1989-04-06

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the Government in early 1989. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list of which is attached.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, pursuant to Section 61 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, I wish to table copies of the 1988 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (cattle rustling and range cattle).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to introduce a private Member's Bill regarding cattle rustling. In many parts of Canada, hundreds of head of cattle are lost or disappear each year, and the police are well aware that a number of these cattle are lost because of cattle rustlers. While there has been a traditional way of dealing with this problem, it is no longer accepted in
our country. This private Member's Bill would at least make the penalties severe enough to hopefully deter people from pursuing this very unscrupulous practice.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food irradiation).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my Bill is to amend the Food and Drugs Act. It would have the effect of placing a moratorium on the irradiation of foods in Canada and on the export of food irradiation equipment.
It would also put into effect a study to look into the whole aspect of food irradiation and would require a report to the House of Commons before any further action takes place on this important topic.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations with Members of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. I move:
That a committee be appointed to prepare and report in
accordance with Standing order 104 and 113, lists of Members to
compose the Standing, Legislative and Joint Committees of this
House: and

April 6, 1989
Order Paper Questions
That the committee be composed of: Messrs. Boudria, Charest,
Cooper, Gauthier, Hawkes, Layton and Murphy.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition now that the House of Commons is sitting. It has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
In their petition Canadians have expressed concern with the high unemployment rate in Canada expressing the fact that it is one of the highest unemployment rates of the western industrialized nations and, whereas, unemployment continues to be higher than it was for all but two years between 1946 and 1981 and whereas all Canadians should have the right to meaningful employment, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to establish full employment as its first priority.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of the City of Nepean. This has been approved pursuant to Standing Order 136.
Whereas it is the desire of Christians throughout the world to safeguard the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's Day, and whereas we sincerely believe the only way to achieve the above objective is through uniform legislation at the national level of all Christian countries and whereas as Christians are tolerant and respectful of the legitimate wishes of other faiths, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu to observe the Sabbath, therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider our concerns regarding the above proposed and hopefully pass Sabbath observance legislation that is fair and just for everyone.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. Further petitions?


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Canada concerning the Non-Smokers Health Bill and the fact that the Government has not proclaimed this Act. The petitioners state that whereas environmental tobacco smoke is injurious to the health of Canadians working in a smoking environment and to Canadians travelling in smoke contaminated common carriers, and whereas in recognition of this Parliament which passed a Non-Smokers Health Act in June, 1988 which provided protection from environmental tobacco smoke to federally regulated workers and travellers, and whereas the Government of Canada has failed to proclaim and enforce this Act, therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Government of Canada to proclaim and enforce the Non-Smokers Health Act.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians pursuant to Standing Order 36, which petition has been approved by the Clerk of Petitions.
This is a petition concerning Via Rail. Whereas rail transportation can be an effective and efficient means of public transportation and, whereas passenger rail service has played an important role in the establishment of Canada and the development of a Canadian identity, and whereas subsidies required by rail transit are not out disproportionate to subsidies required for road or air transit and wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to encourage and assist Via Rail to expand its operations and become a more efficient and widely used form of public transportation.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present on behalf of constituents of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the South Shore, Bourassa, Laval, Longueuil and Montreal West. All those people are asking the Conservative Government to renounce its commitment to build nuclear-powered submarines and to spend that money instead on health, to help solve problems at the hospital level, as well as on research on AIDS, cancer and other illnesses.
April 6, 1989


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 5, 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 the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner, Vancouver Quadra (p. 131) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broad-bent (p. 140).
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have again entrusted to the Progressive Conservative Party the leadership of their Government. They have given us a full mandate to govern and we intend to do so firmly, effectively and well on behalf of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This week, as in 1984 and again in 1986, the Speech from the Throne was laid before Parliament and it contained our vision of Canada's future. As before, we have set ourselves a task I think appropriate to the times. Our agenda in the first mandate was ambitious. Canada was at that time feeling the winds of change. It needed a program to channel its energy and chart its course, and that, with the imperfections that result in a democratic institution from governing, is what we tried to do and in large measure I believe that is what we accomplished.
Now in 1989 Canada once more looks to the future and we do so with great anticipation. The Government's vision for this mandate builds on the achievements of the first. It is a big vision for a big country, a challenge to a land of limitless promise.
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney [Translation]
And, as the election made clear, it is a vision shared by Francophones and Anglophones, by men and women, by the first Canadians and by the newest Canadians, by farmers and fishermen, labourers and professionals, by Canadians from all walks of life and all regions who told the Canadian Government: Go right ahead! We support your program for economic recovery and national reconciliation. You did a good job during your first mandate, so let's see you do it again for a second one!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is a vision of a flourishing land, respected abroad, competitive in commerce, caring and compassionate at home, a land tolerant of differences, conscious of its responsibilities, above all to its natural heritage, and united in the uniqueness of its traditions. It is a vision for a nation that is open to the world and to the opportunities this openess presents. It is a vision for a nation that expects its government to govern, and to be willing to make the difficult decisions that are sometimes necessary. Our nation understands that its continued prosperity is not assured without wisdom in setting public policy. Our potential can be realized if we rely on our strengths, to build and create, and earn what we wish to enjoy.
Our government came to office in September of 1984, following a period of great economic difficulty and internal division that was painful for all Canadians. Federal-Provincial relations were marked by confrontation. The Constitution had been repatriated without the agreement of the government of Quebec. Western provinces deeply resented the government of Canada's unilateral interventions in the energy field. The Atlantic provinces were frustrated with the government's approach to offshore energy management, and with the lack of progress in regional economic development. The economy was weak, with excessively high inflation and unemployment rates.
Perversely, Mr. Speaker, federal Government policies acted as obstacles to economic recovery, both by inhibiting investment and over-regulating the private sector. The federal Government's own fiscal situation represented a fundamental impediment to sustained economic prosperity. In fact, by 1984 the federal deficit was at an unprecedented level and growing at a rate which was unsustainable and would ultimately ruin us.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney
In these circumstances the Government devoted considerable effort to rebuilding the national and economic foundations of Canada. With regard to the Meech Lake Accord, I salute the leaders of the other political parties in this Chamber for their leadership on the sensitive national issue-the Meech Lake Accord took the first critical steps with regard to restoring Quebec to the constitutional fold.
Destructive energy policies that had ravaged western Canada so unfairly for so long were dismantled, and new energy accords were reached in the West, the North, and the Atlantic region.
New approaches to regional development were implemented and critical resource sectors such as energy and agriculture were assured of greater equity. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I sit next to the Minister of Agriculture- the Minister of other things as well, it all depends on the day-I sit next to a Minister of Agriculture whose Department was responsible, in four years, for increasing aid to farmers in Canada by an amount in excess of 400 per cent. That is a commitment to the farmers of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The degree of Government intervention in the economy was considerably reduced. Crown Corporations, which no longer served a public policy role, were privatized. Corporate and personal income tax systems were reformed in an equitable manner to meet the needs of a modern and competitive economy.
Legislation was passed which improved substantially the economic framework within which individual Canadians and Canadian companies were called on to operate on an individual basis and to become more competitive with their counterparts both in the United States and around the world.
In a large measure, these initiatives resulted in the country's strong economic performance. After years of languishing at the bottom of the heap in terms of productivity gains, since 1985 Canada has made very solid improvements. Last week this did not receive eight column headline attention, but it should have. It is a most significant indicator of the national well-being in terms of our capacity to grow, to sell, and to create jobs. Last week Statistics Canada revealed that in 1988 Canadian labour productivity showed an impressive improvement of 2.9 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Productivity is a dull, unglamorous thing that does not attract much attention from our friends in the Opposition. All it has to do with is the well-being of Canada and the future of jobs for our youth. If it does not mean much to some, it means a great deal to people on the Government benches.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Productivity is the key to competitiveness and prosperity. It is the key to greater market shares and more jobs. It is the only way our products will be accepted internationally, being sold around the world, and thereby creating jobs at home. They do not buy our products because of the colour of our eyes or the cut of our jib. They buy them if they are of good quality and produced at internationally competitive prices. Productivity growth had been arrested for so long in Canada that our economy was gravely debilitated. All Canadians from all political parties should take pride in the fact that Canada's productivity growth is now coming back because it means better days for Canada, and in particular it means jobs for Canada's youth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This one example in large measure can make a point: sound management of the economy works out in the end to be better for everyone, business, labour, and consumers alike.
I was interested to listen to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday referring to big business and the Conservative Party. I represent a constituency called Charlevoix, which includes my home town of Baie Comeau. It is populated largely by paper mill workers, people who work in aluminum factories, people who drive cabs and work hard. There are no big businessmen to speak of around. The Conservative candidate in that riding won almost 80 per cent of the vote. That means we are supported by the ordinary Canadians, the people who know what good Government is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our vision for the future set out in our first two Throne Speeches resulted in the signing and ratification of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, an agreement which represented a trade policy to be sure, but a little more for our nation because it is a statement about Canada and its people, about their outward, open, competitive view of the world, a world which is increasingly interdependent and in which Canadians want to play a full part.
April 6, 1989

The Speech from the Throne is about confirming that vision and taking the next steps which flow from that decision to allow Canadians in many important areas of international life to excel and to compete and to win. Building on strengths begins with a sense of realism. No nation can increase investment, build world-class industries and compete with the best, if it is not even paying its own way. We must put our fiscal house in order so that our economy can maintain its expansion.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will soon table a Budget that will further that objective. The Government will continue to encourage economic development by promoting conditions which will generate confidence on the part of consumers and investors alike. In the last four years we reversed the trend of run-away Government spending. We reduced the deficit by more than $10 billion. The deficit as a percentage of GDP declined from over 8 per cent to under 5 per cent. The economy has been performing very strongly. Canada's rate of job creation in that period was the highest of the major industrialized nations.
The best social policy in my judgment is a job. With this Government, Canadians have created over 1.4 million new jobs, bringing down unemployment from 11.7 per cent to 7.6 per cent. That is social policy. That is the record of accomplishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, since 1984 our Gross Domestic Product has grown in real terms by 4.1 per cent per annum, a performance surpassed only by Japan among the major industrialized countries. This was done by establishing clearly our resolve to stop the build-up of Government on the cuff, to end the process of putting today's programs on our children's charge account for them to pay.
While we have made progress on the deficit, its very size requires renewed commitment by all of us to reduce it still further. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) came back into politics some four or five years ago one of the statements that I think he made during his leadership campaign was with respect to his intention to reduce the federal deficit by 50 per cent, I believe, in five years. So when the Minister of Finance brings in his Budget I know the Leader of the Opposition will be on his feet seconding the motion.
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: While we have made progress on the deficit, we require renewed commitment. Every significant event in the life of our nation had a beginning, a moment when political decisions were made that set Canada on a course that ultimately would produce important consequences. So it was with the national debt.
At the end of this country's first 100 years of history, in 1967, the national debt-the sum total of all the deficits in our history-totalled only $18 billion. The cost of servicing the debt at that time absorbed 12 cents on every dollar of Government revenues.
Decisions made in the late 1960s and the early 1970s changed the debt flow in Canada from a trickle to a flood. By the end of fiscal year 1984-1985 that sum had risen to almost $200 billion. The cost of servicing the debt then absorbed nearly 32 cents on every dollar of Government revenue, and the Liberal Party had been in office during almost the entire life of that growth of the debt. That is where it began. These are the people who are responsible for the tragedy that befell Canada.
Canada was inexorably being placed in a fiscal strait-jacket. The time bomb cemented into the economy in the 15 years prior to 1984, with a tenfold increase in the national debt, remains undefused and constitutes today the principal obstacle to Canada's economic well-being. Every one knows that it takes more than four years to dig out from under such a mountain of debt built up over a decade and a half. Just servicing these obligations forces us to divert an increasing share of our resources. Because of the commitments of the Leader of the Opposition I know that he will speak to his caucus, united that they are, and that caucus will rise as one and support a program of fiscal prudence in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Speaking of comments in the House of Commons, I listened yesterday with amazement as once again the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he had not lost the election, he had won it. I want to congratulate him today on his victory, surrounded as he is by his Ministers.


Ms. Copps:: Gracious you ain't.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Had it not been, according to the speech of the Leader, for the resources injected into the electoral debate by the supporters of free trade, the Liberal Party would have been victorious.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney
I have a great deal of respect for the Leader of the Opposition. But look at the contempt that that signifies for the Canadian people. What an insult to their judgment, their intelligence and the very purpose of democratic debate during an election campaign.
Yesterday, again, we witnessed a return to talk about selling out and shutting down and tearing up and all of those other splendid phrases that the Leader of the Opposition used so often and so long. I thought that the people of Canada had shown last November what they thought of these tactics-Canadians do not want empty rhetoric. What they seek from a Government is a consistent, coherent, confident plan of action. That is what the Government brought forward.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition was blaming an awful lot of things on the Free Trade Agreement. He was decrying it again. He was indicating that people voted for the Free Trade Agreement because somebody bought their votes. This is veiy injurious to ordinary Canadian voters. But I was interested in comments made not last week, but last night by the Hon. Jean Chretien speaking in Hull. I quote what he said last night as quoted in Le Journal de Montreal, an article by Jean Denis Girouard, their distinguished parliamentary correspondent. He says that Mr. Chretien last night said-

1 was proud of Quebecers who showed their enterprise and boldness by supporting free trade during the last election campaign.
Mr. Chretien says that Quebecers did not vote for free trade because they were bribed or bought but because of their enterprises and boldness, and for once I could not agree more with Jean Chretien.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Chretien only got to Hull last night, Mr. Peterson got to Paris. There is a message there somewhere, but I am not sure what it is.
But lo and behold in The Toronto Star-and if it is in the Star it is accurate-there is a report that states the following. Let me quote:
At a luncheon hosted yesterday by the Paris Chamber of Commerce, Peterson made a strong plea to liberalize and expand trade between Europe and North America, despite protectionist pressures. . .
Both sides, he said, must take advantage of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and the decision by the European Community countries to form a single market in 1992. . .
Meanwhile, Ontario Trade Minister Monte Kwinter who, like Peterson, and was an opponent of the trade deal before it was signed, is telling French investors that the deal provides them with an excellent opportunity to enter the U.S. market from Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As my mother used to say: "You can dress him up, but you can't take him out".
In light of the kinds of comments that were made yesterday, and I don't plan to rebut every one that was made by my right hon. friend, I think it is important that I draw something to his attention, given the fact that he seemed very strongly to be making the case that there had been some kind of a mistake. The voters had made a mistake. The Liberals should have won the election. This is a temporary aberration. I draw to his attention an excellent article by Andrew Cohen that appeared yesterday or the day before that deals briefly with liberalism and it says this-I don't believe he is a supporter of the Conservative Party, but he says:
It won't show in the figures, but the sharpest increase in crossborder trade since last November's elections is surely in the mutual consolations of grieving Liberals. Though they have been out of power for several years in both Canada and the U.S., it is only now starting to sink in that perhaps this is no mere fluke, an endearing little show of defiance by an electorate that still knows its natural rulers, but is a rather stiff repudiation. . .
The Liberals lunged straight for the moral jugular: their opponents are always not only wrong, but evil or at best complacent.
This is the true source of the decline of modern liberalism.
It no longer stands, as it once did, for the downtrodden. It stands for privilege; for the systematic distortion of economic activity to benefit well organized pressure groups. It is not about summoning the strong to the aid of the weak.
It has become a squalid auction of state favours to the highest political bidder. John Kennedy challenged Americans to "ask what you can do for your country". Liberalism in Canada as in the U.S., invited the powerful to ask what their country could do for them.
There is the difference between liberalism and conservatism today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Maybe it would be helpful, rather than to do what my right hon. friend did, to take a page from the very thoughtful expression or view by the Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) in a number of speeches after the election in which he indicated, well, you know, maybe the other guys didn't steal the election, that maybe there is something that the Liberals should be looking at themselves. Maybe we are not perfect and maybe Canadians and Quebecers will look at us again if
April 6, 1989

we reflect more faithfully the values and traditions in which they believe and we present policy that they can support. I respectfully urge the Leader of the Opposition to talk to his excellent Member of Parliament because I think he might learn a few things for the next campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I look forward to seeing my right hon. friend in the next campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And in fact I know the Leader of the Opposition and I both look forward to seeing the Leader of the NDP in the next campaign because we know the NDP cannot do any better. That is for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, money that could go to social and cultural and environmental and defence programs goes instead to pay the mounting interest on the national debt, which this year claims 31 cents of every dollar of government revenue. These payments are completely non-discretionary. They are unfortunately not expenditures we can cut. And, bad as it is, that is not all.
Large deficits contribute to rising interest rates. Business investment becomes more expensive. Many projects are scaled down or delayed as a consequence. Jobs are not created. Prosperity narrows. Every new or renewed mortgage becomes more expensive-as does every family car bought on credit and every student loan. Interest rates are indifferent, even disdainful, of the borrower's ability to pay, of his or her plans or problems, of the benefits the investment could create.
Nothing this Government can do, Mr. Speaker, will help all Canadians and the average Quebec voter more than getting interest rates down. To get interest rates down, we have to get the deficit down.
Canadians know that expenditure restraint is not an end in itself: it is necessary to sustain our prosperity. And I am confident that in the end, Canadians who share our vision of Canada, who believe in the potential of this unsurpassed land, who know that our prosperity depends on our competitiveness, who realize that support for social programs and the arts depends on Canada's economic health, will-I think massively-endorse the program of the Progressive Conservative Government.
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The important part of our program is tax reform. Many people may not even know that there is a federal sales tax, but there has been one since 1924. It has been no less pernicious for being invisible. It is a profoundly discriminatory tax-it discriminates against consumers and against Canadian producers. Over time, it has hampered our industries' competitiveness as they take on firms from around the world. And it is unfair in its impact on consumers.
Sales tax reform will be implemented in an equitable and effective way to boost our exports, stimulate investment and provide a secure and reliable source of revenues to sustain the essential government services which define us as a nation. Building an economy that is competitive will fuel our prosperity, safeguard our jobs, underwrite our social programs, finance our cultural and scientific development and give us a seat at the table of international affairs.

We will do this, Mr. Speaker, by doing what Canadians can do extremely well, trading to earn our way in the world. Last year for example we exported 34 per cent of everything we produced. Among the major industrialized countries, only Germany has a more export-oriented economy. In population we rank thirty-first in the world; in trade, seventh. According to GATT, Canada counted for 4 per cent of all the trade in the world, a remarkable figure, a remarkable accomplishment for a nation such as ours. While consolidating our largest and most fruitful trading relationship and implementing the free trade agreement with the United States, we will extend our horizons to GATT, to the success of the Uruguay Round, to our friends in Europe and to the remarkable possibilities that exist for Canada and for all of us in the Asia Pacific region. What we are seeking are fair rules of trade and the elimination of barriers.
Canada's agricultural producers can compete with farmers anywhere if the game is fair. But in the name of international agricultural trade, in that kind of forum, all people cannot compete with their European and American counterparts when trade distorting subsidies ignore market disciplines and threaten to break national budgets. Nor can our fishermen observe prudent fishing regulations and turn a blind eye to predatory fishing

April 6, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney
practices outside our 200-mile limit. We will insist on an end to such abuses in all of our international representations. I believe that the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, can make substantial progress on behalf of our fishermen and our farmers across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, competitiveness demands initiative, dedication and determination. In the field of science and technology, we believe in channelling our efforts to achieve international leadership through the creation of centres of excellence and through the development of strategic technologies. Competitiveness means we need a sophisticated human resource strategy for the 1990s to deal with the diminishing importance of traditional industries, the rapid growth of the service sector, of a new and complex technology. The unemployment insurance system can play a better role.
We must recognize expanding sectors and prepare workers for the job skills that are going to be progressively in demand. We must together capitalize opportunities in generating incentives to employment and our programs for the unemployed must be made fully consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will continue to promote literacy in education so basic to a competitive society. Competitiveness means as well ensuring that the various regions of this country benefit from the prosperity generated by our trading relationships and by our expanding economy. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the Atlantic region, the Western Diversification Office for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, FEDNOR for northern Ontario and our programs for Quebec will all have their funding continued for the five-year planning period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Competitiveness means extending our programs to encourage native economic development so that our native populations can participate in Canada's economic opportunities.
The Government's emphasis on the environment is an element, too, of our recognition of Canada's increasing exposure to world-wide forces. The ozone layer above that protects the earth from the sun's ultra-violet rays is diminishing. Twenty-two billion tons of carbon dioxide
from fossil fuels are being pumped into the world's atmosphere each year. This CO*in2*xx is heating up our climate, with hazards we are only beginning to understand. Moreover, forests which process carbon dioxide are disappearing at a breathtaking rate: Twenty-five million tons of sulphur dioxide fall every year in Canada and the United States in the form of acid rain that is destroying our lakes and rivers, damaging our forests and monuments and threatening our health.
It is well past the time that these issues be not only addressed but resolved. Mr. Speaker, environmental protection, like charity, begins at home. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has been established to provide leadership to meet the environmental challenges of economic growth.
I have personally modified Cabinet committee processes and tasked the Minister of the Environment with ensuring that environmental considerations are fully taken into account before Government acts or supports any initiative financially.
The Federal Government and the provinces are cutting Canada's own acid rain emissions in half. We will not be satisfied until we see parallel action in the United States and until we have an accord which guarantees that the requisite reductions will be made and provides Canada with the added security of an enforceable international document. We have committed ourselves to end within 10 years or sooner if possible the use of CFCs, which destroy the ozone layer.
Abroad, we will continue to work diligently within the United Nations to make sustainable development a reality.

