1986-10-09

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour of laying on the Table of the House the 1986 Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

May I remind Hon. Members that pursuant to Standing Order 67(4) this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


FISHERIES
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 67(2) 1 wish to table, in both official languages, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans policy for the management of fish habitat.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101 I have the honour to present to the House the ninth report, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. This report on a meeting concerning public information of the North Atlantic Alliance was prepared by the Hon. Member for Okanagan- Similkameen (Mr. King).


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce for first reading a Bill to amend the Criminal Code concerning abortion. The purpose of this Bill is to address what I believe is the primary question concerning abortion-are we or are we not dealing with a human life. The essence of this Bill is that it removes the word "health" and would permit an abortion only on the grounds of self-defence in those rare instances when a mother's life is deemed to be in danger.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills
October 2, 1986-The Minister of State (Finance)-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act".
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Editor's Note: For Speaker's ruling on above, see p. 246]
222
[Stage Direction]
October 9, 1986
Business of the House

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, an Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to use proper language for proper nouns, in both official languages.


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

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual discussions and consultations with the House Leaders of the other Parties, having regard to the establishment of the Striking Committee under the provisions of Standing Order 93, for the appointment of Members to the Legislative Committees. As well, there have been discussions with respect to the reinstatement of the work of three special or subcommittees; the Special Committee on Child Care, the Subcommittee on the Handicapped and the Special Committee on Acid Rain.
I think you will find unanimous agreement for the following motion with respect to the establishment of the Striking Committee:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the composition of the Striking Committee of the House of Commons be amended by substituting the names of Messrs. Murphy, Mazankowski and Mrs. Bourgault for Messrs. Deans, Hnatyshyn and McGrath, respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Further to discussions with respect to the reinstatement of the Special Committee on Acid Rain, I think you will find that the following motion would be in order:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of Messrs. Blaikie, Caccia, Corbett, Darling, Desjardins, Ferland, and Gurbin, be appointed to act as a Special Committee on Acid Rain;
That the Committee be empowered to hold hearings to review all aspects of acid rain;
That the evidence adduced by the Special Committee on Acid Rain in the First Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to the Committee;
That the Committee have all the powers provided to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) and that the provisions of Standing Order 98 and sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Standing Order 94 be suspended, unless otherwise agreed to by this Committee; and
That the Committee have the power to adjourn from place to place in Canada and the United States, and the power to retain staff, subject to budgetary approval by the Board of Internal Economy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposal to reinstate the Special Committee on Child Care, discussions have taken place and I think you will find that the following motion would receive unanimous consent:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of the following members, be appointed to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Child Care: Belsher, Duguay, Martin (Lincoln), Mitchell, Nicholson (Niagara Falls), and Pepin; to report on the future of child care in Canada in the context of the changing needs of the Canadian family in today's society with particular reference to the following:
(1)	the requirements of children for care in parental or non-parental arrangements and the preferences of parents in this regard;
(2)	the role of the federal Government in child care in light of the shared responsibility for child care among parents, the private sector, the voluntary sector, and Governments; and
(3)	alternatives for future action by the federal Government: the alternatives proposed should take into account factors such as:
(A)	the special circumstances of various families, including but not limited to such factors as marital status of parents, economic circumstances of families, and location, cultural background and disability of parent(s) or child; and
(B)	the financial implications for the Government of any initiatives which may be proposed including tax measures or other Fiscal arrangements;
That the evidence adduced by the Special Committee on Child Care in the First Session of the present Parliament be deemed to have been referred to the Special Committee hereby appointed;
That the Special Committee, in carrying out its review, shall have all the powers given to Standing Committees by Standing Order 96( 1);
That the portion of the budget of the Special Committee on Child Care not expended during the First Session of the present Parliament be deemed to constitute the entire budget of the Special Committee hereby appointed, unless a supplementary budget is approved by the Board of Internal Economy;
That the Special Committee be authorized to repay, from its budget, expenditures undertaken by the Committees and Private Legislation Branch between September 3, 1986, and October 22, 1986, in order to expedite the study of the Special Committee's mandate;
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Special Committee is completed, the Special Committee shall report its findings by depositing its report with the Clerk of the House, which report shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table; and
That the Special Committee shall report no later than Wednesday, November 26, 1986.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 9, 1986

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, similarly, I think you will find that the following motion would receive unanimous consent:
That a Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture consisting of the following Members, be appointed to examine annual reports of the Minister responsible for the Status of Disabled Persons: Boyer, de Corneille, Halliday, Joncas, Young; to report and make recommendations to the House on such reports and on questions referred to it by the House;
That the Subcommittee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the Subcommittee have the power to adjourn from place to place inside Canada provided that the locations to be visited, as well as the estimated expenses for such travel, shall be determined in advance and submitted to the Board of Internal Economy for approval;
That the Subcommittee be empowered to report directly to the House;
That the Subcommittee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 96(1);
That changes in membership be made only pursuant to Standing Order 94(3)(b);
That the portion of the budget of the Subcommittee on the Disabled and Handicaped of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture not expended during the First Session of the present Parliament be deemed to constitute the entire budget of the Subcommittee hereby appointed, unless a supplementary budget is approved by the Board of Internal Economy;
That the Subcommittee be authorized to repay from its budget expenditures undertaken by the Committees and Private Legislation Directorate between September 3, 1986, and October 22, 1986, in order to expedite the study of the Special Committee's mandate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with respect to a Ways and Means motion standing under Government Orders, Ways and Means motion No. 3, having regard to consideration of Ways and Means to amend the Income Tax Act. In more layman's terms, it has to do with the child tax credit.
There have been discussions with the Opposition House Leaders and I think you will find it agreeable to have that placed before the House at this time.


Thomas Hockin: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Thursday, October 2, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ways and Means


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 8, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the Session.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully submit that on grounds of equity, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) should be the next Hon. Member to have the floor. There have been 15 Progressive Conservative Members speaking so far in this Address debate, nine Liberals and eight New Democrats. Bearing in mind that the Liberals have some 38 per cent more members than the New Democratic Party, I submit that the Hon. Member for Papineau should be the the one to catch your eye.
Therefore, I respectfully move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Hon. Member for Papineau now be heard.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I recognize the Eton. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you and particularly commend the fact that for the first time in our history we have a Speaker of the House of Commons who is genuinely the choice of all Members and not simply the choice of the Government of the day. I believe we all have a responsibility to try to restore the sense of purpose and decorum of this Chamber. I for one share that sense of responsibility. I believe we can restore decorum in this Chamber without harming Parliament's ability to make the Government accountable and to ensure that the differences of the three Parties are put forward.
I have to say that I regret the kind of tactics we have just seen in the House which are incomprehensible to average Canadians, but if average Canadians could understand on what we have wasted half an hour of the House's time, they would find those tactics juvenile, infantile and demeaning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: I want to begin by saying a word to my constituents in Ottawa Centre and to all of the other federal employees who are affected by the Government's restraints on their political rights. This summer, the Charter case on political rights, which I launched in 1984, finally reached the Federal Court. Mr. Justice Walsh's decision opened the door a bit wider to political acitivity by federal employees, but in his decision Mr. Justice Walsh refused to strike down the relevant sections of the Public Service Employment Act. I have, therefore, gone to the Federal Court of Appeal in conjunction with my co-plaintiffs from the Public Service Alliance. We hope to win our points there, but I deeply regret that there was no mention of this issue in the Throne Speech. It is time the Government got this issue out of the courts and into Parliament by bringing forward legislation which we can debate and put into law as the Conservatives promised before the 1984 election.
I remain committed to winning political rights for public servants. I want to warn the Government that its record will be on the line if it does not act on its promise to provide political rights before the 1988 election.
There are two other local issues on which I would like to comment briefly, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely disturbed at the cuts announced today in the budget for the National Research Council. I have today written to all members of the board of the National Research Council urging them to do everything possible to stop those cuts, including resigning en masse if necessary. It is intolerable that the Government's decision to have a space agency and to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) head a committee on industrial research should be used to undermine the National Research Council at a time when everybody in Canada acknowledges the need for this country to take leadership in research and development rather than gutting the five institutions and the work that is now being done.
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, since you are now in office as Speaker, that I am disturbed. I hope you will make representations privately to the Government over its delays in proclaiming Bill C-45 in order to give bargaining rights to House of Commons employees. The employees feel that the delay is being put into place in order to give the Commons administration time to shake things up in a way that will be favourable to management and will disregard the rights of employees. I hope that you take that very seriously, Sir, and get Bill C-45 proclaimed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the progress made by the New Democratic Party in Quebec, and I want to thank all Quebecers who have joined our ranks in increasing numbers over the past two years. Recent polls indicate that nearly one third of the population of Quebec would support the New Democratic Party in the event of a federal election and that Ed Broadbent is as popular in Quebec, as the leader of his party, as the Prime Minister. Although we have yet to win federal seats in Quebec, the NDP is ahead of the Conservatives in Quebec,
October 9, 1986

and we intend to stay ahead. The strong increase in votes for the NDP in the by-election in Saint-Maurice, hardly a promising riding for the NDP, shows the extent to which Quebecers know and support us. Is this a temporary phenomenon, arising from a case of disenchantment with the two old parties? I would say no, Mr. Speaker, because for two years, the NDP has been far more visible on the Quebec federal scene. In the House of Commons, we are asking more and more questions about matters of concern to the people of Quebec, ranging from shipyards, and the textile industry to the industrial future of Montreal East and de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions.
Since January, we have made about 50 trips in the various regions of Quebec to meet voters, militant party members, community groups, labour organizations, farmers, women's groups, and business associations. Mr. Speaker, we intend to keep up the good work. Our commitment to Quebec will continue beyond the next election, because the New Democratic Party represents and wants to represent the middle class and ordinary people, not just from British Columbia or Newfoundland or Ontario but from all over Canada, including Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, when travelling through Quebec and Ontario,
I am increasingly struck by the differences between the various regions of our country. More and more, we seem to be living in two Canadas, no longer the two solitudes of the English and French, but the two solid solitudes of rich and poor. In the urban areas of Southern Ontario, economic growth has brought unemployment down to less than 6 per cent. Not perfect, but not depression statistics either. In the rest of the country, however, there has been very little change. In Quebec, the unemployment rate has remained at 11.5 per cent. In some regions, it exceeds 20 per cent. In the private sector, according to the Conservatives, the growth rate in Southern Ontario is coming along very nicely. However, even the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) admits that the private sector has little to offer in his region, Lac-Saint-Jean.
One month ago my Leader appointed me finance critic for the NDP here in Parliament. It is an honour and a challenge for me to take on this new responsility because economic management is central to every other issue in Government today. As I was just saying en francais, we are increasingly coming to a situation where we have two Canadas, one rich and one poor. That is an intolerable situation which I, as one spokesman for my Party, and my Party as a whole, are committed to bringing to an end.
Over the summer Canadians made it clear that they question the Conservative Government over its lack of integrity and lack of fairness. They were looking for a fresh start in the Throne Speech but they did not get it. The Speech reminded me of what I used to hear in the Ontario Legislature in the 1970s when Dalton Camp and Senator Norman Atkins were advising Premier Davis.
The Address-Mr. Cassidy
While I welcome the announcement that there will be new conflict of interest legislation as a result of the problems of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I am disappointed that there is no other recognition in the Throne Speech that Canadians want action on what the Prime Minister and his colleagues dismiss as the small things which have troubled his Government. It is not a small thing to waste millions of dollars to give our Prime Minister the trappings of a U.S. President. The pork-barrelling that went on to move a prison from Drummondville to Manicouagan, the politicization of the top civil service which is inherent in the appointment of Dalton Camp as a senior deputy minister, the revision of events which seem to go on whenever the Prime Minister talks to the press, all these things define the style of the present Government and are major factors in its collapse in the polls.
When you look at the big things which the Government claims have been going right, you also begin to wonder about the Conservative's credibility. The number one priority for most Canadians is secure employment. Yet one and a quarter million Canadians are still officially out of work and hundreds of thousands more would be seeking work if jobs were available. We have had no growth in jobs since January of 1986, almost a whole year. Unemployment is worse in the Atlantic provinces today than it was before the 1984 election. While unemployment is as low as 5 per cent in certain parts of southern Ontario like the City of London, it is close to 10 per cent here in Ottawa in the area I represent. It is 12 per cent in many parts of Quebec, higher than that in British Columbia, and running at over 21 per cent in Newfoundland. To all intents and purposes we now have two economies in Canada, one that is starting to thrive in southern Ontario and a vast area from St. John's to Victoria which is dangerously close to depression.
John Diefenbaker cried out for one Canada, but his Conservative successors in 1986 are rapidly creating two Canadas, one for the rich and one for the poor. Last year family income in southern Ontario averaged $41,765, which is some 40 per cent more than the average family income in Newfoundland. The response of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to that kind of disparity is to say that people in the Atlantic provinces should be glad they do not live in Bangladesh. This is not a Third World country. I would have thought that, as the regional Minister from Newfoundland, the Minister would be talking about how he and his Government can create living conditions in Newfoundland comparable to those in Ontario rather than telling people they can eat cake.
In Canada today one million families live below the poverty line. Only 3.6 per cent of total income goes to the bottom 20 per cent of our population. People at the top of the heap, the top one-fifth of income earners, take 43.3 per cent of all income. Yet what does the Throne Speech do about that situation? What does it say about the problems within our midst? One searches in vain to even find the word "poverty" mentioned in the speech.

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. Cassidy
Wealthy Canadians in the corporate sector keep urging the Government to bring down the budgetary deficit. Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) went to Bay Street to talk to those wealthy Canadians. He told them that even though he had miscalculated figures for the current fiscal year, he intends to stay the course and continue deficit reduction as his top priority. It is about time he realized that the view from Etobicoke and Bay Street is not the view of the average Canadian. The Government needs to respond to the needs of the average Canadian, not just those who are well off in the areas where he hangs out in southern Ontario. On behalf of millions of Canadians threatened with unemployment and job insecurity I want to know why the Government could not have used the Throne Speech to point to the unacceptably high unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent across Canada and set targets for systematically bringing that rate down rather than just setting targets for deficit reduction.
It is the same thing when you talk about taxes. In the last two years the Government increased taxes of ordinary Canadian families by $1,300 per year. At the same time it cut tax rates for corporations and the rich. Last month we released figures which show that every year some 80,000 profitable Canadian corporations, almost one-third of the total, with income in the $12 billion range, paid no corporate income tax. In some years a teller at the Royal Bank on Sparks Street in my constituency paid more income tax all by herself than her employer had to pay on assets which today total $98 billion across Canada. Is that fair? It is another sign of what I mean when I say that we now have two Canadas, one rich and one poor.
Canadians were looking for a clear sense of direction in the Throne Speech, not just the mushy generalities they got. I would like to outline what I and my Party see as priorities which should be put in place and will be put in place when the NDP forms the next Government of Canada.
The first priority should be to put jobs first and not the deficit. When the Minister of Finance announced an upward revision of the deficit, he assured his former colleagues on Bay Street that the program for deficit reduction remains in place. He has yet to give the people on Main Street his targets for reducing unemployment, and in my view he has his priorities wrong. No single move will do more to cut government costs and boost tax revenues than putting Canadians back to work. In other words, if we put jobs at the top of the priority list, that will help with the deficit picture as well. However, the way it is happening right now, we can see that the preoccupation of the Government with the deficit is reducing disposable income, reducing Canadians' willingness to buy goods and services, and is serving as a drag on the economy and making it impossible to create new jobs.
The experience of Manitoba's NDP Government when they came back to power five years ago, the experience of the NDP Government in the Yukon which halved the rate of unemployment in its first year of office, show that a Government can set
meaningful targets for reducing unemployment and can achieve them. We should be doing that here in Canada.
We should also be committed to being fair to every region and every Canadian in every part of our country. The emergence of two Canadas has got to come to an end. The idea that the prospects for someone from Cape Breton are dismal, whereas his counterpart living in southern Ontario, in Toronto, Hamilton or London, will have rosier prospects is surely intolerable and we should now bring a sense of hope and promise to people in all corners of Canada. Faced with this challenge the response of the Government has been to do nothing except tell the regions that they are going to have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Eighteen months ago, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party's employment task force travelled throughout Canada seeking solutions to our unemployment problems. Our report was an endorsement of the initiative shown in various regions, the contribution of small- and medium-sized businesses, and the urgency of decentralizing programs and being flexible.
Apparently the Government has agreed to some of our recommendations, but this will prove to be a worthless exercise if no money is available to fund a new approach to regional development. The two Canadas will continue to exist but the gap between them will simply grow ever wider.
Without a commitment to equality and justice as well as decentralization and flexibility the disparities will continue, particularly if the Government continues to see its main role as allowing the private sector to make southern Ontario rich while the rest of Canada slips back into depression status.
The third issue is that of fair taxes. The Finance Department's own polls show that the vast majority of Canadians believe that the tax system is unfair. There is an emerging and growing concern about our tax system. It has become so bad and so ineffective that even the corporate sector is saying that something must be done. However, the corporate sector's solutions are becoming the Government's solutions and they are not the solutions for ordinary Canadians.
The Throne Speech says that personal income taxes will be decreased. We would welcome that, Mr. Speaker, but we know what the Finance Minister has in mind. He wants to bring in a businesss transfer tax which will be a new form of tax on consumption that will be paid by ordinary Canadians. It will replace and broaden the existing manufacturers sales tax. No matter what you call it, this is not a tax on business but rather on individuals.
It became clear from our tax probe over the course of the last year that the present system is unfair, inefficient and unaccountable, particularly when it comes to the billions of dollars of concessions given to corporations. President Reagan
October 9, 1986

and the Republicans in the United States Congress put forward a tax reform which raises corporate taxation in that country by $120 billion while reducing personal tax rates. We could have that kind of fair tax reform in Canada as well.
We need a commitment for a real war on poverty to wipe it out of Canada before the end of the century. We need a commitment for action rather than just studies and speeches to stop the needless concentration of the businesss sector which has put so much of the wealth of the country in the hands of a handful of irresponsible corporate families.

Mr. Speaker, we need a firm commitment concerning the economic equality of women in this country; more than sheer rhetoric, more than toothless legislation which will do precious little to improve the condition of working women, we need a commitment supported by Canadian legislation so that women in this country will indeed achieve real equality.

I believe that we need to talk about genuine economic democracy. It is time that we abandoned 19th century ways of organizing the workplace and conducting relations between management or employers and employees. When I talk to working people I ask them whether their employers tell them what is going on, whether they know the situation of their enterprise, firm or government Department. I ask whether they are given responsibility, whether decisions are shared in their workplace. Overwhelmingly the response is no. We are moving into the 21st century, yet businesses in Canada are still being run as though this was the 19th century.
We are in a very difficult competitive situation, not only with our friends in the United States, but with Japan, Taiwan, Korea and every other country. We have to act now to involve the abilities, the brainpower, the ingenuity and the commitment of every Canadian in that competitive battle to keep standards of living high in this country, to achieve the other priorities that I have talked about and to ensure that we have democracy, and not only in our social and political lives. By curbing the power of big business and the concentration of power we give power back to the men and women who make Canada great. That commitment in economic democracy is extremely important.
I would like to conclude by saying that there is an opportunity for another amendment to the Throne Speech. A number of themes that I have put forward are shared with me by my Party. That is why I wish to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), that the following be added to the address:
That this House regrets that the Government has failed to provide leadership on major issues of social justice affecting average Canadians including the need for action to provide greater protection for battered women, a commitment to legislate pro-rated benefits for part-time workers, the majority of whom are women, a refusal to establish and work towards lower unemployment targets for Canadians, and the failure to pursue a serious tax reform that would eliminate the unfairness, the complexity and unaccountability of the present system.
The Address-Mr. Cassidy
I ask all Hon. Members to support me in adding this amendment to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne which represents priorities which we feel cannot be shoved aside until 1988 or 1990 but must be addressed now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will reserve for a few moments my decision as to the acceptability of the amendment. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) for questions or comments.


Mr. Attewell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few of the points that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) brought up. He knows that Throne Speeches are always thematic in nature. They cannot be entirely specific. I hope he realizes that. I am very proud of the very progressive statements contained in the Throne Speech. I would like to recount a few things that have occurred which I think will be at variance with several things the Hon. Member said.
Tax reform is long overdue in this country. The Government is going to tackle some of the specific issues the Member spoke of with regard to fairness. I hope we can reduce the tax brackets. I know that we can wipe out some of the inequalities which have occurred. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has already taken great strides in that. However that is not something that we could be very specific about in the Throne Speech.
Great strides are needed in this direction, but this is not simple. I am not sure what the exact strategy will be. It may occur in two phases. However, there is a very strong commitment on this side of the House to deliver for average Canadians. There will be a shift in the burden of taxation away from individuals and toward corporations. Major steps have already been taken to shut down some of the loopholes.
With regard to new regulatory reforms for the financial institutions, the Member has served as an alternate on the Finance Committee and knows that a very comprehensive review has already been done by the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee. I am sure that in the near future we will see some most progressive reforms in that area.
Corporate concentration is a topic on which I have spoken on a number of occasions. I share some of the Hon. Member's concerns, but I do not share his pessimism with regard to what the Government will do. The Member knows that not many months ago we brought in a new competition law which had been waiting for decades to be introduced. There is a tribunal now in place that would take care of excessive decisions that would limit competition in the market-place.
I give the Hon. Member some credit and share his view that we will need to go further as a Government because there are some 32 families in this country who control an enormous amount of wealth and we need a structure in place so that it is not abused.

