1986-10-08

Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to break the bureaucratic log-jam concerning the sale of Canadian Forces Base Falcon-bridge. A submission to Treasury Board was made on July 18 concerning alternate uses for the Base. The submission has the full support of the Sudbury community, as well as Public Works Canada, the Department of National Defence and, I am told, the Prime Minister's Office. The only result achieved to date has been mounting frustration. Is this simply another indication of the Government's lack of commitment to regional development? 1 certainly hope not.
I ask the Minister of Public Works to meet on an urgent basis with the President of the Treasury Board to resolve this matter speedily which, I reiterate, has the complete backing of the Sudbury community, and which appears to be delayed solely by bureaucratic bungling.


ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, we are honoured today by the arrival in Canada of his Eminence Cardinal Jozef Glemp, Primate of Poland, who begins a 10-day pastoral visit to this country. The Cardinal's home country of Poland has a population of some 35 million, over 90 per cent of which is Catholic.
His visit will be of inspiration to our many Polish-Canadian Catholics and provides a sharp contrast to the obstacles faced by over 2 million Poles presently living in the Soviet Union. In the hearts of those Poles the Cardinal enjoys a special affection. As Canadians we enjoy the freedom to worship. Catholics living in the U.S.S.R. must face harassment and even imprisonment should they dare to practise their beliefs openly.
I call upon my colleagues to join with me in welcoming the Cardinal to our shores and to wish him success in his efforts to provide Polish Catholics with inspiration and encouragement in the face of great adversity.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the release of Soviet dissident Yuri Orlov as an aftermath of the Daniloff affair has been welcomed as a step toward helping thousands who wish to emigrate from the Soviet Union. At the same time we are reminded of the extreme difficulties facing many of the other dissidents and the extraordinary measures that have been required to be taken by families and friends in the Soviet Union and support groups around the world, including Canada, to help them.
Many of Orlov's friends are still imprisoned in that country because they are members of persecuted Soviet human rights groups such as the Helsinki Accords Watch Committees. There are Russian, Ukrainian, and Armenian Watch Committees.
To give real meaning to the Helsinki Accords, I and other Members of this House call on the Government of the Soviet Union to respect the human rights of Yuri Orlov's friends, including Anatoly Marchenko, Antoly Kryagin, Josip Begin, Andrei Sakharov and many others by allowing them to leave the Soviet Union now.


ABORTION
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that Statistics Canada will no longer be keeping a record of the number of abortions in Canada each year. Surely officials of Statistics Canada cannot be serious when they suggest this information is not relevant.
If this information was not relevant, why was it being kept? Even as I speak lawyers are arguing the abortion issue before the Supreme Court of Canada just down the street. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians on both sides of the abortion debate


PATENT ACT
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have every reason to believe that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) is about to bury the drug patents legislation in an omnibus Bill which will include copyrights.
This strategy can have only one purpose, namely make Canadians swallow the Government's propositions on drug patents by diluting them in the urgent and essential reform of copyrights.
Mr. Speaker, it is unconceivable that the Minister would even consider equating the health of Canadians with the copyrights on a cookbook or a chainsaw.
It was a Liberal Government which, in 1969, made the drug industry more competitive by lowering drug prices, with the result that Canadians now pay less to remain healthy.
I hope the Minister will steer clear of an omnibus Bill designed to make Canadians swallow this pill.
I also hope the Minister will display enough courage to revise his legislation and bring it into line with the Eastman Commission recommendations. I can assure him that Canadian men and women will be ever grateful.
Stay healthy, Mr. Minister!


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, before September 4, 1984, the Liberal Government forgot to hand out one patronage favour- one that should have gone to Mrs. Campagnolo.
As reported in today's Globe and Mail, she is calling upon Liberal fund raisers to collect $75,000, an amount that would practically wipe out 30 to 40 per cent of the total tax savings those Liberals would be enjoying by making political contributions. How arrogant, how indecent!
This summer, the Liberal Party came up with a novelty of dubious taste by offering their donors to refund contributions on request, in the event donors were dissatisfied by December, 1986.
The most revealing survey is that the Liberal Party cannot even raise funds anymore. Canadian taxpayers will not pay for Mrs. Campagnolo's mortgage.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have turned over to the Auditor General and the Commercial Crime Squad of the RCMP details of the financial affairs of the Ridley Terminals at Prince Rupert and Federal Commerce and Navigation.
Today I call on the Government of Canada to assist in this matter by immediately referring all books and documents related to this matter to the Auditor General and the RCMP.
A deal struck by the Liberals and continued by the Conservatives stands to rip off the taxpayers of Canada and the project for close to $1 billion. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is aware of the scandal and should demonstrate the leadership for which he is known, by revealing all federal documentation and protecting the taxpayers and the Ridley operation from further abuse.


DISASTERS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, high winds combined with high water levels on the Great Lakes Monday caused thousands of dollars of damage to a hotel in my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton. Forty-six rooms were awash with up to five inches of water. Strong northwest winds were up again yesterday, compounding the problem.
I am aware that the causes of the Great Lakes high water levels have been a natural phenomenon and I commend the actions of the Government in looking for possible solutions. The International Joint Commission is once again studying the possibility of implementing Plan 25N which could, over time, reduce water levels in Lake Erie. This would in turn reduce high water levels in Lake Huron. I urge the Government to ensure that the IJC study on 25N be completed as soon as possible. It is absolutely essential that all possible avenues be
October 8, 1986

explored, but we must move quickly on those which have already been studied. Immediate action and continued cooperation between Canada and the United States and the Province of Ontario could assist in the prevention of future disasters.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is preparing to offer a $140 million share offering of Fishery Products International through a Toronto investment house. This is a share offering on a company that has received over $270 million in a public infusion of cash over the last number of years.
The people of Newfoundland, the workers in the fish plants and, indeed, the fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland, want to know why the Government is selling off this company at only 50 cents on the dollar. They want assurances that were given to be kept, that the jobs in the fish plants affected by this company will remain open despite the share offering. The Government of Canada should come clean before any sale is completed.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday in the House the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) took our Government and the Premier of British Columbia to task for publicly announcing that B. C. stumpage fees on timber might be too low. He said that these public musings hurt the Canadian position in the countervailing duty case.
It would be nice if the NDP got their act together on this issue. That same day in the House, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) said, as reported at page 82 of Hansard'.
Many of us in the New Democratic Party have said many times in the past year or more that Canada and the United States should conduct negotiations on the forest industry, including-whether or not stumpage fees need improvement.
As well, on September 9 in British Columbia, NDP provincial leader Bob Skelly said: "There's a lot wrong with B. C.'s stumpage system, and the review is a good idea". He went on to say: "There are serious problems with the stumpage". Clearly, as far as the NDP is concerned, it is all right to discuss stumpage fees publicly as long as you are not a
Progressive Conservative Minister of Trade, or a Social Credit Premier.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, last year Canada restored financial aid to El Salvador on the grounds that President Napoleon Duarte would protect human rights. This year Duarte has proved Canada wrong. Four months ago Duarte's Government seized eight human rights leaders, tortured them, publicly accused them of belonging to the rebels, and to this day holds them incommunicado without charges, without court appearance, without means of defence.
Duarte's Government has also broadcast accusations that the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches give money to the rebels, an accusation which endangers the lives of church leaders. Canadians and Americans seeking to visit El Salvador, which is aided by our Government, to witness the massacre and bombing of civilian peasants and the selective terror against human rights leaders, have been harassed, sometimes jailed or even denied visas.
It is high time that Canada stop giving money to Duarte's regime and condemn the police and military terror of the Government of El Salvador.


APARTHEID
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tells the House again and again that he is extremely concerned about the issue of apartheid. On the other hand, when Canada has a chance to take a stand, as was made possible yesterday with the International Civil Aviation Organization vote, again we abstained.
Not only did we abstain on the International Civil Aviation vote which would have cut off all air links with South Africa, but at the same time the Canadian Government, through Crown corporations like Canadian National, has aided and abetted the apartheid cause by accepting a South Africa delegation to an international science conference in British Columbia.
It seems to me if Canada is truly concerned about the issue of apartheid, it had better start putting its votes where its talk is and stop the rhetoric here in the House of Commons. It should make sure that Canada gets off the abstentions and

October 8, 1986
Oral Questions
gets on the record on issues like air travel back and forth between Canada, the United States and South Africa. At the moment the answer from the Government is more rhetoric and no action.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the lock-out announced yesterday of the longshoremen by the B.C. Maritime Employers' Association in the Port of Vancouver will have many devastating effects on the four western provinces. I am particularly concerned about grain farmers and potash producers in Saskatchewan. For example, the Saskatchewan potash industry will suffer immensely. There are seven Saskatchewan companies which mine potash, with sales through Vancouver totalling about three million tonnes per year.
Saskatchewan is a bulk supplier of grain and potash to world markets and should not be involved in this container dispute. Steps must be taken to regain the use of these facilities in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I certainly commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) for his planned action taken in Thunder Bay and I hope similar action will be used here.
Longshoremen must come to terms with this dilemma and reinstitute operations in order to minimize the damage to western farmers and potash miners. This act of manipulation, the strangling of our resources, must come to an end. Yesterday would be none too soon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the Canadian Government will do everything in its power to help the private industry and the Quebec Government restructure the Quebec shipbuilding industry.']
Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am advised that the Prime Minister will be here at 2.30. I would like to wait.



Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister for International Trade but in her absence perhaps I can direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the
decision which is being taken today by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States on a money Bill which will include a new customs tax on all imports which, if passed today, will add up to half a billion dollars of additional costs on for all Canadian exports going to the United States.
Why does the Government of Canada not make the strongest of all possible representations against the inclusion of that measure in this particular money Bill?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we did make the strongest representations possible to us. As the Hon. Member will know, there is in the United States now a climate not only of protectionism but of insularity which leads to measures of that kind in the economic sphere. We have done what we can. We believe it is a most regrettable move.


REQUEST FOR PRESIDENTIAL VETO
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister if he would not agree that this particular move by the U.S. Congress is a direct contradiction of the agreement which was arrived at the Quebec Summit between the Prime Minister and President Reagan, plus the contravention of many international trade rules. Under that circumstance, would the Government consider putting on notice that we will be requesting the President of the United States to veto that Bill if it is passed because it includes a major contravention of that agreement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not purport to instruct the President of the United States as to the exercise of his power of veto. However, we have made very clear our regret at this particular measure which is under consideration now in the U.S. Congress.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the Minister aware that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific intend to abandon half of their railway network in Canada and that CN wants to abandon about 1,650 kilometers of railway tracks in Quebec? Does the Government intend to turn down these applications which will deprive towns such as Sorel, Granby, Victoriaville and Val d'Or of all railway services?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, as everyone in this House is aware, that
October 8, 1986

all of the railways in Canada wish to abandon the lines on which they claim they cannot make a profit and on which they incur only losses. So there is nothing new in the story that is in the newspaper today, absolutely nothing new.
The Hon. Member should know that the two railways, CN and CP, will have to observe the law of this country and that they can abandon no lines, whether they be branch lines or main lines, without applying to the Canadian Transport Commission and without passing certain public interest tests, as well as economic tests and others. Neither CN nor CP will receive any assistance from me or the Government in abandoning any lines except with the strictest proof that passes the strictest surveillance of the CTC. Of that Hon. Members can be assured.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT RAILWAYS' PROPOSALS BE MADE PUBLIC
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the CN and the CP are talking about cutting one-half of their rail lines across the country. Does the Minister realize what the impact would be of a further abandonment of 50 per cent of the railway lines in western Canada? Will he ensure that the proposals of the railway companies are made public immediately so that they can be judged by the people of western Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the stories today have not to do with western Canada, they have to do with eastern Canada. No matter what part of Canada, east, west, north or south, both CN and CP will observe the laws of the country. Under the provisions of the legislation, they will continue to accommodate all traffic offered to them. They can scheme and plot and have a wish list in their head offices, or in any office in the country, but we will see that they pay the strictest attention to the convenience and necessity of the Canadian public.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last Friday the Prime Minister seemed to announce a $1 billion assistance program for grain farmers as a result of a desperation phone call made by Premier Devine. I have been talking to a number of farmers who want to know how much of this money will go to the western region, how much will go to the eastern region and how much will go to Atlantic Canada. Will the money be a
Oral Questions
deficiency payment or will it be a repayable loan? Can the Minister make that clear?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in talking to farm leaders and people who are knowledgeable of the conditions in Canadian agriculture today they do not possess the same confusion as expressed by the Hon. Member. We have been very clear with our intentions from the beginning. The Prime Minister announced a $1 billion federal program. Surely that means national in scope. He also indicated that it would be within the fiscal framework. The third important, clear message that was forthcoming from the Prime Minister was the fact that no existing agricultural program will be cut.


ALLOCATION OF ASSISTANCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister answer my question? How much money is going to each region of the country? Will it be in the form of a straight deficiency payment or will it be a loan that has to be repaid by farmers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, naturally, it is premature for me to announce the details-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: The Hon. Member should know, if he has been watching the problems in Canadian agriculture, that the discussions on this very problem began when the Prime Minister placed agriculture on the agenda at the last federal-provincial Ministers meeting in November. Since that time I have met with my provincial counterparts on numerous occasions, the last being the regularly scheduled federal-provincial Agriculture Ministers conference in Victoria. Most of the time was spent on this specific problem.
Because of the Prime Minister's continuing interest, and concern about the well-being of the agricultural industry, he indicated in the Speech from the Throne and in his remarks in the House of Commons that he has challenged us, me as federal Minister and my provincial counterparts, to expedite the process. That is exactly what we are doing.


WESTERN GRAIN PRODUCERS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister has now made it clear that the $1 billion is to be spread to all areas across Canada. A number of western grain producers have been asking specifically how much of the $1 billion will be targeted specifically to the western prairie area.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, again I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, I have convened a meeting of Deputy Ministers for tomorrow. This Government has not
190

October 8, 1986
Oral Questions
been acting unilaterally. We have been seeking the advice and co-operation of our provincial counterparts.
Tomorrow we will meet with the Deputy Ministers across Canada. We will ask them again to expedite their calculations and we will seek their advice on what, from their point of view, would be the best method of distribution, bearing in mind fairness and equity of distribution.


AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to guarantee, that as a result of the negotiations that will take place in the next number of days, the amount of money contributed by the federal Government will be adequate to meet the demands of western grain producers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, for the interest of all Members of the House let me indicate that, in keeping with our traditions and with the request of the Prime Minister, next week we will be convening a meeting of farm leaders. This will be the third or fouth meeting that we have had. We will be asking them from their commodity point of view what would be the best method of distribution bearing in mind fairness and equity.
All calculations have not yet been done. In fact, if the Hon. member could indicate to me, with 50 per cent of the harvest still out in Alberta and more of it still out in other provinces, that he could guarantee good weather for the next four weeks, then-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.
allegations made by some of the Bands in Manitoba are appropriate steps.
The other thing the Hon. Member should know is that there was a public allegation that the RCMP should investigate. That allegation was made by a former employee of the Department. This morning I communicated with the Deputy Commissioner of the RCM Police and asked that he initiate an investigation into the Manitoba region.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on June 11 the former Minister said in the House that he would take steps to determine whether the problems in Manitoba exist in other regions across the country. We in the House all know that they probably do, but from the Government there has been only silence. Does the Minister not think that it is time now for a full and complete independent inquiry into all aspects of administration of the Department of Indian Affairs?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that the administration of the Department has been under ongoing change and that there have been changes made in the administration within the Department in the last 18 months. The Hon. Member also knows full well as a member of the Standing Committee of the House that that Standing Committee is the master of its own fate. If it wishes to initiate that kind of action, I suggest that he and other committee members consider that.

* *
*


INDIAN AFFAIRS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This week's revelations about maladministration in the Manitoba region of the Department of Indian Affairs are not new. What steps does the Minister plan to take to deal with the pressing need for major administrative reform within his Department and the continuing pattern of broken promises made to the Indian people? The Minister knows well that an RCMP inquiry would not deal with matters of that kind.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern expressed by the Hon. Member. I want to assure him that starting with my predecessor, the special audit that was asked for by some southern Bands in Manitoba, the Departmental response to that audit which I am sure the Hon. Member has seen, and the steps outlined to deal with those specific


AGRICULTURE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, if I may. In explaining his $1 billion promise to Premier Devine, the Prime Minister on four separate occasions on Monday referred to the commitment made to western farmers, as reported in Hansard. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said that that money was to be spread right across the farming community of the country. We all know that farmers everywhere are in trouble, but the commitment was made to prairie grain producers who believed that they were promised $1 billion. Will the Prime Minister hold to that promise or not?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that we would be working closely right from the beginning with Premier Devine and other provincial Governments to devise-and I think the words were-"an effective financial assistance program to enhance the cash flow of Canadian grain farmers".
October 8, 1986


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will let Hansard speak for itself in Monday's edition. Western farmers are not going to be fooled, and they will hold the Prime Minister to account on this particular promise. Was the $1 billion promise made to Premier Devine, and was it not originally destined for western farmers within the vocabulary used by the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend refers to Hansard. In Hansard for October 3, 1986,1 say:
I am pleased to announce today that we will be working closely over the next month with Premier Devine and other provincial Governments to devise an effective financial assistance program to enhance the cash flow of Canadian grain farmers.
That is what it is all about-to put money into the pockets of Canadian grain farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RECEIPT OF ASSISTANCE BY FARMERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will let the record on Friday and on Monday, as reported in Hansard, speak for itself. May I ask the Prime Minister a final supplementary question? In his speech on Friday he said that the money would be available within a month. Then he talked about weeks and days. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said that he doubted the money would be available to farmers before Christmas. When can the farmers expect to get their money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let me correct a misstatement by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think he said that I indicated on Friday that money would be available within the next month. I do not think I said that. If you look at the same statement, I said:
I am pleased to announce today that we will be working closely over the next month with Premier Devine... to devise an effective financial assistance program to enhance the cash flow of Canadian grain farmers.
That is in train. There is a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, followed by one next week with agricultural producers. The object of the exercise is to help Canadian grain producers. I would think that my right hon. friend would stand up, for once, and say: "Bravo, you are doing a good job for farmers. We are going to support you".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESUMPTION OF GRAIN EXPORTS THROUGH WESTERN PORTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It also concerns the unhappy situation of our grain producers. As the Prime Minister knows, there is a lock-out on the West Coast. In that particular circumstance the longshoremen have offered to cooperate and ship the grain. The Government has sent a cable
Oral Questions
asking management to co-operate and have that grain shipped. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether management now has extended the hand of co-operation so that the grain will be shipped out of the West Coast?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this matter and the work we have been doing on it, I will defer to the Minister of Labour for a precise response.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Yes, we have had a response, Mr. Speaker. I guess the best way to put it would be to read the response. It is very short. It is addressed to me and reads:
In response to your telex dated October 6, 1986-
And I understand there is a mistake; it should be October 7, 1986.
-we wish to advise as follows:
In the national interest the B.C. Maritime Employers Association is prepared to resume and continue normal operations forthwith in all ports for a period of 30 days during which time it will be expected that the parties will address and attempt to resolve all issues in dispute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the full message-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Order!


Pierre H. Cadieux: Thank you. It continues:
If, at the end of the 30 day period a collective agreement has not been concluded we would anticipate that the Government would take appropriate action to bring this dispute to a conclusion.
It is signed by Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Wilds who are the Chairman and the President of the Association.


ASSISTANCE FOR PRAIRIE GRAIN PRODUCERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As I did publicly this morning, I congratulate the Minister on the initiative. We are hopeful that there will be a positive outcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Still dealing with grain farmers, I should like to go back to the Prime Minister on the question of the SI billion assistance. Now that it has been confirmed that the $1 billion will go to a variety of producers across the country-


Mr.   de Cotret@: Grain producers.


John Edward Broadbent: -and that the grain producers in the Prairies had expected, in terms of meeting their needs, more than $ 1 billion, will the Prime Minister confirm that the grain producers on the Prairies are to get significantly less than the $1 billion which many of them were expecting?

October 8, 1986
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case, nor is it the case that was set out in the joint communique from the federal-provincial Agricultural Ministers conference on August 27, 1986, in which they spoke on behalf of grain producers in Canada. We have, in my statement on Friday in the House and subsequent thereto, been dealing with the problem of Canadian grain producers, which of course involves an awful lot of people on the Prairies, all of whom involved in this will be receiving help.


AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I honestly think the Prime Minister misunderstood my question. I was asking him specifically about the amount which will be going to prairie grain producers. In light of what has come from the Minister of Agriculture today, that the $1 billion will be spread right across the country to grain producers, this will mean that the prairie element will get much less than the $1 billion it had anticipated because it will only get a share. Will the Prime Minister confirm that grain producers on the Prairies will get much less than the $1 biliion they were anticipating?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. The reason for the meetings beginning tomorrow with the provinces and the meetings scheduled next week with the leaders of the agricultural organizations is precisely to deal with these questions-to devise a fair plan to come to the assistance of those Canadian grain producers who need help. I think that is what the Government is trying to do. I know that is what all fair-minded provinces are trying to do, and I hope I can count on the support of the Leader of the NDP in our initiatives.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my friend, the Right Hon. Prime Minister and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -it concerns the prison in his riding. The Citizens National Advisory Committee of the Correctional Services of Canada has now joined dozens of other groups which have universally condemned the decision to build a $68 million prison in the Prime Minister's riding. In view of his promise to consult with Canadians, is he prepared to meet with this particular national organization, to listen to its views, and to justify his obscene decision?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I have advised this House on many occasions, the decision to move the prison was based on economic reasons. We want to alleviate economic disparity. Frankly, I am surprised that the Hon. Member takes that position when the former Solicitor General approved of moving prisons to alleviate economic disparity.


AWARDING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when the stonewalling has to stop. We need some answers on this issue.
Will the Minister of Public Works confirm that 12 bids were received for the construction of the main building and that the contract was awarded to the company Les Enterprise de Bon Conseil, and will he advise whether or not that company was the lowest bidder?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of question of which I would have thought the Hon. Member would give me notice. I deal with hundreds, indeed thousands of contracts every year. I will be glad to respond to the Hon. Member in the ordinary way.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS-TAX INQUIRY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This Parliament and your Government are on record that we are not subsidizing softwood lumber exports to the U.S. Would you explain why the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All Hon. Members know that the appropriate way to put a question is through the Chair. I know the Hon. Member will want to do that.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, you can be sure of that.
Will the Prime Minister explain why the Minister of Finance drafted a softwood lumber export tax and what its terms of application are going to be?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the Hon. Member is dreaming.


USE OF POSSIBLE TAX REVENUE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we know the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been dreaming for some time about softwood lumber, but I would like to put my supplementary to the Prime Minister.
October 8, 1986

Since there is going to be a ruling by the U.S. international trade organization on Friday regarding a softwood lumber countervailing duty, will the Prime Minister assure this House that, should the export tax be put in place, those dollars will be returned to the forest sector for job retraining, market diversification, and reforestation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is speaking of a tax which he has invented, and he is now asking us to comment on its implementation. We do not propose to implement his inventions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister, and I hope he is not going to hide behind the Solicitor General's screen. Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: the National Advisory Committee of Correctional Services of Canada has just unanimously condemned the Prime Minister's decision to move the penitentiary to his riding. The Council of Bishops is asking him to reconsider. A number of national organizations are saying he should abandon this crazy scheme. My question to the Prime Minister is: Would it take a recommendation from the Pope to stop this scheme?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise that I was unable to hear the last part of the question. I am sorry.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT RENOUNCE ITS DECISION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, not only did he not hear the last part of my question, he has not answered any of our questions since the beginning of the week. This is what I want to ask the Solicitor General, since the National Advisory Committee of Correctional Services of Canada is recommending against building the penitentiary at Port-Cartier. He knows that a dozen national organizations have asked him to keep the Prime Minister from carrying out this scheme. What I want to ask the Solicitor General is: What will it take for him to stop this scheme?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as 1 have explained to this House on many, many occasions, the move was made for good and valid economic
Oral Questions
reasons. When a move is made for good and valid economic reasons, as espoused by the former Government of which he was a Member, I can see no reason why we should change our decision at this time.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEWFOUNDLAND MINISTER OF FISHERIES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Tom Rideout, Minister of Fisheries of Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Solicitor General why he seems to think only he and the Prime Minister are right on this matter, although nobody else in Canada seems to agree. If he has any support, could he perhaps inform the House where that support is coming from?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions, it was a government decision. That implies the support of this Cabinet and members of this Government. In addition to that, I can assure the Hon. Member that, if he does not feel that way, we certainly have the support of the people in Port-Cartier who are very pleased to receive the employment which will result from this prison.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. On October 2, 1986, Mr. J. Leo Richer of the Canadian National in Quebec sent a memorandum to Chapais and Senneterre saying the following: "All maintenance of the Chapais subdivision between Miles 72 and 172 will stop as of the first day of 1987 .. . consequently,

October 8, 1986
Oral Questions
no traffic must take this route". My question is as follows, Mr. Speaker.
Is it possible that, in 1986, the Canadian National is telling its employees not to work and that there will be no traffic in Abitibi between Senneterre and Chapais in 1987? I ask for an immediate investigation on this confidential memorandum from Mr. Richer.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I noted the particulars of this memorandum earlier. Obviously, certain questions will have to be asked. As indicated by the Minister of Transport a while ago, the CN must follow the rules just like any other railway company, and if it wants to abandon a line, it must make an application to the Canadian Transport Commission and obey the law. This will be done in the case of Chapais.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the Auditor's investigation which substantiated the allegations of departmental mismanagement, and documents released yesterday documenting short payment of signed contribution agreements, will the Minister confirm that the no cut-back commitments made by his predecessor and the Prime Minister have been broken, despite the best efforts of his officials to deny this?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would have expected more from my hon. colleague with his knowledge of the Department of Indian Affairs. I can confirm to him that the increase in expenditures last year was over 6 per cent. The increase this year, after I have authority from Parliament, will be well over 7 per cent through supplements. Therefore, I hope the Hon. Member understands that both the commitment of the Prime Minister and my predecessor that there would not be any cuts has been more than maintained. There have been increases. In the last 10 years there has been a 322 per cent increase in expenditures on programs for Indian people.


BAND FUNDING INQUIRY
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the question was specific, the answer of course totally general. Therefore I would like to ask the Minister how he views the retention of funding from the Swan River Band, the Roseau River Band and the Keeseekoowenin Band? If not cut-backs, what are they?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I can only reconfirm to the Hon. Member that I know of no signed contracts or signed commitments which have been breached. None have been brought to my attention. With his knowledge of the Department of Indian Affairs, the Hon. Member knows there are needs far greater than the ability of any Government to fill. There are needs not only in Indian Affairs, there are needs in Health and Welfare, Transport, and every other Department of this Government. We could all spend more money. However, I can assure the Hon. Member, as the Prime Minister and my predecessor have. As an example, in Manitoba last year the bureaucratic payroll was reduced by $1 but the Supplementary Estimates increased by $8 for programs for Indian people.


