1986-10-10

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Government was anxious to cast its recent Throne Speech in phrases of compassion. It tried to present a more caring image to the Canadian people and wanted to do with words what it has so far failed to do with action.
I point specifically to the Government's decision to curtail dramatically funding to the Neil Squire Foundation in Vancouver, under the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program.
This organization is dedicated to the research and development of technical equipment for severely physically disabled people. One of its projects, called Computer Comfort, is the only program of its kind in British Columbia that addresses the isolation of seriously disabled adults. With only minor modifications to home computers, the disabled can perform tasks and engage in activities that would otherwise be impossible for them.
Indeed, the program has been praised by patients, hospitals, and therapists alike. I call upon the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) to reconsider this unhappy decision and recognize the vast potential of our physically challenged Canadians.


FORESTRY
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, permit me to invite all Canadians to a self-guided tour of the forests along the Chilliwack River in my riding of Fraser Valley East. On the 14-stop route, one can experience the methods that man has been using to help Mother Nature
perpetuate one of our most valuable renewable resources, our forests, and to increase its commercial production.
Beginning at the Elk-Thurston Trail, travelling through unmanaged forests, pausing at stations that show why we must manage our forests and harvest them properly, we have the opportunity to see our forests in action. Also included in this delightful tour is a fish hatchery and a tree nursery. There really is more to our forests than trees! This is a good example of how co-operation between the Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce and the B.C. Forest Service can give us a new perspective on the value to be found in silviculture. Come on out to Chilliwack and see for yourself.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the United States International Trade Commission comes down in six days with a countervail duty against Canadian softwood. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) made a once only offer to raise stumpage rates to the Americans. They said it was insulting and turned it down flat. Within hours the "once only" offer was undone by the Minister of Forests for British Columbia, Mr. Kempf, who said it was just an opening offer.
The Americans then revealed that the negotiations have been continuing. The Minister for International Trade denies that. The Department of Finance right here in Ottawa has drafted an export tax on softwood lumber destined for the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) denies that.
The position of the Canadian Government and the forest industry until recently has been that we are innocent now, just as we were in 1983 when the ITC found us innocent. The problem is that these eleventh hour pleadings have played Canada's largest industry into the hands of U.S. protectionists. There will be a countervail, likely large, thanks to the confusion created by Mr. Vander Zalm, his Minister of Forests, and the Minister for International Trade.

October 10, 1986


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION EFFECT OF DECISION ON ONTARIO FRUITLAND
Mrs. Shirley Martin (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I refer to an application by CFGM Radio to the CRTC approved October 2. Only after the public announcement was made did the town of Lincoln discover the fact that 80 acres of good fruitland are to be taken out of production and that eight radio antennas are to intrude on its quality of life.
The CRTC has advised me that public notices are not required in the area of installation but only in the area of service, in this case over 40 miles across Lake Ontario. Local municipalities have no jurisdiction over this policy which was established by the previous Government. It is a policy which is heavy handed and appears to ignore the concerns of local citizens.
I have asked the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to review this policy and specifically this application, and allow those citizens most affected by the ruling to have a rightful and proper hearing.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the recent findings of the Newfoundland Royal Commission on Unemployment that: "unemployment insurance has crippled the work ethic", and "encourages people to cheat the system", were not unanticipated and are largely self-evident. It used to be that Canadians from outside the Atlantic Provinces viewed with amusement and condescension the games being played in the East, but now the malaise is spreading nation-wide. "Pogey" is becoming a way of life for Canadians.
Hopefully the delayed report of the Forget Commission will recommend a return to insurance rather than welfare principles, an end to abuse and disincentives to work, and the restoration of sound financing for the system.

[DOT] (mo)


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: In August, 1984, the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), promised the residents of Hope Township, Ontario, that a Tory Government: "will work most actively toward the safe, acceptable and permanent storage arrangement" for low-level nuclear wastes produced by Eldorado Resources. He also said: "All such waste should be removed from major population areas and kept well away from any major water resource such as Lake Ontario".
On June 23, 1986, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) appointed a special panel to review publicly Eldorado Resource's disposal plans. But the Government did not honour the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because it is considering two sites very close to Lake Ontario despite the opposition of the people he reassured in 1984.
Residents of Hope Township want the Prime Minister to instruct the special panel and Eldorado Resources to find the best possible site for the disposal of nuclear wastes away from populated areas and major water resources as he promised in 1984-
[Translation!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the need for a fair, equitable and just tax system, I wish to announce today our first presentation of the Great Untaxed Corporation Award. Today's super corporate achiever is Campeau Corporation which has been granted, by successive Liberal and Conservative Governments, the right to pay no corporate income tax since 1978 on profits totalling $126 million.
Had the tax system been fair and equitable, and had Campeau Corporation been required to pay even a 25 per cent tax rate on its profits, average Canadian taxpayers would have paid $31 million less in tax because of this one company alone. On behalf of all Canadian taxpayers, New Democratic Members of Parliament will continue to present this Great Untaxed Corporation Award on a regular basis as a means of highlighting the Government's need for immediate and serious comprehensive tax reform.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, because of government subsidies in the United States, American dairy farmers are being encouraged to slaughter or export cattle. The natural destination for export is Canada.
October 10, 1986

Canada is a brucellosis-free zone. If farmers in Ontario or Quebec export cattle to the United States, they are not given credit for such freedom. Americans demand we export cows only after herds have had negative test results and individual cows have been tested.
However, the U.S.A. is not free of brucellosis. We are allowing cattle to enter Canada with only one test. From my knowledge of veterinary medicine I consider this a distinct threat to the brucellosis-free zone in Canada. I call upon the Government to amend our approach with regard to the importation of American dairy cattle.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, quick-fix measures will not help unemployed Canadians. Statistics today do not tell the whole story. Increases in employment were concentrated solely among part-time workers. Figures for parttime workers jumped by 57,000 while full-time employment in Canada decreased by 17,000. As well, employment among young people fell by 23,000. Employment of women also fell by a very large number.
A study by Statistics Canada in 1985 showed that 30 per cent of those people who were working part-time wanted fulltime work. What we see from the Government with respect to unemployment is part-time solutions to a full-time problem. Regional disparities still exist. Gender disparities exist. Disparities among young and old-age workers who cannot find jobs still exist.
Unemployment is still a very serious problem and the Government should not hide behind today's statistical picture.


TERRORISM
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the International Civil Aviation Organization unanimously passed a Canadian resolution labelling terrorist attacks on airports an international crime. This resolution requires countries to arrest and prosecute terrorists suspected of attacking airports anywhere in the world, regardless of where they are arrested. Suspected terrorists would be sent to other signatory countries, even if no extradition treaty exists.
Once law these measures will ensure that terrorists are brought to justice for their hideous crimes. This is another positive step forward in the fight against international terrorism. Earlier this year our Government took effective
action to upgrade our counter-terrorism program by creating a permanent special emergency response team.
Wednesday's vote was a victory for civilized nations and law-abiding citizens. Canadians can take pride in the fact that we are in the forefront of the international fight against terrorism.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Government has decided to abandon the growing of grain in Canada. For one year the Government has known about the collapse of world grain prices and the effects of the U.S. Farm Bill and the BICEP program.
Last Christmas U.S. farmers were given protection against that reduction in price. European farmers are given a continued price which they know they will receive even before they seed. Just last summer Australian farmers were given protection which will give them secure prices. Banks were given a security within two days.
Only last week, for reasons that are somewhat suspect, the Government started calling panic meetings to establish some type of assistance for farmers. In the process-


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Government continues to place a high priority on environmental issues, the most recent evidence of which was our commitment to the environment in the Speech from the Throne. The Government recognizes the relation between a healthy environment and the quality of Canadian life.
The agreement with the provinces on acid rain is the first major breakthrough in that area since Confederation. However, toxic pollutants in the Niagara River continue to be one of the most serious problems that we face. Therefore, the proposed environmental protection Act focusing on the problem of toxic chemicals will be welcomed by my constituents in Niagara Falls, and indeed by all Canadians.
Let us work together to clean up Canada and to convince our neighbours to the south that more must be done to protect

October 10, 1986
Oral Questions
our ecological system. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) recognizes this and I congratulate him for it. All of us who care about the quality of life must make environmental issues a priority. 1 am pleased that this has been recognized in the Speech from the Throne.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
We now know, on the basis of some confidential documents from the Solicitor General's office, that the Prime Minister was directly and personally responsible for the decision to move the Drummond II prison to Port-Cartier, in his riding.
Now the Prime Minister knows that everyone is opposed to this plan, and now that he realizes it makes no sense at all, I want to ask him-and I know he is trying to pass the buck to the Solicitor General-whether he is going to let reason prevail and put an immediate stop to all work on this project, which in the final instance would never work, since none of the requirements from the correctional point of view have been met.


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that, since he was kind enough to give me a copy of the notes in his possession, I find them to be nothing more than copies of briefing notes, and every Minister receives copious copies of briefing notes before Question Period. This is a normal thing.
The one thing I would like to say quite emphatically is that when this matter arose I checked very thoroughly with the officials in my Ministry and I was advised by them that there is no record in my Ministry of any interference or pressure by the Prime Minister or any member of his staff in this matter.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF CHOICE OF LOCATION FOR PRISON
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Solicitor General would read through his notes again and recall certain events and then tell me there was no outside intervention when his officials were given a choice between three locations, namely, Sept-Iles, Port-Cartier or Baie-Comeau.
Would the Solicitor General go so far as to say his own officials suggested these three locations for a prison that would then be miles away from nowhere?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat once again for the Hon. Member and other Members of the House what I have been saying all along. This was a government decision that was made for good and valid economic reasons to help against regional disparity in that particular area.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For a month now the Government has been denying that the Prime Minister had any personal involvement in the decision to switch the location of the prison from Drummondville to Port-Cartier. The briefing note to the Solicitor General says under the heading "The Trust Issue": "Certainly the Prime Minister as head of this Government was involved in the decision". Does the Prime Minister still hold to his view that he had no personal involvement in the decision to move the prison?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am a Member of Parliament and I am a member of the Government. To that extent, as everyone has indicated, it was a government decision.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the documentation completely supports that answer.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS' COMMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Government's own Prison Advisory Committee, Sister Virginia Turner-no relation-of the Sisters of Charity in Halifax said that every taxpayer should be upset by this decision, and the committee's Quebec representative said that society really has no right to act like this. Does the Prime Minister agree with these comments from his own advisory commission?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would agree with these comments from the Liberals of the riding of Manicouagan.

And I quote: "The Liberals of Manicouagan will offer the Liberal Leader, John Turner, their very qualified support, as a result of declarations made by the Leader of that Party on the subject of the Port-Cartier penitentiary."
Marc Brouillette will tell him about how disappointed the Manicouagan Liberals were after hearing their leader make statements right and left about the penitentiary for Port-Cartier, against the interests of the people of Manicouagan. I quote: "The Liberal Member, Mr. Turner, missed the boat in this affair because of poor advice." Of course he got his advice from the Hon. Member from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).
October 10, 1986


DISTANCE AND EXPENSE FACED BY FAMILIES OF INMATES VISITING PORT-CARTIER
John Napier Turner: Does the Prime Minister realize that relatives of inmates who live in Montreal will have to spend $210 and travel two days by bus to visit inmates at the new Port-Cartier penitentiary?
Doesn't the Prime Minister realize that the inmates' families are not guilty and therefore should not be penalized just so he can make some political capital?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader and the Liberal Party are ganging up against the people of the North Shore. The Hon. Member is raising the issue of the relatives of inmates. And that is a problem that is dealt with by the Solicitor General regularly, with compassion.
But since you raised the visiting issue, I will talk about the unemployment problem on the North Shore, where we have brave, honest people who were battered by the Liberal recession and to whom the Conservative Government is offering assistance, in an attempt to alleviate the human suffering that exists on the North Shore. Let me tell you: Don't visit the outlying regions of Quebec, unless you want to suffer the consequences of your intransigent and ruthless attitude in the House.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-MINISTER'S BRIEFING NOTES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have in my hands confidential briefing notes from the meeting of the Minister for International Trade with selected journalists last month, in which for the first time a clear outline is given of government objectives in the free trade talks with the United States. Why has the Prime Minister's Government practised this manipulation of the press? Why is it necessary that the Canadian people hear of these detailed objectives for the first time in this backhanded and unacceptable way?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised an issue. I have in my hand the very same briefing notes which I was going to send to him in Question Period, saying "Here are the notes prepared for my media briefing on GATT and U.S. trade if you find them useful". I am really pleased to find that he has found them a clear statement and that they are useful. I will send him this copy as soon as I can.


Steven W. Langdon: As usual the Minister cannot resist playing with the truth. What she has suggested is a press release
Oral Questions
dealing with GATT, and these are briefings dealing with bilateral negotiations.


AGRICULTURAL ISSUES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Government has claimed that it will protect farming, other farm marketing boards and other restrictions, throughout these negotiations. Why is it a Canadian objective, not an American objective according to these documents, to address agricultural trade restrictions, to deal with them, to try to reduce them and thereby threaten hard pressed farmers even more-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the Hon. Member's concern. As I say, this note says:
"Steven. Here are the speech notes prepared for my media briefing on
GATT and U.S. trade if you find them useful".
I have said in my note to him that they include the speech notes on the progress of the U.S. talks. He has them. I do not see why he is carrying this issue further.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I carry the question further because the objectives listed here totally contradict what the Government has been telling us for the past year.


An Hon. Member:: What nonsense.


Steven W. Langdon: It is absolutely true.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a last supplementary question. Given that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that getting a neutral mechanism to control countervail is at the heart of these talks, why does this document talk only about better disciplines on the use of such measures? Why the back-off-


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


Pat Carney: I must say I am bemused at how to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. I had thought that the documents the Member has are the ones I developed for the speech notes. This makes very clear that we need a treaty to deal with contingency protection to shield us from the kind of harassment that we are facing on the softwood lumber issue. I have said that publicly. I have said that in this House, and I said it as recently as yesterday.


UNITED STATES DECISION ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER IMPORTS- EFFECT ON TRADE TALKS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of International

October 10, 1986
Oral Questions
Trade. I will only comment that whatever briefing notes she has are probably already out of date the way this Government works.
In the comments the Minister made in the House yesterday she said that the general trade talks would be imperilled by an unfavourable decision by the United States on the lumber matter. This is a fundamental change from previous government positions which were that the lumber and general trade talks were not linked. Now they are directly linked. Is the Government considering as a result of this linkage a withdrawal from the general trade talks if the United States reports next week an unfavourable decision on the softwood lumber matter?


Pat Carney: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.


NEW YORK TIMES REPORT
Lloyd Axworthy: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would further ask the Minister about the other exclusive interview she has now given to another American newspaper, this time The New York Times. She said the Government is not only planning retaliation but is studying ways to impose taxes that would exactly equal an American tariff. Can the Minister tell us in that interview did she indicate to that journalist the fact that the Government is studying a tax that would exactly equal the American tariff, and has the Government had any discussion whatsoever with the provinces, unions, and industry concerning such a measure?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the copy of the article which the Hon. Member has. I can tell him that the only time I have spoken to a New York Times reporter was in the same general briefing of the U.S. media. At that time I said, contrary to what he has stated, that an export tax was ruled out by the Government as a means of dealing with this issue because, when we looked at all of the options, and we have looked at all of the options on how to deal with this issue, we found that there were constitutional concerns raised by the provinces and it was a very difficult procedure to undertake. I have said publicly, and I believe the Minister of Finance has said publicly, that that option has been ruled out at this time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday we had a
meeting of provincial Deputy Ministers with the Deputy Ministers and officials to discuss the federal Government's farm aid project. In order to clear up the confusion, can the Minister tell us how much money there will be for western grain farmers? Second, what form will the payment be? Will it be an acreage payment, a loan, or something based on marketing? Finally, when will the farmers be getting cash in their pockets? Will it happen before Christmas?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's improved attitude from yesterday. I have not had an opportunity to have a full update or a full briefing on the meeting of Deputy Ministers yesterday, although I indicate again that the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and I spent considerable time there. I understand the meeting went well and, as expected, a variety and a number of options were put forth on the table for serious consideration to be given by the Deputy Ministers. Naturally that is what we expected to happen.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister should spend more than 30 or 40 minutes at a meeting.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm that a federal-provincial task force chaired by Saskatchewan suggests a diversion option which is similar to Otto Lang's old operation LIFT, in other words, a scheme to pay farmers to take land out of production? Is he saying to this House that he is now giving up on prairie grain farming?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we would have liked to have spent a longer period of time meeting with the Deputy Ministers but we had to leave that meeting in order to meet with the representatives of the prairie pools.
The fact is that this is the largest aid package ever delivered by any Government in the history of the country to Canadian farmers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: It is our intention, and we will not be distracted from it, to work with the provinces and farm leaders to get this program right. It must be fair and equitable. If it is going to take an extra 10 days or two weeks to do it, we will take the time.
October 10, 1986


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Science and Technology. Yesterday in the House the Minister stated: "There are no cuts to the National Research Council", yet this morning the President of the National Research Council stated that indeed there are cuts. Who is telling the truth? Are there cuts as the President of the NRC says, or are there no cuts as he said yesterday in this House?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, previously the Hon. Member predicted that there would be massive cuts to the IRAP. Now he is saying that there will be massive cuts to the staff of the NRC. Dr. Kerwin, the President of the NRC, says that speculation that the Council will have to lay off 10 per cent of its staff or close an entire department is alarmist. He said that he believes the lay-offs can be avoided. He says that jobs will have to be shifted but it is hoped that scientists can be reassigned. That is what Dr. Kerwin is saying.


BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the credibility of the Minister is on the line. 1 urge him to answer my question. Either there are no cuts, as he claims, or there are, as the President of the National Research Council stated. Who is telling the truth?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I just quoted the President of the National Research Council who said that these jobs will be reassigned within the National Research Council. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Hon. Member would check with his source inside the National Research Council, who has perhaps not realized that Canada is under new management.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He did not answer the question of my colleague from Yorkton-Melville. Is the diversion option, which is similar to Otto Lang's LIFT program, being considered as one of the methods to get money to farmers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered this question yesterday. My message to the Deputy Ministers during our discussions with them was that at the present we should not rule out any option. The only talk
Oral Questions
that I have heard about a diversion program is from the Leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan.


ASSISTANCE FOR GRAIN PRODUCERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the task force made that LIFT program one of the possible options. Is the Government considering a loans program or cash advance programs? Are these also options which the Government is considering? Is it considering methods other than the cash-inhand which farmers are expecting?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to watch the shifting positions of the Members opposite. Last week it had to be a deficiency payment which had to be delivered yesterday.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: We want to know whether you are-


John Wise: If the Hon. Member had listened to the answer to his first question, he would have had the answer to his supplementary question, that is that, as far as we are concerned, at the present time no option should be ruled out.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Indian chiefs of southern Manitoba have said that the RCMP investigation into his Department will do nothing to help resolve the urgent needs which exist in their communities among their bands. The chiefs claim that they have been forced into a debt situation because of maladministration in the Manitoba region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
How does the Minister expect these bands to carry out the responsibilities for local services which have been given to them if they have been forced into a debt situation by the Minister's own officials?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member expresses concern which is shared by everyone in the management of the Department with regard to the dollars which the Department controls. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that 64 per cent of the dollars spent in the Province of Manitoba are administered and spent by Indian governments. Twenty-four per cent is spent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and 12 per cent is spent by the province. Therefore, there is more than one manager of those dollars. I have explained that I will have my officials discuss debt retirement separately with every band in Canada. The Hon. Member also knows that not every band in Manitoba is in debt and not every band in Canada is in debt.

October 10, 1986
Oral Questions FUNDING OF BANDS


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, southern chiefs maintain that their indebtedness is due directly to the incompetence and blundering of the regional officials in Manitoba. That is the claim that they have made. The Minister has not denied it. I want to know what will be done forthwith so that the moneys to which those bands were entitled will be received by them in order that they can carry out those essential local services.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is concerned and I share that concern. However, with regard to dollars being withheld, to date no one has been able to show that dollars were withheld. Yesterday in the House a question was asked about a cut of $40,000. In fact it was not a cut of $40,000. On that specific project, which was managed by the band involved, there was an increase from $50,000 to $73,000, an increase of $23,000.


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The cost benefit analysis completed by the task force looking into the feasibility of using western coal in central Canada found that there was indeed a net benefit to the Canadian environment and the Canadian economy in terms of major job creation. When can we expect a comment and commitment from the Government to proceed formally with the recommendations of that task force in order to create the much needed jobs in western Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I share his enthusiasm for a very worthy project. The Government is taking this under serious consideration.


TIMING OF DECISION ANNOUNCEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Government has now had the recommendations of that very important task force for an adequate time in which to make a decision. The Minister knows how important this matter is for western Canadians and indeed for all of Canada. Can he not be a bit more precise about a specific time by which we can expect a decision and announcement by the Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the report was released in August. We have been condemned by Members across the way for
acting in haste on certain initiatives. We would not want to be accused of that again. Suffice it to say there are a number of Departments involved in this initiative and I want to assure the Hon. Member that we will take this report very seriously because it is good for Ontario, good for western Canada, indeed good for all of Canada. Above all, it would stimulate the economy and generate a lot of jobs.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As stated earlier today, Canadians everywhere support the new initiative by the Government as set out in the Speech from the Throne in its fight against toxic chemicals. Given that the eight U.S. States which border on the Great Lakes signed an agreement a few months ago called the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement, and given the support of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec for that agreement, what impact will this new initiative have on the leachate of toxic chemicals into the Niagara River?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will perhaps know, the new Environmental Protection Act, which was heralded in the Throne Speech, will consolidate environmental authority at the federal level, make it more effective, and in particular increase sanctions against polluters through fines and jail sentences. The Act does not nor can it have authority in the U.S. However, we intend to pursue very vigorously with the Americans, through the 1978 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, our environmental objectives of a trans-boundary nature. We will be insisting in particular that, in the revision of the agreement next year, the virtual elimination of toxic chemicals into the Great Lakes be the central focus.


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last week the British Columbia Minister of Education made the obscene statement that young people should "reexamine their priorities and consider putting off their postsecondary education if they are unable to afford it." Is the Prime Minister going to allow that advice to go unchallenged?
October 10, 1986

If not, will he now do something to help the disabled, the disadvantaged, and the poor so they can afford post-secondary education in British Columbia and other provinces?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the specific statement but as set out it is one that would not find much favour on this side of the House. That is evidenced by the actions of the Government so far regarding the disabled, disadvantaged, and the underprivileged, and evidenced by the restatement of some of those fundamental principles in the Throne Speech. Investment in the youth of our country is a great obligation on any Government, on any people, and the protection of people afflicted with disabilities is no less a noble cause, and this Government is committed to that.


FUNDING OF STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that his Government has frozen the amount of money available to students through the Student Loan Program. In light of his remarks and in light of the plight of poorer people, will he restore the necessary funds to the Canada Student Loan Program and student grants so that our educational system is available to all Canadians in British Columbia, indeed in every province, so we can make sure it is not just for those who come from well-off families?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government's intention is evidenced by the tremendous increase of some $25 billion directed to these areas over the next five years. I think that indicates the extent to which we are very much concerned and ready to invest in the future.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He referred to the suffering of battered women in the Throne Speech. Unfortunately, we still have a nation of wife-beaters and very few resources for battered women. Will he confirm that his Government will give real leadership to provide funding for transition houses to assist and protect battered women and their children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as we pointed out in the Throne Speech, the issue of wife-battering is a social tragedy and must be dealt with. The Government of Canada shall provide the leadership required to deal with this extremely sad and unacceptable state of affairs.
_______________________________________281
Oral Questions


VANCOUVER TRANSITION HOUSES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear a positive response for the funding of transition houses. The situation in B.C. is particularly urgent with only 65 transition house beds for over 5,000 battered women in the Vancouver area. Will he urge his Ministers, or perhaps do it personally, to put strong pressure on the Premier of B.C. to reopen the Vancouver transition houses and fund services for battered women?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think my hon. friend is aware of the social leadership provided by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in this and other areas. He will be holding meetings in British Columbia and elsewhere with a view to advancing this very important initiative in order to come to the aid of battered women in Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Having lived through the disastrous LIFT program which the Liberals imposed on western Canada some years ago, I became alarmed when I heard the NDP calling for a similar type of program. Surely the Government is not thinking of a LIFT program, is it?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because it is our $1 billion, it is our program. It is fine if the NDP and the Liberals want to give up on Canadian farmers, but this Government is going to continue to develop programs and supply financial support to Canadian agriculture to keep farmers on the land and farming.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the Throne Speech the Government said it was considering new conflict of interest rules. On April 30, 1986, the Prime Minister said in a press conference that the existing rules were as tough as any in the western world and it was his job to enforce them. In view of that, can he tell us, if they were so great, why do we need new ones and what difference is it going to make when the Prime Minister has been unable or unwilling to enforce the existing rules?

October 10, 1986
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the Speech from the Throne, these guidelines will be reviewed. I guess we were attracted to some extent by the contravention of conflict of interest guidelines by so many Liberals in the provincial Legislature so that we took our cue from there.


REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF PUNITIVE MEASURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the issue here is the credibility of this Government. It is certainly not a joke. If the Prime Minister is unwilling to answer, will the Deputy Prime Minister give us his assurances that the new rules will include punitive measures so that we do not again see what we have seen so often in the past from this Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would think that the Hon. Member would want the conflict of interest guidelines broad enough so that they would take into consideration not only cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries but, indeed, Members of Parliament. When we want to talk about credibility, I will stake my credibility up against the Hon. Member's any day of the week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. On Monday in this House I urged the Minister of National Revenue to consult with high technology industry leaders on their concerns about the research and development tax credit guidelines. Have those consultations taken place and, if so, has an improved definition of research and development been arrived at and agreed upon?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his interest and his constructive suggestions in bringing this matter to a resolution. The Income Tax Act being such a potent instrument in stimulating industrial research and innovation in the private sector, it was important that the private sector agree with the guidelines we have developed. I am pleased to say that there is universal acceptance resulting from the consultations which the Minister of National Revenue has carried on.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can he explain why his Department refused to lengthen the Trout Lake airstrip and install lights at the Jean Marie River Airport as requested by the Dene National Assembly? Is it because all the money has already been spent in his Department for pork-barrelling operations in the ridings of the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Transport?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we only have a certain amount of money in the Department of Transport to look after hundreds of airports across the country. Therefore, there is never as much as we would like. I might say that there has been a great deal spent at the airport in Hamilton and I am glad the hon. lady finds it to be humorous.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not by your Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: If I had notice of the hon. gentleman's particular question, I would have been able to check that, which I will do. With respect to the Prime Minister's district, he represents a huge area which I think is 160,000 square miles. He is the largest Member in the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -in terms of space, if not of importance. That district requires airports because there are many isolated communities in the district and I certainly intend to see that it gets every chance in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


DENE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY'S REQUEST
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's reply. Indeed, I hope he will look at the request of the Dene National Assembly. I appreciate that he is having difficulty getting enough money to meet the needs. Perhaps he could cut the $3 million provided for the airport at St. Jean-sur-Richelieu and give it to the Dene Nation because apparently the one at St. Jean-sur-Richelieu has not been approved by the Minister of the Environment in Quebec, despite the claims by Members of Parliament.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if we were not forced to pay $27 billion in interest this year for past extravagances and wastefulness of the hon. gentleman and his Government, we would have money to do all of these things and many things more.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 10, 1986


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The Quebec City port dispute has become critical as a result of today's lock-out, a dispute which has been dragging on for over a month. What is the Minister prepared to do to re-open this port?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec City port dispute has been dragging on for some time. The lock-out was imposed on September 15. The union sought a ruling from the Canadian Labour Relations Board as to whether the lock-out was legal, and this was confirmed in a decision rendered this week.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether the Minister is prepared to take the initiative, as he did in British Columbia and at the Lakehead, particularly since the maritime employers will allow the unloading of a DND ship today? Why not open the whole port?


Pierre H. Cadieux: The union has also applied to the Canadian Labour Relations Board, but no decision has been made yet. The union wants to know whether it can negotiate as a whole with the parties. Of course we will have to abide by the ruling, but in the meantime two mediators have been appointed and they are available to help the parties solve their problem if indeed the parties give us an indication that they are interested in doing that.


AGRICULTURE
A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. American dairy cattle coming from brucellosis-infected areas can enter Canada with only one negative blood test. Our brucellosis-free zone is endangered by this policy. Why do we allow this dangerous condition to continue, and when will the Americans recognize our brucellosis-free zone?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. It should be noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture does in fact recognize Canada to be a brucellosis-free area, with the exception of the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec which were the last ones to be declared brucellosis free. The Hon. Member should also
Oral Questions
know that in order for U.S. cattle to be imported into Canada they are required to meet our Canadian standards. I have been advised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns Air Canada's stated intention to terminate DC-9 flights into Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Does the Minister not realize that, without this particular flight, air freight bound for export will be curtailed, thereby jeopardizing many jobs in Yarmouth and the surrounding communities? Will the Minister require Air Canada to terminate its request to the CTC in order that this entire matter can be reviewed?


Mr. Robichaud:: No, he doesn't give a damn anyway.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's colleague is setting a very high standard for cynicism. However, I will ignore it in the spirit of turning the other cheek. I have been at the dentist for three and a half hours this morning and I have been turning every cheek I can think of.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Hon. Minister has gone far enough. Perhaps he could get on with his response.


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to Air Canada and Yarmouth, Air Canada will not be abandoning the Yarmouth route unless completely satisfactory service with respect to both passengers and cargo is in place at the time it no longer wishes to serve the route from Yarmouth. It will only be permitted to cease serving it if an adequate and satisfactory service from other air carriers is in place before that happens.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister that transportation is an integral link in terms of economic development. The proposal by Air Canada is to have Air Nova assume that particular flight. The air freight capacity of Air Nova is 300 cubic feet, while the DC-9 is 1,200 cubic feet. I ask the Minister on behalf of the Board of Trade, the municipalities, workers and business people in Yarmouth and surrounding areas if he will not ask Air Canada to recall its request to the CTC and review the matter before any action is taken?

October 10, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Fulton


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is very late in his representation because the Member who represents Yarmouth has been making these representations to me for weeks now, with a great deal of success.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Among the documents he has received in the last while was a document which was sent to the Regional Director General in Manitoba on August 22, 1986. In this document which was later approved by the same Regional Director, a number of contribution agreements were downsized. We have been told that these agreements were downsized without the signed agreement of the various bands concerned. Will the Minister confirm that there has been absolutely no changes made to down-size contribution agreements without the signed agreement of those bands? Will he make that unilateral declaration?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I have asked on several occasions in the last week for documents from anyone who has documentation that would show that signed obligations on behalf of the Department were not being met. I make that request again to the Hon. Member. However, let me repeat that he will find in the documents circulated yesterday-which were not complete-that where there was an accusation that there had been cuts, there had indeed been an increase of $23,000 on a particular capital project. If the Hon. Member has documentation that shows that signed agreements have not been met by the Department, I would ask him to bring them forward.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Minister has this documentation already. I am certainly willing to give it to him again.


REQUEST THAT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION BE PLACED IN TRUSTEESHIP
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, given that a number of bands have said that they have not agreed to these agreements, and that a former senior official has said that this is happening, will the Minister put the Regional Department into trusteeship to make sure that there is some guarantee that the Indians in Manitoba are being treated fairly?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my concern for the management of the dollars which flow to Indian people is as great as the Hon. Member's, I can assure him. I can also
assure him that my predecessor had taken steps to reorganize the management of his Department. I will continue to take steps to organize the management of the Department. I am very concerned about the Manitoba region. However, the Hon. Member knows that there has been a new RDG put in place in that region, that there have been changes and there will be continuing changes in the management of the Department for which I am responsible.


PENITENTIARIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In the documents produced this morning there is a suggested answer for the Solicitor General prepared presumably by his officials: "Neither the Prime Minister, nor any person on his staff intervened in this matter". In writing which could well be his, there is a note: "I can't say this. I can only say no record re Solicitor General". Does that mean that the Solicitor General of the country cannot categorically say: "Neither the Prime Minister nor any person on his staff intervened in this matter"? Can he not say that to the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He just did.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was quite clear in my earlier answer. I pointed out quite clearly, when this matter arose I went to the officials in my Ministry and asked them. They advised me that there was no record in the Ministry of any interference by the Prime Minister or any member of his staff in this matter.
The Hon. Member must remember that I was not the Solicitor General at the time. Therefore, all I can do is go to the members of my staff and that is what they told me; there is nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that I have received notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Skeena. I would point out that in the opinion of the Chair it is not a question of privilege but more properly a point of order. I will hear the Hon. Member for Skeena.


POINT OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). Part of his answer is found on page 239 of Hansard, and I quote:
October 10, 1986

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Skeena has said he is neither an accountant nor a detective, and that is certainly obvious.
I then said: "At least I'm not a crook". Following that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said: "Says who?" As you will know, Mr. Speaker, following Question Period yesterday the Minister of Transport raised a question of privilege and I withdrew my remarks to make it clear on the record, and in this House, that I in no way intended that comment to reflect on him or any other Hon. Member of the House.
I am sure the Minister of Justice on the same grounds would want to remove his remark: "Says who?" because it is clear that that remark has the same kind of implications towards me which the Minister of Transport felt might have been directed at him. And I have already received a note from the Minister of Justice so I will leave it at that.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in honest truth I do not recall saying the words. However, I had already indicated to the Hon. Member that it was my intention to stand at this time and categorically withdraw any imputation. I would not say it, I do not think it, and I am sorry if there was any offence caused.


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, during the course of Question Period, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) made some very unfortunate comments which I hope the Chair will take under advisement. These are comments which offend Citation 326(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. The Hon. Member in Question Period made reference to comments I had made in the House and quoted comments made outside of the House by the President of the National Research Council, Dr. Kerwin, and asked who was telling the truth, thus clearly implying that either myself or Dr. Kerwin had been lying.
Citation 326(2) of Beauchesne is quite explicit:
Words may not be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly
intended to convey a direct imputation.
1 have been scrupulously careful to make certain no false information is conveyed to the House and to ensure that nothing is said in the House which would cause injury to the morale of this fine institution. Because of my high respect and regard for the integrity and competence of the President of the National Research Council, Dr. Kerwin, I would hope that the
Question of Privilege-Mr. Oberle
Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) would reflect on his comments and would have the grace to withdraw them.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the Hon. Member. The Chair was very conscious of the comments which were made. Perhaps upon hearing other representations it will become clear that the comment was made in the search for accuracy and facts. Perhaps it was not meant to impute the personal honour or integrity of any particular person. But I would be interested to hear comment.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the citation referred to by the Hon. Member reads:
Words may not be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly
intended to convey a direct imputation. Putting a hypothetical case is not the
way to evade what would be in itself disorderly.
Nowhere in the Citation does it say that an Hon. Member cannot ask questions for the purpose of inviting a Minister to clear up a contradiction or, as you yourself said, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister to whom the question is directed to deal with a matter of accuracy or clarification.
Questions in the exact language used by the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), in my recollection, have been used or asked many times in the House without such a question being ruled as offending any of the precedents of this House. Therefore, 1 respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, to use your own words, that the Hon. Member for Laurier was simply seeking responses with respect to accuracy and with respect to dealing with what seemed to be an obvious contradiction.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, for months, 1 suppose, I have been speaking for a good number of people across the country with whom I have been in touch. Many Canadians have been concerned about getting a clear statement of Government policy as it relates to the National Research Council and the Government's science policy. I certainly did not impute any motive to the Minister. I was, as you suggested, Sir, seeking clarification.
All I can say, if I have been misled, is there are certainly reputable newspapers in this country which have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Chair is in a position to comment. I think it is quite clear from what has been said by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) that clearly no imputation of the honour and integrity of any particular person was intended. I thank the Hon. Members for making that clear.
I would remind all Hon. Members, however, that this is an example of what can develop if great care is not taken in the words which are used. I would hope the Minister would be satisfied with the outcome of this intervention and the comments of the Chair.
286

October 10, 1986
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to House business. Is the Government House Leader prepared to provide further information with respect to the business of the House for next week? In particular, can he tell us when he will be offering to us an Opposition Day?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, in light of developments that transpired earlier in the day I was not able to give a firm commitment. It would be my intention to call Item No. 5, the consideration of report stage of Bill C-5, an Act to regulate interests in petroleum in relation to frontier lands, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and to repeal the Canada Oil and Gas Act.
If we are able to complete that business, then it would be my intention to move on to the matter dealing with the Income Tax Act in respect of the child tax credit. This would be followed by the resumption of debate on the Speech from the Throne. It is my intention at this time to continue with the debate on the Speech from the Throne until its conclusion.
I will certainly take notice of my hon. friend's suggestion with respect to an early Opposition Day. We will try to arrange that at the earliest possible opportunity.


POINT OF ORDER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from today's Question Period. It is something upon which I seek your guidance.
In response to a question from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who asked a general question about the issue of the credibility of the Government, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) made a comment about the individual integrity of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I believe that is in violation of the Standing Orders. I seek your guidance with respect to impugning the integrity of an individual Member.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will take a look at what I said. I am prepared to examine it. However, as I recall it the question of credibility was raised by the Hon. Member. I responded in the spirit in which he raised it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking your guidance. I believe if you have a chance to review the "blues" you will note that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
referred specifically to the credibility of the Government. In his response the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the integrity of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell. That is, indeed, in violation of the Standing Orders.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe that if the Hon. Member were to go back and check the "blues" she would find that I at no time used the word "integrity". If I did, then I would be prepared to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will review the "blues". There will be an appropriate time to raise this matter on Tuesday, which is our next sitting day after today. It might help if the Hon. Member who raised the issue and the Minister had a short talk about the facts. In any event, there will be an opportunity to deal with it on Tuesday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 120( 1) I have the honour to lay upon the Table extracts from minutes of meetings of the Commissioners of Internal Economy for the period November 22, 1984, to June 26, 1985, and extracts of the minutes of meetings of the Board of Internal Economy for the period October 2, 1985, to June 18, 1986.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the first report of the striking committee.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present some petitions about the situation at the CN workshops in Moncton. These petitions
October 10, 1986

come from residents of Dieppe, Petitcodiac, Moncton, Riverglade, Scoudouc, Salisbury and Grande-Digue.

The petitioners humbly pray that this honourable House be pleased to instruct the Government to postpone a decision to close the CN Shops until the workers have had an opportunity to appear before the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada who object to the low-level flight training of NATO pilots at Goose Bay because it disrupts the local traditional life and is an aggressive war-fighting technique. They call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end the low-level flight training there and cease negotiating to have a NATO base established there for that purpose.



POINT OF ORDER


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 raised a point of order earlier arising from today's Question Period. I would like to correct my earlier statement on the record.
In my earlier statement I suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) accused the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) of a question of integrity. Indeed, it was a question of credibility and not a question of integrity. I would like the record to show that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



DECORUM IN THE HOUSE

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, since we are into the matter of decorum in the House, and since there has been some discussion on it, I would like to remind all Hon. Members, and in particular the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), that when a Member crosses the floor from one side to the other the normal practice is to defer to the Speaker in the passage back and forth. I think that perhaps the Hon. Member forgot to do that. However, I am sure she would like to be reminded of it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I did bow, perhaps not at the right angle, but I definitely bowed.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure all Hon. Members that I saw the Hon. Member bow.
Introduction of Bills



AN ACT DECLARING THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION AS THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF CANADA DECLARATORY MEASURE

Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-218, an Act declaring the National Capital Region as the Seat of Government of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, this first Bill deals with our National Capital. It declares the National Capital Region as the seat of government of Canada. It changes the name given to our capital in the 19th century. From now on, the capital should be known under the names of Ottawa and the Outaouais. The Bill also asks that the territory of the region extend on both shores of the Ottawa River in Quebec and Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Does it please the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I have two Bills. The second amends the National Capital Act. I would also like this Bill to receive first reading.



NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT


Claudy Mailly: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an Act to amend the National Capital Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Claudy Mailly: This second Bill also relates to the National Capital of our country. It would amend the National Capital Act so that the municipality of Gatineau would have one commissioner, which would raise to three the number of

October 10, 1986
Introduction of Bills
Outaouais representatives, including one from Hull and the other for another Outaouais municipality.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read for the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PATENT ACT


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an Act to amend the Patent Act, generic farm chemicals.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to introduce a Bill to amend the Patent Act regarding generic farm chemicals. This would in fact reduce the monopoly that farm chemical companies now have from a 17-year patent to a four-year patent. This would open up competition for ordinary Canadians to produce chemicals such as Roundup which are now produced by Monsanto at great expense to the farmers. It is patterned on the generic pharmaceutical Bill which was passed in Canada many, many years ago and which gave great benefit to the Canadian consumer.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-l 1, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act.


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.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an Act respecting parity prices for farm products.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a Bill on parity pricing for farm products. The purpose of the Bill is to provide farmers with a guarantee for the products they produce that will be based on the cost of production and a decent profit for the work they are putting into producing food for Canada and the rest of the world.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

['I believe it will take place on October 21.']
James Ross Fulton: for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an Act respecting the international boundary between Canada and the State of Alaska.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put this Bill before the House once again. It almost made it through to a vote during the last Session.
My concern in reintroducing this Bill is that the Government of Canada seems to be drifting toward a negotiation with the United States on this sovereign boundary between Canada and the State of Alaska and only a vote in the House endorsing into law our boundary at 54-40 will set the stage for fair discussions on our offshore boundaries.
I am pleased to bring the Bill forward again. It is endorsed by many Canadians and is supported by the 1825 Sino-British Treaty, the 1867 treaty following the purchase of the State of Alaska by the United States and by the Hay-Herbert Treaty of 1903 plus a number of cabinet orders and Orders in Council proposing that this boundary be our sovereign boundary. A vote by this House would entrench that for all time to come.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?
October 10, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the Chair whether the date of the draw usually held at the beginning of a session will be chosen within a few days. Could the House be informed? Could Hon. Members know when the Chair will proceed with the draw concerning Private Members' Bills and motions-Members ... Liberal Members, at least, are interested and often ask me when the draw will take place. I wonder whether a date has been set.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe it will take place on October 21.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 9, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the Session; and of the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p.227).
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour to participate in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is a pleasure for me as Minister of the Environment, especially because, for the first time since 1973 the Throne Speech not only mentions but, indeed, stresses environmental concerns. In fact, it deals with every facet of my mandate as Minister, from the built heritage to national parks, to environmental protection, through to water policy.
Representing as it does the agenda of the Government in this new session of Parliament, the Throne Speech makes clear that we continue as a Government to be totally committed to protecting the environment and, in particular, to ensuring that Environment Canada has the resources and the clear mandate required to play its vital role.
In the Throne Speech the Government has highlighted a central thought, one well understood by Canadians but I think too long ignored by Governments, that a healthy environment
The Address-Mr. McMillan
is essential to a sound economy; it is the sine qua non. Economic objectives and environmental goals are more than compatible. They are two sides of the same coin.
The past year has been for me a lesson in how myths take root and flourish, often without the benefit of even a seed of truth. No myth has been stronger and more groundless than that surrounding the Department of the Environment. If the naysayers and doom merchants in the opposition Parties were given credence, one would believe that the Government had slashed the Department's budget and diminished its clout. As if that nightmarish view were not enough, they say that the Government has a secret agenda to dismantle Environment Canada altogether, distributing its programs and funds among different federal Departments or delegating them to the provinces. Apparently more interested in fantasy than in facts, the opposition Parties have woven the supposed evidence from whole cloth. I will leave the fantasy to the Opposition and deal only with the facts.
First, Environment Canada is alive and well and living everywhere in the country. Indeed, instead of slashing the budget of Environment Canada, the Government has in fact increased it. The budget in the current fiscal year of 1986-87 is $745,349,000, an increase of $18,385,000 over last year. Where are the public servants supposedly slaughtered by the evil Tories on the high altar of budgetary restraint? They, too, are alive and well and working hard and effectively at Environment Canada. In fact, Environment Canada was one of only three Departments in the entire Government of Canada which was enlarged last year.
If the Government is wringing Environment Canada's neck like that of a chicken, I can only quote the immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill, uttered in this very Parliament of Canada almost a half century ago-"some chicken, some neck!"
In any event, those who mourn Environment Canada's alleged demise not only reach the wrong conclusion; they ask the wrong question. The question is not whether Environment Canada is bigger or smaller than it was before. Rather, the question is: In any over-all downsizing of the Government of Canada, is Environment Canada gaining or losing ground? Is it being singled out, as the Opposition would suggest, for particularly harsh treatment while the Government moves to control runaway deficits which are now forcing it to spend one tax dollar in three just to pay the interest on previous borrowings? The emphatic answer is no. Environment Canada is more than holding its own, though to be sure-and I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will take particular note of this point-at the end of the Government's current mandate Environment Canada will have contributed its fair share of dollars and personnel to the Government's over-all restraint program, which I support 100 per cent.
Nonetheless, the relative size of my Department will remain the same, and it may well get bigger. Thanks to management reforms, especially in the Conservation and Protection Services

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. McMillan
and in the regional offices, Environment Canada will be stronger than it has ever been since it was formed in 1971.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) honoured me by appointing me Minister of the Environment a year ago, the Department and I, with the full co-operation of other Departments and other Ministers, have worked hard to put together a strong package of reforms, including new laws heralded in the Throne Speech itself. Such reforms do not just happen by pushing a button or pulling a lever or some other instrument in a legislative sausage mill. They require planning; they require consultation with affected federal Departments, provincial Governments, industry, labour, and environmental groups; they require lobbying for support within a complex government system; and they require time.
I am amazed by the number of otherwise informed people, including ones across the aisle in the opposition Parties, who, following my appointment expected every manner of environmental problem to be resolved overnight. Yet, many of those problems have bedevilled successive Governments for a generation-from Niagara River pollution, to acid rain, to stalemates on establishing important national parks like South Moresby. 1 certainly appreciate the sincere impatience of environmentalists as the system appears immoveable on burning issues which require urgent action. Being an environmentalist myself, I share their impatience.
However, progress is being made. By this time next year, the current Government will have accomplished more on a broad range of environmental issues than has ever been accomplished by a federal Government during any previous period. The corner-stone of that record will be the new Environmental Protection Act. For the first time much of the legislative authority of the Environment Minister will be consolidated under one Act, making it easier to integrate his mandate with that of other federal Ministers who share environmental powers. Equally important, a framework will be built within which federal laws can be better integrated with provincial ones. At present, environmental law in Canada involves a crazy quilt of some 22 federal Departments and agencies, 57 different federal statutes, and, yes, even 97 different provincial Acts.
In such a morass the only person who gains is the polluter. The citizen and even Government itself have been at a loss to make sense of the myriad of laws and regulations which are generally so weak they constitute a licence to pollute or are so Draconian they cannot be applied.
The new Environmntal Protection Act is designed to set such matters right. The Act will provide a clear statement of citizens' rights to a healthy environment. It will greatly strengthen sanctions against polluters. It will allow for the better management of toxic chemicals through their full life cycle, from research and development, to production, to marketing and use, through to disposal as waste. It will incorporate a compliance and enforcement regime devised to ensure that the country has more than just a good law on the
books. It will have a good law in the courts, in the police stations, and, yes, even in the jails of the country.
The work on this landmark legislation has had the full cooperation of my cabinet colleagues, reflecting the high priority other federal Departments and Ministers attach to environmental protection.
A great deal of work, Sir, has also been done on the National Parks amendments highlighted in the Throne Speech. Not since the Act was passed more than half a century ago, in 1930, has it been reformed in any major fashion. The Government believes strongly that major changes are now overdue, reflecting the increased importance Canadians attach to the natural environment. Urban sprawl needs to be stopped in parks town sites. Heritage values need to be protected in the face of transportation and utility corridor development. Wilderness areas need to be defended against insidious encroachments by commerce. The hand of the state needs to come down heavily on well organized, well financed poachers who are robbing our parks of their very life systems and all of us of our wildlife heritage. The Parks amendments will be ready for first reading in Parliament soon, and I urge the Opposition to give them expeditious passage. Among the amendments, of course, will be one that establishes Canada's thirty-second national park, Ellesmere Island. Three weeks ago, Tagak Curley, Minister of Economic Development and Tourism for the Government of the Northwest Territories, joined me in a signing ceremony on Ellesmere Island itself, the very rooftop of Canada. The park, as you will know, is richly populated by muskoxen, Arctic hare, wolves, caribou and seals, all living among majestic mountain ranges, fiords and glaciers. Canadians have every right to be proud that Ellesmere Island- soon to be part of the country's national park system-exists and that it is ours.
The Government is not content with establishing a park only at Ellesmere Island. We all owe it to our children and to Canadians yet unborn to do even more to complete the total national park system. This past year, enormous progress has been made in establishing a national park in the celebrated South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands.
Until now, money owed by the federal Government to the Government of British Columbia for Pacific Rim National Park has been the biggest single obstacle to that process. A few days ago, British Columbia environment Minister Austin Pelton and I were able to resolve all remaining financial and boundary issues relating to Pacific Rim. As a result, we have been able to agree to complete negotiations on South Moresby by the end of next year.
Similarly, Ontario's Natural Resources Minister Vince Kerrio and I have reached agreement on all major issues concerning the establishment of a national park in the Bruce Peninsula, a major site that includes rugged bluffs, picturesque nature trails, deer in large supply and birds and flora in great diversity. Just as the Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve
October 10, 1986