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. Cassidy
Let me touch on a few of the social issues on which the Government is proceeding. For instance, with the exploitation of young children and women, pornography is a grave concern to many people in the country. That issue will be solved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but we have already taken more than three minutes of the ten-minute period for questions and comments. I would like to allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to reply. Other Members also wish to put questions.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member because I look forward to working v/ith him since I am becoming a full member of the Finance Committee. I believe that we can work together and I hope that he will provide some leadership and drag his Government into the 21st century, since I am not sure that all of its members want to go into it.
One of the issues that I believe he should address is that when the Government talks about tax reform it forgets to mention that in the last two years the Conservatives have raised the tax by $1,300 on average Canadian families while, at the same time, reducing tax rates on corporations and giving enormous tax windfalls to very wealthy people with capital gains. If we are going to talk about tax reform, we must start by rolling back the mistakes of the last two years and put in place a tax reform that will genuinely get a fair share of tax revenues from the corporate sector. I am not convinced that the Government wants to do anything more than simply iron out inequities in taxation between corporations without ensuring that they pay a much greater and fairer share of the total tax burden.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short comment and then ask the Hon. Member three questions. First, he was very critical of the Government's dealing with unemployment. However, he failed to point out that when the Government, in the two Budget Speeches and economic statements that have been made so far, outlined the proposal it would make to deal with the economy, the Leader of his Party stood in his place and indicated that those proposals and that type of approach would devastate the economy and put more people out of work rather than more people back to work. As the Hon. Member knows, it has had just the reverse effect. In fact, interest rates have fallen, inflation has fallen, and unemployment has fallen.
I believe that the Hon. Member should be standing in his place and applauding the Government's approach, rather than criticizing it.
However, my question relates to the aspect of tax reform to which the Hon. Member has referred. I know that the Hon. Member's Party in its NDP Tax Probe 86, has been looking very seriously at the whole situation of federal sales tax and corporate taxes. I have been most interested to read the reports from the NDP tax probe so far. However, I have yet to see what the NDP proposes specifically with respect to corporate taxes and the elimination of corporate tax expenditures. The New Democratic Party has sometimes called these tax rip-offs,
but the Finance Department calls them tax expenditures. I suspect that the NDP wants to keep some but I am not sure whether there are specific ones they want to keep and some that they would eliminate. I would like to know what specific ones the NDP would like to eliminate.
Second, is the NDP proposing in its tax reform proposals, tax reform that would have a neutral tax impact effect so that personal income taxes might go down and corporate taxes would go up, or would there only be a rise in corporate taxes?
Finally, if the New Democratic Party is proposing some sort of neutral tax impact or a reduction in personal income taxes, how does it propose to raise the money to pay for all the increased expenditures which the Hon. Member proposes in his speech?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's questions are certainly valid. I am delighted to hear that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is an avid reader of the various reports of Tax Probe 86. I promise to send him a copy of the next report which will come out shortly. In fact, by the end of the year or early in 1987, we will have consulted further and will have more feedback in terms of our findings so far. At that point we intend to come to conclusions in terms of some of the questions the Hon. Member raises.
For example, in our most recent report on corporation tax, we indicated that there is a solid case for certain tax concessions, or tax expenditures, to small and medium-sized businesses. Currently they are paying a net rate which is higher than that of big businesses, rather than the other way around. That, to us, seems to be a perverse situation, particularly when so much job creation has come from small and medium-sized businesses.
The Hon. Member certainly reports my Leader accurately and, as so often has happened, I think my Leader may have been a prophet before his time by a few months. Since January, 1986, there has been no further job creation in the Canadian economy. The 500,000 jobs that the Government talks about were in 1984 and 1985. The trend has not continued. I certainly do not find a rate of unemployment of 9.7 per cent acceptable. Perhaps the Government finds that acceptable.
I suspect that most of the improvement that we saw in approximately the first year under the Government was a result of growth that had spilled over from the American economy. Now that that economy has turned the other way, there is no buoyancy from the Government. In fact, the taxes which have been levied on ordinary Canadians are having the effect of depressing the economy. Therefore, when we spoke of hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be affected, they are the jobs that should have been created by a dynamic economy in 1986. They are the jobs which would have put teenagers in Chicoutimi and Newfoundland back to work and would have given women opportunities to re-enter the labour force in
October 9, 1986

Vancouver. However, those people do not have those opportunities because of the drag on the economy by the Government's tax policies.
The Hon. Member asks whether or not tax reform should be neutral. 1 am surprised to hear him suggest that the Government may even slip away from its commitment in the Throne Speech to reduce the rates of personal income tax. He is suggesting that that is a wrong move. I beleive that personal income taxes for many working Canadians are too high. In order to have a fair tax system we must bring those tax rates down at the same time that we increase the share that is taken by the corporate sector. We should not try to bootleg another personal tax by calling it a business transfer tax.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Canada Post (Mr. Cote).


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased today to take part in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I am all the more pleased to do so that the Speech from the Throne advocates a number of initiatives which have become essential to most Canadians, particularly those who have to deal with business circles, be they owners, investors or working men and women.
Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleagues, Canadians are quite aware that our country is now experiencing unstable economic conditions to which it must constantly seek to adapt.
Ours is an industrial and trading nation. We depend on trade, be it to develop our raw materials or to maintain the economic strength of our industries and our service sector. Canadians are first-rate managers, innovators and traders. Our labour force is skilled and very productive and, more important still, our competitiveness is second to none in practically all economic sectors, despite our own limited domestic markets.
Most international experts agree that we do have such qualities. In his speech last Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) referred to the European Management Forum. What are those experts telling us? They are telling us that Canada's competitiveness has improved to such an extent over the last two years that, on the basis of their own classification, Canada climbed from 11th to 6th among the major industrial nations. Not a bad performance compared with that of our competitors. If we persevere, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we can do even better. However, we have to face three major challenges.
First, as a trading nation, we must have full access to the international markets and capital necessary for our economic growth. Our welfare depends on it. In addition, as a greatly industrialized country, we must continue to be productive and competitive internationally. We must keep up with the latest technology and use all our creativity and ingenuity to adapt to
The Address-Mr. Cote
the evolution of the world economy. The economic future of our country requires us to do so.
Finally, as a nation made up of different geographic and cultural elements and based on the principles of equity and solidarity, we must try to achieve a balanced growth in all regions of the country. This is necessary for the integrity of our Confederation.
You, Mr. Speaker, and all Hon. Members know that economic renewal has been this Government's first priority. We have achieved real and substantial progress since September, 1984, but do not take my word for it. Let me quote as follows from the annual report of The Canadian Manufacturers' Association as it commented on the economic accomplishment of this administration:
The restrictions of FIR A, reflecting a narrow and destructive nationalism, were removed and Investment Canada is now working aggressively to encourage investment here ... The previous acrimony in federal-provincial relations has given way to a more positive nation-building approach to our problems.
The past year saw continued progress in restoring fiscal sanity in federal Government finances ...
A competition Bill was ... introduced which ... contains explicit recognition of international competition while at the same time providing... protection against abuse of dominant position ...
Major tax changes aimed at greater neutrality . .. were also introduced.
This is a most impressive record, one that is certainly the envy of some of my hon. friends who used to sit on this side of the House. Naturally, Mr. Laurent Thibault, the President of The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, gives his Members credit for assisting in these accomplishments. I most certainly concur, and I am sure all Hon. Members would agree with me that all Canadians should take credit for this record, as well as for continued low inflation, lower interest rates and lower unemployment.
Obviously, as Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion I am particularly concerned with reconciling the imperatives of industrial competitiveness with balanced economic opportunities across Canada. My Department is dedicated to the development of Canadian industry, especially in the manufacturing and service sectors, and to building on the opportunities for development that exist across Canada. We intend to achieve these objectives in co-operation with the private sector and with the provincial Governments.
As Minister responsible for Investment Canada I am also concerned that Canada obtain a growing share of international investment because we need this investment to increase employment in all parts of the country.

Mr. Speaker, one of the crucial contributing causes to slow development is often a lack of capital, and in this regard, I would like to remind the House that the first Bill we introduced in this place was the one which created Investment Canada. This agency, for which I have the honour to be

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. Cote
responsible, immediately proved itself to be a major tool in promoting both Canadian and foreign investments in this country.
Thus, the Government was able to ensure the free inflow of the capital required to develop the many resources of our country and see that they are used for the economic renewal of all our regions. As you know, a major part of the Speech from the Throne deals with this issue of industrial and regional development. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss this subject further. Regional development remains one of our main priorities. Economic and social conditions have obviously improved throughout Canada in the last two years. Economic renewal continues and our social policy is already having noticeable results. However, as a Government committed to eliminate regional disparities, we must unfortunately recognize that, in spite of decades of efforts and billions of dollars, there are still gross employment and income inequities in certain regions. The Government therefore intends to make a renewed and firm commitment that each region in the country must achieve its full potential.
As mentioned by the Prime Minister in the Throne Speech, the Government intends to reassess a number of programs related to regional development. We are convinced that this evaluation should be made with three very clear and specific principles in mind.
First, we believe that regional development must come from the potential and the people of each region. Experience has shown that, with appropriate assistance, Canadians have the will, the determination and the ability to stimulate the development of their regional economies.
Second, our economic development programs and the administration and provision of our services to businesses must be much more decentralized than they are now.
Third, our decision-making and benefit-paying mechanisms should be much more efficient, faster and more sensitive to the users' interests.
A review of our regional development programs will continue in co-operation with provincial governments. As Hon. Members in this House are aware, consultations will resume at the highest level on October 17 in Charlottetown, when the Prime Minister meets with the Premiers of the Atlantic Provinces.
Mr. Speaker, much has already been done through the federal-provincial committee of Ministers in charge of Regional Economic Development. I would like to indicate that the committee already has met six times since February 1985. A committee of officials will be submitting a report to us later this year, and its recommendations should help us implement our commitment to prevent wasting even one single dollar in that vital effort for Canada.

As you know from the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be
established without undue delay, bearing in mind the need to consult with provincial Governments and the region's business and community leaders. The mandate and organization of the agency will reflect the three principles I have already described, that is, development based on human resources and opportunities in the Atlantic Provinces, with decentralized decision-making and better delivery.
I emphasize that these principles will guide our efforts, not only in Atlantic Canada but in all parts of Canada as well, particularly in western Canada where special emphasis will be given to diversifying the region's economic base. This will clearly confirm the Government's commitment to balanced economic growth in every part of this beautiful country. Just as Canada cannot afford to neglect the important contribution all regions make to the national good, neither can we afford to have half our population performing at less than its full potential.
Women, in particular, suffer from the inequities built into our society. They are doubly disadvantaged if economic difficulties in their region adversely affect their employment potential and the quality of their family lives.
As this Government seeks to address regional disparity, women will undoubtedly provide important guidance about the right approaches and the much needed policy initiatives. It is my hope that they will enjoy more and better employment and personal opportunities as their communities are revitalized. Women will be part of the new partnership formed between the federal Government and Canada's regions. It is my belief that they will share equally in the prosperity and the stability that will be the result.
However, this is only one side of the equation. We are vitally committed to enhancing the development of industry everywhere in Canada. With this in mind, we intend to re-examine our main industrial support program, the Industrial Regional Development Program, or IRDP.
This program was introduced by the previous Government to meet a multiplicity of objectives, perhaps too many objectives. The complexity of the program and the differential treatment of some areas has meant, among other things, that the Government has not been able to support a number of quality projects, particularly in western Canada. We intend to look very closely at the effectiveness of the existing tier system that determines the level of support that can be provided to projects in various regions.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of that review of the RIDP, we will also consider the various possible ways of responding to one of the basic concerns of this Government, that is productivity.
The search for productivity is essential to allow and ensure the development of new manufacturing processes and also to
October 9, 1986

make possible the marketing of new goods and services. In our view, invention and technology transfer must go hand in hand.
History shows the best borrowers or adapters of technology often are those already involved in research and development. We must therefore have a much more balanced approach. We cannot do everything ourselves, but we can neither be content with borrowing technology from others.
The private sector all across Canada has show leadership in the area of innovation and technology. Northern Telecom, for instance, has been marketing Canadian communication technology throughout the world for a number of years.

Alcan is the largest and probably one of the most efficient aluminium producers in the world based on its past research efforts. It is now becoming a world leader in the development of new materials. Such companies as National Sea Products, Fishery Products International and Canada Packers are using innovation and new technologies to diversify and improve their products and productivity.
In addition, there are hundreds of new companies across Canada, such as Process Technology in New Brunswick, Ogivar Inc. in Quebec, Diffracto in Windsor, SED in Saskatchewan, to name only a few, that are achieving remarkable results in international high technolgy.
For Canada, continued research and development and the ability to import technologies, to apply and build upon them and to market the results will be key elements of an improved competitive position. We require investment capital and linkages with world industry to accomplish this objective.
Our Government established Investment Canada as a national focal point to encourage the essential investment and creative partnerships necessary to this critical priority.

For instance, last year the Agency was involved with the Province of Alberta and the Independent Petroleum Association in a series of investment promotion seminars throughout Europe and the United States.
More recently, officials from Investment Canada also joined with representatives of the Ontario Government in a trip to Japan.
Moreover, Investment Canada is also involved on behalf of the Canadian Government in a number of other activities, such as consulting with national and international trade groups and also international promotion missions.
That work must go on, Mr. Speaker, and this Government's commitment to encourage investment in all its forms is vitally important.

During the coming year, Investment Canada will focus on contributing to the improvement of our technological infrastructure to promote and attract technology-bearing investment
The Address-Mr. Cote
in Canada; working with Canadian business to promote a more global orientation; and seeking new forms of investments, such as strategic alliances among Canadian and international firms.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is determined to review and update, if necessary, its regional and industrial development support programs to make sure that all parts of the country are treated equitably and that the Canadian industry continues to improve its international competitiveness.
However, the funds allocated to regional and industrial development are nothing but a few drops in the ocean of the Canadian economy. Our programs, therefore, have to be very selective, which means that investments generally should be made without any State intervention.
That is why we want the private sector to become the engine of our economic growth. In fact, the Government has made every effort to lift obstacles by encouraging deregulation and creating a climate favourable to business endeavours.

The business sector needs a Government that will provide a productive and competitive environment, that will provide support as required and that will stay the course in the development process. We are that Government, and we have that commitment. We can develop as partners.


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: The Chair is now ready to make a ruling on the amendment proposed by Mr. Cassidy and seconded by Mr. Riis. The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.
Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Minister? The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question to ask of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote). It was indicated in the press this morning that in New Brunswick, the province in which a number of support agreements have been signed with the business sector, the Government there has been making a great many decisions in terms of this support for business based on political criteria as opposed to economic, industrial and business criteria. Does the Minister have some comment to make on these reports?


Michel Côté: As I mentioned in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think that since September, 1984, my Government has not only indicated its desire to address the issue of regional development through several concrete initiatives, but we have signed many so-called ERDAs or Economic Regional Development Agreements with most provinces, respecting several areas of activities. We have also signed with the provinces several memoranda of understanding based on regional economic development.

October 9, 1986
However, our commitment does not stop there. As a matter of fact, we want to further this commitment, and announcements to that effect will be made over the next few weeks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I must regretfully interrupt the Minister.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the request of the Official Opposition, the introduction of a new Member will take place after Statements pursuant to Standing Order 21. I would hope that the House would agree that, under the circumstances, there should be the full 15 minutes for Statements by Members, followed by the full Question Period with the interruption, of course, for the introduction of the new Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: This is a great day, Mr. Speaker, because this morning's newspapers reported on a Gallup poll clearly showing that the Progressive Conservative Government is in a free fall and the Liberal Party on the rise.
It is also a great day because, in a few minutes, Hon. Members will be extending a warm welcome to the successful candidate in the Saint-Maurice election, our colleague Mr. Grondin. Mr. Speaker, I should think that the Progressive Conservative Government and the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are getting a very clear message: Canadians generally and Quebecers in particular can hardly wait to turf the Conservative gang right out.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, this week's resignation of the Director of Finance in the Manitoba region of the Department of Indian Affairs has lifted the lid a little higher on the unholy administrative mess which exists in that Department.
Let it be known by all Hon. Members that in many areas- education, child welfare, and local government-the Indian people of Manitoba have led the way in self-government. However, at every turn they are frustrated by a Department which will not let go and wants to continue controlling, dominating, and monitoring them. Even more serious, funds appropriated by Parliament for Indian people do not get to them in the way in which we in the House intend.
An inefficient, maladministered Department soaks up a huge portion of these funds and directs them at will, in open defiance of Parliament and of the Minister himself. It is our task as Members of Parliament to reveal these facts and to demand a new relationship between the Government of Canada and the Indian people of the country.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) is continuing his Government's policy of making Armed Forces personnel and their families into second-class citizens. In this case, volunteers in provincial election campaigns are being forbidden to set foot on military bases. This is ridiculous.
People living on bases are affected by provincial government actions. They have the right to elect a provincial Government of their choice. They should be allowed to receive information so that they can make an informed, intelligent choice on election day.
No one is urging the Armed Forces to take part in some sinister plot. Political Parties are merely urging people on military bases to exercise their basic constitutional right to make a choice in a democratic election. Even the former Associate Minister of National Defence could not justify keeping candidates off military bases. He admitted: "It's hard to come up with a reason why you wouldn't allow that on military bases in this day and age".
October 9, 1986



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of utmost urgency concerning the state of crisis which exists in the shipbuilding industry. Since the Conservative Government was elected, every meaningful federal assistance program to the industry has been curtailed. Essentially the former Minister of Transport said "Don't expect us to help you", and thousands of shipyard workers across the country have been thrown out of work.
This kind of government inaction is simply unacceptable to Canadians. The Government, especially the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote), must take immediate action to assist the Canadian shipbuilding industry. The Ministers should take every step to encourage domestic demand for shipping capacity and to see to it that this demand is met by Canadian shipyards, not by subsidized yards in other countries.
For too long the Government has said that this is a worldwide problem which cannot be solved, and then washed its hands. Canadians expect their Government to take positive action in the face of adversity, not simply to run away and hide. Canadians feel that it is high time that the Government and the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion live up to their responsibilities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I attended the sixtieth anniversary celebration of the election of Michael Luchkovich to the House of Commons, the first Canadian parliamentarian of Ukrainian origin. Throughout his nine years of service in the House of Commons he demonstrated that no problem was too great, that a fair and just solution could always be found. He was highly respected by all Members and made an indelible and most favourable impression on the Government of the day.
He was a well-tempered statesman, a man of courage. Without his translations of Ukrainian literature into English, especially of Ukrainian pioneer life in western Canada, we Canadians would be missing an integral part of our national history.
As we note this special anniversary, we should recall Michael Luchkovich's firm commitment that "true
patriotism... includes persistence and frugality even under trying circumstances".



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Canada Post is currently re-evaluating its previously announced closure of the Norwood Grove post office in order to seek a better alternative.
On June 12 and again on July 10 of this year, I was assured by the Corporation that no such closing was being contemplated. At the exact same time managers were negotiating with the union the changes necessary to effect the closing. The last two evenings the corporation has met with a few selected constituents in a "by invitation" only meeting to consult. Although we appreciate this consultation, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I would be more impressed with truly public consultation.
[DOT] (MIO)
Canadians deserve good postal service at a reasonable cost, not slick PR, shoddy management and intractable collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the service to my Norwood electors must be maintained.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, for years the Indian people of Canada have been telling us that they have been mistreated by the Indian Affairs Department. For years people in Parliament were skeptical about what Indian people were telling Canadians. However, the recent revelations by the Department in Winnipeg which follow the Curry audit indicates that what the Indian people have been telling us is true.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) has indicated that he is willing to have an R.C.M.P. investigation into whether or not Indian Affairs was acting in a legal manner. That, surely, is not the right answer, Mr. Speaker. What is missing at the present time is the relationship of trust which historically has been between the federal Government and the Indian people. That has been utterly destroyed by the various departmental officials over the last number of years and by the inaction of various Ministers

October 9, 1986
of Indian Affairs. What we need is a completely independent check into all the actions and decision-making processes of Indian Affairs and, if that is not done, the trust will never be re-established.

[ Translation]



THE LATE FRANQOISE GAUDET-SMET COMMEMORATIVE STAMP ISSUE ADVOCATED

Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Last September 4, Mr. Speaker, the people of the riding of Lotbiniere and all other Quebecers were saddened to hear of the death of Mrs. Franfoise Gaudet-Smet, an outstanding Quebecer. Mrs. Gaudet-Smet was a pioneer in her field, an irreplaceable personality whose authenticity, warmth, colourful verve and boundless hospitality will remain forever present in our minds. Mr. Speaker, many of her friends were amazed at her vitality and working energy, but especially at her ever probing mind full of ideas and projects.
This is why I would urge the Minister responsible for Canada Post to issue a commemorative stamp in her honour. To support this request, Mr. Speaker, suffice it to mention that Mrs. Gaudet-Smet was awarded the Order of Canada, the Order of Quebec, the Bene Merenti Medal, the Gold Medal of the Governor General, the Literary Prize of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, and the Ordre de la fidelite franqaise.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Sergio March! (York West): Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Crombie) has a number of important priorities which he must urgently address. Near the top of that agenda is the issue of Japanese-Canadian redress. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) committed himself and his Government to two essential ingredients: establishing a negotiating process and conducting these talks with and through the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Unfortunately the two former Ministers failed to honour either of these two crucial promises and thus sowed the seeds of mistrust and non-confidence within the Japanese-Canadian community.
Today that same community, Canadians, and this Parliament remain hopeful that the third Minister to tackle this issue in two years will honour the previous commitments and initiate meaningful discussions within a well defined and ongoing structure as soon as possible.
It is high time that the Conservative Government ends the delay and the rhetoric and resolves this matter with the dignity that it rightfully deserves.