APARTHEID
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is with regard to the sanctions imposed against South Africa. Could the Secretary of State explain why there is an official delegation from South Africa in Vancouver at the present time and, second, why Canada abstained from voting for a resolution of ICAO banning air links to South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: I certainly can, Mr. Speaker, and I will be as brief as possible. There is a meeting called a Heavy Haul Railway Conference. Planning for it began three years ago as part of Expo 86. South Africa is a participant in that conference as were CN and Transport Canada. The decision came to me as to whether CN should withdraw. The withdrawal of CN would have meant the cancellation of that conference which was an integral part of Expo 86. I decided that CN should not withdraw but that Transport Canada should. Transport Canada has withdrawn. CN and Transport Canada have both indicated that neither will take part in the successor conference in Swaziland next year unless there is a change in the policies of South Africa.
With regard to ICAO, the House will be very well acquainted with the policy of the Government of Canada not to allow politicization to interfere with the work of specialized agencies of the United Nations. That is the approach that we have taken in supporting and seeking to reform UNESCO. The resolution of ICAO was, in effect, an attempt to politicize that specialized agency. Canada decided to abstain in light of our respect for the integrity of specialized agencies. We have
October 8, 1986

Oral Questions
already acted to ban air links to South Africa. We believe that our example speaks to the world.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that is the very point. The Government has acted to ban air links to South Africa and this abstention sends a message to the world that in fact Canada is not supporting a banning of air links to South Africa. I think that should be clarified by an official statement from his Department.
Second, with respect to the presence of the South African delegation, do I take it that the Secretary of State for External Affairs agrees that this is in breach of the Commonwealth Accord signed by the Prime Minister at Nassau?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. This conference was convened and organized before the Nassau Declaration. The withdrawal of CN would have cancelled the conference. I acknowledge that it could be argued that this is technically a breach of the Nassau conference. That is a consideration which I took into account when I judged whether it was in the interests of Canada to cause that conference to be cancelled. I took the other decision that it was better to act as we had acted and to make it clear that, unless there was a change in South African policy, there would be no participation in the conference in Swaziland.
With regard to the position of Canada in the face of the policy of apartheid, we have just been joined in the House by the Hon. President of the Congo, the President of the Organization of African Unity, who spoke today for the continent of Africa and expressed the appreciation of that continent and those people for the leadership that has been given against apartheid by the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE PRESIDENT OF CONGO
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery today of his Excellency Comrade Denis Sassou-Nguesso, President of the People's Republic of the Congo and current President of the Organization of African Unity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Statistics Canada has declared that it will cease compiling and publishing statistics on therapeutic abortions in Canada, which would make it impossible to monitor the number of abortions committed each year. What action does the Minister contemplate to offset this decision by Statistics Canada which serves no other purpose than further to deliberately ignore the continuing problem of abortion in Canada?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this program did not give an accurate and valid representation of therapeutic abortions in Canada. This is why my predecessor decided that it should be suspended.
I am now re-evaluating this program with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Naturally, as a woman and as a member of a Government concerned with social issues, I shall make the decisions necessary to provide the services we wish to make available to the public.


APARTHEID
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has now admitted that there was at least a technical breach of the Nassau Accord signed by the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not recognize that the presence of the South African corporation representing the racist and murderous Government of South Africa is not just a breach of the Nassau Accord but is an affront to all Canadians who want to voice their outrage at the system of apartheid? Will the Prime Minister not tell this company to stay home and ask CN not to participate in this conference?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question has been answered. I have indicated that it is a technical breach. I regret that happened. The choice that had to be faced was whether we would cause the cancellation of the conference which was an integral part of Expo 86, an activity of very real significance to British Columbia and Canada. I took the decision. I think there will be few in this House, few in the country, or few in the international community who will doubt my commitment or the commitment of the Government to the fight against apartheid.

October 8, 1986
Interparliamentary Delegation Report


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, that decision makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's signature on the Nassau Accord.


REASON FOR CANADA NOT JOINING WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF ICAO IN THE DENOUNCEMENT OF AIR LINKS WITH SOUTH AFRICA
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday before the ICAO assembly Canada missed an opportunity to issue a message denouncing international air links with South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, why did Canada fail to join with the Congo and other AUO member countries and support this resolution which is essential if the South African Government is to get the message loud and clear?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have just answered this question and, like the Hon. Member from British Columbia, I too strongly support bilingualism. Still I hardly think it is necessary to repeat questions and answers in both official languages.
I also have a lot of respect for the United Nations system and the Hon. Member knows as well as I do how imperative it is that we protect United Nations institutions against the impact of politicization. This is precisely what Canada is doing by trying to reform UNESCO. For this reason, yesterday in Montreal we decided to maintain Canada's position concerning the South African airlines and thus demonstrate this country's respect for United Nations institutions.


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: The
Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion being absent, Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It deals with the crisis in the Quebec shipyards.
The Prime Minister will certainly recall that his Government had given Mr. Peter Paul Saunders a mandate to rationalize the shipbuilding industry. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has indicated that he would have to reduce by half the number of shipyards in Canada. We learned yesterday that Marine Industries was to buy shipyards in Quebec City and Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister assure these concerned workers today that the naval sections of these three shipyards will remain open and that these people will be protected?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, we can indeed confirm that there has been an agreement in principle between Marine Industries and Versatile concerning the acquisition of shipyards in the Province of Quebec. This agreement has been reached. The Government will do everything it can through its current programs to encourage the acquisitions of these facilities.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is going on a fishing expedition, even if I am convinced that he is anxious to see that happen. This Government will work together with the Province of Quebec and the private industry in the interests of Quebecers to restructure the Quebec shipbuilding industry.


STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO KEEP THREE SECTIONS OF THE NAVAL INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC OPEN
Jean-Claude Malépart: he thought he was going to scare a Quebecer, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that he would not even frighten a toothpick.
What these workers and I want to know, is whether the Minister can promise now that the three sections in the Quebec shipbuilding industry will remain open. Yes or no? That is what we want to know. No Brian-like fuss, please!


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that the Canadian Government will do everything in its power to help the private industry and the Quebec Government restructure the Quebec shipbuilding industry.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101,1 have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the fourth report of the Canadian Section of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.


BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT
Kenneth Albert James: for leave to introduce Bill C-210, an Act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act.
October 8, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing the first reading of a Private Members' Bill which would serve to exclude any personal liability of the members of the Blue Water Bridge Authority in the event of a tragedy caused by an act of terrorism or by the wilfull wrongdoing of any person. The Blue Water Bridge is a jointly-owned international bridge which links Sarnia, Ontario and Port Huron, Michigan. The Commissioners of the Blue Water Bridge Authority are hard working and dedicated individuals who give unselfishly of their time. This serious concern with respect to their personal liability, in circumstances beyond their control, is one which I fear could, in time, serve to lower the calibre of our commissioners. The amendment reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


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

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-211, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to revoke the monopoly of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, thereby restoring to Canadians the freedom to engage in the trading of fish and to allow fishermen the opportunity to get maximum returns for their effort.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to implement the repeated recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the unanimous all-Party parliamentary committee on equality rights to prohibit discrimination within federal jurisdiction on the basis of sexual orientation. At the present time, gays and lesbians are not protected from such discrimination.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As Hon. Members know, a brief explanation is appropriate. I think it ought not go beyond that.


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

James Ross Fulton: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to reintroduce this Bill, which I have previously had before the House. I am sure it is the kind of Bill you would like to support, Mr. Speaker. We heard a great deal from the Government when it was in opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What the Speaker would like to support does not matter. Would the Hon. Member be very short.


James Ross Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is a good Bill and the kind of thing we need in rural Canada.


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

James Ross Fulton: for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Oberle


James Ross Fulton: I believe the Bill is rather self-explanatory. This is something that Canadians from coast to coast are very interested in seeing and one of the real things that this Parliament could do in helping to bring about a more peaceful planet.


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

James Ross Fulton: for leave to introduce Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act (limitation).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this Bill is to increase the period of time within which suits and other actions can be brought by Canadians in relation to any kind of nuclear accident or medical problem that could result from exposure to any kind of nuclear materials. 1 think it is something that the House would like to pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
* 0510)


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 7, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the Session; and of the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p.44)
Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Both my predecessor and I have set a grueling pace for ourselves to meet with Canadians in all parts of our country. There have been several meetings with federal-provincial Ministers with respect to science and technology since our election two years ago. Earlier this year I held a series of round-table meetings with industrial leaders, union leaders and scientists across Canada. Last June in Winnipeg my provincial counterpart and I invited hundreds of leaders from labour, industry, universities and concerned organizations to a National Forum on Science and Technology. We asked the Science Council of Canada to chair this forum. Our dialogue moved us forward to our objective of achieving a new national consensus on policies for science.
Those who attended now realize that they have been heard by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Government because they see their recommendations reflected in the Speech from the Throne. They will recognize their suggestions in our plans for the months ahead. The consensus they have formed is forcefully expressed; it is urgent that all Canadian sectors take co-ordinated action without delay, that the federal Government is called upon to exercise decisive leadership, to unite every sector of our society so that Canada's full potential can be released.
The provincial and federal Governments must work together to forge a co-ordinated national policy. Science and technology must move to the centre of Government decision-making.
The consensus which has emerged also identified four critical issues which must be immediately addressed. The first has to do with creating a culture in Canada which appreciates and instils pride and celebrates Canada's scientists and innovators; which promotes a strong awareness of the importance to Canada today, and in the decades ahead, of astute application of science and technology; which utilizes the talents of Canadian women in science careers so that Canadian schoolgirls will know they too can succeed in technological careers and that their country needs their help in a technological age.
There is consensus that co-operative actions are needed to develop and mobilize Canada's greatest natural resource, our peoples' intellectual abilities and especially our scientific and engineering talent. We must expand the capacity of our universities to respond to new demands for basic research, and the training of researchers for exploration of new disciplines and the development of new skills.
There is a national consensus that we must urgently develop and use new strategic or, as they are now being called, "enabling" technologies which underpin our industrial capabilities. Canada, like all industrial countries, is undergoing a major transition from the technogies which have served us so well this far, technology we have had in place following the Second World War, to a new array of technologies which will be the basis for the creation of future growth and wealth; such as microelectronics, advanced information processing, advanced industrial materials and biotechnology, to name just a few. These technologies are the basis, and perhaps the cause,
The Address-Mr. Oberle
of the technological revolution. Our abilities with respect to these technologies will determine our economic fate.
Lastly, there was consensus that Governments should use the full scope of their instruments to advance research and development. Our regulatory framework, our tax laws and the incentives within them, our patent laws and similar instruments need to be re-examined to see how they can be targeted to encourage innovation and all aspects of scientific and technological activity. Engaging in dialogue and consultation and reaching consensus is an important prerequisite to taking important action. But talking and listening alone is no substitute for such action.
We have not hesitated to move ahead swiftly and decisively in areas involving federal jurisdiction. I would like to review some of the things that we have done. A number of science agreements were signed with the provinces to enhance industrial competitiveness and to use technology to reduce regional disparities. We moved ahead on a new funding policy which will provide resources to the granting councils in a predictable and consistent manner. We are also providing additional funds through these granting councils to help us forge linkages between universities and the private sector through a matching arrangement which will deliver $1 billion of new funds for research and development over a five-year period.
I say this with confidence because early indications show that this move, coupled with the tax incentives that are associated with it, will unleash an enthusiastic response. I am confident that the goal will be met and, indeed, that it will be exceeded, and that we will bring together our full potential to train highly-qualified personnel while at the same focusing on research in those areas which pose the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity for Canada's future.
In May of this year a new comprehensive space plan was announced. An extensive internal review is reaching completion on the entire federal science and technology framework so that all federal resources dedicated to science can be focused on new national priorities in a consistent manner. This is the first time that such an inventory has been put together. I anticipate that the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, which was established during the last session of Parliament, will play an important part in evaluating the results of that review and of how the federal Government can spend much smarter and more effectively the $4.2 billion that we presently spend on science and technology and related activity.
Recently, we announced funding support to aid the innovative activities of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research which networks together the best and brightest of our scientists and engineers across Canada in a new type of a fellowship program dedicated to excellence. A similar institute was formed in British Columbia with federal support.

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Oberle
Building on the national consensus and on the initiatives which we took in the first session of this Parliament, we are now ready to take new actions on the agenda for the next two years, which was set out in the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne clearly indicates that the Government recognizes the threat that we will face and the bitter price that we will pay if we do nothing.
The Speech from the Throne announced the opening of a major effort to carve out a significant place for science and technology in the culture of Canada. In the past, lack of leadership and lack of prestige caused many Canadian students and the brightest of our scientists to turn to careers in other countries rather than to the careers of tomorrow in Canada. Science lacked the visibility and the prominence that would cause educators and the media to give it the attention it merits as a determining factor in our future. One of our principal priorities is to establish a new environment which gives value and appreciation to scientific achievement applied to improving our well-being and to resolving long-standing problems.
For the first time Canadians have a Prime Minister who is demonstrating this by meeting, on a regular basis and in a formal way, with Canada's most eminent scientists, engineers, and leaders from business, industry and labour. He will personally chair this new board or council. It will assess our national goals and policies regarding science and technology and their application to improve Canada's competitiveness and maintain prosperity. Its members will give the Prime Minister and Canada the benefit of their judgment, their wisdom and their experience.
We also announced that the Government will introduce a new federal science and technology strategy to support our policies and our mandate and to build on initiatives which are already under way. It is to be expected that new realities mean new strategies. Just as industry is having to restructure and adopt new attitudes to the reality of the new age, Government also has to re-examine and rationalize its activities and its policies which are leading the nation across a new frontier.
Many federal activities and programs have served this country well in bringing us this far along the way. However, resources are too scarce these days, too hard won, to be wasted. No part of the federal machine can expect to survive if it does not adjust to new priorities and do its share to meet new needs. All activities must be examined to determine if they can be performed with better results in universities, for instance in the area of basic and curiosity-type research, or contracted out to private scientific enterprises outside of Government.
One immediate example of Government reorganization in the face of new realities was announced in the Speech from the Throne. Legislation will be introduced to establish a Canadian space agency. Such an agency is needed in Canada if we are to be able to contribute the talent and ingenuity of its people to the peaceful use of space, to develop space technologies for applications to human problems.
The Prime Minister has asked me to reorganize our current efforts and to focus key space activities under a single agency which can operate with day-to-day autonomy while at the same time being held accountable to Government and to Parliament. I anticipate that personnel would be transferred from existing programs to staff the new centralized agency. The new agency will be accountable to the Government and to Parliament through the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The structure and the organization of the agency will reflect a broad, co-operative approach. The structure must be able to secure the active involvement of the private sector and our universities and institutes. Our policy will be to emphasize contracting out research and development so as to tap the expertise in all regions of Canada, especially the expertise that resides with small enterprise.
As well, I see a meaningful mechanism which will fully engage Canada's private sector capacity in advising the agency. I am beginning consultations with my colleagues immediately with a view to bringing this legislation-setting up the agency-before the House as soon as possible. The agency will have a double responsibility. It will, of course, first and foremost be responsible for the over-all quality of Canada's international contributions to space science and technology, including existing arrangements we presently have with Japan, the European community and, of course, the American space agency. It will also oversee Canada's domestic objectives related to space. These domestic responsibilities are very important because we see space development as one of the principal forces behind Canada's economic growth.
Robotics developed for use in space will have applications at the bottom of our mines and on the floor of our oceans. The applications of remote sensing and satellite communication technologies will help Canadians to bridge vast distances, making remote communities and remote resources more accessible. Space technologies will enable us to improve the custodianship of our natural resources, to enhance our environment, to strengthen our resource industries and the 350 cities and towns across Canada which depend upon them, places such as Prince George, Tumble Ridge and Mackenzie in my riding, Chicoutimi and other places throughout the country which depend on one or the other of our important resource industries for their life-blood.
This means the new agency will have a mandate to diffuse space technolgy into the private sector so that this knowledge can be put to work throughout Canadian industry. The money which we will spend on space must and will be used to keep Canada competitive.
The Speech from the Throne announced two major initiatives as part of our continuing efforts for broad national consultation and building consensus.
First, we are proposing a national forum on post-secondary education to strengthen our partnership with the provinces so that the Canadian system can produce the highly qualified
October 8, 1986