We will play, Mr. Speaker, our full part as the nations of the world come to grips, or try to, with the infinite complexity of climatic change. We will continue to provide leadership within the international community in the world-wide effort to develop international laws and legal principles to protect the atmosphere, the common heritage of all mankind.
The very distinguished columnist in the New York Times, Flora Lewis, recently wrote:
The environment is being considered as a global issue. States proposed at a ground-breaking conference in The Hague this month to submit voluntarily to international policing and to make sure their citizens comply with agreed rules. There are profound shifts, in the perceptions of the world coming unevenly in spasmodic verses but with a momentum reaching the stage of destiny.
April 6, 1989

Some initially criticized the Hague Conference. Some initially criticized Canada's participation. But we went, we assumed our responsibilities, we participated actively, and I think that Canada, once again, contributed to an impressive end result.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
While realizing this sustainable development in building a competitive society, we must not, however, abandon compassion as a cornerstone of this Government's social policy. We must never forget that the purpose of ending the crushing burden of debt and of generating new national wealth through competitiveness and trade is not for the pleasure of doing it in the abstract; it is being done to enable us to provide new support for the family, for the elderly, particularly those with lower incomes that is possible in a society that succeeds.
I think this is a fundamental difference between our Party and others in the House of Commons. Only a government that brings about strong economic growth, new wealth and new prosperity, that creates a deeper pool of prosperity, only that kind of government and that kind of countiy can guarantee new social programs for our citizens.
And so a strong economy ensures the means to support those social benefits which we associate with our very identity as Canadians.
We remain committed to a national child care program. We will address the problems of family violence and sexual abuse against children. The curse of drugs must not go unanswered in our society.
In September of 1986 in Vancouver, I stated that the illegal use of drugs in Canada had become an epidemic which undermines our economic as well as our social fabric. That view, Mr. Speaker, was greeted with some considerable scepticism in some interesting quarters.
Last week, in an editorial entitled "A Tragic Epidemic", Kevin Doyle, the editor of Maclean's magazine, described the Canadian reality in these words, and I quote:
In the not so distant past, heroin and cocaine were drugs that destroyed lives in Manhatten, Miami or London. Drug use was only read about in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or Halifax. Sometimes police seized illegal drugs at a Canadian airport, but it was all a very remote affair. No longer.
Now it would be difficult to find a Canadian at any level of society or in any part of the country who has not been touched in some way by the effects of the stunningly rapid
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney
spread of drug abuse, armed robberies to get money to support the habit and violence among gangs who supply the deadly material.
This is a serious problem for all Canadians. It is starting to attack the foundations of Canada's families. It is debilitating Canada's youth. I thought, in 1986, it was an epidemic and I said so, I believe it is worse today and all Governments must cooperate with police forces, with educational institutions to deal effectively with this great challenge to our national well-being.
[Translation\
We have never sacrificed care and compassion in our national attitudes and programs while developing our potential to create the wealth to support a standard of social benefits which is the envy of many countries. We are highly regarded in the world. Others see us as one of the most prosperous, humane and promising nations on earth. Our vast geographic inheritance, our history, our two official languages, our native peoples and enterprising immigrants, all combine to create a society of civility and tolerance. A unique identity about which we have every reason to be proud. But our job is not done, far from it!
The only thing, Mr. Speaker, that I really took exception to in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday were his comments about language. He made some brave statements and I have to answer them, and I will. He made some brave statements about his devotion to high principles and then he proceeded to fabricate the whole cloth, my own position on the subject of the use by the Government of Quebec of Section 33 of the Constitution Act 1982, to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
He is quoted in this way: "By his silence, by his inaction, the Prime Minister of Canada is an accomplice to a direct attack on the rights of the Anglophone minority in Quebec". That is what the Leader of the Opposition said.
Another quote: "And what did the Prime Minister say about Quebec law 178? Nothing. What did he do about the Quebec law? Nothing."
These were statements by the Leader of the Opposition about an event that took place in mid and late December in the House of Commons, and the Leader of the NDP was here with me and we both spoke to this issue, and he knows and every other Member of the House knows that that statement by the Leader of the

April 6, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney
Opposition is false in its entirety and unworthy of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I was prompt, and a lot more prompt than the Leader of the Opposition, I might add, in making plain my rejection of this action by the Government of Quebec.
On December 19, which was a Monday, there was an exchange and the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), in Hansard, said in a question to me. He said: "Is it not true that the federal Government has the responsibility to communicate with the Government of Quebec concerning the measures proposed by Mr. Bou-rassa yesterday?"
And I responded: "I already communicated with Mr. Bourassa yesterday, and I told him the position of my Government and of this House on such a matter. I expressed the desire, the wish that the Government of Quebec find a formula, as the Supreme Court suggested, whereby the preponderance of French at all times in Quebec would be assured together with the respective minorities and their freedom of expression, as the Supreme Court wanted and as the Quebec Charter wanted as well".
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace then responded on the second question in regard to my answer. He said: "The Prime Minister seems to have said that he did ask the Prime Minister of Quebec to consider implementing legislation that would respect the judgment of the Supreme Court".
The Member for Shefford then came on: "The Prime Minister said that he expects the Quebec Government to abide by the provisions of the Supreme Court ruling". And I answered that of course we do. The Member for Shefford asked again: "Does the Prime Minister agree with the Supreme Court position concerning the primacy of French inside and outside"? Of course we approve.
And I went on: "I expressed the wish on behalf of all parliamentarians, I think, that both would be reconciled in a Bill whose effect would be to respect fully the French dimension of this Quebec reality, while at the same time respecting the basic values in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms". That was on December 19.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Before the Bill came in.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Before the Bill came in.


John Napier Turner: That is right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the 20th in response to questions from the Member for Ottawa-Vanier, I said: "Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question is troubling, because according to answers given yesterday and published in Le Devoir, and I quote: "Mrs. Finestone congratulated Brian Mulroney for defending minority rights yesterday. Mr. Allmand concluded by saying that he was satisfied with the Prime Minister's statement that the decision of the court and the two leaders, federal and provincial should be respected". This is what was stated in the House of Commons. Now, perhaps my right hon. friend will want to rise at an appropriate time and apologize for his comment. While this debate was going on and while we were defending minority rights in the Province of Quebec, as elsewhere-and there may have been reasons for it-the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was not here. I was here defending minority rights, as I always am.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now we get to December 21, three days later, and in comes the Leader of the Opposition. His question is:
Does the Prime Minister approve of the legislation introduced by Premier Bourassa applying the so-called inside-outside formula which excludes the use of non-French signs outside business establishments? Does he think that the Bill meets the test of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment?
My response is:
Mr. Speaker, in the last two days I have indicated that I neither approve of it nor do I believe that it meets the test of what the Supreme Court said, and I indicated this in response to the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and other Members of the Leader of the Opposition's Party. . .
Anything less than that, of course, is disappointing to us. I have conveyed this to the House time and time again. I have responded to Members of the Leader's Party. In respect of the protection of minority rights in the Province of Quebec both the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the Member for Notre-Dame-de Grace complimented me and congratulated the Government on its stand on Monday and Ibesday.
I know the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to be a man of honour and he complimented me for my stand in defending minority rights in December. I know he will rise in his place and do no less today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my right hon. friend, will, upon reflection, want to correct that very serious mistake and the fact that he made it about my participation in this debate on this very sensitive national issue. I know that given the opportunity he will rise and do that.
April 6, 1989

Let me talk briefly about another aspect that is tied in. The framers of the flawed Constitution Act of 1982 inserted the notwithstanding clause which limits our most fundamental rights and freedoms. They did not do so in order to reconcile the Canadian family and build a solid and lasting constitutional edifice. Rather, they did so hurriedly in order to achieve their cherished agenda of repatriation with an entrenched Charter of Rights.
I always thought, Mr. Speaker, very fundamentally, that a Constitution ought to do two things: First, it ought to unite a nation and, secondly, it ought to protect the inalienable nature of individual rights. The Constitution of 1981-82 did neither. The Constitution, which is supposed to bring unity and protect individual rights, was (a) rejected by the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec, Liberals and PQ alike at that time. For the first time in history it diminished the rights of the National Assembly. So, the first test of the Constitution failed. It did not enhance national unity.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps no less importantly, if a Constitution does not have the reason of protecting your individual liberties, those of your family, to freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of the press, if all of these rights are not protected and rendered in inalienable in the Constitution, what is the Constitution about? The Government of Canada surrendered a notwithstanding clause in 1981-82, which said, in effect, "we hereby guarantee Canadians their fundamental right to language, to religion and to association, but, by the way, we forgot to tell you, these fundamental rights can be overridden if the Premier of Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan or Quebec decides that it is in his interest to take them away.
In 1982, that is the grave flaw that was embedded into the Constitution. I am not commenting now on the use of that clause. That clause was given to the Premiers. It was given to them. We will have to ask why it was given, and I want to tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that I am told that the view was that we had to get a deal, time was running out. A constitution that does not bring Canadians together, that is not accepted by all Canadians, and a constitution that does not protect the inalienable and imprescriptible individual rights of individual Canadians is not worth the paper it is written on.
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: The Party voted for it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This flawed constitution in 1981-82 contains-and I will talk to my hon. friend. There is a clause in there, and my hon. friend is as opposed to it as I am, that causes grave concern to all Canadians now that Canadians understand the significance of that clause.
I want to say about the notwithstanding clause that never before nor since in our history has a Prime Minister of Canada made a concession of such magnitude and importance. Never before has the surrender of rights been so total and abject. It is difficult to conceive of a negotiating blunder more damaging to the strength and the leadership of the Supreme Court of Canada and to Canada's federal institutions than that which took place in 1981 and 1982, and I know that all Members of the House will want to work together over the next years as best we can to make sure that this constitution is improved and that that major fatal flaw of 1981, which reduces your individual rights and mine, which holds them hostage, is dealt with collectively with the Premiers so that all Canadians have their fundamental rights and know they exist forever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have in particular, Mr. Speaker, a major gap to fill, the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord. I believe the words of Sir John A. Macdonald are as true today as the day he uttered them. "We are a great country", he said, "and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken."
With Quebec a willing participant in Confederation, with Canada enthusiastically made whole again, I believe there is little that we cannot achieve together. Without Quebec's adherence, our prospects darken. Never before have the prospects for constitutional reconciliation been so starkly simple or so close to our grasp. Never before has the risk of disappointment contained such consequences for our future.
I again salute and underline the contribution and the leadership of the Leader of the NDP, and in particular the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, on a very important national issue.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. Brian Mulroney
Last week, I conveyed congratulations to the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill on his important role 40 years ago in making Newfoundland a part of Canada. He contributed significantly to this historic result and performed, I thought, a major act of nation building by an individual whose entire life has been a commitment to Canada and to our national unit. I think he has had a most distinguished career in Canada and has been a pillar of the Liberal Party over four decades. As principal secretary, I think Clerk of the Privy Council, senior adviser, Member of Parliament and senior cabinet Minister, Mr. Pickersgill has a unique understanding of constitutional negotiations, of their import and their impact, and a sensitive appreciation of the nuances of Canadian federalism.
Jack Pickersgill is now a man approaching 84 years of age. He has no more political battles to win. He has no more mountains to climb. It was instructive, therefore, to re-read what Mr. Pickersgill said in his analysis of the Meech Lake Accord. "On the eve of that meeting," he wrote, "I would not have given the First Ministers one chance in 10 of success. I was excited and delighted when they reached accord. Once I read the document," Mr. Pickersgill said, "I was satisfied it met the requirements of Quebec without in any way reducing the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. I was delighted by the generous and united reception of the miracle of Meech Lake by all parties in Parliament."
He concluded by saying, "If we allow this opportunity to pass, my guess is that it will probably not arise again for another generation and never again on such reasonable terms."
Great sadness for nations and people and families alike arise from opportunities lost. There is now an opportunity for Canada within our reach, one that shall, according to one of Canada's most distinguished sons, not arise again on such reasonable terms.
So what shall Manitobans and New Brunswickers do? Legislators representing 93 per cent of Canadians have already endorsed the Meech Lake Accord. The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party and myself in my capacity as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party have all endorsed the Accord. What shall Manitobans and New Brunswickers do? Shall they complete the process and bind the nation strongly together, or wait for a better
deal that may never come while constitutional paralysis slowly envelopes the nation?
Canadians do not consider the Meech Lake Accord to be the last word in our constitutional evolution. Rather, they have in mind a variety of next steps which are pressing and which require discussion. If this discussion is to become possible, whether on the very important questions of Senate reform, aboriginal and linguistic rights, roles and responsibilities in relation to the fishery, and strengthening of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this can all come to pass once the Meech Lake Accord is fully ratified and implemented. Failure to ratify carries with it its own consequences.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time of extraordinary potential both at home and abroad. As we speak, winds of hope are blowing across Canada.
Confrontation and stereotypes are giving way to new attitudes founded on economic reality. Constructive internationalism is needed, and Canada is certainly prepared to play its part. The government is encouraged by the signs of change in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, by a new emphasis on the forms of democracy in these countries.
We are also genuinely impressed, it must be said, by the creative and daring leadership provided by President Gorbachev. Such a will to improve, to build, and to reach out should not go unanswered. Reform is welcome if it lessens tensions in the world and increases the likelihood of peace. If we attain lasting peace, obviously, that is a wonderful benefit not only for Canada but for the world.
But we must temper our optimism with prudence. The Soviet Union remains a military superpower. It is not a free society as we know the term. Free speech remains a privilege, not a right. Parliamentary democracy as we know it here in our country does not exist, despite the encouraging reforms that we now see thanks to Mr. Gorbachev's vigorous intervention and the push he is giving his countiy to become a more modern and efficient state. Power still remains the prerogative of a few. That is why we must keep intact our relationships with our allies in NATO and NORAD, our basic relationships with our historic allies, and do our best to sustain our commitment to collective security in Europe and elsewhere. We will always do our part in peacekeeping, whenever the United Nations needs us.
April 6, 1989

In international, as in national affairs, Canada has been dealt a strong hand. It is our privilege to help to coordinate the economic policies of the industrialized world at the G-7 and the Economic Summit, to be the only country that is a member of the Commonwealth and a founding member of the Francophone Summit and to have a vested interest in the continued success of GATT.
But as a privileged nation, we also know our duty to offer our assistance in international development, in defence of human rights, in the relief of famine and suffering in areas of the world less developed or less fortunate.

And so, Mr. Speaker, as we meet again at the outset of this second session of the thirty-fourth Parliament, I am honoured to lead Her Majesty's Government whose legislative program has been placed before this House. Our priorities are clear. We will put our fiscal house in order so that our economy can remain strong and competitive. We will reinforce Canada's compassionate traditions so that those less fortunate will have their opportunity to grow as well. We will preserve Canada's environment so that future generations can enjoy it as we have. We will celebrate Canada's uniqueness so that the civility and tolerance of Canadians may be an example to the world. We will play our role constructively so that perhaps we can contribute to making the world a somewhat better place.
Much is a stake for Canada in the years ahead. There are few limits to what is possible if we as parliamentarians, as Canadians, occasionally set aside necessary partisanship and work together from time to time toward larger goals for the good of the nation. We hope that all Canadians will join us in realising the bright future which history holds for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 RAFFERTY-ALAMEDA DAM CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I shall interrupt the proceedings briefly to hear an application for an emergency debate from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Transcona (Mr. Blaikie). I want to say to the
Hon. Member that it was my error that this was not heard earlier. I now recognize the Hon. Member.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister for the Environment (Mr. L. Bouchard) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are still here. The reason that I am seeking an emergency debate with respect to the Rafferty-Alameda Dam construction project is that since the House sat before Christmas it has come to the attention of the Canadian public, and I hope finally the Minister of the Environment, that federal lands are involved in this project. One of the contentions made by a previous Minister of the Environment of the Government was that there was no need for a federal environmental assessment review of this project because there were no federal lands involved.
It was my hope that the Minister of the Environment would have lived up to his responsibilities by now and called for that kind of an inquiry. He has not done that. I think it is an emergency. The project is about to begin and it is about time the Parliament of Canada had an opportunity to debate fully this particular project and debate fully whether or not the Minister for the Environment has lived to his responsibilities in this regard. I believe he has not and that he has let down the people of Manitoba, in particular, Manitobans whose concerns have not been taken into account so far.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider the Hon. Members comments. I should say to all hon. members and the public that it is, of course, a matter of considerable concern to many Canadians. Whether it is appropriate to seek an emergency debate, that is what I will consider.
Again, I want to apologise to the Hon. Member for not having heard his motion earlier this morning.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if in rendering your judgment on whether or not an emergency debate is appropriate in the circumstance you could at that time give the House the benefit of your interpretation of Standing Order 52 (2) and 52 (3) that a written statement on the matter proposed to be discussed be delivered to yourself. Then in Standing Order 52 (3) it states:
When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the Member
shall rise in his or her place and present without argument the
statement referred to in Section (2) of this Standing Order.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. Allmand
We appreciate the need for emergency debates. They have a place. That was shown on Tuesday night. They have to be presented in accordance with the rules, otherwise we get into argument and it is a one-sided argument. I have no problem with a two-sided argument but I have a lot of difficulty with that kind of rhetoric being a called a statement as referred to in the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I thank the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) for his intervention. I think there is some justice in his observations. In the interest of all Members I will come back later on this afternoon and perhaps clarify and in a modest way give some guidance to all of us.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one short comment. If you read Standing Order 52 (4), and I will read it:
The Speaker shall decide, without any debate, whether or not the
matter is proper to be discussed.
It is up to the Speaker.


Mr. Merrithew:: Nobody is arguing without.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No reasons are required. No explanations are required. I hope the Government is not arguing that the Speaker should now explain how he comes to his decisions, because that would be completely wrong.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, we are not doing that.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the House and I know the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) wishes to get on with debate, but let me say this: I did not take the intervention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) as argument meeting the matters that were put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Transcona (Mr. Blaikie). The Minister of Justice is saying that there are rules by which an application for an emergency debate is to be made. I think what the Minister of Justice is saying-and as the Speaker of the House I must listen to him-is that he has some concern that perhaps we have strayed away from the rule a little bit. I will take that under consideration. I think it is a legitimate comment and I will come back to try to assist the House.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is absolutely right that there is not to be argument. The Speaker must make the decision and, of course, as Hon. Members know as a consequence of the deliberations of the reform committee, the Speaker has been urged not to give reasons.
I welcome the interventions that are made and I will come back to the House on the subject later today.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 5, 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 the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 131) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 140).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister who just spoke, we ordinary Members have only 20 minutes to speak in this important debate. Consequently, we are restricted to a few key subjects.
The Prime Minister referred to certain remarks I made and to certain questions I had put in December with respect to the language question, and I wish to deal with that first.
I put my question to the Prime Minister on Monday, December 19, the day after Premier Bourassa had held a press conference during which he announced his intentions with respect to language legislation. It is true that in answer to my question the Prime Minister said that he had called Premier Bourassa on Sunday and that he had expressed the view that the use of the notwithstanding clause was not correct, and that he thought that what was proposed by the Government of Quebec was an inappropriate response to the Supreme Court judgment.
Commenting on his response, I thought the principles enunciated in his response were fine. However, a few days later the Secretary of State, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister responsible for the official language minorities in this country, made exactly the opposite statement, and he was not even present in the House while this issue was under discussion. He stayed away.
In this instance we had an important Minister on a cabinet matter, on a Government matter, expressing a view quite different from that of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State said that he supported the use of the
April 6, 1989

notwithstanding clause. He thought it was justified. I believe that soon afterwards the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), his neighbour in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, made similar remarks, as did other members of the Quebec Conservative caucus.
One can tolerate back-benchers having a different view from that of the Prime Minister. However, under our parliamentary system, one cannot tolerate important Ministers having different views from those of the Prime Minister on a subject like this. The Prime Minister was allowing the Government to speak with two voices, one to the nationalists in Quebec, another to the Anglophones in Quebec and the people outside Quebec. Members of the Government were speaking with a forked tongue; they were giving the impression that they were on both sides of the issue. On that, Mr. Speaker, I cannot congratulate the Government, and I cannot accept its policy.
If the Prime Minister was sincere in what he said to me on December 19, he should have fired the Secretary of State from the cabinet, and he should have fired the Minister of Transport from the cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Simply transferring him from the position of Secretary of State to another cabinet portfolio is not enough in our system of Government. Perhaps on a minor policy matter one could accept this, but this is not a minor policy matter. In this case we are discussing under what circumstances one can suspend the basic rights of this country. The Prime Minister stated that he did not support the use of the notwithstanding clause. The Secretary of State at the time, now the Minister of the Environment, stated that he did and that he thought it was essential that the notwithstanding clause be present.
In our system of Government one cannot tolerate that type of split within the cabinet. If the Prime Minister was sincere in what he said to me on December 19, he should fire the Secretary of State, now the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, and any other Minister in his cabinet who holds that position.
Today I accuse the Prime Minister of using double-talk to me on December 19. On that day he announced principles of which I can approve. He said the right thing. But then he backed off and allowed members of his Government to speak with different voices to different groups in this country.
The Address-Mr. Allmand
With respect to the sincerity of the Prime Minister with respect to the notwithstanding clause, and if he felt so strongly opposed to it, why was it not on the table for the constitutional discussions which took place at the time of the Meech Lake Accord? We could have recognised many of the principles contained in the Meech Lake Accord, as our party had suggested, and still get rid of the notwithstanding clause.
The Prime Minister did not do that, and he is still not doing that. He is not proposing that the notwithstanding clause be put to the provinces to be removed from the Constitution. Again, one wonders about the sincerity of the Prime Minister on this particular question.
At this time I fully support the statement made by my leader yesterday. I thought it was an outstanding statement in favour of minority rights everywhere in this country. If it were pursued by the Government, it would enhance national unity. It is a type of policy that, if pursued by the Premier and the Government of Quebec, it would enhance national unity and give support to the Meech Lake Accord. Unfortunately, that policy is not being pursued.
I have been here for 23 years. One of my highest priorities has been the protection and the guarantee of minority language rights. Year after year I have fought in the House and in the Joint Committee on Official Languages for the protection and the enhancement of the French language. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who sits on the committee with me knows that I have done that. Time and again I have made a statement to the effect that Ontario should opt into Section 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867.1 do not have to take second place to anyone in that respect.
However, in order to protect and promote the language rights of any one group it is not necessary to suppress the language rights of another group.
As the Supreme Court stated in its judgment, which we support, it is quite appropriate to have a law in Quebec, or anywhere in Canada, in which the use of one language is insisted upon, whether it is English or French, or even to insist upon the priority of one language, and that provision is made for the protection and the promotion of that language. All that is totally acceptable, as the Supreme Court has stated. However, it is not acceptable to suppress one language in order to protect another language.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. Allmand
When one says things like this, very often he or she may be accused of being insensitive to those people who want to protect the French language. I want to rebut that very clearly. The Anglophone population in Quebec now stands solidly behind the principle that the French language and culture in Quebec must be protected, promoted, and allowed to flourish not only in Quebec but throughout the country. We agree with that. Most of us are having our children educated in immersion courses or in French schools. At the present time, I understand that the Anglophone youth population of Quebec is more bilingual than the Francophone youth population. There is goodwill there. The type of law that was introduced by the Premier of Quebec does not support that type of unity between the two language groups.
I want to remind the House that in 1982, when the first draft of the Constitution was presented to the House, it did not contain the notwithstanding clause. It was a very good document and I supported it 100 per cent. I had always been in favour of an entrenched Charter of Rights. I was in favour of the repatriation, and I was in favour of an amendment clause which had been required for many generations.
However, at the last minute, following the counsel of the Supreme Court of Canada, there was another federal-provincial conference. It was at that point, at the request of certain provinces and not the federal Government, that the notwithstanding clause and other clauses were introduced, such as Section 59 which weakened language rights and other clauses which weakened aboriginal rights. I finally voted against the Constitution. I made my point clear at that time and I am consistent today.
If the Prime Minister says he was not treated fairly yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, let him make as strong a statement in favour of minority language rights as did the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Let him stand in his place and say similar words, not only for the Anglophones in Quebec, but for the Francophones throughout the countiy, both in Quebec and in the other provinces. If the other Ministers in his cabinet do not agree with what he says, then to show his sincerity on this matter they should be fired.
I wish to deal with some other matters in the short time left to me. At the very beginning of the Speech from the Throne the Government states:
My Ministers believe that continued progress in reducing the deficit
is a vital necessity if Canada's economic well-being is to be secured.
Madam Speaker, what a farce, what nonsense! This sort of declaration comes from a Government which in the pre-electoral period last year, that is, from May 30 to September 13, 1988-that short period before the election-announced or promised new programs amounting to $12.2 billion. If we add on the promises to buy a fleet of nuclear submarines and 300 new tanks, we see the promises amount to $20 billion. This is in the pre-electoral period.
Then, during the election campaign, after the election was called, another $16.9 billion in promises were added on top of the $20 billion. In the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean where the famous Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), at one time the Secretary of State, was elected, in order to get him elected this Government, which says it is concerned about deficits, promised commitments amounting to $163 million. That was in just one by-election.
During the last Parliament the Government bestowed benefits amounting to $288 million in the Prime Minister's riding of Manicouagan.
After the election in the Speech from the Throne we get a statement whereby the Government states that reducing the deficit is a vital necessity. There is no doubt that some of the projects promised before the election and during the election are good ones and should be implemented. But what is wrong is the hypocrisy and the dishonesty of the Government. Before the election it was promising and spending money like prodigal sons on everyone's favourite project from the East Coast to the West Coast. Now, immediately after the election, it is setting us up to cancel these projects and cut back on many others.
The Conservatives' pre-electoral and electoral tactics were a massive con game on the Canadian people and have to be condemned in the strongest terms.
I refer to an article written by John Ferguson, a well-known economic journalist in the country, an article in his column published on February 4, 1989, in which the headline reads "Tories do sudden about-face on severity of the debt". In the article Mr. Ferguson points out, and correctly so, that in the Budget of the Minister of Finance of last February he said: "Our challenge in 1984 was to restore fiscal stability and rebuild credibility in the management of Government finances". "That is exactly what we did", said the Minister of Finance. So in other words, they had solved that. We were given the impression that it was the time
April 6, 1989