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in March of this year I reported to the House that 650,000 Canadians from coast to coast were dependent upon Canada's petroleum industry for their livelihood. Today that figure has dropped to 600,000 with a further anticipated loss of 20,000 jobs. That represents 70,000 people. These are the sad consequences of the present crisis in the industry brought about by the drastic drop in world crude prices.
It is important to know that of every dollar spent by the petroleum industry for machinery and equipment, 42 cents is spent in Ontario, 29 cents in Alberta, 13 cents in Quebec, and the remaining 16 cents in other regions of Canada. This is the contribution that a healthy industry can make for the benefit of all Canada. Two jobs in Canada's petroleum industry create three jobs in other parts of Canada, primarily Ontario and Quebec. The energy industry is job creative.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today's Globe and Mail reports that the Conservative caucus committee has written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) urging that ministerial permits for potential immigrants already in Canada be issued only by the Minister's office "rather than allowing politically non-aligned bureaucrats free rein with 90 per cent of them". What an outrageous demand. What a perversion of justice towards refugees and relatives of Canadians deserving humane treatment. Thousands of refugees and others are awaiting processing of their applications and deserve Minister's permits. To deny permits to some because they might not vote Tory would be shameful.
I regret that the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer), my colleague on the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, is named in this story as chairman. I call upon him to return to this House and either assure us that he had no part whatever in the proposal reported today by The Globe and Mail, or else announce his resignation from that committee.
October 9, 1986



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Property Week in Canada. The right to own property is part of the Canadian heritage. Many people came to this country because they wanted to own land, own a home, or own a farm. Why then is it the only fundamental freedom not protected in the Canadian Constitution?
You know what? In 1981, for 48 hours, it was in our Charter of Rights, but during the weekend the Liberals caved into demands of the NDP and took it out, to the shame of both the Liberals and the NDP. Of course, nationalization will be more difficult when the right to own property is enshrined in the Constitution, but only the communists and the socialists are interested in nationalization anyway.
The Canadian Real Estate Association, the Canadian Bar Association, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, along with most Canadians, want to see the right to own property placed in our Constitution. So let's get to it and put it in.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, this summer Atlantic Canadians found out just how well their interests are being represented in the federal Cabinet. The senior Minister from the region said Atlantic Canadians should stop griping about unemployment and consider instead the plight of those living in Haiti or Bangladesh. Our standards are too high, he said, if we use southern Ontario as our yardstick.
I have never heard such marlarkey. What nonsense! The Minister's comments are a kick in the teeth to struggling Atlantic Canadians. They are proof of the Government's lack of concern for those living in the Atlantic region, the unemployed, the fishemen, and the farmers. We do not need to be reminded that we are a thousand times better off and luckier than those living in Haiti or Bangladesh. We need Ministers committed to regional development, Ministers who will make a difference. It is now quite clear that Atlantic Canadians will have to wait for a change in Government before the issue of regional disparity is given serious attention.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Rural Transition Program is being welcomed by those members of the farm community who understand its purpose. In some constituencies as many as 70 people have applied for the program. No one wants to see farmers leave their way of life but many are faced with a difficult decision and need financial assistance to be able to make choices about their future. Until now, farmers have been denied the relocation and retraining opportunities available to the non-farm community.
An urbanite who loses his or her job can go on unemployment insurance, take a training course through Manpower, or get a student loan and return to school. Until now farmers were not eligible for any of these programs. That was an injustice, and I am pleased to see that this federal Government has addressed this inequity at long last. The program gives many farmers facing severe financial difficulty the opportunity to make choices about their future, an opportunity they have long deserved.



ABORTION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, first it was cancellation of the census, and now an attempt by Statistics Canada to eliminate abortion statistics. StatsCan has once again been the victim of a savage and vicious attack by the Tory Government. Regardless of what side of the abortion issue one sits on, one thing is definite: it is a complex, controversial and important issue for many Canadians. It is, therefore, imperative that StatsCan reinstate immediately the compiling of figures on the number of therapeutic abortions performed at hospitals across the country. This cost saving measure is worth only $160,000 and four person years will be saved.
Once again we see that the Government's priorities are very mixed up. If the Government is looking to reduce spending, it could save a lot of money by cutting back on the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) travelling extravagances, like the maid, the butler, the podium, the video equipment, the back-up plane, and so on and so forth. It would also be a much smarter move.

October 9, 1986
Oral Questions



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of moral importance for a great number of my constituents. For many Canadians this matter is an indicator of the quality of Canadian life today. By addressing ourselves to this subject this House has the opportunity to make a positive and lasting contribution to the fabric of society.
The subject to which I refer is pornography. During the last session the Government took praiseworthy action in introducing Bill C-l 14. This was important in tackling the twin evils of child sexual abuse and violent pornography. Since this legislation died on the Order Paper there has been vigorous support from a true cross-section of individuals and groups who want to see Bill C-l 14 revived. City councils, church groups, educators, families, and social welfare groups are all concerned.
The Government must act quickly to introduce tough legislation which remains true to the principles of Bill C-l 14. The spread of degrading, harmful and offensive pornography-


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



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne we heard on October 1st is- a brilliant example of the Conservative GovernmentVfailure to fulfil its election promises.
The Prime Minister postponed opening the new session for a month, to give his new Ministers time to make their contributions to the Speech from the Thone. And now we have the same platitudes they gave us in November 1984, when they served us a rehash of their election promises. The conclusion is that the Cabinet shuffle in July was useless. Nothing has changed.
The Government is announcing a tax reform that will reduce both personal income taxes and the deficit. Is he going to increase consumer taxes?
The last two budgets gave the Government a net increase in revenue of $5 billion from income taxes alone for the year 1986-87. However, despite this substantial increase, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) admits he has been unabled to control the deficit, which will be $2.5 billion more than forecast.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up with the terrible way this country is being run.



NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer the certificate of the election and return of Mr. Gilles Grondin, Member for the electoral district of Saint-Maurice.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gilles Grondin, Member for the electoral district of Saint-Maurice, introduced by the Right Hon. John N. Turner and Mr. Raymond Garneau.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister for International Trade is reported to have told American journalists: "Free trade talks with the United States would be imperilled if Canada loses the lumber dispute with the United States". Is it now the official policy of the Government of Canada that Simon Reisman, the Government's negotiator, will be ordered to suspend free trade talks with the United States following an unfavourable decision by the American Government with regard to softwood lumber?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman should be aware that the Prime Minister is meeting with a Japanese trade and investment mission. Since Japan is such an important customer of British Columbia, and jobs in his own riding depend on our trade with Japan, I am sure that he would welcome that initiative of the Prime Minister.
In response to the Right Hon. Member's question, I told the American journalists that if Canada lost a countervail case that we won in 1983, and Canadian jobs were threatened, Canadians would be angry. I said that if that unfortunate event happened, support for the free trade talks would be eroded. I think that is a very common sense approach and a
HHnnmHHHm
October 9, 1986

realistic one. It is the reason why Secretary of Commerce Baldrige and I tried to reach some sort of a solution before the preliminary determination came down. That was a decision which, of course, has the support of the industry, the provinces, and the union involved.


John Napier Turner: I can remember when the Minister and the Prime Minister were saying that the lumber dispute had nothing to do with the free trade talks. Obviously she has modified her position.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF DELAY ANNOUNCED BY UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Did Mr. Baldrige, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, postpone the decision for a week because of representations by the Canadian Government? Could he explain to the House why the American Administration is always more open with the Canadian public than the Canadian Government?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the delay in the decision on the softwood lumber case was made by the United States Secretary of Commerce. I suggest that any questions about why he did so should be directed to him. It was not at our request.


CANADIAN OFFER TO UNITED STATES ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER ISSUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I directed a very simple question to the Deputy Prime Minister and, through him, to the Minister, about whether the Secretary of Commerce delayed his decision at the request of the Canadian Government. It was a perfectly simple question and she did not reply.


Some Hon. Members:: She did so.


John Napier Turner: I will ask her another question. After having presented her final offer last week, is the Canadian Government still negotiating with the United States on yet another offer? Will she clarify that position for the House and the Canadian people?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions asked by the Right Hon. Member is no.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


ASSISTANCE FOR WESTERN GRAIN FARMERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday outside the House he indicated that the SI billion of assistance to western farmers would be in the form of loan guarantees. Does this mean that the Government is asking farmers to take loans which would have to be repaid, rather than a deficiency payment as is being provided by the United States Government to its farmers? How do loan guarantees help farmers who are already over their heads in debt?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little amazed at the attempt by my colleagues opposite to confuse the issue day after day. I ask them simply to refer to the official record of Hansard and it will stand on its own.
I had the opportunity earlier today, although not extensively, to review some of the press coverage of the exchanges which took place between myself and Hon. Members both in the House and outside it. I just want to reiterate the fact that what we have said inside the House and outside the House is exactly the same. It is a federal billion dollar package-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I am sorry, but the Minister's reply is too long. The Hon. Member for Algoma.


DELIVERY OF ASSISTANCE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister will not say what the details of the aid program are and how it is going to be paid, can he simply make clear to farmers, who are facing their bankers with a damaged crop, when the funds are going to be made available to them? Surely the Minister can stop stonewalling and make clear exactly when the funds are going to be made available?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I would want to reject the term "stonewalling" to describe what I have said from day one and what I said earlier this morning when my colleague, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and myself met with the Deputy Ministers across Canada at the Sir John Carling Building. Naturally, they are seeking some advice and, indeed, the purpose of the meeting is for us to seek their advice as well.
The fact is that at the moment no option should be ruled out.


Some Hon. Members:: Time.


John Wise: When it comes to loan guarantees-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Hon. Minister will know that there is an appropriate time within which to make a response. I think both sides of the House have been exercising

October 9, 1986
Oral Questions
some diligence in trying to keep the questions to the point and keeping the responses to the point as well. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


DEFICIENCY PAYMENT INQUIRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I just came back from talking to hundreds of western grain farmers-


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The first time this year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What the grain farmers want to know is how much of the federal Government's farm aid program will be for western grain farmers in terms of a deficiency payment? And will the Minister stop spreading the story that there is $1 billion for the West and tell us how much we are going to get?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member makes some reference to spreading rumours and stories and tries to confuse the issue. It does not come from this side. It comes from that side. There is certainly no question about that.


Mr. Orlikow:: Answer the question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Give us the answer.


John Wise: The matter of loan guarantee, in fact, was brought to my attention by the Minister of Agriculture and Food from Ontario. However, we have said from day one this is a $1 billion federal program. Naturally, it would be national in scope.


David Orlikow: How much for the West?


John Wise: I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to stand in his place, given two similar situations-one produces grain in Saskatchewan, and one produces grain in Ontario or Quebec-and deny us the time and opportunity to consult with our provincial counterparts-


David Orlikow: How much for the West?


John Wise: -the time and the opportunity to consult with farm leaders so that we can together, not unilaterally, develop a program that is fair and equitable across the country.


ASSISTANCE FOR WESTERN GRAIN FARMERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister is worse than Mr. Whelan, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to know how much of that federal farm aid program is going to be there for western grain farmers? How much will western grain farmers be getting? Answer the question and answer it now.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, some reference was made to my predecessor and, of course, he had some difficulties because the former Government only paid lip service to the agricultural industry. We put our money where our mouth is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: How much money, John?


John Wise: The Hon. Member hollers across the aisle. I have no problem with hearing. I want to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to complete his questions and I would ask the Hon. Minister to respond to them as best he can.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He is.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will try again, Mr. Speaker.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can tell us why he did not organize a meeting with his provincial counterparts sooner in order to let western Canada know how much there would be in a deficiency payment. Why did he wait until a 5.30 a.m. telephone call from a desperate Grant Devine before he started to do something?


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


John Wise: I have consulted with my provincial counterparts across the country. In fact I did so with my colleague from Ontario just a couple of days ago.


Mr. Blaikie:: Why so early in the morning?


John Wise: I could not tell the last time I had a telephone conversation with the Premier, and the Minister of Agriculture, incidentally, from the Province of Saskatchewan.


David Orlikow: How much money for the West?


John Wise: What we are attempting to do is to find the answer to the question the Hon. Member poses and that is exactly what we intend to do. That is exactly why we are meeting with the Deputy Ministers today. That is exactly why we are meeting next week with farm leaders.
October 9, 1986



PENITENTIARIES


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask him whether on or about September 29, he called a meeting with the various officials involved in the Port-Cartier matter to sort out the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister and the various Ministers involved.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question at the present time. I will take a look and advise the Hon. Member.


An Hon. Member:: You weren't listening.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, yes, I was listening.
[ Translation]



REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

Jean-C. Lapierre: I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister's memory is good enough for him to recall whether he invited seven or eight people to his office to discuss the Port-Cartier issue. 1 am not asking for the date and the time, I am asking whether it is true he had to call a meeting to sort out all the problems the Prime Minister has been causing by trying to "rearrange" the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what problem the Hon. Member is referring. I have a lot of meetings in my office. A lot of people come in. I would even invite the Hon. Member to drop in and see me whenever he feels so inclined.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Four years ago the Trudeau Government signed a deal with Federal Commerce & Navigation in Montreal, allowing it to turn Prince Rupert coal into Montreal gold. Will the Deputy Prime Minister immediately appoint the Auditor General and the commercial crime squad of the RCMP to investigate how and why a $23 million loan for coal can be turned into $1 billion tax free for that Montreal consortium?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is somewhat confused. This is a little complicated, but in 1981 the then Liberal administration entered into a contract with FedNav regarding the Ridley Island coal terminal. They were each to put in $23 million in equity. One side has a call option, that is the Canada Ports Corporation, which it can exercise at any time. The other side, FedNav, has a put option which it can exercise in 1991. The $1 billion figure is purely a figment of the multiplication tables of the hon. gentleman.
There are a whole series of "ifs" before $1 billion would have to be paid if the Government wished to exercise its call option. That would be in the year 2001, if the Government then wanted to exercise it, and only a Liberal Government would ever think of exercising such an option, and they won't be there even in 2001.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister because I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister, who knows about this deal, why he will not put up $40 million now to save the Canadian taxpayers $950 million? Why will you not do it? Is there some kind of secret political slush fund?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. All Hon. Members know that other Hon. Members in the Chamber must be addressed through the Chair. I would hope that I would not have to bring this to the attention of the Hon. Member for Skeena again, who knows the rules as well as any of us in this House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Skeena has said he is neither an accountant nor a detective, and that is certainly obvious.


James Ross Fulton: At least I'm not a crook.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Says who?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom the hon. gentleman is referring as a crook, but I would like to have him explicate those remarks and explain to whom he is referring.
To get back to my explanation-


Mr. Gauthier:: Your explication!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is complicated, Mr. Speaker, and Members opposite may not be able to understand it. If the Government exercised its call option this year, it would cost around $49 million in present dollars. If it waits to see whether FedNav wants to exercise its put option in 1991, it would cost us $30 million in 1986 dollars, or around $50 million in 1991

October 9, 1986
Oral Questions
dollars. Therefore it is doubtful that it is to our benefit at the moment to exercise the call option.
I can explain all this perfectly-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -when I have time, before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, or I can do it now if hon. gentlemen want it done now, because I have all the answers, believe me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BANKS AND BANKING


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the Government's approval last week of the takeover of a Canadian bank, the Continental Bank, by a foreign owned bank. Up until July 31 of this year the Bank of Canada had advanced nearly $2.4 billion to the Continental Bank. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not approval of this foreign takeover was conditional on the new owners repaying all of this money before the closing date at the end of this month?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, tile exact contents of those deals can be located in the offer to the shareholders, which will be sent out very shortly, if it has not already been sent out.


John Napier Turner: What is the answer? You're the Minister.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS-REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF OWNERSHIP LEGISLATION

Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is no
answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Aideen Nicholson: My supplementary question is for the same Minister. Since the Government has again made a precedent setting decision without the benefit of an ownership policy on financial institutions, will the Minister tell the House when he will end two years of indecision and come forward with legislation before he is further overtaken by events?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to answer that supplementary question. The Government is committed to the reform of financial institutions and to doing it as soon as possible, hopefully in the next few months. We will restore and enhance the integrity of the Canadian financial system. We already have the best in the world. We are going to make it stronger. The House will know exactly how we will be doing it in the next few months.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-SOFTWOOD LUMBER ISSUE

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. U.S. officials say meetings are under way on softwood lumber. The Canadian embassy denies this, while the Minister's office reports discussions but not negotiations. Will the Minister clarify these contradictions and tell us what discussions are going on, or is Canada secretly surrendering yet more in this dispute?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the Hon. Member checks his facts he will find that the U.S. officials did not say such meetings were taking place, but that the The Toronto Star said such meetings were taking place.
Yesterday the Hon. Member's Party invented a tax which does not exist; today the Hon. Member is inventing meetings which did not take place.



MINISTER'S POSITION

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister intend to make a fetish of secrecy? Or is she prepared to be straightforward with the Canadian people and explain what is taking place? Are the Americans simply talking to themselves? Is this what is supposed to be taking place?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, rather than indulge in a fetish of secrecy I have been practising the merits of truth. I have told the House repeatedly that we have a proposal on the table and that any discussions which have taken place in the past have been about the proposal that has been put on the table. It was put on the table by the federal Government with the support of the provinces, the union involved and the industry. Any discussions which have taken place have been about the proposal on the table. There are no new proposals. I have said that time and time again. There are no new proposals on the table.

	
October 9, 1986



PENSIONS


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. No mention whatsoever was made in the Speech from the Throne about homemakers' pensions. Will the Minister give his undertaking to the House that homemakers' pensions will be introduced during this term of the present session of Parliament?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the Prime Minister recently indicated again that the matter of homemakers' pensions is one of the issues that he as Prime Minister would like to bring forward in this session of Parliament.
When the changes were brought about to the Canada Pension Plan, which will come into effect on January 1, 1987, and on which I am pleased to say we have provincial cooperation, the provinces felt that there should be more study on this issue. Thus, one year was set aside for a study. The first meetings took place in July of this year. I think the studies are going forward well. The commitment as made by the Prime Minister in the last few days remains that of the Government.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Since July hundreds of small- and medium-sized businesses in Quebec and in the rest of Canada have been unable to proceed with their development projects as a result of the $60 million cut-back in the National Research Council industrial research assistance program. Does the Minister think that the flowery promises in the Speech from the Throne are a worthwhile substitute for jobs in research and production, or for export sales lost as a result of these cut-backs? Does he think that promises are as valuable as gainful employment?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Hon. Member has consistently predicted and claimed that there is a $60 million cut to the IRAP, and I have consistently maintained that there will not be any cuts to that program. It would not matter how often the Minister repeats his assertion, it will not make it true.


Ms. Copps:: That's right.


Mr. Axworthy:: We agree with that.


B. Keith Penner: Would you like to rephrase that?
Oral Questions APPROVAL OF PROJECTS


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would read his mail or meet with the businesses that have been affected by this cut, which is something I did over the course of the summer. He would learn that research and production jobs are being lost at this minute because of this cut.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


David Berger: Does the Minister know that the National Research Council has approved projects in principle but cannot proceed with them because of a shortage of funds?


Mr. Rossi:: He doesn't know anything.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member received the only promotion that he will ever receive in this House from me in my earlier reply.


Mr. Ouellet:: We thought you were talking about yourself.


Frank Oberle: The Hon. Member's information is false. It is true that the NRC is undertaking a review of its programs and activities, as are all Departments of Government, in line with the new priorities identified by the Government.


David Berger: Are you against jobs?


Frank Oberle: It is true that the IRAP was looked at as a potential source for additional funds. I have asked the NRC to align its programs with the priorities of the Government, as has been its practice in the past. I was told at a meeting that I had with some members of the executive committee as late as yesterday that it would not be necessary to cut the IRAP.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL'S BUDGET

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Science and Technology. Today we learned that the National Research Council is facing another cut in its budget of $26 million, which is in addition to the $70 million cut of some time ago. The Council has estimated that it will have to cut its scientific staff complement by 10 per cent. How does the Minister square those kinds of decisions with the statement made by the Prime Minister that both the public and private sectors have to double their efforts in scientific research and development?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, again it is a hypothetical question. The NRC is reviewing a number of its programs to make sure that the programs that will remain will be consistent with the Government's priorities.


David Berger: What are your priorities? You don't know what they are.

October 9, 1986
Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: Space is a major strategic tool, as we have already announced. Industrial innovation is a top priority with the Government. There are no cuts to the NRC. In fact, because new ideas, programs and tasks were assigned to the NRC, including the space program, the industrial technology centre program, the biotechnology centre program in Montreal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NUMBER OF COUNCIL'S EMPLOYEES

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, there are now 3,100 people employed at the NRC. Can the Minister assure us that a year from now there will still be 3,100 people working at the NRC? If not, how many will be working at the NRC a year from now?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the NRC is probably about 800 people short. I can assure the Hon. Member that the NRC will in the future as it has in the past be one of the most critical and important instruments for taking our country into the 21st century and that it will make its contributions to this task as it has in the past.
* *
*



JOBS CREATED BY ENERGY INDUSTRY

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. The Minister is now saying that energy is not a job-creation sector. This is in direct contradiction to his predecessor who said that energy would be an engine of growth creating between 100,000 and 300,000 jobs. Does this mean that the Minister is now abandoning the energy industry, throwing another 70,000 people out of work to go along with the 40,000 who have already lost their jobs in the energy sector?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, although the question was long, the answer is simple: I never made such claims.



GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR ENERGY SECTOR

Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I expect to meet with the Alberta Minister of Energy sometime next week or early the week after. I will be very glad to discuss these questions with him.



FINANCE


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance elaborate on the Government's Throne Speech promises of fairness in the tax system? For the past week we have been asking questions about the 79,000 profitable Canadian corporations which paid no taxes in 1983 despite making $13 billion in profits. Has the Minister taken the trouble to look into this situation? Does it persist? Can the Minister tell the House how much revenue the Government is losing because these corporations are profitable but do not pay taxes?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member, in the course of the last couple of months, has been looking at the various changes that we have made to the tax system over the past two years. These changes have been directed at the very concern he has expressed. I appreciate his implicit support for all the good things that we have been doing in that direction.
As the Hon. Member knows, we have announced that we want to accelerate the actions we have been taking on tax reform. One of the key elements of this will be increased fairness in the tax system. Another will be to bring about a tax system which is simpler than the one we have today. I am delighted that the Hon. Member has taken an interest in this and I look forward to his ongoing support.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Minister that I will continue to take an interest in this particular area, but perhaps he could respond to my question. Does the situation of some 80,000 corporations being profitable every year but not paying taxes persist? Will the Minister undertake to return to the House this month with specific figures telling us how much revenue we are losing because the Government will not collect taxes from those companies which make profits?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Alberta has said that he expects financial assistance from the federal Government before the end of October. Will the Minister state whether this assistance will be provided for the energy sector now, or is the Minister going to ignore the problem completely?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 did address the Hon. Member's question in my first answer. We have been aware of this problem that was left by the previous Government but we have not just talked about it, we have acted upon it. We have acted upon it by changing the carve-out legislation, by changing the scientific research tax
October 9, 1986

credit legislation and by changing the limited partnership legislation. A number of things have been done, but as I have indicated before, further work has to be done. I have never denied that. Further work must be done, but we are getting on with that and the Hon. Member will be hearing from me shortly on it.