personnel which Canada needs to keep us on the crest of this competitive wave and to promote Canada's well-being. Second, building on the success of the National Forum in Winnipeg, we will hold another National Conference on technology and innovation broadening the access to this conference so that more Canadians can participate. I expect to consult soon with the various sectors on how best to organize this process.
We are totally dedicated to these tasks. The initiatives we have proposed will put science and technology to work to support our objectives, especially to build a national capacity to compete strongly in international markets and thereby keep Canadians employed. As was said in the Throne Speech, to a considerable degree our sense of national purpose, our national identity and our economic prosperity will depend on our capacity to respond, and respond we will. I believe all Parties are in agreement that we must take long-range action. That is why we have made our plans for a federal science and technology policy with an eye on the next generation and the next century, not with an eye on the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his remarks. As I said yesterday in my speech, I find the emphasis placed on science and technology in the Speech from the Throne to be encouraging. However, as I pointed out yesterday, it is not with encouragement that one can pay for research on the shop floor or in a laboratory.
I would like to direct the Minister's attention to the question of funding. He mentioned the consensus that came out of the Winnipeg conference. One that he did not mention was, I gather, the first specific consensus that was pointed out by the Chairman of the Science Council, Dr. Stuart Smith, in the remarks he made on the conclusion of the conference. Dr. Smith said there was agreement that more money is required for research and that while not unanimous, there was a general agreement that both basic and strategic research need more money, that it has to come from Government and that it should be based on excellence and on people.
Again, I would ask the Minister today when the Government will respond to this need to put more money into research and provide the mechanisms for this to be done. I would point out that with respect to the granting councils, while people have come to accept and are enthusiastic about the proposals for matching funds, the message that pretty well everyone is giving is that the Government should provide an annual increase in the budgets of the councils to allow them to keep up to inflation, that they should not have to maintain their base budgets, and protect them from inflation through the matching formula. Will the Government respond to that request that has been made by many submissions?
I would also ask the Minister to respond to the many letters he has received, as have the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other members of the Cabinet, about the cut in IRAP. If the Minister had a chance to hear the remarks I made yesterday, he will know that I spent a week or 10 days visiting
The Address-Mr. Oberle
a number of firms that have participated in IRAP in the past. As I said yesterday, these are companies which only four or five years ago did no research and development, but with the assistance of IRAP have developed new products which today account for the greater part of their sales. I heard time and time again that these companies would not be in business today if it were not for IRAP.
I have copies of letters that have been sent to the Minister and to the Prime Minister requesting restoration of the $60 million cut in the IRAP budget. I would ask the Minister if he could respond to those requests.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to my hon. friend. I would like to thank him very much for the very positive speech he made yesterday. He too attended the Winnipeg conference and experienced the same feeling of urgency and the same spirit of co-operation that we experienced there.
It is true that previous Governments looked at nothing else but funding levels or money as an indication of how well we are doing in science and technology. The federal Government presently spends roughly $4.2 billion per year. Several Departments are duplicating work. My first task was to reorganize the activities of Government and to spend much smarter.
We have increased very, very significantly the national effort, but we have chosen to identify priority areas and we have chosen to channel the efforts of the federal Government in a way that would lever private-sector contributions and provincial Government contributions. It is for that reason that we are so anxious to put in place a number of R and D subagreements with the provinces. For instance, there is an agreement with the Province of Quebec in which science and technology is seen as such a high priority that $100 million will be spent on it over five years.
As the Hon. Member will know, we have also made the necessary changes to the Income Tax Act. In the past, the Hon. Member's Government, well intentioned as it was but looking at money alone, caused a haemorrhage of $1 billion or $2 billion through the scientific tax credit scheme, a scheme which created all kinds of innovative tax accounting but did nothing in terms of industrial innovation. We have now issued new guidelines which will permit us to use the Income Tax Act as a very potent instrument to lever private sector activity through tax expenditures.
The Hon. Member spoke of matching funding for universities. For the first time we have announced an A-base for the funding council. The previous Government used a small Abase and then used a sort of ad hoc program with Supplementary Estimates designed to put in $10 million here and $15 million there and no one could plan their activities. We have now introduced for the first time a zero-based or A-based funding which permits scientists and universities to plan ahead for five years. As I have said to the Hon. Member, this new program which is again designed to lever private sector

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. D. Blackburn
funding will produce $1 billion over a five-year period. That is significant new funding for universities. As well, he talked about the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister but I would like to allow at least one more question in the 10-minute question and comment period. 1 would like to give the floor to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and perhaps the Minister could conclude.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, it criticized the failure of the Canadian Government to fund adequately scientific research. Conservative Members promised that a Conservative Government would see that 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product would be allocated to scientific research and development.
The Government talks about new agencies and new committees. Is there any evidence yet that the private sector which in the past was so remiss in investing in research and development is doing better now?
I should also like to ask him whether the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Council, and NSERC will be getting more money from the Government this year than they got last year. What is the Government doing to ensure that the five-year plans brought forward by these agencies will be implemented, or do they have to wait until the private sector hopefully does in the next few years what it has not done in previous years? What assurances do we have that we will move anywhere near the 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product allocated to scientific research and development in the next few years?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member listened very attentively when I was speaking. I thought 1 had answered those questions.
It is fine to dump on the private sector. It is quite true that the private sector is not doing its share and has not traditionally spent as much in relation to the Gross National Product on R and D and science-related activities. However, one can perhaps blame Government in part for that because it has not shown leadership and given the right incentives. The reason I am so confident that there will be significant new moneys for the funding councils even in this current year is because the private sector is responding enthusiastically to our invitation and to the leadership which I have already shown in the first year of my mandate, pointing out that we are prepared to come to the party with them. Indeed, what an investment it is for the private sector; for 50 cents it can lever a $2 investment in R and D. We are opening the dingy labs of our in-house research institute. We are transferring ideas and people to the private sector to lever that kind of initiative.
With regard to a target, where we ought to be in terms of the Gross National Product, I chose to ask the Science Council to help me establish realistic funding targets by examining
each sector of our industry and by comparing what they are doing in terms of science and technology with what their competitors are doing in other parts of the world. We will establish realistic targets.
I have indicated clearly, as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) through the message in the Speech from the Throne, that we are determined to stay on the leading edge and that we are determined to stay among the leading countries of the world, as we prepare ourselves for this new age and take ourselves into the 21st Century. That is a firm commitment. Whatever it will take in terms of federal effort, in co-operation with all other stakeholders in this important field, will be forthcoming.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate our new Speaker on his election to the position of Speaker of the House of Commons. Second, I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your reappointment as Deputy Speaker and to congratulate the other Speakers who were reappointed or appointed for the first time. Also I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Although I did not agree with everything they said in their speeches, I still congratulate them for defending what some of us on this side of the House have already said was virtually indefensible.
In my remarks today I will address only one portion of the Speech from the Throne. I know that the Government would like to discuss its so-called four pillars. It now wants them to be known as the four pillars that care, or the four pillars with a caring face. However, the four pillars as set out in the Throne Speech are so vague that they obscure the Government's true record. One cannot see the policies for the pillars. One has to read between the lines or peer between the pillars themselves to get a true picture of how the country is being governed.
Let us concentrate on just one pillar-constructive internationalism. To be fair, there have been some successes in this regard. For example, the Government has sensed the revulsion which Canadians feel toward apartheid and used that consensus to promote the use of sanctions among western democracies. However, if we examine the Government's record in peace and security, the story is quite different. One page of the Throne Speech tells us:
No task is more important to Canadians than preserving peace and security.
That is the kind of simplistic statement which brought so much scorn on the Government's Grey Paper on Canada's foreign policy. Decima Research must have collaborated with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on that page at least.
However, if this desire for peace and security is so obvious, what has the Government done to meet the expectations of Canadians? The answer is, precious little. Just look at the ringing declarations which follow. The Government is "encouraged" that the superpowers are talking again. It "shares the hope" that there will be progress on arms control.
October 8, 1986

However, what has the Government done to promote disarmament? When the Soviet Foreign Minister was here, did the Government press the Soviets to move from a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing to direct negotiations on a comprehensive test ban? Did the Government offer its seismic array in the Northwest Territories as part of a world-wide network to enforce such a treaty? Only yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs declined even to join in a unanimous resolution of the House in support of a comprehensive test ban.
When the White House announced that SALT II was dead, did the Government tell President Reagan that Canada would no longer test the Cruise missile which will breach SALT II's limits? When Canada had a chance to support the ABM Treaty by reinserting a clause in the NORAD agreement which precluded our taking part in ballistic missile defences, did the Government seize that opportunity? No, Mr. Speaker, the Government did not. The Government's pillar of peace and security crumbled when Mr. Reagan was involved.
Nowhere was this more obvious than in the Government's response to the American invitation to take part in star wars. The Government could not bring itself to say no to a dangerous escalation of the arms race. Instead, it wavered and supported private participation as long as the Government's hands looked clean in public.
Even when provoked by the Polar Sea incident, the Government failed to stand up for Canadian interests. The paragraph devoted to Arctic sovereignty is nothing but brave talk. The Government drew straight baselines around the Arctic Archipelago, but straight baselines are not a picket fence which will keep out American ice-breakers or Soviet submarines.
The truth is that the Government has done precious little in the Arctic to assert our sovereignty and acknowledges this fact in the Throne Speech. It is forced to talk about its past promises on sovereignty in the future tense. It must be galling for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to hear his unfulfilled promises hung out to dry in the Throne Speech.
Once again the Government proclaims that it will build an ice-breaker. This promise has been around long enough to demonstrate the Government's lack of resolve. Instead of uniting the country in asserting our sovereignty, it has divided us. The Cabinet is squabbling over who should pay for it. The starving shipbuilding industry is fighting over who should get the contract to build it. It is pitting East Coast shipbuilders against West Coast shipbuilders. I do not even know what the ice-breaker is supposed to do when it hits those icy waters; neither does the Department of National Defence. That is why it does not want to foot the bill to build the Polar 8 icebreaker.
Of course it is not really surprising that the Department of National Defence is dragging its heels. It does not like to hear about new expensive commitments from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A case in point is the exercises announced
The Address-Mr. D. Blackburn
for the eastern Arctic in the Secretary's sovereignty statement. It turns out that the military did not know about any such exercises when the Secretary made his pledge. Eventually, a diving ship and a supply vessel were sent north to save face. Now the Government is once again pledging "training exercises in the Arctic".
By and large the Government's commitment to sovereignty is the same as its record on disarmament-all talk and no action. This is quite in contrast to the Department of National Defence where we have seen some real movement. The Hon. Member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) moved out and the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) moved in. Then he made room for the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who in turn passed the reins to the new Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) when the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) appeared.
All this movement has made for a curious situation. The Government has failed to keep its promise made in the previous Throne Speech to re-examine Canada's defence policy. I understand that no Minister wants to get into a policy discussion until he understands the subject matter, but the delays are becoming ridiculous and embarrassing.
In preparing this speech I discovered in my files a letter written to the first Minister of National Defence of this Government asking that he refer his Green Paper to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence early in 1985. We are rapidly approaching 1987, we no longer have the same Minister of National Defence, the Government no longer speaks of a Green Paper, and there is no longer a standing committee for both external affairs and national defence in combination.
While we have been waiting for the policy paper, the Department of National Defence has been busily entrenching our existing national defence commitments. I now doubt that the Government could afford to substantially alter any of the roles of the Armed Forces. This Conservative Government's actions have locked it into the philosophy of the Liberal Government's 1971 WhitePaper.
In the previous Throne Speech the Government recognized that the strategic context had changed considerably since the 1970s. I would go further than that. I would say that our present defence policies have their origin in the 1940s. The Government, in other words, is preparing us to fight World War II all over again in its strategic architecture.
Look at our commitments in Europe, for example. We have promised to send the CAST Brigade to reinforce Norway if that country faced invasion. The Government has just completed Exercise Brave Lion to practise this operation. Some 5,500 soldiers and 15,000 tonnes of equipment were shipped across the Atlantic. The Government has not put a price tag on this operation but the figure of $100 million has