asserts Canadian sovereignty in a part of our country under challenge, South Moresby and the Bruce affirm the commitment of this Government, and the commitment also of other Canadians, to preserving our natural heritage.
The same commitment must be made by Canadians to our built heritage, those cultural properties that express our identity as a people and enrich our national life. As the responsible Minister under a 1982 Cabinet decision, I intend to present to my colleagues, in co-operation with all relevant departments, the most far-reaching set of built heritage preservation proposals ever considered by the Government of Canada. Those are but some of my department's and this Government's plans for the environment in the coming months.
I am proud of the agenda.
While the past year has largely been devoted to putting that agenda in place, Environment Canada has been active across a broad spectrum. The Department hosted the North American visit of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the so-called Brundtland Commission, headed by the Prime Minister of Norway. We co-sponsored the International World Conservation Strategy Conference. We produced the $1.5 billion bilateral North American Waterfowl Management Plan. We reached agreement with the United States on the need to reduce toxic chemical loadings in the Niagara River. We are going to work even further to push that program to its logical conclusion so that we will have targets and schedules. We undertook with Ontario a major investigation of contamination in the St. Clair River and reached agreement with Nova Scotia to clean up the worst toxic chemicals disposal sight in eastern Canada, the Sydney Tar Ponds. The Department signed water quality monitoring agreements with Ontario, British Columbia and Newfoundland. We held discussions with the United States, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, on acid rain; and together, in a spirit of neighbourliness, co-operation and international harmony, the president's go-ahead was obtained on work toward a bilateral accord on trans-boundary pollution. There will soon be tough new emission standards for cars and light trucks and new emission standards for heavy duty vehicles. The elimination of lead from gasoline by the end of 1992 will be achieved. My Department published the first ever State of the Environment Report and alerted Canadians to the dangers of misfueling and of tampering with pollution control devices through a massive advertising and public information campaign. Research, information and programs were strengthened concerning weather forecasting, water levels and water quality, wildlife management, environmental contaminants, maintenance of park trails and a host of other activities too numerous to mention in a relatively short speech. The record over the past year, indeed over the past two years, is impressive, Mr. Speaker. What has happened, though, is merely prologue.
Let no one doubt the commitment of this Government to protecting the environment. Here, after all, for the first time in Canadian history is a Government headed by a Prime Minister who has made an environmental issue, acid rain abatement, a
The Address-Mr. McMillan
top agenda item in two successive summits and one more to come with the President of the United States. The Prime Minister has pledged to continue this work until acid rain is no longer a bilateral issue by virtue of it being resolved by the two countries.
I began by saying that I would leave the myths and the fantasies to others and deal only with the facts. I am proud, Sir, that the facts speak for themselves.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), I would ask, has he reached a point in his role as Minister in this very important portfolio whereby he and his Government have understood the important economic, central and top priority role that his Department has to play in present circumstances?. Unfortunately, the Minister spent a lot of time chasing shadows and shadow boxing, accusing the Opposition of all sorts of negative statements which, if they exist, can only be traced to the activities of the Minister or of his Government. For instance, the Minister spent a lot of time on negative forecasts by the Opposition on the future of the Department. I have to remind the Minister that it was his own former Deputy Prime Minister who ordered a report which studied the present and future role of the Department of the Environment. That led to all sorts of speculation until that report was published, and even afterward. It is absurd for the Minister to blame the Opposition for action which was initiated by the former Deputy Prime Minister. These speculations and rumours were fed by the Government until we requested a tabling of the report in mid-June. That report was finally made public in mid-August.
In his speech the Minister elaborated on funds and budgets. He has a selective memory on that. He did not say one word about the actions of his predecessor and the cuts inflicted by her on the Department of the Environment. Those cuts are not fully restored even now.
I hope that once the Minister gets rid of the rhetoric and embellishments of which he is so capable he will come to grips with his important responsibility, to utilize his Department as a major instrument for the economic well-being of Canada in the long term. The Minister has not yet addressed this item. I urge him to address it rather than dealing with inconsequential items here and there. The Minister must come to grips with the major and very important environmental function within the economy of the country. We will be satisfied with his speeches in this House at that time and not before.
Will the Minister indicate something which is very unclear in the Speech from the Throne, namely, when the amendments to the National Parks Act will be tabled? These amendments have been ready since the spring of 1984.
Second, when will the Minister move on gasoline taxation in order to bring about desirable pricing policies whereby unleaded gasoline will cost less than leaded for the benefit of

The Address-Mr. McMillan
agriculture, forestry and structures which are negatively impacted upon by the emissions from the combustion of leaded gasoline?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who is the critic on the environment for the Official Opposition, has essentially raised three points. The first has to do with a report commissioned by the Deputy Ministerial Task Force on Program Review. That was one report among two or three done on the Department of the Environment, not to mention many other reports on other Departments but having an impact on the Department of the Environment. Twenty major studies were performed by the task force within the entire federal Government. When the former Deputy Prime Minister tabled most of those reports in the House of Commons, he noted that, together, they weighed approximately 35 pounds and covered every nook and cranny of the federal Government.
1 say that to remind the Hon. Member for Davenport that those are only reports. The one on the environment to which he has taken greatest offence is one of several on the environment. There are conflicts in many of them. They are not government policy and are not even necessarily options that the Government is considering. They are recommendations by private sector individuals and public employees concerning options which they hope the Government will consider.
Having said that, the Government's answer to the report to which he has made particular reference is in the Throne Speech. There were references in the Throne Speech to the Environmental Protection Act, to major amendments to the National Parks Act and to a commitment to come forth soon with a water policy for the federal Government and for the country as a whole. Those initiatives, individually and collectively, should put a lie to the speculation and rumours of the doomsters and naysayers against this Department.
Second, the Hon. Member asked about amendments to the National Parks Act. Contrary to what he said, these were not ready in the spring of 1984 and were not ready even in the spring of 1985. They went to the Department of Justice for drafting this past summer. The drafting is now completed, the printing is in process and the translation is well underway. I hope to be able to introduce the amendments in Parliament for first reading within weeks.
On the issue of leaded and unleaded gasoline, 1 am working hand in glove with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) who is in the House today. He is proving to be not only a great Minister of Energy, but also a great environmental Minister of Energy. I am also working with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and other Ministers on that issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and then the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for very short questions or comments in order that the Minister can reply.
October 10, 1986


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in view of your admonition I will cut to the minimum the comments which I wanted to make.
There is a tremendous sense of urgency across the country, and it is particularly strong in my part of the country, with regard to issues like the Detroit incinerator, the flooding which is taking place in Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, the continued inability to identify the source of the infamous St. Clair blob of last year, the tremendous dioxin ingestion which seems to be taking place in the Great Lakes Basin and, of course, acid rain.
I do not question the Minister with a sense of strong criticism or denigration of his efforts because I think he has been a breath of fresh air after the previous Minister. However, is the Minister not prepared to stand up and admit that he is not satisfied with the attempts to reclaim our environment for people? If he is honest he will say that he is not satisfied. Therefore, how does he envision that we can push ahead with much more urgency to achieve some of the goals that are so crucial to all the people of the country?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I will answer very briefly because I think I have only about 60 seconds. Of course, I am not satisfied. I am not satisfied with the record of all governments or the record of Canada and Canadians. We have to do more and we will do more. We are going to bring in an Environmental Protection Act which will be the most progressive in the western hemisphere. It is going to be backed up with a compliance and enforcement schedule to demonstrate to Canadians that the Government means business when it takes on polluters in all their forms.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will not see the clock. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to some of those asked during Question Period dealing with brucellosis.
Canada has been declared a brucellosis-free country, yet the Minister of the Environment knows that brucellosis, as well tuberculosis, is endemic in his herd of buffalo in Wood Buffalo National Park. It would be a danger for domestic cattle if that disease spreads. Could the Minister outline his plans to deal with this persistent and very important problem?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is right. This is a severe and very persistent problem. My Department has instructed its top scientists to remain on top of the issue and recommend a course of action. We think that before very long we will be able to announce it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1.01 p.m,, the House took recess.

October 10, 1986



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to have a chance to speak in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I want to deal with a subject which was reflected in the Throne Speech, the subject of tax reform. Although the speech did not give any details, it spoke about improvement of the economy and the general health of the country. What it neglected to deal with directly, although it did so implicitly, was the growing gap between rich and poor, the growing gap between the rich and the majority. This concerns me as it concerns the majority of the residents of my riding. In that, of course, Spadina riding is not essentially different from other ridings.
In Spadina we have a great many old houses. Some are well-maintained by the hard work of those living in them, and some are falling down because they are owned by absentee landlords. In either case, the people in those houses usually have low incomes. There are some with little better incomes who live in very tiny apartments called bachelorettes. There are a few who live quite comfortably in quite pleasant houses. We also have a great many, several thousand in fact, small businesses, and some of them come and go. In other words, some of the bankruptcy statistics are real human events in the small business world in Spadina. Then we have some very rich and powerful corporations represented in their head offices in the business core of downtown Toronto. Therefore I regret that the Speech from the Throne, while it touched on many aspects of the economy, skipped over the growing gap between the few rich and the many who are not so rich, the many who constitute the majority, whether they be called middle income or poor.
This gap was not invented or created primarily by the present Government. It has been growing for several decades at least. However, this Government has done nothing to reduce the gap. It has even done some things to increase it. This is particularly so when it talks about tax reform, as the Throne Speech does, without giving any specifics. We do not know whether to expect taxation which will redistribute money from the poor to the rich, as is the current pattern, or a reversal to begin to redistribute some of that money from the rich to the poor.
The general result of this policy of redistributing money from the poor to the rich shows up in many ways in our country. For example, the general income level, measured in real dollars, has dropped 3 1/2 per cent in the last five years. This affects the overall figure, but it particularly affects families headed by women. In 1981, 12 per cent of all Canadian families were living in poverty. This increased to 14 1/2 per cent by 1984. Although it has dropped to 13.1 per cent in 1985, my guess is the figure for 1986 will be heading the wrong way again. Single parent female headed families had a poverty rate of 52.8 per cent in 1981, and it is now 60.2 per cent. It is worth noting that the number of children living in
The Address-Mr. Heap
poverty has jumped in four years from 16 per cent in 1981 to 20 per cent in 1985. This same pattern also affects young people. Some 42 per cent of young unattached individuals between 15 and 24 years of age were living in poverty conditions in 1980, and it is now almost 48 per cent. I could of course quote individual examples, as could anyone on the other side.
The Government advertised job opportunities for young people, but they have to be between 18 and 24 years of age and be able to put several thousand dollars into a project. In Toronto we know where to find 18-year olds who can ante up several thousand dollars. They are in Rosedale, not Spadina. They are in the north end of Rosedale, not in Cabbagetown or Regent Park. In other words, this is another form of subsidy for the rich or the children of the rich. It does not do very much for the great majority of young people in Spadina, or the rest of Canada.
One of the biggest expenses a person has is for housing. We used to have a standard measure of 25 per cent of income being spent for housing. That is much higher than people in many other countries expect to pay. However, it is now much lower than most people are forced to pay in Canada. It goes to 30 per cent or 35 per cent, often by government regulation through CMHC, and 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent in fact in the private market.
In 1985 an average house in Toronto cost $110,000 and average family income was $41,500. With mortgage rates of 13 1/2 per cent, they would need $10,000 a year more in order to buy a house. The fact is that incomes are going down in one way or another for a great many people. There has been a decline in real wages for about the last nine years. That is, the buying power of the weekly wage packet or the monthly salary has declined. There has been a decline in jobs in the better paid fields such as manufacturing and construction. They are often replaced by jobs with much lower wages in such fields as community services, business and personal services. There is a shortening of the hours of work, not usually by choice or with compensation. That is to say, in 1981 the average hours worked were 32 in services but dropped to 27.3 in 1986. If we use constant 1981 dollars, the buying power of the average hourly wage in the service industry has dropped from $7.32 an hour in 1981 to $6.78 an hour in 1986. In manufacturing, reckoning the same way, an hour's work that would have bought $9.15 worth in 1981 will now buy only the equivalent of $8.92. It is lower than it was five years ago.
Wage rates generally are down, again if one reckons them against buying power. In 1981, the hourly wage rate was $11.86 in the better paying jobs. Now it has dropped to $8.92. That is on the wage side. That is what has happened to people who are primarily engaged in private employment. That is what happens to their earings before taxes, but the Government, along with its predecessor, has also been shifting the tax burden away from those who have more money to purchase to

