1989-04-07

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House regrets that Your Excellency's advisors continue to show indifference toward the economic and social well-being of lower and middle-income Canadians and contempt for Canadian democratic institutions by dishonouring commitments to the Canadian people with regard to the implementation of the Canada-U.S. trade deal, by abandoning Canadian farm, fisheries and forest workers, by ignoring the dangerous acceleration of concentration of corporate power, by refusing to act properly and firmly to assure public access to and the safety of the Canadian transportation system, by abdicating responsibility for health care, housing and senior citizens, by failing to protect the rights of minorities across Canada, by deserting the federal role in research, technological and economic development, and by circumventing the authority of the House of Commons with regard to the expenditure of public moneys and by presenting Parliament a program empty of anything save a clear desire to dismantle the Canadian social safety net while imposing an oppressive and inequitable fiscal regime.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that I have had in the Thirty-Fourth Parliament to address the House of Commons. I want to congratulate you and your colleagues most sincerely on your new responsibilities. You discharged those responsibilities in the past with distinction and I am convinced you will do so in the future as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I also am a veteran of sixteen and a half years in the House of Commons and want to welcome the new Members. I know that each of them will find the challenges here to be enormously rewarding. I think they will find that new friendships are built and that their time here is an opportunity for them to make a very important contribution to Canada.
I want as well to take the time to congratulate my critics on the opposition side of the House for their responsibilities. I followed with a great deal of interest the releases that were put out by the two opposition Parties with regard to the assignment of shadow Cabinet responsibilities. After a good deal of adding, Mr. Speaker, I discovered that the opposition Parties had appointed no fewer than 14 critics, co-critics, associate critics and assistant associate critics to monitor the health, the welfare, the state of our seniors and the fitness of our nation. All of us should be impressed by this new-found interest on the part of the Opposition. Most important, what is striking to me is that the Opposition has found a formula for work sharing that if it were to apply across the board in Canada, it could eliminate unemployment overnight, which is something I will commend to my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The past six months have been a period of great change for Canadians. In November this Government, once again, received the support of the Canadian people, winning the first back-to-back majority of any Government since that of Louis St. Laurent in 1953. We won support for our policies, for our leadership and for our plans for the future. As Canadians know, we signed the Free Trade Agreement to give Canadians access to larger markets, to provide more jobs and to increase the number of people capable of paying into our system of social benefits rather than simply drawing upon it.
We made a commitment then as we do now that the Free Trade Agreement will not destroy our Canadian culture, deprive us of our water or damage our social programs. Indeed, exactly the opposite is the case. Just as the Auto Pact has brought new prosperity to Canadians, so will the Free Trade Agreement. That prosperity

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Beatty
will give us the wealth that is necessary to support Canada's cultural life to enhance our environment and to extend our social programs.
Our network of social programs is an integral part of our identity as Canadians. We are proud of the fact that we have one of the finest health care systems anywhere in the world. We see the excellence of this system as one of the features which distinguishes us from our neighbours to the south.

For example, this year in Canada, we will spend some $50 billion, or $2,000 per Canadian, for accessible health care services of superior quality that meet the needs of our population.

That is a lot of money. Spending by my Department in support of health and welfare is, in fact, the largest single program expenditure which this Government makes. Even that figure is eclipsed by our annual interest payments on the national debt. That is why as we continue to improve our system we must do so in a financially responsible manner. We cannot afford to return to the recession of the 1970s and early 1980s when runaway inflation robbed the pensioners of their life savings, of their dignity and independence, when the level of unemployment was so high that young people looking for jobs were told that their skills were not needed. The sound base that we need to protect our social programs is a strong economic system.
Today, Mr. Speaker, some 31 cents of every tax dollar goes just to pay the interest on the mountain of debt that Ottawa has accumulated over the years. Unless action is taken quickly, that figure will grow and it will grow very rapidly indeed. If Canada is to remain solvent, the interest on the national debt is the first payment that must be made each year before anything else is funded, before pensions, health care, cultural programs, the defence of our nation and before environmental protection.
All of the programs that we think are essential for Government to provide for Canadians must share what is left after the interest has been paid. If the interest payments continue to grow unchecked, they will threaten not only our ability to bring in new programs to meet changing conditions but also our ability to maintain the programs which we have today. We owe it to our children upon whom we are piling this enormous debt burden and
to those who depend upon Government to provide essential services to prevent that crisis from developing.
In Monday's Speech from the Throne the Government promised firm leadership in overcoming the environmental threat to our planet. This is a particularly important initiative from a health point of view.
For example, each 1 per cent decrease in the ozone layer can mean a 4 per cent to 6 per cent increase in certain skin cancers. Dirty water or contaminated food supplies can be responsible for food poisoning, cancers, and other disorders. The health of our nation is intimately linked to the safety of our environment, the air that we breathe and the water that we drink.

This Government's commitment to favour sustainable development, to clean up and protect our major waterways and to eliminate the scourge of acid rain will greatly improve the average Canadian's welfare.

This is only one of our commitments to an improved lifestyle. There are others. As we look for ways in the next four years to make progress in building a country where the health and safety of our citizens is paramount, we will be placing new emphasis on AIDS treatment and prevention, dealing with drug abuse, reducing family violence, implementing a child care program, finding better ways to treat diseases of the elderly, continuing the fight against tobacco and alcohol abuse, and launching a Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies.
There is not time today to discuss all of these vital initiatives. However, I would like to touch on a few of them, starting with AIDS. Canadian doctors identified the first case in 1982. Since then they have reported 2,500 cases. Half have died already.
It is a terrible, fatal disease that is spreading throughout the world. The World Health Organization has estimated that 450,000 people may already have the disease and, in Africa alone, there may be 10 million people who have been infected by the virus that causes AIDS. In the United States AIDS has already claimed more lives than were lost in the Vietnam war.
It would be wonderful to be able to say that we have AIDS beaten. Unfortunately, we cannot do so. We have no effective cure and we do not expect a vaccine until the end of the centuiy. Hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost before the disease is finally eradicated, but it can be beaten if we commit ourselves to finding a solution.
April 7, 1989

The lives of the people affected by the HIV virus can be lengthened and brightened immeasurably if we act in an intelligent and compassionate manner.
Most important, we know how people get the disease, and that it is very difficult to get if the correct precautions are taken.
In the past few weeks I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of groups fighting the disease and to visit an AIDS hospice, Casey House, in Toronto. I was impressed with how many people have become so involved in helping to deal with the epidemic. I was deeply touched by the courage of both the people who are living with AIDS, and of the people who care for them. They left me with a new sense of hope.
Research and education has lengthened the probable life span of someone diagnosed with AIDS from 24 months to as much as 36 months, and possibly more. There has been a resulting change in philosophy from simply helping someone to die with dignity to improving their quality of life and teaching them how to live with the disease.
While I am very concerned about the spread of AIDS, I am also very worried about the misinformation that spreads along with it. A survey conducted in Ontario found that most people do not want to be exposed to AIDS patients. One in five believes that children with AIDS should not be allowed to attend school.
Some public officials have called for the isolation of people with AIDS, in some cases by removing students from school and in other cases by taking away the jobs of people who have AIDS.
Instead of receiving understanding and respect for their human dignity, people with AIDS are faced with losing their families and friends and having their homes and their jobs taken away from them. It is a cruel and a destructive reaction by a society that considers itself compassionate and civilized.
From a public health perspective it would be difficult to think of a better way to spread the disease than to drive those who are afflicted underground.
I have been in contact with my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), to discuss adopting a policy for federal employees encountering AIDS in the workplace. I hope by setting an example at the federal level we can encourage other Governments and organizations to adopt guidelines which are reason-
The Address-Mr. Beatty
able and safe, and which respect individual rights and human dignity.
We are working hard at the federal level to improve our research and develop our educational programs. We have established a Federal Centre for AIDS and have so far committed $168 million to research, education, and community outreach.
AIDS is a problem that respects no national borders. To stop its spread we will have to pool our resources and information at the international level. For this reason we have dedicated $17.5 million to the World Health Organization's Global Program on AIDS and, in lune, we will host 10,000 participants from around the world to the Fifth International Conference on AIDS in Montreal.
There are a number of other health and welfare issues that also need urgent attention.
As the father of two children, I am keenly aware that there is not a community in Canada where illicit drugs are not available. When I was Solicitor General I was shocked to receive estimates by the RCMP which indicated that each year Canadians spend almost as much on illegal drugs as they do on the defence of our country- over $10 billion dollars a year.
Our police forces have been very good at enforcing our laws and dealing strongly with traffickers, but the more that I learn about the issue, the more I realize that simply enforcing laws will not free this country from illegal drugs. Even in prisons, where we maintain 24 hour supervision, we are not able to get rid of drugs completely-
The difficulty, of course, is that if we dwell exclusively on enforcement, we are focusing attention on the symptom and not on the cause. Enforcement is essential, and we are committed to taking the profit out of crime, but we cannot deal with the issue by force alone. We have to provide treatment, adequate legislation and, most important, we have to remove the demand for drugs.
Last month I signed seven federal-provincial agreements which will provide funding for alcohol and drug abuse programs throughout Canada. I expect to be signing similar agreements with other provinces over the next few weeks. These agreements, which will provide $20 million this and each subsequent year, are part of our Government's five-year National Drug Strategy, designed to help those caught up the in the vicious circle of drug abuse.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Beatty
Our current legislation is complex and not totally responsive to emerging trends in drug abuse. The recent increase in the use of "designer drugs" and "look alike drugs" which are not covered by the Narcotic Control Act or the Food and Drug Act is an ongoing problem.
It is a problem which will be addressed shortly when we introduce legislation on psychoactive substance control to control the sale of those new drugs. The Bill will strengthen our ability to combat traffickers, while removing obstacles to the proper medical and scientific use of psychoactive substances.
One of the awful things about drug abuse is that it usually involves our young people. The more I learn about the problem, the more convinced I am that this is only one area where the needs of our youth are not being fully met today.
A truly civilized and caring society must put a priority on our children. Since 1971 the proportion of one-income families has fallen to 25 per cent of all families, while the number of two-income families has risen to almost half. Combined with this is the fact that the number of single parent families is rising rapidly.

There is no doubt that child care is an important matter and that the Government must actively support this service. During the past year, the federal Government spent about $625 million on it, as much as all the provinces together.

We have a $100 million Child Care Initiatives Fund which, among other projects, is funding a conference of 1,200, organized by the Canadian Child Day Care Federation, being held in Winnipeg as we speak. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated in his address yesterday, we remain committed to implementing a national child care program. Until we pass new legislation, we will continue to support provincial funding of child care programs through the Canada Assistance Plan for those families most in need.
I am also deeply concerned about the incidence of family violence and child abuse in Canada. A 1987 report by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women estimated that as many as one million women in Canada may be battered each year by the men they live with. The Badgley Report stated that 42 per cent of the
population have been victims of unwanted sexual acts during their lives and that most of the victims have been children. Those are shocking statistics. They require Government action.
Family violence inflicts devastating costs on individuals, on families and on society as a whole. That damage, both physical and emotional, can have long-term effects on people's lives.
We are currently in our first of a four-year program which involves six federal Departments and $40 million to help to address the problem of family violence. One of the cornerstones, Project Haven, is a program operating through CMHC to build 500 new emergency shelter units across Canada. All together our new shelters will enable us to house an additional 25,000 battered women and children each year.
Because we recognize the importance of community participation, we funded 89 projects last year to improve our response to family violence. These projects range from a national survey of elder abuse to sensitivity training for teachers, doctors and lawyers who may be able to detect and help in instances of abuse. The sexual abuse of children is one of the best examples of the painful and concealed problem which must be confronted openly and honestly.
We have many projects and substantial funding devoted to this problem, but realize that there is a pressing need for better information on what is often a family's deepest and darkest secret. For this reason I have a special advisor on child sexual abuse, Mr. Rix Rogers, who will be reporting to me by this fall on how best to proceed with federal initiatives.
[Translation\
Finally, we must deal with an aging society. During the next 15 years, the number of elderly in Canada will more than double. We must find ways to help seniors age serenely, while maintaining their independence and quality of life as long as possible.

It is heart-breaking to see an otherwise healthy senior citizen whose mind has been afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or has been crippled by osteoporosis. The Department of National Health and Welfare will commit an average of $4 million each year to research into diseases which inhibit the independence of our older people. Our challenge is to achieve a healthy and productive life for every Canadian.
April 7, 1989

These are just some of the areas which I believe deserve more attention. Mr. Speaker, you will see a renewed commitment in the fight against AIDS and drug abuse. We will develop further our programs on child sexual abuse and family violence, the hidden tragedies which can destroy people's lives. We will encourage research into diseases associated with aging so that seniors can have lives of independence and dignity.
Today, April 7, is World Health Day. In Canada we are blessed with high standards for health and quality of life which are not shared by much of the rest of the world. In many countries, the issue is not the quality of life, it is survival of the self. As we develop our health system through legislation, research and education, we must help Canadians to help themselves, and also to help those who are less fortunate.

We have reason to be proud, but we must also be realistic about the problems facing us. I have the firm hope that by working together, we can make real improvements.