SAFETY OF GREAT LAKES DRINKING WATER

Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who probably read the same articles I read yesterday indicating that the water of the Great Lakes is polluted by some 800 chemicals, only 50 of which are subject to safety guidelines. What further research does the Minister propose to undertake on this source of drinking water for millions of people on both sides of the border so as to improve upon the classification, which is now simply stated as being generally safe?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made reference to a study which was funded by the Ontario Environmental Ministry and the Department of National Health and Welfare. He has analysed it correctly in that drinking water is generally safe. It is true as well that with the present research and the ability to trace various toxic chemicals, a number of-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Too long.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. For seven years, the Parliamentary Committee on Official Languages has been strongly recommending that the Act be amended. In the Speech from the Throne, the Government made a commitment to bring the Act into compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that a bill to this effect will be tabled in the coming weeks?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member and the House that assurance. I have met with the FFHQ, with the Alliance Quebec and with the Commissioner of Official Languages this morning, as well as with
Oral Questions
others. We expect that that Bill will be coming in due course. We will do it as quickly as we can but as well as we can.



CONTENT OF AMENDING LEGISLATION

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in addition to ensuring that the Act conforms to the Charter of Rights, I wonder if the Minister could give us the assurance that the work of the committee regarding, for example, the supremacy of the law, the working language of the Public Service, and also the power of the Commissioner, would be part and parcel of that law and that we will modify the law.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that he will not be disappointed. All of those topics are part of the discussions we are having on an ongoing basis with the groups I have already mentioned.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Eldorado Nuclear. The Minister will be aware of the concern about Eldorado's intention to locate a nuclear waste disposal site at one of two locations, either Wesleyville or Tyrone. Does the Minister intend to instruct Eldorado to shelve its proposals and go back to the drawing board, in keeping with the Prime Minister's campaign pledge that a dump site would not be located in these areas?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, naturally that particular issue has been a matter of some concern to me. I have been reviewing that dossier since my appointment and since I have had responsibility for that particular issue.
I can tell the Hon. Member that I have had a great many discussions on the issue with many people, and particularly with the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland who has given me a number of suggestions. In that regard I might mention that I will be visiting that particular area tomorrow and we will wait to see what happens at that time.



MINISTER'S DECISION-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT IN PARLIAMENT

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, given the interest in the proposal, I wonder why the Minister insists on keeping his decision from Members of the House of Commons and why he does not announce in the House of Commons his decision with respect to that issue rather than waiting until tomorrow.
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, it is my intention, of course, to discuss

October 9, 1986
Oral Questions
the issues first with the people who are most vitally concerned. Then at that time I will make a decision.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns a report submitted to the Prime Minister by the Toronto Conservative Caucus which promotes a scandalous strategy to exploit politically Canada's immigrant community. I quote from it because it is very important. It says that "the political potential of ministerial permits is obviously being allowed to fall by the wayside" and that "it should be handled exclusively by the Minister, rather than allowing politically non-aligned bureaucrats free rein". Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the recommendation to turn the ministerial permit, which is used judiciously and compassionately, into a partisan tool to aid the Conservative Party of Canada?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report, but I have never seen it, and I have never read it. The Immigration Act gives the Minister the discretion to act on humanitarian grounds, that is, family reunification, refugee settlement, or in the national interest, or on compassionate grounds. The sheer volume of ministerial permits precludes them from being issued by the Minister's office. In 1985 almost 15,000 permits were issued inside and outside of Canada. I can tell the Hon. Member that those figures are reported to Parliament each year.


Sergio Marchi: The Minister has completely refused to exercise any moral judgment or moral leadership.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member put his question?



DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is aware of the report, will he completely reject this advice and assure Canadians and the House that in the future the Immigration Department will not be undermined or abused by such political motives from Toronto Conservative Members of Parliament?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I said clearly that I have never seen it and that I have never read it.


Sergio Marchi: Are you rejecting it, then?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: We act only on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. We have concern for the individuals, the people.
There are frustrations with the Act. There are constraints. The Act has not been amended in 10 years. We have a quality of service which has been defined as less than acceptable. We intend to do things about those frustrations. We have changing conditions in a changing world, and our concern is for the people. We have a moral obligation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
* *
*



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Given that documents now made public show, contrary to his assertion yesterday, that the Department's signed agreements with Indian Bands have in fact been broken, and broken systematically and deliberately, what steps will he take to ensure that that does not happen again?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing concern going back-


David Orlikow: No action.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would have thought that someone on that side would like an answer to a very serious and important question. There is ongoing concern. As I said yesterday, I am not aware and I have not been aware of signed agreements which have been broken by the Department. If the Hon. Member has those agreements, I would ask him to bring them forward. The Hon. Member should also understand, with his experience with the Department of Indian Affairs, that going back through several Auditors General there is a concern about the management of the Department. My predecessor had taken steps to make changes, and I assure the Hon. Member that I will continue to take steps to change the management of that Department.



MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOLS

John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I assure him that I will supply the documents I have seen. In view of the major deficiency in the school maintenance account-education, operations, and maintenance-which has been identified relative to his Department's own measured standards, what action will the Minister take to make up that deficiency so that in fact the schools do not fall down before their time?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the operation and maintenance dollars which are provided for the maintenance of
October 9, 1986

schools are provided equally across the country within the ability of the Department to meet identified needs. It would be very comforting if all needs of all Canadians in all instances could be met. It is far beyond the scope of the Canadian taxpayer to provide for all needs of all Canadians in all circumstances.



INCOME TAX


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. As the Minister is aware, the motion picture industry in British Columbia is quite upset by the recent implementation of tax measures requiring the withholding of taxes on wages and per diems of non-resident actors and support staff. One major film project has already been cancelled, and there are fears that these measures could damage the burgeoning film industry in B.C. Could the Minister advise the House what steps he is taking to deal with this issue so that British Columbia can continue to attract foreign film projects which provide substantial employment and benefits to its economy?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague who has taken a keen interest in this important subject. As she knows, in an attempt to promote and encourage a viable film industry for the country, I have instructed officials to meet with representatives of the industry. Meetings have already taken place, as they will in other parts of the country. We hope that guidelines can be developed to encourage and facilitate matters, as indeed they have been in respect of R and D guidelines. The issue of withholding and other important matters will be discussed and hopefully ironed out.



STATUS OF PORT OF SAINT-JOHN

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I seek clarification with regard to his announcement granting local ports corporation status to the Port of Saint John. Could the Minister inform the House whether or not the board of directors of Canada Ports Corporation has officially petitioned him and whether or not an Order in Council has already been approved? If so, would he table both the petition and the Order in Council today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check on those matters, but certainly
Oral Questions
the Canada Ports Corporation has requested that the Port of Saint John become a port corporation under the authority of the Act. I am glad to say that the Hon. Member for the district, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines, made that announcement in Saint John several days ago. It was due to his efforts and work, the time that he put into this, and the ingenious solutions that he found, that we were able to come to that solution.



DEBT OWED BY PORT AUTHORITY

David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, to the knowledgeable and informed Minister of Transport, I direct my supplementary question. As the Minister will know, pursuant to the Canada Ports Corporation Act the matter of financial self-sufficiency is a major issue. Could he tell the House whether or not the $30 million which is owed by the Port of Saint John has been written off by the Government of Canada in order for it to live up to the provisions of the Act?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have worked out a debt restructuring scheme, as I recall it, for the Port of Saint John, which certainly puts it in a position to meet all the requirements of the Act. I do not believe, however, that we have written off the large amount about which the Hon. Member spoke, but we have arranged a rescheduling. I will have to get him further details and give them to him.



IMMIGRATION


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Regarding the 6,500 permits reportedly issued last year mostly by officials, will the Minister tell the House the breakdown of that figure, that is, how many were refugee claimants, how many had-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the Hon. Member put his question, please?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I am asking if the Minister would give the House the breakdown of that figure, that is, how many were refugee claimants-because I have given him notice of this-how many had-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that if a detailed answer is requested in a question, there is a proper form to place that within the system. I wonder if the Hon. Member, in order to complete his question, would ask a question which is acceptable to the House.

October 9, 1986
Speaker's Ruling


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the point I would like to bring out-and I would ask the Minister whether he would agree-is that the great majority, the huge majority of the permits issued were issued according to law, according to standards which the officials are required to implement, not according to discretionary judgment by the Minister.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a breakdown. We have the sections of the Act under which admissions have been accepted. I would like to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend, and I will be able to provide that kind of statistic to him, so that all Members of Parliament will be able to monitor those who are granted permission under either refugee settlements, family unification, national interest, or whatever other category-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Leeds- Grenville.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is consideration being given to amending the food and drug regulations to classify irradiated foods as a process rather than an additive, and would this mean that further testing and labelling of such foods would no longer be required? Can the Minister assure the House that Canadians will have all information available to them to make an informed choice as to whether or not they wish to consume such foods?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, irradiation is used now in a number of jurisdictions. It is used in Canada, and research has taken place over at least three decades in Canada. As well, the World Health Organization as a UN agency back in 1981 also declared that irradiated food was entirely safe.



EXCISE TAX ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier this morning under Routine Proceedings, a Government Bill to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act was introduced and given first reading. As this Bill is based on a Ways and Means motion which Hon. Members who were watching the procedure this morning might notice
has not yet been concurred in by this House, I regret to have to advise that this morning's proceedings in relation to the Bill are null and void and the Bill will remain on the Order Paper for reintroduction.



PRIVILEGE


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a Question of Privilege of which I have given you notice. It concerns the use by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) of the word crook while questions were being answered this afternoon in connection with matters in Prince Rupert. I submit that it is unparliamentary to use the word crook. In any event, apart from the use of the word crook, which your predecessors have ruled to be unparliamentary on previous occasions, Sir, the word was used in such a way that none of us can be sure who the crook is supposed to be. The inference might be that I am the crook. If that is the case, I would like it removed from the record. I would like the Hon. Member to explain whom he is calling a crook. If he is calling me a crook, I would like him to repeat it outside the House where appropriate action can be taken-


John Carnell Crosbie: -to uncrook the crookedness. Is the Member perhaps referring to a predecessor of mine? Is it the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) who is a crook or is it a Minister of Transport of recent years of 1981-perhaps the hon. gentleman opposite? Who is the crook in this case? In any event, Mr. Speaker, let all those who are prepared to be called crooks arise-


John Carnell Crosbie: Could this matter be cleared up, Mr. Speaker?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as you know I had already sent you notice of my intention to withdraw the reference. Since the Minister has taken a moment, I think I might also point out exactly what happened.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: I have withdrawn it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: There is only one standing up, you.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 9, 1986



WAYS AND MEANS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Correct me if I am wrong at this point in the proceedings but pursuant to Standing Order 84(1) I wish to lay upon the Table in both official languages copies of a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know Hon. Members will realize that the intervention of the Minister is completely in order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I want to ask the customary question of the Government House Leader as to what business he proposes to place before the House for the coming week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond to the Hon. Member. Today we will continue with the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. On Friday, we will continue with the Throne Speech debate, which will be the sixth appointed day. Monday, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and as other Hon. Members are aware, is Thanksgiving Day. Therefore, the House will not sit.
Inasmuch as an amendment was moved today, that will necessitate a change in the order of business for Tuesday. I regret to advise my hon. friend that I am not in a position at this time to indicate precisely what orders I may be bringing forth on Tuesday. I will, however, give him some ideas. It could be Bill C-5, Bill C-8, and Bill C-9, but I will confirm that tomorrow morning. It will be my intention on Wednesday to continue with the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the Session; and amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 227.)
The Address-Mr. Cote
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., there were eight minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote).

I am now going to recognize those who wish to continue the period for questions and comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote). I will not prolong the question and answer period because I am anxiously awaiting the comment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) in response to the Throne Speech. Perhaps the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion will permit one quick question. In the press today there were reports that the provincial Government of New Brunswick was using the federal Government business assistance programs in a sense to make decisions on support for business based on political criteria as opposed to economic, business or industrial criteria. These allegations are very serious, particularly because it was in a sense confirmed in the same press releases that that had been taking place in that province. It is very serious because we are anxious that the federal programs in place to support business receive the maximum impact in job creation and economic development. I would appreciate it if the Minister would reply to a serious question in what appears to be some political manoeuvering in the placement of federal Government and provincial Government support for business.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, 1 did look into this matter, or at least part of it, this morning, and I mentioned the intention of the Government to do everything in its power to eliminate regional disparities. In this context, we have taken special initiatives to try to promote more intense and more serious consultations with the regions and to express the essence of our concerns even though the role of the regions themselves must be intensified.
The Hon. Member made particular reference to a program which comes under the jurisdiction of the province of New Brunswick. I can assure him that I share fully his concerns in this regard. I shall have an opportunity however to examine the situation much more closely in coming days.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to rise and put a question to the Minister, but twice my colleague has raised a question that has remained unanswered by the Minister.
My question will be very brief. He said he intended to look into the matter and consider it in the light of the new situation. Does that mean he admits the New Brunswick Government is taking advantage of the program to exert undue influence and make improper use of public funds? Will the Minister recognize in this House that the New Brunswick Government is in fact mismanaging the funds made available to it?

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. Ouellet


Michel Côté: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker. I think my answer to the question is to the opposite effect. I simply want to express a concern, and an interest in the point raised by my colleague, and also, before giving a final answer to the question, to inquire exactly what the situation is and respond accordingly. I have no intention whatsoever of admitting the Hon. Member's claims or allegations on that matter.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that if the Minister is not ready to condemn the partisan politics of the Tory Government in New Brunswick, he approves of what is going on in New Brunswick and colludes with those provincial authorities who make improper use of public funds?


Michel Côté: In no way, Mr. Speaker. My purpose is neither to condemn nor to admit that situation. I have simply shown a concern for looking more closely at the matter and responding accordingly.
I repeat once more, Mr. Speaker, that we have shown in a very practical way, since September 1984, our intention to make a special effort in the area of regional development. That commitment has been renewed in the last Throne Speech, and more specifically, we have been promoting economic renewal in Atlantic Canada.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon me I consider all viewpoints, rather than react too rashly to the situation.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the Hon. Minister's remarks. His responsibility and that of his Department being primarily to address problems of regional disparity, I would like to inquire whether he has some new policy initiatives which he might be taking in this area. I ask him that bearing in mind that we have tried things like tax incentives but recent studies seem to indicate they do not really work. We have tried grants and loans to businesses in different disadvantaged parts of the country but they do not seem to have done the trick either. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) suggested that perhaps we should be shifting government Departments to other regions of the country. He suggested that the Farm Credit Corporation might go to one of the smaller communities in his riding. We tried shifting the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown, and that has some drawbacks, it seems to me.


Mr. McMillan:: Careful!


Alan Redway: I wonder if the Minister might tell us what he has in mind in the way of new initiatives which will perhaps address this problem in a meaningful and effective way.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think we are mainly trying to increase the efficiency of our tools and of our programs in the Atlantic region and we have done it quite
openly. Indeed, our approach is especially based on a federal effort which should be better directed and adjusted to the needs of that area.
We think it is essential to bring those activities into line at all levels of government and to obtain a greater support or impetus from the private sector in order to get maximum results and as I said earlier to iron out those regional disparities.
In accordance with our commitment, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to promote the spirit of independence and entrepreneurship of the people in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Minister completed his remarks? The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question from my colleague. According to the report to which he referred, the government of New Brunswick has chosen three ridings now represented by Liberal Members which it believes it could win at the next general election for a special investment of funds coming from the Minister's department. Does he consider that this is the proper way to choose ridings to be granted government funds, thus helping the Conservative Government at the next provincial election?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think I will repeat the same arguments which I directed to my colleagues opposite and merely say that we have set up programs to iron out those regional disparities. I do not intend to confirm or deny the allegations made today. I have merely said that I was looking closely at the situation and would promptly respond.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Indeed, the Minister's answer-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted for questions and comments has now expired.
The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the Chair and wish you every success and satisfaction in the exercice of your very important duties. I shall also, if I may, congratulate the three Hon. Members who will assist you in your work, and especially your two principal assistants who will continue to perform those duties and tasks they performed so admirably during the first session of this Parliament.
As is customary, I also wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and the seconder of that motion. Now that I have congratulated six Conservative Members, which for me is a great deal, I would like to express an opinion I think is shared by Canadians in general, namely that in this Speech from the Throne, the Progressive Conservative Government has been a great disappointment. After all, when the Government decided to prorogue and delay resumption of
October 9, 1986

parliamentary business for one month, we could have expected something new. We thought the Government would take this opportunity to make a fresh start and come in with new ideas and new ways of doing things. Above all, Canadians were expecting some leadership from this Government. Unfortunately, Canadians who were counting on seeing some original ideas in the Speech from the Throne and some new and concrete solutions to the real problems Canada is facing today, all these people were terribly disappointed, because this Speech from the Throne is the very essence of platitude. We have been presented with a document that lacks any imagination whatsoever. It reflects the image of a Government that has exhausted its energy after barely two years in power.
This Government is already forced to rehash the promises made during the last election campaign and in its first Speech from the Throne. In this respect, the remarks of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) were enlightening indeed. We would have expected this new Minister to unveil-as tradition would have it when a Minister takes the floor in the throne speech debate-a slew of fresh propositions from his department. No such luck. In fact the Minister failed to announce anything new and nobody would have been any worse off had he simply skipped his speech altogether. In my opinion, the silence of the Minister about the secret dealings between his department, certain officials, certain political figures and the representatives of the shipyards is of great concern to the shipyard workers.
I do not understand how the Minister, who is well aware of the situation, coming as he does from the Quebec area where a major shipyard is facing a financial crisis, did not take this opportunity today in his remarks to enlighten us, to indicate whether it is true that his predecessor had asked the naval authorities to close down a number of shipyards; whether it is true that his Government is presently negotiating with the owners of various shipyards in Canada for the purpose of restructuring them, to convince a number of naval concerns to shut down their operation, because the reality now is this: under the Liberal Government, all shipyards in Canada had orders to fill. Since this Conservative Government came to power, all shipyards have been forced to lay off employees. It is clearly because of this Conservative Government's failure to act that the Vickers shipyard in Montreal is seriously jeopardized.
And now we are told that the people in Sorel and Lauzon will have to get together to rationalize their operations and probably elect to close either one of these shipyards. Well, the this situation, which I find regrettable, because in Quebec we want, not only one shipyard but three of them obtain their fair share of Canadian Government contracts, because there are quite competent specialized workers both in Sorel and Lauzon as well as in Montreal, people who have done this type of work for many years and want to continue to earn a decent living.
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
I am somewhat disappointed that the Government apparently wants to keep quiet about these two major priorities which it has submitted to the population, claiming that the huge federal deficit, a national disgrace according to these ladies and gentlemen of the Conservative Party, would come down. Well, what is happening, really? The deficit is not coming down. If I may, I should like to quote from an article published in the Ottawa Citizen'.
Some of my colleagues are not too happy that I want to refer to some remarks made in a newspaper recently. When we speak in the House of Commons people could say that we are partisan and obviously do not convey the true perspective. I would like to quote from an article in The Ottawa Citizen which is indeed absolutely non-partisan and objective. Mr. McGillivray said the following:
Michael Wilson won't be glad to hear this but he has just become Canada's all-time King of Deficits.


Mr. McDermid:: Who wrote that?


André Ouellet: Don McGillivray, a veteran journalist for Southam News who has long experience and cannot be accused of partisan politics. His article continues:
As finance minister, he has added more to the national debt than any of his predecessors.
On Sept. 17, Wilson will have been in charge of Canada's finances for two years. And has already presided over budget deficits totalling $65 billion.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this Government, after asking Canadians to support its plan to clean up our public finances and reduce the deficit, has done the exact opposite. And it is abundantly clear that the first prize for deficits in this country goes to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
This Government got elected by promising jobs, jobs, jobs. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the election campaign, the present Prime Minister said: We have only three priorities: jobs, jobs, jobs.

Again the Government has failed in its objective. Again it is clear that the Government is trying to portray a situation which is not accurate.
I would like to quote from an article written in the Toronto Star by David Crane, a writer on political and economic affairs. He said:
The latest unemployment figures suggest that luck has run out for Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and his cabinet colleagues. They can no longer count on continued recovery from the 1981-8? recession to fulfil their campaign promises of "jobs, jobs, jobs''.
Now they will have to come up with new approaches of their own if further progress is to be made in the fight against unemployment.