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. Heap
those who have less. We can go back only to 1981 when the then Government reduced the marginal tax rate for people who were earning the higher incomes and saved them a total of $1 billion or $2 billion a year. Of course, it transferred that burden to people earning lower incomes.
In 1982, family benefits and other social benefits were deindexed down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent when the inflation rate was running at twice that. At the same time, the Government renewed tax breaks for investors so that they could invest money and have it protected against inflation.
We jump to 1984, during part of which the present Government took over, and we find that a regressive sales tax, against which the Government preached when in opposition, was adopted as soon as it became Government. That is a tax primarily on the poor and middle-income people.
The next year the Government gave the $500,000 capital gains gift to the wealthiest people, people who earn $70,000 or $80,000 or more a year. Again, the Government increased the sales tax. In 1986, a 5 per cent surtax on upper-income Canadians was replaced by a 3 per cent surtax on all Canadians and another 1 per cent increase in the sales tax.
We have no word in the Throne Speech that any of those injustices will be undone. There is no word that the buying power of the vast majority of Canadians will be in any way restored by reversing those unjust tax changes. Therefore, considering what is not in the Throne Speech, it looks as though we will get more of the same. What we have now is a situation in which a family at the poverty level has lost about $435 per year. When a family at the higher level of $100,000 a year loses $400, that is 0.4 per cent of the income. However, for a family that receives only a couple of thousand dollars a year to live on, it is very serious to lose $400 in this kind of regressive taxation.
The fact is that over the last 35 years, the share of income tax paid by individuals has trebled and the share of income tax paid by corporations has, accordingly, been cut in third. To put it another way, the situation now is that by 1988, when the present legislative tax changes are completed, sales and excise tax increases will have yielded more revenue to the federal Government than the revenue coming from personal and corporate tax increases combined. That is called a policy of soaking the poor.
This has been the unbroken pattern of the Government's policy. There is no hint in the Throne Speech that there will be any change, which is very unfortunate. The fact is that not only are rich individuals being let off without paying taxes, as many thousands are, others who pay taxes sometimes pay less than middle-income people. It is also a fact that there are very large corporations paying no tax at all. The Argus Corporation, in 1985, made $51.7 million profit but paid no tax. Power Corporation paid no tax on $152 million. In 1983 there were 27 non-financial corporations with profits of more than $25 million, each of which paid no tax at all. There were 37
financial corporations that year making $25 million or more each in profit and paying no tax at all.
Some of the very largest corporations in Canada get away with paying no tax in some years. During the last five years, at one time or another, General Motors, Chrysler, Shell, Hudson's Bay, Nova and TransCanada PipeLines Limited all made profits but paid no tax.
We have some of these big corporations in Spadina. Women from Spadine go and clean their offices in the night. Immigrant women leave their children in the evening for five hours to go and clean the offices, usually for the legal minimum wage or perhaps ten cents over that wage. Within a few minutes walk of some of the very richest corporations in Canada, including Cominco, Bell Canada Enterprises, Noranda, Inco, F. W. Woolworth, Mobil Oil, and Canadian General Electric, women living in very poor houses get bottom wages for cleaning the offices of these companies, many of which pay little or no tax, while the women who clean their offices have to subsidize them by their taxes. Perhaps their daughters subsidize them by working in the garment industry on Spadina Avenue.
While this is not mentioned in the Throne Speech, perhaps the intention is to study this question. I would like to see these corporations report to us with a breakdown, year by year, of their tax breaks, according to programs, the amount, geographic location, how much the federal Government has kicked into those companies through tax breaks, how much the Departments and agencies of the federal Government have provided in financial assistance or in the form of grants and contributions and loans in the last 15 years, since this giveaway program to the corporate welfare bums was initiated under the Liberal Government. In the case of loans, we would like to know what were the terms of the loans and whether they were repaid or simply quietly forgiven after a couple of years.
If the Government is serious about tax reform and has any real compassion about the four million to six million people living in poverty, according to our statistics, and others who are living close to poverty, it will examine the give-aways to these large corporations and restore income tax on the wealthy individuals of this country. It will restore an effective corporation tax from which corporations cannot be excused because of loopholes, as well as lower taxation on the working people of this country, most of whom do not have the means of finding these loopholes and using them, and the unemployed who are often required to pay tax to subsidize the very companies that dump them on the pogey line.
We heard this morning some very scornful comments about how reliance on pogey-unemployment insurance benefits-is spreading to the west. I think it would be much more to the point to ask where all the money goes which is generated in the west, whether it be from oil, grain, or the railway industry.
October 10, 1986

Where does all that money go? Why does it not stay in the west?
We should also be asking, where does the money go which is generated in Canada as a whole? We would find that $10 billion or more goes annually to the United States which leaves Canadians $10 billion poorer and some Americans $10 billion richer. When the Government talks about free trade, I hope it will examine those figures and bring them to the attention of the public as well.
The Speech from the Throne was a great disapointment because it did not address the need of the great majority of the people of Canada.


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

Debate. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer you my sincere congratulations on your election and wish you the very best. We all appreciate our new Speaker's experience, his fairness and I would even add his reputation as a francophile, and we know that these qualities will serve him well during the proceedings in this Chamber. He has our support and our full co-operation.
The Government of which I am privileged to be a Member has set itself the following priorities: social justice, economic renewal, national reconciliation and constructive internationalism, all of which are in perfect harmony with the aspirations of Canadian society.
The Speech from the Throne read by Her Excellency the Governor General is an accurate reflection of the needs, plans and hopes of our society. I will explain subsequently how it also reflects the specific expectations of Quebec.
The wording of the Government's priorities reminded me of a comment taken from a work by the French historian Edgar Quinet, entitled La Revolution, and I quote:
Any philosophy that is limited to the intricacies of economic policy is doomed to fail when faced with the important business of human values.
The Government's plan of action reflects this view which, while considering the demands of the economy, goes on to situate them within the sphere of justice, reconciliation and constructive internationalism. The interdependence between economics and the "grandes affaires humaines", to speak with Quinet, is a concept that is very real to us. We cannot deny the importance of economic factors in connection with culture any more than we can ignore the human dimension in the economy's development.
Mr. Speaker, before I go on to discuss the energy issue, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those Canadian men and women who were asked and generously agreed to act
The Address-Mr. Masse
as chairperson or sit as members on the several task forces 1 had the privilege of setting up as Minister of Communications.
I also wish to thank members of the support teams and those who made a contribution with their presentations. I must say it was a pleasure to receive their excellent reports. Canada's cultural policies must become part of the dynamics of our society. Let us give our creative and performing artists the recognition of a mature and enlightened nation. For too long, these witnesses of our human condition have been relegated to the fringe of society, while they are in fact its very core.
Let us give our cultural industries the place they deserve. As the link between producer and consumer, they are the instruments that transmit to the world the best we have to offer.
The status of the artist, broadcasting, film, the Arts Centre, museums, financing the arts, these are some of the themes and institutions that attracted our attention. The State has a duty to look and listen and review its policies. That is what this Government is doing and will continue to do for the greater benefit of our national identity.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I see this portfolio as a challenge and as having a vast potential. To a country, energy is the lifeblood of its industry, the means of its mobility and the basis of its well-being. It is therefore a fundamental part of our lives.
The great French author Franqois Rene de Chateaubriand gave us the following thought in Book IX of his Memoires d'outre-tombe: "In politics, the result is almost never what we expected."
Who could have predicted the dramatic drop in oil prices, one of the major events of the past year? The price collapse has had a drastic impact on oil and gas exploration throughout the industrialized world, and it has forced us to take a second look at the situation and redefine our priorities. It also demanded action on the part of the Government. And we did act to provide a new stimulus for exploration and research. We had already refunded to the companies the taxes imposed by the National Energy Program, but as a result of the accelerating price drop, we had to reduce the tax burden even further, by cutting the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, which was withdrawn altogether last month.
The abolition of the PGRT will give the industry a twofold stimulus. From now on, it will be in a position to increase the capital it needs to finance projects, and key energy projects will become more attractive for investors. Two days ago, Chevron announced a major exploration program at Fort Hope in the Northwest Territories, and mentioned that the abolition of the PGRT was one of its reasons for doing so.
Since, in the long term, it is in the interests of both producers and consumers for the Government to take a market-oriented approach, we also intend to meet our commitment to deregulate the natural gas industry, despite the problems created in

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. Masse
this respect by the drop in oil prices. As the November 1 target date draws closer, I will see to it that we take a truly consistent approach bearing in mind the fact that producers must have ready access to bigger markets, while guaranteeing competitive Canadian prices and adequate supplies for the foreseeable future.
In a series of measures-the Western Accord, the Atlantic Accord, the agreement on gas, the abolition of the PGRT, and our approach to such major projects as Husky's in Lloydmin-ster-we always looked upon the development of our energy resources as a means to unite the country. Among other things, we acknowledge the vital role of the provinces in the implementation of coherent energy policies.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I might point out in passing that the World Energy Conference ends today in Cannes, France. Earlier this morning, on behalf of Canada and all Canadians, I had the pleasure of extending an invitation to all participants to come to Montreal in 1989 to continue their discussions. More than 3,000 delegates from the world over will then meet to debate world energy issues.
Mr. Speaker, Canada must also be able to benefit from its plentiful mineral resources to sustain its growth. In this respect I have a particular interest in our asbestos industry. The human cost of the sharp decline in this sector over the past decade is unacceptable to this Government. The labour force dropped from 8,000 to 3,000. Five thousand workers lost their jobs, practically all of them in a region located within my riding. Mr. Speaker, I have seen the heartbreaks and sufferings caused by this crisis.
The Government of Canada gives priority to the asbestos issue because, like most countries and international organizations, it believes that the use of asbestos fibres is not only safe but desirable if adequate controls are in place. The European Economic Community shares our views. International Labour Organization officials endorsed this position a little over three years ago despite the fact that they were fully aware that asbestos workers are undoubtedly those who suffered most from the lack of adequate safety standards.
We have made strong representations on the international scene since September 1984, particularly to the American Environmental Protection Agency.
After my recent trip to Washington, Mr. Speaker, the EPA finally gave up under pressure and agreed to review the figures on which its recommendation to ban asbestos was based, figures which I described as being vague, incomplete and contradictory. I have now every reason to hope that the asbestos issue will not end on a sour note.
The asbestos issue, which is so significant for my own constituency, naturally brings me to speak about Quebec. I pointed out in my introduction how much the themes of the inaugural speech seem to correspond to the needs of modern Quebec. Let me explain.
Throughout the years, Quebec has developed, as was its prerogative, one of the best, if not the best social security system in America. Therefore, when the Government of Canada makes, as it has done, a commitment to improve the system for which it is financially and administratively responsible, Quebecers can only approve. When we state that established rights will be maintained, we are assuring Quebecers and all Canadians that we are pursuing our objective of equity. However, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said, this equity must essentially rely on our collective production of wealth. It is impossible to distribute continuously what we are not producing. In this perspective, the action of the Government has two major thrusts: to slow down the deficit and, at the same time, to stimulate the growth of our collective wealth. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention an important figure.
Since the general election of September 1984, 25 months ago, 120,000 jobs have been created in Quebec alone, for an average of over 4,800 new jobs a month.
The significance of these figures stands out even more if we make a comparison. In the 55-month period before the election, the Liberal Government had created only 41,000 jobs in Quebec. In other words, since 1984, the actions of this Progressive Conservative Government have created three times as many jobs in half the time.
I have no intention to gloat, Mr. Speaker. The Progressive Conservative Government knows better than anyone that there remains a lot to be done in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
We are also aware that the time is past when Governments thought they could solve everything by imposing their own will. The Prime Minister described the statement of this Government as a speech of continuity, and he is right. The Government wants to continue and will continue to stimulate the economy by allowing creativity and initiative to find its expression throughout Canada.
There is in Quebec a new generation just as creative as the previous one, but it has other ways to express itself. It is a generation of business women, entrepreneurs, administrators and intellectuals who are developing new relationships between industry and the academic world. This generation has only one message: Let us express our creativity, our taste for invention and our business sense, and we shall give Quebec the economic vitality it was about to lose. This generation does not want to go backward, but forward. It does not want to rehash social or linguistic facts, but to express another kind of vitality. It has said to the State: Thank you very much, we will operate in French, we will preserve our social security schemes, however we are prepared also to assume our responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I like to think that one of the first political initiatives of this generation was to end the Liberal era in 1984 and elect a young government which can understand its needs for expression and appreciate its competence.
I wish to pay tribute to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada; born in Quebec, he is the perfect
October 10, 1986

model of this generation which has achieved maturity, is eager for justice, proud of its mother tongue and open to the world. Quebec is part and parcel of the future of Canada. About to deal with the essential topic of reconciliation between Canada and Quebec, I should like to quote again the Prime Minister who stated in this House exactly one week ago: "Federal-provincial relations are very important. In my judgment, they are the laboratory of a federal state within which great things can happen. Anyone who tells you that he can run this country by issuing directives from 24 Sussex Drive has a very poor understanding of Canada. The easy way is to issue directives. The tough way is to listen to and understand the regions and to respect their point of view." Mr. Speaker, these words are those of a true statesman. They express a lesson of history, namely, that conflicts can only be resolved through confrontation or through co-operation. Between Canada and Quebec, the years before 1984 were those of confrontation. I will not go over that history again, but we all know it, and I was personally involved in it. I will note however that many political careers here in Ottawa have been built on the exploitation of confrontation.
Ever since the Progressive Conservative Party came to power, the Quebec-Canada constitutional issue has progressed more rapidly than over the previous 15 years. That is because this government has chosen the way of co-operation. It is a difficult way which does not foster enthusiasm easily, but it is the only way. Quebecers indeed expressed their will to remain in Canada during the 1980 referendum, but not at any cost. That is what the Liberal Party of Canada has failed to understand. Quebecers will not let anybody impose on them what they refuse. They are proud of their roots. The generation which has come to power and to which I referred a while ago is a generation of serene, lucid men and women who will negotiate hard. It is a generation which rejects the state as a provider of goods, but accepts it as the guardian of liberties; a generation which will not allow the Canadian and Quebec governments to settle this issue in any other way than "honourably and enthusiastically", to quote Brian Mulroney.
The ways of co-operation are not the ways of abandonment but those of intelligence. Quebecers are too politically astute not to recognize a Government that at last accepts their major contribution to the Canadian federation, a Government that supports their international presence because it believes, and rightly so, that Quebec's contribution enhances Canada's status, while Canada's status benefits Quebec.
Quebec will become a signatory to the Canadian Constitution. In 1984, Quebecers rejected a Liberal Government that held them in contempt, but today, they see themselves reflected in a Progressive Conservative Party where their unique strength is represented and their energy, their special characteristics and their expectations are held in high regard. That is what they expect from the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada and that is what the Government and the Prime Minister are committed to give.
The Address-Mr. Penner
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there will be a new chapter in the history of Canada. After negotiating the Constitution under the Conservative Macdonald-Cartier Government, Quebec was excluded under the Liberals and will now be able to return, its head held high, under Brian Mulroney's Conservative administration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski);: Questions or comments? If there are no questions or comments, debate.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, when the Speech from the Throne was being read by Her Excellency, the Governor General of Canada, I was absent from Ottawa attending the annual meeting of the Parliamentarians of the Commonwealth, a meeting which this year was held in London, England. That meeting was officially opened by Queen Elizabeth II, who is the head of the Commonwealth, and by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher whose Government was hosting this year's conference. I wish to advise the House that two of the heaviest items on the agenda at the conference were, first, the continuing, distressing and disturbing question of apartheid in South Africa and, second, the future of the Commonwealth itself.
At the conference, there was an air of confidence that the racist regime in South Africa would eventually collapse. It was also felt that those Governments that had introduced strong economic sanctions were Governments that were helping to bring about the collapse of that white supremacy regime much faster than would otherwise be the case. It was felt that what has happened in southern Rhodesia, which is now the new nation of Zimbabwe and now has a high degree of racial harmony, will in fact also be the pattern in South Africa in time.
Of course, the United Kingdom was somewhat embarrassed by its position on sanctions. Baroness Young made a noble attempt to explain to delegates from all across the Commonwealth that the U.K. position could be justified, but in fact her speech was rather poorly received. It was necessary for no less a personage than the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Geoffrey Howe, to come to the conference to indicate that there was no question at all about the United Kingdom's commitment to the Commonwealth and about the United Kingdom's desire to see apartheid end in South Africa, but that it could not agree with other Commonwealth leaders including Canada that sanctions would be effective.
In speaking at that conference, I was proud to say that Canada's position was unequivocal and strong. Many other delegates from across the Commonwealth praised the leadership of Canada and, as one delegate among the many, that gave me reason for pride in my own country.
I notice that the Speech from the Throne reinforces the commitment of Canada to the Commonwealth and to the ending of apartheid in South Africa. I will quote from the