It is a challenge that is worthy of us all. It is one that will pay very rich rewards indeed if we succeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have two short comments and questions to ask of the Minister of National Health and Welfare(Mr. Beatty). As he began his remarks he talked about the mountain of debt that the Government has got to work with. I am very concerned about that, as are all Canadians.
I just wondered if he would be more explicit. My understanding, as I go back through the records, is that in 117 years before this Government took over the mountain of debt it had accumulated was somewhere in the $150 billion to $160 billion range. In the next four or five years this Government has apparently run it up to an accumulated deficit of somewhere in the range of $220 billion or $225 billion. I am wondering just how much responsibility for that mess his Government is willing to take.
As well, the Minister spoke about the useless unemployment that was created before his Government took
The Address-Mr. Beatty
over. I am wondering if he would look into or admit to the use of bureaucratic means to achieve less unemployment. I refer to the situation that applies in many rural areas where the unemployment insurance department refuses people unemployment insurance unless they will abandon their small communities and go into the cities for jobs after they have lost jobs in those small communities. Those people no longer show up in the statistics. They are just as unemployed as they were before.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's questions and I will try to deal with them in a serious way. The issue of debt is one which is continuing to grow in Canada. We are proud of the fact that this Government took a deficit of some $38 billion which we inherited and in each of the four years following that we were able to cut that federal deficit and ultimately to reduce it by some $10 billion a year. But that is not good enough.
What we are doing is simply reducing the rate at which the national debt continues to grow. If our concern in this Parliament is to provide for our children in a way that is compassionate, that understands and anticipates their needs, it is important that we not simply defer to future generations the responsibility for coming to grips with that growing national debt.
Most important, as the Minister charged with the responsibility for Canada's social programs, I know that when we reach a stage where 31 cents out of every dollar that is being raised from the taxpayers of Canada is going just to service the interest on the national debt, and that this figure continues to grow year after year, it poses a very real threat to the very survival of Canada's social programs.
The Hon. Member raises a question in which there was a partisan element, but I think the question was a serious one. It deserves a serious response.
Canadians from one coast to another have a right to expect a serious debate in Parliament and across the country about, first, whether we acknowledge as a priority that Canada's economic house has to be put in order, that the Government of Canada is not immune from the laws of economics, that we cannot repeal them and that the same rules govern ordinary households, small businesses or family farms have to apply to Government as well. One cannot constantly be spending more money than one is bringing in without very serious problems indeed.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Beatty
Does every Member of Parliament acknowledge that there is a critical and growing problem with this mountain of federal debt? That is the first question.


Mr. Milliken:: Why didn't you do something about it over the last four years?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Exactly. Let us start with an acknowledgement from all sides of the Elouse-if we can get it-that there is a real problem. Then let us have honest solutions proposed, not sophistry, not sleight of hand, but honest solutions proposed from all sides of the House about how to attack this. What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons in Question Period and in debate over the course of this week is constant calls by Members of Parliament to increase spending, not to make any cuts in any areas, not to change the tax system but to simply defer to future generations dealing with that national debt.
Second, the hon. gentleman asked me about unemployment. I will respond to it very quickly. I also represent a rural area. What I have seen since 1984 is a dramatic turn around in terms of the opportunities for Canadians to participate fully in the labour force. This has happened across Canada where some 1,300,000 new jobs have been created. This is not sleight of hand. It is real, and I would welcome the Hon. Member to come to my constituency, my rural area. I would be pleased to show him an example of Canadians who have been able to find productive and meaningful work, not work-fair, not hand-outs and short-term jobs provided by Government, but meaningful, constructive, productive, challenging and secure jobs in the private sector as a result of the new economic climate. We are determined to build on that to provide new opportunities for other Canadians as well.


Mr. Waddell:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I found the Hon. Minister's remarks on AIDS very sensitive and important. Just a couple of weeks ago I attended a funeral for one of my campaign workers, a person I have known for a long time, who died of this terrible disease. I have read Randy Shilts' book, And the Band Played On, I believe it is called, which demonstrated the American response as pretty pathetic. Health care was held back by discrimination and by bureaucratic inertia. It was sometimes held back by outright lies to the people in that it was known that the blood banks were probably contaminated and nothing was done about that for at least a year. The book is a pretty sad indictment.
I hope that the Hon. Minister's and his Department's actions Are as strong as his words on this matter. He made a reference to setting an example at the federal level. I would draw his attention to the work of the City of Vancouver, especially the Board of Education, and the work that was done there at the municipal level. It has not been the federal level that has been so active there. It has been the municipalities that have dealt with the matters of discrimination. I would compare the response by the elected officials and the politicians of the City of Vancouver, for example, with the pathetic and ignorant response of Andy Haydon from the greater Ottawa regional district, or whatever it is called. So I hope the Minister will look at what Vancouver has done.
What occurred to me in reading the material was that here we have our scientists, the disease control centre, the American scientists, the world scientists if you like, looking at solutions, trying to find a vaccine and trying to find ways of treatment, new drugs. There is a drug called pentamidine, as I understand it, which helps with pneumonia cases. The Canadian Government was very slow to allow people with AIDS to use it. So I want to ask the Minister two questions. One, what is happening in terms of making new experimental drugs available more quickly to people with AIDS? Second, how does he feel about what our scientific efforts should be in research? Should we be doing it here in Canada? Should we be helping the Pasteur Institute in France, or helping the Americans in Atlanta and elsewhere, or should we be doing the research here?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that was a very thoughtful intervention by the Hon. Member. I think any of us who have lost a friend or colleague to AIDS cannot help but be moved by the human element of the disease. Indeed, one of the things that perhaps allows the sort of insensitivity we have seen in all too many cases across Canada is the fact that it is possible to de-personalize it and say this is somebody we do not know who has not touched my life and whose life is in jeopardy, and so I am not threatened by it, that we should ghettoize these people and shut them off from the rest of society.
I could not agree more fully with the Hon. Member that all too often the response has been that when support and assistance were most needed, people with AIDS would be told they could lose their jobs, their family, their housing or their friends as a result of having contracted the disease. It is a disgraceful response by a society which claims to be civilized.
April 7, 1989

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will look at examples from Vancouver and elsewhere. What disturbs me is that the Hon. Member cited another case where people were not fairly treated, and I fully agree with him. I also read Randy Shilts' book. It is a powerful indictment as to the way in which governments have dealt with the issue of AIDS.
The Hon. Member mentioned one incident that has taken place. There is another involving a school board near Toronto which announced a policy of excluding people with AIDS from the school system. It is disturbing that these are common examples, outrageous examples of what people living with AIDS can in many instances expect from one coast to the other, and that is what we have to change.
The Hon. Member asked me two specific questions. The first is in regard to what is happening as far as making new drugs available. We are working very closely with the drug companies in order to encourage them to bring drugs on to the market. Secondly, we have written to doctors to indicate to them that the Emergency Drug Release Program is in place, that for drugs that are not approved in Canada as yet, emergency release can be made if a doctor gets in touch with the Department of National Health and Welfare and indicates that he or she believes it is important that the drug be released to a patient. This should help to bring these new drugs to patients more quickly.
Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues that has been of concern to people working with AIDS and to the gay community has been the question of drug trials in Canada, the issue of double blind placebo testing. One of the things they have pressed for is to ensure that there are elements as well of so-called open-arm testing which will enable people who are afflicted with the disease to have the opportunity to take advantage of new drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I will be communicating with the drug companies in Canada to make it clear to them that the Federal Government will entertain and approve proposals made by Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers which include responsible programs for open-arm testing. I think this will also help to make these pharmaceuticals more available to people.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me how we should be focusing our limited research dollars. Should we be doing everything in Canada or should we be co-operating internationally? I think the answer must be both. Clearly, AIDS is an issue which cuts across all national borders. It is important that we co-ordinate and not replicate work that is being done elsewhere. There are unique contributions that our researchers here in
The Address-Mr. Mills
Canada can make, and I want to see us identify those in conjunction with people working in the community to target our money where it can be of the greatest benefit to try to find a cure for this dreaded disease.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a new Member, I consider it a privilege to stand up and address the Speech from the Throne.
Before I become specific on the Speech from the Throne, I would like to go back to an incident that happened in my family about three weeks ago. My 13 year old daughter, Jennifer, came home from school and said, "Dad, we had a career day in class today. We all had to tell the kids what our fathers and mothers were doing in terms of their careers. When I told them you were a Member of Parliament, I received a lot of derision". She said, "I was really embarrassed to tell them. They were not only laughing at me, but they said their parents thought the life of an MP was one where you earn a lot of money but do not do a lot of work, that they see you in the House of Commons every day laughing at one another, making snide remarks at one another". As a result, I kind of reflected and wondered, what am I doing here? How did I get into this?
I went back to 1978 when I first came to this city and met a public servant by the name of Craig Carpenter who had worked for over 25 years in the Public Service of Canada. He was a man who not only loved his job and loved the Public Service, but loved Canada. He provided a lot of inspiration for me.
That experience led to the rare privilege of working with the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He also loves this country. He understood the Public Service and he knew that the Government of Canada is responsible for policy-making for all Canadians, especially those regions of the countiy that need special help and those people who are disadvantaged.
It was that inspiration that led me to run in Broadview-Greenwood in the last election. When I debated and when I knocked on doors, I would tell my constituents, "If you vote for me, you will not just be voting for someone who will service Broadview-Greenwood. I told them I wanted to go back to Ottawa because I wanted to speak for Canada, not just Broadview- Greenwood, not just Toronto, not just Ontario, but for all of Canada. So with that in mind as my reason for being here, I want to start from the outset with the number one concern in my riding and how it was addressed in the Speech from the Throne, that being free trade.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Mills
Over 80 per cent of the people of Broadview-Greenwood voted against the free trade deal. It is not that the people of my riding were against freer trade. I am a business man and I am not against freer trade, but I did say repeatedly that I do not believe that chapter 16 of this contract, unlimited, unregulated investment, will work.
This country was built with regulated investment. I am not against foreign investment. In the last 90 days before Parliament resumed, we saw enough mergers and takeovers. The Government should have been right up front in terms of the free trade deal and should have mentioned right from the outset that it would make sure that the only instrument we have left, the bureau of competition policy, would get all the support it needed to make sure that these mergers and takeovers were in the best interests of Canada. The point I am trying to make is that I just do not understand how we can control the Canadian economy when we have given away the levers.
This is an area in which the Speech from the Throne was sadly lacking. I only hope that over the next little while, the Government will refocus on this issue before we go too far down the track.
The second issue that excited me about the Speech from the Throne, and I say this sincerely, was the issue of the environment.
Before I get any further into my remarks, I want to say that in the last few days when calling home and talking about the Speech from the Throne, many people asked me what a Speech from the Throne is, what it means. I say to those in my constituency and others who are listening today that a Speech from the Throne is like a list you have at home, a list of all the things you are going to do over the next three or four months in your house, whether it be shopping for groceries, making repairs or planning the program you will live by in your house.
I want to tell this House that I think the commitment to the environment in the Speech from the Throne was good. I only hope that the vision in that Throne Speech can become action. If it does not become action, then again we go back to rhetoric. The Minister has an opportunity to be not only a national hero but an international hero if he implements this vision.
Thinking of the environment, I want to touch on Meech Lake for a minute. I ran in my riding promoting the amendments to Meech Lake. Make no mistake about it, it was a serious issue in Broadview-Greenwood. Many people were focusing on the Meech Lake Accord. One of the things we talked about was national programs.
National programs create national will and from national will we get patriotism. I believe that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has an opportunity to make sure, through the issue of the environment, that we create national will. No province should be allowed to opt out of any national program dealing with the environment. This will lead this Minister of the Environment to realize that just maybe there is room for one or two amendments in the Meech Lake Accord. I think his environment portfolio will lead to that realization.
The environment is not just a national issue, it is an international issue. This Government tends to think of cutting, cutting, cutting. It should focus more on creativity. I want to be constructive here. The Hon. Member who spoke previously spoke about using this House in a positive way. I want to participate in this House in a positive way, so I want to throw some creativity at the Minister of the Environment.
For many years, we have been known for our peacekeeping forces around the world, in Cypress, the Middle East and elsewhere. Why can this Minister not organize environmental forces that will go around the world in times of crisis? The incident in Valdez would have been one place where the Minister could have sent a special environmental force. The environment is not a local or national issue, it is an international issue, and I do not know of a Government in the world that, in a moment of crisis, would turn down a special Canadian force on the environment. I hope the Minister will consider this a constructive idea.
When I was walking along Rideau Street the other night, I passed by the armouries on Wurtemburg Street and saw the millions of dollars worth of equipment sitting there idle. We have to turn some of these forces into constructive use for the environment.
As well, I want to address you, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the environment. My House of Commons business card is on recycled paper, but I could not get the House of Commons to print this business card because it was not printed on Canadian paper. If we are to be serious about the issue of the environment, we should begin right here in this House. The Speaker should
April 7, 1989

consider a directive that all Members of Parliament use recycled paper for their cards and stationery. If we are to be serious about this, it should start right here in this House.
I want to continue speaking about the environment for a few more minutes. My riding is very excited about hosting this September the first populace summit on the environment in the Don Valley in Toronto, and I must say we are getting terrific support from the Department of the Environment and from the Minister of the Environment, and the diplomatic corps in the community is coming together. This is the kind of action that we need on a constant basis if we are to get ahead of this issue.
Being very specific again, I want the House to know that I share many of the concerns about the deficit, but as everyone has to believe on this side of the House, the deficit should not be put on the backs of those people who are least capable of handling it. Again, we have an opportunity to look at the deficit in a different way. Why not create a larger economic pie? Why not use environmental technology?
In Vancouver, there is an organization that has created clean air technology, Ballard Industries on the North Shore. They need $10 million to go into production, and by the turn of the century, they could have a billion-dol-lar industry which will create tens of thousands of new jobs. The Government would get all kinds of support in creating new environmental technology which will serve not only the environment but our deficit.
There is an organization in Burlington, Ontario, that is working on reverse osmosis. We should get behind these organizations that for years have been suffering without support because the environment was not at the top of the agenda. If we can give them that support right now, I think they will generate the kind of money that will address the deficit in a constructive way.
That is why the Government has to be very careful in the next four years. For the last while, the focus of the Government has been on the bankers it knows and the armaments it builds up. It must shift its emphasis to the mouths we have to feed and the environment we have to protect. That is where we should be going.
The Address-Mr. Mills
I also want to deal with the section in the Speech from the Throne about the caring nation. I could not get over the lack of concern in specific terms for the senior citizens of Canada. The Government, in its very first Budget, shook the seniors of Canada in an unprecedented way. I would have thought it would have been much more sensitive in light of what has been going on, and I think this not just because seniors represent 50 per cent of the riding of Broadview-Greenwood.
The seniors of Canada have worked for years to make this country what it is. I will not prejudge the Budget, because I do not know what is in it, but God forbid that this Government should tamper with the seniors of Canada again. I can only hope that that will not be the case.
I also want to talk about another specific issue. In my riding a basement apartment less than 600 square feet rents for about $1,350 a month. How can a single mother or father handle that?
The Government has talked about a national day care program and its legislation, Bill C-144, was ready to proceed. While it needs amendment, we must begin an action plan on this issue immediately. A national day care program is essential, not only for ridings like Broadview-Greenwood but throughout the country. It is another area where the vision must become a reality.
My last point about a caring society concerns drugs. In my riding drugs are being sold to children in grade school. Some four months ago a principal of a grade school in my riding came to me with a mason jar filled with syringes. He said he had found it under the portable classrooms.
The drug issue is very serious and I suggest the Government consider establishing a drug czar who would have access to all the communications resources, technical resources and the resources of the RCMP. The problem is already far out of hand and God forbid that we should see an environment developing here similar to the one in Washington today. We should learn from the example in Washington and prevent the problem from occurring here. The Government should start by appointing a drug czar who would bring special focus to this problem.
I have talked about free trade, the environment, seniors, day care and drugs. Now let me make a point about the Public Service of Canada. I have noticed in the last six months that there is a great deal of lethargy in the Public Service of Canada at present. The Government

