1989-04-10

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-209, an Act to amend the Extradition Act (appeal).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, this Bill that I am introducing, seconded by Bob Homer of Mississauga West, is in response to the blatant injustices which exist in Canada today which permit fugitives such as Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler entry into our country to seek haven from foreign authorities, with more legal avenues and opportunities than what is available to a Canadian citizen who is accused of committing a crime here in Canada. To add insult to injury, our Government is spending millions of dollars harbouring these fugitives as they endeavour to escape justice.
The purpose of this Bill, entitled an Act to amend the Extradition Act, will be to streamline the extradition process now in place in Canada by first eliminating the fugitives' right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and substitute it with a straight appeal before the relevant provincial court of appeal, and second, by removing any appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This Bill will limit the number of recourses a fugitive has available to only one level of appeal. This Bill will also provide the Minister of Justice with the option to release the fugitive into the hands of foreign authorities either immediately or wait until the fugitive has been dealt with fully by the
Canadian penal system; meaning that fugitives will not have to complete their sentence here in Canada before being extradited.


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

William Henry (Bill) Domm: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-210, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court Act (habeas corpus).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill, also seconded by the Member from Mississauga West (Mr. Horner) entitled an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court Act, will limit the recourses available to a fugitive in this country by amending both the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court Act to remove any possible right to appeal a habeas corpus judgment to either the Provincial Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. This Bill will provide the appropriate amendments to ensure that there is only one appeal stage; i.e., the writ of habeas corpus available to a fugitive committed to prison under the Extradition Act before the case is handed over to the Minister of Justice. It is my hope that this Bill will tighten up the extradition process in this country, a process which is weighed down heavily by inadequacies, illustrated most recently by the cases of Charles Ng, Joseph Kindler and many others who have been able to prolong their stay in our country through the costly and timely use of our legal system.
In summary, it eliminates appeal to the Provincial Court of Appeal. It eliminates appeal to the Supreme Court. It leaves the fugitive with only the writ of habeas corpus.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered
to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1989
Introduction of Bills

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-211, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (session of Parliament).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to prevent the kind of abuse that we witnessed in the last few months on the part of the Government in the use of Governor General's warrants. The purpose is to amend the Bill for greater clarity to ensure that not just the spirit of the Constitution, but in fact the letter of the law is observed, and that the proposal is to change the law to prevent the issue of the Governor General's warrants from the date of the recall of Parliament until its dissolution to the time of an election. That is the technical effect of the Bill.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage containers).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide a cautionary label on all bottles of liquor, wine, beer and spirits, that would indicate clearly that excessive use of this particular liquor would result in driving impairment.
Also, I believe the label ought to include the ingredients. Many people react negatively to certain ingredients. We require virtually everything else sold in stores to indicate the contents, yet when it comes to liquor we do not expect the same.
Also, we provide a warning on packages of cigarettes. I think that on the most abused drug in society it would be appropriate that labels reflect that same concern.


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

Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-213, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (loss leadering).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to finally put on the books a prohibition against one of the most retrogressive predatory pricing practices, namely loss leadering. Loss leadering is defined as the selling of a product below the cost of production of that product. It has been used to drive out competition in the marketplace and, once the competition has been driven out, the price goes up, forever upward and onward.
My Bill would declare it a predatory pricing practice and prohibit it just as we do other predatory pricing practices.


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-214, An Act to provide for the limitation of interest rates and fees in relation to credit card accounts.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of rapacious banks and other lending institutions having skyrocketing interest rates on credit cards. For example, the prime rate is now 13.5 per cent and bank credit cards and retail store credit cards are at 20 per cent, 27 per cent and up to 33 per cent interest rates.
We have to reign in these dogs of the marketplace. We will put them on a short leash. My Bill is designed to do
April 10, 1989

exactly that. I know I am supported by the former chairman of the Finance Committee. We are going to limit that spread of interest rates in which they are gouging consumers with rapacious interest rates.


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (survivor's pensions).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is designed to eliminate the discriminatory element of the Canada Pension Plan Act as it relates to disability pensions. For example, the Canada Pension Act says that the surviving spouse of a person who has been collecting Canada Pension Plan disability, if 34 years of age or younger, would not be able to collect the surviving benefits. My Bill is designed to remove that discrimination based on age.


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of absence).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to extend the leave of absence provisions respecting a candidate in a federal election. If that candidate is successful, my Bill would ensure that that successful candidate, on application for leave of absence, would get that leave of absence for as long as that person is elected to the House of Commons.
Petitions


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

John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to correct an anomaly in the Bankruptcy Act in terms of claims. In cases where a company goes bankrupt, the first priority is to the Government of Canada, second, to the banks, and third, whatever is left goes to the employees.
In this Bill I intend to change the priority of claims and put the contributions of employees with respect to their pension plan, wages, holiday pay and salaries as a first priority with everything else second. That is a maximum of $9,000.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, indeed privilege, to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners who are concerned that the forest industry of Canada generates $3 billion annually in tax revenue to provincial and federal Governments and for every dollar the Government collects in taxes from the forest industry, only five cents is reinvested into the forest resource. The petition goes on at some length about the concern regarding the forest resource. Fundamentally, they are calling upon Parliament to develop new national forestry initiatives, promote more effective and sustainable forestry practices and consider the advisability of increasing spending on reforestation and promoting genuine sustained yield management of our forests.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today a petition which has been certified by the Clerk of Petitions. This petition is entitled: "Help Save the Rouge Valley". The Rouge Valley System is a unique and precious natural area in Scarborough on the east boundary of Metro Toronto.

April 10, 1989
Petitions
This land was land-banked by the provincial Government in the mid-seventies. The present Liberal Government of the province is considering putting a dump or a freeway in the area. The petitioners are outraged with this and believe that protecting this endangered wildlife and wilderness area is indeed in the national interest.
The petitioners are joined by the Mayor of the City of Scarborough, hundreds of volunteers from Save the Rouge Valley System, the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations and indeed the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard).
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley System as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition under Standing Order 36 signed by several persons from the Ottawa area. They petition the Parliament of Canada to increase government financial commitments to non-profit and co-op housing, recognizing the very serious situation that exists not only locally in Ottawa but throughout Canada with respect to geared-to-income housing and co-op housing.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition which deals with the concerns of rural communities. Thirty-five per cent of rural Saskatchewan women hold two jobs, one on the farm and one in the community. A Manitoba survey suggested that the average working week of a rural woman consisted of 95 hours, including 54 hours of housework and 23 hours of farm chores.
This petition asks the Government to consider the advisability of ensuring that adequate resources are directed toward the needs of rural women and their families, committing funds to the development of ongoing child care services in all regions, with particular sensitivity to the needs of rural and farm families.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by more than 300 upset citizens from the Township of Shuniah which borders on the City of Thunder Bay. A vicious, fatal beating of a 64-year old Shuniah employee on July 10, 1988, by two youths, their subsequent trial and maximum sentence of only three years in secured custody has eroded the confidence of this community in our system. The citizens of Shuniah, led by Reeve John Clark and by the person who spearheaded the petition, Mary Stahl, thus call upon Parliament to review and change the Young Offenders Act so that sentences can be more proportionate to the gravity of the offence.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members if we might have consent to revert to the introduction of Private Members' Bills. One was missed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-218, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (automatic weapons).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the importation of automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons that may be converted into an automatic weapon. We note with concern the views being expressed by police and other law officers, and I hope that this Bill will express those concerns.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered
to be printed.
April 10, 1989


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had an unfortunate incident on Parliament Hill last Friday. The hostage-taking caused some positions to be taken and some reactions to it. Being one of the Members who were here and could see with my own eyes how the forces and House of Commons security reacted, I would like, on behalf of all Members of my party, for the Liberals in any case, and probably on behalf of all other Members too, to say that we were very impressed.

We were very impressed with the way the security staff handled themselves on Friday. I want them to know that we thank them and tell them that we appreciate very much the difficult situation they were in on Friday. We hope that they are each individually given our thanks by the Sergeant at Arms who did an excellent job also.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on behalf of my caucus. We held a caucus meeting this morning, and indeed all the caucus members present wanted to reflect their appreciation for the excellent work done by our security people.
Over the weekend, we heard a great deal of positive reaction and accolades given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Ottawa Police Force. Those of us who were in the building at the time could only be impressed with the way our security forces went about their work. The initiation of their emergency response plan was first-class. Let us hope that they never have to introduce that emergency response plan again.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative Party feel almost the same way. It was a wonderful response.

I was in the Chamber on Friday and I believe that the situation was well handled. The staff of the Whip's office held a staff meeting this morning in which we reviewed the past week. That meeting was adjourned on Friday when we were asked to leave the House, so we carried on with it this morning. At that meeting I learned that the response of staff members throughout the Hill was very positive.
The Address-Mr. Pronovost
Members' staff and the staff that served the House so well all felt some comfort with the response that came from our security forces. They felt that people knew what they were doing and that it was handled expeditiously and well. I would like to congratulate the Sergeant at Arms and his people for that response and tell them that indeed, all members of this Hill community can take comfort from the response. When faced with a challenge, they rose to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members know, there will, of course, be a full review of the security procedures which we have in the House and we will try to do that as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
I thank the Hon. Members very much for what they have just said. The reaction of all our security people was of the highest order and a relationship was established veiy quickly during the event between our own security forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a relationship which seems to have worked effectively.
However, after an incident like this, it is, I think, appropriate to review everything that happened. As soon as that review is done by the Sergeant at Arms, it will be presented at the very earliest opportunity to the Board of Internal Economy. If at that time further steps, changes or additions are necessary, of course we will deal with it at that time.

I thank all Hon. Members very much for their statements, especially after an event that clearly was very dangerous.

I think we can all be very, very glad that events worked out as well as they did.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 7, consideration of the Motion of Mr. Richardson for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session; and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (page 131) and the sub-amendment of Mr. Riis (page 236).
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Pronovost
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to be speaking in the House last Friday when some unfortunate incident occurred-that event on Parliament Hill. I will tell you that it was quite impressive. And I would like to join the other Members who have already spoken about the professionalism of the police forces here on the Hill and of the House of Commons security staff.
Mr. Speaker, when we left on Friday, we were talking about a very important aspect of the Speech from the Throne: the priority which this Government has decided to give to the environment. I very briefly referred to the fact that as a Member for that constituency I had the opportunity on three occasions since the House reconvened to rise on the matter of the Saint-Maurice River pollution, while my predecessors, the two Liberal Members who sat here before me for 25 years, namely Messrs Chretien and Grondin, never found the way even once to rise in this House to condemn the Saint-Maurice River pollution and have corrections made.
I also stated this was quite understandable in the case of Mr. Chretien, as we realized last year when he rose to Consolidated Bathurst's Board of Directors. This is how Consolidated Bathurst thanked Jean Chretien for 25 years of silence, 25 years during which they polluted the Saint-Maurice River.
As witness to that pollution among others, Mr. Speaker, we had headlines last week. My constituents and other Canadians perhaps should be reminded that in addition to last week's PCB spill, earlier this year Consolidated Bathurst spilled 750,000 litres of sodium disulfite in the Saint-Maurice River at Shawinigan.
Consolidated Bathurst over the years injected into that river in Shawinigan 20,000 tons of pulp. Admittedly the company has undertaken a degree of clean-up. We reminded the president of Stone Container in Chicago it was essential that clean-up operations be carried out and this summer Consolidated Bathurst will begin removing a significant part of the matter that found its way into the Saint-Maurice River.
What was noticeable in the area last week was how much the whole issue of the environment was directly linked to the Throne Speech and my constituents' perception of this Government's responsibility. Also, the lack of professionalism of the part of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition rose in this House to ask questions that should have been put to the Quebec's National Assembly rather than to the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition neglected to ask the one question that came under the Minister of Environment (Mr. Bouchard).
As far as Hon. Members to the extreme left are concerned, the NDP Socialists, they were the shame of New Democratic supporters in my area, Mr. Speaker. They are not listening to my comments, although they could profit from them.
Our socialist Members did not take a single opportunity to ask the Minister of the Environment some intelligent questions about the St. Maurice River and the Consolidated Bathurst spill. This so embarrassed the NDP spokesman in my riding that he felt obliged to hold a press conference to apologize for the Members of the NDP Caucus who did not have time to show an interest in Quebec.
We on the Government side realize that the NDP shows an interest in Quebecers once every four years, before election time, and we see the results today here in the House, Mr. Speaker.
Environmental issues will be a priority for Canadians in the years to come. I would like to talk about a specific case. The St. Maurice River in our part of the country is one of the most beautiful waterways in Canada and, if it happened to be located in Europe, would be one of their major, well-known rivers. The St. Maurice is well-known unfortunately, because of the pollution that has accumulated in this river, and today we can no longer enjoy its beauties as we have in the past. People cannot even move freely on the river because of the obsolete practice of floating logs that still continues on this waterway.
However, thanks to this Government's policies and the splendid co-operation that exists with the Government of Quebec, I am positive that someday we will be able to stop the floating of logs in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, there are also some very alarming statistics that should urge this House and, in fact, all Canadians to consider the matter.
In Quebec today, 30 metric tons of woodchips are left to rot on the premises of sawmills throughout the province. This is the equivalent of about 510,000 Quebec trees felled during the last few years. Every week, Mr. Speaker, another 6,000 tons of chips is dumped on the premises of Quebec's independent sawmills, the equivalent of about 100,000 trees a week which are simply wasted because pulp and paper companies don't want to use the chips that are already available. If we put a value
April 10, 1989

The Address-Mr. Pronovost
of $10 on every tree cut on public land in the Province of Quebec, pulp and paper companies are aiding and abetting a weekly loss of $1 million in addition to the $5,100,000 already accumulated at the sawmills. Meanwhile, pulp and paper companies like Consolidated Bathurst keep cutting trees despite the fact that all this stuff is just rotting away. It is time they started recycling.
It would be an effective solution that would not cost the Government a cent, but we must let the public know this is important for the environment.
I would also point out to the House that last week's toxic spill has prompted Environment Canada to schedule for this summer a toxicological and ecological study on the Saint-Maurice River with a view to assessing the impact of dioxin-, furan- and PCB-related pollution resulting from last week's incidents.
In that respect I want to commend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)) who did not hesitate a second to take a series of concrete measures in this case as he did when disaster struck along the Alaskan and Canadian coasts. Whatever Opposition Members may say, Mr. Speaker, we do have a Minister of the Environment who lives up to his responsibilities in all such matters.
In the Speech from the Throne the Government did state that the environment would be its second priority. Time has come for action rather than trying to look for scapegoats. Another Government objective is to refine the policy which is geared to the concept of sustainable development-interdependence between world envi-ronement conditions and economic growth requirements. With that in mind our Government has established the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy which most quarters welcomed as a constructive step to undo the harm of 20 years of Liberal administration when environmental issues were never raised in this House in spite of the many urgings by the then Opposition to the Liberal Government.
My constituents are also deeply concerned about the deficit. In the mail I receive and in weekend conversations I have with the residents of the Saint-Maurice ridings people never fail to refer to the days when Jean Chretien was Minister of Finance and spent public funds as if money was going out of style. So today, unfortunately, as the Government we Conservatives have to re-assess the whole problem. We have to pick up the broken pieces. In the forthcoming budget the Government will make sure that Canadians eventually have again ready access to the kind of social services they deserve.
[DOT]	(1130)

Interest rates rise when the Government borrows too much. Everyone is aware of that except Members on the Opposition side. The more money the Government borrows, the higher the interest rate for everybody. As a result, it becomes more expensive to invest in new machines and to build new homes and factories. Money spent paying interest on the debt cannot be used for social programs. It is becoming harder to find money for new programs. Our social programs could suffer if we do not work now to lower the deficit. Since its election in September 1984, our Government has lowered the deficit in a slow but steady way. More needs to be done. The amount of money borrowed to pay for the deficit debt is still growing. As a result, interest costs are still rising too fast. Federal government borrowing is still putting too much pressure on interest rates. The deficit is falling because spending is being held down while the economy has been growing. Approximately 1.5 million people have found jobs. More businesses are making profits. Therefore, income from taxes has climbed at a faster rate than spending. The economy has been doing well in this country, and we must thank the Government for that. The Government's policy has been working.
[DOT]	(1140)
Lowering the deficit is an important part of that policy. Investment in new factories and equipment is at a record level.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, over the 20 years that the Liberal Party was in power and Jean Chretien was our Member of Parliament, we lost 12,000 manufacturing jobs. What a shame for the riding of Saint-Maurice! Over those 20 years, we saw the population of the towns in my riding drop dramatically. When Mr. Chretien was Minister of Finance in this House, the unemployment rate in my riding was 22 per cent, Mr. Speaker. It was a tragedy for our riding, which has lost a third of its population over the last 30 years.
During one week in 1983, three big companies-Gulf Canada, CIL and Dupont of Canada-announced that they were closing their factories in Shawinigan, all in the same week. During that week, Jean Chretien was in this House and nothing was done by the Liberal Government of the time to correct the mistakes that had been made! No special plan to reorient local industry was developed. Over the past four years, this Government has corrected those mistakes and is now preparing to do even more. Although that Hon. Member who represented my riding for 20 years was more interested by issues other than his

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Pronovost
constituents' future, our Government has undertaken to make the necessary changes. I shall give just one example. This year, Mr. Speaker, we will open the most modem textile dyeing mill in North America, because the people in our riding, unlike those in the Opposition, said when the time came that they would get ready to face free trade the right way-with action. As for investors, Perfecta Dyeing has invested $7 million in the most modem textile plant in North America, with some substantial assistance from this Government. Thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, we will be able to take on the American textile market much more vigorously.
Where I come from, that is what we did and what we will continue to do over the coming years, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to refer to other projects. Last week there was a lot of talk about Consolidated Bathurst and their environment control problems. Company management are not blameless but they do have a positive approach in that field and we will encourage them to pursue their efforts along those lines. Consolidated Bathurst will invest $225 million in their Grand-Mere mill and a sizeable amount in their Shawinigan mill.
Mr. Speaker, we will be keeping a close watch on all the company investments to ensure that these projects protect the environment, that eventually the residents of the riding of Saint-Maurice may enjoy their river as it used to be, and that the Saint-Maurice River region become a first-class tourist attraction. The people of my riding know that the action of this Government concerning environmental issues will pave the way for a second economic upsurge in my region, yet they cannot forget the depression they experienced under the Liberals' 20-year regime.
Mr. Speaker, imagine for a moment a riding like Saint-Maurice which 58,000 people call home and which saw 12,000 manufacturing jobs vanish over the 20 years Jean Chretien was in office. Few and far between are ridings in this country which lived through such a depression, yet now this same individual has begun to speak in various communities throughout the country- behind the back of the Leader of the Opposition-intent on keeping Canadians heavily indebted and arguing that deficits are not important.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if Liberal Members in this House do not see to it that Jean Chretien remain in the private sector, we on this side of the House will do it for them at the next election.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out for the benefit of this House how utterly dishonest the New Democratic Party were during the last election in my constituency. The defeated NPD candidate crisscrossed the constituency promising the erection of 22 senior citizen community centres, although this is under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. Gentlemen to my extreme left, this is the reason why your candidate is not sitting with you in this House today, and this is the reason why for the first time in 97 years my constituency elected a progressive conservative member.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me this morning; I will have other opportunities over the coming weeks to return to this matter, because the House of Commons in my view is the natural forum for this kind of debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Pronovost). He injected a bit of politics into the House of Commons. We are all aghast at that, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. friend indicated a concern about the environment and the fact that his Government has taken some initiatives. He failed to mention that one of the major initiatives taken by the Government was to cut programs for conservation and the development of alternate energy. Over the years, those programs have been gutted. The Hon. Member failed to mention that. I simply raise it for his information.
The Hon. Member also referred to the debt of the country. Under the Conservative Government the debt has increased almost 100 per cent. When the Conservatives took office the debt was $170 billion. Today it is in excess of $320 billion. On top of that, the Government plans to go ahead and purchase a very expensive fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice failed to indicate whether he supported the massive funding for nuclear-powered Hunter attack submarines. Perhaps in his response he will take the opportunity to indicate his position.
April 10, 1989

The Hon. Member also mentioned plant closures. I believe that we will have to get used to that fact, Mr. Speaker, now that we have signed the trade deal.
Over the past number of years the Province of Quebec has dumped an awful lot of its raw municipal sewage, both from industrial sewage and domestic sewage, directly into our water systems. Literally, hundreds of communities have been flushing toilets directly into the St. Lawrence River. This has been happening not only in Quebec, but I refer to Quebec because of the Hon. Member's constituency.
One of the ways to deal with that situation would be to introduce a municipal infrastructure program where the federal Government would participate with provincial Governments, which would participate with the local Government in one-third, one-third, and one-third funding in order to allow the local municipality to develop the proper sewage treatment facilities and the proper sewage and water infrastructure.
It is interesting to note that every single city and every single province in Canada agrees to participate in this funding co-operative. The only hold-out is the federal Government. The New Democratic Party has stated that it is in favour of supporting that type of positive initiative, as has the Official Opposition. Only the Conservatives have said that they are not interested in participating.
Every city, every province, and two out of the three political Parties in Canada believe in cleaning up our environment through the use of municipal infrastructure funding from the federal Government in co-operation with provincial and local Governments. How does the Hon. Member feel about that initiative? Would he take steps to encourage the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to introduce that in the upcoming Budget on April 27?