now to go on and spend money in the pre-electoral period.
In speaking to some businessmen in New York in December, and I am quoting Mr. Ferguson: "The Minister of Finance crowed about the Tories' achievements on the spending control front during the first mandate".
If the Government had solved the problem last year, why all of a sudden do we now have a crisis with respect to the deficit that will lead, we believe-and we are waiting for the Estimates and for the Budget to be tabled-to a severe slashing of important Government programs, many of them important to the Canadian people? This is not untypical of this Government, a Government which promises one thing and does another, which flip-flops all over the place.
We say that the deficit is important, but we also say that what is more important is economic growth which, in the long run, is the best way to reduce the deficit and, in addition, a fair distribution of that growth. Economic growth cannot be promoted by wholesale cuts in certain Government programs which are essential for economic infrastructure and development. In particular, if one is interested in economic growth one does not cut programs for post-secondary education, for training, for upgrading, for research and development, for transportation and communications infrastructure and for industrial modernisation. If one is interested in economic growth and really doing something about the deficit one does not cut those kind of programs because they lead to growth in the economy and to an increased income for the Canadian Government. One does not cut programs which help people buy the very basic necessities of life. All that money is received by these people at the bottom level of our income status, all that money is recycled in the economy for food, shelter and other basic goods and services.
With respect to the great claims of the Government that the economy of Canada is in wonderful shape and that we should all be extremely pleased, let me remind Members that a rate of unemployment at 7.6 per cent is still a higher rate than we had in 1981 before the recession. In 1981 we had a 7.5 per cent unemployment rate. In the period from 1965 to 1980, years which were mostly under Liberal Governments as was pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the average rate of unemployment was 5.6 per cent. Here we have a govern-
The Address-Mr. Allmand
ment boasting of an unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent when more than 1.2 million people are still unemployed.
I know some Members over there are very insensitive when they hear the truth on this subject. We still have in this country five provinces with over 10 per cent unemployment. The Province of Quebec is just under 10 per cent. Here we have a situation in which the largest province in population of course is affecting the national figures. Thank God things are good in Ontario-we have a Liberal Government in Ontario. But the point is that in the regions of the country the economy is not good. There are still over one million Canadians unemployed and the rates of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and Quebec are highly unsatisfactory.
If the Government is looking for things to cut, as we have said before, it could cut out those nuclear submarines which I note this morning have been criticized once again. I have here a Canadian Press article which appeared in today's newspaper, the title of which is: "Nuclear subs waste of money, retired U.S. admiral warns". He is quoted as saying that Canada's planned fleet of nuclear-powered submarines will run into huge cost over-runs, will quickly become obsolete and make little strategic sense. This is what retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll said yesterday. He is the Deputy Director of The Centre for Defence Information in Washington.
In addition, if the Government is really interested in cuts, and if it is intent on listening to its friends in the Canadian Manufacturing Association, it might call for cuts in subsidies and grants to the corporate sector. According to a study that was completed late in 1988, and I am referring to an article reporting on that study, business has demanded cuts in spending on social programs to reduce the $28 billion a year deficit but seems to be ignoring the fact that its share of federal largesse has grown while its share of the tax burden has shrunk. As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the value of all goods and services produced in the country spending on business through subsidies and other assistance increased from less than 1 per cent in 1970 to a peak of 2.5 per cent in the mid 1980s. Spending on persons meanwhile has declined steadily since peaking at about 7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product during the recession to about 6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product today. I would encourage the Government to look at that side if it insists on cutting in order to deal with the deficit.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. Allmand
The Speech from the Throne also talks of changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. But it does not state exactly what it has in mind. We can presume, however, that it wants to cut here as well. We will be looking very closely to see what the Government will propose. I know there are some in this country who will say it is good, that unemployment insurance is too high, it encourages laziness and all those other sort of slogans that we hear from time to time. That is an extremely narrow view. Unemployment insurance was introduced by a Liberal Government in the 1940s following the great depression of the 1930s when there was no unemployment insurance and people had to stand in breadlines. The unemployed had no way of paying for their groceries or for their rent, the basic necessities of life. Unemployment insurance was introduced by Liberals to take care of that situation. It must be kept in place and be kept up to date to still take care of that situation.
Of course there are abuses. But the abuses are relatively low and they are far less than the abuses that are made with respect to the tax system. We must correct the abuses. We will support measures to correct abuses, but we also want to make certain that there are no savage cuts in the system.
Madam Speaker, I see that you are telling me that my time is coming to an end. At the beginning of the last Parliament the Government said that this was a high priority. It appointed the Forget Commission. It sat for over a year and made a report with about 50 recommendations. The Government did not accept any of them. It referred the report to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which had a Toiy majority. We studied the question for more than a year and made about 70 recommendations. The Government did not implement any of them. It could not make up its mind. It completely copped out on the whole question. Here we are again about to go through the same exercise.
I want to say this to the Government: we will be ready to support measures to improve the Unemployment Insurance Act to take out the inequities, to make it a more effective system, but we will not support slashing and cutting the unemployment insurance system so people are not able to buy their food or to pay their rent when they are put out of work against their will.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne) Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Charest:: Question or comment, Madam Speaker. I was interested in the Hon. Member's remarks about the notwithstanding clause, and I know that he has an interest in that issue. I was wondering whether he would like to comment on the fact that a well known Member of the Liberal Party, the federal Liberal caucus, the Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), has stated a very strong and unequivocal position on the notwithstanding clause? Could he explain for the House, Madam Speaker, what he thinks of the position taken by the Hon. Member for Laurier-Saint-Marie?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I said that one can tolerate and one could tolerate people in the Conservative Party as well backbenchers who would take a different position from the Prime Minister and from the Government. That has always been accepted. You have had cases of that in both Parties. But within our parliamentary system it is not acceptable for a Minister of the Crown, one of the Privy Counsellors sitting in Cabinet with the Prime Minister, to take a different position from that of the Prime Minister on a critical issue such as this. So we can tolerate the fact that some of your backbenchers might disagree with the Prime Minister, and the fact that some people in our caucus disagree with the position stated by the Leader can be tolerated. We are not in government and we are not running the country through a cabinet system.
What cannot be accepted is when a government, meaning the Cabinet of this country, speaks with two voices on a most important issue. According to our system, either the Prime Minister fires the Minister in question, or the Minister, if he is honourable, resigns from the Cabinet because he cannot accept the policy of the Prime Minister.
In this case, that is not being done. Two different messages are being sent out to the country to please whatever group wishes to hear them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's presentation and I found it to be, as usual, very thoughtful and indicating an understanding particularly of the regions of the country, and I know that the Hon. Member has travelled extensively and knows Canada well. I wonder if he would explain how he feels this Government has reacted in terms of really understanding and meeting the needs of the regions of Canada.
April 6, 1989


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, if I had had unlimited time, as did the leaders of the Parties, I could have gone on for hours giving example after example of how the regions have been ignored. The Prime Minister boasted this morning about how he won the election, but we have to remind him again and again that he only got the majority of votes in two out of ten provinces. And if one looks at Atlantic Canada, the Liberal Party won the overwhelming number of votes and seats there. If we look at other parts of the country that are underdeveloped economically, such as northern Ontario, the Government did not win the seats there. In the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, the Government did not win a seat.
The regions of this country that have been ignored sent a message to the Government. You did not win the popular vote. Madam Speaker, I hope they keep in mind, when they are about to introduce some of these programs that they are thinking about in Cabinet-to cut programs-that they remember that their program was not accepted by a majority of voters in this country. I think our leader referred to it yesterday. I think 56 per cent of the electorate rejected the Government and the Government's programs. They only won a majority of votes in two provinces, Quebec and Alberta. So they do not have a total mandate, and they should keep that in mind. What is amusing, Madam Speaker, is that they do not want to think about that, but if the people who are harping over there now-and a lot of them were not here between 1980 and 1984-but if they look at the speeches that the Tories made in this House between 1980 and 1984 when such things as the National Energy Program were taking place, they were saying you do not have a mandate, you have no majority in Alberta, despite the fact that we had the majority in Parliament and we thought it was the right thing to do. So be consistent.
I guess I am asking too much when I am asking Tories to be consistent.


Mr. Hopkins:: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to ask my colleague who has just spoken if he noted in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) remarks this morning that the Prime Minister was desperately tiying to downplay all the special interest money that was thrown into the election within the last 10 days before election day, and he mentioned the regions this morning again, but he was very convenient in leaving out eastern Ontario where there is no regional development at all.
The Address-Mr. Allmand
In relation to the Prime Minister's remarks, he stated that we were accusing them of buying the election. We were not doing that-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I would think that the Hon. Member would have questions on his colleague's speech and not on the preceding intervention in the House.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, but the fact that they were intertwined, it is rather difficult to separate them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that they are agreeing with me across the way.
The Hon. Member knows the regions of Canada very well, and regional development programs. He also knows the employment situation in Canada very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Does he realize that there are regions of this country that do not have accurate unemployment figures because they are averaged in with more prosperous areas in StatsCanada? I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on that because it is very relative to what he was saying about unemployment and about regions left out in Canada.


William Warren Allmand: Well, Madam Speaker, the statistics on employment are rather confusing. A lot of Canadians do not realize that the statistics are not accumulated by simply counting the unemployed, but they are done through a survey system. This system, of course, has a tendency to ignore the less populated areas. Although we get the rates in the populated area, the surveys are not as complete. For example, one thing that in my opinion distorts the figures is that if you work one hour a week, you are counted as employed.
There are a lot of other things. The way they count people out of the labour force and therefore unemployed is another bit of distortion. But your original question as to the Prime Minister's attempt to make the situation sound much rosier than it is really is typical of the Prime Minister and a Conservative Government who are expert in the politics of rhetoric, experts in posturing, experts in smokescreens.
While I was happy with what the Prime Minister said to me on December 19, I became quickly disenchanted when he allowed his Secretary of State responsible for Official Languages to say exactly the opposite thing in French in Quebec and give the impression that he was doing one thing for Anglophones and linguistic minori-

April 6, 1989
ties outside of Quebec, and another thing for Francophones inside of Quebec, a completely different policy tolerated. That is not acceptable, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The time for questions and comments has expired. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The Elouse took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House the plight of the people of Lebanon who, after 14 years of strife, are suffering deprivation, terror, and death.
This morning, before Parliament, we had 2,000 Canadians of Lebanese origin who came here. Along with many of my colleagues from both sides of the House- and I have to thank them for their presence this morning-I heard the Lebanese community here in Canada call upon us to call upon the Government of Canada to use all its diplomatic levers through the United Nations to rid Lebanon of all foreign armies.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Lebanon have suffered much in the past 14 years. They are a determined people. They are a passionate people, but they are a specific people. Let them have the chance so that peace may be established in the part of the world that was once the cradle of civilization. Thank you very much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ABORIGINAL PEOPLES


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: On Monday, April 10, Mr. Speaker, Inuit and White citizens alike will elect the six members of the constituent assembly which will draft the constitution of a future autonomous regional government for the area.
This election is the result of the process initiated in November 1983 by the then Quebec Premier Rene Levesque when he asked the Inuit to elect their own responsible government.
Having decided in 1987 that territorial rather than ethnic considerations should be the basis for their government, the citizens held a referendum and the majority stated that the members of the constituent assembly would be elected by universal suffrage rather than appointed by the regional corporations, and that their work would be financed by a voluntary tax.
Twice the National Assembly of Quebec passed a unanimous resolution asking the chief electoral officer to provide expert advice to the people of Nunavik to ensure that the election is carried out in accordance with the basic rules of democracy.
To the citizens of Nunavik, Mr. Speaker, I say: Kanata-miolimaate opigochoukpout amalou sapoummissoutik ilitinik.
You have the admiration and support of all Canadians!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members of the House will join with me in expressing congratulations to the Polish people who yesterday achieved great progress toward the signing of an accord by the Government and the Solidarity movement.
This accord, which reinstates the legal status of Soli-darnosc and allows for the first democratic elections in Poland since the Second World War, marks a significant step towards national reconciliation.
April 6, 1989

The agreement represents a great achievement for Nobel Peace Laureate Lech Walesa and the Solidarnosc movement. They have shown enormous courage and determination over the last several years, and it is very gratifying, indeed, to witness their success.
What has occurred in Poland reflects other changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union that the Canadian Government has yet to respond to adequately in its analysis of East-West relations. We urge the Canadian Government to do some new thinking of its own.



RED CROSS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, I visited Soviet Armenia last week, along with three Canadian Armenian leaders. I want to praise the Red Cross for their vital assistance following the disastrous earthquake on December 7, 1988, in which 50,000 to 100,000 people lost their lives.
We visited several areas, including the town of Spitak which was totally destroyed. Of the 50,000 persons who lived there, approximately 20,000 perished.
The Canadian Government contributed $5 million through the Red Cross and Canadians donated clothes and medical supplies and other assistance totalling almost another $10 million
The real need now is for homes. Five hundred thousand Soviet Armenians are homeless. Many are living in tents and shacks. Winter is only six months away. I urge the Government and Canadians to give further assistance.
 * *



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today I call for an end to the suffering in Lebanon. The people of Lebanon have endured 15 years of war, destruction, violence and terror.
Civil war has broken out, and once again we are witnessing the effect that the occupation of foreign military forces are vhaving on this already devastated country.
I am therefore calling upon the Canadian Government to continue to exercise a leadership role in peacekeeping by pressing for the withdrawal of all foreign military forces currently occupying Lebanon, with the exception of the United Nations Forces.

Like all other nations, the Lebanese people should have the right to cultural independence and self-government without any outside influence. Now is the time to put an end to the slaughter!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in less than three months, the Belgo pulp and paper mill in Shawinigan has been responsible for a major discharge of pollutants into the Saint-Maurice River.
This mill, Mr. Speaker, is recognized as one of the worst polluters in the whole country.
Parliament passed Bill C-74 respecting the protection of the environment in May 1988.1 now ask the Minister to implement as soon as possible the necessary regulations to make this act truly operational. Time has come for uncooperative corporations to toe the line. It is also our duty to do so. This is precisely the task which the government will tackle in the coming weeks with a firm commitment on this issue.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister responsible for Canada Post received a letter from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers citing cases of worker harassment and severe inefficiencies within the postal system.
In that letter CUPW called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the management practices, accessibility, quality and level of service in the Canada Post Corporation.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, are well aware of the problems facing the people who work for Canada Post and the people who receive the services of Canada Post.

April 6, 1989
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the call for the Royal Commission and urge the Government to take the only responsible route open to it today-acknowledge that problems exist within the Post Office and, indeed, that operations there are not perfect, and agree to this reasonable request made today by the president of CUPW.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, several years ago the New Democrats of Ontario were caught laundering money on behalf of civic politicians in the city of Toronto. They got their knuckles rapped, but that did not stop the operation. They simply moved it to British Columbia.
In a fund raising letter, the Mayor of Surrey says:
To help please mail a cheque to the Surrey Civic Electors, 7222 King George Highway, Surrey, B.C.
P.S. Remember this donation is tax receiptable if made out to the NDP and you get a tax credit of 75 per cent for the 1st $100-donated per year, 50 per cent for the next $400-donated per year.
I would call on the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker, to do a complete audit of the books of the New Democratic Party in B.C. to see to what extent the Canadian people have been robbed of their money.
If they are not going to be ethical they should at least be legal.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, early this morning the Canadian Union of Postal Workers made a formal request to the Minister responsible for Canada Post to institute a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the management practices, accessibility, quality and level of service offered by the Canada Post Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, there have been no fewer than three suicides this year of Canada Post employees. There are 52,000 grievances of employees right now and the level of service has been deteriorating steadily.
On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge the Minister to initiate this Royal Commission of Inquiry at the earliest opportunity. There is no doubt that the grieving employees are not always right, Mr. Speaker, but they cannot be always wrong either, and the Government should do something to improve the level of service and the working conditions at Canada Post.



WORLD JUNIOR WOMEN'S CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP WON BY FUNK RINK

Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, on Easter Sunday four young women from Spruce Grove, Alberta, became the toast of the curling world.
The Funk Rink, coached by Carole Larsen, with Laurelle Fund, lead, and Cindy Larsen, second, and Sandy Symyrozum, third, and Ladawn Funk, skip, won the World Junior Women's Curling Championship.
With superior skill they successfully met and beat the top competitors from around the globe. These young women are to be admired for their sportsmanship, then-determination, their grace under pressure. Certainly, they set an example for young people everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all Canadians and .for my colleagues in the House when I offer these young women our heartiest congratulations as World Curling Champs.
Three cheers for the funky foursome from Spruce Grove, Alberta!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION-COUNTERVAIL DUTY

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, on February 23, 1989 the U. S. Department of Commerce levied a countervail against Sydney Steel Corporation. They did this to the extent of 103.55 per cent, basing their decision, their preliminary decision, on all the government assistance that Sysco had received. They did this, believing that in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, a subsidy included regional development. On that list of subsidies and on that list of regional development programs they included economic regional development agreements and general development agreements, the backbone of the regional development
April 6, 1989

program in this country. Yet there is no definition in the trade agreement of a subsidy, because the Government did not include one.
I would ask the Government, and particularly the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), to press as hard as he possibly can for the abolition of this countervail against Sydney Steel Corporation, because under the global provisions of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement it should not be there anyway. And if not, then a corporation like Sysco that has taken advantage of Canadian programs, abided by Canadian laws, will be punished retroactively by the laws of the United States.



MEN'S WORLD FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIP WON BY KURT BROWNING OF CAROLINE, ALTA.

Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a young man from my riding who, last month, brought great honour to himself and to his entire country when he won the World's Figure Skating Championship in Paris, France.
Mr. Kurt Browning, from Caroline, Alberta, captured the title in stunning fashion after he landed one of his patented quadruple jumps. Through Kurt's hard work, courage and perseverance, he has earned the right to be called the best in the world at what he does.
Mr. Speaker, there is seldom unanimity in this Flouse, but I am confident that all Members will join me today in offering our sincerest congratulations to a fine young Canadian and men's World Figure Skating Champion, Mr. Kurt Browning.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: I rise today on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of all Canadians to inform this House of a very important scientific project, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.
This project affords Canada a unique opportunity to establish a major underground science laboratory of the highest international stature and to perform a truly fundamental experiment of world class.
A neutrino is a particle given off by the sun, and by studying its properties in a unique location deep within
Creighton Mine, scientists will have a more complete understanding of the universe.
We are deeply concerned about delays in a funding decision. There are great economic as well as scientific benefits to be gained by this laboratory.
Substantial financial contributions are expected from outside Canada and further delays could jeopardize this support. I ask that a definite commitment be made now, by the federal Government.



TRIBUTE TO MEMORY OF MARCEL LORTIE

[Stage Direction]
Mr Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans): Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the people of the riding of Montmorency-Orleans and Beauport in particular learned of the passing of Dr Marcel Lortie, a forest engineer who, through his research on tree pathology and the protection of forests, has become a renowned defender of the environment.
In recognition of his remarkable scientific accomplishments and his relentless involvement in the life of his community, notably in the field of education, Dr Lortie was awarded several awards during his brilliant career, in particular the service medal of the Order of Canada last October.
It is my hope that in the not too distant future the government will sponsor an environmental project bearing the name of Marcel Lortie. For my part, I have the honour to inform the House that I have asked the Commission de toponymie du Quebec to add the name of the deceased to its roster, thus ensuring that the great Canadian that was Marcel Lortie will soon be remembered by a place or a building named after him.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Today in a courtroom in Northwest River, Labrador, or Nitassi-nan, 38 people stand charged for desperately trying to draw attention to the fact that military aircraft come screaming over the treetops of their homeland, destroying their livelihood, and threatening the health of their children.

April 6, 1989
Oral Questions
Two of the basic principles which define our national character are that we are not an imperial military power, and that no one should be deprived of the use of then-property without due process.
The Government of Canada has a legal and historical obligation to protect the interests of our original Canadian peoples. Platitudes will not stop the sonic booms, the bomb runs at the 30 tactical targets in the area, or the radiation from laser guided bombs. So, I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Ca-dieux) to press his colleagues to drop the charges against the 38 Innu, and to declare a moratorium on this invasion of the Innu homeland until the environmental review process is complete, and he has negotiated with the Innu in good faith.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
At 4.30 p.m. Tuesday, 7,500 litres of oil contaminated with PCBs poured into the Shawinigan River. At 7.30 p.m. the same day, the Quebec Department of the Environment was informed of the spill. The federal Environment Minister knew nothing about it until 2.15 pm yesterday, shortly before Oral question Perdiod.
When the Environment Minister was informed of the spill, the oil slick had already spread over a distance of 30 kilometres.
On Tuesday night when we had our debate, and when the Minister told the House that oil and toxic waste spills were his number one priorities, the oil slick was spreading in Shawinigan, and he knew nothing about it.
Could the Minister explain the lack of competence he and his Department have shown?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm part of the information given just now by the Leader of the Opposition.
I agree that my Department was not notified of the spill when it occurred, and as you know, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act stipulates that a company that is either affected by or causes a spill must immediately notify the federal Environment Department, and this requirement was not met. When we heard about the spill yesterday at noon, it was through the media, and I have therefore asked my officials to look at the possibility of pressing charges against this breach of the provisions of the legislation.
I immediately sent inspectors to the site, however. We have been in touch with the health authorites in Ottawa, and we had legal samples of the river water taken to ascertain whether the water was a health hazard. According to the federal health authorites, it is not. Meanwhile, pumping operations are under way. Last night I spoke to my Quebec counterpart, Mrs. Bacon. We are co-operating closely on this, and the situation is under control.