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. Ouellet .
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Government, which promised to find jobs for Canadians, is today faced with a situation where more than one million Canadian workers are jobless. It is a fact that this Government, which promised to find jobs for the people of this country, has failed to live up to the expectations of Canadians, and that across this country, there are still far too many men and women, and especially young men and women, who are out of work. And the platitudes in a Speech from the Throne that has failed to announce any concrete measures for creating jobs in Canada are certainly not going to solve the problem. Acutally, the new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) unwittingly gave a clear indication of the bleak realities Canadians have to contend with, in his answer to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who was upset that the Prime Minister gave orders to have a penitentiary, that would normally have been built in the riding of Drummond built in his own riding, at an additional cost to the Canadian taxpayer of several million dollars.
In fact, early this week, my hon. friend from Shefford put his question to the Member who normally should have answered the question, but the Minister of Employment and Immigration rose instead and said the following: We must realize that 38 per cent of the people in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding receive part of their income from unemployment insurance or are on welfare.
So the Minister of Employment and Immigration agrees with what we have been saying for many months, which is that many people are not included in the unemployment statistics, since the figure for the Prime Minister's riding is about 15 per cent.
So what is being used as an excuse for the Prime Minister's decision to have the penitentiary built in his riding is the fact that 38 per cent of the people in that riding are receiving some form of government aid or are no longer considered as being on the labour market because they have ceased to report to the manpower centres to look for work, probably because they are convinced there are no jobs available anyway.
This situation, as reflected in the 38 per cent figure, probably reflects the true state of our Canadian economy. Not 10 per cent or 11 per cent of Canadians are in difficulty and qualify as being unemployed, but 35 per cent or 38 or 40 per cent of Canadians are in difficulty, are unemployed or are convinced that they won't be able to find employment. The Conservative Government promised them jobs and now, two years later, they are living in poverty, and they are so depressed they are not even looking for work because no jobs are available.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is shocking and intolerable, and the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is wasting his time trying to justify an intolerably partisan
decision on the part of the Prime Minister is certainly not to his credit.
I have to say that the Minister of Employment and Immigration probably felt that he had to rush to the defence of his Prime Minister, but by doing so he revealed the real condition of the Canadian economy.
Roughly 10 per cent of Canadians are unemployed, another 10 per cent are on social welfare, and yet another 10 per cent or more have completely given up looking for employment because they are convinced there are no jobs available.
Well, the fancy rhetoric of the Prime Minister is no longer good enough. People want action now and expect this Government to come up with concrete and specific programs to spur the economy.
I would suggest that the most tragic mistake of this Government has been to imagine that it had to start from scratch in every field. Here is a telling example: the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who found the VIA Rail file on his desk. The previous Government had launched a five-year action plan to set the Crown corporation VIA Rail back on the right track, according to a well-balanced and rational process. Well now, instead of accepting this action plan under which, first, certain underused and non-profitable lines would have been dropped, second, adequate rolling stock would have been bought and, third, the administration would have been revamped, this Government, this new Minister threw everything overboard and went back to square one so that now, two years later, VIA Rail has not progressed one inch. It does not even have a single locomotive nor a single new railway car to give better service to the traveling public.
That is an example of a Government which is unable to make decisions. It appointed a committee chaired by Mr. Horner to review the whole question. The report was handed to the Minister of Transport six months ago and the Government has not done anything about it yet. In other words, ever since the Conservatives were elected to office we got nothing but more studies and more consultations, and this Government has yet to make one significant and specific decision.
I conclude my remarks by saying that this Throne Speech is the most disappointing thing we have seen in a long time. Unfortunately, Canadians have a Government that is marking time, that takes one step forward and two steps backwards, that does not know how to manage public affairs, that does not know how to administer the affairs of the state. Earlier in its mandate, we could accept inexperienced Ministers making blunders, but two years later, the Government can no longer hide behind the screen of political inexperience. This Government must have the courage to take the important decisions that are needed to solve the problem of unemployment in Canada. We need only look at the Throne Speech to see that, unfortunately, this Government does not have that political courage, and I am not surprised to see that showing how much Canadians are disappointed with this Government.
October 9, 1986

I am very much heartened by the appearance in this House today of our new colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) who is joining all those who will go on fighting this inefficient Government and the inappropriate decisions it is taking on behalf of the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, I was suprised by some of the remarks of the Hon. Member, particularly about the shipbuilding industry. I think he has no idea what he is talking about because in recent days it has been announced in all newspapers and on TV that a Quebec consortium will be created soon to meet the needs of workers and the shipbuilding industry in Quebec.
We need only recall the policy advocated by the Liberal Party in recent years, a policy which led to the crisis we went through. It was referred to as "the policy to share the patronage pie". For example, if tenders were called for six icebreakers and say in the last case Marine Industries bid $48 million, an Ontario company $54 million, and a Western Canada company $60-odd million, they would say: "Well, two in Sorel, two in Ontario, and two in Western Canada", regardless of the lowest bidder. They were just trying to keep all Canadian shipyards in business for a while without coming to grips with the real issue, which is the fact that we have too many shipyards and too few orders on the books. Had they let the market forces come into play the shipbuilding industry would have rationalized itself by now through open competition. Of course nobody will come right out and say that the previous administration failed to do just that.
We have given a vote of confidence to a few Quebecers who will set up a consortium for the three Quebec shipyards, the kind of initiative the former Government could not have taken, busy as it was stirring the constitutional stew. They could not have accepted a consortium led by Marine Industries, which was a provincial Crown corporation. This would have helped the PQ Government, so it was out of the question because they were itching for a fight on constitutional issues. They were in no hurry to solve the problem of the shipbuilding industry. Their only way out was to appoint yet another inquiry commission in May 1984, so we got one more report on the shipyards. But we have taken action. Perhaps the Speech from the Throne does not say so in so many words, but when we talk about the economic views of the Government we refer to all sectors, including the shipbuilding industry. At long last the matter is about to be settled after years of needless fights and neglect on the part of the previous Government.
Versatile Vickers which was the property of Quebec and closely connected with the Federal Liberal Party, was the lucky one when Dome Petroleum, another friend of the Party, muffed it in Quebec; the Quebec yard had been used to make a financial deal, instead of developing a true naval industry, as was the case for instance at the Tracy yards.
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, as you are motioning to me. If in the naval industry, there is today a Quebec consortium-as a matter of fact, a major press conference will be held tomorrow to confirm it-a joint venture of the Quebec and Ottawa Governments which will make it possible for the naval industry to be more aggressive, not only on world markets, by to develop new technology, for instance in the case of drilling platforms


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must regretfully interrupt the Hon. Member, for his time has expired.
The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has the floor.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) for giving me an opportunity to clarify my views. What is happening now is that the Quebec Government is doing something which should have been done by the Canadian Government. Marine Industries would probably be the one in a position to purchase the two other shipyards, because it prospered under the previous Government. Otherwise, it would not have been strong enough to have such an operation today.
The Hon. Member for Richelieu should wait and see what will happen. If the maritime division disappears in Sorel, I shall go and tell his constituents that their representative has let them down. The fact is that the Sorel shipyard always prospered under a Liberal Government, but now, no one knows whether it will go on or not. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if the Sorel shipyard closes, the Hon. Member will suffer the political consequences.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as I sat quietly in my seat listening to the Hon. Member, I became more and more alarmed, particularly when he started to speak of his concern about the manner in which the Government is managing the business of the country and, particularly, the manner in which the Government is managing the economy. They were comments from an Hon. Member who was a Minister in the former Government. He was telling you and I, Mr. Speaker, and everyone in the House, about incompetence in managing the affairs and the economy of the country. I could not believe my ears as I listened to the Hon. Member. This is from a man who was a key Member of the former Government which created conditions in this country where we had inflation in excess of 12 per cent; interest rates in excess of 20 per cent; record setting bankruptcies, and unemployment in excess of 13 per cent. This is a man who says that the present Government is having some problems in managing the country? I find that incredible.
The present leader of this man's Party rose in the House after the economic statement, and after the present Government's Budgets, and said these policies were a disaster and they would create more and more unemployment and, in fact, they would create something like 75,000 or 100,000 more

October 9, 1986
Adjournment Motion
unemployed people. Instead, as the Hon. Member is well aware, there has been a complete reversal of the situation he and his Government created. Inflation is down; unemployment is down; bankruptcies are down; interest rates are down and there have been over a half million new jobs created in the last two years. I would think the Hon. Member should be on his feet applauding the Government.
That is not to say the Government believes all the problems are solved, by any manner or means. The Hon. Member knows from the Speech from the Throne that the Government pointed out quite clearly its concern and intentions to continue to pursue very vigorously methods to improve the economy, the economic situation and to get more people back to work. However, the Hon. Member should applaud the Government for this approach rather than being critical, particularly when the Hon. Member was a member of a Government which did such an astronomically terrible job in running the economic affairs of this country.
As I looked over at the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, I thought I detected a little red reflection from his face. I thought perhaps it was from his tie or from his flower, but after awhile I became convinced that he was almost as embarrassed as I was as he made those comments. I would like to ask him if he was as embarrassed as I was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude his remarks.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the current Government received an overwhelming mandate from the population to change a difficult situation through which Canadians have lived; a recession. No one is changing the figures that existed at the time. They were there and, indeed, the public voted for a change of government and a change of direction. What we have two years later is a worse situation without the recession.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense. What an unfounded statement.


André Ouellet: It is quite clear that inflation is now going up. It is quite clear that since the beginning of 1986 there has not been a single job created in Canada. Statistics Canada said:

-that in January there were 11,632,000 jobs, and today, there are 11,615,000 jobs, which means 17,000 jobs were lost since the beginning of this year. The present Government has increased this country's deficit, it has failed to create a single job in 1986, and inflation has started to rise substantially, penalizing Canadians on fixed incomes, and I am thinking specifically of our pensioners. There is certainly nothing to be proud of here, and I think the Hon. Member who is anxious to ask me some questions and who would like to resuscitate the last election is badly mistaken, because the people of this country gave the Conservatives a chance, and now they are sorry they did, and they are anxious to see this Government finish its term as soon as possible.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)- Government Expenditures-Prime Minister's travel entourage; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)- Indian Affairs-Funding of Programs; and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Supply and Services-Maintenance contract for F-18 fighter aircraft, (b) Request for tabling of correspondence received from Premier of Nova Scotia.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Collins for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the Session; and the amendment of Mr. Cassidy (p. 227 ).
Pat Carney: Canadian trade policy must reflect a basic fact of Canadian economic life-our small population. A small domestic market means that secure access to foreign markets is critical. In Canada, trade means jobs. Some 27 per cent of our GNP is directly related to exports. One in three Canadian jobs depends, in some form, upon trade. Unlike countries with large domestic markets, such as the U.S., Japan or Brazil, our industries require markets larger than our own to achieve efficient economies of scale and specialization. Our companies need access to those markets to justify investment in modern plants and equipment and expensive research and development.
However, secure access to foreign markets is important for more than just export-oriented companies. It is also important for Canadian consumers and our retail business sector. If our companies are not internationally competitive, they will not be competitive at home. That would mean higher costs to Canadian consumers and less disposable income for consumer and business spending. And that means fewer jobs and less economic activity in our country. These are the basic facts of Canadian economic life, and they cannot be wished away. It is for these reasons that from the time of the Great Depression successive Governments have sought trade liberalization through international negotiations.
The expansion of the world trading system has brought great benefits to Canada. Our exporting ability has given us a standard of living that is the envy of most countries of the world. It has provided us with the wealth to develop accessible health care, affordable education, equalization policies, income security programs and national cultural institutions-all the institutions and values which really define the Canadian way of life.
Pragmatism and realism have led us to initiate a two-track trade policy made up of bilateral one-on-one negotiations with the United States, by far our most important customer, reinforced by multilateral negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I would like to review some of the realities behind this two-track approach.
In the 40 years since the formation of the GATT, the international trading system has changed. Four events stand out. First, there was the formation of the European Economic Community and many other small regional trading blocks, such as the ASEAN block, the Australia-New Zealand pact and the European Free Trade Association. Second, there was the dramatic rise of Japan as a major economic power. Third, there was the emergence of certain newly industrialized nations such as South Korea and Brazil. The fourth event was the proliferation of independent nation states resulting from post-war decolonization.
These events have changed the international environment. In today's world there are many more competitors producing the goods that we produce. Moreover, the emergence of regional trading arrangements means that some of our traditional markets are not as open to us as they once were. In short, competition in world markets is increasing. A Canadian trade
The Address-Miss Carney
policy that seeks to safeguard our interests must reflect these realities.
These fundamental changes in the world economy have been reflected in the GATT. The GATT has evolved from a small club of like-minded countries into a much more complex group of countries having vastly different competitive strengths and trading interests. This has led to more complicated and lengthy multilateral trade negotiations. For instance, the last round, the Tokyo Round, lasted from 1973 to 1979.
Canada is a uniquely important player in this coalition of countries. We are a bridge between the less-developed countries and the economic super-powers. Our interests are allied with other resource-based producers. This was demonstrated by the pivotal role that Canada played by putting agriculture on the agenda of the GATT negotiations at Punta del Este, Uruguay. At the same time we have common interests with the largest trading nations. We are a member of the Quadrilateral, the informal group of the largest traders in the world, along with the United States, Japan and the European Community. We met at Sintra, Portugual just prior to the GATT in Uruguay. We played an active role in coordinating our positions for the GATT negotiations. So there should be no doubts that we are an important member of the multilateral trading community. There should be no mistaking this Government's commitment to the GATT. We are an active, dynamic and leading player in the GATT. We are absolutely committed to the General Agreement and to the Uruguay Round.
However, in reaffirming our commitment to the GATT we must realize that it alone cannot protect all our interests. The vast majority of our exports go to one national market, that is, the U.S. market, which now takes 78 per cent of all our exports. So we are engaged in bilateral negotiations with the United States for only one reason-it is in Canada's interest to do so.
What do we seek to achieve? We want to redefine the rules that presently govern trade between our two countries. We want to secure and to enhance our access to U.S. markets. We want to lock those rules and that security of access into the form of a long-term binding treaty between both countries.
Let me first discuss secure access. There is a thicket of trade laws in the U.S. at the disposal of any interest group that wants to bring an action against Canada. Since 1980, well over 500 complaints have been brought forward in the U.S. These cases have become increasingly complex and have spawned an unprecedented number of appeals. The proliferation of trade complaints in the past five years has caused grave concern to Canada. These cases complicate investment decisions, because to be successful Canadian producers need security of access to foreign markets.
If the rules keep changing, then that security is jeopardized and diminished. However, what is equally important is a disturbing reluctance in the U.S. to accept the verdict when U.S. interests do not win a case. We see that in the softwood
254

October 9, 1986
The Address-Miss Carney
lumber case. We won the case in 1983. We then faced a number of legislative initiatives seeking in one way or other to limit our exports to the U.S. We then faced a fact-finding investigation and yet another countervail action this year. Now, the threat is that if the U.S. industry does not get what it wants there will be the likelihood of more Congressional action. This is why we seek new rules. We seek a better shield against the forces of protectionism. The existing rules may be law, but their enforcement does not always lead to justice. We want more certainty. We want a more confident environment for investors and producers in Canada. This, in turn, will generate jobs and economic growth.
What about enhanced access? One example is our industries' ability to sell goods to the U.S. state and federal Governments. For example, the "Buy American requirement prohibits the use of foreign steel in projects funded under certain acts. This closes an important part of the U.S. market to our producers. We want better access to these markets so that our world-class technology in areas such as telecommunications and electrical generating equipment can compete on an equal footing with U.S. producers.
There are many other trade actions taken by the U.S. which irritate us. 1 am reminded of the Prime Minister's words that we are best friends, America and Canada, and that we are each other's biggest trading partners, but at times it is difficult to be friendly with your best friend. I could also mention, for instance, potash, uranium, the wheat subsidy war and other U.S. support practices.
However, we are not walking away. Rather, we are seeking through negotiations a better framework for trade between us.
The U.S. administration, for its part, has indicated that it sees important benefits for its country. Canada is the largest market for U.S. exports and it is one of the few markets in which U.S. exports are increasing. Canada is the largest recipient of direct U.S. investment and millions of cross-border transactions link our two national economies.
The U.S., of course, has its concerns and we are willing to listen to them. We will adjust for them where we are able to do so. That is the process of negotiation. Any trade treaty clearly must be beneficial to both partners.
Some who oppose this initiative say we are undermining the GATT by advancing our interest on a bilateral basis. That is simply wrong. A bilateral agreement is consistent with GATT rules. Moreover, our bilateral talks with the U.S. are not only consistent with the GATT but could serve as multilateral models. We are well aware that Canada-U.S. agreements in such areas as procurement and services could be models for multilateral action. We are negotiating with this in mind.
So those are some of the realities that have prompted us to embark upon this two-track approach. They make a compelling case for our two-track policy. The critics who are here today have a responsibility to address these same realities and
to tell Canadians how their policies meet the needs of Canadians today. I suspect they will not be able to because their policies are not based on fact or supported by past experience and their policies do not meet the needs of Canada in today's world.
I recognize that much of this criticism has been directed at the hearts of Canadians, not their heads. Canadians have been warned of the traumatic adjustments that will flow from an arrangement and they have been warned that our cultural sovereignty is at stake. Those are two false accusations, so let me take a minute to address these two fears.
First, regarding the trauma of change, let us just put this in perspective. Canada has been reducing its trade barriers step by step since the beginning of GATT in 1947. Canadians have not only survived this process but have prospered under it. If Canadians have prospered through seven rounds of trade liberalization, why would the next step be any different?
Second, there is the issue of cultural sovereignty. I would like to remind the House that there were two important events in the life of Canada which took place in the late 1940s. One was the creation of the GATT, the start of the trade liberalization process that has continued to this day. The other was the Massey Royal Commission on the National Development of the Arts, Letters and Sciences, the start of a cultural development process that has also continued to this day. These two processes went hand in hand because it was the prosperity created by trade liberalization that allowed us to create all those institutions and programs which helped to define us as Canadians today.
Just as trade liberalization continues, the challenge to build a national identity continues today. We in the Government recognize that and we have said very clearly to our negotiators that this Government's ability to protect and enhance Canadian culture is non-negotiable. We want a country whose people can communicate with one another through the arts and the popular media. The essence which makes us Canadian cannot and will not be compromised.
Before I close my remarks, let me make a final point, Mr. Speaker. So far, I have talked about our two-track trade policy. Let me note another element of our over-all trade strategy, the need to seek new export opportunities. I view the promotion of Canadian exports as being a key element of my portfolio. Essential as it may be, it is not enough to negotiate changes in the rules governing trade. We must continue to seek new markets for our goods and services. As was stated in the Speech from the Throne, particular emphasis will be placed upon trade with Japan and other Pacific Rim countries. I will be addressing this theme again in the coming months.
So, Mr. Speaker, we know precisely what we are doing. We are well prepared and we are convinced that our strategy is the best way to advance our national interest. We are actively consulting with the provinces. Indeed, our response to the softwood lumber case is a prime example of federal-provincial co-operation in a trade matter.

October 9, 1986

We have the advice of a wide array of private-sector experts and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has consistently said, if our negotiations do not result in a better deal for Canada, there will be no deal. However, 1 believe it is our responsibility to try. We believe that trade problems over the past few years in such sectors as lumber, fish, pork and steel prove that existing trade rules must be improved.
We cannot improve the situation by simply turning our backs and walking away. We have the choice of negotiating to advance our interests or we can run away and let others unilaterally set the rules for us. We chose to negotiate, not because it is popular, not because it is easy, but because it is in the national interest of Canada and of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to offer my congratulations to the Minister on being appointed to her new position. It is not possible to do so in Question Period and I am pleased to do so now.
1 would, however, note that yet again the Government, through the words of the Minister, has relied on insults with respect to her critics. She has suggested that they have no answers. I suggest that she might wish to listen, as we listened to her speech today, when we speak later next week. She will hear of the course we would be following in place of the course that is now being followed.
I would also note that I saw certain inaccuracies in the speech which has just been made, particularly with respect to GATT. As someone who attended the GATT meetings, I would have to say that there was a great deal of uneasiness and opposition expressed by European and Japanese delegates and GATT officials to the bilateral course which we were taking up with the United States. If the Minister is not aware of that, she should talk with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who led the delegation, or with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) who was there as well and could, I assume, report the same thing.
I have some questions which I would like to put very briefly, recognizing that it is not possible to have a full-scale debate at this stage. I might say that I look forward to the full-scale debate which was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he first announced the initiative that is being taken toward the United States. This is a full-scale debate which has yet to be put before the House.
I have three questions. First, if we are concerned with such things as access to the United States, "Buy American" and a whole host of questions of restrictive protectionism within the United States, why do we not follow the route of GATT now that the GATT talks are under way after Punta del Este and carry these discussions with the United States forward with the strong support of allies who are equally concerned with each of these points which the Minister has considered in her speech? The Japanese, for instance, would be such strong allies.
The Address-Miss Carney
Second, will we finally have the mandate of Mr. Reisman made public to the House now that he has finished his first round of discussions and the Premiers have been filled in?
Third, if I may, could I please plead with the Minister to make a change in her approach and the approach of her predecessor and to take the Canadian people into the confidence of the Government in respect of precisely what is the mandate of Mr. Reisman in these talks, instead of carrying forward this cloak and dagger diplomacy which is out of place between two modern democracies?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, to address the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member, I looked again at my speaking notes. I cannot see any reference to these insults which the Hon. Member identified. I believe the only comment I made about the critics was to say that they have the responsibility to address these same realities and to tell Canadians how their policies will meet the needs of Canadians today. If asking the opposition Parties, and particularly the NDP, to put forward their policies is an insult, it speaks to the nature of the policies, not to the opportunity provided by the Government to produce them.
In answer to the specific questions raised by the Hon. Member, when he talks about the need to take allies into our discussions with the U.S., he does not seem to understand that we have a unique relationship with the U.S. It takes 78 per cent of our exports and, in turn, we are the United States, biggest customer. One province alone, Ontario, sells as much to the U.S. as does Japan. There is little to be gained by taking outside of GATT some sort of regional bloc, which he seems to be suggesting, composed of Europe, Japan, and the U.S. We are talking about GATT and we are talking about a bilateral arrangement. I also want to assure him that I thought he might have understood, or maybe he would have learned at Punta del Este that under Section 24 of the GATT these bilateral arrangements are allowed. That is why there is a European Community. That is why there is a European Free Trade Association.
I do not understand how he could indicate that Europeans were concerned about a bilateral arrangement between Canada and the U.S. when they are members of the very same kind of regional trading arrangement that allows them access to 265 million people. We, with our 26 million people, are the only industrialized country in the world that does not have secure access to a market of at least 100 million people. I think they were concerned about protectionism at the GATT; everyone is concerned about the rising tide of protectionism. However, I would suggest that the support Canada gave other countries in their objectives in the GATT will alleviate their fears.
Also, the Hon. Member asked about Simon Reisman's mandate and about taking Canadians into confidence in the negotiations. I have certainly tried to be as open as I can about the negotiations. However, I do not understand how one can