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. D. Blackburn
been bandied about in the media. How could the Government ever reconsider the CAST commitment after spending $100 million, or even half that amount, on a dry run? Could it ever explain such an about-face to the Norwegians, especially after leaving some equipment behind until our forces return? The Government is effectively committed to Norway because it must justify the expense and portray Exercise Brave Lion as a great success.
Let us now look at Canada's other commitments to Europe. Could the Government re-evaluate our commitment in Germany, that is to the NATO central flank? I doubt it very much. It has already entrenched our positions there with its earlier measures. The Government sent an additional 1,200 men to Germany in the first months of being in office to show that Canada was, to use their words, pulling its weight. It would be very difficult to redeploy those men despite the fact that basing them in Europe is extremely expensive. In fact, our commitment to the European central flank, which every expert acknowledges is more political than military, is costing Canadians $100 million a year.
The Government is also spending millions of dollars to equip the forces for their present role in Europe. For example, the Government announced just last spring that it would buy a new low-level air defence system to protect our forces and their bases in Europe. The cost of this system alone is $1 billion. The Government does not even expect delivery until 1991. How could it seriously question the role of the Armed Forces in Europe, as many experts are now doing, having allocated $ 1 billion for equipment to be used there in the next decade? Neither could the Government consider changing its air commitment to the central front. It declared that role "sacred" by equipping our three squadrons in Germany with the CF-18 before the new fighters were fully deployed in Canada for national defence purposes.
The Government has committed us to Norway and Germany by its actions but our forces are unable to handle both roles. Our chief of defence staff was recently quoted as saying: "If we had to do everything simultaneously-no, I think we're stretched too thin. That must be acknowledged." The Government has not acknowledged that fact. Instead, it has been busy stretching our forces even further with a new peace-keeping role in the Sinai Peninsula. This is another open-ended commitment that costs $5.5 million per year.
We would all agree that peace-keeping is laudable and Canada receives world recognition for its contributions in this area. However, we are already firmly entrenched in Cyprus and on the Golan Heights and there are no signs of early settlement to any of these conflicts. The Government must recognize that peace-keeping ties up personnel and resources, and adjust its other commitments to allow for that.
At sea the Government is also committed to some very expensive long-term programs that will determine the character of our Navy and dictate its future role. No one would argue that our Navy is in desperate need of new equipment, but again the Government is acting before considering the future
role of Maritime Command. The TRIBAL Class Update and Modernization Program, sometimes referred to as TRUMP, will spend $1.2 billion to ensure that our destroyers will be able to provide air defence as traditional convoy escorts. The Government has also announced a program to replace the Sea-King helicopter. Some say this program will end up costing $2 billion by the time the new helicopters are flying. Again, Canada is committed to an anti-submarine warfare role well into the 1990s and beyond. Our own submarines need replacing. The Government announced a program to size up new candidates for another large puchase. No one has yet even ventured a guess on the eventual final price for those new submarines.
There have been other major expenditures but I think my point has been made. The Government has effectively precluded any meaningful debate on the future role of Canada's Armed Forces by taking actions which will dictate their posture for at least another decade. This, I think, is very, very important.
This Government came to power some two years ago first of all promising a Green Paper in which there would be national input from coast to coast, from experts, from academics, from ex-military professionals, and from ordinary Canadians. That has now gone by the board. I do not know on how many occasions this Government has promised a White Paper, a blueprint, a framework, an architecture for Canada's national defence, to plan and to pursue and effectively put into operation a policy designed not just for the 1980s but presumably for the 1990s. We are not going to get either, although the present Minister indicates there will probably be a White Paper some time this winter or early spring.
It is no wonder that the Throne Speech made no mention at all of a plan to review Canada's defence policy. I know the new Minister has committed himself to bringing a policy paper forward some time in 1987, but you will forgive me for saying that I have heard that before and I will believe it when I see it.
If the new Minister is really interested in a full and open debate, I have a suggestion for him. He might want to issue an early Green Paper for public discussion. In other words, go back to the original intention of the Government in 1984. That way he would not have to espouse the policies which are the legacy of his many predecessors, and I am not just talking about his predecessors in this Government but his predecessors in former Liberal Governments. Neither would he have to defend the intricacies of a comprehensive new policy. He can learn from the ensuing debate at the same time as he benefits from full public consultation. It would certainly be a refreshing change and it would fulfil the original commitment of the Government which was for a Green Paper, not a White Paper, as I mentioned a moment ago. In conclusion, that would show that the Government does indeed recognize how strongly Canadians feel about peace and security by giving Canadians the opportunity to tell the Government what kind of defence policy they want.
October 8, 1986


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments with respect to the seismic array that happens to be located in my constituency close to the City of Yellowknife. This array is very useful for the detection of underground nuclear explosions and for earthquakes. This station has been upgraded to make the instrumentation more sensitive and we anticipate that it will play an even more important role for the reasons that the Hon. Member suggests.
I have two questions for the NDP defence critic. The New Democratic Party appears to be split on the question of the Polar 8 icebreaker to which the Hon. Member referred earlier. I would like to know whether his Party is officially in support of the acquisition by Canada of a Polar 8 icebreaker. Perhaps we can have a definitive statement on that.
The second question also seems to make the NDP squirm a little bit. Have they yet come to a conclusion, in the determination of their Party policy, as to whether Canada should withdraw from NATO? I understand that was their position a little while ago. Have they now an official position with respect to NATO?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). With regard to the Polar 8 icebreaker, as defence critic I can only say that I think it is a terribly expensive flagpole. Even if it comes in at half a billion dollars, the Polar 8 icebreaker will be of little use to the Department of National Defence, as it has already indicated to the Standing Committee on National Defence.
Speaking as the defence critic, I am opposed to it as a defence mechanism-if 1 can use that expression-for defending the Arctic. It may have other purposes. No one has yet proven to me that there is heavy traffic going through the Northwest Passage which would require a Polar 8 icebreaker on an ongoing basis to literally break the way for commercial shipping. 1 personally have not made up my mind on that part of it yet. I do not know whether it has a commercial value. I only hope that if it is built the funding will not be taken out of DND.
I am also very glad that the Member asked me, as defence critic, the question about the NATO situation. The important thing in a national defence policy is to have an effective national defence. We must consider the geography of defence today. If we cut back on the number of commitments and concentrated on arctic sovereignty, on northern passage surveillance and tracking with an upgraded north Atlantic surveillance fleet for surface and below surface, and a Pacific surveillance fleet, and brought them into the 1990s, whether or not we were in NATO would be only academic. If there is a conventional attack on the West we would automatically be a component of the Western defence.
As the Member for Western Arctic knows, a shining example exists in western Europe today. A major military democratic country, not under a socialist government but under the right wing Conservative Government of the late Charles de Gaulle, withdrew France from the integrated
The Address-Mr. Charest
military command of NATO. That did not in any way diminish the military defensive capability of that Western alliance.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a comment. It is very obvious from those replies that the NDP is still squirming on both of those issues. There was no answer to either of the questions that I raised.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Western Arctic would like a lesson on national defence, I would be only too happy to oblige in my office anytime he has the time.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, in my maiden speech in the House of Commons as Minister of State for Youth, perhaps I may be allowed, first of all, to congratulate you on your appointment to the prestigious position of the Deputy Speaker of this House. I also would like to ask you to transmit a message that to me is very important, considering the importance of the Speaker's chair. It is a message of congratulations to the new Speaker (Mr. Fraser) of this House, wishing him the very best of luck.
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to talk about the specific challenges, opportunities and problems the current situation presents for young Canadian men and women. These challenges go beyond those encountered on the labour market. Rapid technological change has necessarily had a major impact on education and of course on our society.
Mr. Speaker, this new era is the result of global changes that are occurring faster than ever before. The labour market, in fact our whole culture, is going through a period of transition comparable to the Industrial Revolution. We are part of an international community that is both more competitive and more interdependent than in the past. The oil crisis of the 70s made this abundantly clear.
Change is the order of the day. Markets rise and fall at an unprecedented rate, and the demand for various skills is constantly changing and shifting.
There is no quick and easy way to deal with this reality, whether we are speaking globally or internationally. However, as a nation and as a Government, we have no right to ignore these facts, and we must adopt the approaches and strategies that will help us to manage change where possible and to avoid being alienated by change.
To deny these new realities, Mr. Speaker, would be nothing less than disastrous, not only for Canadians but especially for our Canadian youth.
The Government must act as a catalyst, helping to define what the challenges are and where our collective responsibilities lie, and helping people understand what kind of opportunities the future holds in store. Some of the possibilities were referred to earlier by my colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle); a new culture based on the continuing acquisition of knowledge, as my colleague mentioned, opens up almost unlimited opportunities for society in general and for the Canadian labour market in particular.

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Charest
The impact of technology on the labour market is one of the main concerns of young Canadians. Our ability to integrate new skills and to create jobs commensurate with those skills is a reflection of our country's success to adjust to this rapidly changing environment, where competition is becoming increasingly fierce.
If young people do not get adequate training, if they are not provided with the means to adapt themselves, they will simply not be in a position to preserve Canada's prosperity and secure our economic future. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recognizes it is urgent to integrate our young people properly into the labour force and, in that respect, Mr. Speaker, this Government's decision to link up the youth component to the Department responsible for employment matters is significant.
This new reality must also allow for participation by visible minorities, natives and the handicapped, who are an integral part of the gainfully employed population.
I am committed to doing everything humanly possible to promote the interests of those groups, feeling as I do that there can be no genuine economic, social and cultural progress without the full participation of all Canadian men and women.
New technologies in changing markets and the need for more advanced skills are the current challenges which our young people, who will be part of our labour force, should be able to take up. The training of that new, more flexible manpower endowed with more specialized knowledge, will require the co-operation of the young people themselves, the teachers, the labour unions, the private sector and all levels of Government.
The new technological era also entails other changes, new ways of defining work, a different view of hierarchy in the workplace, a new way of managing work and leisure hours. Actually what we are talking about is a new lifestyle, whence the need for autonomy and innovation.
In the light of those changes, we are reviewing certain programs. In consultation with the provinces, the labour unions and the business world, we will review such things as the apprenticeship training program, which to a large extent is funded by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. That review will take place over the next six months, with a view to determining the best possible avenues for getting labour and the training sector closer together.
We are also looking at measures to fight against illiteracy in Canada. In the same spirit, we are considering action to encourage young people to remain in school as long as possible, and measures to prevent drug abuse and help young offenders.
To promote access to employment, we are constantly improving our occupational counselling and employment information programs and we are developing new training tools for occupational counsellors. In this regard, we are
looking at the co-operation mechanisms between the Employment and Immigration Commission and the provincial Departments of Education. Similarly, the National Conference on Secondary Education announced by the Prime Minister for the beginning of 1987 and the proposed National Advisory Board for Industrial Technology will help to define the concepts, to develop the new mechanisms and to determine the levels of co-operation required for a better management of changes in these sectors.
Mr. Speaker, major progress was made in this direction a little over a year ago when the Canadian Jobs Strategy was implemented. This strategy represents a basic change in the federal policy as concerns training and job creation, especially for young people who, I should point out in passing, are the main users of these programs as a whole.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, 1 shall be looking, with the representatives of the provinces, the leaders in our society and young people, at ways to answer one basic question: What kind of direction do our young people need, not only to move successfully from the academic world into the active world, but also to become the nucleus of a labour force of international standing? The performance of Canada on the international scene is closely dependent on the answer to that question. In the short term, however, we must maintain our efforts in order to solve the unemployment problem among young Canadians, although the demographic process itself should progressively reduce the relative importance of this problem with which all industrialized nations are faced. In the present context, the ultimate irony is that we may face a manpower shortage in the years to come.
Statistics concerning unemployment among young people in all industrialized nations clearly indicate that everywhere governments must step up their effort with a view to integrate young people into the labour force during this transition period. In the United Kingdom, the unemployment rate among young people is nearly 22 per cent. In France, it exceeds 25 per cent, while in Italy and Spain, it exceeds 35 per cent and 43 per cent respectively.
In Canada, the unemployment situation among young people is not as serious as elsewhere, and it is improving. It went from nearly 19 per cent down to less than 15 per cent over the past 18 months. The cynicism and despair expressed by some of our youth are not as acute as elsewhere and, while travelling throughout this country, I have noted clear signs of increasing assurance and optimism among our young men and women who are aware that this country belongs to them and who are determined to develop it fully. The situation is not as critical as it is elsewhere, but as was indicated in the Throne Speech, much remains to be done. The distribution of jobs at the national level is very uneven: youth unemployment varies from around 10 per cent, its lowest level, in the Toronto area and goes on to exceed 30 per cent in Newfoundland. For native young people, the situation is even worse.
October 8, 1986

The Government has a duty to identify policies and clarify objectives in order to deal with these problems. Alone, however, it cannot provide easy answers. All sectors have a role to play in helping Canadians adjust to a changing job world, and in its role as national coordinator, the Government must ensure that the measures being taken by various sectors complement each other.
This Government's job strategy reflects the realization that solving the problem of youth unemployment does not depend on how many jobs are created but also on the type of jobs, real jobs that are career-oriented, for which real training is provided. The job strategy makes it possible to take into account both the technological changes taking place on the labour market and the priorities of each participant. The strategy emphasizes autonomy and innovation, two factors that are now indispensable to economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, the job strategy has no connection with any of the so-called band-aid solutions that may have been proposed before.
Taking its cue from this approach, the federal Challenge '86 program, aimed at creating summer jobs for young people, has set long-term objectives. With the support of local businesses and community organizations, Challenge '86 has helped create
90,000	jobs, which in most cases are related to the goals and aspirations of our young people.
The strategy's other programs, which run 12 months a year, are also based on these principles. The Job Entry Program features on-the-job training and practical work experience which are a solid basis for young Canadians to begin new careers. Then there is the Innovations Program to help those who have creative ideas and projects which propose fresh and innovating solutions to the labour market problems and create openings for technological applications.
As well, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne stresses the importance of finding new ways to instil the spirit of entrepreneurship in the minds of young people. We have already begun to work on this and will soon be in a position to unveil a major initiative in this field.
New trends are beginning to appear, such as team work and a growing awareness of the importance of quality and flexibility. Unless they can readily adapt to the changing situation and make the best of it, neither young people nor the various labour market interests can ever look forward to a productive future. Only a positive and flexible attitude coupled with longterm planning can foster prosperity among individuals and organizations.
Given the scope of the challenge facing us, it is only through a concerted national effort that we will succeed in fully integrating young people into the economic activities of this country and into society as a whole. For my part, besides defending the cause of young people in Cabinet and encouraging them to take full advantage of all services and programs offered by the federal Government, I will also strongly support
The Address-Mr. Charest
all measures likely to give youths more opportunities to become active participants.
The Advisory Counsil on Youth will make mechanism such as the Canadian Youth Foundation easier to be directly involved in the quest for solutions to their employment problems and other questions which concern us all.
The era of new technology offers young Canadians more opportunities for training, employment and personal development than any other previous period in history. All of us will have to use our minds and creativity to benefit socially and economically from these opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, we are living during an exalting period of transition, at a crucial time when we can experiment with new methods and discover new concepts, values and options to pave the way for a new society where all Canadians will be at home. If all of us, young people, educators, employer organization and union leaders, community leaders and elected representatives, are determined to get the most out of these opportunities, we shall prepare a great future for young Canadians and the nation, as a whole.
Finally, I am convinced that, like the previous generations, this one in 1986 will be able to overcome the obstacles it has inherited from others. Our basic message to young Canadians is that they must remember that Canada is still a country to be built and that they will build it for themselves and in their own image.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, some months ago the Government cancelled the Katimavik program. At that time it indicated there would be a program put forward to replace the Katimavik program. In the past, the Minister and I have discussed possibilities for such a new program and the possibility, perhaps, of combining some form of youth program with the type of objectives of Katimavik, with perhaps some form of voluntary service which would involve not only a military training program but a job and a skill training program as well. I wonder if the Minister and his Department have progressed in their thinking to a stage where the Minister is ready to unveil a new program of this sort? If so, could he tell us what form it might take and when we might expect an announcement in that regard?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague asked the question about Katimavik which illustrates, I think, in a very real way, some of the problems faced by our youth today and some of the problems faced by the Government. The Government never said that Katimavik was a bad program. Therefore, Katimavik not being a bad program, the rationale for not pursuing it was the fact that it did not address the specific problems which youth encounter today in 1986. It was a program which was created in another context. That is one