EMERGENCY MEASURES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, better late than never!
The Minister said the other night that he bases his policy decisions only on concrete facts. Here are some facts:
First, it is the second time in four months that toxic substances have been spilled at that plant. It is also a fact that an internal Environment Canada document named Consolidated Bathurst as one of the most polluting companies in Canada. It is also a fact that the Minister here is responsible for protecting the environment. It is also a fact that he was not aware of a toxic spill although he should have been.
So, what inspection measures-not last-minute, but ongoing-exist to prevent such a catastrophe from happening elsewhere in the country? Why does the Minister not have a mechanism in place to be informed of such a spill as soon as it happens?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the law passed by this Parliament last June, on the initiative of the Government led by Mr. Mulro-ney, allows us to regulate the use of some toxic substances, all priority toxic substances, including the PCBs involved in the Shawinigan spill. I have asked my officials to look into the possibility of legal proceedings in this case, in the light of the inspectors' reports we will obtain.
April 6, 1989

However, this responsibility is shared with the provincial government. The provincial government also has its own inspection system. We are working in close cooperation. It is a lesson we have learned from the mistakes of past governments of which the Opposition Leader's colleagues were part. And I would point out that we can take the action we do now, Mr. Speaker, because of a law passed by this Government where there was absolutely nothing before.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is making a statement to deny that there was a lack of co-ordination between the two governments.


MINISTER'S PRIORITIES
[Stage Direction]
The Minister also promised when he was sworn in to his new Department that there would be tough new rules for pulp and paper companies. I ask him what that proves when he is not enforcing the existing rules.
Does the Minister say that in pollution matters, and we have heard him here for two days and one night, it is enough for him to say that we are lucky that the clean-up of the spill off Vancouver Island was done by volunteers because the Government was not fast enough; that we are lucky that the Valdez spill off the Alaska Panhandle has not spread yet into Canadian waters, that we are lucky that Hydro-Quebec had a dam on the Shawinigan River so that the PCB spill did not go further?
If cleaning up toxic spills is the number one priority of the Minister, why did he not know earlier about this particular spill? Why was there no mechanism in place? Why did he not have in place a plan on the part of the federal Government to control and contain that spill in better co-ordination with the province?
Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked 50 questions in a single sentence. He also referred to spills. Was he talking about the Alaska incident? In that case it is obvious that the Canadian Government has no jurisdiction. This is not its responsibility, nor is it up to this Government to clean up the Alaska oil spill.
With respect to the Shawinigan spill, if that is the one the environment-conscious Leader of the Opposition had in mind, Quebec Government teams and local contractors-paid by the Belgo Company-have undertaken pumping operations to remove the PCB contaminated oil slick. We have been advised that the operations
Oral Questions
are going smoothly and that the health of the public is not endangered. That is the essential consideration.
As to the rest, reference was made-I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am taking more time than I should but I was asked a number of questions-to the pollution caused by paper companies.
I must point out to the House that this is the first time a Government has forced companies throughout Canada to provide information which will enable us within a few months to issue the strictest regulations ever in this sector.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I have here in my hand a document prepared by the internal audit branch of the Department of Transport dated June 1987. It clearly outlines that the Government totally failed to prepare for the wide-ranging effects of airline deregulation. The review points to critical shortages of air carrier inspectors, air traffic controllers and other safety personnel which greatly contributed to potentially endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of air travellers in Canada. Your own Department, Minister, told you two years ago what has to be done. Would you tell the Canadian air traveller today-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could assist the Hon. Member and ask him to put the question through the Chair to the Minister.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, would he tell the people and this House today what he intends to do with respect to the safety of air travel in Canada considering that document?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have always refused to deal with leaked documents in this House and it is certainly not today that I am about to do so now.
My hon. friend has raised the issue of air travel safety in Canada, an important issue which certainly deserves the Hon. Leader of the Opposition's attention, so that he may understand what was said yesterday and again today, namely, that a process to deal with definite issues was implemented last week. My reply today is the same as yesterday, for the question is unchanged: We feel that the resources available to the Department of Transport are adequate.

April 6, 1989
Oral Questions
This morning, however, I met for two hours with the representatives of air line companies, air line pilots, and air traffic controllers to define ways and means to assess these resources, and I have promised them that, on top of the billions of dollars which the Government has already spent on air safety since 1984, that if as a result of the review carried out by the air industry and the Department of Transport the need to increase the resources was evident, we would certainly increase them. Therefore, as usual, on the basis of the available data, we are acting as a responsible Government.


HAMILTON AIRPORT-REQUEST THAT TRAFFIC BE DIVERTED FROM PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Official Opposition needs no direction from the Minister of Transport on whether he should be paying attention in the Elouse of Commons or not. How long have we been hearing these promises from the Minister of Transport? Since 1984? It is promises, promises. Where is the vision?
What the travelling public wants is concrete action from the Minister, not temporary, makeshift approaches to air safety.
The question is this. In light of his statement of February 21, 1989, that Hamilton Airport will unavoidably play a part in the decision the Minister would make in relation to the current air traffic problems, will the Minister then order the redirection of some air traffic such as small planes, executive jets, charter aircraft or cargo aircraft, the stuff that is making it so chaotic at Pearson, to Hamilton Airport immediately?


Benoît Bouchard: On
March 9, Mr. Speaker, together with my colleague the Minister of State (Transport), I initiated in Toronto an evaluation process ot the current air traffic problems not only at the Lester B. Pearson airport, but everywhere over the Toronto air corridor. We have received 62 different briefs. We have met hundreds of persons and received hundreds of recommendations. Some of them deal with Hamilton, others with Buttonville, Oshawa, and Pearson proper. We are in the process of reviewing these recommendations. Concerning the air traffic not
only over Hamilton but also Toronto, I repeat what I said at the time, namely, that decisions will be made without delay on the basis of the air traffic situation as a whole.


DEREGULATION OF AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The internal audit branch document is dated June, 1987, the same month that Bill C-18, the Act to deregulate air travel, was passed by this House. That Act was not proclaimed for another four months. The document went to the Deputy Minister. The Deputy Minister or one of his associates asked for a further review. That review came back saying that the document was basically sound.
I want to know why the Government did not put a hold on the proclamation of deregulation of air transportation until such time as it had the resources necessary to ensure it would happen in a safe way.
Second, I want to know, and the people of Canada want to know, what the Government will finally and specifically do to change the approach, to restructure the Department of Transport, so we have a safe air system in this country.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not a matter of referring to a document as my colleague suggests. Even more so since he sent me a letter today on this question and he said in a press conference today that he would not raise the issue in the House. Well! Let us just say that it has always been the New Democrats' tactic to associate the deregulation of transport with safety. That has nothing to do with it. Canadians today are glad to have an air traffic system that makes air travel accessible almost everywhere in Canada. The industry has developed considerably and at the same time, we have maintained an excellent level of air safety. Last year, there were 5,600,000 take-offs and landings at Canadian airports with a minimum of accidents. I think that my colleague is really going out on a limb when he says now, despite what even the Liberal Party has said, that Canadian skies are unsafe.
April 6, 1989

[English\


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO ENHANCE AIR SAFETY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is incredible that a Government that was warned by the Opposition during the debate on freedom to move, during the debate on Bill C-18, that what it was doing would make travel less safe, should proceed as it did. The Government's own Department said the same thing.
What will the Minister do in a concrete way to make air travel safer in this country?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I tried to explain to my colleague-and I think that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is acting honestly-what resources we had available for aviation safety. I should tell him that since 1984, the Government has, among other things, invested billions of dollars in upgrading the radar control system. We in Canada will have one of the most "state-of-the-art" systems in the world, with the best technology. We now have extremely qualified pilots, controllers and other personnel. Once again, Mr. Speaker, as I have always said, I repeat that air safety exists in Canada, but I also said that we have met everyone who could help us improve it and we will meet with them again. So, once more, I repeat that air safety exists in Canada, as my friend very well knows.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the Republic of Costa Rica.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MANITOBA MINISTER OF HEALTH
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Donald Orchard, Minister of Health for the Province of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Speech from the Throne.
After four months of uncertainty, the people of Atlantic Canada and, indeed, all regions of Canada waited for the Government to state quite clearly its full commitment to regional development programs. But, on Monday, after 11 pages of rhetoric and thousands of empty words, there were four letters that the people of Atlantic Canada were waiting for but did not find. Those four letters are ERDA, Economic and Regional Development programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Ronald MacDonald: While I have the attention of the Government, Mr. Speaker, I suggest perhaps it would add in that word in the next Speech from the Throne, and maybe the Prime Minister could answer a question concerning its absence.
Will the Prime Minister please give the assurance to this House, to the people of Atlantic Canada, and to the Premiers of Atlantic Canada that his Government will continue to pursue the ERDA process and that he will immediately remove the freeze which his Ministers have put on that program?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, while the Hon. Member was preparing his question he ought have been in the House where he would have heard the Prime Minister say, just a couple of hours ago, that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the Atlantic region, the Western Diversification Office for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, FEDNOR for northern Ontario, and our programs for Quebec will all have their funding continued for the next five-year planning period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in Nova Scotia and announced the formation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, he took great pains to tell the people of Atlantic Canada that this was new money and it was in addition to established programs funding, such as the Economic and Regional Development Agreements on which Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and western Canada depend.

April 6, 1989
Oral Questions
Is he prepared to say in this House today, as he said when he announced ACOA, that the Government is still committed to the economic regional development process to help wealth creation and distribution in this country?


Mr. Crosbie:: Why are you so against it?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it will be in tomorrow's Hansard twice. The Prime Minister said it earlier today. I repeated it by quoting from the Prime Minister's speech.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a different program.


Harvie Andre: This Government is committed to co-operative economic regional development programs. I do not know how the Prime Minister could have been clearer in his answers, Mr. Speaker.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister, the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Twin Otter aircraft has been a truly remarkable Canadian success story. Since 1966, 844 have been produced in Canada. It has made Canada a world leader in STOL technology and in transportation in remote regions throughout the globe. When the Government sold off de Havilland-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -in 1986-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -it did not exact one single guarantee for the ongoing production of the Twin Otter in Canada.
My question-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Is the Government prepared to assure Canadians that it will take steps necessary to ensure the ongoing production in Canada of the Twin Otter?


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the Beaver? I support the Beaver.


An Hon. Member:: What about the Kittyhawk? Should we go back to producing it again?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Twin Otter has been a remarkably successful aircraft. They have been produced in large numbers and they are flying all over the world, but so have a lot of other aircraft. The DC-3 was a successful aircraft. But technology has changed. We are into the modern era. There are new airplanes based on the Twin Otter model that are being produced.
If, in fact, there were a market for the older style rather than the newer style of aircraft, I am sure de Havilland would continue to produce them.


BOEING TOOL DESTRUCTION ORDER
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the report commissioned by the Government from Bums Fry has indicated to Canadians that there is a global market still for the Twin Otter.
There are Canadian firms that are prepared to produce the Twin Otter in Canada. The problem is the following. Boeing has issued an order for the destruction of all the tooling necessary to produce any more Twin Otters. Canadians do not want to see the Twin Otter go the way of the Avro Arrow.
Is the Government prepared to intervene today, immediately, and stop that tool destruction order that is being put in force by Boeing?


Harvie Andre: A few years ago the Government of Canada was running two airline manufacturers and the taxpayers of Canada were pouring in billion of dollars of subsidies.
Now that they are in the private sector both situations have improved remarkably. The taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the way they were in the past. The Hon. Member is suggesting that we return to those bad old days.
If he knows of private companies that want to continue the production of this aircraft, and they are going to do it with their money and not with the taxpayers' money, then certainly they could make a deal with de Havilland and continue that production. We have not forbidden that activity. They are free to go ahead and do that.
April 6, 1989


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
John Edward Broadbent: My question is directed to the Minister answering questions on regional development. He asked a minute ago how it would be possible to be more specific about regional development funds. I want to give him an opportunity to be more specific.
I listened with interest to the Prime Minister's speech this morning, and what he had to say about funding for ACOA and the Western Diversification Fund. He stated that the funds for those programs would be maintained. He did not mention the ERDA Agreements.
In western Canada there are 39 such agreements, and 16 of them have lapsed; in Atlantic Canada there are 46 agreements, and 24 of them have lapsed. That is different funding from what the Prime Minister spoke about this morning.
Will the Minister guarantee the people of western Canada and Atlantic Canada that the funding equivalent for those ERDA Agreements that have been lapsed will be maintained in the coming years?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister clearly indicated that the funding for all the programs that the Government had put in place over the last three years will continue for a five-year period.
As a Government we have clearly committed, and we remain committed, to the idea of joint development arrangements with our provincial partners.
The question the Hon. Member is asking me about the details in terms of dollars and cents will have to await the Budget.


SYSCO STEEL
John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister that I am interested in details, and the people of western and Atlantic Canada are also interested in details.
Earlier the Prime Minister, and the Minister who quoted him, did not mention the ERDA Agreements. That is what I am asking about. He mentioned a specific agency in western Canada and a specific agency in Atlantic Canada that have quite different budgets independent of the ERDA Agreements.
Oral Questions
The Premiers in western Canada and Atlantic Canada are concerned about ERDA Agreements.
In February of this year the United States Government made a ruling in terms of the trade agreement against Sysco Steel, in part based on the specific inclusion, and I have it here for the Minister if he is yelling. The specific inclusion of the ERDA Agreements is one of the reasons these have not been renewed. That case has already been made in the United States against ERDA Agreements.
If it is not so, what action has the Government taken to re-establish the full legitimacy of the Sysco program?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I hate to repeat the arguments that were made ad nauseam during the election campaign.
Our regional development programs are not threatened by any Free Trade Agreement. Last year, next year, any particular situation can be challenged in respect of whether or not it represents a trade subsidy. The Free Trade Agreement has not changed that one bit.
This Government remains committed to joint economic development arrangements with our provincial partners. We do not necessarily mean committed to every-there may be some changes-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: If the Hon. Member has the patience to wait three weeks he will see the Budget from my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and then he can make his judgments.


John Edward Broadbent: The people of Atlantic Canada and western Canada have already had imposed upon them a high interest rate policy designed for inflation in Toronto. They want guarantees that they are going to have the same money for regional development, and they want them now.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that regional development programs would not be affected by the Free Trade Agreement. The Americans decided otherwise. In February, they made a decision that went against our regional development programs.

April 6, 1989
Oral Questions
Is the Minister prepared to guarantee this decision will not have a negative impact on these programs in the future?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. These economic regional development programs are not challenged or affected by the Free Trade Agreement.
This Party, this Government, has demonstrated in a tangible manner more commitment to the regions of this country and to their economic prosperity than any previous Government. We remain committed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. In my riding we have an environmental time bomb that is waiting to go off, and last week it almost did. We had the evacuation of 75 to 100 families as a result of a mysterious fire at Steetley Quarries.
In view of specific mention in the Speech from the Throne that the federal Government intends "to further the process of cleaning up dangerous land sites", and because many of my constituents are outraged about an earlier history of PCBs stored at that site, and they are worried about Steetley's extremely cosy reationship with Ontario's provincial authorities responsible for guarding the public interest in connection with the site, will the Minister consider invoking Section 108 of the Canadian Environment Protection Act to determine precisely what sensitive toxic materials Steetley has been dumping, burying, and burning on the escarpment?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that happily the new federal law on the environment provides a way to cope with this type of question.
Section 108 of this law authorizes any two persons who are residents of Canada to petition the Minister to trigger an investigation into any alleged impropriety. The only thing to do is get such a petition, and I will be happy to respond to it.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Leader of the Opposition whose comments a few minutes ago were somewhat confused when he mentioned the name of the town of Shawinigan for the first time in his life, and considering the fact that the Belgo plant in Shawinigan comes under provincial jurisdiction and the fact that the St.Maurice River is also under provincial jurisdiction, could the Minister of the Environment ask his provincial counterpart whether her province's environmental regulations could be applied more strictly in the case of the Belgo plant in Shawinigan?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as I had the privilege of stating earlier in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I have already been in touch with my counterpart, the Quebec Environment Minister. I will be discussing the situation with her later today, and I may add that Canada's new environmental legislation has expanded the role of the federal Government and the Department of the Environment. Today, on the basis of the new regulations, we are able to intervene to punish the reprehensible acts that constitute a violation of these regulations.


HOUSING
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing. The Minister's appointment has raised many hopes and expectations. Unfortunately, these hopes have been dashed by the complete absence of any reference to housing in the Throne Speech. This is a matter of renewed concern for Canada's 100,000 homeless and for low-income Canadians who want decent housing.
My question is as follows: Are we to conclude that the Minister has no influence on his cabinet colleagues or should we conclude that the Minister's appointment was merely a way for the Government to stop his questions and criticism in the House, in other words, keep him quiet?
April 6, 1989

[English\


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the Hon. Member shares with me my concern and that of the Government with the housing crisis, the housing problems in Canada. He also shares the concern with the housing problems of low-income Canadians.
I think he will agree with me that the appointment by the Prime Minister of a Minister solely responsible for nothing but housing is an indication of the priority this Government places on the subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: If the Hon. Member will cast his memory back to the last Speech from the Throne he will know that there was nothing in it with respect to the release of the Downsview Airport land either. In fact, it was released. We will be proceeding with other measures to improve housing for Canadians.


CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES ON DOWNSVIEW SITE
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister will allow me to ask him a question about the Downsview lands.
On December 15 last this Minister, then a backbencher, asked a question in relation to housing on the Downsview site. It is not surprising that the answer coming from the then Minister was far from satisfactory. Therefore, will this Minister now give us a response to his original question which demonstrates the understanding and the compassion that the previous Minister was simply not capable of giving?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Will he tell us the precise date upon which we will see housing being built on this site? Will he confirm that much more than 25 per cent of the site will be made available for affordable housing for seniors and the handicapped?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that we are proceeding as quickly as possible with the development of the site.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alan Redway: First, we are dealing with the Department of National Defence to shift the defence housing that is currently on the site on to another part of the site. Second, we are proceeding to put in place with the Municipality of North York a development agreement in
Oral Questions
order to put housing on the site just as quickly as we possibly can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On March 21 the Canadian Ethnocultural Council published a report indicating that the employment equity legislation was not working and that visible minorities are still seriously under-represented in major corporations under federal jurisdiction. The CEC studied 16 companies. Only three of these had acceptable records. A December report of her own Department made similar findings.
Considering that there has been an unfortunate increase in Canada of racial incidents in recent months will the Minister now agree to amend the employment equity legislation to apply sanctions against those firms which fail to obey the law?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: want to thank the Hon. Member for his interest in a social measure our Government introduced in 1986. Ninety-six per cent of the companies affected by this measure have submitted their reports, which proves the measure was both important and necessary. However, need I remind the Hon. Member that since we are working with people, there is always room for improvement!


REQUEST THAT ALL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS BE INCLUDED IN LEGISLATION
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that answer is totally unacceptable. Of course in the employment equity legislation the only thing the companies have to do is report. They do not have to show any progress. They really do not have to implement employment equity legislation. There should be sanctions in that legislation.
Another recent report shows that visible minorities are less than 1 per cent in federal government Departments when they should be more than 6 per cent. It is difficult for the Government to preach to the private sector when its own record is bad.

April 6, 1989
Oral Questions
Will the Minister now in these circumstances amend the employment equity legislation to cover all federal government Departments so they will have the same requirements as the private sector even though she is not enforcing them against the private sector?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the Government introduced a measure that had never existed before. I am referring to our Government, the one I represent. We submitted a report. Progress has been made but there is room for improvement. Sanctions have been imposed on companies that failed to comply with the legislation, and of course we intend to comply with the legislation and enforce it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who until now seems to have accepted the South African version of the bloody slaughter in Namibia. Is the Secretary of State now prepared to admit that the South African story was too hastily and tragically accepted by a UN contingent because the actions of the Security Council, of which Canada is a member, were too inadequate, too badly organized, too badly led, and too badly intimidated to act effectively?
Will he also admit that the process in Namibia has from the beginning been flawed in allowing the South African Government to manipulate events down there? Is it not about time something was done to straighten up that mess?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Hon. Member's rhetoric gets ahead of the facts. He is asking this House to suggest that the Namibia peace plan, which I had thought we all hoped would succeed, is a fraud. I do not regard it as a fraud.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He did not say that.


Charles Joseph Clark: I regard it to be something that is very gravely threatened now by events in southern Africa. It seems to me that it is the job of this country, and it should be the determination of Members of the House, to do everything we can to ensure that all parties-SWAPO, South Africa, and anyone else involved-respect the agreement so that we can get on with keeping peace in Namibia and in southern Africa. That is what we are trying to do. I had hoped that we would have the co-operation of the Hon. Member in doing that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROLE OF CANADA IN SECURITY COUNCIL
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs dishonours himself and this House by using words that I did not use.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The Speaker will know that this Government abdicated its responsibility as a member of the contact group, allowed the UN Council on Namibia to be excluded from the peace process, and was a participant when inadequate troops on behalf of the peace-keeping forces of the United Nations were sent to South Africa. My question to him is simple and straightforward.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to act in the Security Council to ensure that the peace accord, including the elections, is fairly and equitably implemented? In particular, will he demand and assist the rapid deployment of the 7,500-person peace force that was supposed to have been sent there rather than the 4,500 that are not there yet?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I misquoted the Hon. Member I will certainly apologize for that. The record will show whether in fact he called the peace plan in Namibia a fraud or not. There were problems with the development-


Some Hon. Members:: Flawed!


