relationship with the Boston states. We refer to the Boston states with almost a kindred spirit. We look to them as a friendly neighbour and a part of our Atlantic Canadian heritage. It is natural that it should be an area of special consideration, and economic ties between the two should be considered. This is nothing that is new. Back in the 1880s a maritime partner sister of Nova Scotia considered leaving Confederation when it perceived that the union of the provinces and Ottawa had failed to deliver on the promised economic benefits of union and the establishment of Canada.
The coastal states represent the largest market for Atlantic goods. It is a market that has been steadily growing. Our net exports in Atlantic Canada are more than we import. Atlantic Canadians have historically supported a freer trade relationship with New England. I perceive, now that we are involved in these talks, that there is a renewed interest in the Atlantic region and in the concept of a federal regional economic development. We have now seen two decades of policies and programs that have been directed towards developing Atlantic Canada which have not been very effective, to say the least. It is time now that we looked at new avenues of restoring economic confidence in Atlantic Canada.
Many are wondering if stronger economic ties to New England might offer a different type of development and opportunity which may work. As a maritimer and an Atlantic Canadian, I am convinced that more open access to the New England market would bring benefits to our region. Our major exports of fish and forest products could be expected to increase both in output and in level of processing.
We have been hurt by the recent imposition of tariffs and taxes on lumber products. That is just an indication of why it is more important at this stage in our development that indeed we do secure our future by realizing an enhanced trade agreement with the United States. It is particularly important to Atlantic Canadians. If we are successful, that will reduce the uncertainty and difficulties in the present countervailing American duty legislation. Companies in Atlantic Canada have been subjected to commerce investigations to determine if they have been hurt by U.S. companies. This is a very expensive process indeed. We want to be finished with that so we can secure our markets and ensure a future for our people.
If the huge northeastern United States market was opened up to Canadian producers and manufacturers, some of them might be induced to locate in the maritime provinces to manufacture their products for export into the U.S. I call upon the Canadian Government to recognize in its negotiations with the United States the special situation and status of Atlantic
The Address-Mr. Corbett
Canada and to bear that in mind when it is concluding its negotiations with our American neighbours.
I should like to deal with the shipbuilding industry, an extremely important matter to those of us living in Atlantic Canada. I draw the attention of the House to a statement which was made by the Progressive Conservative Party on August 2, 1984. In part it indicated that we must work to meet a greater share of our domestic requirements for vessels used in defence, coastal trade, search and rescue patrol, and the offshore fishery. Also it indicated that a top priority of a Conservative Government would be to create a more viable and prosperous shipbuilding industry and that proposals would be submitted during the consultative process. At that time there were some seven or eight recommendations which we would implement if and when we became the Government of Canada.
The shipbuilding industry in the nation, let alone in Atlantic Canada, is in extremely serious economic difficulty. Unfortunately I have not seen much in the way of movement on the part of the Government to implement any of the policies about which we talked prior to the 1984 election. 1 would suggest that we move to implement some of the programs about which we talked.
Also I draw to the attention of the House a statement by the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association which directed its thoughts toward four of the policies which we noted at that time-to impose a moratorium on ship imports for domestic use, to introduce concessionary financing for Canadian domestic ships, to apply a 25 per cent tariff on fishing vessels over 100 feet, and to accelerate the naval programs and the Polar 8 ice-breaker program. I support and endorse those recommendations of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. I call upon the Government which I support to implement those policies which we said we would implement prior to the 1984 election. It is high time that we recognized the contribution which the shipbuilding industry has made and can make to the nation. We recognize that that industry is in a state of decline and that merchant fleets are overwhelmed with excess tonnage.
The Saint John Shipbuilding Company is comprised of a group of people with tremendous vision and foresight. It has now put together a team of experts in the field of naval construction and has determined that it will specialize in this direction. I applaud the initiative and foresight of that company. If it is to succeed, as I am sure it will, it must direct its attention to more specialized fields. With the type of infrastructure currently in place, there can be no doubt that a significant amount of naval contracts, whether they be for frigates or submarines, should go to shipyards in Atlantic Canada, particularly that shipyard in New Brunswick which has focused its attention on that particular sector.