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Mills
should be addressing this problem. Many do not realize that the Public Service of Canada is the engineroom for this Chamber. I have talked to many public servants who believe in their jobs as a vocation. Many public servants believe in Canada but they have faced too much pressure as a result of cuts imposed by the Government, cuts that have not always been correct. I make this statement constructively.
I am not proposing to fatten the Public Service, but many good public servants have been ruined because the Government has made cuts in the wrong area. For example, our immigration officers here and abroad are under tremendous pressure. Many other public servants in other departments should be given the proper assistance to implement the policies that come from this Chamber. It has been said that you are only as good as the factory. The factory must be in good shape but right now the Public Service is demoralized and needs serious attention.
Finally, I want to talk about multiculturalism. I am not convinced that the present approach to multiculturalism is the correct one. We should take an entirely different approach to the area of multiculturalism.
The Government should consider a super ministry of culture which makes multiculturalism our national symbol. This issue has been given simple add-on status to a department for too long. I know that my co-critic shares this view.
I hope this matter is put on the agenda early in the Government's mandate. Perhaps we can learn from Walt Disney who had inscribed on his hard hat, when he was building Disneyland, the word "imagineering". It is a blend of imagination and engineering which made Disneyland what it is. We have to apply that blend of imagination and engineering to much of the public policy we discuss in this House.
In conclusion, it was 10 years ago when Craig Carpenter and Pierre Elliott Trudeau inspired me to get into public life. I only hope that our activities in this House in the next few years will cause me and all of us to set an example that will encourage other Canadians to get into public life. My ultimate satisfaction will be for my
daughter Jennifer to finally go back to school and be proud that her father is an MP.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the Hon. Member on his maiden speech. What is the present position of the federal Liberal Party with respect to the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows what the Party position is. We in this House voted for and supported the Meech Lake Accord, with nine amendments which the press has never reported. I realize that the Hon. Member's Party has amendments as well, but not as many.


An Hon. Member:: Not as good.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the new Member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Mills) for sharing with the House and all colleagues a fresh vision from Broadview-Greenwood. It behooves that Member in the far corner to ask a question about the position of this Party on Meech Lake as opposed to taking a look at his own Party.
Perhaps while I have the floor I can ask the Member to go into some detail about the environmental conference he is initiating not only on a local basis but on an international scale?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for the Government and the private sector to get together. I salute the Loblaw Company, the largest food company in the world, which has decided to get behind our world summit on the environment in the Don Valley. We now have the support of all levels of government, the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario. We will have over 70 speakers coming from around the world. It will be the first populace summit on the environment that has ever been held on the planet. In the past these summits have been for politicians and specialists on the environment. I want to extend a personal invitation to every Member of the House to attend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 30.
April 7, 1989



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the recent initiative by the Government of Canada to upgrade its level of contact with the Palestinian Liberation Organization and to reinforce its support for self-determination for the Palestinians is to be commended.
Canada has long been well regarded by all parties in the Middle East as a peacekeeper and a moderate, trusted voice. This move will further reinforce that position.



WITHDRAWAL FROM SALE OF DRUG ADVOCATED

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the world still selling Diclectin, the generic copy of Bendectin, an anti-nausea drug which has been linked to birth defects when taken by pregnant women.
Bendectin was voluntarily withdrawn by its manufacturer in 1983 because of the high number of lawsuits brought by parents on behalf of children with birth defects linked to this drug. Why Canada would continue to allow the generic copy to be sold when so much uncertainty surrounds this product is incomprehensible.
The Government claims the drug has not been withdrawn because there is insufficient proof it causes birth defects. Many Canadian families do not agree. These people have not a shadow of a doubt that their child's defects are directly related to this drug.
I therefore call on the Government to launch a full investigation immediately into the drug Bendectin and its generic Diclectin, and to prohibit the company from marketing this drug until such time as it is proven safe for use.
I think Canadian families have every right to be heard in this matter rather than just a word given to the Department of Health and Welfare and by the manufacturer of this drug. The Department of Health and Welfare has never done an investigation into this drug.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
TRIBUTE TO DYNAMISM OF SEPT-iLES
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, the Chamber of Commerce of Sept-iles is celebrating its 35th anniversary this year. The Chamber is organizing several events, including an evening to recognize its former presidents. This will be held on Saturday, April 8 and will highlight the involvement of many women and men in improving the community, economic and cultural life of Sept-iles.
I am pleased to call on all Members of the House of Commons to join me in paying special tribute to all the people of Sept-iles who over the last 35 years have worked together to make their community a dynamic, well-organized city. Special mention goes to Gustave Blouin, one of the founders of the Chamber who represented the riding of Manicouagan in the House of Commons for many years.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago it was reported that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) was considering cutting, slashing and/or privatizing all or part of the National Arts Centre. Such a move would be viewed with dismay by the vast majority of Canadians, Canadians who view the promotion of arts and culture as a national priority and one for which the National Arts Centre is a leading institution.
Moreover, slashing the National Arts Centre would be devastating to my riding of Nepean and the National Capital Region as a whole. Were the NAC Orchestra to be privatized, a move that is under consideration, the resulting hunt for corporate funding would have a chilling effect on the fund-raising ability of all the region's cultural groups.
Instead of another "Night at the Opera", and in keeping with the "commitment to the growth and development of Canada's cultural life" outlined in the Throne Speech, I urge the Minister of Communications to look for ways of increasing funding for arts and culture in Canada rather than ways of cutting it back.

April 7, 1989



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, the Fire Services Exemplary Medal was established in 1985 and is one of three national medals honouring Canadians who serve the public in dangerous professions. Medals were previously established for the police in 1983 and Correctional Service employees in 1984.
Firefighters who have served 20 or more years with exemplary service are eligible to receive this honour only if they were active in service on or after August 29,1985. Many Canadians who risked their lives in this honourable and dangerous profession are being discriminated against because they retired on or before August 28, 1985.
I urge the federal Government to recognize the great, personal risk taken by these Canadians, and to honour all who qualified on or before August 29, 1985.

[Translation}



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, an immense world tragedy is now taking place before our eyes in Lebanon. What is happening there is unacceptable and the Government of Canada must be very active in the United Nations and initiate joint action with other countries for an immediate cease-fire.
More than 200,000 wonderful Lebanese Canadians of all religions beg us to increase our efforts to help poor, beloved Lebanon. We must support Lebanon's sovereignty and independence. Like the countries of the European Economic Community, the Vatican, France and the United States, all allies and friends of Canada, we must insist on the unconditional withdrawal of all non-Lebanese armed forces, except for the UN peacekeeping force. And we must offer diplomatic assistance to Lebanon in this cruel phase of its history.
I urge the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to please open a temporary office in Cyprus for all the consular and diplomatic requirements of Lebanon, since it is absolutely unacceptable and unthinkable to ask the Lebanese to go to Damascus for their consular needs. So I ask the Minister, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom I
will not put any questions today as I had warned him, to take this action. And I think that the 200,000 Lebanese Canadians of all religions will be eternally grateful to him.
* *



WORLD HEALTH DAY


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) stated this morning, April 7 is World Health Day. The international community has set this day aside to encourage us to reflect on health as a precious individual asset and to recognize the right of all people to health. It is also a day to remind us that health is the responsibility of both the individual and the community.
While action by Governments at all levels is an essential element in improving the health of people, it is not the whole answer. Individuals must share the responsibility for their own health by adopting healthy lifestyles. The acceptance of such personal responsibility depends greatly on the ability of our health workers, educators, and decision-makers to communicate appropriate health information to every man, woman, and child. In an effort to address that need, the theme of this year's World Health Day is "Let's talk health/Parlons sante".



THE FRANCHISE


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, I introduced a Private Member's Bill and a motion to give Canadians who work abroad, for example, the workers for CUSO, and other non-government organizations, the right to vote in Canadian general elections. Canadian diplomats and soldiers can vote but not others who are working abroad. I had a good hearing in committee, but when the legislation came forward there was no change.
About a week ago I saw the Soviet elections. Every Soviet citizen working or vacationing in Canada went to the Soviet embassy and voted on election day. I say, Mr. Speaker, are the Soviets more democratic than we Canadians? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, let's have a little more perestroika here in Canada. Let's catch up to the new Soviet democracy and allow our non-government organization workers who work abroad to vote in Canadian elections by going to a Canadian embassy.
April 7, 1989



WINE INDUSTRY


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, within the past few weeks the federal Government and the Government of Ontario reached a final agreement to ensure compensation is given to Ontario grape growers for the removal of surplus vines as well as of those vines which do not yield the varieties of grapes conducive to producing premium wines. This action will allow the grape and wine industry to further develop high quality wines.
Given the extreme competitiveness of today's market, the continued enhancement of premium wines is crucial to the long-term survival of the Canadian wine industry.
It is very important that all Canadians realize that we have in our own backyard, wines which have won awards at many international competitions.
In support of this industry, we as parliamentarians should continue to ensure that Canadian wines are given priority when planning events to be held in conjunction with the House of Commons, as well as events sponsored by the various political Parties and associations.



WORLD HEALTH DAY


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of World Health Day. While this is a very important occasion around the globe, I would like to draw Hon. Members' attention to a health crisis which exists right here in our own country.
It is no secret that the health of Canada's aboriginal peoples is a most pressing issue. Housing shortages have led many to live in sub-standard housing. Inadequate water and sewer infrastructures have contributed to the poor health of First Nations. Insufficient funding for health care services and facilities does not meet the increasing needs of those trying to rectify the situation.
In recent months we have heard of PCB contamination, mercury pollution, and tuberculosis outbreaks in some native communities, some of which are located in my riding.
I urge the Government to make a firm commitment to improved funding for programs which will ensure that the health of our First Nations people is restored.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the strong emphasis on the environment in the Throne Speech.
As a Member of Parliament who is concerned about our quality of life and has been militant in environmental affairs in the last few years, I wholeheartedly support the various initiatives announced in the Throne Speech: to promote sustainable development; to enlarge the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment to ensure that environmental issues are fully considered in the course of its decision making; to negotiate an acid rain accord with the United States; to develop and adopt clean production processes; to improve the quality of our water; and to establish the Environmental Partners Fund.
These initiatives are a response to my own expectations and demands and those of my fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Progressive Conservative Government has made the environment one of its top priorities and intends to continue the unique leadership it has shown in this area.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 an unprecedented breakthrough was announced in the effort to end nuclear test explosions. Under the terms of the partial test ban treaty signed in 1963 by Khruschev and Kennedy, a conference must be convened to discuss its conversion into a comprehensive test ban if so requested by one-third of the 116 countries which originally ratified it.

April 7, 1989
The breakthrough came last week, Mr. Speaker, when Tanzania added its name to a list of 38 countries calling for the amendment conference. It is incomprehensible that the Canadian Government remains opposed to this progressive move which would open the doors to further dialogue on the reduction of nuclear arms. To doom negotiations to failure before they have begun is very unwise.
We must do all we can to rid the world of life-threatening nuclear arms now, and our Government should encourage and support the amendment conference which would bring us closer to this goal.



TAXATION


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, today Liberal and Tory Finance Ministers from across the country are gathering behind closed doors cutting a deal on a national sales tax. That deal will be one of the biggest tax grabs in the history of our country.
How big is that Tory tax grab going to be? The former Chairman of the Finance Committee said some $10 billion. The Ontario Minister of Finance says $14 billion. I suggest that ordinary Canadians hang onto their wallets because this tax will amount to about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child.
That Tory tax grab will mean a sales tax in many provinces of 16 per cent, 17 per cent, 18 per cent, and 19 per cent. For the ordinary Canadian people this will be recessionary. It will drive up the inflation rate, interest rates, and unemployment.
I say to the Canadian people it is time to stand up and say no to the Tory tax grab. Say no to the Tories trying to take more money from your pockets. No.



IMMIGRATION


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the immigration office in Toronto refused to provide a briefing on the new refugee legislation to a
community organization in the community of Jane Finch in my riding of York West. The reason for this was that the officers said the community was "too dangerous" to enter.
I wish to tell the Minister and the Government that this was a slap and a severe blow to the integrity and the fibre of that proud community.
Jane Finch is not some simple geographic intersection. It is a proud community made up of proud, hard working Canadians, which deserves full and equal service. In addition to slamming the integrity of the community the Government is also undermining the principle of equal service to all Canadians, regardless of who they are and where they live.
I call upon the Minister of Immigration (Mrs. Mac-Dougall) to reverse this very offensive behaviour by her officials, and to render a public apology to the community and immediately establish a proper briefing for an organization that is willing to co-operate and work hand-in-hand with the Government on refugee legislation.
The community is sick and tired of people who cast innuendoes and veiy easy stigmas on a community that has to work very, very hard to refute unfair allegations.