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
negotiate a treaty at a table in full public view. 1 do not know whether he is suggesting bringing in the television cameras or putting them on a stage to negotiate. I have always found that the best way to negotiate is to do it behind closed doors with some privacy. The Eton. Member can be assured that the results of the negotiations and all reports on the negotiations are reported directly to me, and through me to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister. I look forward, in the next few weeks, to speaking continually on this subject as I travel throughout Canada.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that if there is one thing that concerns Canadians about the trade negotiations with the United States, it is the ultimate impact those negotiations will have on their own individual personal lives and their own individual personal circumstances. It has been said that as a result of these negotiations there will be some winners and there will be some losers. I guess it is that aspect which really and truly concerns Canadians; whether those individuals will be the losers in the whole process.
It has been suggested from time to time that the Government should try to help those people who might end up in some way as losers with a program and a policy that would ease the adjustment process from the position in which they are now to what they might be in the future. Does the Government have such a policy waiting in the wings and, if so, what is it?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for his question. First let me reassure him that the history of the reductions in tariff barriers, for instance, that has occurred in the 50 years since the great depression certainly has shown that there are more winners than losers in trade liberalization. We are infinitely better off in 1986 than we were when the process started. I think I can reassure him generally on that point.
On his specific point about whether the Government is addressing this, yes, both countries in the trade negotiations are addressing the need to have a long-term agreement-and we are talking about from now into the next century-to phase in any changes, to have the relevant adjustment programs for those who are affected, and to have training programs for those who are affected to take advantage of the jobs that will be created. Those points are being addressed in the negotiations.
I think if the Hon. Member reflects on the training programs the Government has brought in and upon the kind of help the Government has given to industries in the area that he represents and in his province in general, he will recognize that we have a good precedent on which to stake our faith.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will resist the temptation to try to respond to the comments of the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) because there are several other things I had the intention of addressing today. Debate about a major initiative of the Government is very useful, and I hope there will be more
opportunities for it to happen. My intention today is to speak, first, as the spokesperson of my Party for the environment and, second, as a western Canadian who is concerned about the problems affecting that region of Canada.
In respect of the Speech from the Throne, when it comes to environmental issues, the Throne Speech is significant for what is not in it rather than for what is in it. In the Throne Speech we have the promise of a new Environmental Protection Act. That is to be welcomed. We hope that we will soon see that legislation. Presuming that it is quality legislation-and I know that a great deal of consultation has gone into it already-we will certainly be prepared to be as co-operative as we can when the legislation comes forward, of course always depending upon the fact that there are no surprises in it of which we are not aware at this time. We will be looking forward to playing a constructively critical role in that respect.
There was also acceptable rhetoric about water quality in the Throne Speech. However, I was disappointed that very shortly after the presentation of the Throne Speech, at a meeting of Ministers of the Environment, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) was not able to make new commitments to federal involvement in the much needed upgrading of our sewage treatment facilities across the country. I am told that some 53 per cent of sewage still goes into the environment completely untreated. That should be regarded as a national disgrace and should not be something which is subject to the usual kind of bureaucratic tinkering, as to whether we will have a few more dollars here or a few more dollars there. It is one of the least complicated environmental problems we face. It is less complicated than knowing what to do about invisible toxins in the Niagara River, for instance. It is something we know what to do about and something we could be doing. I fail to understand why the Government could not make a major announcement in that area. It would have been particularly helpful in areas suffering from high unemployment such as Quebec and Atlantic Canada where this kind of upgrading is most needed.
I said that the Throne Speech in respect of the environment was significant in what was left out. What was left out was a commitment to live up to the Progressive Conservative Party's campaign promise for a full inquiry into the nuclear industry. This is a promise of the Conservative Party which goes back to 1979. It is a promise that looked like it was going to be acted upon by the Conservative Government in 1979, but we all know that that Government did not have a chance to act on it. But the Conservatives have now been in office for two years. I have been after them to live up to the promise, a promise repeated in the election of 1984. Even after Chernobyl and the international meetings in Vienna, which the former Minister of Energy said would have to transpire before the Government would make its decision about an inquiry, we see no commitment to such an inquiry in the Throne Speech.
October 9, 1986

Unfortunately we do have a statement from the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), not a statement made in this House, not a statement made in the Throne Speech, not a statement made to the Canadian people, not a statement even made in Canada, but a statement made by the Minister of Energy to the international meeting in Vienna. His official news release says "The Minister reaffirmed Canada's commitment to nuclear energy. Let Canada's position be clear. We are determined to use nuclear energy". That is the position taken by the new Minister of Energy in Vienna. If that is the position of the Government, why not make it absolutely clear here at home in the House of Commons to the Canadian people that that promise of the Progressive Conservative Party to initiate a full scale inquiry into the nuclear industry in Canada has been abandoned.
Other things which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said at that conference which I find interesting concerned food irradiation which, as we know, is at least a matter of some controversy, but not in the mind of the Minister of Energy. He said "food irradiation, for example, has become indispensable to human progress". Indispensable to human progress, Mr. Speaker. I cannot accuse the new Minister of Energy of being ambiguous about his views on nuclear energy.
I ask the Government to be more forthcoming about what official government positions are with respect to questions like food irradiation, though we had a pretty clear indication of what the Government policy will be today from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he answered a question from the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt). As far as he was concerned he was willing to accept the verdict that food irradiation was completely safe.
The view of the Government in this respect is what I call completely technocratic. It is willing to accept uncritically the prevailing confidence in that kind of technological expertise. The Tories' former ability to think critically about these kinds of technologies, displayed in 1979, has gone by the boards completely, either for internal reasons or, like so many governments before it, because of deference to the expertise in various departments. Whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker, we have a position where that promise has been abandoned.
The Minister of Energy also said in Vienna when he was speaking about public concern and the need to alleviate public concern about the nuclear industry, "Acceptance must be based on understanding and not on propaganda." That is a good statement, but I say to the Minister of Energy, if he is interested in understanding; that if Canadian nuclear policy cannot be based on propaganda, it cannot be based on secrecy either. It cannot be based on a refusal to make major announcements and major statements of policy about the nuclear industry in the House of Commons. Understanding cannot be created when Ministers of Energy responsible for that industry refuse to create opportunities for meaningful debate, and everything happens behind closed doors.
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
As many of you will know, our response to this continuing unwillingness of the Conservative Party to live up to its promises has been to do what we can to give Canadians an opportunity to say what they think about Canada's involvement in the nuclear option. That is why the New Democratic Party announced in July that we New Democrats will be having our own inquiry and that we will be going across the country talking to people about what they think about Canada's involvement in the nuclear option.
There was mention of acid rain in the Throne Speech and Canada's continuing-I forget the exact rhetoric-determination to do something about acid rain or something like that. I am glad to see it at least got a mention, but I continue to hold my view that the position of Canada with respect to acid rain, at least in its international sense, in its trans-boundary sense with the United States, continues to be one of shameful acquiescence to the agenda of the Reagan administration. In fact, the Reagan administration has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams because it has now set the acid rain agenda for the next five years, which reaches beyond the presidency of Ronald Reagan. For the next five years all that we can hope to see with respect to progress, at least initiated by the administration, unless Congress is able to do something, is spending on research into clean coal technologies, and we have no guarantee that that will happen in any significant way, and even if it does happen that it will lead to an actual reduction in emissions.
I see that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is here. Perhaps he will have an opportunity later to tell us why-I think this might have been a mistake-the question of another trans-boundary question, that of the Niagara River pollution, was left out of the Throne Speech. That may have sent the wrong kind of signal to our American friends; not being right up there alongside acid rain as a major environmental issue with respect to Canada-U.S. relations. I find it very regrettable that that was not there alongside acid rain. I hope the Minister will take the first opportunity to indicate that that oversight should not be misinterpreted by the United States to mean any diminishing of Canada's intention to get a meaningful settlement with respect to that issue.
I want to speak now as a western Canadian about what I think is a very significant political transition happening, particularly on the prairies. It has to do with what I think to be a series of broken promises made to western Canadians over the years by the Progressive Conservative Party, promises which were believed by a majority of western Canadians and promises which led western Canadians to vote for many Conservative Members of Parliament into office over the years, and particularly during the last election. I think that the Progressive Conservative Party has seriously let down western Canada. I want to give a few examples, important examples of why that is the case.
The first one that springs to my mind, perhaps because I come from a rail town like Transcona, is the question of VIA Rail. This has been raised a number of times in the House

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
since we have returned after the summer. Still, after two years of this Government in office we do not have the new transcontinental equipment ordered. How long does it take to get up the resolve and the competency to order the equipment that everyone and his dog knows is needed if there is to be a serious possibility of a revitalized passenger rail system in this country?
I do not think anyone could argue the fact that the Government has seriously botched the future of Via Rail. This spring we saw the disgrace of legislation brought forward to put cost recovery targets on the transcontinental routes of Via Rail. The legislation would require Via Rail to meet those targets in two years. The Government knew full well that with the new equipment not even ordered it was absolutely impossible for Via Rail to meet those cost recovery targets. The only way it could meet them is with new equipment and there is no possibility of having that new equipment by the time the deadlines in the legislation come into effect. I hope we will see some change in those deadlines when the legislation comes before the House. However, the facts remains that we still have not ordered that equipment. I hope that very soon the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) will be able to announce the real purchasing of that equipment, not just announce its intention one more time. When the Minister said half-jokingly the other day that he hoped he would get to announce that new equipment just as so many of his predecessors had, I said under my breath that I hoped he would be the last Minister to make that announcement, because I hope the next time the announcement is made it means some action will be forthcoming.
The other day we heard of the desire on the part of CN and CP to abandon literally tens of thousands of miles of rail lines. The Minister of Transport got up and said, rest assured, CN and CP would have to work within the law. What law? The law this Government intends to change? The law this Government intends to change in order to give CN and CP more freedom to do whatever they want? The Minister referred to the Canadian Transport Commission. We have every reason to believe that after the new National Transportation Act is passed there will not be anything like the CTC we have known up until this day. CN and CP, partly as a result of that new legislation and deregulation, will be able to do anything they want as long as they can show it is necessary to their being what they call competitive.
I say to all western Canadians who may have sincerely thought over the years that they had real, genuine allies over there, that they do not. They cannot have real allies in a Party which has committed itself first of all, not to western Canada but to the ideology of the market-place. In the final analysis, if the market-place dictates the extinction of western Canada, or the extinction of the family farm, or the extinction of whatever the market-place dictates is next up for obsolescence, you cannot really have allies among people whose first commitment is to that kind of ideology.
Let me speak for a minute about the family farm. The one thing that should shake up a lot of people in this country, particularly people of a small "c" conservative bent, if you will-people who think that the family farm represents an enduring kind of institution, a cultural value structure which is to be regarded as one of the high points of Canadian life-it is that if the family farm is vulnerable, if it can be dispensed with, if it can be sacrificed on the altar of the international market-place and of so-called competition, then everything else is vulnerable. No one is safe.
What kind of response to that have we from this Government? We have a transition program to help farmers off the land. Why? Because farming is no longer regarded as a vocation by governments, it is regarded strictly as a business. No more talk about relationships with the land. The land is just something to be pumped and milked with fertilizers and pesticides and everything else you can get your hands on to get the highest possible yield to make the biggest possible buck. The problem, of course, is that even doing that, under the current international economic system the farmers cannot make enough money to survive.
Instead of coming down hard on the international system and on the banks and others who are doing this to our farmers, we see a look of regret on the face of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and others that this has happened. They say they are going to do what they can within the existing fiscal framework, but they are not going to take on the forces which are destroying the family farm in western Canada. The family farm is not just being destroyed, the very ecological basis on which our agricultural sector is based is being destroyed. I refer to the report by the Senate on soil erosion and other evidence which has been piling up over the years, that the way we have allowed our agricultural sector to develop is a recipe for disaster. The chickens are starting to come home to roost on that particular way of farming and the farmers, in my view, should be the last to be victimized by the consequences, instead of the first, which is the case right now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is widely known in this House and beyond as a fair and reasonable person whose sincerity is matched only by his eloquence on environmental matters. He asked why the Throne Speech did not specifically mention pollution in the Niagara River as a priority alongside the resolution of the acid rain question in negotiations with the Americans. I presume he is familiar with this paragraph in the Throne Speech which I will quote only briefly:
My government recognizes fully the essential relationship between a healthy environment and the quality of Canadian life. A new Environmental Protection Act will be introduced to improve my government's capacity, in concert with the provinces, to deal effectively with pollution, focusing on toxic chemicals. You will also be asked to consider measures to improve water quality in Canada and to safeguard citizens from the hazards of chemicals in our society.
October 9, 1986

So there will be two main thrusts, among others: the Environmental Protection Act, and measures to deal specifically with water quality.
Would the Hon. Member not agree that, while obviously pollution in the Niagara River is terribly important and must be dealt with, pollution in the St. Clair River must also be dealt with, as must pollution in the St. Lawrence River? Would it not make an awful lot more sense for the Government to do as it did, highlight the general problem of toxic chemicals and water quality, and place such questions as pollution in the Niagara River in the broader context rather than mention them in isolation? In that way pollution would be dealt with wherever it is found, in the Niagara River, the St. Clair River, the St. Lawrence River or other rivers that could be mentioned. In fact, it would have been entirely inappropriate for the Government to single out the Niagara River-even though it does place a high priority on it

because of the need for a more comprehensive approach.
Mir. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is working from the disadvantage of not having come in at the beginning of my speech. If he will check Hansard he will see that I did acknowledge the very paragraphs that he mentioned with regard to the bringing in of a new Environmental Protection Act and the statement with respect to water quality.
My point about the Niagara River was that if you are going to mention trans-boundary environmental issues in terms of Canada-U.S. relations, it may be a mistake to mention acid rain and not the Niagara River. It is not that I am holding the Niagara River pollution up as a domestic problem to the exclusion of all others. I was simply saying that I was worried that leaving it out of the Throne Speech, when mentioning trans-boundary environmental problems, might have sent a wrong signal to the American side about the extent to which we still hold this as a top priority. If you check the "blues" you will see that I acknowledged the other things which were in the Throne Speech.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, during his remarks my colleague referred to the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) went to a conference in Vienna and made a statement on nuclear energy. The Member will know that it is the job of Ministers to travel around the world, participate in these conferences and make statements as to government policy.
I do not think the Member would want to leave an inaccurate impression on the record. I want to emphasize to him and to the House that the Government's position is that as many ministerial statements as possible should be made in the House of Commons. In the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament there were 591 days and 28 ministerial statements were made. In the Thirty-third Parliament, which is when we took office, there were 304 sitting days and 83 ministerial statements. In other words, there were three times as many
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
ministerial statements made in the House of Commons in one-half the time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to acknowledge, as I have on previous occasions, that the Government has taken much more advantage of the opportunity to make ministerial statements. However, before the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) gets too self-righteous about it, I will remind him that a change in the procedure with respect to ministerial statements has made it much more convenient for the Government to make such statements.
I am not saying that the Government is lacking in sincerity with regard to trying to involve the House more in matters of public debate. I think there is a genuine willingness there. However, I also think it would have been more complete if the Member had acknowledged that it is much easier and less risky in terms of using up government time to use the instrument of ministerial statements than it used to be. Previously when ministerial statements were made the time taken would come off government time in the House. We now have an arrangement whereby the sitting is extended beyond the normal time of adjournment to make up for the time used by ministerial statements. That is something to be reminded of.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member make reference to the agricultural industry in the country. I share his view of the problems that Canadian agriculture faces, which problems are faced by agricultural producers in all major food-producing countries around the world. I cannot remain seated and listen to the Hon. Member say that the Government has done virtually nothing for Canadian agriculture. I invite him to check the record.
He will note that through legislation and the fulfillment of campaign commitments the Government has done more in the last 24 months than any other Government has done in a normal four-year period in office. If he will check the record he will see that we have fulfilled 317 commitments and spent $5.6 billion. Just last week we committed ourselves to the largest single aid package ever delivered by any Government to the Canadian agricultural industry. We have 24 months to go. The Government has been conscious and supportive of the agricultural industry in the country as has no other Government. We remain committed and will do whatever possible, given our rather limited financial capabilities.
The Member should recognize the leadership role taken on behalf of Canadian agriculture by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) the Minister of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). They made great progress on behalf of this industry at the summit and, more recently and specifically, leading up to the multilateral trade negotiations. I draw particular attention to the meeting held recently in Uruguay.
I do not think you can mislead Canadian farmers, because they are pretty sharp people. But it would be irresponsible to suggest that we have the financial resources in this country to

October 9, 1986
Address-Mr. Warner
take on Washington or the EEC. However, we will continue to play a leadership role in the international forum to bring about a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. We will do what we can within our financial capacity to maintain a strong and viable agricultural industry in the country.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my claim was not about the unlimited financial resources of the Canadian Government, although I find it strange that arguments about limited financial resources spring much more quickly to the mind of the Government when it comes to western Canada and farmers than when it comes to banks or industrial assistance for projects in southern Ontario.
It is not only a question of directing financial resources, it is also a question of political will. In this case it is a question of political will for Canada to work together with others who may be of the same view against those forces of the market-place that are putting Canadian farmers in the position in which they now find themselves. Some of those forces are international and 1 do not expect the Government to overcome them in a day. However, some of those forces are domestic. My claim about the current Government is that it does not have the philosophical capacity, if you will, to set itself against the forces which are inevitably eating away at western Canadian agriculture as we have known it.


Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your reappointment as Deputy Speaker. I extend to you and your colleagues in the chair my best wishes for the coming session of this Parliament.
I would also like to congratulate the new Member for Pembina and welcome him here this afternoon. It is good to see you, Sir, and I hope to see you down here soon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Melvin Warner: I would also like to thank the constituents of Stormont-Dundas. I have enjoyed representing them in this House during the last two years and I look forward to continuing to be their representative here in the future. It is a great honour and one which I appreciate very much. All of you in Stormont-Dundas have my utmost respect. Stormont- Dundas is a riding in eastern Ontario less than an hour's drive from Cornwall and Montreal. Tourism is one of our most important industries and we have several very attractive features in our area. I want to briefly mention a number of them.
The St. Lawrence Seaway goes through my riding with a lock at Iroquois in the western part, in Dundas County. Close by in Iroquois is Carmen House, one of the oldest dwellings in the area, built around 1825. Also close by in Dundas is Dundela, the home of the McIntosh apple which has become world renowned. East of Morrisburg is auto Wonderland, and Prehistoric World on Upper Canada Road. There is also Upper Canada Village, a reconstructed pioneer village that
many of us have visited several times. Further east toward Ingleside is a wildlife sanctuary which at this time of year has thousands of Canada geese and is truly an outstanding place to visit for any photographer or family.
In Cornwall, there is Rossi Glass, United Counties Museum, the R. H. Sanders generating station, Inverarden Regency Cottage Museum, a building that was built in 1816. There is the Charlottenburgh waterfowl sanctuary toward the eastern part of my riding near Lancaster, the Nor'westers Loyalist Museum in Williamstown, and the St. Raphael's church ruins in the heart of a Scottish community which is celebrating its bicentennial this year.
We are also quite fortunate in having several agricultural fairs around the riding. In June there is the Maxville Fair, in July there is the Avonmore Fair and in August there is Williamstown, South Mountain, Chesterville, while in September there is Newington. As well as these outstanding agricultural fairs there is the world famous Glengarry Highland Games on the first Saturday of August each year.
There are approximately 1,900 farms in my community, 43 per cent of which are dairy operations, 26 per cent beef cattle, and 12 per cent which cultivate small grains. When our nation's shoppers spend over $500 million per week in purchasing Canadian food products, we know the importance of our agricultural sector, not only for Stormont-Dundas but for all of Canada.
The Government's Speech from the Throne emphasizes Canada's commitment to agriculture and the role it plays in our national economy. As our Minister has recently outlined, we are aware of the present difficulties and we are definitely committed to work toward solving many of these problems, with the assistance and co-operation of provincial Governments and farm organizations, to help alleviate the hardship that many of our farm communties have been experiencing. The Throne Speech makes it clear, in making its commitment to Canadian agriculture, that the Government will spare no effort in seeking to protect the interests of Canada's farming community in the face of unfair competiton outside the country.
In co-operation with the provinces, we have recently committed $1 billion of assistance to our grain farmers in Canada. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) stated a few minutes ago, since coming to office the Government has brought forward over 300 separate initiatives totalling more than $5 billion which will benefit Canadian agriculture. The Government has effectively removed all sales tax and excise tax from all diesel and gasoline farm fuels, through a system of rebates. To date, some $100 million in low-interest loans has been approved under the new Commodity Based Loan Program. The Government has worked for lower interest rates, saving farmers millions of dollars in interest. We now have farm credit loans with the lowest rates since 1979.
Canada now has a national Red Meat Stabilization Program. The federal Government's commitment of $1.5
October 9, 1986

billion over a five-year period to its new dairy policy will provide the dairy industry with a stability it has not enjoyed since 1980. The 1985 Budget provided farmers with an immediate $500,000 capital gains exemption, effectively eliminating capital gains on the sale of most farms.
An essential part of our economic renewal program is tax reform. The capital gains initiative was one of the beginning steps of this tax reform. Federal tax reform is a top economic and social priority of the Progressive Conservative Government. A principal objective of the changes made so far has been to broaden the tax base and lower tax rates. We must restore a healthier balance among the personal, corporate and sales taxes, and specifically reverse the trend which has resulted in a greater reliance on personal income tax. The Government's further consideration of tax reform will have fairness as one of its guiding principles.
The Government is determined to move forward in a careful and co-ordinated way to ensure that the tax system is made less complex wherever possible. In developing our options for reform, we must also ensure that our tax system provides a strong and positive framework for economic growth and the expansion of job opportunities for all Canadians.
The Government has been examining broader options for the more complex reform of the federal tax system, including a business transfer tax which would possibly replace the federal sales tax. At the present time, there are several inequities in the federal sales tax and this area needs our immediate attention.
Since the Budget in February, the pace of comprehensive tax reform in the United States has escalated and they will soon be bringing in new tax measures which will have to spur us on in our tax reform program. Canadians must remain competitive with our American counterparts.
The Speech from the Throne noted the Government's concern about increasing concentration of corporate ownership, particularly where take-overs serve to increase corporate size without creating new jobs or stimulating economic growth in Canada. Tax reform will most likely deal with this concern.