I note as well that the Saint John yard is one of the three yards being considered by a consortium looking at the construction of the Polar 8 ice-breaker as being the logical place for it. I call upon the Government to give high priority to
734

October 24, 1986
The Address-Mr. Corbett
the yard located in the City of Saint John when the contract for the Polar 8 super ice-breaker is let.
My final point concerns the policies announced by the Minister responsible for Parks Canada. 1 am delighted that we will look at a new parks policy. Fundy National Park is in my constituency. In the opinion of many people-and it is mine as well-it is one of the most beautiful parks in the Dominion of Canada. I ask that serious attention be paid to that park. There are several areas which we could improve. There are also several things to which the Minister can respond. They have been brought to his attention by the people of Alma and other nearby villages. Some of the suggestions were to reinstate the interpretative walks, to hire a recreational director and staff, to construct a visitors' centre with a marine display and a tidal viewing stand, to extend the golf course by 18 holes, to update the Highlands Inn to resource status, to restore the Alma mill site, and to construct the maple sugar grove. Fundy National Park is the nearest national park in the entire nation to the American border. It is only realistic that it should be developed with special attention and with special care.
I applaud the Minister for his visit to the region last spring. The people were delighted that for the first time since the park was inaugurated in the 1950s a Minister responsible for Parks Canada had the interest to visit Fundy National Park, our little region of the country, to talk with them, to hear their concerns firsthand, and to witness the beauty of the region.
The process for economic development has been started by the Government. I look forward to serving with it over the next two years in a very positive and constructive way. I wish us the best in developing the political will to implement the policies we have started.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I spent part of my summer vacation in the Fundy National Park of which the Hon. Member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Corbett) spoke so highly. Indeed it is a very fine part of the country. I have two questions for the Hon. Member.
Has it not been a source of disappointment to him to have had so little definition and direction given to the much heralded Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency announced in the Throne Speech? This is the end of the Throne Speech debate. I hoped that by now there would be at least some sense of what exactly the agency is to do. Does the Hon. Member share my sense of disappointment that the agency is still some kind of pie in the sky solution to Atlantic Canadian problems without being defined in any sense?
Based upon some discussions with those involved in the free trade negotiations with the United States, does it seem likely that it is necessary for us to give up in order to attain certain objectives for which the Conservative Government is looking in its free trade talks? Does it seem necessary to give up the regional support packages which were so much a part of the country's commitment to Atlantic Canada and to other parts of the country? If we seem likely to have to sacrifice that, as is
my view of what is likely, will this change the Member's view of what is so advantageous with respect to the potential of free trade arrangements between Canada and the United States?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on his good judgment in choosing Fundy National Park for part of his summer vacation. I am saddened that he had not contacted me while in the area because I could have introduced him to a number of interesting aspects of the park, to some local people, to the local heritage and the history of the area in which I am sure he would have taken a great deal of interest. Perhaps he will think about coming back to Fundy National Park in the future. With the Minister's new proposals and his interest in parks across the nation, Fundy as well as other parks will be the beneficiary of those programs.
As far as the Atlantic Enterprise Program and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Program are concerned, it must be recognized that these are mammoth undertakings upon which the Government has embarked. Let me draw to the Hon. Member's attention that just last year the IRD Program alone committed something like $88 million to small business promotion in New Brunswick. I am not sure what the total figure is for Atlantic Canada, but that is a significant amount of money for the Province of New Brunswick alone. The billion dollars to which the Atlantic Enterprise Program has committed itself in guaranteeing loans to small businesses is probably one of the most substantial moves that I have witnessed. If the Hon. Member knows of any other program by previous administrations, I invite him to draw it to our attention. I do not think that that can be the case. Nevertheless, the Atlantic [DOT]Enterprise Program is one of the most exciting programs and one of vision, that I have witnessed in my experience as a Member of Parliament. These programs, just by nature of their size and complexity, are naturally taking some time to implement. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in Moncton a few days ago has lowered the ceiling for eligibility to apply for that program from $200,000 to $100,000. We were very pleased about that. Despite the fact that there have been some hitches, some natural problems that you would expect in dealing with a program of this size, the fact is that the program is in place. It is moving ahead and people will and are taking advantage of it. I am certainly very enthusiastic about its prospects.