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Charest
reason the Government did not choose to persue it. More generally, the decision was made in the context of the whole Canadian Job Strategy. I do not care how we cut it, the whole accent must be on training and retraining if we are going to be able to build a country and face international competition. That is what Canada must be about. For the Government to turn its back on that reality would be irresponsible. It would not be facing up to our responsibility towards the young people of Canada.
Since I have been in this office we have had the opportunity to review almost everything being done. We have not taken anything for granted. We especially acknowledge the multidimensional problems which face Canadian youth today. In that sense, what we would most like to do is address the different problems and try to offer the most options possible. Entrepreneurship is one dimension and it is mentioned specifically in the Speech from the Throne. Post-secondary education is also part of it. We must look carefully at drug abuse, which is a problem of youth.
There are multidimensional problems we really must address as a Government but we will not find one global solution in one program. That is very obvious. The ordinary Canadian on the street knows that. Reasonable Canadians know that it is pretentious on the part of Governments to say to the country: "I have the solution". It just does not exist. We are not excluding anything. We are still working very hard on the problem. We started with the first objectives of the Speech from the Throne, which is to make sure that every government Department concerned with youth does its job. We are satisfied with that at this point. The Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) has said we are going to look at illiteracy-


Mr. Rossi:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that when a Conservative is speaking, you let other Conservatives add to his arguments. However, when the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) rose-I understand that you are impartial, but I think that it would be only fair to let-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I do not find that to be a point of order. I call them as I see them and I saw the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Carlo Rossi: He got up, too, but you did not recognize him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He did? Well, he will be recognized next. I do not wish to argue with the Hon. Member-


Carlo Rossi: I don't want to argue but we want to be recognized in time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will be recognized when I am ready to recognize him.


Carlo Rossi: 1 believe, Sir, you should recognize the Opposition, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am on my feet. Order, please. The Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest).


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I was about to rise on a point of order and say that, in view of the representations made by my friend for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), I shall be happy to hear a question from the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). I have been anticipating a question for a long time. I shall therefore conclude my reply and invite the Hon. Member to ask his question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to tell the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) he is entering into his term of office on the wrong foot. When he referred to foreign countries, the OECD, he deliberately failed to state that Canada unfortunately ranked eighth with the dramatic level of youth unemployment.
I would like to ask the Minister whether this is the kind of record he is pleased with for our young people. Is this what he is so proud of? I would like to ask the Minister about his statement to the Canadian media, in which he blamed our young people, and I am quoting from the Canadian media: "It is time for our young to get interested in something other than peace, disarmament and the environment, in which they may find themselves ghettoized", he said.
Is it the new Minister's function to become some kind of a dictator in youth matters, and tell the young: You shall not get involved with environment matters. You will have no right to get involved with peace matters. Contrary to the former Minister, whose portfolio met with a sad end, will the Minister be there to help the young, to support them and to make sure that there will be meaningful jobs and a decent future for them?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, one of the first things rookie lawyers are told-and the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) should listen, because this will be of interest to him-is never to give a witness an opportunity to explain. That is the kind of courtesy you extended to me, and I thank you for it.
Concerning that statement to the Canadian media, Mr. Speaker, I had a chance the next day to be on a radio program, in which I said specifically: "The statement was incomplete. Incomplete in the sense that it said-"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!
October 8, 1986


Jean J. Charest: I have no control over what newspapers print, Mr. Speaker, but the person who conducted the interview will confirm that. The statement was this, which will certainly be of interest to my colleague the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie: "Young people need not be dictated by anybody the major issues in which they should be interested." And I draw this from my own personal experience. When I entered politics, some people were adamant: "You should deal with environment or peace issues, because these are matters young people are concerned about." Well, it is not true. I want to say to my colleague the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that young people are interested in all major issues, and my message to them is that the choice is their own. Neither you nor anybody else should tell them what issues they should be interested in. If it is peace or disarmament, well, it is their choice. If it is employment, it is their choice too. Because it is their choice, I want them to know that they can get involved in any debate, because they have the basic right to do so.
As far as your second question is concerned, comparing Canada with other members of the OECD places us in a world context, because Canada competes in a world context. But the Throne Speech, if you took the time to read it, clearly indicates that the unemployment rate among young Canadians is unacceptable. The fact remains that if you want to be objective and try to forget for an instant or even a split second your partisan bias, you will recognize that the unemployment rate among young Canadians is down, that we must stress training and retraining, something which your own Government failed to do, for all sorts of reasons which I do not know, and I do not want to pass judgement, but it is something which our Government has elected to do.
Show us, then, how the Federal Liberal Party in Quebec is addressing the real issues of the future. How? What do you offer our youth, beside rising every day in the House and saying no to all new proposals and innovations suggested by this Government?


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explore one particular area which the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) has touched upon. It is an area in which I trust he can have some effect on the policy of the Government over the next months.
The Government has difficulty meeting the needs of Canadians as a result of constrained finances that are made available in various areas. Surely that is true with regard to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I think it also true with respect to the summer employment programs for students and young people. With that in mind, I would like to ask the Minister to involve himself with the development of the Challenge '87 program. I ask him to do so forthwith to ensure that the requirements for the program are known at an early point, that application forms will be made available and that funding will be adequate to needs. If he does this, we will not have to face
The Address-Mr. Malepart
the type of situations that I experienced last spring. At that time there was not enough money in my riding. The money that was there had to be spread very thinly over the various communities. The Land of Nipigon Chamber of Commerce comes to mind immediately in terms of information services which it hoped would be provided through Challenge '86. It was not possible to provide for that.
At Lakehead University there were faculty members concerned about providing some very challenging opportunities for youth. The lateness of the application deadlines and the length of time required to process them made it difficult for Challenge '86 to be the type of program that it should have been.
I ask the Minister to respond briefly to my concerns. I encourage him even more to ensure that the funding is adequate and that the needs of young people will be more fully met by this program.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I would like to thank him for acknowledging the fact that the program does work well. If we refer specifically to what could be bureaucratic difficulties, which are normal, I point to the fact that that is just part of implementing new programs. If we want to try new measures and programs in this country by bringing in new solutions, we all have to accept the fact that the first time around it is always difficult. We will work things out. The Hon. Member brings this to my attention today, and I am glad that he does. We will be looking at the report which will eventually come in on the subject.
With respect to the funding for Challenge '87, whether it will happen or not, as I have said from the beginning, this Minister will not take anything for granted. We will look at Challenge '86. We will look at what happened within the program itself, see how it has fared. Then we will take the appropriate decisions once that time comes. I hope to be able to give good news to the House in that vein.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker, but I am probably the only one in this House who will condemn what happened the other night, the hypocrisy of it all, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would have us believe he revolutionized Parliament and that the Speakers were democratically elected. If that were true, my colleague Marcel Prud'homme would be one of the Speakers of this House, and we would not have had a demoted former Minister appointed as Assistant Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Malepart
That being said, Mr. Speaker, today 1 would like to compare the present Speech from the Throne to the Speech from the Throne we had in 1984. Mr. Speaker, I wish the House would look at the words in the 1986 speech regarding social justice and the same words that appear in the 1984 speech.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the writing is concerned, there are plenty of people in Canada who write well and who can write a nice story, but, Mr. Speaker, what is there in terms of tangible content? They say that the past is our guarantee for the future, but look at what happened to social justice under this Conservative Government and this Prime Minister, after what they said in the Speech from the Throne, look at the reality and at the reasons why we are now starting a new session.
About social justice and the elderly, Mr. Speaker, just a while ago, the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) scolded me for rising in the House to criticize the Government, Mr. Speaker. But I was proud to rise in support of the elderly, to save their Old Age Security pension cheques, while the Minister of State for Youth was busy protecting his own little portfolio.
Mr. Speaker, everyone will recall what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. Everyone remembers what the Minister of social injustice and the Prime Minister said here in the House, and the Speech from the Throne and the blue Book on consultation and the nation-wide betrayal of our senior citizens. The first time senior citizens were betrayed and deceived by this Government was when family allowances were de-indexed. And the second time, Mr. Speaker, again in the Speech from the Throne, senior citizens were discriminated against, those between the ages of 60 and 64, with respect to the spouse's allowance. Once again, Mr. Speaker, all elderly Canadians-mostly women-in every single riding from sea to sea have heard this Government deliberately refuse to declare them eligible under the Old Age Security pension program simply because they had to separate, because they preferred to remain single, or because they were forced to seek a divorce. Mr. Speaker, this Government, including the Prime Minister and his social injustice Cabinet colleague, deliberately perpetuate such inequity, and now they are trying to make elderly Canadians believe that the 1986 Speech from the Throne is even better than the one we got in 1984. Mr. Speaker, we need look no further than what happened to the early retirees who expected to get their unemployment benefits in 1985 and 1986. Again thousands of Canadian men and women were penalized, they were deceived by this Government with regard to benefit cut-backs, with the result that some of them lost as much as $10,000. More phoney promises and more phoney commitments from this Government, Mr. Speaker. The 1984 Speech from the Throne was long on rhetoric, as is the 1986 Speech from the Throne. They said the same thing about the New Horizons Program, Mr. Speaker: When it comes to elderly Canadians, we will never do anything to harm them. Well, Mr. Speaker, behind their backs the Prime Minister and his Government did slash the benefits of elderly Canadians. During the first two years of this Government, not a single Conservative Member or Minister had the courage to rise in defence of our senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, we should also recall the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the 1984 Speech from the Throne, particularly with respect to Canadian families, the cornerstone of our society, he said. The Prime Minister is never at a loss for words, they flow like money which is no problem when he wants to take his butler along on his world-wide trips. So what happened to Canadian families, Mr. Speaker? In 1984 the Prime Minister promised that the House would look after Canadian families, but he ended up de-indexing family allowances while at the same time introducing legislation to rescue Western Canada millionnaires from a bank failure. So much for the intellectual integrity of this Government and this Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and today in 1986 they would have us believe that people will swallow this piece of trash. Mr. Speaker, the child tax credit changes have victimized, middle-income families.
Mr. Speaker, senior citizens were deceived by this Government in 1984, and the Members opposite are now trying to make us believe .. . Look at what has been written. There are no concrete results. Families were deceived in 1984, Mr. Speaker.
What about young Canadians, Mr. Speaker? As a consolation prize, after two years of inaction, the Minister has been demoted.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard a term which, although perhaps not unparliamentary, is totally inappropriate under the circumstances, namely "a piece of trash", which was used to describe the Throne Speech read by the Governor General of Canada, and I believe that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) should withdraw this vulgar and inappropriate term.


An Hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One moment, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that 1 did not hear any word that was unparliamentary and I feel that it is not a point of order. Is the Hon. Member for Bou-rassa (Mr. Rossi) rising on a point of order?


Carlo Rossi: On the same point of order. Mr. Speaker, how can this Hon. Member, who was not even in the House, rise on a point of order about a word which he may not even have heard, because he hastened to ask his colleague the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) whether he had said that word. The Hon. Member rose on a point of order, although he was not even in the House.
October 8, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not find that that is really a point of order either. I find that that is debate, and if the Hon. Member wishes to rise on debate, that is fine. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has the floor.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Blais) has just clearly demonstrated parliamentary hypocrisy. My friend, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) was right: he was not here, Mr. Speaker.
1 should like to continue my remarks. I was dealing- [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, let me say that I do not think we should reflect on whether a person was in the Chamber or was not in the Chamber. There are television monitors outside in both lobbies and naturally Members of Parliament have the opportunity of viewing what is going on in the Chamber whether or not they are behind the curtain. That is beside the point. What I am saying now is that I do not want to have Hon. Members reflect on the attendance of persons whether in or out of the House.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am not reflecting on his attendance. It is the idea that he had to ask his colleague from Beauharnois whether he said it or not. That is different.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we should get on with debate. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have another point of order?


Pierre Blais: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order.


Pierre Blais: It is another point of order, Mr. Speaker. He used again the word "hypocrisy" concerning another Hon. Member. I feel this expression is totally unacceptable and out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will look at the "blues" tomorrow and if I find that unparliamentary language was used, I will rule accordingly.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minutes used by the Hon. Member will not be deducted from my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will resume my remarks-and you may rest assured that I am here to tell the truth. Even if this should displease my colleague from Bellechasse, I will continue telling the truth about his performance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to compare the 1984 Throne Speech with the last one. What was the outcome for senior citizens? As I say, the Old Age Security pensions was de-indexed, discrimination was introduced in the spouse allowance
The Address-Mr. Malepart
regime and against those who are single, separated or divorced, and cuts were made in unemployment insurance benefits for early retirees. Suddenly, in the middle of the road, the Government has decided to make those unilateral cuts, without telling the people involved. Even Conservative Members often told people they were right. Mr. Speaker, those people were penalized. There were cuts in the New Horizons Program and the refusal of all home care projects for senior citizens. I appreciate the response of the Conservative Members who would rather have us refrain from telling the truth, and try to hide the fact that the people clearly were deceived in the 1984 speech. This is why people have reason to question the statements made by the Government, by the Prime Minister in the 1986 Throne Speech, considering the absence of any concrete proposals.
The same thing goes with respect to the family, and as I said, Canadian families were hit with the de-indexing of family allowances. Let us not forget that last year, Canadians lost $55 million with the de-indexing of family allowances.
The House will recall that changes in the child tax credit have had a major impact on middle- and low-income families. The House will also recall that in the Budget, the Government decided to divide Canadian families into two categories. Families with an income of less than $15,000 receive the child tax credit and will be entitled to an advance pre-payment, while families with an income of $24,000 will be entitled to the full amount of the child tax credit but not to the advance prepayment.
Mr. Speaker, considering that the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) is back in the House, that there was nothing in the 1984 Speech from the Throne and that nothing has been done for youth and that in 1986, once again, all we have is words, words, words-
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister of State for Youth took back what he said. However, if the Minister means that the Canadian Press reporter misled the people of Canada, he may have to suffer the consequences, because I am going to meet the reporter to tell her what the Minister of State for Youth said about his statement that it was high time youth got interested in something else besides peace, disarmament and the environment, which might well become a ghetto for them, as he said.
Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of State for Youth was surprised a while ago when he heard that on unemployment statistics, Canada rated eighth among the OECD countries, while he was trying to prove that Canada was not last. If that is all he is going to do-
Mr. Speaker, we were able to hear the speech of the Hon. Minister of State for Youth, but there was absolutely no announcement in his speech that he would be cutting the official ribbon as his predecessor used to do.