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his numerous questions. I would like to point out to the House however that if the Hon. Member's comments are any indication, clearly that New Democratic Member did not invent the calculator. Looking at what he said on the accumulated deficit in particular, I think everyone can see the deficit accumulated mainly when my predecessor Mr. Chretien and the Leader of the Opposition were ministers of Finance cannot disappear in a matter of months. I think that is quite clear.
The Address-Mr. Pronovost
This is why I would invite the Hon. New Democratic Member to take his calculator one more time and figure that out. Because if by any chance we could have made that deficit disappear within one year, immediately the Hon. Member would have risen in this House.
He always did anyway. He always rose every time this Government took important steps in a serious, competent, professional way to reduce the deficit over these last four years; that Hon. Member and his Party always advocated increasing the national deficit. It was never serious. Just like during the good old Creditiste days! And for that matter, I am reminded by many Western members of some Creditiste members who used to sit here and suggested we should print dollars with a dollar machine. In some way what some New Democratic Members are advocating is a modem version of the Social Credit we used to have in Quebec. Let us print dollars, Mr. Speaker, let us have a deficit! Not to worry, the debt will be paid back later on. Except that right now, nearly one-third of the national debt must be taken from taxes Canadian men and women are now paying, and we will no have no more leeway to pay it back further down the road because of the kind of mismanagement that has been going on for so many years, even though we would be glad if we could give social programs everything we would like to.
This is why this Government at this point in time, just as it has been these last four years, is committed to solve the mismanagement problems that arose during those previous years. Concerning the environment in this House, Mr. Speaker, as I said you only have to look at the kind of comments that were made last week. The Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party rises today to address the problems of pollution in Quebec, but last week, when we had a specific problem, no one in his caucus had a sensible question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Lucien Bouchard). No one in the NDP caucus, which shows an interest in Quebec every four years, bothered to rise in the House and address this particular issue.
Before the election, as I sat and watched the proceedings, the NDP Members all made a point of rising in the House and speaking French, and I congratulate those who did. But since November 21, Mr. Speaker, lo and behold, most Members of the New Democratic Party have forgotten their French, except perhaps for the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent).

April 10, 1989
The Address-Ms. Black
The NDP, which shows its concern for Quebec once every four years, has never been able to win a single seat in the province. And until the NDP learns its lesson. . .


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Hon. Member is a new Member of the House. I wonder if he would not think twice about condemning Members of Parliament for not being proficient in the other language of our country? I want to say that many of our Members are working hard to become proficient in the French language. We are proud of that initiative, Mr. Speaker, and that effort. I do not think it adds to the House of Commons when one Member criticises another Member of Parliament for not speaking in one language or another.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that most Members understood what I meant. Before November 21 they did speak French, and now, after November 21, they don't speak French any more on the NDP side. Canadians listening to us today understood perfectly what I meant, even Canadians in NDP ridings.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for the NDP was upset when he realized, four months after the election, that his caucus no longer spoke French here in the House. Mr. Speaker, they are very upset.
However, the people in the Opposition may still be frustrated about the results of the election on November 21, but we are taking concrete steps every day to help Canadians clean up the environment in this country.
We have taken steps and we will take more, and Canadians don't need the Opposition's negative comments, an Opposition that today, especially in the ranks of the socialists, is unable to come forward with concrete alternatives when criticizing the Government's policies.
So far, Mr. Speaker, all the initiatives on environmental matters have been taken on this side of the House, and for that very reason I am proud to be part of this Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for New-Westminster-Burnaby (Ms. Black).


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to address this House in response to the Throne Speech given by the Governor General last week. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) showed his contempt for the Constitution of Canada by saying that he did not think it was worth the paper it was written on. Well, I would like to say that his comment would apply better to the Throne Speech and the comments that were not made on the issue of equality of women.
I have received many letters, Mr. Speaker, from groups and individuals concerning the Government's funding of anti-equality groups. How should they view the assurance of a commitment to equality in the Throne Speech in light of funding to a group which opposes women's inclusion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
A recent article in Saturday Night quoted some Tory Members of Parliament on the subject of women's rights. I do not know if these Members actually said these things, but if they did, it does show an appalling lack of appreciation for what the women who have gone before us have done and for what was accomplished by the women who are struggling.
I speak of women like Agnes MacPhail, who was the first woman Member of Parliament and a member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation who overcame incredible barriers to sit in this Chamber. I speak of the women of Canada who struggled long and hard to win the right to vote for the women of Canada, and I speak of the women today who staff shelters for battered women, the rape crisis centres, women who are still fighting and winning in the courts, women who are attempting to change policy and build a future where our children can live in peace with our world neighbours, each participating as full and equal citizens.
These women working together in groups to provide services and to promote positive change are the women who deserve support from the Government, not groups who are trying to turn back the clock.
April 10, 1989

Yet another example of the Government's failure to live up to its pretty words about equality is in the area of language training for immigrant women. During the election campaign, the Government threw some money at language training, but continued to refuse to remove the discrimination against immigrant women inherent in government language training programs. Government policy still makes it very difficult for many immigrant women to learn an official language of Canada and escape their job ghettos, as they are not eligible for the same training allowances as most immigrant men.
I was pleased to see in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is now prepared to bring its unemployment insurance program in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I hope that this means that natural fathers will now have the same parental leave benefits under the UI program as do adoptive fathers. I sincerely hope that it does not mean that all adoptive benefits will be taken away. This Government has deliberately imposed inequality on young Canadian families by putting the onus on natural mothers to take care of infants.
In the Throne Speech, the Government promised to amend the unemployment insurance program to supposedly improve the program's fairness. Everyone who has suffered from this Government's idea of fairness has taken this to mean, especially in light of deficit reduction, cuts to the UI program.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. MacDougall) said that those who need UI benefits would continue to receive them. There are already many who need UI benefits who are not currently receiving them.
I received a letter from a woman in British Columbia who was experiencing a very difficult pregnancy. Her work involved standing at a cash register all day, and this contributed to heavy bleeding. She qualified for UI medical benefits for a time while she was going through this experience, but when the time came for her to then collect on maternity benefits, she discovered that she was ineligible for benefits because of medical benefits. Is this the fairness the Government is talking about?
Max Yalden, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, stated last week that women and visible minorities in the Public Service fare worse than in the labour force at large. I am pleased to see that the Government is finally recognising its failure in this area. It mentioned the task force on barriers to the employment and promotion of women in the Public
The Address-Ms. Black
Service. The issue of workplace discrimination against women and minorities is already well documented. It has been studied to death.
Women have been telling the Government for the past decade how totally unfair the Government is as an employer. We have already seen Nicole Morgan's excellent report on women in the Public Service to attest to this fact. I have a prime example of the Government's commitment to women in the Public Service. There is not one word in the Throne Speech about enforcing the Government's own employment equity targets or legislation. As well, in the area of pay equity in federal jurisdiction, employers are not required to prepare pay equity plans. This leaves it up to the individual to research his or her own discriminatory situation and make a complaint on their own to the Human Rights Commission. There must be enforcement.
All of this means that the Government has no commitment to equality, except on paper. The idea that I would like to convey is that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) has a commitment to equality, let us see him enforce his own legislation.
Mr. Yalden also speaks of major delays in the Public Service pay equity study. This study has not produced any results in four years. I quote the Human Rights Commission Report:
Administrative delay and bureaucratic infighting remain more the hallmark of the program thus far than any genuine move toward pay equity. Either Government means business on equal pay or it does not.
I suggest that it does not.
The Throne Speech did contain one sentence about the Government remaining committed to a national child care program. How can the Government remain committed to such a program when it was never committed to a truly national program with national standards in the first place?
The one sentence in the Throne Speech about child care seems to mean that the Government remains committed to an inadequate piece of legislation. Child care advocates unanimously denounced this legislation. The Prime Minister's commitment to child care was so great that he refused to wait just a few short hours before the Senate passed the Bill before calling the general election. His commitment was so great that he stated on national television that he did not need to consult with child advocacy groups. Now I am very much afraid that with the Government's fetish about deficit reduction, it will be the children of Canada who suffer from deficit reduction.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Ms. Black
I want to commend the Government on its annouce-ment of a royal commission on new reproductive technologies. As you may know, this is a New Democratic Party policy and, as such, New Democrats have been calling for a royal commission for many years. It only goes to show, as others have said, that New Democrats have a policy that is worth stealing.
A royal commission is necessary. It is very necessary in order to gather information on how new reproductive technologies will affect our family structures, to determine the legal status of surrogacy contracts and of children who now have two biological mothers.
We need to think about what regulations are necessary to prevent the commercialisation of women's reproductive capacities so that poor women are never in the future used as baby factories. We need a royal commission that is impartial.
I have some concerns about the royal commission, however. These new reproductive technologies have been developed and administered overwhelmingly by men. It is important that at least 50 per cent of this royal commission be made up of women and for all of its members to be aware of women's equality issues. The mandate should include specific consideration of women's reproductive health and women's rights. Since the New Democratic Party policy on a royal commission was used, I hope the Government will also use the caring philosophy behind that policy.
I also would like an assurance from the Government that this royal commission will be given a mandate to travel across the country and receive input from women's groups and women involved in the process, as well as the medical and legal experts from all regions of Canada.
The Government has side-stepped the issue of abortion again. The Throne Speech contains only a vague reference to abortion, but absolutely nothing about the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, which is surely the real key to reducing the number of abortions in Canada.
Within the past four years the Government has cut the funding to Planned Parenthood by $61,000. The Government is now talking about cuts to the Unemployment Insurance Program, which comprises maternity leave, and economically harsh measures to cut the deficit, which will make it even harder for young mothers to survive economically.
I share the concern of my hon. friends who have spoken to the Throne Speech on the question of the universality of programs. The Government has already short-changed mothers and poor families by deindexing family allowance. I hope no other step-by-step destruction of the Family Allowance Program is planned. The Throne Speech seems to be rather vague on this matter.
In my riding we have two food banks that have been running for a number of years. We also have children who go to school hungry. That is the reality of poverty. It strikes young children. It strikes senior citizens attempting to get by on very limited pensions. It strikes young families who are caught in a never ending struggle against a never ending cycle of poverty.
The spectre of homelessness is no longer unique to other parts of the world. It has arrived on our doorstep. It is our reality in Canada.
I am seriously worried that the Government has closed its eyes to the reality of Canadian life. I am worried that the attack on universality is an attempt to demean those who most need this economic security.
The Government has blatantly neglected the needs of many Canadians by failing to address the rapid acceleration of interest rates.
This lack of concern has meant that the worsening central interest rate policy is now at a critical stage. Arbitrarily designed to cool inflation in the hot southern Ontario economy, this policy is strangling development in every other region.
Why has the federal Government failed to listen to the Canadian Premiers who have called for moderation in interest rates? Why has the federal Government turned its back on the small business person in my home province of British Columbia, which, while wishing to expand or begin a business venture, cannot afford to borrow the money to do so?
Why has the Government turned away from the young family faced with skyrocketing mortgage rates for its first home because housing prices in Toronto are out of control?
If the Federal Government were truly interested in deficit control, it would realize that high interest rates contribute to the worsening of the deficit. It knows that its own Department of Finance figures state that a 1 per cent increase in interest rates per year adds $1.5 billion to the annual deficit. Instead, the Government seems to have chosen to strike out against those who most need the help.
April 10, 1989

It will slash the Unemployment Insurance Program at a time when cut-backs and lack of job development have meant that productive Canadians, who want to work, instead must rely on unemployment insurance or welfare benefits.
The Government will introduce what is perhaps the harshest, most regressive tax in recent history, a national sales tax, which will hit hardest at low and middle income Canadians, a tax which is nothing if not inflationary.
Women make up the majority of the poor in this country. Women make up a majority of the elderly. One out of every two unattached elderly women in Canada is living below the poverty line. The Government first tried to deindex their pensions and now in the Throne Speech has announced its intention to take away even more money from these poor women through regressive sales tax. Many low-income people do not file income tax returns. They will never see this sales tax money again, and they certainly will not see it in the form of social programs after government cut-backs.
The incidence of low income in my riding is 23 per cent. Almost one quarter of my constituents will be extremely hard hit by this Tory tax measure. Why does the Government not tax the 60,000 profitable corporations that do not pay any tax rather than taxing the families of Canada into poverty?
In a rather wonderous turn of cheek, the Government has suddenly seen the environmental imperative. Canadians may be excused for approaching this pronouncement with a tinge of cynicism, cynicism which would be unwarranted had we not seen massive eliminations within the federal environmental programs just a few short years ago, had we not known that this is a Government which has no national vision of the needs of Canadians. I would suspect that someone saw a poll which said that the environment was of concern to Canadians and suddenly the Government is talking about it.
As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, I have several concerns over the present condition of future plans for the Fraser River. One third of my province is considered to be a part of the Fraser River
The Address-Mr. Robitaille
watershed. It has played an integral part in our province's economic and social development. It is one of the largest salmon streams on the West Coast and it remains a vastly important component of my constituency of New Westminster-Burnaby.
Such a critical system can no longer be taken for granted. The reality today is that the Fraser River is seriously polluted. Emissions from pulp and paper mills, effluent from upstream communities and erosion from decimated forests have endangered the Fraser River. It is time to develop a multi-faceted approach to this situation. We must work together to see that toxins are stopped at source. The need for reforestation is immediate. Closer monitoring and strong penalties must be enforced for those who continue to discharge pollutants. Now as at no other time in our history, it is the time for commitment to the environment. I join with other Canadians in saying that the Tory record is just not strong enough in this regard.
There is talk in the Throne Speech of a caring and a compassionate society. The Government is offering a spot of compassion to the homeless people rather than shelter and food. It is offering a few minutes of compassion to women rather than concrete measures to promote equality. It is offering compassion for the dead birds of the B.C. coast rather than any sort of effective action to prevent environmental disasters. In the future Canadians want a great deal more from this Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Robitaille).


M. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak in this House as the elected representative of the riding of Terrebonne and on behalf of its citizens.
I would like to thank the people of my riding for having put their trust in me on November 21 last in a resounding way, with a majority of close to 23,000 votes.
Mr. Speaker, my intention is to be up to the task and that is why I am speaking today in this House.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Robitaille
The riding of Terrebonne is located on Montreal's North Shore. The Mille-Isles River from east to west and the Saint-Lawrence River runs along its eastern tip.
Cousisting mainly of the regional municipalities of L'Assomption and des Moulins, Terrebonne is the most densely populated riding in Quebec. With 92,000 voters and close to 125,000 people, it is the fourth largest in Canada.
Its inhabitants are mainly young people, young families, couples with one, two or three children, with both parents on the labour market taking an active part in the life of their family and their community. For these people, a promising future still means a lot.
Mr. Speaker, the future also means a lot for our parents, our senior citizens. Fond of our traditional values, having helped to build this great country, they are entitled to a secure retirement. They are entitled to it and they deserve it, Mr. Speaker. You will understand the anger they felt when they realized that that security may have been jeopardized by the irresponsible borrowing, the thoughtlessness and the total lack of vision of the former Liberal government which had deceived them. Let us make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the national debt was not created by our government. We unfortunately inherited it in 1984 along with many other unpleasant surprises.
Although I recognize that recalling these facts will not help in any way to put things straight, it can be useful to do so if only to show these people that we are firmly committed not to repeat these errors, despite the futile criticisms of the Liberal and New Democratic opposition and their desperate efforts to bring back a system which nobody wants except maybe those who had the privilege to be associated with them.
My riding, as I have said earlier, is made up of two major regions where the extraordinary and "dynamic" development reflect this will to succeed and to excel, this openness and this determination to take up the many challenges awaiting us in the next century.
The people I represent, like other Canadians, are aware of the many problems facing us, but they are ready to tackle them. I too am aware of these problems, and like them I am confident that we have the capacity, the imagination and the intelligence to overcome them. Some might feel I am overly optimistic, but the truth is that I have confidence as a Canadian, our most precious natural resource, namely self-confidence.
What the people want, Mr. Speaker, is a responsible government, a government which gives them the facts instead of constantly trying to sweeten the pill for political or partisan considerations, a government which takes its responsibilities, which trusts Canadians and respects their maturity.
That is why Canadians elected us and why they did not elect you. The Canadian people want the truth, and the Throne Speech gives an accurate picture of the current situation in this country and a clear indication of the Government's intentions and its firm resolve to act responsibly where others have failed to do so.
Since 1984, Canada's economic performance has outpaced virtually all of the world's major industrialized nations. Revenues increased considerably, and the number of jobs rose steadily to a total of $1.3 million between 1984 and 1988. The annual deficit has declined by approximately $10 billion. Our challenge is to maintain that expansion in a world economic environment that is increasingly subject to inflationary pressures. Our worst problem is not the annual deficit but the enormous cumulative debt we have acquired over the last 20 years.
Despite the Government's efforts since 1984, the interest on our present debt costs Canadians 31 cents of every tax dollar. That is a lot! Where will it all end, Mr. Speaker, if we do not take appropriate action? Forty cents, fifty cents of every dollar? No, Mr. Speaker. The answer is simple: Either we start paying today or we suffer tomorrow and send the bill to our children. We will not leave them that kind of legacy. Never, Mr. Speaker!
Like most Canadians, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand. During the next four years we will have to deal with the need to reduce the deficit while taking new initiatives. However, our work in the economic sector goes beyond reducing the deficit. The current federal sales tax is inefficient, inequitable and obsolete, and is costing us jobs. The present system favours imports at the expense of our exports and will make Canada lose nearly $8 billion in economic spinoffs and economic activity in this country. Our two opposition parties are well aware of this. We will replace the present sales tax with a fairer sales tax that will ensure the Canadian economy is fully competitive and that will maintain a stable source of revenues to finance social programs.
However, Mr. Speaker, to me the most important measure in this Throne Speech is the decision to develop the skills of Canadians. It means we will adopt a comprehensive human resource strategy for the 1990s,
April 10, 1989

which will include literacy, education, training and re-training programs. Like the people in my riding, Canadians don't want to spend years on unemployment insurance. They don't want charity. They want to earn an honest living, with dignity. They want good jobs. They want to acquire the skills they need to get those jobs.
Our objective will be to make the Unemployment Insurance Program fairer and more effective by directing more resources toward active training, to help people find other jobs or simply better jobs, instead of paying them for doing nothing.
By maintaining our efforts to reduce the deficit and bring down inflation and interest rates, and especially to guarantee the continued existence of our social programs; through the reform of federal sales tax; with a sustained commitment to multilateral negotiations; through investment in new technology; by continuing our approach to regional development; by updating our trade legislation; through further privatization; and with a human resource strategy for the 1990s, we will be able to build a stronger and more competitive economy. To sum up, an economy that leads to the kind of jobs and prosperity needed to sustain our quality of life, the quality of life of every Canadian man and woman. This is what the people want. This is what we have been elected for, and this is what we are going to achieve, Mr. Speaker.
As I said earlier, the eastern part of my constituency borders on the great St. Lawrence River. Furthermore, two important rivers, the Mille Isles and the Assomption flow through my constituency. River pollution and environment problems are a daily fact of life in my constituency. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is of real concern to my constituents. Just like them, I am very much aware of the actions and intentions put forward by this Government in the Throne Speech.
I must add that the steps taken over these last four years by this Government, as well as the $ 110-million clean-up plan for the St. Lawrence River, have met with very much satisfaction in my constituency.
The environment priority in the Throne Speech points to our concern for and commitment to the quality of the environment for every Canadian man and woman.
During the past year, the people understood that the world as a whole must face an environment challenge of unprecedented scale. We need not look for scape-goats, nor should we make this a near partisan issue. The time
The Address-Mr. Robitaille
has come for action. This Government's goal is to develop policies based on the concept of viable development, which meaning the interconnection between States, the global environment and the need for economic growth.
In that area, thanks to this Government's action, Canada on October 17, 1988 was complimented for its exemplary role in connection with the global environment. Dr. Noel Brown, from the United Nations Environment Protection Program, stated before the Association for the Control of Air Pollution, an international group composed of hundreds of members, that Canada set an example for nations around the world to follow in the area of environmental protection, and to quote Dr. Brown:
If a Nobel Prize were created for analyzing the complexities of
sustainable development, that is, making economic decisions that
respect the environment, Canada would be one of the candidates.
I believe that we should be proud of such comments that prove beyond any doubt that our actions and policies are sound and appropriate, and they encourage us to continue in the same direction.
With this in mind, the Government will participate in the establishment of a centre for the international promotion of sustainable development, to be located in Winnipeg.
Still along the same lines, it is important to mention as well that very recently, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) was given new responsibilities in order that environmental considerations would be fully integrated into the overall decision-making process.
Environmental protection depends not only on the Government, but on every one of us. That is why we will try to make all citizens more aware of environmental problems. An environmental partnership fund will be created and the manufacture and use of environmentally friendly products, as well as promotion and recycling programs, will be encouraged.
Mr. Speaker, let me now point out the remarkable work of two environmental organizations that started in my riding, namely the A court d'eau Movement and the Quebec Environment Foundation. Its founding president, Louis-Paul Allard, and one of its most active members, Arthur Dube, are doing outstanding work and making a most positive contribution to the environmental cause. We must work in partnership with these people who are devoting a large part of their life, Mr. Speaker, to their fellow citizens' welfare.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Robitaille
Environmental protection does not only involve reducing the harmful effects of pollution. It also creates economic opportunities.
We shall therefore encourage the growth of the Canadian environmental industry and research and development, not only to find solutions to our environmental problems, but also to find export markets for equipment, goods and know-how.
So continued government efforts for environmental protection, increased citizen participation and support for our environmental industry are the three key elements of a comprehensive environmental protection strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I do not have much time left to conclude my speech. I would have a lot to say because the Speech from the Throne says a lot about it: there are many commitments in the Speech from the Throne.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying quite simply to the House that the speech from the Throne fully meets the expectations of my constituents and of all Canadian men and women.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker... and of course we could talk about a number of other issues such as the ratification of the Meech Lake Agreement and the national day care program which is so important to the people of my riding. Unfortunately it was put on the back burner because of the uncompromising attitude of Liberal senators just before the elections. They did not feel like endorsing that project, and many others indeed. The Senate has to be the undemocratically elected House...
Mr. Speaker, the contents of the Throne from the Speech meet the expectations of my constituents. For all these reasons and to ensure prosperity for all Canadians, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the motion concerning the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Calgary Southeast (Mr. Richardson) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau).


Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Rocheleau).


Mr. Rocheleau:: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to some of the remarks of our colleague the Hon. Member for Terrebonne and, like him, I am very much concerned about Canada's current deficit. Still I would point out to
our Conservative colleague that his Government has been in office here in Ottawa since 1984 and that in that time the Canadian debt has doubled.
Mr. Speaker, I am also quite concerned over the fact that 30 cents of each dollar have to be set aside to service the debt. I appreciate that the Government has to find concrete solutions to reduce the Canadian debt and cut down the deficit, but it has to do so in such a way that inflation will not soar to the higher levels we had in the past.
Mr. Speaker, there is a question I should like to ask my colleague from Terrebonne. We have been told that the Government will implement a new sales tax to replace the existing provincial sales tax. I would ask my colleague whether discussions are being held with the various provinces about this new tax. As you would know, Mr. Speaker, several Canadian provinces do not have a sales tax, while the taxes levied by others vary widely from one jurisdiction to the next.
I wish to know whether the Federal Government intends to implement this new sales tax, what impact it will have on inflation on the one hand, and the current interest rates on the other. Knowing what influence interest rates have on Canada's debt, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in the present circumstances and in view of all the Canadian provinces request to bring down the interest rates, the Government is moving in the right direction.


Mr. Robitaille:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's comment and his question which I am pleased to address.
As to the deficit, Mr. Speaker, let me recall some simple figures. In 1980-81, you had a deficit of $13,522 billion which had increased to $38,324 billion by 1984-85. The national debt which was at $18,523 billion in 1970-71 under a previous Liberal Government had increased to $199 billion by 1984-85, to a projected $293,351 billion in 1987-88.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when we were elected in 1984, we inherited an annual deficit of some $38 billion. Even if we managed to reduce the deficit by $10 billion, it is clear that there still remains a deficit of $28 billion per year, and the Hon. Member will understand that a deficit is something that accumulates, and it did continue to accumulate even during the past four years.
April 10, 1989

The Address-Mr. Comuzzi
On the other hand, I could have understood if the Hon. Member had asked me the following question: How is it that our national debt was not higher over the past four years? It would have been higher if we had not taken appropriate measures.
Concerning the sales tax reform, the Hon. Member seems to ask whether we intend to carry out a sales tax reform. I think he is about the only one who is not yet aware of that. We have been talking about it for quite some time now and almost everybody knows it.
Even certain financial critics of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party recognized before the election that our Federal sales tax scheme was somewhat archaic and inadequate.
As to whether there are negotiations, again I am surprised that the Hon. Member who once was a Member of the Quebec National Assembly is not aware that; yes, there are negotiations going on with the provinces.
The purpose of these negotiations. . . you will understand that I am just a Member of this House, I am not the Minister of Finance and I am not involved in these negotiations. Yet, I can tell the Hon. Member this: I trust that we will be able to co-operate with the provinces and develop a tax system which is more equitable and does not overburden the Canadian economy.


Mr. Whittaker:: I listened with interest to the discussion of the Hon. Member regarding seniors and their entitlement to a good pension, to safety, and to security.
In speaking to seniors over the last few years I note that since 1985 there has been some apprehension regarding the Government and its attitude toward seniors and the security the Hon. Member spoke of that seniors are seeking. In particular, there are insecure feelings among seniors that the Government is not doing what it should to ensure that seniors can live with that security and that they have adequate pensions in order that they can live above the poverty level. There are inadequate pension provisions for those seniors who have not worked for a wage, but who have worked as homemakers.
Will the Hon. Member encourage his Government to work toward ensuring that the homemaking spouse is provided with a pension at least equal to that of the wage-earning spouse?


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Concerning our senior citizens, I should like to remind him, when he referred to their insecurity, that his Party and the Liberal Party did not hesitate during the last election campaign to alarm our senior citizens and foster insecurity. They are themselves the creators of insecurity!
Mr. Speaker, I should add simply that this sort of insecurity being felt by senior citizens is the result of the indifference, the deficit and the poor administration of a Liberal Government which over 20 years jeopardized our senior citizens' programs and security. I will urge my Government to take the necessary steps to counteract the dire effects of a deficit, a national debt which definitely endangers our social programs, namely those for senior citizens.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: On several occasions the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr Robitaille) has stated that the Department of Finance was going to replace the present sales tax system with a fairer sales tax system. I know of no sales tax system that is fair. It has always been my understanding that a sales tax system is regressive. It affects those people who can least afford to pay. The aged are affected by a sales tax system, as are young families with children. Information comes to us that non-prescribed drugs and denture work will be affected by the new sales tax system. Therefore, it really is a regressive sales tax system.
Does the Hon. Member anticipate that this fairer sales tax system that he talks about will affect those very people whom we, as Members of Parliament, are supposed to be protecting? Second, I would like to question his arithmetic. He has some confusion with respect to what a debt is, and what the deficit is. It is my understanding that the deficit is that which we do not collect during the course of the year, and the accumulated deficits make up the debt of this country. It seems that he is blaming the former Government for the accumulated debt. He seems to forget that four years ago, when the present Government took office, the debt of this country was $150 billion and today it is $322 billion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say that the Hon. Member's time has expired. If I have unanimous consent, I will give the Hon. Member a minute to answer the question. Do I have unanimous consent?

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Harvard


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. When he refers to a sales tax reform, it is clear that the Hon. Member and his Party played the prophets of doom and gloom by prematurely announcing to the public that medicine and food would be taxed, when we have just indicated that the sales tax reform is being negotiated with the provinces. It is certainly premature, and I warn the Hon. Member not to make such insinuation without knowing exactly what the sales tax reform will be all about. The Hon. Member stated that a tax reform is always regressive. Just to hear him talk, it is easy to realize that he adhere to the notion helped by the Liberal Party whereby all tax schemes are regressive; That party has always perceived that in this way.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that if the Hon. Member feels I am somewhat confused about the distinction between deficit and debt, there is no doubt that the Canadian people are just as confused.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome this opportunity to take part in the Throne Speech debate and to have some of my views recorded.
We got to know this Government quite well in the past four years. We watch with some fascination and considerable distress as it pursues its right-wing agenda. We know its extreme faith in the market-driven system to the point that it can be all things to all people. We know that this Government wants to align the Canadian economy with the economic model in the United States. Certainly the recently implemented trade agreement is a reflection of that. Of course, this has been reflected in the Throne Speech of last week.
We were hoping for something a little better, but I suppose that is unrealistic. After all a leopard cannot change its spots. I am afraid that this country and its economy will drift further and further into the jungle of unfettered capitalism. It is going to be more dog eat dog, putting profits before people, thereby widening the gap between rich and poor.
In the next few minutes, I would like to touch on a number of themes including deficit reduction, the need for a caring and compassionate society and, of course, the concerns of the West, particularly my home province of Manitoba.
Let us talk first about the deficit. It is, after all, the talk of the town and of the country. The present Government has raised the profile of the deficit to unprecedented heights, and it used last week's Throne Speech for that particular purpose. No one likes deficits. It would be better if we could clear the accounts and have revenues meeting expenses. The voters tell us all the time, especially in the past few months, that they want the deficit addressed in a very serious way. We as responsible politicians should respond to that in a responsible way.
Deficit reduction will have to be done in an orderly fashion and with sensitivity, and certainly it cannot be carried out upon the backs of poor Canadians. After all, they are the last who should be waging this fight. While there is a need to bring the deficit down, we do have to question some of the Government's motives. I ask the question, Mr. Speaker, why this extraordinary and sudden preoccupation of the Government with the deficit right now?
This preoccupation by the Government regarding the deficit started the minute the polls closed on November 21. Why was there not this preoccupation about the deficit during the election campaign? After all, the deficit existed during the campaign. Why was there not this preoccupation and this talk of deficit before the election campaign?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Harvard: The deficit was there. Did that stop the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of this country from making promises totalling some $16 billion? No, it did not. Therefore we have to question the motives of the Government. The deficit was there when the Government decided to purchase nuclear submarines. Did that stop the Government? No, it did not. So why this sudden preoccupation with the deficit? Why not six months ago? Why not a year ago? Why not at any time during the period when this Government was pushing the national debt upward from a level of $170 billion to where it is now at about $322 billion? When the Government was spending the money at that time, was it concerned about the deficit? It does not seem so.
I ask the question, what is going on with the Government? Is this some kind of a set-up? Is it a trick on the part of the Government to cut social spending? Is it a trick on the part of the Government to somehow weaken the institution of the Government in this country, thereby weakening our ability to govern ourselves? It certainly would fit in very nicely with the free trade agenda, would it not? So, Mr. Speaker, we have to question the government's motives.
April 10, 1989

I also want to talk about the need for a caring and compassionate society. I want to address that matter because the Government reminds us of its devotion to a caring and compassionate society, but of course we all remember what this Government tried to do a few years back concerning the old age pension. It is almost certain, if you can take Government words at face value, that the unemployment insurance program will be the next target. After all, the Minister responsible for UIC has said that only those in need will get benefits, and that has a kind of ominous ring to it.
It would be rather ironic at this particular time to be targeting the unemployment insurance program. I say that because in recent weeks and months, particularly since this Government was re-elected, we have witnessed and experienced in this country an unprecedented spate of mergers, take-overs, acquisitions and that has produced lay-offs and plants closures in almost every province. I think this would be a very bad time to strip down the unemployment insurance program.
Let us look at this spate of mergers and take-overs and consider where is the caring and compassion in that process. Some of the lay-offs took place without any notice or consultation whatsoever. The suddenness of such a lay-off to a worker is frightening. Workers are at work and one day are faced with the pink slip, their jobs gone with a simple handshake. There is no reason given for the lay-off, except for the general explanation that it is good for the company, good for the industry and will strength the operation and efficiency of the company.
One must ask the larger question: What is in it for the community at large? What is in it for the country as a whole? Does this increased concentration of industry produce jobs? No. Does it produce better technology? There is certainly no guarantee of that. Does it result in greater competition? Not often. Does it bring retail prices down? No. In fact, it would probably allow prices to float upward.
When we look at the spate of mergers we must ask what is in them for ordinary Canadians who are trying hard every day to eke out a living and support their families. In Winnipeg a couple of months ago we were told that one of our beer plants would be closed. Some of us who live in that city might look to that kind of announcement with some favour if only knew that we
The Address-Mr. Harvard
were not sharing only the pain, since there is pain when jobs are lost. After the announcement, one of the companies involved said that as a result of the take-over the company was looking forward to dramatic increases in sales in the United States. That is good news because one assumes more sales means more profits. But where is the benefit for the Province of Manitoba in this case?
If more sales mean more profits, more production and more jobs, will we be included in the action? It is not likely. If anything, some Manitobans will probably have to go elsewhere in the country to seek the jobs that may be generated as a result of the increased sales in the U.S. market. We have already witnessed that in the Province of Manitoba. Workers who want to live in their beloved province have had to go elsewhere to find work. We have to be sceptical. Big business in Canada is restructuring the economy. Very often, those of us in the region feel that we are getting the short end of the stick. While this happens the Government not only seems to be quite indifferent to the process, but in fact approves of it.
The view of the Government seems to be: "Let the marketplace decide. The marketplace always knows best". That is not the Canadian way. If Canadians had always followed the dictates of the marketplace, going back to 1867, it is quite unlikely that we would have had the transcontinental railway or the Trans-Canada Highway. We certainly would not have had the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board or even the Canadian Wheat Board.
I also want to talk about worker adjustment. That is an issue that needs to be addressed in the wake of the implementation of the trade agreement, and which must be considered in the context of a caring and compassionate society. During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that victims of the trade agreement would be taken care of. He was showing a sensitivity to anyone who may lose their job as a result of the agreement. I think many Canadians believed the Prime Minister and, toward that end, the de Grandpre Commission was established. Many of us not only wanted to believe in that particular process, we thought it would be serious and looked forward to its recommendations. That was not to be. Only a few weeks ago we were told that the problem is too big and workers who would be laid off or were already laid off as a result of the trade agreement could not be identified. Tell that to the victims of the trade agreement. They know.

April 10, 1989
The Government's failure in this regard is hardly consistent with its talk about the need for a caring and compassionate society. Of course, a Government that is dedicated to caring and compassion certainly does not trample on the low and middle income earners of this country. But that is exactly what it will do with the implementation of a national sales tax. It is a regressive tax that will tax every Canadian, rich or poor, for goods and services they require. It will be inflationary. In fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) confirmed that the other day when he said it would be inflationary.
The tax will be an administrative nightmare. There will be all kinds of red tape and paperwork. It will be a horrendous burden on the shoulders of small businessmen in this country.
What will the Government tax? It will tax music lessons, for example. In fact, a woman in my riding says that this tax is a direct attack on families and their children. The Government will tax haircuts, movies, cab rides, visits to the dentist, repairs to homes, tax on sales of new homes, life and property insurance, fares on trains and buses. The list goes on and on. It will tax services by credit unions and banks, services by lawyers, electricians, plumbers and painters. There will even be an application of this tax on services provided by commercially operated homes for seniors and the infirm. It will be a bonanza for the tax man. As a result of this national sales tax, billions of dollars will flow out of the pockets of Canadians and into the coffers of the Government. So much for the caring and compassionate society described by the Government.
There is also the issue of Established Programs Financing. The Government has weakened its commitment in the area of EPF payments. There has been a drop of 2 per cent in the growth rate since 1986. This has a direct impact on the health care system in the country and on post-secondary education because 71 per cent of EPF payments go to the health care system in Canada and the remaining 29 per cent goes to post-secondary education.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have two minutes remaining in his speech plus 10 minutes for questions and comments after three o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the House the recent decision of Air Canada to terminate its DC-9 service in Cape Breton. This is another economic blow to the economy of Cape Breton. Not only has Air Canada reduced the quality of service to the people of Cape Breton but it has also reduced the staff at the Sydney Airport. I find it interesting that tickets for Air Canada's smaller planes which are replacing the DC-9s are at the same price if not higher than the DC-9 fares. How can Air Canada justify this and then turn around and at the same time displace 46 permanent employees?
It is very clear that the Government of Canada does not believe in equality of economic opportunity for all Canadians. We in Cape Breton need a first-class airline service, and this decision underlines the fact that the Government of Canada is not really committed to regional economic development in that it is leaving that function solely to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Tories have been arguing for deregulation for quite some time. Now, we, the people of Cape Breton, see the real impact of deregulation and what it will mean for smaller communities across Canada; namely, cuts, cuts, and more cuts.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday at Val Marie in southwestern Saskatchewan, sod was turned marking the start of the visitors' centre for the Grasslands National Park. The Grasslands is Canada's 29th national park and Saskatchewan's second. This 350 square mile area will preserve for all time the last remnants of native prairie in North America.
April 10, 1989

The park not only protects the many natural features of the Grasslands but also saves endangered wildlife and birds and unique cultural and archaelogical treasures. Several million dollars will be spent for acquisitions and development in the Grasslands over the next five years. Land will be acquired exclusively through voluntary sale, thereby respecting the private property rights of ranching families.
Canada's national parks system is the only one in the world with such a grassland reserve, a unique ecosystem in the natural heritage of Canada. I congratulate both Governments and especially all those individuals and groups who persevered in making the Grasslands National Park a reality.



POVERTY


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I had the opportunity to be at Queen's Park in Toronto to welcome the March on Poverty walkers as they arrived from across Ontario. I am from British Columbia and we in British Columbia know all too well the growing problem of poverty with our large food banks and our school programs to feed hungry children.
I read with alarm the New Brunswick Minister's task force report outlining New Brunswick's growing problems of poverty and inadequate housing. However, I was shocked and dismayed to find that in Ontario, the most wealthy and affluent part of Canada, there is also a growing problem of poverty. People on low incomes are being driven further into poverty by the total lack of affordable housing.
I call upon the Government to take steps to bring in the needed child care program, to increase funding for affordable housing and to insist that the provinces provide adequate income security programs. Canada is not a third world country. There is no excuse for having 20 per cent of our children living in poverty. We in the New Democratic Party demand that this Government act and meet its responsibilities now.



TRIBUTE TO INUIT LEADER MARK R. GORDON

Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mark R. Gordon, a prominent
Inuit leader from northern Quebec who died in Montreal on Friday. Mark was 36 years old.
Mark helped negotiate the James Bay and northern Quebec land claims settlement during the 1970s. He also served as president of Makivik Corporation, the organization set up by northern Quebec Inuit to manage the claim settlement funds. He was an eloquent spokesman for Inuit in the aboriginal constitutional negotiations with first Ministers over the last number of years.
All Inuit are mourning the untimely and unfortunate death of this intelligent and articulate young man who worked so hard for the good of his people. The aboriginal people of Canada have lost an outstanding colleague. Canadians have lost a leader of national stature. All those who knew him, including Members of this House, will remember him for his dedication and commitment. We will remember his contribution to the Inuit across the circumpolar world and to all of Canada.



WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS WON BY CANADIAN

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Milwaukee, Canada's women's team skipped by Heather Houston and our men's team skipped by Pat Ryan both won their respective World Curling Championships. I realize that the rules of this House prohibit me from using this occasion for congratulatory messages, but as a frustrated old curler who has been trying for 30 years to draw to the four foot, I must at least take this opportunity to join with all Canadians who share the pride of having these two fine teams return Canada to the position of world curling supremacy.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, April 6, at least 2,000 Canadians of Lebanese origin conducted a peaceful, orderly demonstration on Parliament Hill. They were protesting the destruction, violence and terror which has plagued the citizens of Lebanon for 15 years of war caused by the invasion of foreigners. Their plea was strong and clear for Canada to use all its diplomatic levers through the United Nations to achieve peace in Lebanon.