Charles Joseph Clark: There were problems, Mr. Speaker, with the development of that process. Those were problems that Canada acted on very vigorously at the time to try to resolve. Among the ways in which the problems involving the setting up of UNTAG was resolved was to get an agreement-and Canada was instrumental in getting that agreement-that the Secretary General, if he believed it was necessary, could recommend to the Security Council that there be an
April 6, 1989

increase in the number of the UNTAG troops up to the figure that had been agreed upon some several years ago. That was a provision that proved to be acceptable to all members of the Security Council.
We are not here debating history. Surely, our preoccupation has to be how do we repair a peace operation that is going badly in Namibia now? The preoccupation of this Government has been to try to get more troops in quickly. We have already urged more deployment. We have already indicated that in addition to the Canadians who are already there we are prepared to send Canadian troops in more quickly, if that would be helpful. We are looking at other ways in which we and other countries which are participating in UNTAG might help to speed up the deployment.
This is a serious problem. It should not be treated trivially or for partisan reasons in this House. Surely we all have a determination and obligation here to try to make the UN peace plan in Namibia effective, a plan on which Canadians have worked so long.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 52 RAFFERTY-ALAMEDA DAM CONSTRUCTION PROJECT-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Transcona (Mr. Blaikie) applied to the Chair for an emergency debate involving a proposed operation on the Rafferty-Alameda part of the Province of Saskatchewan. His concern was, of course, that some people have wanted a federal environmental assessment review project done before construction begins. It is of course a matter of interest and concern to all Members of the House that I have to say to the Hon. Member that it does not come within the proper terms of the rule for an emergency debate, at least not at this time. I also want to say to the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) that I indicated that as a consequence of his request to the Chair earlier today, I would come back to the House at an appropriate time and discuss very briefly the guidelines that exist for the introduction of an emergency debate, and I will do that, but I would prefer to do it perhaps later this week.
I should advise Hon. Members that I have a joint application on a question of privilege from the Hon.
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Bou-dria) and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the The Islands (Mr. Milliken). I will hear the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, to say that I am pleased to rise on this question of privilege today would not be accurate, but I feel it is incumbent on me to raise this issue before the House because I think it is a very serious question of privilege that affects the rights of all Hon. Members. To state the point very succinctly, it is my position that our privileges as Members have been breached in that we have been denied our ancient right to grant or withhold supply.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because this is a right that is held by all Hon. Members of this House of Commons, and it is one that has been held from the very earliest times. Over hundreds of years, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary system has evolved a series of rules for dealing with the business of supply and the right of the House to control that business.
The law in this regard is clearly stated in the Financial Administration Act, and I would like to read, Mr. Speaker, Section 26 of that Act which states the following:
Subject to the Constitution Act, 1867 to 1982, no payment shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the authority of Parliament.
The right of Parliament to control finances of the country have been undoubted and has been written upon by many of the learned writers on parliamentary law. I would like to cite a couple of the authorities. I refer to Bourinot's Second Edition, and I am using an older edition because I want to indicate the ancient nature of this right. On page 543 the author states:
The principal purpose of the House of Commons, in fact, is the consideration and criticism of the estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditures; and the committees in question -
Here he is talking about the committee of Supply and the committee of Ways and Means.
- and the committees in question are the parliamentary machinery by means of which the House chiefly exercises its political and constitutional functions.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more fundamental to the operation of this House than the business of supply.

April 6, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
The point is further dealt with in a quote in Bourinot at page 546 and the learned author is quoting Erskine May, the Ninth Edition which was the last edition written by that learned parliamentary jurist. He says the following:
The ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of supplies, is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the speaker leaving the chair, before going into the committee of supply or ways and means.
The next citation, Sir, that I rely on is in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, the Fifth Edition, at page 181, Citation 539 (2) and the citation sets out the relationship, Mr. Speaker, between the sovereign and this House in matters relating to supply. It is very clear, and it says the following:
The sovereign, being the executive power, is charged with the management of all the revenue of the state and with all payments for the public service. The Crown, therefore, acting with the advice of its responsible ministers, makes known to the Commons the pecuniary necessities of the Government; the Commons, in return, grants such aids or supplies as are required to satisfy these demands; and they provide by taxes, and by the appropriation of other sources of the public income, the ways and means to meet the supplies which they have granted. Thus the Crown demands money, the Commons grants it, and the House of Lords assents to the grants: but the Commons do not vote money unless such taxation be necessary for the Public Service, as declared by the Crown through its constitutional advisers.
That is the basic position that has been the law of this country since Confederation. It has been part of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom for over 400 years.


An Hon. Member:: It is not in the Yellow Pages.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The assertions concerning the right of this House to grant supply have been maintained on numerous occasions, and I would like to quote two very distinguished former Members of this House. Hon. Members opposite I am sure will be aware of at least one of these occasions because it was a famous occasion. I would like to quote from the Right Hon. William Lyon McKenzie King and on a particularly famous occasion on June 30, 1926 when he was asking certain questions in this House which caused acute embarrassment to my friends' predecessors. On page 5212 of Hansard for June 30, 1926, Mr. King said the following:
I want this information before we vote public money to hon. gentleman who, in our opinion, are not entitled to spend one five-cent piece of the public money. I ask my hon. friend who is now leaving the House whether he has taken any oath of office this year.
Mr. Speaker, that quotation again indicates the ongoing nature of the right of this House to question supply proceedings and, indeed, Sir Henry Drayton who was answering as head of the Government at that time-the Government went down the next day, as you will know-indicated that he had no objection to Mr. King's statement of policy in that regard. It was unquestioned that in fact the House of Commons had the right to withhold or grant supply.
I quote another person, Sir, the Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker, when he was Leader of the Opposition. On October 21, 1963, on a motion that the House go into Committee of Supply which was the equivalent of our current day supply motions, he said at page 3823 of Hansard the following:
Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional opportunity that is provided in the House of Commons for the bringing before the House of such matters as are of importance and deserve the consideration of the House. It is historic, it is traditional and it assures a privilege that is part and parcel of parliamentary government. It enables the house to give consideration to those matters which, in the opinion of its membership, have not been dealt with in a proper or expeditious manner. Furthermore, it enables the house, where amendments are moved, to judge the government of the day on the basis of any amendment or subamendment that may be put forward.
I probably do not need to refer to Standing Order 80(1), Mr. Speaker, but I will do so because it is so direct and it points again to the rights of this House in particular on this matter, and it reads as follows:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift -
I stress the word "gift".
-of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
In the commentary in the new annotated Standing Orders which Your Honour tabled just yesterday in this House and which I think are excellent, it states the following, and I think it is very important:
Section 1 of Standing Order 80, unchanged from Confederation, asserts the Commons' claim to pre-eminence in financial matters. The text copies a resolution from the United Kingdom passed in 1678-
Over 300 years ago, Sir.
-and is based on section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that 'Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House of Commons'.
April 6, 1989

I could go on reading the rest of the commentary but the point of the reference, Mr. Speaker, is to stress the authority of the House of Commons. That authority is asserted every time this House attends in the other place for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to a money Bill. You, Mr. Speaker, on every occasion, when we attend there and Royal Assent is sought to a money Bill ask for that Royal Assent personally in these words. Perhaps I could quote Your Honour:
May it Please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted Supplies required to enable the Government to defray certain expenses of the Public Service.
"In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following Bill -
Then you give the title of the Bill.
- to which Bills I humbly request Your Honour's assent
Those words, Mr. Speaker, have been used since Confederation in the granting of Royal Assent to money Bills in this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, what is the position that we find ourselves in today that has caused this problem? I refer again to Beauchesne's, page 167, Citation 476. The author here is discussing the Business of Supply. He says:
The action taken by the House of Commons upon the request for aids and supply for the Public Service made in the Speech from the Throne, is for the appointment, pursuant to-
Now Standing Order 81(1)
-of a continuing Order of the Day for the consideration of the Business of Supply.
What has happened in this particular case? I suggest that in every Speech from the Throne since Confederation, except for three, the speech has contained particular words, and those words have occurred at the end-or very close to the end-of every speech. I will read the words because they are instructive. The Governor General or the Sovereign always reads these. The words are as follows:
Members of the House of Commons, you will be asked to appropriate the funds required for the services and payments authorized by Parliament.
The three Speeches from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, in which those words have not occurred are the following: First fall of 1930, which was a special session called by the then Prime Minister Bennett, to raise duties and excise taxes in Canada to protect us from the ravages of the Depression. The second was on December 12, 1988, when we were called to deal with one item of business,
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
the Free Trade Agreement. And the third was on Monday, April 3, 1989, Mr. Speaker. There was no request in the Throne Speech on Monday that this House take on its constitutional responsibilities to deal with supply.
Mr. Speaker, it is unprecedented. Upon our return from the other place, following our attendance there for the Speech from the Throne, as recorded on page 5 of Hansard, the President of the Treasury Board, pursuant to Standing Order 81, moved: "That the House at its next sitting consider the Business of Supply." And that motion was agreed to on Monday of this week, Sir. Why did we move to consider the Business of Supply when no supply had been requested from Her Excellency, the Governor General, at the opening of the session? It was not on the agenda.
I suggest that the reason it was not included in the Speech from the Throne is that this Government did not know what it was doing. It has, in my submission, no appreciation of the constitutional niceties of this country. It acts without any sense, in my submission, of parliamentary propriety and it is ignoring the essentials of the Canadian Constitution in the way it has conducted itself.
The Government has chosen to ignore the privileges and rights of the Members of this House and it has chosen to help itself to the Treasury of Canada by passing Orders in Council and having signed Governor General's warrants.
This year alone, from the information I have obtained, three Governor General's warrants have been passed. The dates of those are January 19, February 16, and April 1.
This is, in my submission, Sir, unprecedented. Never before have the provisions of the Financial Administration Act relating to Governor General's warrants being used at a time when Parliament had sat following an election. Always, the right to appropriate to themselves the public moneys of Canada, by using Governor General's warrants has been exercised before during an election campaign or in the period following an election and before Parliament had been recalled.
The difficulty that the Government has found itself in, Sir, is particularly serious because of the passage on April 1 of an Order in Council permitting the issue of yet another warrant, and I suggest that it constitutes a flagrant abuse of the rights of this House.

April 6, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
We were here in December, Sir; supply could have been asked for, could have been sought and granted at that session or in the period following. Mr. Speaker, we adjourned until the beginning of April. We could have been called in March. Since 1950, Mr. Speaker, this House has sat in March for a considerable period of the month of March in every year except three: In 1958-and my friends opposite will recall that there was an election campaign going on in the country that year, which ended on March 31. In 1963 there was another election campaign which ended more happily.
And in 1980 an election had just ended the previous month and so the House had not yet been recalled. Only on those three occasions, since 1950, has this House of Commons not sat during the month of March. We could have been recalled in the month of March to deal with the Business of Supply and to see that the Government got the money to which it was entitled after due consideration and after an opportunity for the Members of this House, Sir, to present their grievances. But I submit that in its abuse of the intention of the Financial Administration Act which was not to permit this wholesale plundering of the Treasury, the Government is attempting to take unto itself the power to spend the public money without recourse to Parliament.
And that, Sir, comes from a Party which has always claimed to be a stout defender of this institution. By scooping this money from the public purse without the authority of this House, Mr. Speaker, I say that the Government has tampered with the tax dollars that it has extracted from Canadians in an improper manner and it has violated the essential privileges of every Member of this House.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to join in raising this issue, that a letter was jointly signed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and myself. I want, first, Mr. Speaker, to state that I feel we have a prima facie case of privilege, and if you agree with us that we do, then I am willing to move the motion necessary to refer this to the appropriate committee.
Mr. Speaker, of course you will be aware that the parliamentary privileges of Members of this House, as defined by Erskine May in his 20th Edition state that parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of Parliament and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their function.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note-and the Government across will presumably state in defence of the issue before us today-that the Financial Administration Act, in their view, enables them to do what it is that they have done over the last few months, which is to seek Governor General's warrants on three occasions since January 1.
While the Government could make a case for two of those Governor General's warrants, Mr. Speaker, it certainly has no legitimacy at all in making this kind of justification in the third case, which is the warrant that was sought in the period after April 1, after the fiscal year had terminated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Order in Council 1989-545 was dated April 1, 1989, and it authorized the Government to spend some $6.2 billion, those funds to carry it through for the next 45 days. I should say that is an amount of up to $6.2 billion, because of course the Government could choose to raise less than that amount if it so wished.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under Section 47 of the Financial Administration Act, the government has also borrowed $1 billion of those dollars. Not only, of course, have they spent the dollars in question, but they have had to borrow $1 billion of those dollars. The issue that is important here, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government, in 1985 or so, invoked that the privileges of this House had been abused by the fact that the Senate was delaying an Appropriation Bill at that time and that in turn caused the Government to have to borrow on short-term notes at higher interest rates.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that these latest funds borrowed under Section 47 of the Financial Administration Act, were borrowed in exactly the same manner as those funds that were borrowed in the past and for which the Government claimed that it was having to borrow in a manner which was inappropriate and only to be used in an emergency, that emergency allegedly having been caused by someone else.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Governor General's warrants have not been used very many times since Confederation. I should note that we are the only country in the Commonwealth that still has such an instrument. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in the British House of Commons, if the House were defeated on a motion of want of confidence, it would meet the next day and vote hold supply for the government to last for the electoral period and a sufficient amount of time afterwards in order to have a quick recall of Parliament so that Parliament could then exercise its traditional role of granting or denying supply.
April 6, 1989

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are only 10 occasions this century in which supply was given or granted to government by way of a Governor General's warrant. On every one of those occasions, supply was sought to cover the period immediately after the election. At this time the Government argued that it did not have sufficient time to recall Parliament.
That argument was sometimes made by the Opposition, be it Conservative or Liberal Opposition, that the Government indeed did have sufficient time. I remind you of the 1979 election, Mr. Speaker, in which the Government took a particularly long time to recall Parliament and then, of course, in the interval it did not have the funds necessary to operate.
This particular issue is without precedent simply because Parliament already had sat and the only reason that Parliament did not give supply to the Government is that the Government never sought supply from Parliament. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but as my distinguished and learned colleague has indicated, it has failed to seek supply on two separate occasions.
The new annotated Standing Orders provided to us-although, of course, the only official version is the green version we have-are the version that the Government was showing in the Elouse a few moments ago as the ideal source of reference from which to argue these points. I bring to the attention of the Government Elouse Leader that it states very clearly under the explanation note to Standing Order 81 that: "At the commencement of each session the Elouse shall designate by motion a continuing order of the day for the consideration of supply". It states further that this particular provision is there because of the convention that has always existed whereby in the Throne Speech you find the phrase that my distinguished colleague raised with you a little earlier, whereby the Governor General states that you will be asked to appropriate the funds required to carry on the services and expenditures authorized by Parliament.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of the Government in this particular case were not only erroneous in the fact that they sought to gain funds to operate the Government by Governor General's warrant in the new fiscal year, which it they cannot possibly legitimize under either the Financial Administration Act or any of our conventions-and no Estimates, of course, but they fail as well, Mr. Speaker, and I think more importantly, in not requesting supply in the traditional way.
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by bringing to your attention excerpts from the Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 1972 by Philip Laundy-a person that we all know. Mr. Laundy states the following at page 609 of that document: "The Elouse of Commons has exclusive control over financial business and all financial legislation. . .". He continues: "The House of Lords is not empowered to amend a money Bill. . ." He states further: "The granting of public money and the imposition of taxation are strictly the functions of Parliament,. . .". They are strictly the function of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, and I think that you will want perhaps to review that document when you arrive at your conclusions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing I just want to bring to your attention the fact that several authorities in parliamentary matters have discussed this issue in the past. Indeed, it was Senator Eugene Forsey who, upon several occasions, raised this issue in the Senate saying it was inappropriate for Parliament to be dispensed with in such a cavalier manner by the Government, that Parliament in fact should be granted its traditional role to grant or deny supply to the Government.
If there ever was a justification to use the Financial Administration Act this certainly is the case, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the only example in which the Financial Administration Act was used outside of an electoral period was to repair the roof of the first Parliament Building in the 1890s, and at that time the session was so short that it was impossible to recall Parliament in order to vote the funds to fix the roof. So the Government sought at that point the Governor General's warrant to do so.
I do not know if there is any leak in the roof up there on the Government side, but I submit that in modem times such as these in which we live, there is very little excuse at any time to use a Governor General's warrant, and perhaps we should seriously consider abolishing that kind of an instrument from our Financial Administration Act. Notwithstanding the fact that I recognize that it is there, that provision of the Financial Administration Act was never meant to supersede the traditional role and duties of this Parliament. We have a right not only to grant or to deny supply but we have a right to air the grievances of Parliament and the grievances of the people of Canada prior to granting or denying that supply.

April 6, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
In this particular period, $6.2 billion has been raised and $1 billion has been borrowed without asking the consent of this Parliament. I think that after examining this, you will find that we indeed have a prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) in a moment, but before moving on to the Hon. Member for Kamloops, I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) or the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken) if, in the extensive research which they have obviously done, they have been able to determine when historically the first Throne Speech appears.
Second, can they advise the Chair as to whether that Throne Speech was prepared by the Commons or prepared the King's Council. It may take a little while to find that information, but I would like to have it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I am pleased to participate in this debate on this important matter, though, as others have indicated, I would prefer not to even have this discussion.
I think what has been raised today is obviously fundamental to what we do here. This is one of those rare occasions when general members of the public bring to one's attention what they believe is an impropriety of the way Parliament is conducting its business. I must say that while we were awaiting the recall of Parliament, a number of constituents brought to my attention the fact that the Government was in fact using Governor General warrants. They did not refer to it as that, but through the short news reports they read, they were wondering if this was an appropriate way for Parliament to proceed.
As previous speakers have indicated, and I do not plan to go over the material which they presented extremely well, the fact is that the Government has now obtained in excess of $6 billion though the use of Governor General warrants when in fact Parliament could have been sitting and should have been sitting. As a matter of fact, you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that a number of Members actually called to your attention the need, in their opinion, for the House to resume.
We as parliamentarians all understand that the fundamental task before us is to examine carefully the way the Government uses, or in some cases, some of us would believe misuses, the taxpayers' money. That is our fundamental task. That is why we have been elected from our various constituencies.
At this time, it is appropriate that we examine carefully and either grant or withhold supply. Most of us look forward to that process. As a matter of fact, the House Leaders met to arrange at least for the remaining part of this session ways and means of dealing with supply to get around some of the problems we face because of the summer interruption. We take our jobs very seriously in this respect.
As the others have indicated, we have seen the Government spending public money without the authority of Parliament when there is no reason for it. We understand that in the past, Governor General warrants have been used, but there has been a point with one exception, and that was, of course, when the House was simply unable to be called and to have called the House would perhaps have been inappropriate, but such was not the case during this interval.
I think this is a very serious issue, serious enough that one's constituents bring it to one's attention. I only regret that I had not raised this earlier, but I am pleased that my colleagues in the Official Opposition have done so.
Consider that in this century, this action has been taken only 10 times. I think we must ask ourselves as Members of Parliament, if this procedure, this process, is not concluded, and the Government feels it quite appropriate to simply not have Parliament sit and to use Governor General warrants to obtain the necessary funds to enable it to fulfil its obligations as it sees them, parliamentarians would not be in a position to examine carefully the items of supply before the various Standing Committees.
I simply conclude by saying that I join with my colleagues from the Official Opposition. I believe it is a very serious violation of the privileges of every Member and a violation of the tradition of Parliament as we have come to know it in Canada. I join with them in asking you to give this very serious consideration, which I know you will. Quite frankly, I look forward to listening to the Government House Leader explain why he feels it is appropriate that once again, and I hate to have to say it, the Government is abusing the traditions of Parliament and the privileges of Members of Parliament.

' * * [DOT] >
* ****[DOT]. [DOT] [DOT]	 *
April 6, 1989


Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), perhaps the Hon. Members who have spoken might be of further assistance to the Chair. I would like their view as to exactly at what point the expenditure of public funds becomes legitimate, if one accepts the premise of the argument that is being put to the Chair. In other words, let us assume that the House comes back as it did on April 3. Are Hon. Members then saying that the Government cannot spend money between April 3 and until such date as committees have considered estimates and they have been passed by the House, or is there some other way that the Government can deal with that period which would be a hiatus period, if the argument Hon. Members are putting forward is valid?.
I ask that because I am trying to see clearly the point that is being made. Certainly the fundamental principle that the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Milliken), the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) have put forward is an ancient one. I think it goes almost without saying, but in trying to deal with the situation now, the Chair may need a little bit of practical advice as to just how a Government would deal with the situation, if it did not use the Financial Administration Act.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could assist the Chair in submitting to you that one will not object, at least I will not object, to the fact that the Government has to spend money in order to continue the operations of the Government during an electoral period, and it has to do that without seeking the advice and consent of Parliament. We could argue, I suppose, philosophically, that we should meet for a number of hours immediately before declaring an election or immediately after it is declared in order to grant supply. I suppose there is a philosophical case to be made for that, but I think that is a point which we could debate when making proposed changes to the Financial Administration Act at some point in the future.
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
However, that is not the most fundamental point that my colleagues and I were trying to bring to your attention today. It is the immediate one of the use of Governor General warrants. You see the Government had obviously sought Supply for a period of time last summer. It received that Supply, voted by this House, granted later by Her Majesty's representative. What we are objecting to is that after the electoral period, after a reasonable time to recall Parliament, the Government did not choose to ask for Supply. Not only can that case be made but it goes even further, Mr. Speaker. Parliament was recalled. Parliament sat. The Government not only did not seek Supply by way of a Bill, the Government did not even include the traditional motion asking for Supply in the Throne Speech.
Parliament adjourned in December. It could have come back after New Year's some time in order to grant Supply to this Government again. Parliament was not recalled. As a matter of fact, it was prorogued only to return after the fiscal year had ended. Having done that, returned once the fiscal year had ended and a new year had commenced without any funds to operate the Government, then the Government in the new Throne Speech failed again to ask the traditional request of being granted Supply for the purposes of administering the Government.
In fact, it is not the philosophical issue at this immediate moment that we are arguing of doing away with the use of Governor General warrants pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, although we could make that case in the future, it is the misuse of that portion, misuse in such a way that it has denied this Parliament of its fundamental rights and obligations to decide whether or not this Government should have funding and to be able to air the traditional grievances of the citizens before making that decision. That is the right that has been taken away from us. It has been taken away from us by the inaction of the Government in failing to ask for Supply by the inaction in the Throne Speech, by the Government's failing to ask for a money Bill last fall and by the Government failing once again to ask for Supply in the April 3 Throne Speech. There is a further case that the Government deliberately prorogued Parliament rather than recalling it for the purpose of having Parliament deal with the issue of Supply.