THE LATE MURDO MARTIN

Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Murdo Martin who served as the Member of Parliament for Timmins from 1957 to 1968, and who passed away in January.
Murdo's years of service to our country started during the Second World War when he served overseas with the Canadian Army.
Murdo was a firefighter and was very active in his union where he became the president. He also was president of the Cochrane District Labour Council and of his local credit union.
He presented himself as the CCF candidate in Timmins in the 1957 general election, an election which he won. He stood for better things for working people. He survived the Diefenbaker sweep of 1958 and helped the CCF transform itself into the NDP in 1961. He also won re-election in 1962, 1963, and in 1965.
April 7, 1989

I believe that the greatest tribute to Murdo's political skill and commitment to his constituents was this string of re-elections.
Since leaving this Chamber, Murdo remained active in the local NDP and labour movement in Timmins. His help and advice to me will always be remembered, and his commitment to working people will never be forgotten.
May I conclude by offering my sympathies to Grace Martin and the rest of his family. Timmins and this Chamber have lost a great friend.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner tabled his annual report. Among the other things he had to say was this:
An Indian youngster in Canada has a better chance of being sent
to prison than completing university.
The Human Rights Commissioner singled out the Minister of Indian Affairs for criticism for his decision to limit federal subsidies for post-secondary education for the native people.
How can the Prime Minister allow his Government to carry on with that disgraceful decision? Does he not understand that for our native people education is the only way out?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Right Hon. Member for his question. I want to tell him right away that we do agree that education is the way out. That is why we have reviewed the guidelines in order to make them more workable so that more native students can achieve a university degree.
I would like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that since 1984 the budget with respect to post-secondary education for native students has nearly doubled.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the reply of the Minister ought to be read in conjunction with the Prime Minister's comment some time ago when Bill C-31 was before the House, that post-secondary education would not be cut nor would other facilities to
Oral Questions
our native people as a result of widening the definition of status.


RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDING FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
John Napier Turner: Since the Minister himself answered my question, I have to say he failed to show any sensivity to the Commissioner's comments, and I would therefore repeat what the Chief Commissioner said: An Indian youngster has a better chance of being sent to prison than completing university.
This is a national tragedy.
And the only answer the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave the striking students was: Go back to school.
I want to ask the Prime Minister once more to tell his Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to reverse his decision and restore funding for post-secondary education for our Native people.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that being the kind of man he is, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not want to mislead Canadians by being less than accurate in his rendering of my answers.
First of all, I gave more than one answer. I believe I made it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that since this program started operating with a budget, it has expanded by 10 per cent. I also said that the program will probably continue to expand as needs increase, and that we are of course considering new needs in terms of Bill C-31 which our Government introduced in order to correct a form of discrimination that has existed in Canada for a long time.


COLLEGE STUDENTS ON HUNGER STRIKE
John Napier Turner: I do not think that the House should be any more impressed with that answer than the Commissioner of Human Rights was when he singled the Minister out for criticism in his report.
As the Minister knows, a group of college students are now in their 17th day of a hunger strike to protest a policy which the Commissioner of Human Rights has termed a national tragedy. He has called it a national disgrace. Yet the Minister refuses to meet these students. By his attitude, I want to suggest to him he is

April 7, 1989
Oral Questions
perhaps compounding the potential tragedy that we have here.
Will the Minister, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister order his Minister to demonstrate some common decency and meet with the students to see whether he cannot recognize that the policy that he is leading is highly discriminatory to a very vulnerable people to whom we owe more than we are giving?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to try to play cuteness with the Right Hon. Member, but I am not impressed with his question either.
On the other hand, I do want to indicate to the House, to all Canadians, and particularly to the people who are directly concerned, that I am taking this issue very seriously, that I am prepared to sit down and discuss with whomever is interested the policy-


John Napier Turner: With the students?


Pierre H. Cadieux: I have already indicated that, if it is demonstrated that the policy can be improved, I will look at it, and will obviously be interested in improving the policy.
However, this has to be done in normal circumstances. As I did earlier this week, I again urge the students to put an end to their strike and I will meet with them.
I would like to point out a suggestion that was sent by Lakehead University and Confederation College. They are specifically urging the students to put an end to the strike, and to start a bilateral process, and I am prepared to do that.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET STUDENTS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Artie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. I have met in private with the Minister, and I have pleaded with him. I have expressed the concerns of those students to the Minister, and I plead again to the Minister to meet with these students.
Does the Minister want to have these students continue their fast over the weekend and have the blood of those students on his hands on Monday morning?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I find his comments to be insensitive and irrelevant to the situation at hand. Will the Minister meet with those students?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will meet with the students as soon as they put an end to their hunger strike, at whatever time they decide.


CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following.
The cap on the education funding restricts the number of native students who want to attend post-secondary education. On that note, I have spoken to the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. George Erasmus.
Will the Minister commit to establishing a bilateral consultative process between the federal Government and First Nations native communities, which the Prime Minister committed to in a statement in the House on April, 1985, and put a moratorium on the new policy changes until this consultation process is firmly established and implemented?
The Prime Minister's words were: "There will be no cut to Indian programs". In that statement there was also a statement that inferred that inflation costs would be kept in line with the needs of the native students.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there are many questions in that supplementary question. I will try to address all of them, if time is given to me.
First of all I wish to indicate to the House, to all Canadians, and particularly those people interested, that there is already a bilateral process between Grand Chief Erasmus and myself. We have already met.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: There is not.


Pierre H. Cadieux: We are scheduled to meet Monday on concerns that the Grand Chief may have. Education is one of them. I have been given the report that they have prepared, and we are looking into it. If Grand Chief Erasmus wants to speak to me on post-secondary education specifically on Monday, obviously I will do that. I am open to speak with every Grand Chief in the country on whatever subject they wish, Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances.
April 7, 1989

With respect to commitments of the Prime Minister and this Government, not only was this program not cut, it has increased 10 per cent in the last two years.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Over 3 years.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I usually listen to questions. Perhaps I could be given the same courtesy and the Hon. Member would listen to my answers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: Since 1984 expenditures with respect to natives have gone from $2.7 billion to $3.4 billion.


SUSPENSION OF HUNGER STRIKE-MINISTER'S UNDERTAKING
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question on the same serious matter. Today a band of courageous native students entered the 17th day of a hunger strike against the cruel educational policies of the Government.
The Minister has agreed to meet the students, only if they first end their hunger strike. In a spirit of compromise the students have agreed to suspend their strike in order to bring their case to the Minister.
Will the Minister agree now, in response to that compromise, to an immediate meeting with the hunger strikers in order to resolve this crisis and prevent permanent injury to those native students?


Pierre H. Cadieux: I agree with the suggestion that was made by Lakehead University and Confederation College which states:
In order to resolve the current impasse and, in the true spirit of
the consultative process in a democratic system, we strongly urge
that:
(i)	In recognition of the deteriorating health of the participants, the Native student hunger strike in protest of the implemented changes to Native post-secondary education payments be ended immediately.
(ii)	Representatives of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Native Peoples resolve the present impasse through bilateral discussions.
Not only will it be representatives of the Department. I am prepared to meet with them as soon as they put an end to the hunger strike.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT ON FUNDING
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the students have agreed to hold up their hunger strike while the Minister meets with them. He
Oral Questions
has it within his power to stop this matter here and now, if he wants to.
Will the Minister meet with the students? Will he commit to ensuring that no Indian students will be refused post-secondary education in this country because of financial barriers imposed by his Government?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, again, the budget has been increasing with respect to post-secondary education. I presume that it will continue to increase. I will meet with the students at their convenience, as soon as they put an end to their hunger strike.
NEGO;TIATIONS WITH ELECTED NATIVE LEADERS


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Minister ended his double-talk about there being no cuts in this program. There are cuts in this program, and it is time that he stopped trying to pretend that they are not there.
In the consultation process that the Government talks about, over 500 groups and individuals were consulted. Not one of them supported the Government's proposal on these post-secondary education measures.


Mr. McKnight:: False, false.


Chris Axworthy: Not one
of them, Mr. Speaker, and that is from the Department's own officials. Will the Government do what it should have done in the first place and begin bilateral negotiations with elected native leaders to ensure that this matter can be dealt with in an effective, proper, and quick manner?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, since January 30, I have been meeting with elected native leaders. I will continue to do so. To my knowledge elected native leaders do not use means such as hunger strikes to meet with me. On the contrary, they meet with me under normal circumstances and I am prepared to continue to do that.
With respect to the policy and the guidelines, they have been in force since April 1. They will apply to the students commencing university or college on September 1. In the meantime, under normal circumstances, I am prepared to look at the guidelines with whomever is interested. If they can be improved upon, we will improve upon them.

April 7, 1989
Oral Questions


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday during his speech in the House, the Prime Minister got carried away by his own rhetoric and went so far as to say that the Constitution of this country was not worth the paper it was written on.
Today I want to ask the Prime Minister who, as the first legislator of Canada, is responsible for protecting the basic law of this country, whether he will take this opportunity to apologize and withdraw what he said, because he who discredits the Constitution discredits Canada.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in 1982 the federal Government surrendered the notwithstanding clause to the provinces, thus enabling the provincial legislatures to override decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, as the Hon. Member well knows, and to ignore the most fundamental rights and freedoms of our society.
Thanks to this clause,-and I am perhaps by these words leaving myself open to further comment by the Hon. Member-the legislatures can pass legislation restricting freedom of conscience, peaceful assembly, association and religion, freedom of thought, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press.
Therefore, by invoking the clause I condemned yesterday, the legislatures can deny citizens the right to life, liberty and personal security, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, the right to be informed promptly of the reasons of one's arrest or detention, and even worse, of the right to be assisted by counsel, the right to habeas corpus, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and so forth.
These are some of the rights that may be suppressed by a given legislature, and this quite extraordinary clause was agreed to in the 1981-82 negotiations by the federal Government.
It always has been my contention that a constitution should unite a nation. The Hon. Member for Shefford knows perfectly well that the Quebec National Assembly vigourously rejected the proposal made in 1981-82. First and foremost, however, the Constitution must protect
the most fundamental rights of a country's citizens. And as you see, that is not the case.
That is why I believe the Constitution drafted in 1981-82 leaves much to be desired.


NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. If he was so appalled at the provisions in the "notwithstanding clause", how come at Meech Lake he forgot to have that provision removed?
After the partisan debating he had yesterday, does he not feel he is moving the "notwithstanding clause" into a symbol for Quebec, pushing Quebec's Premier into making statements he never made before, opening a "from now on" era and becoming a symbol of the "Quebec" way of doing things? Does the Prime Minister feel he advanced the debate yesterday, or does he not rather feel he may have undermined an eventual withdrawal of the "notwithstanding" clause, but most of all his Meech Lake Agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had no idea I was going to wound the feelings of the Hon. Member who himself does not beat around the bush when referring to Government proposals. He never had any qualms about speaking his mind. . .


Jean-C. Lapierre: Not on the Constitution!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not on the Constitution! Oh no! Not on the Constitution! But the former Prime Minister gave his views on the Constitution as reported in Robert Sheppard and Michael Valpy's book, and I quote:

When Mr. Trudeau was asked if he considered the 1981
Constitution a success he replied, "No, I consider it an abject
failure".
In my view, the basic constitutional document should do two things; first of all, unify the country. To me, a constitution that is not supported across the land, in this case Quebec, is not a true constitution in the first place. Secondly, a constitution should protect the basic rights of citizens. But in this Constitution the legislator has been allowed to infringe upon basic rights. Certainly the Hon. Member will agree the aim of Meech Lake was not to fill offhand all the gaps, but rather to bring them... Careful! And as the Hon. Member will tell his colleagues, it was to finally get Quebec back into the constitutional fold, after having been left out.

HHi******** HR
April 7, 1989



Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. He will know that in the consideration of the amending process that eventually resulted in Meech Lake it was the position of this Party that the notwithstanding clause should be on the agenda and that that clause should be withdrawn.
Can the Prime Minister tell us now why he was able to go to Meech Lake, why he was able to consider it such an enormous success when the clause which he now considers such a fundamental error was not even addressed by him, was not raised to be amended? How can he ask Canadians to accept that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend asked me why the notwithstanding clause was not withdrawn. It is a legitimate question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: So what is the answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The other question that should be asked is why was the notwithstanding clause included in the first place. Why was it included in the first place?


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: It was your Tory Premiers from western Canada who wanted it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Don't try to blame somebody else.


Lloyd Axworthy: Peter Lougheed is responsible for that, you charlatan. It was your friends and accomplices.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONTACT PREMIERS ON ISSUE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Prime Minister may need a history lesson.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I suggest a simple examination of those times will show that that was the price that had to be paid for patriation, and for the Charter of Rights.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Too much the price.


Sergio Marchi: Your Party supported it, Brian.
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why is he not now prepared to ask his colleagues, the provincial Premiers, to get together and to withdraw the notwithstanding clause, as this Party has been urging since the Meech Lake round was first conceived?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says that his Government surrendered the notwithstanding clause because it was the price that had to be paid. I tell my hon. friend he paid a price that was much too high for Canada and for the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens.


Mr. Gauthier:: You voted for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Look at them applaud. They all voted for it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Tell us how you voted, Joe.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They also know, Mr. Speaker-


Lloyd Axworthy: Stand up and tell us how you voted. You were all there.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that there is still part of the question the Right Hon. Prime Minister has not dealt with. I would recognize him for the remainder of the answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact my hon. friend says that it was the price that had to be paid by the Government. The Government made a value judgment. I happen to believe that that price was excessive. It was the greatest price that a federal Parliament has ever been called upon to pay in regard to the protection of our most fundamental liberties of expression, of religion, and of association.
What we did at Meech Lake was begin the process of trying to correct, as well, another serious flaw, because there were two. That was to bring Quebec into the Constitution, and I know that my friend talks about Meech Lake with respect and affection because he supported Meech Lake and I thank him for that.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I have here a memo that says that Canada Employment is cutting training budgets for disadvantaged youth, immigrant women and women, who are learning untraditional skills.