April 10, 1989
Last Friday, an unfortunate and regrettable incident took place on Parliament Hill. Charles Yakoub, a Canadian who was bom in Beirut, Lebanon, apparently became overly distraught over the plight of his parents who live in Lebanon. Since the recent bombardment of East Beirut, his parents have been living underground with no water and no electricity.
While the bus hijacking incident will have to be dealt with by the courts, I know all Hon. Members of the House will agree with me that this one isolated incident which ended, fortunately, without harm to anyone, will in no way diminish the respect we have for the outstanding contributions made to our Canadian society over many years by the thousands of Canadians of Lebanese origin.



WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS-TRIBUTE TO CANADIAN TEAMS

Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am pleased to announce that yesterday, Canadian rinks swept both the men's and the women's world curling titles in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I am sure that all Hon. Members want to join me in congratulating the victorious Thunder Bay team of skip Heather Houston, lead Tracy Kennedy, second Diane Adams, third Lorraine Lang and alternate Gloria Taylor who beat Trine Trulson's Norwegian rink. This team showed the chief umpires that they not only came to curl but they also came to win. This marks the fifth time in six years that our women's side has won the world championships.
Congratulations are also in order for Pat Ryan's Edmonton rink. It is events such as this which make us all prouder to be Canadians. It reminds us that rural and small-town Canada are part of the fabric which makes this country so great. Good stuff, Heather! Good stuff, Bill! Good stuff, Thunder Bay!



NATIVE PEOPLE


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on March 30, the new Willie J. Happyjack School was officially
opened in Waswanipi, Abitibi. It has 20 classrooms from junior kindergarten to secondary V inclusive.
According to the Cree School Board, that school has approximately 340 students. It costs $5.2 millions, of which $3.8 millions or 75 percent are borne by the Federal Government and the remaining $1.4 million by the Government of Quebec.
I am pleased with this achievement because I have much at heart the education of young Crees.
Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the people of Waswanipi for their action and their determination and my thanks to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (M. Cadieux)!



ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, residents of the North Burnaby area of my constituency are strongly opposed to the increased environmental dangers, including air and water pollution, arising from the August, 1988 National Energy Board approval of an expansion proposal by Trans Mountain Pipeline Co. This proposal will mean three new storage tanks on Burnaby Mountain and a major increase in tanker and barge traffic in the Burrard Inlet, up from 15 tankers last year to 48 tankers and barges after the expansion.
We have seen the recent devastation caused by the Alaska oil spill and the West Coast oil spill, and we do not want to take the chance of a major disaster when Westridge terminal becomes the busiest hazardous goods loading dock in the Port of Vancouver. I urge the federal Government to order immediately a full environmental impact assessment of this dangerous proposal and in the meantime to say no to any expansion by Trans Mountain Pipeline Co. We cannot afford to take the risk of yet another major oil spill, this time in the sheltered waters of Burrard Inlet. When will the federal Government show leadership on this important environmental issue? When will the federal Government stand up, not just for residents of North Burnaby, but for residents throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia?

April 10, 1989



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: The grade 8A Social Studies class at the R.I. Baker School in Coaldale, Alberta, with guidance from their teacher, Mr. Perry Mirkovich, have just completed a project designed to inform and combat the sinister effects of acid rain. The more they learned, the more alarmed they became. They informed others in their school and through the mass media informed others across Canada. As well, they changed several of their own personal habits. They chose February 15, 1989, as Acid Rain Prevention Day and invited all secondary students in Alberta to write to the federal Acting Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard).
Their plea is as follows:
On behalf of the youth of the world, we, the grade 8A Social Studies class of R. I. Baker School, ask you, our nation's leaders, to place as a top priority the conservation and wise use of our environment so that the children of the future may enjoy the rewards of a cleaner world.



RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETIES

Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, over the course of this week, Members will have an important opportunity to meet the national consortium of scientific and educational societies representing over 55,000 researchers and over 450,000 post-secondary students. These people will be on Parliament Hill for the purpose of speaking with Members. They are here to talk about Canada's crisis in research, development and education and its impact on our national well-being and economic strength.

Their message comes at the right moment. The National Advisory Board for Science and Technology and the deGrandpre Commission both urge the Federal Government to take concrete steps that will indicate it is well aware that research and development is of paramount importance.

I call upon Members to meet with representatives of the consortium this week. I urge the Government to double the base budgets of the three research-granting councils and index them at a rate of 1.5 times the annual growth rate of GNP; to convene a First Ministers' meeting to discuss the crisis in post-secondary education; to expand federal government research in such vital areas as agriculture, health, the environment and space; and to modernize and increase funding for student financial assistance.



WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS-TRIBUTE TO PAT RYAN OF THE EDMONTON TEAM

Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the rest of the Members to join me in congratulating a Kelowna resident, Pat Ryan, who with his Edmonton team yesterday won the World Curling Championship in Milwaukee. As many Canadians will know, Mr. Ryan defeated another Kelowna resident, Mr. Rick Folk, for the Canadian championship.
This truly enhances Kelowna's image as the curling capital of Canada.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today confident that I speak for millions of Canadians when I express alarm at the lack of seeming urgency on the part of the Government to address the problem that has been created in this country when we have no legislation in place to protect the pre-bom. Under the heading of "A Caring Nation' in the Throne Speech, some slightly vague reference was made to abortion. I urge the Government to get their priorities in order and show a new level of humaneness and show real care for the pre-born who are the most defenceless in our society.



CANCER-RELATED MORTALITY AMONG SYSCO WORKERS

Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: An ongoing steelworkers' union-sponsored survey into cancer-related mortality among former Sysco steel coke oven workers in Cape Breton shows, based on 103 known deaths, a cancer morbidity rate of 53.3 per cent.

April 10, 1989
Oral Questions
Despite these alarming facts plus government knowledge of information contained in two related "internal" reports by Environment Canada which have been "restricted" from public access from 1974, the attitude of both senior Governments has, according to the union, been "anything but co-operative".
Despite the fact that these workers have died and the ovens are closed, there is still a problem to solve. These workers-both dead and alive-and their families need help in establishing claims. Their community needs help in cleaning up the mess of corporate and government neglect.
The Minister of Health should agree now to the two-year request for a meeting with the union. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) should immediately release the 1974 reports. The Government should move quickly to initiate the comprehensive community environmental study which has been recommended.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully last week to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) speech in the Throne Speech debate. I have yet to hear the Prime Minister make a clear, unequivocal statement about the Quebec language legislation. Instead of criticizing Mr. Bourassa for limiting fundamental rights in Quebec, the Prime Minister claims it is the fault of former Prime Minister Trudeau. The Prime Minister says that the 1982 Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on because it contains the notwithstanding clause.
The Prime Minister must recognize that a majority of his Cabinet, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and Welfare, all voted for the 1982 Constitution in this House of Commons. At that time, the present Prime Minister supported Mr. Trudeau's initiative.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now state categorically that he deplores the restriction of language rights in Quebec and does not approve Premier Bourassa's or any other Premier's use of the notwithstanding clause to by-pass the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of errors of fact in regard to the prefatory remarks made by my right hon. friend. However, he is asking me a question that I have answered many times. I believe a Constitution should unite all Canadians, and this one regrettably failed that test. I believe that a Constitution has a fundamental responsibility to render unassailable our basic rights. This Constitution provided for an override clause. I said that because of this, the Constitution was gravely flawed. This is one of the reasons I have worked hard with other Members of the House to begin the process of improving it. My views on the notwithstanding clause and its use have been made very clear. I think my right hon. friend would agree that that clarity is on the record.
As Prime Minister and as a citizen, I accept and always have accepted the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land. However, there is an obligation on me to point out what I believe to be serious deficiencies in the Constitution and to try to correct them. The Constitution failed the test of unity. The Constitution should bring all Canadians together, and it did not. Because it should protect our fundamental rights and it did not, I thought it was not inappropriate for me to say that this was a gravely flawed Constitution.


NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE-PROPOSED RESOLUTION
John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister has repeated again this afternoon what he said last week, namely that he is appalled by the existence of the notwithstanding clause, yet I remind him that in four and a half years as Prime Minister, he had the opportunity preceding the negotiations of Meech Lake, and he took no action to remove it. I have taken the trouble of drafting a resolution. Will he agree to a recorded vote of this House of Commons this afternoon or at an early opportunity denying Parliament the right to use the notwithstanding clause? In constitutional terms, will the Prime Minister agree to a resolution to the effect that the House of Commons will not use its powers under Section 33 of the Constitution?
April 10, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look carefully at any suggestions that come from my right hon. friend as to how the Constitution can be improved.
The Constitution of Canada, I suppose like all others, is a living document that is amended from time to time, as are others in other jurisdictions, for reasons of new situations that the citizens and the Members wish to correct and improve.
I will be happy to look very carefully at any views expressed by my right hon. friend.
Almost unanimously the House supported the Meech Lake Accord. The principal obligation on all of us, given the leadership by the Leader of the NDP, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and myself, is to be as persuasive as we can with regard to those provinces that have not yet ratified the Meech Lake Accord, and to indicate to them how important it is for the future of Canada that the document, already ratified by the House of Commons, receive approval in those two provinces.


NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to help the Prime Minister take another initiative because I take the Prime Minister at his word. I have a resolution here in front of me. Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept a resolution that the House of Commons undertakes immediately never to use the notwithstanding clause? And furthermore, is the Prime Minister prepared to let the House vote this afternoon or at an early opportunity to delete the notwithstanding clause from the Constitution itself?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, normally this kind of discussion takes place beforehand among the leaders of the various parties in the House. I already indicated to my right hon. friend that I would be pleased to look carefully at any proposal he might submit.
First and foremost, we have a process that involves another problem with the Constitution. My friend raises the problem of minority rights and the notwithstanding clause. There is another equally serious problem, the exclusion of Quebec from the Constitution. And I do
Oral Questions
think that the Hon. Member for Shefford is right. Indeed, under the circumstances, it may be even more serious.
Now, together we have built a procedure that would finally allow Quebec back into the Canadian Constitution. It is definitely the national priority, because I tell you without reservations that for me, the Canadian Constitution without Quebec in it is seriously flawed. That is why it would take. . . We need Quebec in the Constitution just as we need Ontario. For me, the Canadian Constitution without Ontario would also be seriously flawed. Quebec was excluded. We must do everything that can honourably be done now to bring Quebec back in and that is what the Meech Lake Accord does for all Canadians.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The hijacking incident on Friday raises some very serious questions about national security and the ability of our policy forces to respond quickly, effectively, and co-operatively with respect to acts of terrorism.
Reports indicate that Ports Canada police and the Quebec Provincial Police failed to notify the RCMP in a timely fashion. The RCMP only found out about the incident two hours after it began when the hijacked bus rolled onto Parliament Hill.
Can the Solicitor General explain to the House this serious and terrible breakdown in communication? Can he explain why Ports Canada, that is within federal jurisdiction, did not notify the RCMP?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out to the House-and I think everyone is aware of this-that criminal charges have already been laid before the court, after the events that took place on Friday, and of course, that public statements on the incident should be made with extreme caution. I would therefore urge all Members of the House to be very cautious in this respect.

April 10, 1989
Oral Questions
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in order, especially since the House is meeting today for the first time since the incident, to offer on behalf of this House and on behalf of all Canadians our warmest congratulations to the RCMP which acted in a truly exceptional matter, considering the circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Blais: I think that with me, all Members will want to commend the competence and calm shown, as the Hon. Member pointed out, by the RCMP, by our security here in the House, and I would say also by Members and their staff who quickly responded to requests that they evacuate the building. This is an important factor. It is a situation that does not occur very often. Mr. Speaker, we were able to demonstrate that the RCMP and its entire team were able to react quickly and effectively, and I think all Canadians are glad they were able to do so.


REPORTED FAILURE TO NOTIFY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the RCMP and Ottawa Police ought to be commended for acting responsibly, effectively, and professionally in bringing the incident to a successful conclusion. However, that is not at issue.
What is at issue is how the incident was initially dealt with, and why it took more than two hours before the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the national police in Canada, became aware of this hijacking.
I fully realize that criminal charges have been laid and are pending, and my question is not directed toward the criminal charges, but with respect to how the government agencies reacted to this particular incident. I believe the people of Canada have a right to know.
Why is it that Ports Canada police and the Quebec Provincial Police failed to notify the Royal Canadian Mounted Police immediately? Why did it take two hours before the RCMP became aware of this incident? Does the Solicitor General not believe that national security and the safety of Parliament and of those who are here was compromised as a result of that terrible breakdown in communication?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
important to emphasize here in the House that the security of Canadians is a major responsibility that we do not take lightly. We, and the RCMP especially, demonstrated that we do take the public's security seriously, and I think we made this clear on Friday.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back, if I may, to a few other points raised by the Hon. Member's question. I would like to say that throughout this incident it was clear that there was a very high degree of co-operation among all parties involved, including the RCMP, security on the Hill and other services including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. As for other parties that may have been involved before, that is an important point. I asked the RCMP Commissioner to discuss the matter with the Director of the Quebec Provincial Police, and this has already been done. I personally spoke to the Quebec Minister of Public Security this morning to discuss the matter, and I asked the RCMP Commissioner to make a complete review of the situation and the sequence of events, because I have every confidence in the close co-operation that we receive from the Quebec Provincial Police. This morning the Commissioner assured me that the relationship was excellent and that there was very close co-operation with the RCMP, and I am convinced this will continue. There is no question about that.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last week the Minister told the House that the changes to the unemployment insurance program contemplated by the Government will still mean that Canadians in need will be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. We took that clearly to mean that many Canadians were going to be cut off, and that the Government was going to define arbitrarily what need means.
In this context, will the Minister today confirm that the Government is contemplating a change that would have the effect of removing one million Canadians annually from entitlement to unemployment insurance?
April 10, 1989


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I said last week that those Canadians in need of unemployment insurance will continue to have access to it, and I am sure the Hon. Member will be prepared to wait for a statement that I intend to make in the House tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock on this topic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDING OF RETRAINING PROGRAMS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we will look forward to that with interest, but apprehensive Canadians would like the Minister to answer that question clearly now to clear the ground in advance.
I would like to ask the Minister another question. A story that the Minister has no doubt heard, and even contemplated, is that the Government plans to finance retraining programs with money taken from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. This would amount to the unemployed paying for their own retraining.
Will the Minister guarantee that the Government will not impose this injustice on unemployed Canadians?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to have a lot of things that he would like to say today, and I would suggest to him that he take my first answer at its word and wait for tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM CHANGES-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister gave no assurances as to this Government's intention not to insist that the unemployed themselves pay for the changes in the UI Program.
Why won't the Minister give us that assurance now? [English]


Hon. Barbara MacDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what I said in response to questions last week, inside and outside, the House was that the unemployed in Canada want to work, and the key to their having jobs is job opportunity, and the key to job opportunity is training. I am sure beyond that the Hon. Member will be happy to wait until tomorrow.
Oral Questions


SIZE OF BENEFITS-REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister. We are putting questions to her today because we hope we will be able to convince her not to slash the program she has in mind, before tomorrow. We are hoping that reason will prevail, and that she will not lock the door on some unwanted changes.
Will the Minister make a commitment today not to reduce benefits that workers require to buy groceries, to pay rent, to keep alive while they are unemployed against their will? Particularly will she make a commitment not to reduce benefits so that unemployed workers will be thrown on provincial welfare schemes to stay alive?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I will make a commitment that reason will prevail.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are pleading with the Minister to take these things seriously. In the last Parliament we had a Standing Committee of this House on Labour, Employment and Immigration that studied this matter for almost a year and came out with the unanimous report, with a Tory majority, which made 90 recommendations to improve the unemployment insurance system vastly and to eliminate abuses, but not to slash benefits for workers.
I ask the Minister whether she will give serious attention to that report and implement those recommendations rather than the Forget recommendations which were very reactionary.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I have looked at all the reports that have had to do with this matter. I said last week that the thrust of our statement will not be in the direction of Forget. There will be many reports that are taken into account.


CHANGES TO SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I will direct my question to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.

April 10, 1989
Oral Questions
Friday last, the Minister for International Trade recognized his Government felt it reasonable to bring changes to the softwood lumber agreement. But, to use his own words, "there has been no negotiations in this connection."
My question is very simply this: Since the Minister recognized economic conditions had changed, what changes to that unacceptable agreement is the Government proposing? Did you consult with provinces? Further, would you tell us what is your agenda to negotiate with the United States the renoval of that bad agreement?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it has always been this Government's practice to hold consultations with affected sectors of the Canadian industry. There will be such a follow-up process in this case.


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS FOR AFFECTED WORKERS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, with all due apology, the Minister did not answer my question.
His colleague on Friday said there must be changes in the softwood lumber agreement. The United States has said it will not make any changes. In the meantime we have hundreds of workers losing their jobs. Is it not the responsibility of the Government now to indicate clearly what its plan of action will be?
Will you provide some adjustment programs for the workers losing their jobs in that industry? When will you begin negotiations with the United States to end that particular accord? What is the direction that this Government intends to take to eliminate what is becoming a very serious burden and handicap on the softwood lumber industry of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the Member. I thought I had responded to his question about consultation. If there are to be changes sought in this agreement, it will be the practice of this Government in that case, as it has been in the past, to consult with the members of the industry and other Canadians who are directly affected.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and relates to the hostage taking on Friday.
Despite the competence of the RCMP and the officers involved in solving the hostage taking, clearly, there was a total breakdown of communication in this case. The bus should have been stopped long before it got to Parliament Hill. At what point were the RCMP informed of the hostage taking, and what steps did they take to communicate that information to Ottawa?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I answered earlier that I have personally asked the Commissioner of the RCMP, with whom I have been in close contact during all those events and since, to check with all the police forces involved, including the Quebec Surete, the Montreal Harbour Police and all others that may have been involved in the incident, so that we may gather all the facts. I even contacted the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, so that all personnel involved with security, here on Parliament Hill, may be assured that the RCMP will cooperate with them to gather all the facts in this matter.
In view of this, I believe it would not be appropriate to make further comments before we have all the facts gathered over the next few days. I believe the Hon. Member should do as I do, wait for those facts to be gathered before making any further comments.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the Surete de Quebec have said that they informed the RCMP within half an hour of being informed by Ports Canada and they in fact learned of it from the Greyhound Bus Company.
In view of the importance of this issue and that this was the first hostage taking of a bus in North America, will the Minister agree to refer this whole episode to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General so that we can get appropriate answers for the people of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 10, 1989


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the facts referred by the Hon. Member were commented by some newspapers this morning. This is part of the information now going round. For that reason I have asked the Commissioner of the RCMP to make a review, as we should under the circumstances when such incidents happen. We should be happy that thanks to the RCMP's careful work the incident had such a favourable ending. I think that if we could trust them Friday to solve the incident, we should trust the RCMP Commissioner to bring us all the facts, in cooperation with all the people involved, both at the provincial and federal level. Then only will we be in a position to make a judgment.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY FOR RIO DE JANEIRO.
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Rodrigo Lopes, Secretary of Commerce and Industry for Rio de Janeiro.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA.
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Sharon Carstairs, Member of the Legislative Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the Province of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oil Seeds. It concerns the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program.
Will provision be made under the Program for payment for unusual acres of summer fallow and, if so, what criteria will be used in order to determine those acreages?
Oral Questions


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, when we announced the Program in November we said that because the Program is based on seeded acreage and is crop specific, if producers had seeded less in 1988 than they had previously we would be willing to go back and look at the previous five-year average in order to arrive at something more fair concerning their own farms.
Second, we will refer that matter for specific recommendations to the review committees once they are established. We are very close to announcing them. I suspect that within the next ten days the review committees will be in place.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question which is for the Minister of National Defence, is directed to the Associate Minister.
In view of the tragic sinking of the Soviet nuclear submarine 300 miles north of Norway over the weekend, the uncertainty regarding the security of the nuclear reactor involved, both in the short-term and the longterm, and the concern of Canadians about this very sensitive subject, particularly in light of the parallel they draw with the Canadian North, does the Minister intend to pursue the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines for Canada with the same vigour as that of his predecessor?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first I think my colleague and all Members of the House would like to express their deep sympathies to the friends and families of the Russian submariners who lost their lives in this very tragic accident.
Second, the reports we have received to date indicate that the accident was not related to the nuclear reactor on board and that there are no indications of any radiation leakage from the accident. This of course will be monitored very closely and we will be keeping in touch with international authorities.
It is not inconsistent because, as I am sure my hon. friend knows, of some 400 nuclear submarines operating there has never been to date, to our knowledge, an accident which has involved fissionable material leaking into the waters. In fact, these have proven to be much more environmentally sound than many of the fossil fuel driven submarines.