April 6, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
That is really the immediate issue that we are bringing to you attention, Mr. Speaker. It is the use or misuse of the Financial Administration Act in a way which is contrary to rights and privileges as parliamentarians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question quite directly on a specific means by which the Government can obtain Supply, I would suggest that it would be open to the Government if it had not scooped the money out of the Treasury already to introduce an interim Supply Bill. In this House this used to be the standard practice. The Government could have done it by calling us last week asking for an interim Supply Bill even before the Speech from the Throne had been dealt with and got it through in a day. Instead of that, the Government chose to wait until after the financial year had begun, called Parliament then and, in effect, trampled on the rights and privileges of the Members of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I realize there are Members who wish to speak in the Throne Speech debate, I will be very brief and stick to the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the Minister because I have taken a little time myself in asking some questions. I think I have the point.
I would be very pleased to hear the Minister but I do not think he has to go on overly long.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I got so wrapped up in this, I actually started reading into the books, Mr. Speaker. Let me do this very quickly. Now that we have decided what the burning issue in Kamloops was during the recess, Governor General warrants, let me say this. I think that we have had an interesting debate in the wrong place. First, privilege has to be raised at the first opportunity available. Since this is day four, let us rule out day one. The matter should have been raised on either Tuesday or Wednesday.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It was.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It was not raised on either of those days.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I gave notice.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It was not raised in the House. The Hon. Member simply waited for an appropriate time or perhaps time to get his act together. Two, as I read the Annotated Orders at page 160, it is usually a brief, presentation as to why the Speaker should rule that a prima facie case exists.
I would like to refer hon. friends to Hansard of April 5, 1989, in which a motion was passed with the consent of all members of the House which said "that the Supply proceedings for the 1988 calendar year be subject to the following provisions''.
Surely if my hon. friends had a dispute with the way Supply was being dealt with, that was the time to raise this very burning question of privilege, not two days later. First, they were late in submitting it and my hon. friends participated in the unanimous consent in the House for that particular motion.
I submit, and this has nothing to do with the question of privilege, but it was the argument raised during the question of privilege that the Financial Administration Act has three requirements for the issuing of warrants, and all of those requirements have been met. One, Parliament was not in session when they were issued. Two, a payment was urgently required for the public good. Three, there was no other appropriation from which the payment may be made.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no case of privilege. Even if there were it was too late. It was too late because my hon. friends participated in the House order which decided the matter.
In view of your very interesting admonition, I think that will close my argument.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister of Justice. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal very briefly with the point that I understand the Government House Leader to be trying to make that the question of privilege has been raised too late.
Let us look very quickly at the sequence. The Throne Speech was read Monday. It was published in Hansard Tuesday. Notice was given yesterday. Under those circumstances I think it could well be argued that we have raised the matter in a very timely fashion. Furthermore, if it had been possible to raise the matter earlier, the effect would have been to act in a rather discourteous manner, first, to members of the government Party who moved and seconded the Address and Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and, second, the House Leader's own Party Leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney). I do not think that our ability to argue and to have considered the point of privilege in question should be prejudiced in any way through our willingness to deal in a courteous manner with the Prime Minister and Members of his Party.
April 6, 1989

I respectfully submit that this matter has been submitted in a timely fashion and its importance is such that it deserves to be given the consideration that I know you are interested in giving to it even though it has been raised today rather than yesterday. In any event, I submit that the sequence of events indicates that this has been raised in a very timely fashion.
Furthermore I am informed that the warrants have not yet been tabled in this Flouse. My colleagues found out about them only through telephoning. Maybe the argument might be made on the other hand that we have raised this not too late but too early-I do not want to undermine my own argument by saying that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I just want to illustrate that I think we have done this in a finely balanced way. We have treated the Prime Minister and members of his Party with courtesy in not interrupting or holding up their speeches in raising this point. We have enabled the speech to be printed in Hansard so that we could study it and we have raised this matter, therefore, as I said, at a very timely and appropriate point. I submit that this matter deserves to be considered on its merits.


Mr. Speaker:: I think in fairness to all Hon. Members I should point out that on April 3, we attended in the other place. On April 4 there were two short speeches and then by House agreement the House adjourned. Yesterday was Leaders' day, and yesterday I received in writing notice of this application.
I am not making any ruling on the point made by the Hon. Minister of Justice. It ought to be clear both to Hon. Members and to the public that this notice came in fairly early.
Yesterday, it was again a question of courtesy to the Leaders that it was suggested that this matter be argued today as opposed to yesterday. As I say, I am not pre-judging the argument of the Hon. Minister of Justice.
I want to put another question to Hon. Members, and perhaps the Hon. Minister of Justice would wish to address his mind to the following. Is the suggestion being made that in view of what has taken place, or what has not taken place, which is is really the argument, that the allotment of money under the Financial Administration
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
Act is somehow or other illegal? Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to answer that question.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing that the Government is acting illegally. I am submitting to you that the Government is using an Act illegitimately and in contravention of our constitutional conventions. That is the argument that I am placing before you.
The Government had scheduled the recall of this House for earlier this year. Had parliament been recalled at that time the Government would have had to have a Speech from the Throne, table its Estimates, and have the Supply debate all before March 31 in order to seek Supply.
By proroguing the House at the time that it did, the Government did not have to answer to the grievances of the people for that period of time. In fact it created a situation whereby instead of answering to the House for its supply Bill, it used a Governor General's Warrant in order to get the money, and in so doing it was not answerable to any one. That is what the Government has done.
By deliberately proroguing the House and immediately after proroguing it seeking Supply by an instrument such as the Financial Administration Act, it has created a situation whereby we have been denied our rights and privileges as parliamentarians to state the case of the people before granting or denying Supply to the Government. That is the most fundamental role which has existed since the 17th Century and why this institution is here.
That is the case that we are putting before you, Mr. Speaker. One of the fundamental reasons why we were sent to parliament is to state whether or not the Government should have funds to operate, whether or not we as parliamentarians choose to place our confidence in the Government, or deny our confidence to the Government. We have been denied that opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me just ask another question. Do the moneys that have been allocated as a consequence of using the Financial Administration Act not show up eventually? Are they not part of Estimates that are ultimately voted on?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be a question of privilege that is before the House. In order to determine it, I want to fully understand just exactly what the situation is.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. O'Kurley


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: To answer your question, Sir, in strict legal terms the provisions of Section 30 of the Financial Administration Act do make it possible for the Government to act in the manner that it has.
There are conventions in our Constitution and Hon. gentlemen opposite are well aware of those conventions. They went to court over the Constitution in 1981 or 1982 and discovered that. The Supreme Court of Canada said that there were certain conventions in the Canadian Constitution that must be observed. It is our position that those conventions have been breached in this instance.
Under Section 30, Subsection 4 or 5, it is clear that the moneys that have been appropriated by Governor General's Warrants will be included in the Supply Bills that are introduced and indeed they are deemed to be included in them. Therefore, in a sense, parliament will have an opportunity to vote those moneys and indeed they will be in. We will have to deal with it. However, it is ex post facto. It is being done after the event.
My learned friend, the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has indicated that it is being done as of April 1 on Estimates that do not exist. In other words, the Warrants for money are being granted and there are no Estimates here or anywhere else that anybody has seen on which that money is being granted. The normal practice is do it on the basis of the Estimates that already exist.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that I have heard enough argument. The Hon. Member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The question you raise is appropriate. As my Hon. friend has indicated it is after the fact and before parliamentarians have had an opportunity to evaluate what funds were appropriated via the Governor General Warrants, and the breakdown as to those funds again is after the expenditures have already been made.
Our job here as Members of Parliament is to review how the Government plans to spend the taxpayers' money before those expenditures are made, and not after the fact. In terms of enabling us to do our job properly as parliamentarians this matter has to be taken very seriously. If it is not taken seriously, we can begin to conjure up just what type of procedure, perhaps not this Government, but future Governments might use and abuse. As we have seen in this case the use of Governor General Warrants under the Financial Administration Act was never intended.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members and the Hon. Minister of Justice for their arguments. I will consider the matter very carefully and report back to the House.



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 at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Turner, Vancouver Quadra (p. 131) and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 140).
Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and great privilege to speak to the Parliament of Canada today in support of the Speech from the Throne which was presented so eloquently by Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada.
In those words so graciously spoken, the head of the Canadian Government offered to her people something that is indeed valuable and extremely precious. It was something that the good people of this great nation have come to expect from Government.
The Throne Speech offers Canadians from sea to sea a vision of the future much like that which was held by our parents and their parents before them, and like those visions that were held by the pioneers who built this nation through hard work and determination into one of the greatest societies in the world.
The vision expressed in the Throne Speech is 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 many things over the years, but now is the time to build for the future.
My wife and I have been blessed with three wonderful children, the oldest being six years of age. We are pleased to be expecting our fourth child this spring.
April 6, 1989

I accepted this challenge as a Member of Parliament because I believe that we in this country have an opportunity to work together to build a better future for our children. What kind of Canada do we want our children to inherit? Shall we offer them a country that is riddled with debt and crippled by economic mismanagement? Shall we offer the next generation a Canada that is afraid and weak? Shall we leave our children a country that is divided and selfish? Shall we offer them a barren and polluted Canada?
I say no. No, our children deserve better than that. Who in this Elouse does not want to leave the next generation of Canadians with a unified, healthy and caring nation?
Today, I would like to describe an action plan that will enable us to realize that positive vision for Canada, an action plan that will give us a guide in building the kind of Canada that we will be able to offer to our children with dignity.
In the Throne Speech the Government set out five main objectives. They are: building a stronger economy, protecting our environment, a caring and compassionate society, fostering the values that make Canada unique and a commitment to national unity. Today, I would like to discuss these objectives and the challenge we face together. I believe it is a plan which deserves support. Let me start with the economic challenge.
The first objective is to have a stronger economy, a stronger Canada. Since 1984 we have done pretty well as a country. We have enjoyed tremendous income growth and job creation. For example, in my riding of Elk Island in the Fort Saskatchewan area we have seen numerous expansions in the petrochemical and technological areas. Farmers from Hay Lake to Chipman have had record crop yields. Our economic performance has outpaced virtually all the major nation, and we have cut our annual deficit by $10 billion. Our challenge is to maintain that economic performance in a world that is increasingly competitive, increasingly interdependent, and increasingly subject to inflationary pressures. To do that it is clear we must ensure that inflation and interest rates stay down. Alberta in particular must be considered in regard to controlling interest rates, both in the short term and in the long term. That means we must continue reducing our annual deficit.
I believe all Canadians will support that effort once they understand the consequences of complacency. Our problem is not so much each annual deficit but the massive debt we have built up over the past two decades.
The Address-Mr. O'Kurley
Despite our efforts since 1984, annual interest payments on the national debt now consume 31 cents of every dollar of government revenue, leaving only 69 cents for government programs. Right now, we are borrowing money each year solely to pay this interest on past debt. That means we must pay even larger interest payments the next year, 34 cents on the dollar, then 37 cents, and on and on and on. The trend is clear. The more we spend on interest the less we have for everything else. When interest rates rise, as they have recently, that just makes the problem worse. One does not to have a Ph.D. in economics to see what we have to do.
If we want to keep our economy on track and avoid a return to the stagflation of the years prior to 1984, if we want our tax dollars to go toward social programs and not just interest payments, then we have to reduce further expenditures and begin paying our way. It is simply a question of paying a little now or paying a lot more later.
Continuing deficit reduction will affect what we can do over the next four years. It certainly is not all people will see in the economic sphere. They will see a new sales tax system which will replace the current federal sales tax system, a self-inflicted wound that is costing Canadians jobs. We need a modern sales tax that will not discriminate against Canadian producers and will generate the revenues we need to maintain social services.
If we are to accept reform in the tax system, we must consider the uniqueness of the Province of Alberta. We must work together with Alberta to ensure the economic stability and growth in that province. We will also be hearing more about the GATT trade negotiations as we seek to gain better access to markets in Europe, Asia and to bring order to agricultural trade. There will be action in science and technology with centres of excellence and a greater focus on strategic technologies.
In Elk Island, I will work to ensure that the Canadian Government works together with the private sector to take advantage of new market opportunities in the area of new technology. Companies like Sherritt Gordon are world leaders in the area of advanced industrial materials. We will be building on our new grass roots approach to regional development.
I will work with the counties of Camrose, Leduc, Beaver, Strathcona and Lamont, as well as with the private sector, in an attempt to create more jobs for our people. We will be modernizing our business laws governing bankruptcy and financial institutions. Copyright laws have just been revised to protect the rights of writers and performers.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. O'Kurley
I might also suggest that we should also review those laws with the consideration for the educational needs of students in our riding, students like those from the New Sarepta High School who are visiting the nation's capital today from the riding of Elk Island.
There will be further privatization of those Crown corporations which no longer serve a public policy role. Perhaps most important is that we will see a major emphasis on upgrading the skills of Canadians, a human resource strategy for the 1990s. That will entail investing in literacy programs, education, training and retraining. Our goal is to turn our social safety net into a trampoline by redirecting more of our resources into skills training so we can help people get a new or better job rather than just pay people not to work.
Continuing deficit reduction so that inflation and interest rates can fall, sales tax reform, a focus on multilateral trade negotiations, investments in new technologies, continuing our grass roots approach to regional development, modernizing our business laws, further privatization and a human resource strategy for the 1990s, are all actions that will help build a stronger, competitive and modern economy, a stronger economy that will produce the jobs and wealth we need to maintain our way of life.
The second objective is that of protecting the environment. During the past year, it has become clear that the world is facing an environmental challenge of unprecedented magnitude. This problem is becoming more and more serious.
Within the past week a major chemical spill occurred near my old home Town of Lamont. Incidents like this are becoming more common. There is no time to sit around blaming one another. It is time for action. Our goal is to develop policies that reflect the concept of sustainable development where economic policies are not divorced from their environmental impact.
We are going to see the creation of a centre for the international promotion of sustainable development in Winnipeg. You will be hearing more about the round table on the environment and the economy which is being chaired by the President of McGill University.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has been given new responsibilities to ensure that environmental issues are fully considered in the course of government decision making.
There will be new regulations to limit the impact of toxic chemicals, actions to protect the arctic environment, new legislation to improve water quality, legislation to ensure an appropriate environmental assessment review process, negotiations, both with the U.S. and globally, measures to improve the quality of the atmosphere, initiatives to clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River and, together with the provinces, action to clean up dangerous land sites.
However, environmental protection is not just the job of Governments. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us. That is why we plan to encourage individual Canadians to become more aware of the environment, the establishment of an environmental partners fund, the promotion of environmentally friendly products, and programs to encourage recycling.
Environmental protection is not just about minimizing damaged land. It is also about economic opportunities. We are going to encourage the expansion of Canada's environmental industry and promote research and development not just to find solutions to our own environmental problems, but to create export opportunities for equipment, knowledge and environmentally friendly products.
A concentrated government effort to protect our environment, increased public participation and the encouragement of the expansion of Canada's environmental industry are three elements of a comprehensive approach to protect our environment.
Another objective is a caring and compassionate society. Canadians have always placed a premium on tolerance and fairness. We care about the quality of life in this country for all our citizens, and we have always recognized our obligation to help the less fortunate, both at home and abroad. The Mulroney Government shares these values.
Ironically that is why deficit reduction is so important to ensure our ability to maintain quality social programs in the years ahead. That is why, despite our financial problems, we will continue to provide assistance to families and the elderly while directing greater assistance toward those with low incomes.
April 6, 1989

However, income security is only one of the major challenges facing our society. Legislation will be introduced to create a national child care program. If we are to have a program of this nature, I personally would like to see that the benefits are offered equally to mothers who choose to stay at home to raise their children as well as to working ones.
The struggle to reduce family violence, child abuse and drug abuse will continue, as will research into AIDS and the diseases of ageing. Criminal law reform will continue, including a review of the Young Offenders Act, and we will be addressing the issue of abortion.
In so doing we are also concerned that scientific advances in reproductive technology, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer and surrogate parenting will outpace our ability to deal with the moral, ethical, legal and social implications. That is why we will commence a royal commission to inquire into the implications of new reproductive technologies for Canadian society.
These are all actions which address the challenges in our changing Canadian society. Our approach will reflect Canadian values, and it is our intention to ensure that these values are promoted in the wider global community.
That is also why we intend to continue to take a stand in defence of human rights and to fight the scourge of famine. That is why we will work with our northern allies and neighbours to develop a new co-operative ethic in the Arctic. That is why we will continue to be a strong supporter of the United Nations and its agencies and will participate in peacekeeping activities.
That is why we will expand over-all immigration levels while continuing to apply fairly but firmly the new legislation on refugees. That is why we will continue our strong support for international disarmament and will lend our voice to those seeking peace in troubled areas of the world. A caring, compassionate society based on fairness and tolerance that describes Canada today. Those are the values that will underpin our domestic and foreign policies.
The final objective is a commitment to national unity, fostering the values that make Canada unique. Our country is one of the most dynamic, peaceful and promising nations in the world. When we compare our situation with that of others, we realize why a foreign diplomat once described Canada as a solution in search
The Address-Mr. O'Kurley
of a problem. We have achieved much in little more than a century. We have much to be thankful for and much to celebrate. We are to have a big celebration in 1992 on our one hundred and twenty-fifth birthday to do just that.
In the meantime, we want to bring Canadians together as individuals. We will continue to support the development of our cultural life and our rich multicultural heritage. Elk Island is rich in culture with many people of British, German and Ukrainian descent, as well as people of French and Dutch heritage and many, many others. We will ensure that Canada's cultural voice can be seen and heard in broadcasting, film and video. We will be introducing a new Citizenship Act, and we will establishing a Canadian race and relations foundation to encourage racial harmony.
We will also be taking steps to ensure that our political institutions remain strong. We are going to build upon the recent achievements in parliamentary reform. There will be new conflict of interest standards for parliamentarians, and there will be a commission to recommend changes and reforms to electoral laws. I would like to see more consideration given to seniors and rural votes when electoral laws are reviewed.
Finally, we will continue to seek a constitution for all Canadians, Albertan and Quebecers alike. We believe the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord is indispensable to the further evolution of the Canadian Constitution, and with Quebec once again at the table as a willing participant. We can get on with the issues of Senate reform, aboriginal and linguistic rights, the roles and responsibilities over the fisheries resource, and the ways to strengthen the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Meech Lake Accord may not be perfect, but it does represent progress. It offers more autonomy to the provinces in areas like Senate appointments, immigration and the appointment of Supreme Court judges. Cultural policies, a new Citizenship Act, measures to promote cultural harmony, parliamentary reform, constitutional progress are the materials of our commitment to national unity and to the fostering of values that make Canada unique.
In conclusion, those are just some of the initiatives we will see from the Government over the next four years, but no doubt that is not all that we will see and hear. In Elk Island we will see industrial expansion and growth in small business and manufacturing. We will see more effective and efficient farming practices.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. O'Kurley
You and I both know, Madam Speaker, that no matter what the Government does, no matter how responsible or successful it is, we will also see the opposition Parties criticizing every move that is made, predicting disaster at every turn, and offering no constructive advice just as they have done since 1984. However, the Government's resolve is firm and our plan is not about placating special interests. It is about the national interest.
You will also see the opposition Parties criticizing every move that is made, predicting disaster at eveiy turn and offering no constructive advice, just as they have done since 1984. But the Government's resolve is firm. Our plan is not about placating special interests. It is about the national interest. Let us work together to realize a positive vision for Canada. Let us work together to build a better Canada. Let us all work together from all Parties, from all regions of the country to build a better future for Canada.
Merci beaucoup, Madame le president.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


M. Malepart:: Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Member for his remarks. One could see that he is a new Member. I know he spoke from the heart. But he blamed the Opposition. I would like to remind him that it was under pressure from the Opposition that the Government finally lived up to its commitment following an attempt to cut old age pensions. It was under pressure from the Opposition that the Government gave back their unemployment benefit entitlements to people in his riding. It was under pressure from the Opposition that the Government backed down after having announced it was going to tax stable commodities such as bread and butter. I should think that the Hon. Member will realize that Members on both sides of the House can play a positive role, but that opposition is our only guarantee against dictatorship.


Mr. O'Kurley:: I thank the Hon. Member from the Opposition for that statement. I would just like to respond by saying that with respect to old age pensions I think Canada as a nation can be proud that we are leaders in the world community in providing well-being for our seniors and for many of our citizens.
There were discussions during the last term with respect to various different ways of trying to solve some of the problems in many of the social programs. I think it is fair to say that it is not unreasonable for a government to look at all programs and to look at ways of making them more efficient and more effective and make them serve the purpose which they were intended to serve.
I appreciate the comment that the Opposition does have a role. I appreciate the Opposition when it provides constructive criticism and when it plays a useful and purposeful role in this House.


Mr. Whittaker:: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the early 1980s, we witnessed something similar to what is occurring under this Government, the raising of interest rates which began sky-rocketing, the subsequent destruction of many small business persons within Canada, but particularly in the West and in the eastern provinces.
At the present time we have interest rates once again rising, and the Member has indicated that in fact it is causing part of our problem with the stabilization within the Government's deficit problem.
Small businesses need assurance, as do young persons borrowing money for the first time that those interest rates will be lowered and stabilized.
My question is, if we do not stabilize the interest rates, how can the small business person and the new home owner have any confidence in the economic programs of this Progressive Conservative Government?


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Again, I will thank the Member for his very reasonable question with regard to interest rates. Madam Speaker, interest rates are set or used as a tool not only to control inflation in our own various regions of our own country, but they are also used as a tool to influence our competitive position in the international trading community. Unfortunately, we, as a country, are not an island. We live in a global community. Perhaps we have to recognize the realities of living in an international community if we want to keep our country strong in the long run. Perhaps we might have to do some things that are uncomfortable in the short run. I agree with you that there are parts of the country that suffer a negative impact when interest rates rise. However, I would like to commend governments like the Progressive Conservative Government in the Province of Alberta who have implemented an interest shielding program for people wanting to get new mortgages. I think that perhaps we have to look at very positive ways of dealing with the regional problems while, at the same time, not compromising our international interests.
April 6, 1989

Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Boyer:: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was listening, with interest, to the speech by the Elonourable Member for Elk Island (Mr. O'Kurley) and I want to congratulate him for having covered such a wide range of the issues that are now, as a result of the Throne Speech, before the second session of our 34th Parliament.
One of the many topics that he touched on, Madam Speaker, related to the Government's announced intention to establish a royal commission to look into many aspects relating to human life.
In the last Parliament when the soleful question of abortion was before us I proposed something along the lines of what I called a human life Act which would deal in a single comprehensive statute, outside of the Criminal Code, with the abortion issue, but also questions of surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertilization, fetal transplants, and many other aspects involving human life throughout the entire life cycle from beginning to end.
I would just like to ask the Hon. Member, Madam Speaker, if he has any particular thoughts along this subject. His speech referred to many different initiatives by the Government, but in light of the announced intention to deal with this through a royal commission that will examine this full range of issues currently affecting human life from a scientific, medical, legal, moral and ethialc point of view, if he has any particular thoughts that he might like to share with the House at this time that would be helpful as the Government makes its plans for the launching of this royal commission.