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Malepart
Mr. Speaker, the Minister has received a political appointment in the field of communication. It will be the same for him as for his predecessor, who once sent a letter saying: It is useful politically, and so on.
We all recall what happened. It was one of the many scandals involving the Conservative Government. The Minister of State for Youth is now telling us that there will be programs other than Katimavik. How long have they been waiting, Mr. Speaker?
There is also the question of training, Mr. Speaker. We know that funds have been reduced by half in the job development sector. Yet, the Minister would have us believe-
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian population has been misled for two years and the Conservative Members think that this is going to continue. For my part, I say to those who are watching us that that time is over. The public has had enough, whether we are speaking about families or young people.
Let us now look at the situation in Quebec. The facts are obvious. Nothing has been solved in eastern Montreal. The Conservatives have failed completely. We all remember the French power announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in Quebec City. It has been a disaster. What about the shipyards? A total failure. What about the Desbiens pulp and paper plant? It has been a total failure, but thank God for the Liberal Government in Quebec. What about Gulf? Thank God for the Liberal Government in Quebec for saving part of the refinery. Otherwise, it has been a disaster. Indeed, a former Conservative Member criticized the Minister of Energy and Mines.
Mr. Speaker, I still have five minutes, the five minutes taken up by the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, the aerospace industry is also a disaster.
Mr. Speaker, I have visited the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. Let me talk about the potato producers. This is a clear case of injustice. Maritime potato producers in the Maritimes have the same problems as producers in Quebec. Yet, potato producers in the Maritimes receive compensation, but not those in Quebec.
Yet, the Minister of State for Youth and all the other Ministers from Quebec, the so-called French power, look at all this and are quite satisfied. They have their jobs and their limousines; they cut ribbons occasionnally and appear a couple of times on television. They are very happy. As for the Minister, he can get his hair curled, and this is French power!
In the meantime a serious problem comes up in Western Canada, and there fly $1 billion. Banks go bankrupt in Western Canada, and we have another billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. Western producers have problems, we give them money. Oil companies have problems, we give them money. But for the Province of Quebec, nothing. The International Banking Centre is but a promise, Mr. Speaker, because since the election nothing has come out, zilch! No, nothing has come to Quebec since this Tory Government was elected, Mr. Speaker.
Neither in the area of equilization nor in rail transportation. The Bombardier Corporation-they would have us believe- Bombardier was the highest bidder for Canadair, but they will be dragging a red herring and award the F-18 maintenance contract to somebody else. Lo and behold they say! You were allowed to buy Canadair. You had your chance, but, Mr. Speaker. Bombardier was the highest bidder. Quebecers will not be had that way. Come now. Enough of that nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to wake up across the aisle. I appreciate they were disappointed with some Ministers, they fired them, and tried new ones. But those "57" will have to wake up, Mr. Speaker, they will have to drive something.
I think the Saint-Maurice election was a lesson for them. People in Saint-Maurice did not sell out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the bunch of Conservatives who were handing out millions. The New Democratic Party gave them a hotfoot, Mr. Speaker, what a lesson! People in Quebec no longer accept this, they were deceived for two and a half years and they say: "Enough is enough!".
The Minister of State for Youth would like to know what we could do, what proposals we could put forward to help them. In the first place, there should be money behind the Job Development Program to train young people-let them double the amount of funding. We will see whether he has any backbone. We will see whether he is proficient or just another "official ribbon cutter" with $40,000 more in salary than the others and a limousine. Someone to parade and put his chin forward and cut ribbons. Let us see if he can have that funding doubled.
In Quebec, we had $76 million for the Job Development Program. The Montreal area had $22 million. This year, for the whole Province of Quebec, there is a mere $22 million, and $9 million for the Montreal area. The Minister earlier tried acrobatics to make Quebecers believe he is looking after the young. The young my foot! The Minister does nothing. He had a salary increase. The only young person who had a pay increase in Canada is the Minister, Mr. Speaker. The others will get nothing. The only one who is provided with a private chauffeur, there he is. Other young people are still in need, Mr. Speaker. But that will not do. What young people want are jobs.
And he talks about training them. Some of them have diplomas right up to here. They want jobs, they want to work. Double the funding for the Challenge '87 program, stop your cheap manoeuvrings with those 24 weeks, those 30 last weeks to give training jobs every two years. Stop tampering with all those things. Everything you touched has gone sour. And make sure you offer programs. Trust the industry. Do not put up criteria and hurdles, trust community groups. Give them money and they will carry on projects. Do not try to get involved with that and indulge in patronage. For two years you reeked with scandals so you should keep away.
October 8, 1986

And what about social issues? Why did the Government not propose that a debate be held, as suggested by our Liberal leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), on a guaranteed annual income? Why did the Government not announce in the Throne Speech that it would set up a committee of the House or a joint committee of both Houses to consider how with the same budgetary envelope we could have 15 to 20 social programs to serve all Canadians?
We have social programs for senior citizens, some for our families and others for Canadians generally, some under the guise of tax shelters, grants, cheques or child tax credit based on age and another tax credit for the family. Why has the Government not endorsed the proposal made by the Leader of the Official Opposition? Why did the Government refuse to consider the development of a policy aimed at older people, a policy based on the needs of each of those groups? In the first place, with respect to health care or the so-called extended care centres. Secondly, community or low-rent housing which appeal to people, co-operatives or non-profit organizations, where older citizens in good health can live under the same roof to carry on group activities and enjoy some degree of security. There should also be a grant formula for housing and another one for home care.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Government has all the necessary tools, but it should do away with the Tory philosophy of taking money away from older Canadians to give it to the rich, and find out how, with the same budgetary envelope, care provided to older people can be improved.
The same applies to our families and to young Canadians. And it would be the same thing in the area of industrial assistance. I should like to pay tribute to the NDP members who have issued a document which clearly shows that the more affluent Canadian corporations have managed quite legally not to pay a cent in income tax and that some individuals earning $100,000 in Canada have been allowed to claim the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this speech of 1986 which would clearly indicate a real improvement in the living conditions of Canadian men and women. But I am much more concerned when I consider what was written in 1984, for I, like the Canadian people generally, had faith in this Prime Minister in 1984.
About the consultation mentioned in the party platform, all groups were saying: Well, we should show some trust; these people must be honest. You can see the results, Mr. Speaker. I understand that PC Members do not like me to say that, but it is the truth. Have we been sent here to tell the truth or not? Is it true that the PC Government, contrary to what it had said, has cut back the Old Age Security Pensions? It is true. Is it true that it has cut back family allowances at the level of indexation? It is true. Nobody can say that it is not true, for it did indeed make these cuts. Is it true that it has deceived workers on early retirements in the Province of Quebec and the
The Address-Mr. Malepart
rest of Canada concerning unemployment insurance benefits? It is true, and nobody can deny that. Is it true that after having deceived the people, it made cuts in the New Horizon program? It is true, it did indeed cut back, and nobody can say that it did not, Mr. Speaker.
Is it true that it changed the child tax credit for middle income taxpayers, so that people earning between $22,000 and $25,000 can no longer claim this credit? It is true, Mr. Speaker. It is written here in so many words. Nobody can say that the Government had not promised that it would not do it. Its election platform was deceiving. Has the Government rolled back the indexation of family allowances in order to reduce the deficit? Nobody can say that it has not. It's true, and the Minister admitted it after saying he would not do it.
Mr. Speaker, if Conservative Members are ashamed, just like the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) who is trying to stop us from speaking out, let them repent openly. If they cannot do so in the House, they should rise in their caucus and say to their Prime Minister: Listen, Mr. Prime Minister, we have been elected. We are honest people. We want intellectual honesty and openness to continue. Can anybody say that it is not true that the Prime Minister treats himself to caviar when travelling or that he brings along his butler? Nobody can deny it, for it is true. It is written in so many words, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody can say that the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and his wife have not obtained interest free loans, for it is true, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that some Ministers have been forced to resign? Again, it is true, Mr. Speaker. There is no one in the House who can deny that.
OO)
It is not too late, Mr. Speaker; the Government still has some opportunities left. The Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) has the opportunity to do a better job than his predecessor who has been fired.
So the minister is given this opportunity. All members of the House must rise above petty politics to support him in his efforts to put pressure on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who is aware of only one class of citizens, and have him allocate funds to the Minister of State for Youth. Let him allow to the Challenge '87 program twice as much funds as last year. Money should be earmarked immediately for the Job Development Program. The prime minister was able to find money for those who had millions of dollars, who had deposits of more than $60,000 in western banks. He was able to find $1 billion. Let him find one more billion to help the young people of Canada. And if the minister succeeds in that undertaking, I will be the first to rise and say: "Well done!" If he is willing to take up the challenge, I will support and help him. But if the minister tries to lull almost everyone with words such as those of his little speech, as "Donalda" attempted to do, he will be sent back to do a television show.

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Malepart
1 now conclude my speech, Mr. Speaker. My time is up. If the Minister of State for Youth is willing to fight for the young people of Canada, he will have my support, but if he does nothing for them, he will hear from me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
Questions and comments. The Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest).


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly and then put a few specific questions to my colleague. First of all, he referred to the election of our Speaker (Mr. Fraser) and 1 would like to know-But first, I should point out that, today, the Hon. Member was as good as ever. He was passionate, vibrant and also spoke in a loud voice.
However, you must remember one thing, and I am sure that those who are listening know what I mean, because they are reasonable people. How can you rise and talk for 20 minutes and dismiss absolutely everything as negative? Nothing positive in two whole years? It was a passionate and interesting speech, granted, but those who are watching us, at home, must be wondering: Something is wrong here, it does not make sense. This is not 1940. People are smarter than that. This is not 1800. They are listening and they are watching us, and distinctions must be made.
He talked about the Quebec Liberal Party which he admires a great deal, and we also have a lot of respect for that Party. I do not know whether he is going to give us his views on the so-called "boubou macoutes" operation. He did not mention it yet. However, associations he claims he supports were not exactly in favour. He respects the Quebec Minister of Agriculture and we share that respect. Will he talk to the Minister about the fact that they have cut school milk two days out of five? That they are taking milk away from children? Knowing how close he his to children, I am sure he is already planning a trip to Quebec City to demonstrate on the Hill and demand an immediate stop to this. We are going to watch him on that. If he wants our co-operation, I guess he will ask for it, and we will see whether we can help.
But there is more than that, and concerning the election of our Speaker for whom we in any case have the full respect he deserves, I do not know whether he would tell us-I hope he is not leaving-I do not know whether he will tell us, we will see whether he will answer the question because we are curious to know-whether he stayed here right until the Speaker was elected, because I imagine the absent are always in the wrong. The same rule applies to everybody, perhaps not in his case he will tell us, but being such a staunch supporter of democracy he will tell us whether he was here for the election of the Speaker, for how many ballots and the final vote, whether he came to vote as he wanted to do to get the results he was hoping for.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) will simply have to set the record straight for us
because we on this side are getting somewhat contradictory messages from the other side. 1 took part in a television interview with my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and your own colleague from the riding of Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) who said that, as far as he is concerned, the Speech from the Throne is a good one. You used a word-I am not sure whether it is against the rules or not, but never mind-unless I am mistaken you used the word "a piece of trash". It sounds like a very strong word to me. Yet your colleague from your own Party said that it was a good speech. Help us understand what you and your Party are saying, because we on this side and other Canadians are not too sure what you mean.
One last word to the Hon. Member. We admire your eloquence, your imposing style and everything else, even though the approach is quite negative, but finally, Mr. Speaker, perhaps his name ought to be added to the list of would-be leaders of the Quebec federal Liberal Party, that is the latest trend-


An Hon. Member:: Another one.


Jean J. Charest: -another one, and if that does not work out he can always launch himself into a new career as a professional wrestler, I think it would be just about right for him.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as you may have noticed, no one was very impressed by the Minister. I have the impression he is going to get back to the Speaker's chair pretty soon, since he didn't have a clue when we were discussing the Speech from the Throne.


Carlo Rossi: He will never learn!


Jean-Claude Malépart: As far as being negative is concerned, if the Minister would stop running around in his limousine and talking to his chauffeur, as if that were the only important thing in life, and if he would look at the latest polls: sixty per cent of the people disagree with your Government, only about 20 per cent agree and 30 per cent are undecided ... So I have the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister... I am not surprised he doesn't want to wait for an answer, considering how this makes him look.
Furthermore, regarding the Speech from the Throne, what I said was that anybody could write a nice story, and I was comparing the 1986 and 1984 Speeches from the Throne, and talking about how Canadians had been betrayed by the 1984 Speech. Is the Minister prepared to say it is not true that in 1984 his Government promised social justice and then went on to cut indexation of Old Age Security benefits? Is he prepared to say that isn't true? Can he say that? He isn't afraid to lie?
Mr. Speaker, about de-indexation of family allowances: Is the Minister going to say that is false? I hope he doesn't have the Prime Minister's disease. You know, people don't trust the Prime Minister's word, and I just hope it isn't contagious in their party, Mr. Speaker.
October 8, 1986


Carlo Rossi: He doesn't have the answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am having some trouble hearing your speech. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has the floor. Please continue.