April 10, 1989
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for her interim reply and certainly note a certain amount of knowledge on the subject. I do not disagree with some of the things she has said-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred J. Mifflin: -but would certainly call into question the concern and perception Canadians have on this subject. The Hon. Minister mentioned this one particular instance-


An Hon. Member:: Question.


Fred J. Mifflin: I am coming to my question. There have been four others where nuclear submarines have sunk in the last 20 years and indeed there is a record of 13 near misses over that period of time. I think the last one of a general concern to people was on January 26 last year when a Polaris submarine came within two minutes of having a problem.
Will the Minister reconsider her response in view of this record and in view of the commitment of the Government?
The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead talked about our commitment to NATO. I believe they do not want nuclear submarines from Canada but patrol frigates.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Fred J. Mifflin: In view of the concern that people have for statistics, will the Minister re-affirm her position and remember that people wondered what was going to happen with the Exxon Valdez before there was a problem.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question; however, the discussion was extremely interesting. On April 27 we will be looking forward to a Budget, at which time our resources will be known and we in the Department of Defence will be making our decisions about major acquisitions at that time.


SALE OF IRRADIATED FOOD
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the Government intends to amend the federal Food and Drug Regulations to allow irradiated food to be sold in Canada, why is the Government rejecting the recommendations of an all-Party committee that food irradiation not be allowed in Canada until specific safety questions are addressed?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this question is more properly addressed to me in that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is responsible for labelling. The policy is the responsibility of Health and Welfare.
After extensive study the Government is convinced that the safety of irradiation can be proven. In addition, there is a good deal of evidence that irradiation can help to reduce the incidents of food-borne disease and can lead to preservation of food at a time when millions of people around the world are starving.


LABELLING OF FOOD PRODUCTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to whoever is willing to answer it. If the Government insists on ignoring the recommendations of its own committee, Canadians have at least a right to know if their food has been partially or completely irradiated. Will the Minister demand that that information appear on food labels?

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we intend to require labelling where significant irradiation has taken place. If there are suggestions for improvements to any of the regulations when Members have had a chance to see them, we would be glad to entertain that.
A study done for the Department of National Health and Welfare recently came to the conclusion that in Canada each year there are probably some 627,200 cases of salmonella poisoning at a cost of $946 million. If we can do something to reduce the suffering of Canadians who are affected by food-borne disease, if we can do something to prevent the wastage of food at a time when much of the world goes hungry, I think we should consider it as long as the safety of consumers can always be paramount.
April 10, 1989


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's forests are facing many challenges, including the Softwood Lumber Agreement.
In a speech at Prince George last Thursday, the Deputy Minister of Forests gave the strongest signal yet that forestry agreements with British Columbia and other provinces will be administered by agencies like the Western Diversification Office or the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for Forests. Will he assure the House that funding for forestry agreements will be increased and that his Department, and his Department alone, will be responsible for administering forestry agreements with the provinces?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will permit me to congratulate my hon. friend who is asking his first question as forestry critic and who comes from the spruce capital of Canada.
I can assure him that federal resources will be available and a federal commitment is in place that is designed to assist the provinces to shift to more intensive forest management regimes, which include non-timber values, more integrated management regimes which include the social aspects of our forests. That commitment is as strong or stronger now than it ever was. I know that the Hon. Member will be pleased with the results after the Budget.


REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION AT FIRST MINISTER'S CONFERENCE
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if the Throne Speech is any indication, Canadian forests are in trouble because there was not one word about forests in the Throne Speech.
My supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On or about April 17, the Minister of State for Forests will be releasing a major 900-page study on the future of forestry in Canada. It points out
Oral Questions
the need for major structural changes and new market developments in this area.
In light of the importance of forestry to Canada, I would ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister if he would consider putting forestry at the top of the agenda at the next First Minister's Conference yet to be scheduled.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Government has acted where others have talked and written.
The Forest Resource Development Agreements have literally started a new industry in the Hon. Member's own city and mine. Over 1,600 jobs were created as a result of the silvicultural arrangements that were funded through the co-operative agreement with the province.
These agreements will continue to be jointly funded and we intend to strengthen our resolve to remove the backlog of NSR lands and to shift our industry, the provinces and ourselves to a practice which is more responsible in terms of our custodial responsibility for our forests.


NATIONAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. McMaster University at Hamilton, Ontario, is home to a nuclear reactor which is vital to medical and educational research and which serves hundreds of scientists and engineers from around the world. It is the first and remains the largest of its kind in the Commonwealth.
However, this facility is in jeopardy because the Federal National Sciences and Engineering Research Council has denied McMaster a request for upgrading and has also cut the McMaster nuclear reactor core budget by $600,000. The jobs of 15 people as well as all the high-tech spinoffs that such a project creates will be shut down.
Can the Minister explain why NSERC has cut funding to the McMaster nuclear reactor and why the Government is not supporting research and development as recommended by the de Grandpre Commission?

April 10, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the decision not to fund the McMaster reactor was taken by NSERC as it went through all the priority items on its agenda. In its opinion, the McMaster reactor did not have nearly the same priority as many of the other items that were on the agenda.
In terms of funding science and technology, let me remind my hon. colleague that it was this Government that put $240 million into the Centres of Excellence Program, an extra $200 million into the Granting Councils over the next few years, and $80 million into the Canada Scholarship Program, as well as $500 million into technology. That indicates to me that we take science and technology pretty seriously.


REASON FOR DECISION ON FUNDING
Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, if the Government takes science and technology so seriously, then why is research and development headed this way instead of that way?
My question is directed to the Hon. Member who was the former President of the University of Guelph. The former President of the University of Guelph has told us that NSERC is doing this because it has decided to do this. The reason it decided to withdraw funding from the McMaster reactor is because "it is not attracting bright, young scientists". Is that the answer from NSERC?
Does the Minister agree with this reasoning or will he admit that the real reason behind it all is that his Government will not allocate funding to NSERC so that NSERC can put the funding where it is needed, research and development, and specifically McMaster University and its nuclear reactor?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the McMaster reactor is no longer a first-rate reactor is that it needs a major upgrade in its core. That major upgrade would cost a significant amount of money. There was a real question, even if the upgrade were to have been done, whether that reactor could compete with other facilities across Canada.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Connaught laboratories, where insulin was discovered, are the biggest makers of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada and will soon be sold to the Institut Merieux, a company controlled by the French Government. In addition, the Lumonics company, which comes third in the laser technology industry thanks to a technology licensed by the Canadian Government, will be sold to a Japanese company. What does the Government intend to do to prevent the sale of such national research and development companies to foreign interests, a deal which the French or the Japanese Government would certainly not allow?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, these transactions, as indeed any such transaction, are now reviewable by Investment Canada, and under the Investment Canada Act I am precluded from giving any details of that review and whatever recommendations might come out of that review.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, this is just a part of a long series of acquisitions of high technology companies in Canada. Both of them are focal. Both are hugely significant.
The Government, as well as allowing this purchase, has contrived a Free Trade Agreement that costs us strategic procurement, subsidies, and other measures appropriate to encourage research and development. Will the Government not act to ensure that we lose no further research and development intensive companies, than those we already have lost as a result of the Government's policies?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the President of Dupont International told me recently that as a result of free trade, significant portions of their research are being moved from Delaware to Canada because Canadian science and research is more productive.
April 10, 1989

The point is that there are transactions occurring in the market-place. I am concerned and interested, more than that, committed along with the Government which has so indicated in the Throne Speech, to seeing Canada's research and development efforts grow, not shrink, and to seeing the development of new R and D and high-tech companies in Canada. If the Hon. Member will have patience, he will see that the policies of the Government will produce that kind of growth over the next months and years.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office and concerns the administration of Canada Post.
The Minister will know that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers last week asked for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the management and the operations of Canada Post. Given the sour state of labour negotiations at Canada Post, the three suicides of employees this year, the 52,000-case backlog of grievances, the closure of rural post offices and the general deteriorating service in urban areas, will the Minister immediately mandate such a Commission of Inquiry, and if not, why not?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons is that most of the so-called facts the Hon. Member proffered are not facts, they are false. The fact is that service has been improving. The Post Office is more efficient. Absenteeism has been reduced. The fact is that things are improving so much that Jean Claude Parrot is worrying he will not have anything to complain about and has recruited the Hon. Member to put those false accusations before the House.


Don Boudria: It is quite evident the Minister has been watching that video cassette Canada Post has produced.


PRODUCTION OF VIDEO CASSETTES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary
The Address-Mr. Harvard
question to the Minister responsible or irresponsible for Canada Post.
How can he, as Minister responsible for that agency, tolerate the fact that Canada Post, instead of dealing with the employees I mentioned earlier, prefers to invest $1.5 million to produce videos boasting about its inability to deliver mail? How can the Minister explain that?


Harvie Andre: I find it ironic that a union would complain about management communicating with the employees. The cassette in question congratulates the employees on improved service and performance. The only one it offends is Jean Claude Parrot and his lackeys on the other side who come here to make those complaints.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House rose at 1 o'clock p.m. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James had the floor. He has two minutes plus ten minutes question and comments. The Hon. Member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech of the opening of the session; and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 131); and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 236).
John Harvard: I want to finish off my remarks by expressing some concerns relevant to my home province of Manitoba. We Manitobans feel that we are good Canadians. We don't want special treatment in Canada. We want only equal treatment, nothing less and nothing more. We want our share of the national wealth. We want a Government that is sensitive and committed to regional development. We want a Government that will work hard to even out the economy. We in Manitoba are concerned about an over-heated economy in southern Ontario. Meanwhile, there are serious pockets of unemployment in other parts of the country. We are concerned about the Government's high interest rate policy. It is there to cool down the economy in southern Ontario and to dampen

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Harvard
inflation in the country. I suggest strongly that we do not have serious inflationary problems in the Province of Manitoba.
In our province, we still remember the CF-18 affair. That is something that will not leave us for a long while. We are concerned about VIA Rail. We are concerned about the Government cutting that service, not only because there would be a loss of jobs, but VIA Rail is important to many small communities in the Province of Manitoba.
We are concerned about this Government's commitment to the environment. We noted with some distress in the Throne Speech that the Government is backing away from the international centre for promotion of sustainable development in the Province of Manitoba, particularly in my home city of Winnipeg. The Prime Minister made a big to-do about that in the election campaign. Now we are concerned that the Government is backing away from that commitment.
We are also concerned about eight earlier agreements that expired at the end of March. They were worth more than $400 million to the Province of Manitoba. At the expiration of those agreements, more than $90 million was not spent. We feel those agreements, which represented grants to a host of economic activities, are very important, to Manitoba and the entire West.
I want to conclude by saying we as an Opposition want to be vigilant. We want to watch this Government. While we will offer vigorous opposition, we will do it responsibly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to congratulate the Member for his speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Having had the pleasure of listening to him before lunch, he should be commended on the depth of the issues he has raised and the quality of his intervention.


John Napier Turner: Very perceptive.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As our critic for Western Diversification, I take it that Members will hear from this Member very often in this House where he will stand and defend the interests of western Canadians and the constituents he represents.

I would like to ask the Hon. Member... and that gives me great pleasure. With regard to the Speech from the Throne that we are discussing-and particularly the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition which is before the House, and on which the question will be put later on today at 5:30, and which will hopefully be agreed to since it would improve the Speech from the Throne-I think something is lacking in that Speech, Mr. Speaker, because it does not deal with important issues such as daycare and some social matters related to the unemployment insurance system which is about to be slashed, the new commodity tax, a regressive and inflationary tax with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will hit us on April 27, and the training and development of our workers following the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Hon. Member the opportunity to explain how he thinks the West will react to this violent and vicious attack against low-income earners, against their means of livelihood, and their ability to provide for their families. I want to know what he thinks of the regressive side of the Speech from the Throne, especially of the sales tax which will apply to all goods and services, except food, of course. How do the people in Western Canada react to this regressive sales tax, which is I think for us a step in the wrong direction?


John Harvard: I want to thank my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his kind remarks. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I have watched this Member with much interest since I came to the House in December and believe I can learn a lot from him.
I want to tell my hon. friend that I had a deluge of letters and phone calls about the proposed national sales tax. The voters in my riding are not stupid. Their eyes and ears are open. They know exactly what the national sales tax will do. It will attack low-income groups, medium-income groups, and all Canadians. This is the most regressive tax that this Government can come up with. The incredible thing is the Government has already admitted that the tax will be inflationary, particularly in its early stages. This was admitted to and confirmed by no less than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the other day. We already have problems with our economy. For the Government to impose this type of inflationary, regressive tax on the Canadian people is irresponsible in the extreme.
April 10, 1989

I want to add a concern I have about interest rates, because I have received many calls and letters about it. There is not only the concern that we in the Province of Manitoba are having to share an extra burden because of the high interest rates that are apparently there to dampen down and cool off the economy in southern Ontario, but there is another concern we have. Many people have noted there is an increasing and unprecedented difference between Canadian and American interest rates. It is currently about two percentage points. What that does is it sucks American money and cash into Canada. That pushes up the Canadian dollar. We have seen that since the election. We have seen that since the implementation of the trade agreement. What does that do? It makes it much more difficult to compete in U.S. markets. It was something that we warned the voters about during the campaign. It was something was pointed out over and over again by my good friend from Winnipeg South Centre. Not only that, but in the wake of the implementation of the trade agreement-


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


Mr. Crosby:: I believe that the House is well aware of the purpose of question and comment, and the need for a response in reply to the question. I do not think that there is any authority to go on at length on a new subject, interest rates, which was not even raised by the questioner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure that the Hon. Member will be winding down, and then I will allow the Hon. Member for Halifax West to pose his question. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James.


John Harvard: I am very surprised that my friend opposite would raise this. If the Hon. Member cannot see a connection between high interest rates and a concern about a national sales tax, then he better return to school, because there is a direct relationship.
Since the implementation of the trade agreement, that agreement has pushed up the value of Canadian companies. Therefore, there has been an unprecedented wave of mergers, acquisitions, and take-overs. The agreement is causing more foreign take-overs of the Canadian economy.
The Address-Mr. Harvard


Howard Edward Crosby: I wish to tell the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James that, in terms of schooling and education, he could do with a little education on parliamentary procedure before he comes in here and destroys the whole purpose of the question and comment period.
In his speech he talked about the national debt and the deficit. Canadians owe $322 billion with a mounting deficit of $30 million a year, started by his own Leader.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: One hundred and seventy-seven billion dollars of that was yours.


Howard Edward Crosby: Everyone in Canada realizes there has to be something done. This weekend the Ottawa Citizen published a special supplement asking Canadians to deal with the subject of the deficit and the national debt.
In view of the mounting evidence, and in view of the fact that 31 cents of every tax revenue dollar is spent on interest payments in respect of the deficit and the national debt, and the fact that it is mounting and that it will continue to, does the Hon. Member think that any responsible Government can ignore this fact? Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we should not raise taxes or reduce expenditures in order to deal with this problem?
Perhaps the Hon. Member would tell us what he proposes to do, to answer the Ottawa Citizen, and to answer the people across Canada who write editorials and make comments, for example, professors and editorial writers. Everybody states that we must reduce the national deficit and attack the national debt. Is the Hon. Member telling the House of Commons that he disagrees with that opinion, and that he does not think it is necessary to take any action? Is that his point? Was the Hon. Member elected to tell that to the House of Commons?


John Harvard: Might I suggest that my hon. friend opposite is a johnny-come-lately. The deficit has been around for a number of years. The Government has contributed over 100 per cent to the national debt, taking it from $170 billion to $322 billion. Where was the Hon. Member last summer when the Government was making promises totalling $16 billion which added to the deficit and to the national debt? Were Members opposite concerned about this deficit when they were making the decision to purchase the nuclear submarines? Suddenly, after the campaign is over and the election has expired, the Government becomes all concerned about the national deficit. Of course, we should be concerned about it and we do want to bring it down. However, we want to bring it down in an orderly fashion and in a sensitive

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Hogue
manner. Members of the Opposition do not want to bring down the deficit on the backs of poor and low-income Canadians. We will not have any part of that.
We have to question the motives of the Government. It has been expressing much concern about the deficit. Why did the Government not do this six months ago, or one year ago? The Government is more responsible for this reduction than anyone else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. The Hon. Member for Outremont.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to take part in this Address debate. The task at end is not easy and the mandate some of us are assuming, I feel, is very significant. Each of us has a part to play, and whatever our political stripes, it is not only a right, but a duty. No one in this House is taking it lightly. A country like ours, so large and diversified from one region to the next, from one city to the next, from one province to the next must be managed not only with vision, but also with wisdom and courage. No matter what Party is in Government or what Parties are in the Opposition, the objectives are the same: make sure that our very beautiful and complex country continues to grow, thereby ensuring that every Canadian has his place in the sun, plant his tree, can cultivate his garden and enrich his heritage.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, as the popular saying goes, nothing is free, you must pay for what you get. And if someone decides to mortgage his health, his life or his property, the time comes when he must suffer the consequences. This is a universally accepted fact. Everybody agrees with it, even if some often behave as though they wanted to forget that simple reality.
As soon as it was elected in 1984, our Government turned the page on a great many dark years because of the distrust and misunderstanding which had poisoned Federal Provincial relations and threatened the very unity of our country. It made strong decisions and took the necessary actions to help our economy recover and create the job opportunities which are the motor of our prosperity. It gave Canada a new international direction and developed at home programs to ensure true social justice.
I indicated in a speech I made in December that on November 21, Canadians had chosen a new direction. They selected a number of representatives to sit in this House and asked us to plan for their future as well as our own.
Last week, the two Leaders of the Opposition Parties replied to the Speech from the Throne. They mentioned that Canada had changed. It has changed indeed. But this country of ours is not only changing, it is growing, maturing, thereby becoming more complex. Also, Mr. Speaker, the ways to deal with issues have changed. The means which had proved economical for decades and even for half centuries are no longer adequate in today's context.
We are nearing very quickly the end of this century. Not only will we have the opportunity to live through this event which occurs only once every 100 years, but we will enter at the same time a new millennium. Years come and go as they have since the adoption of our calendar and the years 1999 and 2000 will obviously be no different. However, the turn of a century always takes on a particular significance. It is traditionally a period when people ask themselves questions, sometimes even worry about what the future holds for them.
We feel a need to label everything and, in certain quarters, this is accompanied by a strong tendency towards reductionism.
The affluent society which came into being during the 50's has rightly or wrongly been called the post-industrial society. This judgment was quite narrow especially since it did not encompass the whole world. Everybody wanted to get more than his neighbour. Many tried to increase their wealth with any thought being given to the consequences. The so-called post-industrial society was the leisure society. This leisure society was to emerge in the 70's. Machines would do everything. Robots would be at our service. The first half of the century had witnessed great strides in mechanization. But during that period, one might say the seeds had been planted. The harvest started to emerge in the 50's. There seemed to be no limit. Science and reason were in. They cohabi-tated in a sort of way which made superior beings out those who worshipped them. Scientists thought only in terms of correlation and, if the correlation was weak, there was no link. It was to be rejected. Statistics and scientific rigour were to define the intellectuals, those to be in place.
April 10, 1989