April 7, 1989
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Steven W. Langdon: These will be cut by 25 per cent in London, Toronto, Ottawa and other parts of Ontario. Given the Throne Speech commitment to increase training in this country, how can the Prime Minister justify these cut-backs to some of the most disadvantaged people in our society?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what memo my hon. colleague is referring. What I can say to him is that we are spending now in Canada just through the Canadian Jobs Strategy, in excess of $1.7 billion a year. Approximately 40 per cent to 50per cent of that money goes to young people between the ages of 15 to 24 years of age.
It is interesting that today of all days he would ask this question, because he offers me the opportunity to announce that unemployment in this country has gone down from 7.6 per cent to 7.5 per cent this month for the unemployed youth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, of course, has not answered the question. He has not pointed out that the $1.7 billion dollar figure is a cut from the $2 billion figure that the Government spent in its first year in office.
I want this Minister, if he feels so strongly, to give us an assurance that there will be no cuts to training programs, that in fact training programs for these disadvantaged groups will increase as they should in a fair country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague from the NDP would not want to let the facts get in the way of debate. Let me refresh his memory.
On October 27, 1988, the Department of Employment and Immigration announced a $25 million initiative to assist immigrant women. Since this Government has been in power, Mr. Speaker, we have put together the Canadian Jobs Strategy which puts the emphasis on
training and retraining for young people. Our summer student program works.
The level of unemployment in this country is down, and the hon. member can hold onto his seat because he is going to be seeing some action in the area of training and retraining from this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. It refers to the fuel barge, the Sea Giant, moving off Vancouver Island early this morning. Will he tell us if there was an explosion? Will he tell us if there were any hydrocarbons that went into the water? What has the Canadian Government done about it, and what does it intend to do about it in the future?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I must report to the House that an accident occurred last night at 2100 hours Pacific Daylight Time on an American tug towing a barge 14 miles west of Vancouver Island off Esperanza Inlet. Happily I can say that this accident did not cause any spill, but the Sea Giant was sailing from Point Whales, Washington, to Ketchikan, Alaska, and the barge was and is loaded with 61,000 barrels of light fuel.
Last night an explosion happened on the Sea Giant, and they had to disengage the tug so as to prevent the fire from spreading to the barge. At this time the barge is loose without any tug pulling it, and the report we have is that there is no spill. Our coast guard, under the instructions of the Ministry of Transport, has dispatched a vessel and a helicopter to the scene and the weather is calm. One American tug, the Storm Queen, is already there on the scene. We are waiting for two more American tugs. They should be there in a few hours./ At least one of them will have the power to secure a tow line and resume the sailing of the barge to Alaska.
I must say that we have constant communication through the Tofino Radar Station and the emergency Coast Guard centre of communication in Vancouver. It is confirmed that there is no spill, no leak, and that everything should be under control in a few hours.
April 7, 1989


CLARIFICATION REQUESTED
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, just two days ago, outside this House, the Minister of the Environment gave his commitment that the Canadian Government would personally have the right to approve any plan about removal of the vessel before the vessel was to be moved. How can he now say that there was an explosion, and presumably he personally and his Department are responsible for putting together the plan for removal?


An Hon. Member:: That is another one.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the facts in the mind of the Hon. Deputy because those are not the same ships. The ship I talked about yesterday and two days ago was the Valdez supertanker which was involved in the accident in Alaska, but we are talking now about a tug normally towing a barge of fuel from Washington to Alaska. It is a very different accident.
An explosion occurred on this tug last night. The barge is still in a stable position. There is a light wind. It did not drift toward our coast, and all measures have been taken now to secure the position, and in a few hours this barge will be on her way again to Alaska without any spill.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given it is the second time in a few days that there is a risk to the Pacific Coast of Canada, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to invoke his authority under the Canada Shipping Act and, in fact, make sure that the Canadian Government, and not an American company like Exxon or some other company, is responsible for making sure of the safety of this vessel and of the other vessel? Will he invoke his authority under the Canada Shipping Act?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had listened to what I said she would have noticed that the accident occurred in international waters-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a 200-mile limit.


Lucien Bouchard: Fourteen miles is two miles off our own waters. It is an American accident involving American ships in international waters. Al-
Oral Questions
though it happened in American waters, we are taking all the measures I have explained to control the situation. We will be ready to assist and watch the situation. Everything will be back in order in a few hours. There is no need to alarm Canadians about that now.


CANADA-UNITED STATES SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT-U.KS. SENATOR'S ACCUSATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. This morning in Washington, the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Trade accused Canada of widespread cheating under the softwood lumber agreement. I believe the Minister would agree that this kind of public insult should not be tolerated. I expect the Government will make an appropriate response this morning to this attempt to intimidate and insult this country.
More, important, does this not provide further proof that the softwood lumber agreement is unworkable, that it is punitive to the interests of Canadian producers, that it is causing major fractions between the two countries? Does he not believe that it is time to begin negotiation for revocation and repudiation of this agreement?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman surely understands that there are, I think, 102 Senators in the United States of America and we cannot be held responsible for the remarks or comments made by any of them. The suggestion that there has been any fraud involved in the softwood lumber situation is a matter that is under investigation by the responsible Department.
In reference to the softwood lumber situation generally, there have been consultations with the provinces and the trade. This is a complicated issue to which there are no simple solutions. We are reviewing the situation. When we believe there is action we can take that would be an advantage to Canadians and Canadian softwood lumber exporters, we will take such action.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister piques my curiosity as to whether the two additional Senators now in the United States are required as part of the Free Trade Agreement and they are now part of Canadian representation.

April 7, 1989
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT REPUDIATION OF AGREEMENT BE NEGOTIATED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the testimony heard before the subcommittee this morning it was stated that the Minister for International Trade in his first meeting with Mrs. Carla Hills, the new U.S. trade negotiator, has in fact asked for a negotiation on the softwood lumber agreement. Will the Minister confirm whether there will be discussions dealing with the revocation of or changes to the softwood lumber agreement?
Is the Minister prepared to tell Canadians whether the Government of Canada now recognizes the softwood lumber agreement was a bad agreement, a bad deal for this country? Is it now prepared to pursue direct negotiations with the United States to repudiate that agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we do not propose to simply repudiate an agreement. This was an agreement entered into to save Canada from even worse consequences. At least the revenues that are collected under the 15 per cent export tax or under the increased stumpage charges remain in Canada.
In fact, while I may not have the figure exactly, I believe in Ontario some $50 million to $60 million has gone to the province from the export tax, that would not have gone to Ontario. There are hundreds of millions of dollars that have stayed in Canada which would not have stayed in Canada if it had not been for this Memorandum of Agreement.
The facts are that the softwood lumber market has changed. The softwood lumber market is softer in the United States. Prices are going down. The same is true in Canada. The economic circumstances have changed. The exchange rate has changed. Therefore we think it would be reasonable for changes to be made in this arrangement. Whether the United States will agree is another question. We have pointed out these facts to the United States. There have been no formal negotiations in this connection, however.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MANITOBA MINISTER OF NORTHERN AND NATIVE AFFAIRS FOR THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Jim Downey, Minister of Northern and Native Affairs for the Province of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MANITOBA MINISTER OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Charlotte Oleson, Minister of Community Services, Employment Services and Economic Security and Minister responsible for the Status of Women for Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORIGINAL LPEOPLES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, I am sure, is aware of the ongoing trial of some 38 Innu in Newfoundland at this time. In my judgment these people are guilty of only one thing, that is, of defending their homeland against what they perceive as an invasion.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to do what many groups have been urging upon the Government and drop the charges, wait until the Federal Environmental Assessment Review is done, and declare a moratorium on low-level flight testing? Will he come to an arrangement with those people that will protect their land and their interests?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member recognizes in his statement that there are Innu who are facing court charges at the present time. They are now in court.
All I can inform the Hon. Member is that when I went to Goose Bay I had planned the trip for two weeks. I wanted a meeting with the Innu leaders. I went to meet with other leaders at the same time. On the Friday I was there, at 11.30 the Innu agreed to meet. I hoped it would be a productive discussion where we could talk and make arrangements that could benefit both the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and its economy, and the needs of the Innu people. At that time I was not allowed the opportunity to discuss with the Innu leaders.
Let me make a suggestion to the Hon. Member. If those groups who claim to be supporting the Innu and their cause, if they would not be seen in some people's mind to be using the Innu for other means, would support the Innu in their land claims so they can assemble their needs, I think we could have very productive talks.
April 7, 1989


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Innu have made no such claim that they are being used by these groups. They have worked with these groups over the years and the Minister does a disservice to all the people who have been involved in this struggle to suggest anything else.


REQUEST THAT CHARGES AGAINST PROTESTERS BE DROPPED
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's response, but I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister because it is Canadian moral credibility abroad which is at stake here. We know that there were demonstrations in several European capitals yesterday about this particular issue. The fact is that in the name of defence Canada- quite correctly-is seen to be committing an act of aggression against an element of its own people, the Innu in Newfoundland.
When will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in this matter to see to it that justice is done, the charges against these people are dropped, and a fair arrangement is arrived at with these people? They have never surrendered title to their land. They are entitled to be dealt with fairly, not the way they have been dealt with up to now.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should be aware, there are other individuals who live in Labrador. There is an economy there that depends greatly on the expenditures that take place within the region from the Goose Bay defence establishment.
If I had the opportunity to talk with the Innu leaders I would have informed them that no new nations would fly until the environmental impact study had been done and the FEAR panels had concluded their work. I would have informed the Innu that the flights that will take place this year will be approximately the same number as last year. I would have liked to talk to the Innu to be able to ask them what resources they may need to take part in the FEAR panel that will be called.
An environmental impact study was started some two years ago by my predecessor at a cost of over $6.5 million. I certainly hope that Members will allow that study to take its due course and we will then be able to make new assessments as to whatever the needs may be for the people of Goose Bay and Happy Valley and for the some 1,100 Innu in Labrador.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa West to put a single question, please.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday in the House the Government showed no concern that the representation of visible minorities in federally regulated industries and in the Public Service is abysmal.
Visible minorities represent 6.4 per cent of the working population of Canada but only 2.6 per cent of employees in Government Departments. How does the Minister explain this obvious discrimination in hiring and what does he intend to do about it? Is he aware that visible minorities represented 12 per cent of applications for federal government employment last year but only 3.3 per cent of hirings?
This is shameful, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Minister what measures he will take to give visible minority Canadians an equal opportunity to be employed by their Government?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, since 1984 the Government is concerned with representation issues in the Public Service and also in the industries that are under the federal jurisdiction. And I can tell you that when we examine the data, we can see that important improvements have been registered in every sector. Regulations now in place should ensure on the one hand that we get timely situation reports and on the other, that policies are established to promote the employment of women, natives, people with handicaps and visible minorities in the Public Service and in the industries that come under the federal jurisdiction.
That is an objective that the Government is actively pursuing. Progress has been made and more is expected in the years to come.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to ask the indulgence of the Minister of the Environment to take one supplementary from an Hon. Member from the West coast, the Hon. Member for Victoria.

April 7, 1989
Introduction of Bills ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


WEST COAST-THREAT POSED BY TANKER AND BARGE TRAFFIC
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment for the geography lesson given to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. We appreciate it.
The issue of the barge separation is yet again a demonstration of the fact that tanker and barge traffic on the West Coast is a threat to the very fragile environment of the West Coast. I would like to ask the Minister if he would again overrule the Minister of Transport who, the other day, said there would be no public inquiry, and make a commitment on behalf of the Government that the issue of oil spills and tanker traffic will be open to a full, public, independent inquiry in the immediate future.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this occasion to correct myself and clarify part of something I said. The first time I described the site of the accident involving the barge, I correctly referred to international waters, and in the heat of the exchange that followed I might have used the term American waters, which of course is wrong. It was really international waters.
As to the question, in my view the accident of last night confirms the decision of this Government to review the rules governing the traffic off the West Coast of Canada, and we will conduct this review with the utmost swiftness, seriousness and efficiency. Our Deputy Ministers will directly report to all the Ministers involved, and we should have a preliminary report very soon so as to be able to know if we can improve those very efficient rules which were very seriously set up 10 years ago, but we should know if it is possible to improve them. At the same time, we will certainly see to the possibility of improving the response if the prevention would fail.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Minister for granting the indulgence because we are well past the time for Question Period. I think there is occasionally merit in extending the Question Period, but I want to make it very clear that this will not be a pattern. I thank the Minister and I thank the Hon. Member.


POINT OF ORDER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of Question Period yesterday, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy) and I were involved in an exchange. I have had the opportunity to consult Hansard, and I am of the conclusion that I misheard and misquoted the Hon. Member in an exchange relating to Namibia. He used the word "flawed". I heard the word "fraud". I apologize. I indicated to him that if I was wrong, I would apologize. I was wrong, and I apologize.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) honours this House and preserves the honour that we all respect in him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD ACT
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an Act to establish the Transportation Accident Investigation Board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Transport my basic responsibility is to enhance air safety throughout the country, and of course there should be no doubt about my commitment to take all appropriate measures to that end. In my statement last week I said that, at the earliest opportunity, I would introduce a Bill concerning the establishment of an independent board to look into air, sea, and rail accidents, and this is what I am doing today.

With the concurrence of this House, I will be referring the legislation to the Standing Committee on Transport. I will be seeking its views to ensure we have a clear definition of the roles of the board, the chairman and the investigators.
April 7, 1989



Mr. Speaker, I hope all Hon. Members will co-operate and I urge them to give speedy approval to this Bill of utmost importance for maintaining safety.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister has created a precedent of sorts. Ministers do not usually make statements when introducing bills. Since he did make a few remarks I think the Official Opposition should also comment on this matter. I heard the Minister say that he will be referring the Bill to a standing committee of the House or to a legislative committee and, with that in mind, he has asked for the support of the House. For the time being I am not sure whether we agree with him on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the point raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the short statement made by the Minister concerning this Bill does not amount to a precedent. It is a rare occurrence, I must agree, but not a precedent. The Minister has the right to do so. I would not want to debate the issue with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who is fully conversant with the Standing Orders.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Perhaps we might ask the House to be as agreeable with the Official Opposition and let a Member on this side make a brief comment on the Minister's initiative, a very constructive statement, as it happens.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Should Opposition Members wish to comment on the remarks of a Minister, I would suggest they seek unanimous consent, and undoubtedly that is what they would do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Introduction of Bills


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, addition to the official list of electors.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John William Bosley: The right to vote is our most precious democratic right. During the last election, many Canadians in urban ridings were missed by the enumerators and lost that precious right. That is utterly unacceptable. The purpose of this Bill is to guarantee every Canadian that their right to vote will be protected by amending the Elections Act to allow every Canadian the right that now exists in rural ridings, the right to register to vote even on election day.