The freer trade issue to which the Hon. Member refers cannot help but benefit Atlantic Canadians. I believe that along the way there will be casualties, but there will be more winners than losers and the winners will be winning big. The casualties will probably be casualties at any rate. These casualties will be the people located in Atlantic Canada who are finding it very, very difficult to compete in industry and in manufacturing in Canada just because of their distance from markets and difficulties in establishing their industries at arm's length from where they have an opportunity to sell their products.
October 24, 1986

Being an Atlantic Canadian I know that with our historic ties, the opportunities we have had in the past, our natural heritage and the fact that so many people go back and forth to the New England States-the Boston States as we refer to them-the impact will be substantial. If there is to be criticism about our trade negotiations it cannot be criticism for trying. I should think that the only criticism that one should get would be for not trying. We should not be criticized for trying. If we are the winners, I suggest to the Hon. Member that Atlantic Canada will be as big a winner if not the biggest winner in the entire nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have about one minute left for both the question and the answer. The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain),


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, mine will be a short comment and I will try to stay within the minute. Atlantic Canada is an area which deals in agricultural, fishing and forest products in the main plus an element, an important element, that of manufacture. It is an area which can only prosper more by an extended market in a fair trade opportunity. I am certainly a supporter of the concept of approaching free trade as closely as we can get to it but of achieving fair trade.
One of the objectives of the Atlantic Enterprise Program is to reduce the red tape, to expedite the application from date of receipt until reality. A major factor in the process is to inject new expertise and to reduce the red tape. Once these steps are accomplished, that program will go forward in a smooth and productive fashion, which will be of major benefit to Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, a Throne Speech is an interesting reflection of the social and political philosophies of a Government. We learn a great deal about its political program and agenda and what it does or does not stand for. This past year in its Throne Speech the Government returned to the 19th century, the social Darwinism theories of survival of the fittest. That is where the Government seems content to remain. The Government takes away from the poor and the powerless and gives to the rich and strong. We agree that the deficit must be addressed, a deficit that grew because of its great safety net which supported our citizens during the severe recession of the early 1980s. We also agree that action must be taken, but not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the one-parent families or the middle-aged unemployed, those who are least able to bear the burden.
This Government seems unable to act in a consistent fashion. We are told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that the country is almost bankrupt, that government spending must be reduced, that transfer payments to the provinces must be cut because the federal deficit must decline. But at the same time, the Prime Minister finds $1 billion to save the uninsured depositors of the Western Bank disaster. He found
The Address-Mrs. Finestone
another $600 million to assist in the purchase of Gulf Canada, and yet another $56 million to change the colour of our soldiers' uniforms. He just recently decided to spend $41 million on a maximum security prison in his riding, the wrong type in the wrong place. This is a first-class boondoggle.
The media has said that the Throne Speech contains something for everyone, that it tries to be all things to all people. Well, I disagree. All that is demonstrated is the Government's lack of political will to close the widening gap between the rich and the poor. It contains an unfair, uneven approach to responsible Government. The Government continues to practise the favouring of the well-to-do by increasing capital gains allowances and RRSPs to levels that the majority of Canadians cannot even dream of while it continues to deindex family allowance and the income tax table a sneaky hidden 3 per cent per year.
Not only am I concerned about the social and economic well being of the people in this country, I am interested as well in the country's growth as an independent, sovereign political entity with all its indigenous richness of heritage and culture.
Under Liberal leadership in the 1970s, the arts in Canada enjoyed a growth rate of which there were few equals in the economy. At the start of the decade there were five professional dance companies in Canada. By 1980 there were 23. The number of professional theatres increased sixfold to 121 and half of their productions were Canadian. The number of professional visual artists more than doubled to 28,755, while the number of publishing houses had more than doubled to 89, almost three-quarters of them now Canadian-owned.
I could tell you about what happened in theatre, dance, symphony orchestras. Elowever, the point that I would like to make is that Pierre Berton, appearing before the Senate Committee on Mass Media in 1970, said that we must sing our own songs and dream our own dreams. It was with this in mind that Canadian artists began to repatriate themselves to Canada and they won major victories.