However, it is also in this century that nazism, reared its ugly head leading to the massacre of German, Austrian, Hungarian, French and other Jews. Reason was law, and science also, supported by scientific rigour, of course.
While man was inventing and producing more and more tools, he did not see that those tools were shaping him. He had also learned to measure time and he thought he could control it. He did not realize that, in the end, it was time that controlled him. Besides, at the end of his life, man always admits to himself that he didn't have enough time to do what he had to do.
Our challenge of today and, probably, of the next century will be managing moderation. Our entry into the space age will show us all the advantages and disadvantages of excessiveness. Certainly, we cannot and must not stop progress, just like we cannot stop time.
However, for that very reason, we must realize the need to harness that excessiveness and to let it operate within an acceptable framework. Our life cannot be successful without standards.
Therefore, we must prepare our entry into the next century and millennium if we want to solve that excessiveness crisis and prevent further oil spills which would destroy us. That world of paradoxical reality and double constraint must be accepted. There are other possibilities. However, we have become modem while preserving our values.
Another challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to harmonize tradition with progress. As Touraine said, we are living a crisis of modernity, a time of paradox, a time of double constraint.
In the last election, the Canadian people have renewed their faith in Mr. Mulroney, probably because they were still quite satisfied with his performance. They already knew that new times were coming. They knew that because they can read the signs and hear the alarms. They knew that we had to open up. They accepted the free trade challenge. They know that the coming years will not be easy. They know that we must set the tone and show moderation.
In fact, a nation's maturity and self-sufficiency can be recognized by its capacity to produce and develop while accepting restrictions. Last November, Canadians clearly chose a Government which can not only conform to demanding standards but which also intends to set even bolder objectives. That is what the Speech from the Throne announces, Mr. Speaker. And I am honoured to be associated with the exciting mission that the Govem-
The Address-Mr. Hogue
ment and our leader, Mr. Mulroney, have given themselves.
I am honoured to take part in the development of the country along the lines of the new courses and policies set forth in the Speech from the Throne. The challenge for excellence protects us from excesses while preserving the aspirations of the people.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has stated a few basic objectives, including the enhancement of those values which make Canada the unique country it is. The economy may be the subject of discussions in all circles and some people may be inclined to believe that the science of economics leads the world, but we must come to realize that economics stem from culture and values.
We must come to realize that economics depend on the stability of those values because the relation between economics and culture and values is one of subordination. There cannot possibly be equality between both fields since culture must essentially precede economics. In a reduction context one is often tempted to think that economics prevail over culture.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne is a national unity commitment which is aimed at promoting the values which make Canada a unique country in the world. Indeed Canada is now considered to be one of the most dynamic, pacific and promising countries of the world. A foreign diplomat once said that Canada is a pampered country which does not experience serious difficulties.
Such is our outstanding achievement after slightly more than a century of history, a fact which has to be acknowledged in a very special way. As a matter of fact, in 1992 we will celebrate the 125th anniversary of Canada and the 350th anniversary of the foundation of Montreal. As we are wont to do, we will emphasize Canada's cultural wealth.
Our sights will remain set on the challenge of our country's cultural life and our rich multicultural legacy. We will improve the distribution of Canadian cultural products. Concrete measures will be taken concerning citizenship, and the Government will establish the structures required to further promote harmony between races.
There is no question of reducing everything to a common denominator and attempting to make all Canadians look alike. It is much more a matter of building on individual differences in order to increase the effectiveness of synergia. The country will thus be able to avoid a situation where power becomes the be-all and the end-all.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Hogue
In that case, the phenomenon of unlimited growth occurs. It is a cancer.
Mr. Speaker, we must be proud of this Throne Speech because it is uplifting, courageous and challenging with a sense of responsibility towards the future. Another aspect of this Throne Speech also has our support, the part about a caring and generous society. For Canadians, tolerance and justice are paramount. Our society is concerned with the quality of life of its people. We have always honoured our obligation to come to the help of those in need here and abroad.
The Mulroney government shares these Canadian values. That is why the reduction of the deficit is so important. It will allow us to maintain quality social programs for future generations. And that is also why, despite our passing financial problems, we will continue helping families and senior citizens with greater emphasis for low incomes Canadians.
Income security is but one of the many challenges facing our society. We will also table legislation providing for the establishment of a national child care program.
The government will pursue its fight against family violence, child abuse and drug abuse and support research on AIDS and the diseases of the elderly.
The government will continue to support the efforts of the United Nations and its organizations and to participate in peace-keeping missions.
And that is why we will continue to strongly encourage further progress in international disarmament and to give our support to those who work for peace in the troubled regions of the world. Our caring and humane country is founded on justice and tolerance. Those are the values underlying our national and foreign policies which are cherished by Canadians.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, under the guidance of our leader, Mr. Mulroney, our government will be active in the field of science and technology establishing centers of excellence and programs based on strategic technologies.
However, our most important economic policy is without a doubt the development of our nation's work force. Our government will implement a comprehensive human resource strategy for the years to come, and that includes literacy, education, training and retraining programs.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance who, as a good father should, will bring us back to reality in introducing a budget which will remind us that our economic resources should not control our lives. The budget he is going to introduce in due course will protect us against the dangers of immoderation. He will challenge us to new levels of excellence. Finally, I just want to say how proud I am to represent the people from Outremont within this Progressive-Conservative government, led by a great captain, our leader, Mr. Mulroney.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I join the Member for Outremont (Mr. Hogue) in wishing everyone in the House to live beyond the year 2000. I hope that is the case for all of us who are here today.
I enjoyed his remarks inasmuch as he gave a cultural and institutional history of Canada in the early part of this century and the time after the 1950s, which showed the contradictions Canadians have had to face since the early 1950s. He mentioned the challenges to harmonize tradition and progress, and to be able to work with progress and restraint.
I think it is important to note what the Hon. Member said as he brought us through the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. He said that the Government accepted the challenges of free trade and went on to say that as we head into the 1990s, free trade will not be easy. He said that because we have accepted the Free Trade Agreement the years ahead will not be easy for Canada. What did he mean by saying the years ahead would not be easy for Canadians?


M. Hogue:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend in the Opposition for the nice things he said about my speech. I do hope he will be around, in this country if not in this House, when we reach the year 2000. We will certainly need people like him.
There is no doubt in my mind that in the years to come we will live, as I mentioned earlier, in a very contradictory world, since technology has progressed so much over the last 200 years while men have been living at their own pace. In business schools, we call that dichotomy an organizational misfit, and that dichotomy cannot regress nor diminish. I was comparing and commenting on the measures that our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will introduce in a few days, and which we are all trying to guesstimate, a budget which will allow each and every
April 10, 1989

Canadian to better live and influence his future by using our human resources instead of relying on the financial resources, which merely the outcome of our labour.
And that represents a challenge which we have already taken up and which we will continue to face. I firmly believe that the new century will see Canada become the nation as was predicted a few years back: Canada will be the nation of the twenty-first century.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, what concerned me about the Speech from the Throne was that one of the most serious threats to our youth, one of the most serious threats to law and order in Canada was given just a passing reference in the Speech from the Throne. I am referring to the drug abuse problem in Canada.
While it might be glamorous for the media and others to talk about drugs in amateur sport, the real drug problem is with the young people in Canada. It was much to my chagrin that I noted in the Speech from the Throne that there was only passing reference, after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) called it an epidemic several years ago. The problem is getting worse.
In a few short years we will have the same problem as that which exists in the United States with respect to crack. We have been fortunate thus far but there is no reason why the problem that exists in the United States will not find its way here.
It is for that reason I believe it to be a national tragedy that ought to be dealt with in a forthright fashion immediately. We know the problems associated with drug abuse. There was a parliamentary committee that investigated that very problem just a few years ago. Yet the Government does not appear to be taking the problem seriously.
We know that a lot of violence is associated with drug abuse, especially with crack abuse. We know what the root problems are and we also know the problem appears, regrettably, to be concentrated in the black community.
Why has the Prime Minister and the Government chosen simply to give it passing reference in the Speech from the Throne? What does the Government specifically intend to do to address that problem during the course of this mandate? It is one thing to talk a big game about the problem of drug abuse in Canada, it is another thing to do something about it.
The Address-Mr. Hogue
Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) give the same care and attention to this problem, the problem of drug abuse, that he has given to the steroid abuse by a bunch of macho athletes who are bent on cheating in order to succeed? Does the Hon. Member not believe it more important in terms of Canada's priorities to hold a Royal Commission of inquiry into the drug problem, the real drug problem in Canada? Can he assure Canadians that the Conservative Government will make it a top priority and will spend the resources necessary to combat that very serious problem?


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Mr. Speaker, such a broad question would certainly require someone with much more specialized knowledge than I have, but it makes a former university professor want to open up and approach this issue from different points of view and really spend an hour discussing it. But I am still glad to have allowed two questions of this kind and such an important one as the problem my friend opposite raises.
I am not in a special position to evaluate the quality of the Speech from the Throne. Anyway, I did assess it and I said that I supported it and was proud of it. I do not see the point in being specific about programs when the Government announces its overall policies. The Government opens these various chapters, so to speak, presents them and, during the session, they will be filled out page by page and discussed with those authorized to do so.
My friend opposite knows very well that a newcomer to politics is not to presume he is something else. I know the difference between the status of a backbencher and the roles various Members have, the roles of the various people in this House, and my role is not to legislate or state my personal positions for the time being, or state the Government's position on issues like drugs. However, there is no doubt that if drugs are singled out or dealt with specifically, nothing will be solved-they are part of an overall problem. And that is why in my answer, I dealt much more with what Touraine was talking about, of this crisis we are entering, this paradox, where to some extent, balance in society seems to be giving way to excess. The problem of sense versus power, of moderation versus excess and the questions we must all raise about these fundamental issues will no doubt lead us to deal specifically with this matter of drugs in due course.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Emard)


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election witnessed the emergence of a novel, unique phenomenon. For the first time in many years Canadians started to discuss our future as a country. The election now is behind us. However, our collective reflection on this country's future has but started. The current Throne Speech debate in my view is closely linked to that reflection.

Having avoided the issue throughout the long election campaign, the Government has at long last told us where it stands. At a time when thousands of Canadian workers need help adjusting to economic change, the Government stands for extensive discussions. At a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is widening every day, the Government stands aside. At a time when virtually every nation in the world is seeking new ways to create new wealth and economic opportunity, the Government stands pat.
On Monday last, instead of providing us with a prelude to a new decade, to a new century, we heard the last gasp of the old. Rarely has a political Party in office been given such an opportunity to demonstrate vision and rarely has a political Party failed so badly.
The problem is not just what the speech contained, it is what it did not contain: a belief in the capacity of the Canadian people, working through their Government, to meet the challenges ahead. Therein lies a fundamental difference between Liberals and Tories.
Clearly, this administration does not share our belief in the capacity of Government to evolve with society. It does not believe that Government can be an effective tool to help improve the lives of Canadians. That, unfortunately, is the essential message of the Speech from the Throne. That is why the Government signed a very one-sided trade deal, giving away the veiy tools that a modem state requires to develop its economy. That is why it is dismantling Crown corporations without giving any thought to the creation of new ones to meet new needs. That is why it stands by as high-tech company after high tech company representing the industrial future of Canada falls under foreign control. That is why our social programs have been put under the gun for four years.
This administration claims that its hands are tied by the deficit. That is garbage. Its objectives are not economic, they are ideological, an ideology that went out with the potato famine of the 1840s. The deficit is a problem and it is a very real one, but its solution does not lie in taking a broad axe to our social safety net. Canada has created a network of social programs of which we can be proud. We do not turn our backs on the sick. We do not walk away from the poor. Now, however, the Canadian commitment to social justice is coming under attack.

Our universities and our whole health care system are under attack, as are our senior citizens. And now, for the first time in our history, the generation of people under 30 is not assured a higher living standard than that enjoyed by their parents.
Deficit, reduction, yes! But not at any cost, and certainly not without reflection. Because as long as we limit ourselves to that budget exercize, we are not concerned with identifying new, more efficient ways to deliver existing services. The end result is that our cities more and more resemble those in the United States, and the drugs problem is getting worse.
Of course needs are changing. And our ability to adequately meet those needs certainly must change in turn. But it is no accident that Canada today is recognized as a caring, welcoming society.
It is because we always understood that we could improve our living standards by helping each other.
That is what Canadians implemented. That is their vision of the Government's positive role, and that is what is lacking in the Throne Speech.
The Tories claim to be a modem Government. I think they are frozen in the 1950s. Will you tell me why, in the very year the United States and Soviet Russia begin the most promising series of arms reduction initiatives since World War II, this Government signs an order for eight to twelve nuclear submarines at a estimated cost between $16 billion and $20 billion, nuclear submarines that are obsolete on the drawing board, nuclear submarines, the first of which will be delivered in the year 1998 and the last sometime after the year 2020, in a world that will be substantially different from the one in which we are now living?
April 10, 1989

I understand that a month and a half ago the Prime Minister of the country went over to Europe to receive an award for the environment. I doubt if that was the reason he went. I suspect he really went in order to repair the Maginot Line.
We as a political Party on this side of the House believe in the private sector, but we also believe in the positive role of government. That is why we disagree with the unspoken message of the Throne Speech. It asks not how can you make government more effective, but simply how can you make it smaller? Dismantling is seen as an end in itself. Redirection, modernization and the institution of government are not seen as tools of contemporary nation-building by the Tories.
For example, no one disputes that government programs can outlive their usefulness, but the mixed economy has not outlived its usefulness, nor will it, because Canadians will not limit their reach. We are not saying that we should dig in our heels to hold on to every last initiative spawned by former Governments. Far from it. What we are saying is that we should not deprive the Canadian people of the programs and institutions they require to meet the needs of the 1990s.
For instance, the Throne Speech did not once mention "housing", and yet lack of adequate shelter is one of the most pressing challenges this nation faces.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Despite the fact that over 100,000 Canadians are homeless, despite the fact that one of every three tenants has to spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent, despite the fact that countless Canadian families are losing hope of ever owning a home, this Government did not feel that housing was worth a single comment. Shelter in a climate such as Canada's is not a privilege. It is a right. Furthermore, home or co-op ownership is not just a roof overhead. It is also an important source of income security and community stability. In a society without roots, it provides much needed cohesion. Home ownership is the most important investment decision that most people will ever make.

By making it impossible for some people to become homeowners, you deprive them of their main reason to be involved in economic activities. If you want to see what happens in major urban areas where people do not feel comfortable and are no longer concerned about
The Address-Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Emard)
their environment, see what's happening to our American friends.

Canadian cities, going the way of their American counterparts, could well be the price we will pay for letting home ownership get beyond the reach of the average Canadian. That is why it was so incredible that housing was missing so completely from the Throne Speech.
As far as shelter for the homeless, transition homes for the battered and the abused, decent rental accommodations for countless Canadians, this Government's lack of concern is simply beyond human comprehension.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

So far, Mr. Speaker, we have emphasized some of the issues which the Government has ignored in this Speech from the Throne, but what about those it did address? Again, it is clear that the Government does not understand how to use its resources to develop a strong Canada. It prefers to remain idle while hoping that everything will turn out for the best. One has to wonder. For instance, the same Government which intends to use its Unemployment Insurance Funds to finance training programs has been for over four years merely slashing funds allocated to the training and re-training programs. Under these circumstances, who could trust such a Government?

This Government talks of adjustment assistance, and then the chairman of its own panel says that such assistance may well be countervailable under the trade deal. Then the Tories would have us take them seriously.
The Throne Speech speaks of the trade deal. It is enough to send shivers up your spine. In the first round, the Tories gave up most of Canada's bargaining chips before they sat down at the table to negotiate. They gave up on FIRA. They gave up on softwood lumber. They did not get a single concession in return. What they did was to take a dive in the first round. What will they do in the second?
I will tell you what they will do in the second. What we hear now is that the United States is gearing up to attack our subsidy programs. We hear the Government questioning the cost of regional development. They are beginning to hoist the white flag and the battle has yet to begin.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Emard)

Anything else in the Throne Speech? The environment. The Government is quite eloquent about it, but the time is no longer for fancy rhetoric, but for strong action, because we can no longer think in terms of compromise.

Who in this House will forget the scene of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) sitting there, having entrapped the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in his lethargy, the two of them denying that one of the greatest ecological disasters of all time, the Valdez spill, posts no present or future danger to Canada? Their refusal to come to grips with the problem before them symbolizes the failure of this administration's concept of government. I believe this will become the symbol of the Government's chronic inability to come to grips with the problems of the 1990s.
[ Translation \
Curiously, Mr. Speaker, this Government which refuses to look toward the future is not learning from the past. Problems exist. However, there is something we should never forget: the strength of a nation lies in its ability to overcome its greatest weaknesses. Canada's strength comes from its vast geographic areas and low population density. If our railroads became one of the greatest achievements of the 19th Century, it is because our territory demanded it.
If our telecommunication industry is today a world leader, it is again because the Canadian people demand it. When a great country meets challenges, its population lives up to the challenge and that is the message the Throne Speech should have sent out.

Canada requires contemporary solutions to contemporary problems. We face economic decisions of breathtaking opportunity. We face new social demands of unparalleled magnitude.
In both cases we will meet the challenge ahead only if government does not give up its ability to lead. Some day the NDP may well learn that government is not always the solution. On the other hand, it is time for the Tories to learn that government is not always the problem. Tories believe that the answer is cutting back, while Liberals believe in moving ahead. Tories believe in restraint, and Liberals believe in adjustment. For the Tories, restraint means eliminating programs instead of
making them work better; restraint means allowing people to drift along instead of helping them to move ahead.
Let us be clear about one thing. Canada will not be able to move ahead. Canada will not be able to keep pace, much less take its place in the forefront of the nations of the world by restraining innovation, opportunity, and growth. Instead, we have to ensure our nation's ability to adjust. Canadians have to come to grips with the global market-place. We have to adjust to a changing workplace. We have to adjust to new environmental norms. Government has a crucial role to play in guiding that very process.
How does government play that role? It does so through policies that open the playing field to many who have been sidelined in the past, such as senior citizens, disabled Canadians, and single mothers. It does so by ensuring a role for the private sector to carve out niches to meet the demands of an ever-evolving society. It does so by setting the stage for entrepreneurship and innovation.
In conclusion, it does so by rising far above the sterile role prescribed for it in the Throne Speech of April 3, 1989.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: I was interested in what the Hon. Member had to say about the omission of housing from the Throne Speech.
The Government appointed a new Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway). There have been reports of remarks he has made indicating a renewed commitment to housing.
Has the Hon. Member noted any change in the previous Conservative policy of neglect of housing since the current Minister responsible for housing has taken office?
I would also like to ask the Hon. Member his views on the lack of any commitment in the Throne Speech to a national infrastructure program to assist towns and cities across the country to renew their basic infrastructure of roads, bridges, sewer systems, and the like.
Does the Hon. Member agree that such a program would be a form of investment in the future of this country in that the projects in question would not only give employment to hundreds of thousands of people who would be paying taxes and adding to the revenues of the Government and receiving less in the way of welfare and unemployment insurance payments, but would also help make our economy more competitive?
April 10, 1989

I have seen studies that strongly indicate that a national infrastructure program would increase the over-all efficiency of the Canadian economy.
I wonder if the Hon. Member could respond to the points I have raised?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I thank the Hon. Member for his questions.
At the time of the appointment of the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway), having listened to his criticisms and comments in the House of Commons, I, and many Canadians, felt that at last we had a Minister who was going to take an interest in his portfolio. I need only refer to the unfortunate comments of his predecessor, the now famous Minister of the homeless.
Unfortunately, it has now become manifest that that appointment was a way of silencing a veiy effective critic by bringing him within the circle. From the lack of any mention of housing within the Throne Speech, it is clear that the Government has effectively shut up a man who, on the Government's side of the House, might well have been the conscience for vast untold numbers of Canadians who are now devoid of shelter.
The problem is not only limited to the lack of reference within the Throne Speech. It is manifest in the lack of response to the countless groups that have come before the Government and asked for an increase in aid, asked for a roof over their heads, asked for warmth in the months of January and February, and who have been turned away with a casual wave: "We will have to see when the Budget comes down", and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) then casually stands up and states that there will be nothing for the homeless; there will be nothing for the young people in this country who want to buy new homes; there will be nothing to provide co-op ownership, which is a unique way of sharing in property for those who cannot buy their own homes. There will be nothing because the Government does not believe that people should be helped.
The infrastructure question is very well taken. Time and again it has been demonstrated that the multiplier effect of the work that would go into building sewers and bridges, and improving roads, would repay itself many times over in jobs and tax revenues. Yet the Government refuses even to consider its responsibility in that area.
The Address-Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Emard)
More important, without any social conscience in any way, shape, or form, the Government stated that it was going to be concerned with the environment. One of the most important polluters of rivers and bays are major municipalities that cannot afford decent water or sewage treatment. The Government states that it is concerned about the environment, but it denies funding to municipality after municipality to clean up the water that we drink and the air that we breathe.
Our cities are in the front line of virtually every social problem that we face: the environment, housing, the drug problem, and lack of skills. To deprive our cities of the moneys that they require is to deprive current and future generations of the intellectual and physical sustenance that they require. There is no greater example of the Government's lack of conscience and lack of understanding of the needs of nationhood than the fact that its members sit there, fat cats, refusing to help out those people who live in an increasingly urbanized society.
The answer I give to the Hon. Member is one of great discouragement. As a rookie Member of Parliament I have been sitting here and looking at Members without conscience across the aisle. I wish that I could say that they will live up to their responsibilities, but unfortunately their record does not enable me to do so.