Since we came to power, we have introduced important measures aimed at regenerating the Canadian economy. These measures have helped to restore confidence, create jobs, bring down interest rates and reduce the deficit. In September 1984, 11.7 per cent of the labour force was out of work. Today, the unemployment rate is down to 9.7 per cent.

Economic renewal has not been even across Canada. Certain parts of Ontario have experienced a tremendous boom, especially in the Toronto area where the housing boom has been quite astounding. Our programs will have to consider those other parts of our country that have been less fortunate.
Presenting statistics on unemployment has caused problems and, at times, controversy. The official unemployment rate in
Address-Mr. Warner
certain areas does not reflect the jobless rate. I represent one of those areas. The official rate of unemployment in Stormont-Dundas is approximately 8 per cent or 9 per cent, but no one in my area takes this figure very seriously because they know that it reflects the unemployment figures for all of eastern Ontario, including Ottawa. It also, does not take into consideration such factors as participation rate or those who are on welfare and available for work.
Yesterday in the House there was some controversy about the jobless rate in Manicouagan. I am sure that when the people in Manicouagan speak of a jobless rate, they understand it is closer to 37 per cent than it is to the official 15.8 per cent. They are living there. They know they do not have jobs. It is not 15.8 per cent because that does not consider the participation rate, the people who are employable and on welfare-


Mr. Hovdebo:: There are thousands of others.


Norman Melvin Warner: As the Hon. Member says, there are thousands of others who are unemployed and we are certainly concerned about them.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In other places.


Norman Melvin Warner: I do not believe that official rates in other areas accurately reflect the seriousness of the problem in those areas. 1 think it would be much better if Hon. Members could refer to a jobless rate which may be somewhat more accurate.
In the Cornwall area, we have been quite successsful in creating jobs for many of the unemployed people. Some of the companies which have located there and have expanded in the last couple of years, and continue to expand, are Almico Plastics, Astro Printing Service, C-Tech, C-E Vidaplate Inc., Can Lyte, Canadian Furniture Lighting Corp., Cornwall Machine and Welding Ltd., Cowall Inc., Cummins Recon, Denol Burr Inc., Dynamic Closures Ltd., Mr. Klaus Hartmann and his new company Chromolit, Helko Systems Furniture, Transcontinental Printing, Iroquois Chemical, Julius Resnick, Karl Gutmann, Karnuck Marble, Kershaw Manufacturing, Kohler Ltd., Malani Textile Mills, Valeo Furniture, Robert Mitchell, Robert Windows, Twistex, Rol Manufacturing, Walteck and the list goes on. There are many other small companies that have taken on new employees over the last couple of years. Altogether these people have created, and are in the process of creating, over 1,000 new jobs in our area. That trend will continue because of the positive tone of the Speech from the Throne. We are quite pleased with the progress of job creation in Stormont-Dundas and the resultant strengthening of the economy. We know there is more to be done, but we are on the right track. We know that social policy concerns are more satisfacatorily met in a strong and growing economy, and that fiscal responsibility is fully compatible with social responsibility.

October 9, 1987
Address-Mr. Warner
The Government is resolved to defend and strengthen the Canadian family which is the foundation of Canadian society. In many families in Stormont-Dundas, as in the rest of the country, both parents are now working. Adequate quality child care must be available. We look forward to receiving the Martin Committee Report on Child Care which will most likely be followed by discussions with the provinces, business and labour. I look forward to a co-operative approach from all the Parties in solving this difficult problem.
The Government is determined to take effective action against child sexual abuse, violent forms of pornography involving women and children, child prostitution and the serious and growing threat posed by the traffic in illegal drugs. Current indications are that Canadians now have a $10 billion a year drug problem. That is equivalent to $400 for every man, woman and child in Canada. This situation is intolerable and poses a serious threat to our society. All levels of Government and all Canadians must be concerned with this problem.
I would like to congratulate the law enforcement officers operating in Stormont-Dundas and Glengarry for their efforts in thwarting drug trafficking. Special congratulations go to the City of Cornwall police and their Chief, Claude Shaver, and Deputy Police Chief, Denis O'Neill, for their recent efforts.
The Government recognizes the essential relationship between a healthy environment and the quality of life. An industry-labour-Government task force will be preparing recommendations concerning the workplace environment. Following its recommendations, the Government will propose legislation to establish a workplace hazardous materials information system. Our environment is fragile and its protection requires the assistance of all Canadians.

The Government wants to adapt social measures to the real needs of the people. Canada's future is its young people, and the Speech from the Throne is emphatic about increasing opportunities for this important group in our population.
The Government is happy about the drop in youth unemployment, from 18.4 per cent on election day to 15 per cent today. However, much remains to be done.

The Government will be seeking the co-operation of the provinces and the private sector to enhance job opportunities and to encourage the participation and involvement of young Canadians in productive and challenging initiatives. The Government will be working with the provinces, the private sector and voluntary organizations to develop measures to ensure that all Canadians have access to the literacy skills which are the prerequisites for participation in a developed economy. Our local problem with illiteracy was recently brought to my attention by journalist Huguette Burroughs, whose concern I sincerely appreciate.
Today Canadian youth have benefited from numerous Government initiatives including the Canadian Jobs Strategy
and Challenge '86. In 1985 the Student Employment Centre in Stormont-Dundas placed 1,200 student. That was a new record for student placement in our riding. In 1986 the Student Employment Centre placed 1,400 students. Other jobs were created throughout our riding at a most successful rate.
The Government Speech from the Throne recognizes the importance of Canada's multicultural and multiracial communities. The reality of Canada today calls for all facets of our national life to reflect the vital and distinctive nature of Canadian society. Increased immigration levels, particularly among business immigrants, will have a positive effect on Canada's well being. These people will not only help to create jobs for themselves but for other unemployed Canadians as well. Although many of our ethnic communities are relatively small, their contribution to our society is very substantial.
I am very proud to have been involved in the formation of our annual Multicultural Festival. Sultan Jessa, a former citizen of the year in Cornwall, will be chairing the fifth annual festival to be held in Cornwall on June 28, 1987. At least 12 ethnic communities will be represented by performances, displays, food and beverages. The festival provided the foundation for Worldfest/Festimonde. In its third edition next year, Chairman Denis Carr expects several outstanding performing groups from around the world. They will be in Cornwall from June 26 to Canada Day, July 1. Worldfest/Festimonde is destined to be one of Canada's outstanding multicultural events and it certainly will have the encouragement of our Government.
The Speech from the Throne acknowledged the tens of thousands of Canadians who serve their communities and their country as volunteers. Further support was pledged to encourage the growth of volunteerism in our society. Our Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) recently announced his approval of grants totalling $3.3 million for several national voluntary organizations to assist them in the cost of operating their national offices and carrying out national activities during the upcoming year. These organizations include Big Brothers of Canada, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, CNIB, Family Service Canada, YMCA. YWCA and many others. A 1983 study estimated that the value of volunteer time in Canada was worth $2 billion. Altogether, charitable contributions and volunteer time would be worth in excess of $5 billion today. The volunteers in our community are very valuable and will continue to have our support. I continue to ask all the people in my area to help me with my work: municipal politicians, provincial politicians and our successful contingent.
The Speech from the Throne is just a bench-mark in our progress. We look forward to a much better community in the time to come.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
October 9, 1986


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Eton. Member's speech on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to ask him two questions.
In his speech he took time to mention the multicultural and immigrant community in his riding. He mentioned the attributes that these people give to life in his community and, in fact, what they have brought to the country. I would first like to ask the Hon. Member what his thoughts are with respect to the infamous report written by some of his colleagues in Toronto with respect to using-and I use that word deliberately and in the negative sense-those very immigrant communities and ethnocultural organizations to the political benefit of the Conservative Party of Canada. How does that fit into the statements he has just made?
With respect to entrepreneurial immigrants, I would like to know what his thoughts are with respect to the following. The Conservative Party has doubled the quota for business immigrants. That is something which is key and integral to the immigration program. It is something which my Party supports. However, we support it only if it forms one part of the over-all immigration program. What is happening in posts around the world is that because of the doubling of the immigration quota for business applicants, resources and personnel are being shifted away from other operations of the immigration program to satisfy these quotas which have been targetted by the Government. Hong Kong produces one-half of the total number of business immigrants who come into Canada. Because there are not additional resources in place to handle these numbers, individuals are being removed from the family class and family assistance class in order to satisfy the business class quotas. Is the Hon. Member in favour of this practice? Would he like to see a cost recovery program put in place in terms of business immigrants who are willing and able to pay an additional $125 visa charge for services rendered? I ask this with the proviso that it does not negatively affect the chances of a family wishing to immigrate, since personnel are being shifted in order to meet the immigration quotas for business applicants.
I am interested to hear what the Hon. Member has to say with respect to the Toronto report. I would also like to hear what he has to say with respect to the whole philosophy of business applicants and how that situation negatively affects the delays in terms of family class immigrants, something on which the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration took great pains to submit a report to the Minister in June.


Norman Melvin Warner: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Hon. Member's first question, I am not familiar with the report to which he refers. In my riding I do not actively participate in any sort of scheme of the type mentioned by the Hon. Member. As I mentioned in my speech, the ethnic community in my riding is fairly small and formed of outstanding citizens. Many of them are professionals, and most of them are quite active in volunteer efforts. They are very prominent in many ways outside their own professions and businesses.
Address-Mr. Warner
With respect to the Hon. Member's other remark, I support the entrepreneur class immigrant. This encourages foreign investors to come into the country. The Hon. Member mentioned a doubling of the figure from 2,000 to 4,000. I believe we could consider an even higher target. The Hon. Member also mentioned the complications with respect to Hong Kong. Hong Kong has the potential to supply several times the maximum number of entrepreneurs, and there will probably be considerable pressure placed on the rest of the world in the next two or three years to try to absorb some of these immigrants.
A cost recovery program is something which I think can be considered. At the moment I really do not know what the Minister or his Department is considering. However, this type of immigrant has the financial ability to pay for any costs incurred. Most likely they would be quite willing to pay those costs.
At the present time there are some unscrupulous operators of various kinds, such as business consultants or travel agents, who charge a fee to assist a person coming into Canada. These people being assisted are paying fees, some as high as $12,000, for a service which is of absolutely no use. At the present time the service is provided free by the Government.
I think the Hon. Member's suggestion should be relayed to the Minister and his Department for further consideration. It merits further consideration.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to make a comment with respect to the Hon. Member's intervention. Perhaps I can give him some advice, or even possibly assign him some homework, since I am a former school teacher. The Hon. Member mentioned the fact that a correctional institution was moved to a certain area because there was a need in the area to which it was being moved. I refer to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) constituency where he says there is a great deal of unemployment. The following is my homework assignment to the Hon. Member. I suggest he take a look across the river from the Prime Minister's constituency. If he does, I think he will find a constituency whose unemployment level is considerably higher than that of the Prime Minister's constituency. Just because the Government says so does not mean it is true. The question of the move needs to be looked at thoroughly. Just because the Government says that that is the reason for its move, that does not mean it is correct.


Norman Melvin Warner: Mr. Speaker, in my presentation I made no reference to the institution. I spoke only of the way that joblessness is presented. I was speaking only of statistics which have been discussed in the House. I suggest to the Hon. Member that if he were to ask someone in Manicouagan whether or not there is a high or low unemployment rate in that riding he would be told that it is high. I make the same point with regard to my own constituency. I have heard numbers bounced around with respect to unemployment in my riding. The figure of 8 per cent has been mentioned. Anyone who lives in my riding knows that the figure is not 8 per cent.

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
Yesterday, a member of the Opposition suggested that the rate of unemployment in Manicouagan is 15.8 per cent. I challenge that Eton. Member to discuss that figure with someone who lives in Manicouagan. That might be good homework for the Eton. Member who brought up the statistic.
I know that statistics with respect to unemployment are awkward. Elowever, when someone suggests a figure which is on the low side, it is totally unfair and does not present an accurate picture of what the people in that area are suffering.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne generally provides the Government with an occasion to take stock, to report on the progress of the past and to set the course for the future. Of course, a Speech from the Throne is not expected to give minute details or even a budget. However, it does afford the Government an opportunity to set forth its vision and course for future direction.
The Prime Minister's assessment of what his Government has achieved does not seem to find support in fact. Except for some of the major urban areas of the Golden Horseshoe, and possibly Ottawa and Montreal as well, the rest of the country is hardly thriving the way it should in a period of what might be called recovery, world-wide recovery after a devastating world-wide recession. If we analyse area by area the record of Tory promises and Tory fulfilments, I suggest we are even less impressed.
As a Liberal Member of Parliament my job has been to monitor the responsibilities and acitivities of the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Crombie), and I do this for the Official Opposition. The confusion and failure of the Tory Government, its incompetence and lack of concern for this vast area, is shown by the fact that in two years I have seen two Secretaries of State come and go, and a third one has been served up for inevitable embarrassment and humiliation because his Government fails to put its money where its mouth has been. The Cabinet of which he is a part has financially savaged the areas under the Secretary of State and betrayed its promises. Not only have we seen two Secretaries of State go by in two years, but Deputy Ministers of the Department of the Secretary of State have also passed through the revolving door. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has served up a third Deputy Minister as well.
All those involved in the areas for which the Secretary of State is responsible cannot help but suffer from the fact that we are now on our third Minister and our third Deputy Minister in two years. This is a federal Government portfolio that relates to some very heavy responsibilities. To name just a few, it relates to the 52,000 charitable organizations in the voluntary sector, to the Department of Citizenship, to the one in every eight Canadians who is disabled or handicapped, to the realms of human rights and official languages and to the more than one million students, professors and administrators in our universities and colleges. I have named only a few of the
areas for which the Secretary of State is responsible, the portfolio in which there has been a revolving door. Today I want to focus on just one of those areas, that of post-secondary education.

It is now two years since the Conservative Government came to power. If we look at what the Government has done, we see that post-secondary education in Canada is going through a serious crisis. The measures taken by the Government in the education sector are alarming, to say the least. However, the worst part is that these measures give the impression that this Government has no intention of acting on its responsibilities to young Canadians.

On the one hand, the Government acknowledges that we must do all we can to enable Canada to become more competitive and productive in order to survive economically and culturally. It even takes steps through so-called free trade negotiations to propel us at great speed into that very competition. Then on the other hand, at the very same time as it is thrusting us so rapidly into world competition, the Government is disarming our country for such a battle for national survival by allowing our educational system to drift into a state of demoralization, decay and despair, and is speeding up that process by deliberately setting priorities which retard research and the quest for excellence. It is as simple as that.
This is not a wilful act on the part of the Government to sell out Canada so that we end up as servants of foreign economic masters by cutting back on research and education, any more than in the name of economy and fiscal restraint during the Great Depression, Britain's Neville Chamberlain wilfully intended to sell out Britain to her enemies by cutting back on her military growth. Of course he did not do it intentionally. He was just looking after the deficit. However, just as the Battle of Britain was nearly lost, we shall lose the battle for Canadian economic and cultural survival unless this process and our priorities are fully reversed and unless the present laissez-faire approach is replaced by real leadership.

This overview of the measures taken by the Progressive Conservative Government may seem excessively negative and partisan. However, if we remember the promises this Government made and the measures it took subsequently, it is obvious that it has deliberately abandoned post-secondary education. If anyone remembers the promises made by the Progressive Conservatives during the 1984 election campaign, it must be the leaders of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Responding to questions by CAUT, the Progressive Conservative Party made a commitment to maintain the formula set down in the 1977 accord for calculating transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education.
Furthermore, CAUT leaders remember clearly that the Progressive Conservatives made a solemn promise to double the federal Government's assistance for research.
October 9, 1986



No one could therefore be more disappointed and dismayed than the members of the Canadian Association of University Teachers to witness the course of events of the last two years.
The passage of Bill C-96 capping growth of Established Programs Financing transfer payments to the provinces at a level of 5 per cent, barely inflation, and bringing this into effect for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, not only broke the election promises made by Conservative Members to maintain the funding formula but broke the existing pending federal-provincial agreement before the funding formula expired. It was not only a breach of promise, it was even a breach of contract.
The planning of post-secondary education must, by nature, be long term, and anyone who is familiar with the administration of a university or a college knows that long-term planning must be used. The embarrassments caused by such a breach of promise both to the provinces and to the educational institutions are understandably acute. The assault on Canadian postsecondary education was further exacerbated by federal decisions in other vital areas.
Spokesmen on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, such as Dr. Arnold Naimark, have pointed out that the latest financing decisions made by the present Government condemn research granting councils to ending up with less money in real terms in the future than at the present. Planning ahead will be less predictable as uncertainty is introduced by matching grant formulae. Instead of the percentage of the GNP for research growing to 2.5 per cent, all evidence points to a freeze at 1.3 per cent. Again, those are more broken promises.
Other reinforcing evidence proving that this constitutes the real policy of the Government is seen in its decisions to freeze the level of the student loans, to cut back on training seats in community colleges by 40 per cent, to close many campus employment offices and to cut the budget of the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) to purely ceremonial levels. It is small wonder that this has caused a cry of alarm.

The Government doesn't know where it's going with its policies. It is not as though the recession were a perfect mystery. Alarm bells were sounded in report after report. The Johnson Report, the Macdonald Commission and reports from many of the provinces confirmed the seriousness of the problem.
Attention has been called to the diminishing level of funds spent per student, the deterioration of physical plants to serve them, the retardation of research, and the declining morale of faculty, administrators, and students alike. Representatives of all these groups have repeatedly witnessed these facts in speeches, in articles, and in testimony before committees of the
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
House and of the Senate. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has been at the forefront of such representations.
One of the most dramatic efforts to arouse public concern was courageously voiced by the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, on May 30, 1986. Quotations from his speech are a succinct summary and eloquently articulate the matter. The Chief Justice quoted remarks made by Dr. Andrew MacKay, President of Dalhousie University, someone who we would all concede has some knowledge of the problems facing universities in the land. I should like to quote from Dr. MacKay who in turn was quoted by the Chief Justice:
Fiscal restraints have brought student-faculty ratios perilously high at many of our institutions. They have made it nearly impossible for. us to bring in bright new minds to teach our students and undertake research. Our libraries are suffering for want of appropriate acquisitions. Most of our scientific, technical and computing equipment for teaching is obsolete.
Our physical plant is generally in desperate need of repair. And many of us have found it necessary to turn away students we would previously have admitted to our core programs in the arts and sciences because we can no longer do work of satisfactory quality except by limiting numbers.
Then, expressing his own views, Chief Justice Brian Dickson continued:
Let me speak first to governments, provincial and federal. Please do not choke off the funding of universities. Canada must have good universities with outstanding teachers and world-class research facilities. Second-class funding of universities will inevitably lead to second-class teachers, second-class students and, ultimately, a second-class nation.
It has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true. But it is also true that education is too important to be left to Ministers of Finance. Universities desperately require funds to perform their great mission in democratic societies. Governments spend billions of dollars every year on all manner of projects, many worth while, others not so worth while. In my opinion, money spent on minds will never be money misspent.
As the Liberal critic of the Secretary of State, I have repeatedly brought such representations to the floor of the House of Commons during Question Period. I have also spoken on them at length in speeches I made on May 5, May 6, May 8, June 10, and June 16. My colleagues have also spoken vigorously, so there cannot be doubt in anyone's mind about the Government's awareness of the problems associated with Bill C-96. However, the Conservative administration was determined to pass the Bill without modification. We see that by its repeated use of closure; that demonstrates it only too clearly.

The Government has only two arguments to explain why it failed to fulfil its promises and to justify its criminal negligence vis-a-vis the future of education in Canada. It can recall the need for bringing down the deficit, and it can also maintain that in any case, funds transferred to the provinces never reach the rightful recipient-in this case, educational institutions.

In the case of the former argument, the Conservatives cannot claim that when they made their promises and commitments to the electorate they did not know about the annual

October 9, 1986
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
national deficit and the national debt. In the course of the election campaign they repeatedly cited these statistics to condemn what they called Liberal mismanagement of national spending. At the same time they promised better things for both educational EPF transfers and research. Furthermore, the issue is surely one of priorities.
Through their spokesmen the provinces have expressed dismay. Many feel that the unilateral federal action taken in Bill C-96 transfers the deficit from the federal Government to the provinces and, in the case of poorer provinces, to the poor who will inevitably suffer. It also reinforces the thesis that the Government places a low priority on post-secondary education and research. However, if the future of Canada's economy and culture is linked to education and research, infrastructure, and standards which are now deteriorating-and I believe it is and every thinking person knows it is-then federal government policy in this area is surely subject to question if not downright condemnation.
The second excuse, which the Government could put forward for its low priority on education and research, but is afraid to mention except in whispers, is that federal funds do not always reach their intended destinations, namely, education, because the provinces do not always pass them on. That argument, however, would only affect federal government policy on EPF transfers and does not explain the Government's failure to provide moneys for research, student loans, et cetera. Morever, in the case of EPF tranfers, the Conservative Government has simply abdicated any kind of creative approach to dealing with the question. It has walked away from suggestions from the royal commission, from the proposals of the Johnson report, and from those submitted earlier by CAUT. It has done nothing to deal with what is clearly a growing national crisis that threatens not only the future of countless individuals but our potential and capacity to survive as a viable nation.