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. Penner
Speech from the Throne because I think it is important to all Canadians:
The Commonwealth is central to Canada's efforts to promote, through concerted international action, a process of political dialogue in South Africa aimed at establishing representative government.
It is, I think, almost impossible for reasonable men and women to understand how one could make any sort of a justifiable argument for preventing a majority of the people in a given nation-state from having their say at the ballot box and from being represented in a free Parliament.
Returning to Ottawa after attending this very exhilarating and useful conference, I examined for myself and read very carefully the Speech from the Throne. As Hon. Members might expect, I looked particularly for pertinent references dealing with such questions as aboriginal rights, a new comprehensive native claims policy, Indian self-government and constitutional and political development in northern Canada.
I recognize as do all Hon. Members that not every single thing can be mentioned in a Speech from the Throne. Simply because something is omitted does not necessarily mean that there will be an absence of action. Nevertheless, I think the one single reference to aboriginal rights and the upcoming First Ministers' Conference on that subject scheduled for the spring of 1987 did seem to me to be just a little on the slim side for such a major issue in Canadian public policy.
I have to say that the one reference to aboriginal rights that was made in the Speech from the Throne was undoubtedly an important reference. There is no question about that at all. However, unless I am guilty of a misinterpretation, its phrasing seemed to me to carry with it a certain weariness and a certain frustration with the process of defining and entrenching aboriginal rights in the Constitution of Canada.
The Speech from the Throne mentioned that the question of aboriginal rights is still on the constitutional agenda. It then went on to say that the federal Government will exert every possible effort to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion, but there are the provinces with which to contend. The Speech from the Throne seems to imply that this reality will make life very difficult, indeed.
I have the distinct impression that with respect to its commitment to Indian self-government, to aboriginal rights and to the settlement of native claims, the Government is moving down market. I do hope I am wrong. If I am, I will be the first to admit it and to rejoice in the fact that I am wrong, but I do feel that these issues are sliding down on the scale of national priorities.
The Leader of the Government in the other place has said that we must plan for success, but he made repeated references to the cost of the effects of failure. My fear is that there is a mind-set developing toward the inevitable failure of this next crucial First Ministers' Conference scheduled for the spring of next year.
When I read what was written in the Speech from the Throne, I contrasted that with the election promise made by the Government in 1984. At that time, government Members said that they were going to continue to search for an accord on self-government issues. I found that promise to be strong and unequivocal. Even the Throne Speech of 1984 was stronger in its language. It talked about the need to honour the commitment to Canada's aboriginal peoples contained in the Constitution Act of 1982, and said that for these people, as for all Canadians, the high expectations that attended the act of patriation must not be disappointed. There is a continuing search; high expectations must not be disappointed. Those were things said in the past. The current Speech from the Throne indicates that the question is still on the agenda. There seems to be a kind of weariness about it all. Although some politicians, officials, or Premiers of the provinces may be weary with the topic, it will not go away. It is either this Government or its successor which will have to face up to the reality that there must be a resolution. The resolution must be just, be historically based, and satisfy the expectations which are abounding in the country.
I have not been in the House of Commons all that long, but the issue of Indian self-government and aboriginal rights, in the time you, Sir, and I have been Members of the House of Commons, has moved from a position where it was regarded as being something radical and remote, to a position where it was considered to be ridiculous for a while, and now to a position where it is relevant and a reality.
I should like to spend a few minutes talking about high expectations. Exactly what are the high expectations of Canada's indigenous people? For what will they be looking at the First Ministers Conference which we believe is scheduled for sometime during the month of April, 1987? Let us be very clear. They are looking for an acknowledgement, a right which they believe to be an inherent and unsurrendered right. They are looking to have that right recognized and protected in the Constitution of Canada. There is a very big difference-and it should not escape any of us-between having a right protected and recognized in the Constitution and merely enshrining a principle. I am not opposed to enshrining principles, but if we want reality to flow from constitutional amendment, it must be more than the enshrining of a principle; it must be the recognition and protection of a right which, I repeat, was never surrendered and is inherent.
Beyond that, the discussions at the First Ministers' Conference in the spring of next year must be serious, practical, and detailed in certain specific respects. For example, we cannot any longer avoid facing up to the necessity of an expanded land base for the indigenous people of Canada. I do not want to spend time giving a history lesson to the House of Commons, but it is terribly incongruous that the original inhabitants of the land, those who occupied and used the land in the north, west, east and centre, constitute only 2 per cent of Canada's population today. That 2 per cent of the population has a
October 10, 1986

certain degree of control over only one-quarter of 1 per cent of the land in Canada. I say only "a certain degree of control" because we know that Indian lands are administered under the authority of the Indian Act and that the Department of Indian Affairs has a great deal to say about how that land is used.
Also we must talk about resources at the upcoming First Ministers' Conference. When the country was explored and then settled, the indigenous people of Canada were the people who controlled wildlife resources and the fishery. It was their livelihood and it gave their lives meaning. Today we have court cases and disputes about control and jurisdiction over wildlife resources and the fishery. Surely Canada is mature enough, and surely there are those people in the country who can provide leadership, so that we can arrange some kind of comanagement agreements which will work, and quit engaging in terrible confrontations such as the one we saw in the Province of British Columbia when the federal Department of Fisheries engaged in hand-to-hand combat with native people over the fishery. I felt ashamed to see that on television. We cannot blame the fisheries officers; they are simply carrying out orders based upon a policy made by the central Government. We must talk about those matters and resolve the question of wildlife and fishery resources.
In respect of other resources, there must be a facing up to the reality that the revenues which flow from resource development must be shared in one way or another with the original peoples of Canada. Finally, we must be very practical, serious, and detailed about the legal and financial relationships between the Government of Canada and the native people.
I do not want to repeat the Manitoba situation again because there have been questions about it in the House, but it resulted from an unsatisfactory financial regime between the Government of Canada and the Indian people in that province who were given the responsibility of providing local services.
We require what was contained in the report of the special committee on Indian self-government-nothing other than a new, fresh, workable relationship between the central Government, of which we are a part in one way or another, and the Indian people of Canada, the indigenous people of Canada, the original inhabitants of the country. Surely to goodness we can accomplish that. I think the rest of the world is watching carefully to see whether we can provide leadership in this area. The opportunities are present. If we fail at the next First Ministers Conference, it will be to the lasting shame of our great country.
Let me say that the present policy of Indian self-government devised by the Department of Indian Affairs is totally unacceptable. It is too slow, and it is too restrictive. I should like to refer to the national management plan in respect of selfgovernment to the year 1990. It indicates that from the adoption of the federal Government's present self-government policy to April 1, 1988, a minimum of five Indian bands and Inuit communities are expected to be under the self-government regime. Can we imagine anything moving as slowly as that? If we talk with the Sechelt people of British Columbia,
The Address[DOT]-Mr. Penner
who just yesterday finally had their self-government Bill proclaimed, they will say that that is the pace at which we are moving. What is even more disturbing from the management plan is that up to 1990 we expect a minimum of 20 Indian bands and Inuit communities to be under the self-government regime. At that pace, the Department of Indian Affairs will be with us another 100 years. That is exactly what some of us anticipated when the Department of Indian Affairs embraced the policy of self-government and said that it would make the policy work. It is going to make it work on its terms. It is going to guarantee its own longevity. It is going to be around for a very long time and the pace is going to be as slow as all of that.
The aboriginal peoples of this country are becoming impatient. They want decisive action. Let no one misunderstand what they are seeking to do. In advocating self-government they are not seeking to separate from the rest of us. There is no question of that at all. They are seeking to join Confederation, to become working partners with the rest of us so we can have effective government at all levels. No matter how it is worked out, what the indigenous people of Canada are seeking is to have more control over their own affairs.
In the closing minutes, if I have enough time, permit me perhaps to quote two of the leading spokesmen in the indigenous community who can speak with far more authority on this than I could ever hope to. Dorothy Wabisca, VicePresident of the Native Council of Canada, says:
Self-government includes the right to have a meaningful say in our day-to-day lives.
What could be more reasonable than that? Who among us in this House of Commons would want to have every aspect of our lives rigidly controlled by an Act of Parliament? We would be the first to be screaming for emancipation. Yet the indigenous people of Canada live under an authoritarian Act of this House called the Indian Act. It is an intolerable situation. I turn to another leading spokesman, Mr. Georges Erasmus, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, who says:
What we are after is power where it is possible and in as many cases as is logical and reasonable for the First Nations to control their own lives without influence.
I think that says it all, Mr. Speaker. I intend in the course of this session to introduce a resolution which will support what will take place at the First Ministers' Conference. I will be asking all Hon. Members to support that resolution not only by making good speeches but by standing in their places and, when you call the vote, Sir, saying yea and not nay.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear from the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) about the Commonwealth Conference which he attended. I share his pride and agree with the position that Canada has taken regarding apartheid. I would like to ask him about the situation here at home. I know he is interested in native children as well as in native communities. I know that he will share some of the concerns that we have had in the Special

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. Penner
Committee on Child Care. We heard from many representatives of the native community about not having services for native children. Native people want control of child welfare in their communities and they want services to help promote their culture. Children are extremely important to them. They are the future of their communities.
Is the Hon. Member aware of some of the funding problems? I just found out about this situation in British Columbia. There are many many reserves on Vancouver Island, in the northern part of British Columbia and I think the Yukon as well, and only about $45,000 is allocated for community funds. That is the only budget to cover anything on reserves having to do with families, and none of it, I understand, is for child care programs. At the same time the federal Government has been down-sizing the DIA staff and that means some pretty substantial salary moneys going back into the pot, I assume, which money, in my view, should be going to community services under the control of native groups. Does the Hon. Member have any comment to make about that issue and what should be done about it?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to respond to that very relevant question. At the beginning let me say that I regret that I cannot directly give an answer to British Columbia. What is happening in one province is probably the same as in the other regions of the country with respect to Indian Affairs policy.
The best example on child welfare I can give the Hon. Member is in the Province of Manitoba where a tripartite agreement was arranged between the Government of Manitoba, the federal Government and the Indian leaders of the province. The first agreement was to run for five years. It is just now subject to negotiation and signing for another period of time. The idea was that when the Indian people of Manitoba assumed responsibility for child welfare there was to be a comparable level of service to that provided by the provincial administration.
In Manitoba, the child welfare programs now under the authority of the Indian people of Manitoba have worked extremely well. The goals they set for themselves have been met. They are satisfied with assuming this responsibility. The Province of Manitoba continues to set high standards for child care. The Indian people of Manitoba who have this responsibility find they cannot live up to the provincial standards because the Government here in Ottawa will not provide a comparable level of funding. We have created two situations. We have created two nations. This is where the theme of broken promises is repeated again, again and again. Although the Minister refuses to accept the fact so far that broken promises and broken agreements are the theme right across the country, I think the Assembly of First Nations, the Cree people in the James Bay area of northern Quebec and many other indigenous groups are gathering information which will convince the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) that this is the pattern and it is a pattern that has to be broken very quickly.


Dave Nickerson: Canadian parliamentarians, I am sure, were well represented by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) at the CPA conference in Great Britain. I for one, and I am sure most other Members here today, were pleased with the report that he gave us of that meeting. I have a couple of comments to which I would hope the Hon. Member can reply.
First, dealing with his report saying that Commonwealth members were trying to engineer the collapse of the Government of South Africa, I would hope that he is not a victim of Marxist theory according to which you have to bring a government down, get to a state of anarchy and then kind of build up from there. There are great dangers involved with that revolutionary approach, not the least of which is a possible bloodbath. I would hope that what might be achieved is a smooth transition from a racially restricted Government to one that embraces equal opportunity for members of all races.
This brings me to my second point. I have the honour to represent a constituency where about half the population is of aboriginal decsent and the other half consists of Canadians of descent from all over the world including a fair proportion of recent immigrants. We, meaning the people of the west and Northwest Territories, for 20 years or so gave a great deal of thought and devoted a lot of energy to what might be the best system of government. We, collectively after that hard work and thought, have come up with the proposition that we should not have racially restricted Governments. It should be one person, one vote regardless of the race and everybody can work together for the Government and for the betterment of all people. That is what we want, which seems to go a little bit against what the Hon. Member was saying.
Would the Hon. Member be so kind as to reconcile on the one hand his abhorrence, which I share, with racially restricted Government in South Africa and, on the other hand, his advocacy of what appear to be racially restricted Governments in Canada? We talk about Indian self-government, Government by people of one race, and the establishment of what could well amount to homelands. How can he reconcile those two?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, that question can be answered very quickly. First, the Member asks about the South African regime. He asks whether we do not want a smooth transition. Certainly we want a smooth transition. All that is necessary is for the present Government in South Africa to pass a Bill which would extend the franchise to all people who live within the boundaries of that nation. All that is necessary is to give the vote to the people.
The Member wants to draw a very spurious analogy between that situation and the advocacy of self-government for Indian people in Canada. If he will take the time to read what no less a knowledgeable person than the Hon. Mr. Berger has written, he will realize that the definition of apartheid is to refuse access. In the advocacy of self-government to give
October 10, 1986

Indian people control over the matters that affect their day to day lives there is no restriction of any kind to access to the greater society, be it the vote, be it running for public office or any sort of restriction of even the most minute form. To draw a spurious relationship is quite unworthy of the Hon. Member. I know that he knows much better and is just trying to bait me a little bit. I do not mind that at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mrs. Blouin).


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate our new Speaker on being elected to the Chair of this House, and also the Deputy Speaker and Acting Speakers, and assure them of my cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in the House today in response to the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure you that the entire population of the riding of Montmorency-Orleans takes pride in the opportunity I am given today.
Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, start my speech with a brief description of my riding and an outline of its history. Subsequently, I intend to comment on the themes of social justice contained in the Speech from the Throne. Northeast of Quebec City, Montmorency-Orleans covers an area of nearly 2,969 square kilometers. Its south side borders on the St. Lawrence River, while its northern limits go as far as the Parc des Laurentides. To the east, it has always entertained harmonious relations with its neighbour, the riding of Charlevoix.
Seventy per cent of the riding's 90,000 people live in the urban area of Beauport. As the economic focus of the riding, Beauport has many small- and medium-sized businesses, mainly in the services sector.
Agriculture is an integral part of life in this riding. Most arable land is found on the lie d'Orleans and along the Beaupre shore. The farmers in Montmorency-Orleans are knowledgeable and skilled, proud of their often ancestral properties, while they have no hesitation in using the latest technology to upgrade their production capacity in various agricultural sectors.
Mr. Speaker, Montmorency-Orleans is also a part of our history. With Quebec City, this region can claim to have been the womb of French culture in North America. More recently, the town of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre became a famous stop on Pope Jean Paul II's historic pilgrimage on Canadian soil.
Already famous for its pilgrimages, the region also has a wild life reserve, a genuine sanctuary for white geese, whose fame has reached beyond our borders.
As an area that attracts tourism, the riding includes among its many attractions Montmorency Falls, the highest falls in
The Address-Mrs. Blouin
Quebec, and Mont Sainte-Anne, a ski resort of international calibre.
Mr. Speaker, I could not describe this region without evoking the rural charms of the lie d'Orleans. It has been described by poet Felix Leclerc as 40 miles of tranquility, and for farmers of the Cote de Beaupre, its reflection in the St. Lawrence still remains the best of barometers.
Mr. Speaker, the residents of my constituency are warm people, full of originality and aware of the historic and cultural significance of their region.
In the Throne Speech, the Government squarely states its will to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. This Government confirmed its determination to achieve this social objective by stating its desire to make of this country, and I quote: ... a modern, tolerant and caring nation in which its citizens are secure and prosperous.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are not immune to the upheavals and reassessments which typify this period in history. Family members are facing new commitments and, in many cases, a new sharing of parental responsibilities.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative to take concrete action to promote the development of the family unit. As far as the family is concerned, the Government must also become the catalyst for a change in attitudes. In family-related matters, the Government recognizes the obvious expertise of the various groups interested in these issues and listens carefully to all their suggestions. Our Government is responsive to the needs of the Canadian family and will continue to work for its development.
At a time when some people are vainly attempting to discredit our efforts and question our will to honour our commitments, it is my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that we are on the right track.
The Government, in its efforts to maintain the quality of life for our senior citizens, has announced that low-income widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 will now receive a larger part of the spouse allowance, at whatever age their spouse may have deceased. It is important to note here that mostly women will benefit from this.
It is along those lines, with that sense of social responsibility that the Government intends to maintain its support to senior citizens. In that respect, let me recall the changes proposed to the Canada Pension Plan, a package of various improvements including benefit eligibility at 60, higher disability benefits, the extension of the survivor's pension in case of remarriage, and new rules for sharing credits and pensions between spouses.
Who among senior citizens does not benefit from the New Horizons Program? This is a program that enables them to carry on community-oriented projects which they have themselves designed and managed. This Government has not forgotten that those people are the very foundation of our society.