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for that very thoughtful question.
Madam Speaker, with regard to the question and with regard to the royal commission that will be set up, I think the over-all theme that should be considered while we are implementing this task force and implementing the strategies is that this task force will be dealing with a number of controversial issues. When we are dealing in the framework of morals and ethics there is sometimes great, great controversy. What I would suggest is that we should move towards a spirit of co-operation rather than
The Address-Mr. Taylor
towards what was, in the past, a spirit of confrontation. We should try to find ways of accommodating the wishes and the needs of both sides of an issue so that we can become more compassionate with regard to the views of others. And I think that with that spirit of co-operation we can achieve many things.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period of questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise today in response to the Government's Speech from the Throne read by Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada on April 3, and argued so forcefully today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and yesterday by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).
It is with a great deal of pleasure also that I return to this House after its recent three months recess, a recess during which I spent a great amount of time touring through my constituency meeting with people, ordinary Canadians who have expressed their concerns to me about everything from interest rates and drought relief to the delivery of postal services in rural communities and the price of wheat in Canada.
If there is one thing I learned on my visits to these kitchen tables, coffee shops and meeting halls it is that this Government now, only four months into its second term of office, has completely lost touch with the people of this country. If this Government, Madam Speaker, had spent any amount of time talking to the people about what it should do to turn this economy around, it would have brought out a Throne Speech, not a Throne Speech such as this one.
While I agree there is an international problem and the Government must be vigilant, it must be prepared to fight for Canadians in the international arena. However, the Government must also be prepared to stand by our producers here at home. We cannot abandon those producers while we go off and fight a foreign war. The Government seems to be doing just that.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. Taylor
I referred earlier to the poorly designed drought program, retroactive changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Program, and the removal of oats from the export jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Most important right now is that ever-increasing rate of interest charged on farm and small business loans. The Government is abandoning farmers to the whims of the market-place and refusing to stand in the trenches and fight that financial battle with them.
What about those interest rates? What about the interest rates in the Throne Speech? I do not seem to be able to find much reference in the Throne Speech. I do not seem to be able to find anything that says this Government wants to control the rate of interest charged to the most important segments of our economy-farmers and small business people or anyone else for that matter.
The Government's Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is a strong supporter of the Bank of Canada and the present policy of letting interest rates rise to whatever level he wants. Western MPs, MLAs and Premiers have called for lower rates, and the Government is not listening. This Government had the opportunity in the Throne Speech to show the people of Canada that it cared about the ordinary Canadian farmer, the ordinary Canadian business persons, and the ordinary Canadian homeowner by telling them that they would intervene in the economy and control this spiral.
We know who wins with high interest rates. The winners are the wealthy with the money in the bank, the large corporations with the strong cash flows, real estate speculators, and of course the banks and financial institutions. They are the winners, not the ordinary Canadian. There is unlikely a single individual or business in The Battlefords-Meadowlake constituency, the area that I represent, who or which will benefit from these high interest rates. An easing in the bank rate must begin immediately, and it is only the Government that can force action like that.
My constituents are also concerned about energy policy, forestry policy, and the future of Regional Development Programs. Where in this Throne Speech are those matters dealt with, Madam Speaker? Where in this entire document setting out the Government's priorities for the coming year does this Government tell us that it is planning to meet the concerns of western Canadians?
We do not know about forestry, energy, agriculture, regional development, interest rates-any of those things. Where is this Government going? Really, I am very much concerned. These are the wheels that drive the western economy and they are all that is left, or they are all left out of this Government's priorities for the coming year. I could speak for a considerable length of time on what is missing from the Throne Speech, but let me mention just a couple more.
The first ones are the plans for aboriginal self-government and the plans for rural Canada being established by the Post Office. I have read this Throne Speech many times, and I could not tell my Indian constituents what this Government thinks it should do this year on meeting the terms of its previous commitment to Indian people.
In this House on Tuesday there were 14 young Indian people currently on a hunger strike because this Government has cut Indian educational programs. In my riding, as in others, federal and provincial subagreements have not been renewed. These agreements provided much needed financial assistance to the Indian and Metis communities. The Government's Throne Speech says that it will extend programs to assist native economic development, but we have had no signs. There is no idea of any real commitment to such a process.
Indian people in my riding, just as in ridings across the country, are asking this Government to let them become a part of our democratic process which recognized their right to their own future. The Government's current devolution strategy is wrong. It is wrong, not because it gives Indian people a greater and ever-increasing say in the administration of their own affairs, but because it does not provide the foundation, the structure or the resources needed to allow for adequate administration of their own affairs.
Indian issues will be important in this country this year. Therefore, I think it is important that this Government recognize it and state that it is its priority in this House of Commons and in the Throne Speech.
I have been talking again about what is not in the Throne Speech, but before I carry on and conclude there are two more points I want to make. There is just one paragraph after the Government's flimsy reference to Native Economic Development Programs in the Throne Speech. If this Government had spent any amount of time talking to the people about what it should do to turn this economy around, it would not have brought out a Throne Speech such as this one.
April 6, 1989

Before the last election the Government promised the world, and barely squeaked into office with 43 per cent of the popular vote. That is almost seven points less than it had in the previous election four years earlier. There was no clear mandate given to this Government on any issue, but the public's expectations ran high. The people who voted Conservative were looking for a Government that would look after those who were needlessly battling an out of control economy. Those people have been let down.
Looking back over the past three months that elected Members of the House of Commons have been unable to question the Government on its activities, for those of us in western Canada, in particular, there are more questions than answers and the economy continues to oppress ordinary Canadians.
The Throne Speech which is supposed to give the country, through the Government, its direction for the next year does not address the problems I have seen by touring through my constituency and talking to my constituents about their concerns. My colleagues have also expressed to me the concerns of their constituents gathered during this three-month recess.
What I have heard over that period of time are complaints about high interest rates, poorly designed and administered agriculture programs, such as the Drought Assistance Program now under way.
Tax reform is not only more complicated but seems to be costing us more money. The subject I have heard more about than any other, except perhaps high interest rates, is the removal by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) of oats from the export jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Farmers in rural Canada did not give this Government a mandate to tamper with any of these government programs, let alone the one which guarantees the sale of their product. Western farmers have protested this move loudly and strongly, but the Government has cotton in its ears. Perhaps it has chaff between its ears, Madam Speaker. Whatever, the Government has failed to hear, to listen to, or to understand these voices from the Prairies, just as it failed to hear or chose to ignore the pleadings of Canadians prior to entering into the Free Trade Agreement.
The last time I was in this Chamber was during the week before Christmas when I spoke on the free trade legislation. I never felt so bad in my life as I stood here expressing the opinions of my constituents, and the members of the Government across the way talked and yelled and interrupted my speech constantly throughout
The Address-Mr. Taylor
that time. They did, I might add, the same thing to every speech from members of the Opposition throughout this House. They refused to listen, Madam Speaker, and they refuse to listen now. The people of Canada, and particularly the people of western Canada that I represent, want lower interest rates, well administered programs, more fairness in our income tax system and strong marketing boards to sustain and build a rural economy.
Instead, in the past three months we have had just the opposite, and in the future what can we expect? What do you see when you look at the content of the Throne Speech? A lot of rhetoric, a lot of words with veiy little thought behind them, a plan for the future that begs for detail, and for more information. How can I begin to plan my work for this session of Parliament with this document?
I am concerned about the financial crisis in agriculture. I am concerned because every single community in my constituency depends on the economic well-being of agriculture to survive. In reading this Throne Speech, I do not know what are the Government's plans for the future. There is only one reference in this entire document to agriculture. Only once is the word "agriculture" even written in this document. Can you believe that? An industry as large as agriculture in such crisis in this country, in such turmoil, and there is only one fleeting reference to it in this entire document, this Government's plan for the future.


An Hon. Member:: Shameful, shameful!


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: What is that reference, Madam Speaker, a reference to the trouble in the international marketplace? I agree there is an international problem and the Government must be vigilant. It must be prepared to fight for Canadians in the international arena, but the Government must also be prepared to stand by our producers here at home. We cannot abandon those producers while we go off and fight a foreign war. The Government seems to be doing just that.
I have been talking about what is not in the Throne Speech.
Before I conclude, there are two more points I want to make. Just one paragraph after the Government's flimsy reference to native economic development programs, the Throne Speech reports that this Government will continue its privatization of federal Crown corporations. While I do not support the concept of privatization, I have at least to applaud this Government for saying what it means in this case.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. Taylor
In my province, the provincial Government of Premier Grant Devine is so afraid of the word "privatization" that he has created an entirely new cabinet post. He would not call it the Department of Privatization but calls the Department of Public Participation in an attempt to cover up its real agenda, which is turning over resources and utilities to the private sector. I should mention that ordinary Saskatchewan residents, who will likely give Mr. Devine a retirement send-off soon, call this privatization initiative not privatization but piratization.
In any case, the Throne Speech of the Government insists on moving ahead with turning over public assets to the private sector. The Crown corporation that I am most concerned about, as this Party's Post Office critic, is the Post Office, a Crown corporation which is slowly, piece by piece, being privatized without public debate, without public input and without a public mandate of any kind.
Just today, I attended a press conference with the national president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Mr. Jean-Claude Parrot. He has called on this Government to initiate a royal commission into the operations of the Post Office. Things are so bad there that suicides have taken place. Mr. Parrot says that the workplace at Canada Post is like a powder keg waiting to explode. The only responsible course of action that the Government can take is to launch an investigation and do it immediately. I whole-heartedly support their call for a royal commission and applaud the courage of postal workers for the stance they have taken.
I just want to read briefly from the letter the postal workers sent to the Minister responsible for Canada Post today. Mr. Parrot is quoted as saying:
The fuse is short and getting shorter. Management's abuse of workers has increased over the last year to a point where, if not stopped, the post office will blow apart. A public inquiry is the only way to expose what is really going on in the post office. It is the only way to make Canada Post management.. .accountable to the public. It is the only way to prevent all out chaos in the postal system.
He goes on in his letter to say:
Mr. Minister, in April 1989, it must be said that Canada Post Corporation has failed disastrously to fulfill the mandate granted it by Parliament in 1981. Service levels have declined to the point where Canada Post has become an object of ridicule and anger throughout Canada's communities. Labour relations have declined to the point where Canada Post's workers are treated by management, at best, as naughty children requiring constant discipline and surveillance, and at worst, as an enemy encampment requiring eradication.
He concludes:
A Royal Commission will clear the air and reveal for all to see the truth of what is happening in Canada Post. As well, it will serve to reestablish the legislative mandate of the Canada Post Corporation Act as the guiding light of the Corporation's activities and functions-a development which is crucial to postal workers and to service for Canadians.
This Government and specifically the Ministers responsible for Canada Post will hear a lot more from me about this subject in the near future. Let me flag a few things today in terms of the Throne Speech commitment to privatization.
During the election campaign in western Canada, there was a lot of talk among voters about the quality of life in rural Canada and that in recent years, that quality of life was diminishing. The closure or amalgamation of rural post offices, the reduction in rural postal routes and the elimination or downgrading of rural postal services are just more indications that the federal Government has no commitment to the existing quality of life in rural Canada.
This Government has a vision of rural Canada that is not the same vision that is shared by residents of rural Canada. It is not the same vision that our parents and our grandparents had when they settled in rural Canada. The vision of this Government is a rural Canada which responds to the needs of the market-place, and the market-place is demanding few people and fewer services in the rural areas of Canada.
We are already seeing a decay in rural life throughout Saskatchewan. Branch lines are gone, schools have closed, the hospital system is under review and post offices are closing. I recently visited the community of Leoville, a small community situated north of Spiritwood near the centre of my riding. There they have a deathly fear that their post office is being taken away from them. They are not interested in the conversion program proposed by Canada Post.
The president of the Leoville Chamber of Commerce and the owner-manager of the local grocery store tells me that they as a community have had to fight for everything that they have got. They are going to fight for this post office and it is right to fly the Canadian flag over a federal Government building in their community. I say bravo to Mr. Lalonde in Leoville and to municipal officials all across Canada who are willing to fight for what they believe in. I will be there for that battle in Leoville and any other place that comes along because I believe the direction being taken by Canada Post and endorsed by this Government is wrong.
April 6, 1989

If the Government was committed to a strong, well-populated rural area with active, spirited people, it would ensure primary producers an adequate return for their labours and it would ensure that the community infrastructure remained in place. The heart of that infrastructure in many cases is the rural post office. The most obvious detrimental effect to life in rural Canada today, besides the disastrous lack of positive agricultural policies, is the Government's decision to cut back funding to the Post Office and its activities in rural Canada.
The new directive to Canada Post is to make money. It is the one government service that has been told to make money and, more important, to make profits. We do not expect the military to make profits nor the RCMP, medical clinics, the Law Reform Commission, the Farm Credit Corporation, universities or hospitals. They do not have to make profits and we should not expect them to. They provide services to Canadian people in areas where people need services. They respond to the needs of Canadian people. That is what Canada Post is there to do and that is what Canada Post has to do. Yet this Government has decided that the Post Office should make a profit. The one government service that touches the lives of all Canadians in every community for their entire lives is supposed to make a profit. We know that the cut-backs from that directive will have their most serious effects in rural Canada.
Thank God for rural community spirit. We would not be here today if it were not for that dogged determination of the rural spirit, never say die. It is the pioneering spirit that built our towns and villages in the past and it is that spirit that will keep them going in the future, despite the efforts of this Government.
One can only hope that the Government will open its ears and accept the wishes, desires and dreams of the Canadian people that are being spoken to Members of Parliament right across Canada while they sit in coffee shops and kitchens and listen to real, ordinary Canadians. I have heard those desires throughout my constituency during the last three months. I trust that my contribution here today with the background of having talked to my constituents helps the Government to understand a little better the direction in which it should be headed.
The Address-Mr. Taylor
I look forward with great anticipation to the Government's Budget due for public attention on April 27. That Budget, I hope, will deliver some specifics that the Throne Speech does not deliver, specifics that tell us the direction in which we are headed and what it will cost us. I am afraid I do not expect very much, but I am looking forward, I hope, to a few surprises.


Mr. Hockin:: Madam Speaker, I would like to join the House in congratulating the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Taylor) for his comprehensive remarks. I know that the Hon. Member will take his duties seriously, so let me take a minute to ask him three questions, not provocative ones, but ones that I feel he would like to answer.
First, I heard what the Hon. Member had to say on privatization. Is there any instance when he would support privatization of any public enterprise? I understand that one can take a particular example and argue against it. What I am in search of from his Party and from him are situations where it is wise to privatize. If it is never wise to privatize, then we have a member and a Party which is seriously out of tune with the times and even with other social democratic Parties.
Second, let me refer to our interest rates. I appreciate the Member's concern about The Battlefords-Mea-dowlake and other parts of Canada where high interest rates are particularly a problem. Was the Member suggesting that we should arbitrarily lower interest rates in a particular region and then subject the country, perhaps, and that region to an outflow of capital which would end up leaving even less investment resource in those regions than existed before the artificially lowering of interest rates?
Is he saying that the country as a whole should arbitrarily lower interest rates 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent and trigger an outflow of capital from the country to jurisdictions that are paying market rates of interest? That is, in fact, the logical concomitant of what the Member is suggesting. I do want to probe the Member a bit to get his answer.
Finally, I know he is particularly interested in Native Economic Development Programs and as the Minister in charge of those I want to tell him, and I think he is aware of this, we had an intensive consultation process last year on how to redesign the program. I hope he heard in the Speech from the Throne that the present NEDB pro-

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. Taylor
gram is being extended into July and following that the Government wisely, based upon the consultation process, should design the best possible programs for natives. Does the Member have any suggestions of what programs of that sort should look like?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for his question. I appreciate the opportunity to expand on the information that I was providing to the House in my short remarks earlier. I appreciate the indulgence of the House for allowing me to say a few words on these important matters.
Privatization is very important to me. Privatization is something that should not occur in areas of resources, utilities, the service sector where monopoly issues are at stake. But there are likely circumstances where privatization is acceptable. I will not dispute totally that privatization is a bad thing. Throughout Canada and around the world we are seeing efforts where services have ceased to become essential to the needs of the people of the country.
When something is essential or when it deals with our resources, government intervention, government activity, government ability to control the economics of it is imperative. I speak particularly for my people back home when I say that on the issue of potash, natural gas, electric or insurance these are things that should remain within the public domain. I thank the Minister very much for bringing that to the attention of my constituents.
On the issue of interest rates, yes, I believe that is within the domain of the Government, that it should be a priority of the Government arbitrarily to bring down the interest rates one, two or three points and should do so immediately. The fear of capital leaving the country can be contained by the use of exchange controls. A Government that is interested in helping to maintain and build the economy of the regions and the areas of this country can find ways to deal with this matter irrespective of the activities of American financial interests.
On the final point of Native Economic Development Programs, I think the very best sources of information are the Indian people themselves. The national and provincial native organizations must be called in regularly and be enabled to provide the direction and initiative that is required in the future and in the Constitution.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the reply the Member has just made. It is refreshing to hear the New Democratic Party restating its much more doctrinaire positions. It masked them successfully over the last ten years, ever since the Winnipeg convention.
Now we hear again a little more honest restatement of socialist policy, that the Government should own the major resources of the country. It should arbitrarily cap interest rates and have financial economies as in Kenya, Tanzania, Cuba, Hungary and Poland. They are great examples to follow in financial policy, Madam Speaker.
I was interested in the Member's comments regarding cutting-and he used the word cutting-the educational programs for native Indians. I would like to point out to him that the post-secondary program for our native people has increased in enrolment from 3,500 in the academic year of 1977-78 to this year's academic year of 15,000. The budget has increased from $9 million from 1977-78 to $130 million in 1988-89. It has still not been cut. If the Member wants to insist that the program has been cut, will he give some evidence to the House for his statement that the Government has cut that program?
Mr Taylor: First, I make no apologies for being interested in a more caring and better administered economy. I make no apologies whatever for having that interest in my heart.
Second, on the matter of the Indian education programs, the people who are affected by those problems are the ones who are on hunger strikes or who are marching in the streets and occupying offices.
The Indian people know that the cuts are there and that they do not have access to the post-secondary system that they need. I think it is time the Government met with those people on hunger strikes and met with the Indian people who are concerned about the inadequate funding for post-secondary education. When the Government does that, then we can get down to talking about figures, the need and where we are going.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's brilliant presentation in his analysis of the situation which the country faces. I have a question for him.
April 6, 1989

He comes from western Canada. I have been trying to think of a single government program where the West gets its fair share based on its population. I have struggled for the past nine years to find a single example of where western Canada gets it fair share of anything. I have yet to find that.
Has my hon. friend come across any government initiative in a comprehensive national program based on population base where the West gets its fair share? Has the Hon. Member been able to determine any single federal program of that nature?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis), a Member who has a great deal more experience than I have in this Chamber and a Member who has had many more years than I to investigate this matter. In my short period of time I too have failed to find any program whatever that would deliver a fair shake to the people of western Canada. I hope eventually that with the skills which the Member displays and the skills I hope to acquire we will one day be able, if we cannot find them, create programs to give a fair share to western Canada.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to take part in a debate so crucial to the future of this country. I think that this Throne Speech sets the best goals and aspirations for Canada and Canadians. As a new Member, I am proud to be a part of the team led by our Prime Minister, who is a strong and wise leader. I am also proud to be a member of this Progressive Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Peter L. McCreath: For a Nova Scotian, my French is not that bad, if I say so myself.


Some Hon. Members:: Very good!


Peter L. McCreath: It is remarkable the extent to which my concept of Canada is reflected in the goals and objectives set forth in the first page of the Speech from the Throne which marvellously articulates a concept of the direction in which our country should go in the years ahead.
My concept of Canada is a Canada economically strong and self-reliant. It is a Canada that makes effective use of the abundant resources that we have at our disposal and makes careful exploitation of those resources in order to provide the greatest benefit, not
The Address-Mr. McCreath
only for Canada and Canadians but indeed for the people of the world.
It is a Canada in which we have as our goal the social security and safety of every Canadian. It is a Canada that seeks full employment for every Canadian and an adequate and meaningful job for every person who wishes to have one within our country. It is a Canada that welcomes the challenge of economic development, that looks to the opportunities of international trade, and is prepared to reach out to all the comers of the world.
One of the important initiatives undertaken by the Government in recent years was when it recognized the potential impact of our multicultural society for the development of trade, because it was prepared to capitalize on the linkages that we have with all the peoples of the world.
As an immigrant nation with citizens from countries all over the world we are in an unique position to develop trade and take advantage of not only the personal connections which Canadians have, but the linguistic skills that give us linkages into every country of the world.
My Canada is a Canada that is a nation of people who have respect for this wonderful land with its natural endowment of resources, including the air we breathe, the water we drink, our fields and forests, our lakes, rivers and oceans, our birds and animals and, most important of all, our people, be they young or old, men or women, recent arrivals or multi-generational Canadians, anglais, francais, ou d'autres.
Above all, Canada is a land of diversity. A key to understanding this country is understanding the implications of our diversity from one end of the country to the other. Diversity exists in Canada on many planes, cultural, linguistic, socio-economic, climactic, geographical and, as a Nova Scotian, one of which I am so well aware, regional.
Diversity means for Canadians that we have differing perspectives toward national issues. We do not all approach national issues in the same manner. Understanding comes from recognizing and, more important, accepting the implications of the differing perspectives of Canadians from different regions with different languages and different cultures.
The real challenge of those who are charged with governing this country is to come to grips with the fact that they have to recognize that Canadians see issues differently and that they are prepared to accommodate the legitimate and reasonable aspirations of Canadians from different regions with different cultures and linguistic groups.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. McCreath
At the same time, provision must be made for alleviating measures for those Canadians who will be disadvantaged by the national consensus. Let us face it, Madam Speaker, one cannot at all times accommodate what are often very diverse or differing needs on any given issue or any given policy decision. Therefore, Government has to be prepared to provide alleviating measures for those who may from time to time be disadvantaged by specific proposals or issues. That is why programs are targeted at responding to specific regional development needs. Such programs, most recently articulated in the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and comparable programs, to target the particular needs of regions such as my own are in fact a cornerstone of Canadian society, a cornerstone of governmental policy and practice. I am delighted that this concept was clearly and unequivocally reinforced in the Speech from the Throne that was delivered on Monday last.
My Canada is a compassionate, caring society which extends to all its people. In a nation with the wealth and resources that we have, no Canadians should suffer from lack of adequate housing or nutrition, or from lack of adequate health care services or social security. One of the blessings we have developed over the years is probably the best health-care system in the world, a health-care system that is safeguarded and preserved, and under the sound economic management of this Government will grow during the years to come.
Our society is one in which Canadians should never suffer from deprivation or from violence, particularly violence in the home. As a priority we must ensure that our children are safe and that they do not suffer from child abuse or neglect in any way. We must ensure that our children have the best education because they are our resource for developing this country in the future.
Our Canada must be a Canada in which there is respect and dignity for all, particularly for our senior citizens, and for those who suffer from disabilities.
Self-reliance goes hand in hand with self-respect. Our national goal must be to ensure that basic social needs and security are recognized as the basic rights for all Canadians.
My Canada is a multicultural Canada. For the past 400 years we have been a nation of immigrants; even the native peoples originally came from other lands. Our nation will continue to be a nation of immigrants.
In recent years every economic demographic study done has shown that in the years ahead we will have a need for more immigrants. Therefore, our immigration system is vitally important to the future of this country. It must be a system that is fair and open to all, all who meet the legitimate criteria for entrance. At the same time, it must be one that is fair to those who have special needs. We must have provisions for bona fide refugees, those whose lives are indeed imperilled in their lands of origin. However, at the same time the system must be fair in the sense of requiring that all of those who wish to come to our country are prepared to wait their fair turn in line. In this regard I compliment the Government for the efforts and the provisions it has put in place in an effort to come to grips with this extremely difficult problem that has plagued our country over the past two or three years.
Our multicultural Canada must be based on two concepts that are the bases of the Canadian Multicultur-alism Act that was enacted by Parliament last year, the concept of cultural freedom, the concept that every Canadian is free to be what he or she perceives themselves to be, and on the concept of equity and fairness for all. That means equality of access as well as equality of opportunity.
Over the years ahead we must build on the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. We must extend the implications of the employment equity provisions. In the Speech from the Throne reference was made to revisions to the Citizenship Act. I see the Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship) (Mr. Weiner) is present. I look forward, Mr. Minister, to seeing those provisions coming forth.
This is the vision of Canada that we must work toward. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, how the South Shore, my constituency, fits into this perspective. I believe it remarkably typifies the best of what is Canadian. It is a constituency that extends 150 miles from my home in Hubbards to Charlesville, a community that Canadians will remember. It was the community that was so hospitable to the refugees who came to our shores through the night a year and a half ago.
April 6, 1989