John R. Rodriguez: I listened intently, and I am impressed with the commitment of the Member to Canada. I am impressed with his concern for a blueprint that would create employment. I have two questions that I wish to ask. Given all of the things that he has stated, how does he feel about the development of the shipping industry in Canada with respect to registering Canadian ships and flagging Canadian ships, which is an important aspect and one in which we had some leadership until a previous Liberal Government destroyed our merchant fleet?
Second, I heard many of the Hon. Member's colleagues wanting to support VIA Rail and continue the subsidies to VIA Rail. Does the Hon. Member maintain the position that VIA Rail should be continued and expanded, and that the subsidies should be continued in order that we give greater options to travellers, so that instead of using buses-particularly Voyageur-they would be able to use VIA passenger rail service?

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. MacKay


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the Member for his question, and I especially admire his ability to stay within context.
As far as the first question is concerned, the one having to do with the flag registration, the fact is that as a result of the unfortunate drought in western Canada a substantial portion of the Great Lakes fleet is going to be laid up. As a result of that, there are going to be jobs lost arising out of a crop failure in western Canada and some ships have been flagged out, ships which undoubtedly will be coming back into the Lakes next year when indeed the crops in western Canada begin to grow once again.
But the Member raises a very important question, and that is why in this country do we not have a merchant marine? Why in this country can we not have a tax system that will give us the same benefits that the Norwegians have and other countries which desire to see their own flags flying? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is again a failure to understand the laws of international commerce and to understand nationhood.
So I feel very badly and I would hope that the industry which has put forth a plan for registry of ships would be listened to.
On the other hand, you see, this is it. Here is an industry that would like to create jobs for Canadians, and the hard-hearted Minister says: "To heck with creating jobs for Canadians. I have got my job. I am a Minister of the Government. I do not need to create jobs." Well, you may want to deprive Canadian sailors of jobs, but the Canadian sailors are going to have their day of reckoning.
As to the second question, the Member made a clear statement: why we should give jobs to bus drivers when we can give them to locomotive engineers? I do not understand that. I think we should be able to provide jobs to locomotive engineers and to conductors and at the same time provide jobs for bus drivers and truck drivers. I do not think any Member in this House should be discriminating against any Canadian industry as the Member did in his question. I get carried away in the face of such inequity, Mr. Speaker.
Let me just simply say that my personal position on this particular issue is that I would hope that Canadians will never be deprived of adequate transport in the regions. I would hope that we would never find a
situation in the Maritime Provinces, in northern Ontario, in northern Quebec or in western Canada where train service would simply disappear. It would not be reasonable. Nobody should ever discriminate against the regions of this country, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. MacKay).


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a distinct pleasure to be recognized following the remarks made by the distinguished Member from Montreal who has just spoken. To some of us have been here in the House to experience many speeches from the Throne, and the Member who has just spoken provides a very interesting link with history because his father distinguished himself very greatly in this House.
It is significant also that this is the first time that a Government has had the honour to bring forward a Speech from the Throne at the beginning of a second majority mandate since the father of the Member who has just spoken was in the House of Commons. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is significant because I would be the first to concede that going back to the 1950s to which the Member referred, the Liberal Government of that day did give leadership. They were good managers.
I remember reading in Time magazine when I was a little boy that the management of Canada's affairs was a source of some envy to other nations of the world, but unfortunately to put it in perspective, when we take a look at the latter 1960s, and the 1970s, the record seems to be much less clear.
I think it is fair to say that when you look back to when the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau first came into office, we had the same basic concerns in many areas that we have today.


Harvie Andre: Everything is worse.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I took a little trip back through memory lane and read some of these speeches from the Throne in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was interesting. I have here a reference involving the environment in 1969, and I am reading a quote here. Water was among most precious of our resources, that Speech from the Throne said, "and evidence of past failure to rehabilitate our water resources is there for all to see".
April 10, 1989

The Liberal Party has struggled mightily with resources and with the environment, and I guess the culmination, came forward not long ago, on March 8th in The Citizen when Greg Weston of recent biographical fame noted that the Liberal Party, which was millions of dollars in debt, spent half a million dollars decrying the terrible state of a particular lake. "I have never been so angry in my entire life", begins the letter signed by Liberal Party secretary, Marie-Andree Bastien. It turns out that after spending half a million dollars, Mr. Speaker, raising a lot of partisan comments, that the Liberal Party through their spokesperson had to admit, and this is a direct quote:
When faced with the fact that this was not a dead lake but a very healthy beaver dam in a very healthy national park, I said to my husband, oh, my God, it's a beaver dam. A senior Liberal estimates the mailing cost to the debt-ridden Party of more than half a million dollars.
So it can be said, and I realize I am being partisan here, but I cannot resist the jibe, that the Liberal Party in this case does not know the difference between a beaver dam and a dead lake. So this is not a very reassuring example of a contemporary awareness of the seriousness of environmental concerns.
Mr. Speaker, our Speech from the Throne in this particular case does bear testimony that we have honoured the commitments of the last four years. I think it is fair to say that even the most partisan of critics opposite would admit that in the past four years our country is considerably better off than it has been, that we have systematically reduced the budgetary deficit for the first time since the 1950s, that we have created over a million jobs, that more people can afford housing, more people are in better economic circumstances today than they were when our Government came into office in 1984.
Mr. Speaker, housing was never an easy problem. I remember 10 years ago, when I was Minister of Housing for a short time, we were faced with the infamous AHOP program. There were three AHOP programs as the Member from Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will remember. On top of that we had in Ontario the Home Ownership Plan. What was the result of all this subsidizing and paying people to live in houses? People were walking away from their housing, tossing their keys in and saying it was not worth it.
Mr. Speaker, there are no simplistic solutions for housing. It means that people have got to be given employment and that constructive measures have got to be taken, and this our Government has been doing over the past four years. But why are we faced with such a financial problem today? Environment does not just
The Address-Mr. MacKay
refer to a physical environment. We have to look at our physical environment, but we also have to look at our social, political and financial environment. We have one-fifth of the world's fresh water. We have the longest coast lines. We are a neighbour of two superpowers. We look out on- three oceans and speak several languages, including our two founding languages, and yet with all these resources, Sir, and all this potential, we have not yet quite filled the great Liberal Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier's prediction that the 20th Century would indeed belong to us.
We have seen a country like Argentina, a distinguished representative of which was in the gallery today, which in the 1930s had a gross national product and resources of the same as ours-my friend tells me he was from Brazil. Well, the same comparison could be made about Brazil. Countries with great resources and great potential do not always realize them. Potential is a wonderful thing to have, but it can be a heavy burden if it is not realized. So when we congratulate ourselves and say what a wonderful country we are, how unique we are, how fortunate we are, how sensitive we are, perhaps it is time for us to step outside our national psyche and ask how does the rest of the world look at Canada. Just maybe they see us as a very fortunate, large, rich country that has not been managing itself too well during the past couple of decades.
I think all Canadians must come to grips with the realization that we have to do better and it is incumbent upon us to make a lot better use of the God-given resources we have in order to manage our country and our affairs in such a way that we can protect the very social fabric that we have often talked about as setting an example to the world. We cannot in all conscience go on spending a great deal more money than we take in and not realize that somewhere down the line it is inhibiting our sovereignty, hindering our options and eventually will menace those very social programs of which we are so proud.
In 1971, when I first was elected to Ottawa and this place, the country's debt was less than $20 billion. Two years later, the gentleman whom some people call the Lather of the Modern Canadian Deficit-I would not say that but some people indicate that it is the Leader of the Liberal Party when he was Minister of Finance-brought in an expansionary budget to attack inflation and high unemployment rates while the national deficit at that point reached about $24 billion. Since that time the finances of the country have steadily worsened at an alarming rate.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. MacKay


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Especially in the last four years.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My hon. friend says especially in the last four years. Perhaps I should deal with that. In the last four years, despite very strong efforts which reduced the deficit year by year, it was not enough to cope successfully with the monstrous debt stock that the Government inherited.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Nonsense.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My friend knows, if he and I were in business and owed a million dollars and wanted to save the old family farm and the business, we would have to raise a lot of money every year. Let us assume the interest at that time was 10%. We would have to raise $100,000 every year in order to keep that $1 million from getting to the point where it might cause us to lose everything. This Government, being in that position, did its best, as he and I would do, to bring down the defict by raising more money and attacking the deficit. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the debt stock has continued to grow. That is the challenge that faces this Government, faces this country and faces all Members of Parliament.
We have to look at what our basic economic picture will produce if there are not some fundamental changes. I believe it is worthy to quote a very great Member of Parliament and our former national leader, Robert Stanfield, who added when he was speaking to this House on one occasion, that a Conservative must be concerned about the effects of economic growth, what it does to our environment, what kind of living conditions it creates, what is its effect on the countryside and what is its effect on our cities, whether all parts of the nation benefit or only some parts, and whether a greater feeling of justice, fairness and self-fulfillment results from this growth, thereby strengthening the social order and improving the quality of national life.
Mr. Stanfield further added that the Conservative tradition has been to interfere only where necessary, but to interfere where necessary in order to achieve social and national objectives. Perhaps this is an answer to my colleague from Montreal who raised a similar philosophic point on behalf of the Liberal Party.
It has been said more colloquially that the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is that if a Conservative sees someone drowning in deep water, 30 feet off a dock, he will throw him 20 feet of rope and say: "Struggle over, grasp the rope and we will save you". If a Liberal is confronted with this pathetic situation, he will throw 40 feet of rope to the unfortunate person and when he grasps it the Liberal will let go, run away and find another good deed to do. There are different ways to look for solutions for people in trouble.
Loyal to our traditions, a Progressive Conservative Government has proposed in this particular Speech from the Throne several measures aimed at achieving social and national objectives. This is not a Christmas tree approach that we have taken. Some Governments in the past have done this, but ours is rather a thematic approach. We have made a commitment to building a stronger economy, to protecting our environment, working toward a caring and compassionate society, fostering the values that make Canada unique and, of course, a commitment to national unity. I am very proud to be part of a Government which, in the Conservative tradition, strives to ensure that all regions of the country benefit from a healthy economy.
I am particularly pleased about our Government's commitment to Atlantic Canada and the continuation of funding for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and ensuring that the Government's procurement policies become increasingly responsible to regional considerations. The Agency in particular for which I am responsible is playing an essential role in the renewal of the entrepreneurial spirit in Atlantic Canada. Through a direct assistance program, through an advocacy role, its co-operation and co-ordination mandates, ACOA has already levered more than $2 billion of private investments and assisted in the creation of over 10,000 new jobs.
As Minister responsible for this Agency, I want to assure the House and colleagues that I will do my best to ensure that ACOA remains responsive to the region's needs through extensive consultation with the business community, academe, labour and all other interested parties. Many believe that ACOA should be encouraged to play a bigger role in assisting entrepreneurs to find new markets, to obtain adequate business management training, benefit from export opportunities arising from the Free Trade Agreement and, in other words, to help this country move into the 21st century by adopting new technologies, new techniques with help for all those who require it in the small and medium business sector.
April 10, 1989

The consultation process yet to be announced will aim to determine whether ACOA's policy framework is adequate or if it should be adjusted, as my colleague has suggested, to meet present and future challenges facing Atlantic Canada's entrepreneurs.
In closing, I look forward to the implementation of the Government's objectives as set out in the Speech from the Throne. As an Atlantic Canadian, I believe that economic and social measures such as the reform of the Unemployment Insurance Program, more responsive procurement policies, the work of ACOA, and working toward a national child care program will ensure that our region benefits from a healthier economy, therefore ensuring a better quality of life for all Canadians. At the same time I cannot resist putting on the record in the House one of my favourite quotes from a great American who, as part of that select group of Americans who helped to build that great republic, had pretty definite ideas on the role of government. Thomas Jefferson said:
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labour and in our amusements. If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labour of the people, under the pretence of caring for them, they will be happy.
There is some truth in that, although it was spoken a long time ago. While it is tempting for all of us to expect the Government to do a great deal to help, as well it should, there is also some truth in the maxim that any Government that is big enough to give you all you want is also big enough to take all you have got.


Mrs. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Hon. Member's question about how Canada is seen in the rest of the world. It is my impression that Canada's reputation in the world has dwindled considerably in recent years. One of the reasons for that is Canada is seen to be more and more tied to U.S. policy.
However, referring to the Speech from the Throne, I was particularly distressed that in referring to Canada's reputation the Government does not give a substantive commitment to maintaining its current level of overseas development assistance and, in fact, increasing those levels as was set out as a commitment some years ago.
The Address-Mr. MacKay
The Government continues to fall back on that commitment. It is very important that the Government recognize that the amount of development assistance we give to the world is directly related to the economic health of this country. Canada is not a country that lives in isolation from the rest of the world. We are part of an interdependent global community.
Not only does our overseas development assistance affect the economic health of our own country, it also affects the security of Canada. Canada, along with other western nations, has held the notion of relating security to only East-West conflict situations. I would suggest that the Government look more closely at the fact that our greatest security problems are more on a North-South basis than an East-West one.
Overseas development assistance will affect security. Our assistance must be enhanced and increased, not decreased. At the very minimum, development assistance must be maintained.
The environmental impact of overseas development assistance is also important. The environment is important in Canada but environmental issues around the world also affect us here.
I would suggest that the Hon. Minister address these facts when he wonders what Canada's reputation is in the world today.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond as follows: I think my colleague across the way raises some excellent points. I believe that our overseas development aid is very important and has a very high priority. I am one of those who would not, under ordinary circumstances, want to see our overseas aid curtailed. However, we must wait until we see what our fiscal resources are. I take the Hon. Member's observations very seriously. We should be targeting our overseas development aid as much as possible to environmentally sensitive areas to help ensure that countries that have identified clear priorities that benefit them greatly are assisted, not only with issues dealing with the environment but with food, with medical aid and with educational supplies.
I believe we have an excellent record in that respect and have spent well over $2 billion in this regard in the last period of time-


Mrs. Landry:: It was $2.7 billion.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My colleague informs me that it was $2.7 billion. On the other hand, I believe it is necessary for us to take stock of how other countries regard us, simply because we have so many resources and such a tradition

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. McCurdy
and such a capacity to improve ourselves and thereby pass along benefits to them through ODA that we can no longer afford to get ourselves in the position in which the moneys we pay to service past borrowings are restricting our options. This affects not only our ability to provide our own social programs, but if this trend is not checked, inevitably we will have to cut back on ODA.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mrs. Stewart) have a further question or comment?


John B. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, I will take it up another time.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have in mind a comment and a question on the Hon. Minister's remarks. I note with great interest that the Minister spoke in glowing terms about ACOA which is very important, of course, to the Maritimes, and in particular to Newfoundland.
I had a recent briefing and discussions with the people concerned and, indeed, involved with the ACOA business. There is no question that while ACOA has done a tremendous job in helping the economy of Newfoundland, there is a particular aspect of it that is slowing down the good it can do. I would like to bring to the Minister's attention this legitimate concern, not one clearly for the subject of debate.
Quite frankly, I do not have with me the input numbers for the reduction of staff as a result of the previous combined efforts of the old DREE department and ACOA. Rather than treat it in input terms, I would like to relate to it in output terms.
If my memory serves me correctly, for account executives looking after this kind of business, one person can look after between 10 and 20 accounts. It has been brought to my attention that in the case of ACOA in Newfoundland, one account executive has the responsibility for about 50 accounts, well above what is normally expected. The end result is that those who are making application for legitimate grants, loans and assistance in getting the economy of Newfoundland off the ground do not have access to the kind of expertise and professional advice that was intended when ACOA was first set up. The end result is that there is a certain level of frustration and discouragement which could be ameliorated, if not indeed totally rectified, if this situation were to be looked at.
I would ask the Minister to comment on this and indeed to do something to rectify the situation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and I will take them most seriously. I believe it is fair to say that ACOA, in its present configuration, is quite different from DREE and then later DRIE because decisions are intended to be made on a more expeditious basis in the Atlantic region. It is the only agency, I believe, at least east of Ottawa, that has that capacity now and has most of its resources and decisionmaking powers in the region it serves.
We do not wish to overly bureaucratize the agency. I think it is fair to say that in the short period of time it has been in operation, a tremendous number of offers have been taken up. In the Hon. Member's province, well over 3,000 jobs have been created and many more have been maintained.
I am not suggesting to the Hon. Member or to the House for one moment that the administration is working perfectly or that there is not room for changes and improvements, not only in the methodology but in the policies. Therefore, I will take that very seriously.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you were somewhat taken aback, at least intrigued, by the response of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Andre) to the question I asked today. Hon. Members will recall that the question was based on Connaught Laboratories, perhaps the largest pharmaceutical corporation in Canada. It is an historic enterprise, the place, after all, where Banting and Best developed insulin, one of the singular discoveries in Canadian scientific history. Connaught Laboratories, it has been reported, will be purchased by the Institute Merieux. The interesting thing about that institute is that it is owned by the French government.
At the same time, I referred in my question to the fact that Lumonics Inc. was to be purchased by a Japanese firm, Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd., and it should be noted that Lumonics is the third largest laser technology corporation in the world. It is a very successful research and development enterprise, as is Connaught, as well. Their expenditures on research and development are quite high as compared to those of almost any other corporation in Canada. Over 10 per cent of sales are invested in research and development.
April 10, 1989

There is another signal fact that ought to be referred to in respect to Lumonics and that is that one of the small impediments-and with this Government, I am sure it is a tiny impediment-is that Lumonics has based its success on a government-owned licence for the essential technology that has been the basis for Lumonics' success. The Minister rose and hemmed and hawed as if he did not know what was happening. I am sure that was the case. The matter was of such trivial significance to him he completely forgot; but he got himself together. He said he was talking to a Dupont corporate type who said they were going to build some new research in Canada. That comes as no surprise to anybody that Dupont will do a little bit in Canada. They will do a little bit in Canada whether this Government did anything or not. That is the nature of the chemical industry.
The significance of the demise of these two Canadian companies is far more important than any piddling amount of research that Dupont will do in its branch plants in Canada. Connaught was Canadian owned. Lumonics was Canadian owned. One of the problems for research and development in this country is that Canadian companies are where we find research being done. The difficulty Canada faces with respect to industrial research and development is that American and other foreign-owned companies do no research in this country. As an expression of gross domestic product invested in research and development compared with other countries, we do extraordinarily poorly.
One of the strong suits of this Government should be its understanding of the economy and commitment to competitiveness. One of the obvious characteristics of the modem economic world is that a country like Canada cannot continue to be dependent exclusively on its forests, fisheries and mines in order to continue to thrive economically.
There are a number of reasons for this, having to do with the necessity of sustainable development and increased competition from alternative sources and the resources which have meant so much to Canada. Part of it is due to the substitution of other substances and materials in manufacture for the materials that we have dug from the ground and cut from our forests. It is clear that if Canada is to thrive in the future, it cannot function exclusively on the basis of the exploitation of our resources. It must function by harnessing the intelligence and the creativity of its people. That is fundamental.
The Address-Mr. McCurdy
This is not a new discovery on my part, but it is certainly true that this is a discovery that has had little impact in this place. Much of what might be said in criticism of the Government could be directed at all Members of Parliament collectively. In our synergism with the press, we search for the short term answers for what happens in the storm outside or what will happen within the next year. Due to that short-term sight and the absence of a clear understanding of the significance of science, research and development, and because of the universal ignorance in the press and media of the importance of science, treated as if it were too arcane to be reported in simple terms, we have dug ourselves a very deep hole and must dig ourselves out very soon.
The Prime Minister was aware of the difficult straits in which Canada finds itself. Back in 1984, he said that his starting line was the technological dimension: Either we go into the game and become important players in the major leagues, or we will become a nation that will in its entire lifetime play in the Junior B circuit.
Why did he say that? He said that because Canada was bringing up the tail-end among the industrial nations with regard to its activities in the area of science, research and development.
In 1984, about 1.35% of our Gross Domestic Product was being invested in research and development. What is called "Gross Domestic Investment" in research and development was 2.3%, about one-half that of our major industrial competitors.
There are some other telling statistics. Not only have we not advanced a single decimal point with respect to percentage of GDP invested in research and development, we are falling behind other countries who recognized the necessity for a significant improvement in their research and development. We must produce the kinds of jobs that provide security for Canadians and that allows Canada the opportunity to make a significant contribution to peace and social security for others in this world. If one compares the period from 1971 to 1985, the United States rose 10 per cent. They were already high by comparison with us. In 1971, we were exactly where we are right now. Japan, in that period, has gone up 35%, Germany 20% and France 15%. You may say, Mr. Speaker, those are big countries. It is understandable that they are able to increase their investment at that rate, but if one looks at Sweden in that period, their percentage of investment in research and development has doubled. Their target is over 3% of GDP to be invested in research and development.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mr. McCurdy
Look at the other parameters. If one looks at the rate of industrial investment in research and development, Canada ranks eleventh among industrial nations. There has been much said about Canada's high proportion of Government investment in research and development. Canada ranks ninth in Government-funded research and development. A significant aspect of our efforts in research and development is the number of trained personnel, the number of scientists and engineers that we have. We rank fourteenth!