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

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-205, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, attachment and assignment of wages.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Dawn Black: The purpose of my Bill is to amend the Canada Shipping Act. This will affect the collection of family maintenance payments owed by those involved in commercial fishing. This would ensure that family support payments are paid and that parties to family support agreements have the means of ensuring collection of these debts regardless of employment in commercial shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
April 7, 1989
Petitions

M. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-206, an Act to amend the National Capital Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria:: The purpose of this Bill is to enlarge the territory of the National Capital Commission in an easterly direction from the City of Ottawa, the effect of which would make the National Capital Region east of the city roughly the equivalent size that it is west of the city. The proposed Bill has the support of all municipalities involved as well as the united Counties of Prescott- Russell.
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to thank the Mayor of the Town of Rockland, Mr. Jean-Marc La-londe, and Mr. Jamie Lawson, a legislative intern who worked in the preparation of this Bill.


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

M. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda-age group).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Criminal Code in a manner that would change the definition of "hate propaganda" so as to define "age group" as being a possible criterion under the provisions of "obscenity". No one would be permitted to discriminate against someone by reason of age, the purpose of which would be to ban the importation of a product known as "garbage-pail kids", which are offensive cards depicting the mutilation of children.


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

M. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (peeping Toms).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: The purpose of this Bill is to change the definition of Section 173 of the Criminal Code. The "peeping Tom" provision of the Criminal Code only permits charges under that provision to be laid for an offence occurring at night. Someone who prowls on the property of another in the daytime cannot be charged under the "peeping Tom" provision of the Criminal Code. The amendment would remove the words "at night", permitting such charges to be laid at any time. This is an important amendment and has the support of several women's organizations in Canada.


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

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to submit a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a group of my constituents concerned with the labelling of foods sold by restaurants and fast food chains. The petitioners require that legislation and regulations be enacted to institute ingredient labelling of take-out and fast food, and public access to a complete list of food ingredients for sale in the restaurant establishments.


Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition that has been certified correct as to form and content. The petition is on behalf of 450 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who risk their lives and security every day as policemen, firemen and wardens. The prayer of the petition is that the Government not move to unilaterally change pensions by proceeding with proposed to legisla-
April 7, 1989

tion affecting properly negotiated pensions, pensions which these people have planned around and are depending upon.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 1,600 Albertans who are mechanics in that province. They are petitioning their Government to reconsider its tax laws as they affect the ability of mechanics to deduct the cost of tools from their income for tax purposes. As is usual in efforts like these, there is an enormous amount of work done by one individual. In this case, it is a young mechanic by the name of Chris Grieve. He travelled across the Province of Alberta and spoke to many people. It was quite a considerable effort to gather that many signatures from one professional group in a province as diverse as Alberta.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are calling on the Government to establish a children's bill of rights protecting all children in this country from poverty, hunger and homelessness.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of Canadians concerned that deregulation in the air industry will lead to reduced safety and service. They believe deregulation of the airline industry has led to reduced viability of many airline companies and has increased the market share of a few large firms. They have a long list of concerns regarding deregulation in the airline industry. Fundamentally they are calling upon Parliament to ensure that the transportation industry is efficiently and effectively regulated to ensure that safety and fair quality services are provided to the travelling public.


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.
The Address-Mr. Mills



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech of the opening of the session; and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (page 131).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have approximately four minutes left in the question and comment period. The Hon. Member for LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin).


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Mills) has an extensive record in environmental matters. He is very knowledgeable.
Given the fact that there has been extensive comment on the fact that shoppers still lack environmentally safe packages, would he please talk to us about what education is required in that area?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.
There exists in the Department of the Environment a program ready to go for environmentally friendly products in packaging, which I think would go a long way in pushing along product and consumer awareness for environmentally friendly products. It awaits the direction of the Minister. I think that is important to do quickly because there are signs that consumers are confused over safe packaging.
I just want to quote from a recent survey done by the Grocery Products Manufacturing Association. Eighty per cent of consumers are willing to pay more for biodegradable or recyclable packaging, but only one-third at this point in time look on the packaging for environmentally safe labelling.
This survey lets us know that we have a long way to go in educating people. I hope that the Minister will give that direction to his Department immediately. At our summit on the environment in the Don Valley we will be featuring over 300 consumer products from every region of this country that have passed environmentally friendly standards. This as well will go a long way in raising the consciousness of consumers to purchase environmentally friendly products.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Riis
The only way we will succeed in galvanizing the will of the country around the environment is not just by dealing with it at a bureaucratic or at a political level, but we must deal with it at the consumer level as well. In order to get that consumer activated we must guide him along the way.


Mr. Barrett:: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could be given an opportunity to ask a brief question since it is the Hon. Member's first opportunity to speak in the House.
I am aware that it is reported that the Hon. Member had $250,000 spent in pre-election funding before the election was called in his riding. Does he know something about this job worth $75,000 a year that I do not know?
Second, is the Member now in favour of putting limits on pre-election campaign spending so that people do not buy seats to come into this Chamber?


Mr. McDermid:: He wasn't a former Premier.


Dennis Joseph Mills: First, the Hon. Member has his facts wrong.


John Horton McDermid: That is why he is no longer Premier.


Dennis Joseph Mills: It was close to $150,000. But I must tell the Hon. Member that my opponent, an incumbent-and I include all of us in this House-over a four-year period I think has about a $2 million advantage.


David Barrett: Doing their job.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Yes, doing their job. I think part of the reason I was elected is that maybe the job was not being done well enough in the riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dennis Joseph Mills: I would like to answer the Hon. Member's question on pre-election spending. I think once candidates are nominated by the Party, I believe that the Government of Canada should give them some support in order to get to the election period. I do not think the current system is correct.
What was the last question, I am sorry?


David Barrett: What was worth it in the job?


Dennis Joseph Mills: There are some days, I must say, that I kind of wonder. But unlike the Hon. Member for Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) I had the rare privilege of working for the greatest Prime Minister this country ever had. He inspired me to come to this town and work. I love it here. I love my country. Maybe eventually the Member will discover that working in the national Parliament is much more exciting than acting as a parochial Premier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to participate in the debate. I want to thank Members opposite for the arrangements that were made to make this possible today.
I want to begin my presentation in the House today by saying that I believe November 21, 1988-the day of the federal election-will go down in Canadian history as likely the second most significant date. The first, of course, being July 1, 1867, when we saw the beginning of Canada formally occur. Then 121 years later, on November 21, 1988, with the re-election of the Conservative Government we saw the beginning of the end of Canada as we have known it.


An Hon. Member:: Really?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The reason is that the Government decided to proceed with the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, which is the dismantling of Canada, the reorganizing of Canada, the rearranging of Canada to make us an integral part of the United States. What has to be recognized is that the Government lacked the support of the people of Canada generally.
When you look at the way people voted, not how the constituencies or gerrymandering and so on occurred to take advantage of the political situation, and their voting patterns, you will find that 57 per cent of the people voted againsts the Conservatives in the last general election. People in eight our of ten provinces voted against the Conservatives and people in two out of two Territories voted against the Conservatives.
We are talking about a minority position, and yet the Government has taken that minority position because of the way the country is organized around constituencies and decided to end Canada as we know it and integrate us into the United States. This was due in large part not because the people of Canada understood clearly the implications of the trade deal, but because through an incredible amount of election advertising, the likes of which we have never seen before, Canadians were sold a bill of goods, and to a certain extent, were misrepresented and misled. Look at the advertising that went into the free trade deal. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada alone spent over $5 million. The large corporate sector, including the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, groups like
April 7, 1989

the Fraser Institute and the major media outlets, spent in combination $19 million.
The lowest blow of all is that this deal had not been sanctioned by the Parliament of Canada, yet the Government felt it had the go-ahead to spend taxpayers' money on an initiative which had not been sanctioned, and paid $32 million for an advertising total of $56 million for the trade deal. Up against that were the individuals from the opposition Parties speaking against the trade deal. The people of Canada were misled through some very misleading advertising, and the Conservatives managed to get 43 per cent of the people's support and that enabled the Government to proceed. That is why I say that November 21, 1988, will be a very historic day in Canadian history. That was the day the end really began.
I do not want to speak today about the trade deal. That is not the purpose of this. The trade deal which the Government signed will haunt this country, this Parliament and this Government forever. We saw immediately after the deal was signed the various companies collapsing and hundreds and thousands of jobs being lost.
I have before me a document that goes on and on: "Gillette in Montreal, 590 jobs; Pittsburgh Paints in Toronto, 139 jobs; Northern Telecom in Belleville, 87ebec, 100 jobs; Chrysler Canada in Ajax, 430 jobs; Taurus Shoes in Quebec, 100 jobs". I could go on for pages and pages listing businesses that have closed down because they have decided to move their operations to the United States or to northern Mexico.
We must recognize that the Government has decided to run the country in a rather unique manner. The House has not sat in the last six months, with the exception of two weeks in December when the Government jammed the trade deal through. It costs $1 million per day when the House does not sit, and we have not sat for six months, with the exception of two weeks.
While the House has not been sitting and while Parliament has not been able to function, what has happened across the country? We have seen interest rates sky-rocket once again. Now they are in the 13 per cent area. Yesterday they inched up again. How high will they go before the Government decides to take action? Will it be 14 per cent, 16 per cent, 18 per cent, or 20 per cent? For a while under a Liberal Government they went
The Address-Mr. Riis
up as high as 22 per cent. How high do interest rates have to go before the Government says that enough is enough?
The Government has recognized that there are two Canadas. There is the Canada of Toronto, and there is the rest of the country. In terms of policy these interest rates reflect a reality in one city of this country, while the rest of the country must pay the price. As a westerner one would be hard pressed to find a single person who would say that this monetary policy is the correct one.
The Premier of Alberta, the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Manitoba, as a matter of fact, every single Premier came to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and begged him to come to his senses, to stop the interest rate nonsense, and to start bringing down the rates.
I would hope sometime in the debate to hear Members stand up and say that they are in favour of this high interest rate policy; I have not yet heard anyone from the government side or the opposition side say so. Why do we have Members of the House who tolerate this policy which is strangling and smothering the regions in their efforts to dig out of the recessionary times of 1981.
We have seen corporate concentration take place and accelerate, and the focussing of economic, political, and social power into fewer and fewer hands. Since the Government has taken office, which is not too many years-too many but not that many-there have been more than 3,000 foreign takeovers in this country. That means there are 3,000 Canadian companies which are no longer Canadian. No longer are they making decisions about their future in Canada. Those decisions are being made primarily in the United States, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, or wherever. As we sit here in this session, on average, four foreign takeovers a day are occurring in our country.
As part of that process, corporate concentration and the concentration of power are increasing. Today it is unbelievable, but we are the only western industrialized nation with seven families now controlling 50 per cent of the value of the Toronto Stock Exchange top 300. That type of concentration would not be found in a single other western industrialized nation. What we are doing about it? The Government has instituted policies to

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Riis
accelerate the process of more and more concentration. That is another one that we have been waiting for.
American Express has come into Canada. It said that it wanted to be a bank in Canada. It is not a bank in the United States or anywhere in the world, but it wanted to have banking status in Canada. The Minister of Finance said that that was fine, and gave that status to American Express. It is not going home without taking the rest of us with them. That is exactly the result.
Do Canadians realize that, because of the amount of foreign ownership and foreign control of our economy, every hour of the day, every hour of the week, every hour of the month, and every hour of the year, $1.5 million leaves our country in the form of dividend payments or payments back to parent companies? That is $1.5 million every single hour of the year because so much of our economy is owned and controlled from outside Canada. Not only is the Government not doing anything to slow or reverse this process, but its policies are accelerating and increasing this situation.
Today we heard the terrible news that the regional disparities in our country are widening, that the gap between rich and poor is widening. A central core around the City of Toronto is prospering and increasing, and the rest of the country is falling relatively further and further behind. This is despicable.
How is the Government reacting to regional disparities increasing in the country, and the increasing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots"? Its response is to cut further support to the regions of this country. That is what the Government is doing in relation to ERDA. In those agreements federal and provision Governments work together to provide assistance and encouragement to develop the regional economies of the country. The Government states that it is not going to do that in the future. It is going to cut back support for the regions of the country. As the Minister from Toronto said during the election "if in the future you want a job, you better move to Toronto". If one lives in Chicoutimi, Comer Brook, Red Deer, Moose Jaw, or Kamloops this Government's idea of your future is to suggest moving to Toronto. That is the type of regional economic expansion programs the Government has in mind.