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mrs. Blouin
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the House a subject which understandably is of a particular concern to me, the status of women.
When they come to Parliament, women of course are entering a place that has been largely permeated with exclusively masculine values. But today, they help change the rules of the game. Men and women understand that diversity is a source of enrichment for Parliament and a sure factor of true democracy.
This Government has shown how serious its commitments were with respect to the economic and social development of women. The labour market now includes 347,000 more women than in September 1984, while the unemployment rate has declined by 2.4 points.
Let me stress here, Mr. Speaker, some achievements directly linked with the subject at hand. Better job and training opportunities; employment equity in jobs under federal jurisdiction; a new divorce act; improved pensions for women; increase in women appointments, and the forthcoming publication, next November, of the report on child care by a parliamentary task force.
Over the past two years, Mr. Speaker, the status of women has greatly improved, but much remains to be done. Aware of their difficulties, concerns and rights, I will watch very closely how the issues of particular interest to them will progress.
We must assume a great social responsibility towards the emergence of the various social realities among women. Mr. Speaker, we will pursue with determination the objectives which we have set up in order to guarantee women a decent future.
I was delighted to read in the Speech of the Throne, that the Government intends to intensify its fight against the harmful effects of pornography, a major factor which contributes to violence against women and children.
When a free society wishes to assess itself, it is brought naturally to wonder how its citizens should behave and what limits there should be to their free expression. There are no easy answers to these two questions, but only in trying to delineate the elements of a possible answer can we possibly define our freedoms and responsibilities.
Again, Mr. Speaker, our Government has a major role to play. With the assistance of the various people concerned, it is necessary, even imperative, to convince Canadians to tackle the roots of this problem and to remedy the situation.
The same applies to violence against women; even though it is not new, this problem concerns all of us and its solution depends upon our collective efforts. It is a complex issue which necessitates co-operation and understanding in the steps to come. But we simply cannot afford to wait much longer to find solutions to this problem which, in a modern society such as ours, is troubling, not to say embarrassing.
Since our election, Mr. Speaker, we spared no time and energy to improve the condition of our young people. Our efforts have been rewarded and we have made remarkable progress in the past two years. From 18.4 per cent on election
day, the youth unemployment rate has now dropped to 15 per cent. The number of jobs for young people has increased considerably during the same period. Lastly, the programs launched by this Government to promote student employment have led to a sharp increase in the number of summer jobs for students.
Much remains to be done, Mr. Speaker, and this is why the Speech from the Throne advocates better opportunities for young Canadian men and women. As indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the Government is firmly resolved to pave the way for closer co-operation between the federal administration, the provinces and the private sector to improve employment opportunities for young people so they will take a more active part in productive and challenging endeavours.
The Speech from the Throne also highlights our commitment to promote small business and private initiative, especially through new projects designed to instill a genuine spirit of entrepreneurship in young Canadians.
The quality of post-secondary education also ranks high on the agenda of the Government. To help meet the challenges facing higher education, the Government will propose a national forum on post-secondary education, to be held early next year.
During the first session our Government introduced Bill C-18 which was given third reading by the House. Since this Criminal Code amendment became law, there has been a sharp decline in cases of impaired driving which, as we know, is the main cause of highway accidents. Penalties are much stiffer and many drivers think twice before getting behind the wheel. The 1985 Christmas highway toll was the lowest in many years.
In the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, the Government is again committed to support the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse. The Government has indicated its firm intention to implement strong measures against the serious threat of widespread trafficking in hard drugs. To prevent drug and alcohol abuse, the Government will propose a national strategy to fight against drugs, and a comprehensive action program to reduce impaired driving. The Government will continue to campaign in Canada and elsewhere to put a stop to the use of drugs by amateur athletes.
On the international level, the major supplier countries keep producing large quantities of drugs. On the national level, there is no indication that drugs are less available. The overall value of drugs seized by Customs Canada exceeds $244 million, a 142 per cent increase over the estimated value for 1984. Total drug seizures made by Customs Canada increased 10 per cent over the previous year.
It must be noted that drug seizures by Canadian Customs over the first six months of 1986 are higher than those recorded during the whole of 1985. At the end of June 1986, the value of drug seizures totalled $334.6 million, some $100 million more than the total for 1985. The report on drug
October 10, 1986

seizures for 1985 shows an increase in the number of cocaine and heroin seizures and also in the quantity of those drugs that were intercepted, but heroin accounts for the major part of the increase. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that no one can remain indifferent in the face of those figures. I am therefore convinced the measures the Government will be proposing to control hard drug abuse will meet with unanimous approval.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have had an opportunity to comment on some aspects of the Throne Speech that deal more specially with social justice. That Speech assures the Canadian people of our constant commitment to improve their wellbeing. Under the guidance and leadership of this Progressive Conservative Government, our country will experience physical, moral, intellectual and cultural growth. Many are the fields of interest in which Canadian men and women can come forward with new ideas to strenghten our development, in an atmosphere of peace and serenity. That progress, Mr. Speaker, is further evidence of the qualities of our Canadian people and their firm intention to participate fully in the development and strenghtening of the nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions, comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Speech from the Throne. We have had this particular majority Government for two years and it is now, to some extent, taking on the appearance of its predecessor. Members opposite, while they may have the majority of seats in this House, should remember that only 50 per cent of the people voted for them and a good portion of that vote has crumbled away. The arrogance of the majority is showing through more and more. The Government needs to remember that the essence of democracy is the consent of the governed. If you do not have that consent, your mandate is tentative. After two years, I suggest that the mandate of this Government is tentative only. It no longer has a majority of the voters supporting it.
Given the need to do something about that crumbling mandate, the Government brought forward the Speech from the Throne. It was, I suppose, an attempt by the Government to put a new mask on an old face. The Speech from the Throne was supposed to be the manifestation of that new face which it hoped the people of the country would recognize. Unfortunately, its mask is a little thin and in the short time since prorogation and the Speech from the Throne, it appears that the old face is increasingly showing through. Ordinary Canadians recognize the old face of the Government as that of a government which concerns itself particularly with the protection of the privileged in every way possible.
When we consider the past two-year record of the Government, we think of patronage appointments, support of corporate power in the banks and of industrial giants, attacks
The Address-Mr. Hovdebo
on the universality of our social structure, bail-outs of industrial and financial institutions. It has been a Government that gave the edge to the privileged while the underprivileged were expected to make their own way.
It is very interesting to note that even in its attempt to show a new face in the Speech from the Throne, many of the items that were brought forward in this Speech from the Throne can be directly related to the 1984 Speech from the Throne.
Let me give a few examples, of which there are many. In 1984 the Government suggested that it needed to defend and strengthen the Canadian family. In the two years since it took office it slashed the family allowance and made a strong attempt to change pensions. It has consistently attacked universality. The Government has done many things to weaken the family structure, but in the current Speech from the Throne it stated that the Canadian family is the cornerstone which the Government will support and strengthen. The Throne Speech indicates it will go on strengthening the Canadian family, yet for two years the Government attempted to weaken it.
In the 1984 Speech from the Throne, the Government said it would make the tax system simpler and fairer. Direct taxes have trebled since then and the income tax structure has been made much more complex in the last two years with the addition of more loopholes for the privileged so that they may make more money and pay less taxes. In 1986, the Government again claims that it will make the tax system simpler and more comprehensive.
In the 1984 Speech from the Throne, the Government said that accessible and affordable child care was needed. It did nothing except to establish Study No. 3, which was supposed to make recommendations about what the Government should do in this particular area. In its 1986 Speech from the Throne, the Government said that adequate quality must be made available in child care.
In 1984, the Government said in its Speech from the Throne that legislation to control pornography will be brought forward. While the Government introduced such legislation, it was almost a bust and created a great deal of concern. In its 1986 Speech from the Throne, the Government suggests that it will take effective action, and let us hope that it does.
In 1984, the Government stated that the Constitution would be incomplete without Quebec. In its 1986 Speech from the Throne, the Government stated it would do its utmost to make Quebec a full partner in the Constitution.
I believe these examples suggest that the Government's old face has not been entirely covered and shows through even in the wording in the Speech from the Throne.
Furthermore, the Speech from the Throne illustrates the Government's propensity to conduct studies. For instance, it will study agriculture at the economic summit and GATT talks. It will conduct a national forum on education, an

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. Hovdebo
advisory board and strategy board on scientific research, as well as a space agency. If a Government does not want to take action, the best way to guarantee that there is no action is to send these matters to another committee for another study. In this way the Government will not have to take action in these areas for the next two years.
The Government did not mention the question of agriculture in 1984, yet, in 1986, it was the first item in the Speech from the Throne. I congratulate the Government for that because we must not neglect agriculture. However, this first item in the Government's Throne Speech shows the thinness of the mask over the Government's old face. While agriculture should hold a position of great importance in our economy, it is facing the most problems at this time. The agricultural sector provides our country with approximately 50 per cent of our foreign exchange, yet it has the most need for quick action. It became quite obvious to the House, Canadians, farmers and people in many other countries that as a result of the United States Farm Bill, the farm economy in Canada, particularly in grain production, would be in trouble because that Bill would push the prices down. The farm groups knew this and came to us saying that something should be done.
Not only were we in the Opposition aware of these problems, the Government knew of them as well. On March 21, after the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) visit to President Reagan, he stated in response to my question that they recognized there was a problem with the Farm Bill. Incidentally, that Bill was passed on December 27, 1985, and there was no doubt since then that we were going to have problems with the price of grain across Canada. The Minister stated at that time that they recognized the problems and would give it the highest priority. That was eight months ago. The Prime Minister's response to my question was in March, also several months ago.
I think the farm community has the right to ask why no action has been taken. Why was there not a plan in place? Why do they yet not know what is going to be done to assist them to survive? The United States Government had in place in the passing of the Farm Bill a structure which gave the farmers of the United States more than $6 Canadian a bushel for wheat. They knew last December that when they planted grain this spring they would get that amount for their grain in the fall. We knew when we planted our grain this spring we were likely to receive $2.50 or $3 Canadian a bushel, half of the guaranteed U.S. price.
The farmers of Europe, who in the last few years, are producing a considerable amount of grain, wheat, canola or rapeseed, as it is called, before they plant their crop, they know what they are going to receive for it. I recognize that some of the problems of overproduction in Europe are directly related to that policy, but we should be able to learn from that policy and put in place some kind of structure in Canada which
would allow the farmers to survive, still be productive and contribute to the economy.
The farmers should be asking, as they are, why was a plan not in place? Compare that with the weekend decision to bail out the bank which was in trouble. On Friday night the bank was in trouble. The announcement was made on Tuesday afternoon that the Government would provide for the two banks what amounted in the end to over $1 billion. Compare that also to the action taken by previous Governments as well as this Government for large corporations such as Massey-Ferguson and the Chrysler Corporation for loan guarantees. Not only did the U.S. Farm Bill guarantee that we are going to receive a very low price for our grain but almost at the same time the U.S. put in place the BISEP Program which subsidized the export of U.S. grain.
We can argue the pros and cons of why it was done. The suggestion is that it was done to save the markets the U.S. felt it was losing in various parts of the world to the European community. That is probably so, but it did happen to the extent that a ton of wheat, which costs approximately $200 to produce in Canada, was being delivered to countries such as Egypt and Algeria for approximately $100 Canadian. In other words, to work in that market, we would have had to sell the grain at half the cost of production. That is a problem which the Government had to face. I appreciate the effort made by the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board in trying to get the rest of the wheat producers of the world, the U.S. and the European Common Market, to recognize the fallacy of their policy. I have assisted wherever possible to get the word out that something needs to be done about the syndrome of subsidies to farm grains.
In the end, what was important was some kind of action which would make it possible for the farmers to survive. Right at the moment in western Canada-and I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but I think it is not that far different- approximately 25 per cent of the farmers who raise grain and depend on the sale of grain for their incomes are in a position where, at the price which is presently being paid for grain, they will not survive another year. Take away 25 per cent of the farmers and you make a big hole in the farm community and the effective rural economy of the Prairies.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in the Speech from the Throne, and after the Speech, suggested they were going to take certain action. I suggest their action is too little and too late. The suggested amount of $1 billion is less than would be necessary to bring the price of wheat and barley in the prairie provinces only up to the lowest price paid in the United States, or up to the cost of production. It is not even enough to do that. The amount being suggested of $1 billion is to be divided by the graingrowers right across Canada. And that is right. The $1 billion, or whatever the Government decides is going to be given, should be divided on the basis of all those people producing grains and affected by the reduction in the price. But it is, as I said, too little and too late.
October 10, 1986

Members of the farm community in the United States and in Europe have had the comfort of knowing that what they produced was going to bring back at least the cost of production. The farmers in Canada, in all provinces, have not had that comfort. The comfort which has been extended to them, which was that we will pay for their transition in getting out of farming, has been of much less comfort than could have been expected.
Therefore, I suggest that the Speech from the Throne, contained a lot of nice words, a lot of words which should make us think we are going in the right direction, but those words are a mask which covers the face of a Government which does not yet recognize that all the people are its responsibility, that the farmers who are suffering now, the underprivileged, should also be part of it. The attempt to show a more caring face is not really coming through. The old mask of the Party for the privileged is showing more often than it should.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) for his excellent speech. I have had the pleasure of working on the Committee on Agriculture with the Hon. Member and he is obviously very knowledgeable about these topics. I just wanted to make a brief comment and ask the Hon. Member to respond. It has to do with the U.S. Farm Bill.
Together with other Hon. Members of the House I had the opportunity to go to Washington earlier this year in order to have a three-day briefing on the U.S. Farm Bill. Quite apart from the fact that it is a disastrous piece of legislation in terms of what it will do to Canadian agriculture, $70 billion U.S. in subsidies, which is $100 billion Canadian, is aimed directly at competing against our agricultural commodities. When we came out of our briefings in Washington we had meetings with our Embassy people. I asked our Embassy people the following questions. What kind of lobby did we put together to ensure that this type of legislation would not pass? What attempts did we make in order to have the legislation amended which, in turn, would reduce the serious effects that it would cause Canadian agriculture? More specifically, I asked whom we had hired to lobby on our behalf.
As all Hon. Members know, we hired Mr. Deaver to lobby on acid rain, despite the fact that he was apparently a controversial individual. However, he did an effective lobbying job, or at least he was seen as being effective. I was told that we did not hire anyone to perform a lobbying function and that, in fact, whatever lobbying was done was done by a few staff members at our Washington Embassy. That was the response to what I consider to be one of the most offensive pieces of legislation to Canadian agriculture passed by any country on the face of the globe. We did not even retaliate or attempt to influence the legislation other than by having one or two people at our Embassy make a few phone calls, or whatever else they did.
The Address-Mr. Hovdebo
Will the Hon. Member respond to my comments? As far as I can see, this issue is an important and fundamental one. Perhaps if we had made a better effort we could have had some impact with respect to lessening the bad side-effects of the legislation.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and for his comment. 1 think that he has answered his own question in that we know what was done and what was not done in order to have some effect on the legislation.
The Hon. Member pointed out one of the factors which not only we in Canada but those in the world community dependent on trade need to consider. I refer to the ideology which allowed, suggested, or even pushed the U.S. Congress to pass such legislation even when it knew it would have some effect on the economies of the world, not only the Canadian economy but the economies of many other countries. I refer to countries such as Zambia, for instance, which was affected by the Farm Bill. Zambia can no longer sell the peanuts which it produces. Peanuts are also being dumped on the world market at lower prices. The legislation affects the Third World as well as countries such as Canada.
It is absolutely necessary to change the ideology of trade. It is no longer any good to do what must be done at the expense of whoever happens to be in the road. That is the philosophy on which the Farm Bill was constructed. Unfortunately, such a move affects not only us Canadians but most primary producers in the world.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I always listen closely to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). I noted a variety of subjects that he discussed today. I took particular note of his statement with regard to agriculture. He said that French farmers knew, when they planted their crops, what they would receive. He said the same with respect to American farmers. I suggest to the Hon. Member that perhaps in Canada farmers know what they will receive when they plant their crops. We have agriculture stabilization legislation which allows for a payment of some 90 per cent of the five-year average price for crops. Thus, I believe Canadian farmers know what they will receive for their crops.
I also wish to bring up another point. I believe the Hon. Member is sitting too close to members of the Official Opposition. He is becoming affected by their rhetoric, especially that of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who both take off on flights of fancy every once in a while.
The Hon. Member said that we bailed out the banks. Of course we did not bail out the banks; we bailed out the investors. The Hon. Member said that pornography legislation is of great concern. There was a bit of a play on words in his remarks. He said that the pornography legislation was a bust.
The Hon. Member discussed the area of the family allowance. He said that we have not allowed the family allowance to