Criticism comes easily, but action is what really counts. This is why the Leader of the Opposition has set up a national task force on post-secondary education, of which I am chairman. The task force has begun its work and will report its findings to the Leader of the Opposition, to the caucus, and to the Party before the Liberal Party national convention scheduled for late November this year. On the basis of briefs submitted from every region of the country I will be in a position to recommend options taking into consideration the crisis to be resolved, and other options which will make it possible for Canada to begin the 21st century with all the necessary assets to survive.

Condemnation is not enough. Leadership is required. For this reason the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has initiated a national task force on post-secondary education. We must not lose sight of the fact that students represent the ultimate reason for which education exists. That
is why I say a laissez-faire approach will not protect the disadvantaged.
I would like to close my remarks with words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition at the Atlantic Policy Conference in June, 1986:
I am going to initiate a review of post-secondary education funding to improve standards once again in co-operation and in negotiation with the provinces to ensure that we have minimum standards right across the country in terms of mobility, accessibility, research and student aid. These are going to have to happen. It is a national problem and it needs a solution with a national perspective.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we have just had a wonderful example of what happens to members of a political Party when they move from the government side to the Opposition side of this Chamber. Every year for years when the Liberals were the Government representations were made to the Government by the Association of Canadian Universities, by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and by the provincial Governments, pointing out that when it came to one of the subjects on which the Hon. Member spent some time, scientific research and development, that if you took all the countries belonging to the OECD, and Japan, only Italy spent a smaller percentage of its gross national product on scientific research and development. Every year Members of the Opposition, both Conservative and New Democrat, joined in that criticism and appealed to the Liberal Government to do better. Nothing happened, and Canada still remains at the bottom of the totem pole.
The Member talked about support for post-secondary education. I remind the Member that it was the Liberal Government that ended the fifty-fifty cost-sharing of postsecondary education with the six and five program. It put a cap on what the federal Government would contribute. It was the federal Government which ended the fifty-fifty costsharing, fifty-fifty for the have provinces and substantially more than fifty-fifty for the have-not provinces, which brought in the Established Programs Financing Act. Members of my Party, myself included, warned the Liberal Government that, not only would this cut-back on the federal Government's contribution in theory but in fact, the provinces would no longer be required to use that money, which came in a lump sum for post-secondary education and health programs on that, but could use it to build roads if that was politically advantageous to them, and is exactly what some of the provinces did.
All these complaints and appeals were ignored by the Liberal Government. Now the Liberal Party is in opposition. Now we hear all the speeches. Now we get the quotations from the briefs presented by the scientific organizations and by the university organizations. What assurances do we, the people of Canada have-I hope it never happens if we have another Liberal Government-that it will live up to the kinds of speeches and promises which the Hon. Member has made
October 9, 1986

tonight when the Liberals did not do it in all the years they were in power before?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, it does get a little tiring sometimes to hear the constant litany of NDP whining and complaining.


An Hon. Member:: Look at the record.


Roland de Corneille: It really does seem difficult to have to listen to it constantly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roland de Corneille: Take for example a number of points which the Hon. Member brought up, all of which are important.


An Hon. Member:: All are true.


Roland de Corneille: First, let us take the changeover from the system of payments which was 50 per cent from the federal Government for post-secondary education matched by 50 per cent from the provinces. If he were to tell the whole story and try to understand what the federal Government was doing at that time, it was trying to respond to the province's complaints that post-secondary education was a matter, under the Constitution, within the sole jurisdiction of the provinces to administer. Second, the Government was trying to argue that by putting it on a fifty-fifty basis, the rich provinces could put up 50 cents for every 50 cents the federal Government put up. But when you have a situation where a poor province is involved, a poor province cannot put up that 50 cents per dollar. If you have a province that has a smaller budget and less industry, such as some of our provinces and I will not name specific ones, it is unable to put up much money at all for post-secondary education. Sure the federal Government could match it, but it would be a small amount. Whereas, if you have a province that is well off, like Quebec or Ontario, it would be able to put up large amounts of money which the federal Government would then match. That was what was wrong with the matching system. It was not fair to the poor provinces. It was not fair to the young people in the poor provinces. That was the reason arguments were made for changing from a system which was a 50 cent match, Fifty-fifty, to a system with a formula that was supposed to help us bring, through block payments and through transfer payments, a much fairer presentation sharing of funds to the various provinces and, therefore, to the poor people in the poor provinces. That was the nefarious reason for trying to bring about that change.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I would like to allow a second question.


Mr. Fontaine:: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) who
The Address-Mr. de Corneille
claims to be the education expert of the Liberal Government, of the Liberal Party, I am inclined to say-


An Hon. Member:: Of the future Government!


Gabriel Fontaine: -of yesterday's Government, of the Government which saddled the country with a $240-billion debt, I am inclined to say that this expert should consider the matter of education from a constitutional angle, if only because it falls within provincial jurisdiction.
I am quite aware that the Constitution is not the rallying point of his Party, that it is hopelessly divided, that his Party is on the verge of breaking up because of the constitutional issue.
The spokesman for that Party should acknowledge the fact that education comes under provincial jurisdiction.
The Hon. Member also says that we must contribute to the education program in certain provinces, but for our part, we would rather not burden our students with a debt which will haunt them and their descendants all their lives.
This is what the previous Government never understood, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since we have one minute left I feel that the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) should have the last word.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to continue because I did not understand his question. He has not asked a question yet.


An Hon. Member:: There is nothing new in that. He had nothing to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) for a very brief question to which there can be a very brief reply.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) if he really understands the Constitution and the essence of Canada. If so, he will stop talking about education as he has just done. First, we have to understand the legal and official framework in which we operate. Then, when you speak of something, you will refer to a comprehensive agreement. You should first put some order in your own Party and understand the essence of the Canadian Constitution.
Speak about it to your few Members, and it will help you at your next convention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) care to conclude?

October 9, 1986
Adjournment Debate


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not aware of the history of education in Canada because there have often been transfer payments and funds allocated to education, during and after the war for veterans, and always since then. I believe that post-secondary education is a matter that must be of concern to the Federal Government.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, twice this week we have had a most serious controversy raised in the House. The issues involve the butler and maid of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). However, the Prime Minister chooses not to call these people a butler and a maid. They are nobodies as far as he is concerned. As a matter of fact, he gave an interview in which Canadian Press quotes him as saying: "1 didn't take a butler, I didn't take anybody." If I was the Prime Minister's butler I would be insulted because, like at Speedy Muffler, the gentleman is a somebody, in my view. However, that is not really the point.
The point is, of course, that the Prime Minister needs the utmost in security around him. He needs people who are really qualified to make sure that the place is top-notch, security wise. So we have this James Bond butler working for the Prime Minister. He is not really a butler but a butler in disguise. We are told that he is in fact a combination stunt man, James Bond and butler all rolled into one. He should have that, because our Prime Minister deserves the best. If you do not believe me, just have a look and see what he has. Surely you will believe it then.
The Prime Minister used an L-1011 to go to Asia when a previous Prime Minister made do with a plane half that size. The Prime Minister travels on Parliament Hill with five cars. Not one car like you or I, not driving a Chevette like I do, but five cars, one of them a Cadillac. The front of the Parliament Buildings looks like a used car lot because of the attitude of the Prime Minister. Perhaps Gary Lautens said it best:
It is a well known fact, if you watch James Bond movies, that foreign agents will resort to anything to hit their target. One of their favourite weapons is Exploding Underwear.
The way it works is simple. A head of state gets up in the morning and, if he has no valet to check his personal clothing, slips right into a of pair exploding underpants without a second thought.
Pow! There go the Jockeys, et cetera, up in a puff of smoke. Especially the et ceteras.
We would not want that to happen to our Prime Minister. That is why we have such qualified people to work for him as butlers. Remember, the Prime Minister said he was not a butler, he was a nobody.
We have qualified butlers to assist the Prime Minister in his task of leading the world. Yes indeed, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) told the House of Commons that during the trip in question an agreement was reached to have Canada become part of the G-7, which had never been done before. Would you believe it? This was achieved because of the butler. Perhaps because of the maid as well, I do not want to be partisan. Far be it from me to be partisan on such an issue. The Prime Minister deserves the best and he has the best, courtesy of the Canadian people.
The issue facing the Prime Minister today is not whether or not he took a butler with him on a trip. I think it is extravagant but if he thinks it is all right, let him do it and he can justify it to the Canadian people later. What I do object to is the fact that we cannot get consistent answers out of the Government.


Sergio Marchi: You mean the truth?


Don Boudria: I do not know, perhaps. We hear a statement from the Prime Minister which is contradicted by his Chief of Staff, who is contradicted by the Department of External Affairs, who is further contradicted by two cabinet Ministers on the floor of this House. Contradictory statements made simultaneously about an issue can only mean one thing, that at least some of them are, shall we say, inaccurate. Perhaps Professor Jean-Luc Pepin at the University of Ottawa said it best when he said that the Prime Minister had an acute need to embellish the truth.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in answering the Hon. Member, I hope that my calibre of response will be better than his calibre of questioning. I wish to impress upon him that security protection is granted by the Canadian Government to specific categories of individuals. The RCMP has the lead role in co-ordinating this protection. Approximately 250 person years are dedicated to VIP security duty with additional members detailed as required.
The RCMP has advised successive Prime Ministers that security must extend beyond the physical security of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his family to also include security of information and sensitive conversations, whether with close personal staff or with other officials, be they domestic or foreign. These security considerations become even more important when the Prime Minister travels abroad representing Canada.
The RCMP security office works hand-in-hand with foreign and domestic security officials as well as personnel in the
October 9, 1986

Prime Minister's office to ensure that transportation, accommodation, meeting sites, documents and communications are secured. The RCMP also stresses the importance of having close personal and domestic staff with appropriate security clearances to ensure that all of the other security measures put in place by the RCMP are not compromised. The RCMP can ensure security of personnel and information only if all persons are properly security cleared. When the Prime Minister is discussing matters of sensitivity, we do not want hotel personnel wandering in and out serving tea and cookies.
As the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) stated in the House on October 6:
-what the Government does on Prime Ministerial travel is dictated in large measure by security requirements for our Prime Minister and his aides and for the people who meet with him. This is a fundamental requirement."
No reasonable person today should deny the need to provide security for heads of state and heads of government. We are constantly reminded by the RCMP, and rightly so, of the need to provide a high level of security at all times while the Prime Minister is on extended travel. This includes having trained and secure support staff who form an integral part of the overall security arrangements.
What would Members opposite say, what would Canadians think, if sensitive information concerning Canada's economic interest or national security, to give two examples, became common knowledge because we did not take the precautions advised by the RCMP protective security experts? We should all know the answer to that, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that in making arrangements for travel abroad for the Prime Minister, the Government has taken the best advice of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and acted accordingly.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-FUNDING OF PROGRAMS. (B) BAND FUNDING INQUIRY
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my dissatisfaction with the answer given to me by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) yesterday in the House. Before doing so, I would like to offer my apologies to the Minister. I did say that I would get some documents to him, but I did not get them to him in adequate time for him to fully absorb the contents and import of them. I hope that over the next few days he will allow himself the time to study those documents because I am sure his eyes will be opened by them.
In his answer yesterday the Minister stated that there had not been cut-backs to funding in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He also stated that to his knowledge no signed agreement or contract had been broken. I believe that the documents which I have delivered to the Minister will convince him that the contrary is so. These documents show that contribution agreements signed on behalf of the Government of Canada were indeed broken, specifically in the instance of bands in the Manitoba region which received less than the funds to which they were entitled under the contribution agreement.
Adjournment Debate
These funds were not delivered. They were not undelivered by a matter of inadvertence, they remained undelivered by a deliberate decision of officials of his Ministry. Any agreement, be it between individuals, or between Governments, or between different levels of Governments, contains clauses which allow for its revision and review. I believe that the opportunty has always existed under contribution arrangements for representatives of the Department to go back to bands and state the difficulties they are in and state the reasons why they would like to see funding not delivered or delivered in another fiscal year.
Almost as offensive as the breaking of agreements in this instance is the way in which those agreements were breached. It appears from my discussions with chiefs of Manitoba bands, and a former official of the Department in Manitoba, that there was not only no consultation with the bands which were affected and whose treasuries were substantially impaired by these withholding of funds, they were not even informed of the fact that the funds had been retained from them.
The impact of these actions holds the most serious consequences for the relationship of the Government, and the Minister, now that he is in that position, with the bands of this country. The whole basis of the relationship of Government with the indigenous people of this country is one of trust. It is even enshrined in the law of the land, that there is a trust toward the indigenous people of Canada from the Government and through the Ministry of Indian Affairs.
The result of these actions was that the trust has been very substantially eroded, perhaps beyond the point where the Government can re-establish it. The results at the band level were serious. A million dollars was clawed back in the last fiscal year from the operation and maintenance budget of the Education Department in Manitoba. A million dollars was: "Frozen to your mandatory deficit". The ultimate fate of that million dollars was to be returned to headquarters.
Even worse, there was a $4 million shortfall of which only 18 per cent has been funded in the Budget for education, operation and maintenance. Of course, that is mostly for the maintenance and repair of schools. That shortfall was because of the headquarter's doubts about the validity of the Capital Asset Inventory System valuation of the assets of the schools that were being maintained. Those doubts were subsequently resolved, but only 18 per cent of the shortfall has been granted to the region.
The Ward Mallette Report documented a misuse of the Payable at Year End procedure, which records obligations owing by the Department at the end of the fiscal year. I regret to inform the Minister that that malpractice is continuing on a scale that can only be described as high, wide and handsome.
The documents that I have submitted to the Minister show the shocking distortions of fiscal responsibility which occur when these actions are taken. They talk in such terms as early

October 9, 1986
Adjournment Debate
recapitalization of assets, which frankly means if you do not maintain something it will have to be replaced much sooner.
Finally, the Minister made a spurious comparison in the House yesterday-I am sure unknowingly-when he compared the budget of 1975-1976 to the budget of 1985-1986. It was an apples and oranges comparison because there were services in 1975-1976 that were being delivered direct from headquarters, such as education, joint schools capital and child welfare which, now in 1985-1986, are delivered through the region.
1 return to the point that the basis of this whole question is trust. The Minister must advise the House and the country what can now be done to re-establish trust in his Department.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague that I appreciate receiving the documents that were delivered by his assistant, although the time was brief for me to look at them. I can tell my colleague that I will be replying to him either in a written form or verbally, after I have had an opportunity to look at those documents. I would say to anyone who has further documentation that I hope they put it forward. I hope it is put into the public realm, either to the Hon. Member or to myself so it can be reviewed.
In the brief time I have, I want to assure the Hon. Member. He has a knowledge of the way our Department works and the way it is funded through 11 different categories of funding. The way that funding has to be handled, we have the ability to adjust within those funding areas, but sometimes there is no ability to adjust.
As the Hon. Member knows, in the Province of Manitoba last year some $2.5 million was returned to Treasury. At the same time there were Supplementary Estimates which went forward for $23.7 million. That is a ratio of $1 to $8. Every dollar which was returned to the Treasury of Canada was replaced with $8. That is the part of the Supplementary Estimates which goes forward across Canada. In Canada a total of some $50 million was returned to the Treasury of Canada. However, at the same time Supplementary Estimates went forward for $140 million plus. In reality, therefore, there was a net gain of some $92 million for Indian programs, for Indian people.
One concern expressed by the Hon. Member in the letter I received today regarded the child welfare agreement and the extension of that existing agreement in the Province of Manitoba. I can assure him that the commitment made by my predecessor that the extension will be funded will be kept. The Hon. Member is accurate. The funds have not been allocated by Cabinet, but I can assure the Hon. Member that the commitment made by my predecessor for the extension of the child welfare agreement in Manitoba will be kept.
I would like to relate to the Hon. Member, to the House and to those in the gallery that the difficulty of allocating funds is
apparent from a conversation I had this morning with the chief of a southern tribal council and some of his advisers who asked if it was possible to move money from welfare to economic development. I said I did not know whether it was possible within my authority. However, the argument made sense. It is much better to use those welfare dollars to provide economic development if the same beneficiaries are going to be working rather than receiving welfare. So while there is criticism and concern about allocation within the Department of Indian Affairs, there is an ongoing pressure from Indian people and Indian governments to make that allocation where it will be effective.
I hope the Hon. Member can wait for my reply to the documents which he provided to me. I can assure him it will be forthcoming in very little time.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR F-1S FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. (B) REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise with regard to a question I posed to the Minister of Supply and Services on October 7, 1986. It concerned the awarding of a maintenance contract for the CF-18 fighter aircraft. The substance of my remarks has to do with the principles of fairness and equity for the poorer regions of the country.
I have to say with great sincerity that I was somewhat surprised, if not taken back, by the lack of response given to me at that time by the Minister responsible for Supply and Services. I would have thought that because of the importance of this particular contract, and the potential economic benefits which it could bestow upon a region and upon a people, she would have known of all the considerations being evaluated by her, her Department, and indeed, the entire Cabinet.
There are a number of companies which are bidding for this particular contract. They are western, Quebec and Atlantic consortiums. I thought that the Minister for a very important department, that is, the Department of Supply and Services, would have stood in her place and spelled out the criteria which would be used by the Government of Canada.
We have to put things in perspective when we look at the wording of the contract, since there is much confusion. There is a perception in the country that the Government has already decided, not on the basis of price and the potential of capacity for technical competence, but based on a political promise to a particular Premier of the country.
Let us now consider the contract which Bombardier of Montreal entered into when it purchased the Crown-owned Canadair. Included in that contract to purchase is a clause referring to a royalty payment to the Government of Canada upon the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Canadair. The royalty represents approximately 1 per cent of the total contract price. The federal Government agreed to this clause
October 9, 1986

even though potential buyers were advised that the award was not to be considered a component of the Canadair sale. Upon signing, the Government committed itself to this agreement. This is inconsistent with the procedure of the Department of Supply and Services and can be viewed by some as an inducement.
Then there is talk about the bid being submitted from Atlantic Canada. The Minister, but more particularly her colleagues from Nova Scotia, have been extremely silent with respect to the inducements and previous decisions they had taken in the months prior.
Atlantic Canada was set adrift in November of 1984 as a result of the financial statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Because of the outcry from Atlantic Canadians, First Ministers, members of the Opposition, as well as members of the Tory caucus, a decision was reached by the Government, as announced by the Minister's predecessor in February of 1986, which talked about the procurement of goods and services by the Government of Canada. Is this to be considered in the awarding of this contract?
The Government then said that it wanted to increase significantly-to the tune of $600 million over five years-the goods and services going into Atlantic Canada in order to enable businesses in that region of the country to gain some advantage. This is a clear and unequivocal opportunity to live up to the commitment of some months ago. However, all of a sudden the Government is very silent. It does not want to say anything. Ministers from Halifax and Central Nova have become sick. They cannot speak any longer about a program which they introduced with great fanfare. Nor does the Minister make reference to it in response to the question I asked. Perhaps today we will receive a different answer.
The Premier of Nova Scotia who extolled the virtues of this new-found policy of procurement has been silent. It is not something which has been legislated like it ought to have been. When I asked the Minister in a spirit of openness with respect to what those representations were and whether or not she would table them, I again received silence.
A reasonable person such as you, Mr. Speaker, would conclude that someone is hiding something here. One is left to conclude that there is something under the table when no reference is made to previous policies which have been announced, when Ministers who would normally speak up for their regions are extremely silent and when a provincial Premier is as silent as a mouse. I find the whole bidding procedure with regard to this particular contract to be very questionable.
I hope the Minister will avail herself of the opportunity to address this situation and to give an undertaking that all regions of the country, including Atlantic Canada, will have an equal and fair opportunity to bid for government contracts. We will not suffer prejudice because we come from a slow-
Adjournment Debate
growth area. I hope the Minister can provide that undertaking not only to me as an Atlantic Member of Parliament but to Canadians who live in that part of Canada and who subscribe to a Canadian Constitution that speaks directly about equality of opportunity.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Richmond East (Mr. Dingwall) for giving me an opportunity to raise this important question once again, an issue on which, as I said recently, emotions have been running high.
Mr. Speaker, exactly what is covered by this contract? It means that the technical and engineering maintenance of CF-18 fighters used by our armed forces can now be done in this country. Until now, this service was provided by the MacDon-nell-Douglas Corporation of St. Louis, in the United States. From the outset, it was intended that this maintenance service would eventually be done in Canada.
At the request of the Department of National Defence, my Department started the process of repatriating this service. The first step was to inform 16 Canadian companies in the aerospace industry of what we intended to do. As always in this kind of situation, a number of groups or consortiums were formed. These groups, which are known to the public, are the consortia formed around IMP of Halifax, Bristol of Winnipeg and Canadair of Montreal.
The groups prepared and presented proposals which were then subject to careful scrutiny. However, I hardly think the Hon. Member expects me to reveal the results of this assessment this evening.
According to our regulations, it was then up to the Minister of Supply and Services to transmit the results of the assessment and his conclusions to Treasury Board. And that is what I have done, Mr. Speaker. And, as was mentioned several times, the entire matter is now being examined by Treasury Board, in preparation for a meeting of Treasury Board Ministers who will have to make a decision.
Recently, the Hon. Member asked me what the criteria would be for their decision.
Mr. Speaker, a great many factors are involved. There is the technical assessment, price, offsets in terms of jobs, technology transfers and, finally, economic impact.
Mr. Speaker, the decision is a very difficult one. As Ministers, it is our responsibility to analyse all relevant factors to the best of our ability and to make a decision in terms of what we consider to be Canada's national interest. That is what we will do.
Mr. Speaker, I have one last comment to make. As you know, and as this House and all Canadian men and women know, the issue of which consortium will get the contract has become a very emotional one, and I deplore that. Neither emotions nor partisan considerations will determine who will

October 9, 1986
Adjournment Debate
get the contract. What will determine the outcome will be a rational assessment by Ministers representing all Canadian regions. Unlike our predecessors, we belong to a truly national, not a regional party.
Mr. Speaker, the balances existing within our Government strengthen my conviction that our decision, whatever it may be, will be in the best interests of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

:
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 10, 1986