Mr. Volpe:: They won't be able to live there.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my hon. friend has indicated, Mr. Speaker, once you get there if you have $300,000 you might be able to purchase a home, if it is available.
We are seeing a Government emerge with a view that its role is to provide encouragement and support for the privileged, the wealthy, the haves. The others, the average Canadian citizen, is on his or her own. It is called the laissez-faire approach. It is the market-place approach.
This country was not built on the free market. From day one the Government of Canada and the provincial Governments have recognized that unless we take action, and to a certain extent are involved in the market, we will have a North American market that will essentially be owned and controlled from the United States. Therefore, we built a national rail system, a national air system, a national highway system, a municipal infrastructure, and a public broadcasting system.
Over the years we took all types of measures to link up and bind the country together with an east-west emphasis. Now the Government has abandoned that thought. This is neo-conservatism at its worst. It is something that would make John Diefenbaker and John A. Macdonald turn in their graves. The Government has decided to abandon what we have struggled with for 122 years in terms of fighting to bind this countiy together into something meaningful. As of the election of November 21, 1988 the Government abandoned that and decided that it was quite prepared to become an extension of the United States.
The Government did not have the mandate to that in 1988. I am confident that in 1992, when the people of Canada finally realize what the Government has done to them, it will be terminated from doing this any further into the future.
I remember when the Hon.Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) was running for the Conservatives. He stated that Government members could not tell the people of Canada what they were going to do "because if we did, they would never vote for us". How right he was. There are times when the Minister for International Trade speaks the truth. He spoke the truth when he said: "If we told the people of Canada what we will do, they would never vote for us".
Does anybody remember during the 1984 election the Government indicating that it wanted to introduce the free trade deal? It was not mentioned even a single time in that campaign. During the campaign of 1988 did anyone from the government benches mention that the
April 7, 1989

Government was going to slash social programs, cut back support for small business, abandon the family farm, and cut back on a whole range of social programs? No. The Government made all kinds of promises.
I have to give the Minister of Finance credit where credit is due. He has now said: "You know all those promises that we made during the election? Well, I am afraid we are going not going to be able to keep them". At least he has been honest and up front. The other day the Minister responsible for regional economic development also was up front when he stated that all those programs to assist the regions in developing their economies would also have to be cut back. The Government says that we have a deficit problem. We have a deficit problem. We have many problems. We have environmental problems. We have deficit and other problems.
When a deficit problem is solved there are two fundamental choices to make. Taxes can be raised on everybody, there can be cut-backs on programs that affect everybody, or something can be done on a specialized basis. This is where the political Parties differ. The Conservative idea of reducing the deficit is to give tax breaks and grants out to the large corporate sector, not to mention the rich and the privileged, with the assumption that they somehow will let this money filter down to assist the economy, and raise everybody's taxes.
As a sensible person, Mr. Speaker, you would say surely to goodness the conservatives would not have that approach. They have that approach. Today, as we sit here in the house of commons, the Ministers of Finance from across the country are meeting with the federal Minister of Finance to find ways and means to implement the new national sales tax.
Do you realize, Mr. sPeaker, what that means to the average Canadian family? To think that on top of the provincial sales tax of 5 per cent, 7 per cent, 9 per cent, the federal Government is now going to pile on its tax. This will mean that when one buys baby diapers or a book, when one goes to the movies or gets drycleaning and laundry done, or when one buys a car, a house or a suit, one will pay 19 per cent or 20 per cent sales tax.


John Horton McDermid: There is already a tax on cars.
The Address-Mr. Riis


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister is yelling across the way that there is already a sales tax on music lessons, that there is already a sales tax on movie tickets.


John Horton McDermid: There is already a tax on cars.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He is absolutely false when he says that. There is no sales tax on movie tickets. There is no sales tax to pay when one goes to the bowling alley. There is no sales tax on bingo tickets. Yet this Government is going to tax literally everything that moves in the country, and a lot of things that do not even move-tax, tax, tax.
Since this Conservative Government was elected there has never been in Canadian history as large a tax grab as has occurred in the last four and one-half years; never even during wartime when taxes were introduced for the war effort.
These people have gouged. They have ripped. They have dug in. They have pulled out more money from taxpayers. Oops, I should not say "taxpayers" because that implies the corporate sector as well, one sector that has been overlooked. There are still 60,000 large, profitable corporations that do not pay even a single penny in income tax. There are many that pay $1, $20 or $100, but there are 60,000 large, profitable corporations that do not even pay a single penny. That is the idea of conservative tax reform-no taxes on the wealthy, no taxes on the large corporations in many instances.
However, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the small welding shop down the street, the person running a beauty salon up the street, and the person running a small cafe are all paying, they are all paying and paying and paying. For every Budget that is brought in they pay more, but this same privileged group, this group of 60,000 profitable corporations, does not even pay a penny, to say nothing at all of those which pay $1, $2 or $3. This is not a fair tax system, but a Conservative way to reduce the deficit.
There is another way. It is called the New Democrat way. It is where we start saying, for example, that one way to reduce the deficit is not to buy nuclear submarines-this Government is still going ahead with nuclear submarines-but to assist the forest industry where we can generate a great deal more. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that in the Throne Speech the forest industry is not even mentioned? Farmers and ranchers are not even mentioned. The mining industry is not even mentioned. Tourism is not even mentioned.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Riis
In other words, those of us who come from the regions of the country, which of course are most of us, are not mentioned in the Throne Speech. This is a Throne Speech again designed for central Canada, specifically Toronto. This has to change. Our idea as New Democrats is let us ask these profitable corporations to pay something, a minimum corporate tax. Let us abandon this nuclear submarine madness and save ourselves billions and billions of dollars. Let us put out some of these lush government contracts to tendering so that people will have a chance to tender. We could save hundreds of millions of dollars. But now the Government uses it to reward corporate pals. There is no tendering, Mr. Speaker, and this involves billions of dollars. It is amazing.
What was absent from the Throne Speech was any reference to the West Coast oil spill, the largest in North American history. There was some rhetoric about the environment.
I would like to conclude my remarks by moving a subamendment that reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:
"and, specifically, that the House regrets the failure of the Government to provide adequate resources to deal with environmental crises and accidents; to regulate and enforce environmental laws; to monitor the state of our air, lands and waters; and to provide national standards of environmental protection".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the subamendment to be in order.
On questions and comments the Chair recognizes the Hon. Minister of State for Privatization.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my colleague's speeches in the House. He always throws figures around. I am not sure where he gets his facts and figures from. Most of the time when we look into them we find that they are very inadequate.
There are a couple of questions I want to ask. First, with respect to interest rates he said that he would lower interest rates in the country. If he were to lower interest rates in the country or to make regional interest rates as some of his colleagues have suggested, how would he stem the flow of capital out of those regions where there were low interest rates, which actually need the investment capital, to areas of the country where there are high interest rates? Or, how would he stem the flow of capital out of the country, chasing higher interest rates?
What is the NDP policy on that type of thing? How would it stop the flow of capital?
Second, how would the Hon. Member maintain inflation in the country? How would he stop the inflationary pressures that we are experiencing, not only in this country but in the other countries of the world? How would he have lower interest rates than his partners in the G-7, all of whom have been raising their interest rates lately because of the fear of inflation, because they do not want to go back to 1980 and 1981 when the Liberals sat back and let inflation run away? Then they had to give us extremely bitter medicine of some 22 per cent. That is the first thing I want to ask him.
The second question I would like him to cover is with respect to what he had to say about the sales tax. I do not think there is anyone in this country who would disagree that we need sales tax reform. Our domestic products are put at a disadvantage of some 25 per cent with those that they compete with from imports because of our outdated, outmoded manufacturing sales tax of 12 per cent.
Across the House I did not say music lessons. He knows I did not. I said "cars". There is a 12 per cent manufacturers' sales tax on automobiles today, on everything that is manufactured in this country, including bingo cards I might say.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Not the bingo games.


John Horton McDermid: There is a 12 per cent tax on the printing of those bingo cards.
I want to ask him what he would do or what the NDP would do to reform this antiquated, outmoded, unproductive sales tax system. Would he do what his socialist friends did in New Zealand or Australia where they taxed food and everything else-everything-when they changed their tax system? What would the NDP do?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Minister asks three or four questions, but I will endeavour to respond to each one. By the way, just to clarify the record, under the Conservative sales tax approach, Mr. Speaker, you have to pay a fee to play bingo in many cases. Not only will the cards be taxed, but just the ability to play will also be taxed.


John Horton McDermid: You are wrong there.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As well as getting your hair cut, getting your eyes checked, your teeth fixed or your new suit, everything is going to be taxed, Mr. Speaker. I will come back to that.
April 7, 1989

First of all I will respond to the matter of interest rates. I do not know if Canadians are generally aware of the fact that real interest rates are higher than they have ever been in this entire decade. The real interest rate is the prime rate. We reduce the inflation factor to get the real interest rate. They are higher now than they were in 1980 through 1988.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They are higher than at any time in this decade, with the exception of perhaps one month back in 1981. That is just a fact when we talk about high interest rates.
I must ask the Hon. Member why it is that our interest rates have to be so much higher than those in the United State. Not a single premier says that they need to be.
Let us assume that we can bring down our interest rates two or three percentage points to equal at least what they are in the United States. Why do I make this proposal? It is that if we reduce interest rates by 1 per cent, we cut the deficit and the debt significantly.
Our debt is large. I cannot sleep some night at night because I am reminded that the Conservatives have increased the debt on our children from $170 billion when they took office to over $320 billion today. They do not have a right to leave this kind of legacy to our children. Our debt has increased under this Government, and it is going up by billions of dollars a month. That is the reality. It is unbelievable. A lot of us have trouble sleeping because we are concerned about our children and our children's children.
By reducing interest rates one percentage point, we can really knock off billions of dollars from our debt repayment expectation.
What should we be doing when it comes to interest rates? We can drop them down one to three percentage points, again to bring us in line with the United States. We will also have a window of opportunity in July of this summer at the G-7 meeting to discuss a variety of things of mutual concern.
Why should our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) not put interest rates on that agenda and say: "let us work together to bring down these rates, in concert one with another"? He has not identified that as a priority for the next G-7 meeting in July, and I urge him to consider that.
The Address-Mr. DeBlois
The other question was on the sales tax. What the Minister of State for Privatization (Mr. McDermid) always forgets to ask me is my view on the 60,000 large profitable corporations that never pay any tax. He never asked me if I think this is a good idea.


An Hon. Member:: We do not have 60,000.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is right, Mr. Speaker, we do not have 60,000 large profitable corporations. We have 60,219 large profitable corporations not paying a single penny in income tax. Maybe, if they were paying their fair share, we would not have to impose a national sales tax on children's clothing.
As we stand here today, there are $30 billion in deferred corporate taxes. If we just charged interest and did not ask them to pay back, there is $3 billion just like that. Then we would not have to ask to impose a special sales tax on children's stoiy books, pet foods and so on, but that is a priority of this Government. It wants to tax children's things and housing. I think I made my point.
I covered interest rates, inflation, and sales tax. What I also covered, Mr. Speaker, was what the Minister of Finance said-


An Hon. Member:: What would you do, Nelson?


Nelson Andrew Riis: On Thursday of this week, the Minister of Finance said the following:
I am quite prepared to reduce the level of economic activity in
Canada.
Now here is the Minister of Finance saying that things are heating up too much. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that he has not been out West or out East for a long time. He has not been into northern Quebec and northern Ontario or to the far North at all, because if he had travelled and talked to a single person in the regions of this country he would not say our economy is overheated. For one weekend, rather than go down to Bay Street and talk to his corporate pals, he should get out and talk to ordinary Canadian citizens across the country. If he did so and he responded to their needs, he would change this Government's economic policy accordingly.


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I return to my task in the House after several months of reflection and work in my constituency, and I would like to start by saying how happy I am that you, Mr. Speaker, and your team are still with us and offering you my full co-operation with the task at hand. I am pleased because a Member of Parliament, in addition to representing his riding, is also a member of a parliamentary body. The work we do here

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. DeBlois
in the House is an essential part of our task in general, because we not only have a duty to defend the interests of our constituencies but also to be aware of the national concerns of this great country of ours, from coast to coast.
I would like to start by saying how delighted I am that the Throne Speech read by the Governor General reflects our resolve to act on our election commitments, which include our commitment to protecting the environment, to the economy and to the neediest in our society whom we intend to continue to support, whatever Hon. Members opposite, the Liberals in the Official Opposition and the NDP, care to think.
Mr. Speaker, I found the following rather amusing. I read a lot of newspapers, as a former reporter. I noticed that a Liberal who was suggesting that those who are well off should not be given a pension, in order to help those who are disadvantaged, was quickly criticized by that protector of the needy and the poor, the Hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). Let me explain. One of his colleagues, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-North (Mr. MacLaren) had dared to suggest that family allowances or old age pensions should not be paid to those people who are well off. So, the protector of the poor rose to say he was going to challenge that suggestion and fight it in caucus!
The Leader of the Official Opposition said in his one-hour speech, among other things: "We intend to remind the Government as often as necessary that Canada is not the private domain of the rich and the powerful, of the businessmen of this country. This country also belongs to people across Canada who cannot make ends meet." And we heard the usual emotional outpourings about the little guy and the unemployed. What a farce! I see that both Opposition Parties failed to take advantage of the period when the House was in recess to improve their thinking. After what happened during the free trade debate, I expected to meet with an Opposition that would show greater clarity and rigour in debate.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Throne Speech is excellent in this respect. It is straightforward and responsible. For some years, because of the Liberal legacy, we have been saddled with an enormous deficit, and we shall have the fortitude to take the measures that are necessary to spare future generations the terrible burden
of a debt that is increasing every second, every minute and every hour of our existence in this country.
Some commentators and some Members opposite say that the Speech is just a lot of generalities without substance. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Michel Roy, one of the most respected editorial writers of this country, who wrote recently:
It is amazing to hear some commentators repeat over and over again that the Throne Speech is vague. Characteristically, however, inaugural speeches announce the broad directions a government intends to take, the philosophy that underlies its legislative program. And take note of this: "The terms of the Throne Speech leave no doubt as to this Government's commitment to a determined deficit reduction. In one sentence, the author of the speech perfectly illustrates how serious the present situation is: My Government is now borrowing money solely to pay the interest on previous borrowings".
It is therefore my view that everyone who listened to that speech in good faith could take note of this Government's will to do what previous governments had not done, namely to roll up their sleeves and to continue putting the brakes on the current deficit growth.
In that respect I am pleased to note the comments of an industrialist in my constituency who recently wrote to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who is taking surveys all around:
"Comments or suggestions to your Member of Parliament: 1. I hope that my M.P. stops playing Father Christmas." Of course, this was written before I was elected, Mr. Speaker.
"Stop playing Father Christmas with our money, cut altogether subsidies, especially to non-profit organizations and businesses who in the same country are making same products as non-subsidized firms."
2. "That my M.P. really tackles the elimination of the deficit."
So I think the mandate is quite clear, and this is but an example out of a thousand. People expect us to make an effort, they expect sacrifices. This is not easy, and I think everyone of us will have to pay the price. We have the will to be brave enough to go ahead and make sure public finance is put on a sounder basis.
April 7, 1989