It extends from the Atlantic ocean 40 to 50 miles inland to the fields and forests of New Ross, New Germany, and Caledonia. It also contains a variety of coastal islands. I am fortunate, when I visit all my constituency, that I not only travel on planes and on highways. I also travel by boat as my constituency contains islands extending down the coast from East Iron Bound to Seal Island.
The South Shore constituency comprises the historic counties of Lunenburg, Queens and Shelburne on the majestic Light House Route. I want to say to all Members of the House that they will find no better place to spend next summer than visiting the South Shore and driving the beautiful Light House Route and visiting the many marvellous and beautiful sights. They include historic towns such as Lunenburg, the home of the Bluenose, and the Bounty, where the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic provides one of the most interesting spectacles for all visitors. It is rwhere one of the largest fish plants in the world can be seen, the National Sea Plant, as well as the historic boat building centre of Mahone Bay with its 11 churches.
There is the industrial centre of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, on the beautiful La Have River, a town that has benefited from industrial growth while at the same time retaining the natural charm and beauty of the area. There is Chester, Blandford, New Ross, New Germany, West Northfield and Riverport right out on the ocean, Queens County, the forestry capital of Canada, with its sawmills and Greenfield, and Caledonia, Liverpool, the historic privateering town with its Bowater Mersey paper mill and its Mersey Seafoods and Stempro, Port Medway, Milton and, yes, Port Mouton, a town I will talk about in a moment. Of course, there is also Kejim Kujik National Park. It comprises as well Shelburne County, probably the fishing centre of Canada if not of North America, where we have fishing communities extending from Port Lehebert on the east to Woods Harbour on the west and such significant and important towns as Shelburne, Barrington, Clark's Harbour, and I might say the historic town of Lockeport to which my ancestors came and settled 200 years ago.
.(1710)
Fishery is a large part of what the South Shore is all about. As go the fisheries, so goes life on the South Shore, in particular life in Shelburne County and along coastal Lunenburg and Queens Counties.
We have done very well in recent years in our management of the scallop, lobster and swordfish industries. We have had the implementation of a limited entry
The Address-Mr. McCreath
system which, while frustrating to some, at least has the advantage of providing control of the industry.
We now have a burgeoning new tuna industry. We had a wonderful fall when the tuna came off southwestern Nova Scotia. We look forward in the next couple of weeks to seeing the tuna management plan for 1989. It is important that in establishing that plan we see controls put in place to ensure that we do not create an over-capacity problem. There should be no new entrants in the tuna fishing industry in Atlantic Canada this year. Nor should there be transfers. Those licensed to fish in southwestern Nova Scotia should fish there. Those licensed to fish in the other areas should fish there. But we should be prepared to provide the necessary quota transfers to ensure that we take full advantage of the quotas that are available to us.
We have a new industry developing in the flounder area. I would like to see those fishermen identified as specialists as we deal with the difficult problem of diversifying our groundfish industry so as to take advantage of under-utilized species.
The groundfish, of course, represents our major problem. It has been in the news lately. The three fish plant closings that were announced in the last month or so were in the South Shore constituency. We are gravely concerned about the future there. We are going to need support not only from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Siddon), who has been most supportive and who showed the wisdom a year and a half ago to set up the groundfish capacity committee whose report I have with me, but the support of other Ministers. The committee reported just recently. It has come forward with some very excellent recommendations that will provide long-term solutions to our groundfish problem, putting forth various ideas such as the designation of specialists and generalists within the fishing industry that makes greater efforts to reduce our capacity.
Our capacity problem is the one that has really precipitated the groundfish problem. It is a problem that was developed 10 or 12 years ago when the policy of the Government of the day was to provide a fishing licence for virtually anybody who wanted one. Unfortunately, that Government did not make provision to ensure that there were as many fish in the ocean as required for all the people who wanted to fish them. Thank goodness this Government is in power. It has the courage to tackle such problems. I want to compliment the Minister of Fisheries for the efforts and the manner in which he has undertaken to deal with this most difficult problem. I call on the Government of Canada to support the efforts of that Minister. We are going to need the support of Ministers far beyond the Minister of Fisheries and

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. McCreath
Oceans. In the short term we are going to need adjustment.
On March 9, for example, the village of Port Mouton, a village of 800 people, suffered the tragic news that the one and only major plant in that town was being closed-45 full-time employees-and another 150 seasonal employees were put out of work. We have to do that-


An Hon. Member:: Free trade!


Peter L. McCreath: This has nothing to do with free trade. We need immediately to have an industrial adjustment program put in place. I am pleased to say that on inquiry I discovered that the officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration immediately approached Clearwater to set up that agreement. They are still waiting to hear back. It seems the President of Clearwater has been out of the country since then. I call upon him and I call upon Clearwater to get together with the officials from the Department to get an agreement in place that will help those workers quickly and as soon as possible. I know the Department will move quickly as well in Port Medway.
Shelburne County is another situation. We have over 120 fish plants in Shelburne County. You know, Madam Speaker, you cannot run a fish plant without fish. It would be a simple thing for this Minister to do what certain of his predecessors did and say if you want to fish the ocean out, go ahead and do it. This Minister is too responsible to do that. His responsibility is to preserve that very important resource for future Canadians. That is the challenge he has undertaken. Meanwhile, in the short term we have to be prepared to do the work that will alleviate the difficulties that our people face.
In Shelburne County we have to put in place as soon as possible a Community Futures Program. An application has been put forward. Because, thank goodness, unemployment was not high three years ago, we have not to date been deemed to be qualified. But I know that this program under the Canadian Jobs Strategy has been considerably beneficial to many, many Nova Scotians. For example, in the fiscal year 1987-88 some 700 workers from the fishing sector in Nova Scotia received over $1 million in assistance through the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Since its implementation, nine areas in the Province of Nova Scotia have been selected for assistance out of the Community Futures Program. I am going to be urging and pressing the Government of Canada to move as quickly as possible to see that we have a Community
Futures Program put in place in Shelburne County as soon as possible.
We want to take full advantage of ACOA. ACOA has been a marvellous thing for Atlantic Canadians. Since its inception in 1987 up until March 17 of this year, ACOA has approved 89 applications from the South Shore. I look to there being at least 89 more this year. This has meant an injection of over $5 million into our local economy. This money, along with approximately $22 million from the private sector, has directly created 198 jobs, maintained another 24 and this, of course, does not account for the indirect spin-offs that come. We must be prepared to use ACOA creatively to assist the fishing industry and the communities dependent upon the fishing industry to adjust to the implications of the problem we are going to have in the groundfish industry as we look ahead.
Madam Speaker, I see my time is almost up. I would like to have talked about industries that are booming in the South Shore. Our Christmas tree industry is one. It awaits the implementation of the Forest Resource Development agreement which is critically important in establishing the research necessary to develop that industry.
I would like to have talked about the needs for postal service that my hon. friend opposite talked about earlier. Postal services are extremely important to people in rural areas. I would like to have talked about the maintenance of our rail links for transportation purposes, but those will have to wait for another day.
In concluding, I wish to thank the House for its attention and you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: kind of situation. The Government must act and deal with these problems. And why couldn't the Government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans include in the Throne Speech some measures or proposals for examining these serious problems and finding a solution?
I refuse to believe that the Hon. Member who represents a riding where the fisheries industry plays an essential role is satisfied with the scanty mention of fisheries in the Throne Speech. I am sure he would have wanted to see more than that.


Peter L. McCreath: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the Hon. Member for giving me an opportunity to speak further on the subject of fisheries.
First of all, I think that what was set before us in the Throne Speech was a concept of Canada and a set of goals and objectives. It was done in a very comprehensive way, and I think it was an extremely well written document.
With respect to the issues raised in the fishery, I am sure the Hon. Member is fully aware of the diligent work that has been undertaken over the course of the last year. If he is not, I would be more than delighted to provide him with a copy of the report of the Scotia Fundy Ground Fish Industry Capacity Advisory Committee.
It is a committee, Madam Speaker, that has in its membership representatives of all the major organizations involved in fishing in Atlantic Canada; the Eastern Fisherman's Federation, the Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association, the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the Nova Scotia Draggermen's Association, the South West Fixed Gear Operators and representatives from the province as well.
The Address-Mr. McCreath
The study is under way. The capacity committee has provided and filed its first phase report. It is my understanding that the Minister has now requested a detailed process for implementing the very sound recommendations that are here. We do not need a further study. The work has been done in the first phase, is now being done in the second phase, and I think the important thing is that as these industry representatives have become involved in this process Members opposite will take an active interest in the excellent work that is being done. But we have to face one fundamental reality. The Government of Canada, indeed Hon. Members opposite, cannot create fish. We have to face the fact that we have a serious problem because we in the Scotia-Fundy region we have overharvested the fish that are there.
It would be very easy for me as a Member from this side to go on criticizing the previous Government for what they did or did not do in the past. Who knows? Had any group been in power, perhaps they would have done the same thing.
It is partly the result of the extension of the 200-mile offshore zone, partly the change in technology from wooden boats to fibreglass boats, the fact that when you replace the one with the other, you can very easily get what we call jumbo boats that create a greater capacity to harvest more fish, but the bottom line is that there are not enough fish in the ocean.
The responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries is to safeguard that resource. It is interesting to see that if you go down the government benches, he is the only Minister who under legislation has a responsibility for managing a resource-


The Acting Speaker (Madam Champagne):: The Hon. Member from Etobicoke-Fakeshore (Mr. Boyer) on a point of order.


Peter L. McCreath: I am perhaps getting carried away. I will stop and allow the Hon. Member to ask his question.


Mr. James:: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to congratulate the Member for South Shore (Mr. McCreath) on an excellent speech. I know the people of his constituency are going to be very well represented.
I was also pleased to hear that we have elected someone who has somewhat of a rural constituency-150 miles long. It must have some rural component to it. It seemed to me the Member from The Battlefords- Meadow Fake (Mr. Taylor) seemed to be indicating that the NDP, his Party, had a comer on the rural constituencies, and that is certainly not the case.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. McCreath
I would also like to commend him on applying for the Community Futures Programs because it is certainly an excellent one and I know it will serve him well.
What I would just like to ask him, though, so I can give my colleague the opportunity to ask his question, is to have his evaluation of the Free Trade Agreement and how it will be of assistance to him because, as he knows, it was an important point in the Throne Speech and is something we are going to carry on and implement.


Peter L. McCreath: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not think there is an industry in Canada that will benefit as much from the Free Trade Agreement with the United States as our fishing industry, and there is no constituency in Canada that will benefit so much as the South Shore constituency. Seventy per cent of the fish that we in Nova Scotia goes to the United States. The securing of the American market, which is what we achieved through that agreement, has tremendous potential. It means that for such fish as we are able to catch, we shall have access to the principal market.
The second most important aspect of that agreement is that it ensures that American fishing vessels will not have access to get back on Georges Bank. That is one of the things they were concerned about during the course of the negotiations.
Senator Mitchell from Maine, for example, opposed the Free Trade Agreement because it did not provide an opportunity for Maine fishermen to get back on Georges Bank. Our fishermen have had their interests safeguarded by that provision. The fact that over the next few years the duties will be removed on cooked and processed fish means that we are going to have an opportunity to do more value-added work, more processing of fish in Canada prior to its being sent to the United States because our fish processors are more competent. They are more efficient.
Studies done by companies like National Sea have clearly demonstrated that there is a higher degree of productivity on the part of our fish processors in Canada and Nova Scotia than in the United States. We look forward to the fact that we are going to see more fish processing done on our shores and jobs will be created as a result.
I look forward to the possibility-


An Hon. Member:: Your time is up!


Peter L. McCreath: My friend, when you come from an area with fishermen, you have got to be able to stand up and tell them the way it is. We look forward to the-


An Hon. Member:: You have just started here. Watch your blood pressure.


Peter L. McCreath: Does that count against my time? Anyway, what was the point I was trying to make? My compliments to the Member opposite. I will stop now.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, I did enjoy the tour on which we were taken by the Member for South Shore (Mr. McCreath) around his riding and the identification of the fisheries and the fish of Nova Scotia. I want to talk briefly about the fact that most of us in Canada, through one, two, three and four generations, have been and are immigrants to Canada and unfortunately, over the last four years in particular, the immigration level has fallen substantially in this country so that from the high under the Liberal Government, as I understand it, it has now dropped approximately 80,000 from that highest point. My question to the Member is this: Does he agree with the Economic Council of Canada which recommends that substantial increases in the numbers of immigrants to Canada will ensure the stable economic growth of this country? If so, will you encourage our Party to encourage our Party to substantially increase immigration so that we can have economic growth in this country? Thank you, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It will have to be a short answer from the Lion. Member for South Shore.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, that is my biggest challenge since I became a Member.
Briefly, Madam Speaker, I have not read the report to which the Hon. Member refers. Clearly, this country needs immigration. It is my understanding that the Government has in fact increased immigration levels for 1989. I expect that we will see that the Government will in fact establish immigration levels consistent with what we can accommodate in terms of people arriving and settling in this country, while at the same time responding to the needs of Canada in terms of its economic development in the area of immigration.
April 6, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, it is with great humility, pride and obeisance that I, as a new Member of Parliament, now rise in this most honoured Chamber to respond to the Speech from the Throne, what it says and what it fails to say.
I am also pleased that Parliament, where we ought to do more than just listen, has finally reconvened to deal with the present issues our nation is currently facing.
I would like to briefly indicate to the House that it has been most fulfilling to serve my constituents and to open my constituency office six days a week, 365 days a year.
I am a new Canadian. I came to this country one score and one year ago full of dreams and expectations. Canada has allowed me to fulfil most of those dreams. However, I never began to dream until a year ago that I would aspire to join you here, to repay the many blessings my adopted country has bestowed upon me.
Indeed, I am proud to be a Canadian. I am fortunate and humbly proud to be the first Filipino Canadian ever elected to this House of Commons, the forum for national debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rey D. Pagtakhan: At this juncture, allow me to remind you that for 26 years the people of Winnipeg North had in this office the voice of Mr. David Orlikow. His long career in Parliament was always rooted in his care for people. He earned their respect and their trust, and he has earned mine. Hence, it was with an amalgam of feelings that I accepted the victory of last November 21.
As the new Member for this riding, I want to express my profound gratitude to the constituents of Winnipeg North for whom I speak today and who join me in speaking for all Canadians in all walks of life and of all national origins.
I will do my utmost to uphold the longstanding reputation of Winnipeg North as a well represented and very stable riding. I say this will all humility, for I believe you will share my stand when I champion the cause of fairness and social justice, when I speak for openness and candour during parliamentary debate, when I ask that we do not spread misunderstanding and hate, when I ask that there be no misuse of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe you will all stand by me.
The Address-Mr. Pagtakhan
As a physician I am used to treating the illnesses of patients. As a parliamentarian, I hope to contribute greatly to treating the illnesses of our society, the ills of unemployment, homelessness, intolerance, unfairness, illiteracy, injustice and poverty.
My childhood has taught me what it is to have very little in life. This has led me to appreciate even more the true meaning of open opportunities, fairness and tolerance-strong Canadian values. Winnipeg North stands for all these values. The people of Winnipeg North have a message for this Government and for all Canadians. We believe m protecting the mosaic of our varied cultures and reject the melting of them. We insist on total door-to-door-mail services and reject supermailboxes. We insist on maintaining our train service and reject its dismantling. We treasure our social programs and reject the deindexation and cuts. We believe in adequate funding for national voluntary organizations. We cannot accept that they suffer the axe of a blind and non-discriminating cut-back policy.
I have been elected as a Liberal because I am a Liberal. I believe in freedom and in social justice, for freedom without social justice is only freedom for the very few rich and powerful, not freedom for all, the poor and the middle class.
I and my fellow Liberals believe in free enterprise. We reward success and we are not jealous, but we also believe that those who have should help those who have not and we help those who have not that they may help others. It is that Liberal philosophy that has brought to this country our social umbrella which has made Canada a better, stronger and more compassionate place to live in. Programs like our universal medicare, Unemployment Insurance, family allowance, the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and many others have all been put in place by Liberal Governments. That is why I am proud to belong to the Liberal Party.
These programs are now part of our national fabric and we will vigorously defend them. We will not let this Conservative Government cut any of our vital programs. We will not tolerate any further burdens being placed on the back of this country's weak, its poor, its unemployed, its disabled or disadvantaged. It is bad enough that in the last four years, because of the Tory philosophy and the Government agenda, the gap between those who have none and who have has grown consistently wider.

April 6, 1989
The Address-Mr. Pagtakhan
It is very difficult for a person like me to accept-and I grieve it-that in a country as rich and as developed as Canada there are, in 1989, more than four million poor, half of them the youth of our country. We should also remember that there are many poor citizens in the Third World countries and Canada must take a leadership role in easing their debt burden.
It is unbelievable that in our prosperous country in 1989 there are thousands of homeless people, among whom are mothers with young children, and the Government does not even find it appropriate to put this onerous problem on its agenda in the Throne Speech.
Prosperity ought not to be measured only in terms of increased productivity, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has said, for many, but also in terms of no more poor, no more line-ups for heart surgery or cancer treatment, no more indignity to our aboriginal people, no inequity in employment for visible minorities and new citizens. Madam Speaker, a Race Relations Foundation is not enough. Employment equity is a must.
No, the Government felt it is not important at this point because the Government has a new obsession, the deficit. In four years, in one single term, this Government has nearly doubled the public debt, from $170 billion to $320 billion. Yes, it almost doubled the accumulated deficit of more than 100 years and that despite the biggest tax increase in Canadian history, particularly for the poor and the middle-class. In the Throne Speech, the Government tried to camouflage the deficit by saying it has decreased in percentage. It did not have the courage to say, in absolute terms, that it has increased, indeed. With its pre-election promises, the Government knew it was promising an even bigger deficit; with its post-election obsession to cut it, this Government, in essence, was not candid with the Canadian electorate, reminiscent of its free trade posture prior to the election of 1984.
Let us not ask the question, how much wealth we have, but let us ask the question, what use we make of the wealth we have. The debt that we now have has created assets for our country, has established public schools, hospitals and many other public institutions that we cherish. Now the Government wants to cut badly, everything, everywhere, especially in social programs because their good friends in big business, who advertised for them during the election, are saying now that social programs threaten their ability to compete.
The new buzz words now are review, reform, revise and readjust. We are not naive, nor ignorant, nor dumb. We know very well that they are all code words for cutting, chopping and deindexing.
Has this Government not learned its lesson, that it cannot tamper under any disguise with the principle of universality of our national social programs? If the Government thinks it can tamper with our social security net, it had better be ready for a fight, because fight we will put up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Vigilant we shall be so that our fears do not come true, especially for the health care sector.
Health, Madam Speaker, has always been at the centre of my professional life. As a physician and a medical teacher I have dedicated all my professional life to the cure of illnesses and the promotion of health. Now, as a parliamentarian, health remains a prime concern I approach with renewed commitment. I am very grateful, therefore, to my Leader for giving me the responsibility of associate critic for health. He trusts that I, with my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond, will keep a very close watch on our medicare system, and we will. He trusts that we will force the Government to put the health of Canadians ahead of any other considerations, and we will.
Already many incidents have been raised in only a few weeks while the House was not sitting. We have even seen that the health safety procedures used by the Department of Health are not secure enough to ensure the full protection of Canadians. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I ask the Government to update immediately its procedures regarding the distribution and the sale of any food or other products that may in one way or another be harmful to our people.
The procedures have to be clear enough that we always know what is going to happen at any given time that a product appears to be dangerous. Canadians can no longer tolerate a health safety policy of cyclical boldness and indecisiveness. The basic approach to health safety is not difficult. The Government has only to yield and move. Yes, a newly developed policy may at times be disturbing for the industry, the distributors and the merchants. I realize that. I also know that health is too precious of a God given gift to play with. When we talk about thousands of lives that are threatened by unsafe food, drugs and pesticides, I say, health protection is the very first priority. Profit becomes irrelevant.
April 6, 1989

Even in these days of restrictions and budget cutting, the Government should make a very special effort to enhance its financial support for medical research. It is my privilege, indeed, to have the Hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) as a Liberal colleague. He has fought bravely to regain his full health. He has started a crusade to help find the increased resources for medical research. Along with thousands of Canadians who have signed his petition he is asking the Government to review its decision to purchase nuclear submarines and redirect the money to medical research and medical services. I have great admiration for the Hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. He can count on my full support and that of my fellow Liberals. I hope as well that he can count on yours, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of so many Canadians.
What my colleagues and I are asking the Government is to invest in people, because Canadians are our most valuable resource. When we invest in keeping them in good health, when we train them for the new jobs, when we upgrade our educational system, when we create day care facilities, we invest in people and therefore we invest in our country. However, the Conservative Government does not think that way. The Government appears to subordinate people to profit just as if this country was a private business, probably as has been said a subsidiary of an American firm.
That is why my Leader, my colleagues and I believe that the next few years of this Government-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being 5.45 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 as follows-


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am a new Member of Parliament. I would like you to be compassionate and to realize-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.
.Mr. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. For the benefit of the Hon. Member and of the public who are now listening to us, I will try to explain to the Hon. Member what is happening.
There was an understanding much earlier that at 5.45 today all proceedings would be interrupted and all necessary questions would be put to the House. It was the decision of this House that this procedure would be
The Address-Mr. Pagtakhan
in place. It is the Standing Order. I must put the question to the House, which is why I apologized for interrupting the Hon. Member. However, it is my duty at this time.
Therefore, the question is on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Broadbent moved:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words: "And specifically regrets the failure of the Government to protect the environment through the criminalization of environmental offences and thorough review of the environmental impact of government initiatives: to establish a national child care program with national objectives of care; to provide a coherent, well-articulated foreign policy for Canada at a time when leadership is required; to put the needs of ordinary Canadians ahead of those of its corporate friends; to make sure that wealthy Canadian corporations and individuals carry their fair share of the tax burden; to provide assistance to workers dislocated by the trade deal and/or corporate restructuring; to meet the needs of Canada's regions; or to commit itself to a policy of full employment for all Canadians; and finally to ameliorate the harm caused to Canadian families and regions through its high interest policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the subamendment lost.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to take undue advantage of your kindness, but perhaps you will allow me to point out that today, the Hon. Member for Papineau-Saint-Michel (Mr. Ouellet) has reached the half-century mark, together with his friend, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Gloucester (Mr. Bellemare).


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6:15 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 7,1989