Jean-Claude Malépart: As far as the election of the Speaker is concerned, I must say that 1 am not a lawyer like the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), who has bragged about it. That is a special class of people. You are one yourself, Mr. Speaker. As for me, I am a simple citizen like the majority of Canadians and 1 thank you for letting me give a more complete answer about the election of the Speaker. As I understand it, if the comments of the Prime Minister about parliamentary reform were true, sincere and honest, as Deputy Speaker of the House, your replacement should have been Marcel Prud'homme or Mr. Lewis, who were also candidates, and not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) not to involve candidates to the Chair in his speech. I ask him to conclude.


Jean J. Charest: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) on a point of order.


Jean J. Charest: 1 would like to say in a few words that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has yet to answer our question. We will see whether he does or not. We are waiting. Perhaps we will use that as a yardstick to measure his honesty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 would ask- I now recognize the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, but I would ask him to be brief if possible because I believe another Member would like to ask a question within the allotted ten-minute period.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have answered. I asked the Minister, and 1 am still waiting for his answer: Am I wrong to say that his Government has reduced Old Age Security pension indexing? So he answered: Is it false-


Jean J. Charest: Answer the question!


Pierre Blais: Answer the question!


Carlo Rossi: You do not like that, hey?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Oh! Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I feel compelled to say, whether my terms are parliamentary or not, that Conservative Members like to verge on lying.


Carlo Rossi: Old Age Security pensions? You do not like that. You did not answer the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for a question or comment.
The Address-Mr. Malepart


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, following the speeches of both previous speakers, I would simply like to comment briefly on the speech of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) because he is a member of the Liberal Party. He is quite right in criticizing the government, but he forgets that his own Government was in power for many years and could have done anything that was required to develop the economy of Quebec.
In Montreal, the regional economic problems have long been ignored by the municipal government. But one wonders why it is that no member of Parliament, no minister coming from the Montreal region ever was able to come up with an economic development plan for Montreal, that not one of them ever reacted. Four oil refineries were shut down in that area, for instance.
The honourable member just mentioned the need to get started with a guaranteed annual income. It is a good suggestion. But let me put this question to the honourable member: When his Party was in power for almost 20 years, before the last election, why did the Liberals not go ahead with that reform instead of just starting to call for some change in our social fabric, in our social policy, now that they are in the opposition? They are in effect calling for something that his Party was not willing to deliver when they were in power.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly reply to the NDP Member. His question clearly indicates that the NDP has never understood and will never understand Quebecers. It clearly shows that it would not cost the Prime Minister much to find a job for him like he did for the former Member.
Why did the Liberal Party ... If it did get the message, Mr. Speaker, why did the Government. .. ? Because the guaranteed annual income is not something than can be implemented overnight. One must make sure that it will improve the quality of life for Canadians, that there will be no additional costs. How to reorganize that? If the NDP Member-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You had enough time to do it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we did improve the conditions of living, medicare-Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have been honest enough to make changes. That is why we have been in power and for that same reason we shall come to power again. We shall not forever be in the opposition and we shall not accept menial tasks of that nature to say farewell. Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by answering that question, on guaranteed annual income, on a policy for senior citizens: I believe that social programs have been upgraded over the years. This cannot be done in a radical fashion. Surely, we could adopt a simplistic NDP-style solution. I have former Parti Quebecois acquaintances who did just that and were thrown out rather quickly by the electorate. The idea is to find the best way to go about it. What is important is not the type

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Malone
of annual income but what it boils down to in terms of dollar amounts and services provided to people. This is why I am pleased that the Liberal Party has progressed with regard to social programs for the elderly and families. The time has now come to consider that and perhaps to conclude eventually that providing a guaranteed annual income is not necessarily in the best interest of those who need assistance, contrarily to NDP ideology, which is basically biased.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commence by extending to the Speaker, his deputies and the new process my best wishes. I wish you and yours well.
I rise today to express a concern for rural Canada, not only for the food producers and other persons who live from the resources of the land but also for the towns, villages and hamlets which dot the country. The census of 1891 reported that 82 per cent of Canadians lived in rural areas. Today 4 per cent of Canadians live on farms and an additional 16 per cent live in rural non-farm situations.
I assert that the pattern of our population settlement is now reason for legitimate concern. Fifty-seven per cent of Canada's population is held within the 23 largest cities. Seventy-nine point five per cent of the Canadian population is within the 23 largest cities and 148 smaller cities. It is clear that that is where the political power is also harboured. As a result it is, by degree, more difficult to get the proper focus of attention that we need for the aspirations of rural Canada. The 9,500 towns and villages, along with the primary producers in agriculture, fishing, mining and forestry, have to knock harder and longer to get attention at the door of society's decision-makers. Simply put, while the hinterlands provide the lion's share of the nation's wealth, the cities harvest the benefit.
Today there are more Members of Parliament representing the urban settlements in and around the Cities of Montreal and Toronto than representing the three prairie provinces and the two northern territories. The three largest cities in Canada, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, collectively have more voting power in Parliament than has 85 per cent of Canada's land area. The voting power is such that it is its own concern.
There is a need for Canadian society to refocus on the potential of our hinterland and to diversify our population settlement patterns. It is my view that there is a bias which arises in urban citizens against the country cousins, albeit unintended and certainly without malice. Nevertheless, there is therein a real damage.
I want to set forward a few examples. The first one is relatively harmless and perhaps borders on trivia. I am going to talk about the urban weather reporter. After six weeks of drought in the rural communities, this pesky little fellow, armed with pointer and weather map, appears on our television screens and announces that there is good news, that it will be hot and dry for the weekend. This kind of announcement is
received in rural communities as an insult. It irritates rural people who are dependent upon the weather in a way in which urban communities can hardly imagine.
Who among us can justly claim that Canada Post is acting with justice and fair-mindedness when it provides free door-to-door postal service in urban areas but forces rural people to rent metal mail boxes? Most rural people would never expect door-to-door delivery, but they remain perplexed by the fact that they are charged while urban citizens have a free ride on the public purse.
There is the question of what makes the Post Office remain and what makes it disappear. Canada Post is presently shooting off small rural post offices like clay pigeons. It matters not that rural citizens may have to travel 100 or more miles on a return trip to obtain their mail. It matters not how busy a farmer or rancher is in the sprawling country of southern Alberta. The only consideration of Canada Post is the number of people per mile and whether or not the local post office makes money.
It does not matter that the petroleum and agricultural resources near Big Stone, Alberta, earns Governments $60 million annually. If the local post office loses $5,000 per year, Canada Post will close it down. Moreover, it does not bat an eyelash at free door-to-door delivery in urban communities. The fact that it costs millions of dollars annually to provide the door-to-door service in urban areas is unpersuasive. It is those far away post offices in rural Canada upon which Canada Post pins its hopes for a balanced budget. That is a pattern that may work but it is a pattern which is flooded with shame and insensitivity.
I would like to give the telephone company as another example. This corporate giant is under the jurisdiction of provincial Governments, yet the same sociological forces are exerted. If you are in urban Canada, you can have a private telephone in your home for $8, $9 or $10 a month. For the same price in many parts of rural Canada you can deal on a $130,000 harvest combine while three of your neighbours listen in. We are in the computer age and farmers need private phone lines to access data banks for their computers on accounting, market information, nutritional requirements and veterinary services.
I would now like to talk about the bias that exists in police service. I had occasion to phone the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Camrose, Alberta, on a Saturday this summer. My call was intercepted and transferred to Red Deer. When I told that to a colleague of mine in the House of Commons, he gave me a better example than my own. At 4 a.m. a man was caught beating his wife. A phone call was made to the police for help. The operator transferred the call to Kamloops, British Columbia, more than 100 miles away from the incident. The officer who received the phone call said that someone from the local detachment would attend at nine o'clock in the morning, some five hours later.
October 8, 1986

I do not raise this point to bring issue with whether the R.C.M.P. should have different working hours or whether they should have time off on the weekends. I think their present hours are fine and we all recognize they should have time off on the weekends. However, I do emphasize that rural people accept a level of police protection which urban people would never tolerate. If police protection is not continuous, it is not secure.
1 want to talk a bit about labour disputes, which are usually an urban phenomenon, and their impact on rural Canada. Most people, from following recent strikes in Thunder Bay and Vancouver, know that the labour workers are seeking more money. Many people would not even argue about whether they ought to receive more, but many of them do not recognize that when the workers and grain handlers get more money, the farmers get less. The situation is literally that the farmers receive international price, less cost. In other words, the administration, handling, shipping and transportation costs are all deducted.
We have a situation in our agricultural communities in Canada today where our farmers have had a decreased income every year for five years and this year have had a 20 per cent decrease over the previous year. It is within that scenario that the urban worker rises up to say that he wants more even though it means that the agricultural producers who provided the jobs in the first place must accept less so the labourers can have more. It is another example which underscores the fact that there is a sociological phenomenon that favours urban Canadians over rural Canadians.
I am proud that my Government announced in the Speech from the Throne that there will be more focus on day care. Urban Canada is crying out for more day care, more space and services and the commitment of more money. There is no day care in rural Canada in spite of the fact that in my Province of Alberta, 41 per cent of farmers or farmers and their spouses work off the farm. The farm environment is more dangerous for young children, with chemicals, machinery and animals. Yet world conditions and economic pressures on farmers mean that some 53 per cent of farmers, on a national average, now have off-farm work. However, there is still no day care. I am pleased with the initiative and I hope that those who design the actual legislation and initiative will remember that rural Canada also needs day care along with our urban cousin.
Let me give one final example-the pricing of farm chemicals-and I will move on to solutions that I believe will be helpful. Banvel and Dycleer are two chemicals. Banvel is used by farmers and Dycleer is used by municipal Governments. Dycleer is exactly the same chemical as Banvel, yet it sells for $20 a unit cheaper. It is illegal to use it for agricultural purposes. The company argues that this is because of its packaging and selling. Yet there are people in the farm aerial spray business who buy even more of the chemical than the municipalities, yet have to pay more for no other reason than
The Address-Mr. Malone
that they are classified as agricultural operations. That type of focus should not continue.
Let me ask rhetorically: Is Canada better off if Toronto and Montreal become as large as New York? Are we better off if Vancouver and Halifax become the Chicagos and Detroits of Canada? Are there no limits to growth? Is not the hinterland something we should focus on for increased vitality?
I believe, because of my past experience in the Province of Alberta, that it is possible to refocus on our hinterland and create a new vitality in it.
In the mid-1970s the Alberta Government decentralized and gave a sense of fresh air to many of those communities that were struggling. For instance, when Water Resources was moved to the community of Vegreville and the Alberta Development Corporation moved its headquarters from Edmonton to Camrose, it brought a new breath of fresh air and vitality to those communities. The community of Rimbey is a town of 600 in the riding of the Hon. Member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). It now has the provincial offices of the provincial parks programs and it is much more able to sustain itself. Yet there are parts of east central Alberta and west central Saskatchewan that are dying and crying out for the attention that goes to urban Canada, to start moving toward a rural focus, closer to the people who are served.
I could go on much longer and give many examples to show the kind of discrimination that takes place, but I want to talk about some solutions that we might offer.
First, I believe we should have a decentralized Government wherever possible. The Farm Credit Corporation, for example, could move to Honna, Alberta, an area that is losing its population because it depended on being a railway centre. Now that that industry is fading away, it needs some injection of a resource that will give it a new sense of vitality.
1 ask, partly tongue in check, if there would be anything wrong with moving the national headquarters of Canada Post to Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland? It seems to me that that is a very logical place to put the headquarters of Canada Post. It might be appropriate in terms of rural reconstruction and having the citizens of Canada recognize that we finally put the Post Office in its right location.
Perhaps the Animal Health Division of the Department of Agriculture could go to Innisfail, Alberta. Could the plant science branch not go to a rural community in Saskatchewan? Why must all these operations be harboured in Ottawa? If we were to move some of the operations of the federal Government from Ottawa, into the hinterland that is so important and needed for the continued growth of our country, we could have greater and more vital communities. We should do more with the industrial infrastructure and, wherever possible, use incentives to move it so that the major developments do not always take place in Montreal, Toronto, London, Hamilton or Vancouver but in little communities like-


Mr. Siddon:: Craigmyle.

October 8, 1986
The Address-Mr. Malone


Arnold John Malone: -Craigmyle, Alberta, a perfect example. I know the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) recognizes that he is speaking about a region of Canada that has a decreasing population.
It is important that I point out that according to the old Canada Works Program, communities with low unemployment rates would only get $100,000 for the area. The logic used by Statistics Canada was that areas with a low unemployment rate did not need any more money to improve the unemployment situation in the area. However, this logic did not take into account that many of those rural communities exported their unemployed, as boys and girls growing up on the farm in the Prairies did not stay unless they could take over the farm. They would go to the city where they would be listed on the city's unemployment roll, when unemployed.
A few years ago I attended the opening of a factory at Bashaw. I had the pleasure of seeing 30 young people, dressed in white cloaks and caps, working in that new cheese factory. I asked each of them where they were from and what they would be doing if they were not working in that factory. Each person told me that they would be in Red Deer, Calgary or Edmonton. Young people give us low unemployment statistics because they move away, but if industry is brought into those rural communities they will stay home. We must change the trend.
Finally, while it would be easy to blame previous Governments for this diminishing population in rural Canada, I do not want to do that because I believe that this trend existed for logical reasons. 1 believe there were natural efficiencies that made us move to urban areas to fulfil our goals, but today is different and we live in an age of the computer and high tech communication. It is interesting to note, for instance, that on Galiano Island and other islands off the coast of British Columbia there are major executives of large corporations' who basically run those corporations from their homes. Because of technology today we have the capacity to revitalize. It is a new phenomenon that we can do what we could not have done 10 years ago.
I see my time is up. I have other solutions to which I wanted to refer, but perhaps someone will ask me about an elected Senate and on that note, I will sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5.30 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. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Gray (Windsor West), moved:
That the following be added to the Address:
"The House regrets, that at a time when 1,250,000 Canadians are looking for jobs; when the Canadian family farm is threatened; when the oil and gas industry is trying to hang on; when regional inequalities are being worsened by government inaction; when young people, elderly women and single mothers face extraordinary hardship; when average Canadians face huge tax increases while giant corporations get tax breaks; and when Canadians, from one end of the country to the other, are crying out for leadership and direction, the
Government is trying to tackle the nation's problems with empty words and aimless rhetoric".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, October 9, 1986