Canadian content requirements for TV and radio, in the latter instance creating a foundation for a Canadian pop music industry, the withdrawal of tax privileges from foreign magazines, the disallowance for tax purposes of commercials placed by Canadian companies on U.S. border TV stations and, by far the most important of all, the increase in spending on culture by all Governments, which reached more than $2 billion by the early 1980s, was very important. The Liberal Government was a Government of vision promoting pride in our Canadian heritage.
I wish to comment upon the specific language used by the Government in the second to last page of the Throne Speech. I cannot refer you to the particular page number because the Government has omitted to place any page numbers on the copies of the Throne Speech which it distributed.

October 24, 1986
The Address
In the first paragraph of the second to last page of the Throne Speech it is stated:
-we must ensure that all Canadians can pursue their own dreams and expand their own opportunities through greater use of information and knowledge about one another and the world beyond.
I wonder how Canadians are able to "pursue their own dreams" when they do not see images of themselves reflected on their own broadcast media.
For instance, the Caplan-Sauvageau Report on broadcasting concluded quite correctly that there is too little drama programming available on our TV sets. Only 2 per cent of the drama programs seen on English-language TV in this country is Canadian in origin. Furthermore, only 28 per cent of all programming hours available in this country in the English language is Canadian in content. English Canadians, in other words, are virtual strangers in television's land of the imagination. When the Throne Speech refers to expanding information and knowledge about the world beyond, I say that we would like to learn of the world including areas beyond the United States.
On French-language TV 57 per cent of the programs available are Canadian, but the actual viewing of Canadian shows exceeds the proportion of available French-language programming. According to the Caplan-Sauvageau Report this demonstrates that Canadians do watch Canadian content programs. In fact, according to that report the amount of Canadian programs which are watched by our viewers is directly proportional to the amount available. In other words, the more Canadian programs are available in the English and French languages, the more Canadians are likely to watch.
We do not need the Caplan-Sauvageau Report to tell us that there is a chronic shortage of quality Canadian TV programs for our children. The report does tell us, however, that the production of children's French-language and English-language TV programs at CBC Radio Canada is declining because of budget cut-backs imposed by the Government on the CBC. This leaves our children to watch American cartoons which exhibit a tendency for strident, often violent, action. How can the Government continue to play politics with the minds of our children? This issue is too important to be left to partisan politics. Therefore, I had hoped there would be some indication in the Throne Speech that the Government would work with both opposition Parties to increase Canadian content programming for our children as well as Canadian programming in general. Unfortunately, no such statements are to be found in the Throne Speech.
In a speech delivered by the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to the Financial Post Conference on Broadcasting on September 29, 1986, she outlined a process which would lead toward the eventual implementation of the Caplan-Sauvageau Report. The Minister stated in her address: "I will be doing everything in my power to ensure that the initiatives emerging from this process will be carried out before the end of this Government's first term of office". One would have expected that the Minister's commitment to implement
some of the Caplan-Sauvageau Report would have found expression in the Throne Speech. Unfortunately, that is not so. It was totally ignored.
The second paragraph on the second to last page of that speech states as follows:
To begin debate on this fundamental challenge, my government will define its objectives and ways to achieve them.
I have two comments about this statement. First, the Government has held power for more than two years. It is about time the Government defined its objectives. Second, I do not understand why the Throne Speech uses the phrase "To begin debate". Surely we have already had considerable debate. Since taking power in 1984 the Government has commissioned nine separate reports to advise it on what it should do in matters of broadcasting and culture. This is most unexpected from a Government which professed, when elected, to have a direct plan of action which it was eager to implement.
I understand that I have run out of time. I would like to conclude by saying that there have been enough studies done by the Government. It is really time for action.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4.45 o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(5), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. The question is on the main motion. Mrs. Collins, seconded by Mr. Girard, moved:
That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: That the Address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 24, 1986______________________________COMMONS DEBATES__________________________________________________737
The Address


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m., this House The House adjourned at 4.47 p.m. stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).



Monday, October 27, 1986