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. Tupper
grow as fast as the rate of inflation. With such a low rate of inflation I do not know how he can go so far as to say that we slashed the family allowance. Those are my comments.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I will deal first with the subject of the family allowance since that was the Hon. Member's last point. I know what the Government did to the family allowance. I know that the payments did not go down, and I accept that. However, they are now less than they would have been if the Government had allowed the law which was in place to stay in place. What is the difference if the price of bread goes up and a person dependent on the family allowance to buy food for the family does not receive an increase in his or her family allowance? There is no difference between the family allowance not being increased and buying bread that costs more. I am suggesting that what the Government did is the same as cutting the family allowance. The rhetoric that is used to defend the move is just that. It is rhetoric that affects poor families in the same way as if their family allowances had been cut.
As far as agriculture is concerned, we need a global policy on agriculture. The Government seems incapable of looking at agriculture as a whole. Stabilization policies are the taking over of problems that do not solve the problems concerning farm economies.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would feel more comfortable with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) if he had mentioned the child tax credit and its delivery to the poorest sector of the Canadian economy when he talked about family allowance. The two matters are tied together. I am comfortable with our Government's attempts to provide money to those who need it most in our society, particularly when we spend so much on the interest payments on debt which was run up by the previous Government supported by the New Democratic Party back in 1972-73. They created the problem and we are doing our best to solve it as quickly as we can. We would appreciate a little support in that regard.
Can the Hon. Member tell us how many embassies and consulates we have in the United States? Can he tell us how many Canadians are working on behalf of Canadian agriculture in those embassies and consulates? Is it 100, 200, or 300?
I would not want the Hon. Member to leave the impression with the House that we are not putting some resources into our relationship with the Americans in terms of agriculture.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member does not expect me to be able to answer such a detailed question. However, I want to make the point that the child tax credit was taken up as a result of the direct taxes levied at almost the same time. In effect, it was given with one hand and taken away with the other before it could be used to feed those who need it.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted on behalf of my constituents of Nepean-Carleton to
rise in the Chamber this afternoon and to share with you and with my colleagues in the House of Commons some of my concerns and remarks regarding the Speech from the Throne.
If we look back to 1984 when we as a Government delivered our first Speech from the Throne, we find that we had four cornerstones at that time. They were economic renewal, national reconciliation, social justice and constructive internationalism. I think the Government now recognizes, as do most Canadians, that those goals are within our reach. If we as a Government can achieve those goals in the course of our mandate, then we will have done well by Canadians and by our great country. When reading the Speech from the Throne, one always asks oneself, perhaps selfishly at first, how the material in the Speech impacts upon one's constituents. Then, of course, one asks oneself how it impacts upon Canadians.
As I read the Speech from the Throne, and particularly those aspects that relate to environmental protection, programs for veterans, programs that will affect the Canadian family and child care, elevating the importance of volunteerism, establishing our sovereignty in the Arctic, enhancing the National Capital Commission, placing new emphasis on research and on science and technology, placing new emphasis on our post-secondary processes of education and research, and moving through the world with peace and justice as priorities, I found a great deal for my constituents.
You have been in this House for some time, Mr. Speaker. Two of my predecessors, the late Hon. Walter Baker and the Hon. Mr. Bell were colleagues of yours. They served the House with grace, strength and sincerity and with productivity. Prior to them, there were other great parliamentarians representing my riding, including George Drew, the Hon. R. L. Borden and, before him, of course, Sir John A. Macdonald. Over the years since Confederation, my constituency has been very well served in this House. I am proud to be a part of that tradition and a part of the present Government so that I may carry on with enhancing my community and enhancing Canada in some small way.
Going back to the time of Macdonald, the part of Carleton County which includes Nepean-Carleton was then totally an agricultural community. In the days since, it has progressed from an agricultural and bedroom community to a dynamic mixture of rural and urban. Now the riding contains some
135,000	people but, more important, there are about 36,000 people who work in that constituency. There are about 1,900 small companies at work in the riding, the largest of them being that tandem of Bell Northern and Northern Telecom. Those two companies employ between them nearly 5,000 people.
Within the framework of the small business community, there is, in addition to the figures I already mentioned, about 3,200 farm units, about 1,000 of which are operated by fulltime farmers. These farms have a gross annual income of about $27 million. Of the farming community, those who are
October 10, 1986

in the dairy industry are prospering. However, those who are involved in the cash crop business, the grain farmers like those in western Canada to whom my colleague who spoke previously referred, are experiencing all of the same difficulties as those across Canada. I very much welcome those initiatives in the Speech from the Throne that comment upon stabilizing and broadening markets for agricultural products for Canadian farmers. It will impact on my community in a dramatic way.
About 11 out of the 50 largest employers in metropolitan Ottawa are now located in Nepean-Carleton. More surprisingly, of all of the companies, organizations and businesses in metropolitan Ottawa with sales of over $25 million annually, at least one-third are situated in Nepean-Carleton, a community that only a few years ago was an agricultural community or an agricultural and bedroom community.
The community of Nepean-Carleton has grown and prospered over the years. It has prospered because it has had good municipal Government. It has prospered because of the role played by volunteers in that community. It has prospered because of the strong school boards that have been set up both in the public and separate school systems. It has prospered because of its programs for seniors and because of the foresight we had in the area of recreation. That blend of recreational facilities, good Government, good libraries and good homes, all of those things that make the community a comfortable, convenient and enjoyable place to live, have all come together. I am proud to be part of a Government that is working toward enhancing all of the good things that are there in the business world and elsewhere.
One of the areas on which the Throne Speech touched was the National Capital Commission, an organization that has been with us now for many years. That organization is dramatically important to metropolitan Ottawa and to the nation. I have now had the privilege of residing in the greater Ottawa area for 27 years, and as I have watched this community grow, many of the good things that have happened in metropolitan Ottawa over the last years have happened because of the National Capital Commission. I am thinking of the parkways, our remarkable expanses of open land, our green belt, the great festivals we have throughout the year such as Winterlude and the Festival of Spring and the joyous occasions that take place here on what was once Dominion Day and is now Canada Day. All of those have been orchestrated by the National Capital Commission. Those are things that we see in our everyday lives, but there is much that the NCC does that goes unseen including the provision of hard services, roads and other things like that.
Of course, the National Capital Commission is charged with enhancing our national monuments and with having a national presence in this our capital city. In balance, it has done its job well. The National Capital Commission needs to be supported by all of us so that our nation's capital will grow stronger and so that Canadians will become prouder of their capital and will want to come here for holidays, for educational experiences
The Address-Mr. Tupper
and to see their national heritage. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to see that that comes about.
For those of us who live here, who have our homes here and who work and play here, the National Capital Commission touches on our daily lives in a dramatic way.
One of the things I have recognized in recent months, working closely with members of the National Capital Commission, is that within the Commission's mandate is the development of the so-called green belt that mantles the metropolitan community, so the National Capital Commission needs a much stronger policy, a much more refreshing approach to how the farmland in the green belt is developed and enhanced. At the same time, I am concerned that a mechanism has to be found to allow the National Capital Commission to be more accountable to the concerns of the local community.
I hope that we all might give this some thought as we address those principles contained in the Speech from the Throne, principles that will enhance the National Capital Commission and will make it one of our important instruments for the future.
On Wednesday, we heard the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) address this Chamber on the actions of the Government over the past two years in the area of research, science and technology. It is a remarkable record, when we stop to think about it. The Government introduced a five-year plan for granting councils. It brought forward support in a unique way for organizations like the Institute of Advanced Studies. It has put into place the Technology Centres Program, a program of which few Canadians are aware, that is starting to pay remarkable dividends for Canada. It introduced our Space Station Program, and it is working with a great deal of enthusiasm to continue our satellite program with the M. Sat and Radarsat program. After all those achievements, the Government included some additional items in the Speech from the Throne. Foremost in all of this was the indication that the Government intended to establish a National Advisory Board for Industrial Technology and industrial technology transfers.
I trust that my colleagues, as well as all Canadians, recognize the impact of that decision. It means that a group of informed Canadians will be brought together as an advisory board. They will be the best minds available in Canada from industry, education, the private sector, and Government. This group will work together, and the meetings will be chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). For the first time in Canada's parliamentary history, decision and policy-making relative to the significant areas of research and innovation is being brought forward to the Prime Minister's Office, a most significant place in our decision and policy-making role.

October 10, 1986
The Address-Mr. Caccia
Also the Speech from the Throne indicated that Canada and MOSST would be bringing forward a new policy for enhancing science and technology in Canada, especially enhancing strategic technologies. The Minister indicated that he would be bringing forth that strategy to the House within the next four months to five months. We await that strategy with great expectations.
At the same time-and I think it was welcomed by everyone-there was a recognition in the Speech from the Throne of the importance of our secondary and post-secondary school educational programs. We cannot take that approach too seriously. As we look at Canada and at the challenge which lies ahead of us, we will not be able to face those challenges without skilled, trained, and innovative people. Regardless of what we do in the policy sector, if those human resources are not available over the next 10 years to 15 years to compete in an innovative world, we will never succeed. It is important to recognize that this area was highlighted in the Speech from the Throne. We as parliamentarians should welcome it.
I am confident that everyone in this room has given considerable thought to what Canada and North America will be like in the last 10 years of this century and the beginning of the next. Historically this great nation of Canada was built upon our forest products, the products of our oceans, agricultural products, and mineral products.
Those industries have created a great deal of wealth for us. However, as we look to the future, we realize that these industries are all facing difficulties with greater competition in world markets and more productivity in other parts of the world. We will have to work to enhance them. As we think about the Canada of tomorrow, we realize that those industries are important and will always be important to us. They will provide great sources of livelihood and income. We will have to grow in a different area if we are to compete with European countries, the United States, countries such as Brazil and those in the Pacific Rim in the years ahead.
We will probably not be great manufacturers. We will not be prepared to accept the standard of living which other countries might accept to allow them to be great manufacturers of products. We will have to build our future upon a knowledge-intensive society. If that becomes our goal or our requirement, the great institutions which we must strengthen are our universities and colleges in our educational system.
The Speech from the Throne sets the framework for the Canada of tomorrow, and I am delighted that it does.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on debate.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time this afternoon, I will try to condense a few thoughts flowing from my reaction to reading the Speech from
the Throne which set out a sense of direction for the Government of the day.
If we look at the Speech from the Throne wherein it deals with the environment, we find a few paragraphs at the end of the document which contain an assortment of thoughts related to a piece of legislation, an initiative in relation to parks, but nothing comprehensive or all pervasive as the public was expecting from the Government of Canada.
What is happening here is that the Government is dealing with the environment, through the Speech from the Throne, as if it were another activity to which attention must be paid in the same manner as it pays attention to other governmental activities, not with the overriding urgency and comprehensive approach required if we are to protect our waters, air, soil, and our major resources such as our forests and fisheries in such a manner that future generations will be able to benefit.
I will explain what I mean. As a result of the experiences we have witnessed from the impact of acid rain on buildings and other structures and on our fisheries and forests, from dumpsites along the Niagara River which have leeched chemical substances into Lake Ontario, and from industrial activities along the St. Clair River on the Canadian side, we are rapidly reaching a point where we must conclude that inevitably the long-term economic interest of our nation coincides with environmental goals.
In other words, we do not have a choice between the economy on the one hand and the environment on the other. We cannot say that we will be able to do certain environmental things when the economy permits, but we must conclude that our natural resources and other basic resources such as air and water need protection because of economic considerations, not because of idealistic or perhaps sometimes romantic notions. The economic underpinning of this and future generations of Canadian industrialists and entrepreneurs depends upon the way we manage our basic resources today.
I should like to give an example. A couple of weeks ago we read on the front page of one of our national newspapers an article which indicated that our maple forests in the Province of Quebec are suffering from an increased percentage of damage. From year to year, according to the measurements which have been taken, this damage is increasing to the point where sugar-maple tree growers are seeking millions of dollars in compensation from the Government of Canada for the damage they are experiencing because they are downwind of sulphur emissions in the air from non-ferrous smelters in Quebec. Here is classic example of an economy being damaged downwind by industrial activity upwind and resulting from lack of environmental concern over the years.
If that experience were not enough, Mr. Speaker, we need only look across the Altantic to the immense economic damage imposed on some European economies, particularly in the forest industry where there have been discoveries over the last
October 10, 1986

five years of progressive damage, of lack of growth year by year and of trees dying over the years because of acid precipitation. In Europe the problem is doubled. It is caused in part by air emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from nonsmelter activities and by car emissions. Our situation may differ in degree, but nevertheless we are gradually observing the same symptoms and beginning to measure the same damage in economic terms as the Europeans are at the present time. Therefore, we see not only an inter-relationship, a link between environmental and economic issues, but we begin to discover that actually the economy functions within the environment and the two cannot be seen as separate entities.
I will illustrate this with another example. What the people living along the Niagara River and the people living along the St. Clair River are experiencing is the result of economic activities in preceding decades which have resulted in damage being caused to those water resources, surface water in this case. For example, along the Niagara you cannot drink the water. Canadians living in Niagara-on-the-Lake have to depend on water pumped in from Welland. People living in cities and communities along the St. Clair River are also beginning to depend on water being pumped in from Lake Huron. Here we see serious damage to an economic base that depends on water as a result of industrial activities. The clear conclusion that inevitably one has to make is that if we are not very careful in our conceptual way of organizing our thinking, we are in for some deep trouble in the long term because we will fail to see that the protection of the environment is actually the same as the protection of the economy. The "E" beginning the word environment equals the "E" beginning the word economy. The two in the long term are indistinguishable, but in the short term we seem to think that they are separate. 1 am putting it this way to warn Members about the potential danger that we will face unless we rectify our thinking in this respect.
Coming back to the Speech from the Throne and to what I mentioned a moment ago, I regret very much that the Government of Canada has not in this document given the environment the top priority that it requires for the reasons I have just outlined, namely, linked to the fact that when we talk about the environment we are really talking about the economy of the nation. The environment has to become the top item on the agenda of any modern Government that wants to protect its economy in the medium and in the long term if not in the short term.
In more detail, when looking at the Speech from the Throne there was one item some of us here had been looking for and which you have heard about several times on different occasions. I am speaking of a measure whereby we would see a change in the taxes applied on the price of gasoline at the pump. You have heard me, Mr. Speaker, urging the Government at the time of the last Budget to ensure that the price of unleaded gasoline, which for several reasons is environmentally friendly and less damaging to human health, is made less expensive than leaded gasoline. Yet this matter is not being
The Address
tackled by the Government in this Speech from the Throne. If you go to the pump, you have all the incentives possible to misfuel because leaded gasoline is still less expensive, and becoming more so, than unleaded gasoline. While this may seem to be a measure of small impact on the environment, there is conclusive evidence to indicate that a switch to unleaded gasoline on the part of motorists, the trucking industry and any type of vehicle on our streets and highways is extremely important to reduce the impact of the NOx gases emitted by cars when they use leaded gasoline. Burning leaded gasoline adds to the acid rain problem, which in the long term affects the acidity of the soil and affects our waters. It also has an eroding and a damaging effect on crops, buildings, structures and on the capacity of our forests to maintain the optimum pH level which has been in existence for centuries and which is presently being seriously affected.
The question of changing our fiscal systems in order to modify the price of gasoline at the pump and give unleaded gasoline the lower price to make it more attractive to the customer is a matter of great urgency with which this Government has to deal. It is very regrettable and most unfortunate that in this document the Government has not indicated any vision or sense of direction as to what it wants to do. May I call it 4.30 p.m., Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4.30 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 62(4), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment. The question is on the amendment. Mr. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre), seconded by Mr. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap), moved:
That the following be added to the Address:
"This House regrets that the Government has failed to provide leadership on major issues of social justice affecting average Canadians including the need for action to provide greater protection for battered women, a commitment to legislate pro-rated benefits for part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, a refusal to establish and work towards lower unemployment targets for Canadians, and the failure to pursue a serious tax reform that would eliminate the unfairness, the complexity and the unaccountability of the present system".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.

October 10, 1986
The Address
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Tuesday, October 14, 1986.
It being 4.30 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 14, 1986, at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
I wish each and every one of you a very happy Thanksgiving.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, October 14, 1986