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: One may have expected that since 1984 in view of the eloquent remarks about research and development made by the Prime Minister, we would have had in response to his promise some significant advance in the direction of a 2.5% rate. In fact, we have not gone ahead a single one-hundredth of a point.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: If one looks at research and development expenditures by the Government since 1984, in real terms those expenditures have dropped by 3.5% in that period of time.


An Hon. Member:: Another broken promise.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I do not want to take too much time with this, because everybody knows about it. If one looks at what the prospects are, should there be an increase in investment in research and development, one has to look at what our universities are producing. Are we going to have the personnel? Expenditures in the university have gone down. The Government has already cancelled $2 billion in expenditures for university operating costs over a five-year period of time. The universities are in a disgraceful state of affairs. Real investment in the universities on a per student basis has gone down by 11 per cent. We are already dragging our tails in respect to the percentage of the population that is involved in research and development. In the Throne Speech one would have expected to hear some type of clarion call that something more was going to be done than has been done in the past.
Let me pause for a moment in case there is someone on the Liberal benches that is as condemning as I am of the Government. Not only was the Liberal record worse, but it was a disgrace. Between 1971 and 1984 there were times when the percentage of GDP spent on research was as low as 1.01 per cent. It did not go up under the aegis of the Liberals. Not once did the Liberals have a five-year program for R and D in the universities.
When it comes to rhetoric, and when it comes to the mounting of organizational structures, the Progressive Conservatives have not done too badly. They are to be congratulated for the construction of a National Advisory Council on Science and Technology. They are to be congratulated for their program Innovation. They are to be congratulated for an increased number of scientific scholarships for university students. They are to be congratulated for an increase in investments in museums and that type of thing to increase the awareness of science. For all of that they are to be congratulated.
They might even accept a note of congratulation for having agreed to create a Parliamentary Committee on Science, Research and Development. That committee included a non-partisan group of Parliamentarians interested in science. One of the problems was that committee began to notice that we were getting an awful lot more B.S. than action. I am sorry to say that that committee met its demise. People wanted to decrease the number of committees, that that committee on Science, Research and Development was beginning to bring too much focus on science, research and development. People may begin to understand that research and development is important to the future of this country and to jobs for Canadians. Therefore, the committee was buried under a committee designation of something like industry, technology and northern development.
In congratulating my own Party and my own effectiveness in negotiation, the name has been changed so that at least it mentions science. It is a tragedy. At long last Parliament had begun to address the ignorance of the House about research and development, and had brought into focus the necessity for us becoming better informed about the fundamental importance of research and development to the future of this country.
As I stated earlier, one expected to find in the Throne Speech some indication that more was going to be done to improve this disgraceful record, and that something
April 10, 1989

would be done to counteract the deterioration in our possibilities for producing jobs where jobs must be produced in the technology and knowledge areas of industry and business. What does it state? It states that the National Advisory Board in Science and Technology has been created. It is doing fine, and it has done some nice things. That is all there is.
If there is one fundamental stupidity on the part of the Government, it is what it has done to our prospects for science, research and development as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. One only needs to refer to a couple of the tools that one might use to improve science research and development. One is to use strategic procurement. Under the Free Trade Agreement we could use strategic procurement if we were going to encourage research in the United States. We cannot say that we are going to provide that contracts be let to Canadian companies in order that they can develop the technology for Canadian purposes and have it directed to Canadian companies.
Where does research occur in this country? It occurs among Canadian-owned companies that are worth less than $150 million. The vast majority of research occurs in companies of such size. Northern Telecom is the only company in the whole country that invests more than $300 million a year in research. There are 21 such companies in the United States. We have said that any company in Canada worth less than $150 million can be acquired without review. If they develop new technology, that technology can be bought by the Americans without review, and the technology and the jobs go to the United States. But then, of course, we use subsidies. We are in the process of negotiating away those subsidies. What are we left with as the means and the levers for developing industrial research and development in this country? We have very little.
In the Throne Speech I had hoped to see some reference and suggestions as to what the Government might do to change this dreadful situation where we are falling further and further behind those countries with which we must compete.
I wish you were not rising now, Mr. Speaker, because I want to talk about what the Government is going to do to the transfer payments, and what it is going to do to the universities to make them even worse off than they are now. I know that you are interested in the subject.
The Address-Mr. McCurdy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I enjoy listening to the Hon. Member. However, I regret that his time has expired.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: I commend the Hon. Member on an excellent speech. In some aspects he touched on research and development. I would like to ask him his views on education. The Government has not made a solid commitment to education, especially when it comes to the issue of transfer payments to the provinces. In our view, every dollar that the federal Government puts toward education should go toward education. In the past, it has been the practice of the provinces that that money put toward education never goes toward education. In fact, it goes toward other programs.
What is the policy of the hon. member's Party vis-a-vis the transfer payments? What is his Party's policy toward education?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: know that you are very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you will have an opportunity to be further edified.
There are two aspects of universities that are at issue. The Hon. Member referred to the operating support for universities through transfer payments, which is established program funding. The Government has cut this at a time when all of us in the House, who had given any thought at all to the situation in the universities, were saying that those transfer payments for post-secondary education should not be cut. Instead, action should be taken to ensure that the provinces paid their fair share, and that enough was provided at both levels of Government to ensure that there would be opportunity for our youth in the universities to prepare themselves for the technological future, and a future based on research and development used in a sustainable environmental manner.
There is also the issue of university research. What the Government and the Government before it has allowed to happen in universities is catastrophic. At the moment I am not going to dwell on the extraordinary debts incurred by students to go to university, but it is a shame that they should go into debt to go to second rate universities because the Government has failed to meet its responsibilities. Universities which cannot pursue research of high quality are losing its scientists because the Government has not paid any attention to the advice of its own National Advisory Committee on Science and Research which has stated that the amount of money provided to the granting councils of the universities should be doubled, and doubled within two years. That is

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Feltham
how urgent the need is. Subsequently, the rate of increase in investment in university research should be 1.5 times the rate of increase in the gross domestic product.
What this Government is doing to the future of Canada is a disgrace. It is a tragedy, and we face bad times if we think that we are going to provide jobs in this country as a branch plant economy dependent upon other country's technology for producing jobs here. Japan, the United Kingdon, France, Germany and the U.S.A. are not doing research and development to produce jobs in Canada. We have to do that ourselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Saskatoon- Humboldt (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Government has spent a lot of time and effort recently trying to convince us that we can depend on the private sector to take over the research and development which they are cutting out of the public sector. We have a lot of good examples of this; the reduction in funding to the National Research Council and other areas. Why do you say that the private sector will not take over that load from the public sector?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I just said a moment ago that we do not expect the Japanese, the Germans, the French or the English to make investments in research and development to produce jobs in Canada. One of this country's biggest problems is the very high proportion of industry owned by foreign investors. What have we done? We have ensured that an even higher percentage of our key industrial enterprises will be opened up to the Americans and what prospects we might had of development and research in those areas.
Inevitably government has a role in its research laboratories, the National Research Council, albeit in co-operation with industry but not too short-sightedly so, to advance research and development and to fill the gap that is not filled by that big portion of industry which is foreign controlled, but what is happening? This Government unleashed an attack on the scientific establishment in government, the NRC has been robbed of funding, robbed of a mission and has become demoralized. This is something all of us hear constantly. There has to be a reorganization of the direction of a reasonable mission for government.
Having had this whole general area of government opened up to advance research and development, one of the things that was suggested last year to which both sides of this House agreed was to have a national mission in research and development akin to the space mission in the United States. It was in fact a government-commissioned study that showed that pursuing a hydrogen fuel mission for Canada would operate on Canada's comparative advantages, and would make it possible within Canada to get the same kind of push in the direction of increased R&D that space research provided in the United States.
What did they do? It should not be such a surprise that they got a little thing going there in Quebec ignoring Alberta almost completely, and we have no true hydrogen mission in this country. Right now another interesting thing has happened. Lumonics was involved hydrogen research. It has now been discovered that by using surface catalysis, one can bring about the fusion of deuterium nuclei, and hence produce energy from that process. This is simple and unintensive technologically. Scientists say it is elegant as compared to sophisticated. What that means is that the tools are simple, and brains count a lot.
Something has happened which makes it possible for Canada at the same starting line to enter the race for practical hydrogen fusion technology. One would have thought that the Government would have embarked on a serious effort to test the practicability of this new technology if the experiment has been confirmed, and my understanding is that it has been. I wrote to the Minister and I suggested that the Minister take that initiative, but I do not expect much, we have had so little so far.


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


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to speak to this House today in support of the Speech from the Throne which outlines our goals for the future of Canada. The Throne Speech set out five main objectives through which this Government plans to build a strong and a united country. Our plan calls for the building of a stronger economy, for the protection of our environment, for a caring and compassionate society, for the fostering of values that make Canada unique, and for a commitment to national unity. I believe the implementation of these objectives and the challenge we face together will not only strengthen our Government but the people of Canada as a whole.
April 10, 1989

Today I would like to have had the time to comment on all of these objectives. However, with time constraints, I will be limiting my comments to the one issue that I feel must be of prime importance if we are to be successful with the remaining four objectives.
I refer to the national debt. The people of Alberta and the people of Canada are growing more and more concerned about the increasing national debt. Since 1984, this Conservative Government has made a concerted effort to control that debt and has lowered the deficit in a slow but steady way. However, now it is time for stronger measures, and virtually everyone, politicians of all stripes, 89 per cent of Canadians, business leaders, even social groups, agree that something should be done to reduce the $29 billion a year deficit and the build up of the federal debt which now totals approximately $320 billion.
The Throne Speech offers Canadians from sea to sea a vision of the future, a vision of Canada that is confident, unified and strong. It is a vision of Canada that holds a unique identity among nations, a Canada that leads the world community with new ideas. It is a vision of Canada that is vibrant and progressive but also caring and compassionate.
As a country and as individuals, we as Canadians have achieved much over the years, but now it is time to build for the future, to attain this vision, and to eradicate our national debt.
Why is the deficit a problem? It is often said that a deficit can be used to stimulate a weak economy and essentially this is true if it is used only over a short time. However, when it is used indiscriminately and over a long term it becomes a millstone that makes it virtually impossible for a Government to function effectively. That is where we are headed.
The number one threat to Canada's future is our national debt. Large government deficits mean higher interest rates. It means less investment and fewer jobs. Each year that there is a deficit, the debt grows. That means more and more money must be spent to pay interest on the debt.
Today, 31 cents out of every dollar spent by the federal Government goes to paying interest on our debt. In the long run this affects the ability of this Government, or any other Government, to provide the programs and the services that we as Canadians have come to appreciate.
The Address-Mrs. Feltham
Some Hon. Members have expressed a fear for the future of our social programs. I also have a fear that our social programs will suffer if we do not work to lower the deficit. For instance, at the present time the Government spends more money on interest payments than on old age security, guaranteed income supplements, spouses' allowance, housing, health, education, and family allowances, all combined.
I am sure we are all in agreement that the time for action is now. We must secure our social programs for the future. Democracy itself may be the reason for the rise in government spending, a government response to the ever-increasing demand for public goods and public services.
Increased government spending is a reflection of our response to events in society, to our social obligations, and to our political pledges to each other. From money paid to parents of a new child to cheques paid each month to senior citizens, the spending activities of government touch every part of our lives from the time we are bom until death. We eat bread produced with taxpayers' dollars. We wear clothing made by companies aided by grants. We live in homes financed by publicly backed mortgage funds.
Government spending helps us when we are sick. It provides the opportunity for education and it supports us when we are jobless. In Canada, government balance sheets are not simply facts and figures, a listing of contributions and distributions, they are a result of our collective wants. There is increasing pressure on political leaders to provide their citizens with these wants. The political reality is, however, that deficit reduction does not make good politics. However, I and a majority of Canadians know that something has to be done, and done now.
The public has now become aware of the implications of continuous overspending. It has elected this Government to ensure that the brakes are applied. This does not mean that our job will be an easy one. We must be decisive in our approach to debt reduction and we must educate our citizens on why it is necessary.
We know that not everyone will agree with the policies that are laid down, but it will be our job to ensure the transition between what was thought to be an endless amount of money and control of the national debt be thoughtfully proceeded with. This Government is fully aware that not everyone will agree with the policies that are laid down. I believe in this Government and its ability to rectify the situation. I believe that it has the capability to turn these dark times into good, sound economic times and restore a balance to government financing.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Feltham
In Alberta there are 26 constituencies and today we have 24 Conservative Members in the House of Commons. Many people would have us believe that the Conservative rode to victory on the back of free trade. That may have been one of the reasons, but the reduction of the national debt most assuredly carried as much importance, especially in my riding, as did the free trade debate. I know from listening to the people of my riding that the grass roots re-elected this Government because they know that the national debt is the number one problem in this country and that this Government would, at the beginning of its mandate, take strong measures to attack that national debt.
How do we reconcile these two objectives: the national debt and a caring and a compassionate Government? Is it possible to bridge that gap? We have spoken about bridging a gap when we refer to a relationship between a parent and a child or between a reporter and a newspaper, but now we are looking at it between deficits and social programs.
Will those two become reconcilable, and where? On April 27, when my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), brings in the Budget, I know that all considerations will have been given to these complex issues. We will still be considered a Government which is compassionate and caring, but a Government which is strong enough to face the realities of its responsibility. Canadians have told this Government that it is time to bring the national debt under control. This is the year, not next year, not two years from now, but on April 27, 1989.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Wild Rose (Mrs. Feltham) on her speech and her description of the importance of deficit reduction. Indeed I come from a riding in Alberta, and there it was the number one issue throughout the entire election campaign. My colleague also spoke about the Free Trade Agreement, but deficit reduction was number one out where I come from.
It is interesting to note that in 1967 when the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau came into power, the debt was sitting at $18 billion and when he left it was at $220 billion. In fact, it was growing at approximately 24 per cent per year.
We did tackle the debt in 1984. We were able to cut our spending and bring the deficit down from about $38.7 billion to $28.9 billion. We talked about rising interest rates. Rising interest rates will not control inflation. We simply have to lower the deficit and the debt.
What my colleague said was pretty interesting. She said that 31 cents on every dollar the federal Government takes in, in revenues, goes to service this debt, and she was quite right. If we do not tackle it now, that will go up and up.
I want the Hon. Member to comment on one area. She spoke about a strong and united Canada and a national unity. Just prior to her speaking, I heard members of the Liberal Party talking about forward thinking programs and how they would unite Canada.
I wonder if my colleague might refresh the memories of our Liberal colleagues about what happened in 1981 with a program called the National Energy Program which zeroed in on one industry in particular and what happened to Western Canada under those forward thinking policies. Those policies devastated us. I would ask the the Hon. Member for Wild Rose what she has to say about what happened to Alberta and indeed to western Canada under that forward thinking program.


Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. When she said it was devastating, she summed it up and I do not think I can add anything further to that. The effect it had on Alberta was devastating.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, we all worry about the deficit and about putting government spending under control. Not one single Hon. Member here disagrees with some sort of control. The question is how to do this. Do we cut baby bonuses? Do we cut unemployment insurance? What programs do we tackle in order to reduce the deficit?
We in the Liberal Party introduced a package during the election campaign. We spoke about reducing the deficit through job creation, through infrastructure programs, through retraining programs, through investment in research and development, through investment in education, through combating illiteracy. Because of illiteracy by itself, company after company in the private sector has indicated that they are losing in the vicinity $10 billion annually.
April 10, 1989

The Government should be looking at those things. It is dandy to be talking about cutting the deficit, but there are other means available to the Government in terms of investment in the future of our children, investment in research and development, investment in education and investment in employment retraining, particularly for those who are in their forties and early fifties. We are interested in seeing the Government do something about those kinds of investments, and we will be watching fairly closely to see what will be done.
Dealing with the environment, if the past four years is any indication of what this Government will do, we are in for a rough ride. Of course Canadians voted for the Conservatives, but did they give a majority to the Conservatives in terms of popular vote? No, over 50 per cent of the people of Canada did not vote for Conservative programs and did not go along with the Conservative's ideas.
One must reflect on what we are doing for the future of Canada and what we are investing in the future of our children. We must talk about economic development. Trade by itself is a flashy issue. However, when talking about trade, a very important issue is putting infrastructure in place.
Look at what will happen to the infrastructure of Canada over the next 10 years. In the United States, infrastructure is the number one issue. The United States Government is trying to address that issue. What are we doing here in Canada in terms of investment in infrastructure or sewage treatment plants which, since 1984, have had not one penny put into them? Through one single area, investment in infrastructure, we can generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I know that there are many people in this room with municipal backgrounds. I will be watching closely to see what they will do. When they were in municipal politics, they all spoke about government investment in infrastructure. Now we will see delivery. Now we will see commitment.
It is great to talk about deficit reduction, but it is equally important to talk about productivity, education and training for older employees.
The Address-Mrs. Feltham
I did not want to ask a question because I already know the answer. We have been given a whitewash for the past four years and I hope we will not be given the same whitewash over the next four years. I will wait patiently to see what kind of programs there will be for the environment, infrastructure, education and combating illiteracy. Those are the four important issues I would like to see the Government do something about.
The future does not look too bright. We can tighten the belt, but it is important to make sure that we do not cut our throats at the same time.
Canada is a leading nation in the industrialized world. We have to maintain that role. We must carry on, and we can only carry on by investing in the future of Canadians. We can only carry on by investing in education.
Look at how much we are investing in education. Look at the number of people in Canada who are functionally illiterate. One in every five is considered illiterate.


Harvie Andre: We will be deaf too if you don't tone it down.


Mac Harb: This is the area we have to tackle. We have to stop talking. It is time to start acting. I am not sure that there is any action. I am not seeing it.


Harvie Andre: There are microphones. You don't have to yell.


Mac Harb: It is very challenging. I have yet to hear one single speech-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to hear the comments of the Hon. Member.


Harvie Andre: From the parking lot.


Mac Harb: Thank you, Harvie. I have heard speech after speech dealing with deficit cutting. I have yet to hear one single speech focusing on productivity. Those are the things we must concentrate on. It is not important at all to talk, it is far more important to invest in order to produce. The private sector knows that. We always talk about the private sector. We should bring the private sector into a partnership with the federal Government so that the Government may learn from it.
I have been involved in research and development-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that questions and comments are now terminated and that we can call it 5.30.

April 10, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Feltham


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.30 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 50(5), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment. Accordingly, the question is on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Riis.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That the amendment be amended by adding the following words: "and, specifically, that the House regrets the failure of the
Government to provide adequate resources to deal with
environmental crises and accidents; to regulate and enforce
environmental laws; to monitor the state of our air, lands and waters;
and to provide national standards of environmental protection".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you were to test the House, you may find unanimous consent to apply the vote we just had to this vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore I will declare the amendment lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we may agree to apply the vote taken on the subamendment to the amendment, but we would like to hear whose amendment we are voting on and what happened exactly. Let us stick to procedure. I think the amendment has to be put to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Turner, seconded by Mr. Gray (Windsor West) moved:
That this House regrets that Your Excellency's advisors continue to show indifference toward the economic and social well-being of lower and middle-income Canadians and contempt for Canadian democratic institutions by dishonouring commitments to the Canadian people with regard to the implementation of the Canada-U.S. trade deal, by abandoning Canadian farm, fisheries and forest workers, by ignoring the dangerous acceleration of concentration of corporate power, by refusing to act properly and firmly to assure public access to and the safety of the Canadian transportation system, by abdicating responsibility for health care, housing and senior citizens, by failing to protect the rights of minorities across Canada, by deserting the federal role in research, technological and economic development, and by circumventing the authority of the House of Commons with regard to the expenditure of public moneys and by presenting Parliament a program empty of anything save a clear desire to dismantle the Canadian social safety net while imposing an oppressive and inequitable fiscal regime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, I declare the amendment lost on division.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Point of order-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Which one of the
heavy hitters should I recognize?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, talking about heavies, I would not use that word-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you did say "lost on division". I would like you to know that we did vote and the recorded vote said that we had indeed voted for that amendment-


Some Hon. Members:: And lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and lost, but not on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.05 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 11, 1989