So we are facing an opposition that is a bad loser bent on revenge. I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who constantly suggests free trade, which we sold out to the United States, free trade means the end of our sovereignty, our Canadian way of doing things. I find that amusing, because Mr. Opposition Leader has Members in his caucus who are starting to see the light, although belatedly. Let me show you this headline-Marc Lalonde!-You heard of him? Marc Lalonde turns coat and becomes free trader! This is in Le Devoir of March 15, 1989.
Amusing! I find its never too late to see the light. With time, I think our friends opposite will finally understand. Two days ago in France Mr. Peterson, the Ontario Premier, applauded the merits of free trade in Europe, etc. Of course he said that abroad. Come now! Let's stop kidding the people! With time, we must come to realize that a majority of Canadians opted for much more direct and active trade with the United States.
As far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I heard the cassettes again. We just heard the Leader restate his defence of the poor and the oppressed. I think the resigning leader set matters straight when he very clearly stated on page 131 of Hansard of last Wednesday:
We are going to oppose with determined vigour every bill that
floors out of this Throne Speech and every budget item that will
come in the weeks ahead.
'talk of constructive opposition! Even before having seen anything, they will fight with determined vigour, not one but every bill, whatever. They will oppose for the sake of opposing.
I am a bit surprised. I would expect the Opposition to be constructive, positive. They could at least say: Let's wait and see. Who knows? The New Democratic Party says there might come up a bill to help the poor. But no! From the outset, they'll oppose every bill, all the gang of them.
Let me come to the core of my speech, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make two series of comments. The first one concerns the so-called Parliament holidays. For some time we have been hearing the Opposition suggest we had been sitting in our constituencies for six months. We were not putting the House to work. It's like saying MPs were just sitting on their behinds. I for one can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that since the end of the Christmas holidays, I have been in my constituency's office every day. I have my office diary here. I challenge any Member in this House to come and see in my diary what I have been doing for three months.
The Address-Mr. DeBlois
Also on this subject, I heard the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Mills) just give this very gripping testimony about his little daughter who was humiliated in school because people started to laugh when she said that her father was a Member of Parliament. I understand them, those young people. And part of it is that some journalists on Parliament Hill never stopped talking about "holidays".
Recently, Mr. Speaker, on the opening of the House, we saw in The Citizen, "Commons holiday ends".
We saw others. Here is Mr. Weston:

"MP's old and new are in a particularly scrappy mood after their 14-week parliamentary break".

I am not in a scrappy mood. I am in great shape and it is not because I have just been on vacation, believe me.
Mr. MacGillivray says here:

"The Members could use the extra weeks because they had been put to work so quickly after the November 21 election".

Another one says here:

"The three months that Parliament has not been sitting has in simple terms cost taxpayers $50 million to staff and maintain the empty Chamber and mostly empty Members' offices".

What a disgrace! Like the employees in my riding office. I have had five for the past three months. I am not afraid to name them: Claude Beauchamp, Ginette Hupe, Marie Garneau, Lisette Harvey and Solange Veilleux. When these people saw that, these people who were paid for three months, who worked day and night in my riding office, they were literally insulted.
I sort of get the feeling sometimes that Parliamentary reporters here on the Hill deal with national subjects. I know, because I was a parliamentary correspondent at the National Assembly. What interests them is the big national issues: sales tax, submarines. But what we do in our ridings, the ordinary backbenchers, does not interest them. None of them comes to our ridings to see what we do. I find that absolutely shameful; I find that shocking.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. DeBlois
And, Mr. Speaker, you know my love for Latin quotations. Do they come to my mind? The ancients said, De minimis non curat praetor. It means that the magistrate does not care about minor details. Some journalists on Parliament Hill do not care about the small fry-the MP in his riding. That does not interest them. For them, it is nuclear issues, nuclear submarines, privatization. What we do in our constituencies does not interest them.
I think of a guy like Michel Vastel. He is not a bad fellow, he writes a lot and works hard. I find him interesting at times, and he wrote this, "The House of Commons costs us $190 million this year, of which $105 million is for the Members of Parliament alone. However, they are not paid just to attend their constituents' funerals and weddings or to look after social security cheques, although these duties are important. What Mr. Mulroney is doing is an affront to parliamentary democracy".
Well look, do these people live in the clouds? I know, I was a parliamentary reporter in Quebec City and it was dull when the legislature was not sitting. People not doing investigative journalism who want official news. .. the House is not sitting, there are no press conferences. They have nothing to give their boss. The boss asks them, "What report are you doing for me tonight?". But nothing has happened. The House is not sitting. So what these people should normally. . . and I am not accusing all journalists, Mr. Speaker. There are some excellent ones, thank God!
But some of them distort the facts and lead people to believe that when we are not in the House, we are on vacation or travelling. We are having fun, whatever. Well, I think it is time for the people listening to us to know what a Member who wants to take his constituency work seriously does! And I am not the only one, many... I just mentioned the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood who went to Quebec City for three weeks to learn French. I congratulate him, even though he is an opponent. He used those three months to learn the countiy's other official language. If all Anglophones had the courage to do that, I would be really proud. I went to Toronto for a week to start to learn English, to improve, and I will be happy on the day I can tell you what I think in English.
But that being said, it was not a waste of time. I think it is one of the great benefits of the House of Commons to provide all Members and their spouses with the opportunity to improve their ability in the second language. I worked on it, I was not loafing by going to Toronto to study English. From nine in the morning till nine in the evening, I was with teachers and I was there to learn. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Maheu:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member from Saint-Laurent on a point of order.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the words used by the Hon. Member opposite are not unparliamentary. He has repeated them twice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This kind of language should not be used. Although I do not think it has led to any disorder, I would ask the Hon. Member to refrain from using it.


Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comment, and I will be careful not to use this kind of language. You will understand that in the heat of debate and especially with such attentive listeners, I might sometimes express myself by using images which are in common use in my region. This might seem trivial, but when ordinary people speak loud and clear, they use images of that kind. I have not invented them, I have just picked them up. And I respect these people even if they do not always use the language of Shakespeare or the sophisticated language of certain intellectuals.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report on what I have done. Let me say, for example, that in the past three months, I have opened 325 files involving my constituents. I am extremely proud to say that I have spoken with all the people in the riding of Montmorency who have phoned me or come to visit me in my constituency office. In this way, I have helped 188 individuals about such things as employment assistance, tax problems, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, housing. Private businessmen also come to me to get information about federal programs. I have been in touch with public servants on their behalf. Furthermore, representatives from 88 non profit organizations have come to see me about federal programs in such areas as employment and immigration, housing, community affairs, and so on. And then there are municipal matters. Half a dozen mayors from my riding have come to see me.
April 7, 1989

Add to all this, Mr. Speaker, the preparation of my householder, which is a source of great pride for me. With this publication, I have done a survey in my riding. Gentlemen opposite may laugh. Some find it amusing when we consult the people. For my part, I am very proud to do so. I conducted a poll on the abortion issue. Instead of making lofty speeches, instead of holding forth, instead of blathering as some of my friends opposite are doing, I went to hear what the people of my riding had to say, I got some mail and at the appropriate time and place I will know what to say to convey the feelings of my constituents.
In spite of all that, Mr. Speaker, I did have an opportunity to be away from my riding for a couple of weeks to represent my country on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights-one of my Liberal opponents was even a member of our party-where I had a close look at the leading role Canada is playing to uphold and promote human rights.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this information will enlighten my colleagues in the House. I should think we all agree on that score and that most of us take advantage of these parliamentary recesses to be close to our relatives and our constituents.
A second point, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude my remarks. As a Quebecer I can tell you that I felt insulted by the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) concerning Premier Bourassa of Quebec. My speech this afternoon gives me an opportunity to say that I am at one with the Quebec Premier who knows the importance of protecting the rights and the French fact in this country.
Once again, of course, Premier Bourassa had to invoke the notwithstanding clause. He did not have much choice because the Constitution foisted on us by the Liberals prevented Quebec from joining the Constitution. If we want to promote French as we are cleared to do by the Supreme Court, we have to be practical and pragmatic, and in that respect I am certainly not going to blame the Premier of Quebec-brothers as we are through race and culture-for taking steps to enhance the promotion of French within the huge Anglophone majority in Canada and in the United States. As a matter of fact, a number of the Liberal colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition-and I understand there will soon be a leadership convention-including the Hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), or people like Francis
The Address-Mr. DeBlois
Fox and other former MPs, have all said: We lost our roots in Quebec during the last election. Mr. Turner's speech was just the way again to sink your roots in Quebec. I am ashamed about the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and in that context I am proud of the remarks of my leader the Prime Minister and of the Speech from the Throne.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of asking the Hon. Member what he will be sitting on in coming weeks, as undoubtedly you will be glad to hear. Among other things, I am pleased to learn that he sent a householder, an excellent news, and I commend him for sharing his experience with the House of Commons.
I want to get back to some of the remarks he made in his speech. He said the Opposition had not been constructive enough, and he blamed the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party for taking a negative approach with respect to his Government. According to him we should be a lot more constructive, even when the Government does not act properly, which is the case presently.
I should like to ask my colleague opposite if one can conclude that he thought the Conservative Opposition was constructive during the many years they were on this side, particularly under the "leadership" of one Eric Nielsen who was acting Leader of the Opposition for a number of years while waiting for the present leader to find a riding somewhere so he would have a seat in the House of Commons. Specifically I should like to ask him whether he agreed with the attitude of some Members who at one time were prepared to chain themselves to the clerk's table to protest against a legislative measure, or whether he did not see anything wrong with the other incident one night when Conservative Members-led by the Hon. Member for Calgary who is now a Minister of the Crown-decided to surround the chair of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
I wonder whether he approves of that kind of thing or of the pairing system we used to have in the past when an Opposition Member and a Government Member had to leave the country together with a parliamentary delegation. Conservative Members broke the agreement, they sneaked out of their beds in Europe in the middle of the night to catch a Concorde flight and fly back early in the morning in an attempt to defeat the Government. Is that what my colleague on the other side calls constructive opposition?

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. DeBlois


Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I appreciate the historical knowledge of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Of course I do not live in the past. How should I put it? I am not a blindly partisan Member of Parliament and I do not support anything that might have been done, on any side of the House, against any positive position in this Chamber. You can keep harping on some past history, but I will not lose any sleep over it. I am here in 1989; I was not here ten years ago. From now on, personally, when it is a matter of programs, of official languages, I think I shall try to contribute as positively as I can to the debate and I hope that the Opposition will be able to give us positive arguments, whatever their limitations and the constraints they are under.


Mr. Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. DeBlois) and I would like to ask him a question because it occurred to me that maybe something had been forgotten in his speech. He was talking about the deficit and the burden his Government inherited from the Liberal Government in 1984. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Member is: Does he know what the deficit was in 1984 and does he know what the deficit is now, after four years of Conservative Government?


Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, in 1960, I think, we paid 12 cents per dollar of tax-the tax you and I paid-and now, for all Canadians, 31 cents of every tax dollar is just for interest on the debt. So calculate the difference; you are good with figures. You will see the difference between the two deficits.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague, who obviously is very strong in mathematics and we already know his ability in Latin, so we will not talk about those things more than we have to. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Hon. Member would be ready to give us his version of the figures, the numbers. He can explain it any way he wants. What was the national debt in 1984, not in 1960? What was the national debt in 1984 and where is it today?


Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, it is of course very easy to ask questions on figures. I will get on the bus now and ask another Member what the deficit was in 1963. We do not carry that information around in our pockets! Come on!
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously not able to have them on hand, but those figures are known, I have them in my office, I can call my secretary and get you the answer. Those are known facts. If the Hon. Member is really in good faith, he will listen with interest next Monday to
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who will show us the true situation of the deficit in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Since my honourable colleague is asking the question, I would like to pursue the matter because it seems to me that for the past couple of weeks the Conservatives have put the blame for the deficit and the national debt on the Liberal.
I would like to ask him if he is aware that over the past four years, during which a by-election was bought and billions of dollars were spent on friends of the government, the national debt has doubled. Is he aware of that?


M. DeBlois:: Mr. Speaker, I take note of my honorable colleague's question. Once again, my remarks this afternoon were not meant to go into details since I would obviously have had to bring along a whole series of documents.
It is generally agreed among students of the economy that one of the reasons for the deficit is the sort of pattern the major change brought about by the Liberals when they were in office, the consequences of which we are now saddled with. I could give you a ton of references. But just read the newspapers and I think you'll get quite enough information.
Next Monday, I repeat, you will get answers to all these questions.


Mr. Keyes:: Just as the Member mentioned that one day he would like to speak to us in English, I too would very soon like to address him in French.
I too worked very hard in my constituency and here in Ottawa during the three-month recess. How was your trip to France?
I wonder if the Member would give me an explanation or outline his attitudes on taxes directed toward music lessons. Would you favour such an idea or oppose such an idea?


Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is clearly premature. The government is currently examining, with courage and firm resolve, means of reducing the deficit; in this respect, I must say that I am not the Minister of Finance. Have the courage to ask the question to the appropriate Minister!
As for my trips, Mr. Speaker, I am quite comfortable in speaking about them, and I even gave a half-hour interview on that very subject the other day. I believe it is important that our constituents know that, within our duties as Members of Parliament, there is also Canada's
April 7, 1989

place on the international scene that must be taken into account.
Therefore, I am not ashamed to have been on that trip, I went to Geneva, to the Human Rights Commission, with the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). And like him, I added on a few days for visits, and I believe this was quite appropriate; and I am sure that the Hon. Member would be the last to blame me for that.


Lloyd Axworthy: In
rising for debate on the Throne Speech, I must change gears. Normally the opening days of a session on the Throne Speech are akin to spring training in baseball. You are there to warm up the arm, get your pitchers in place, get your legs in shape, and begin preparing for the real competition. The real battle will begin once you head into the major leagues.
Unfortunately in this debate, a disturbing, disquieting element has been introduced. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke yesterday on his view of the Constitution, his attitude toward the protection of rights in this country. No Canadian and no Member of Parliament can let lie the assertions and the derogation of prime ministerial responsibility that we heard yesterday. We cannot allow a statement of that sort to lie without a response. It would be the first time in the history of this country that the First Minister of this nation, charged with the responsibility of being the protector of the fundamental laws of this land, describes them as being worthless. It is incredible and beyond belief that the steward who is responsible for giving inspiration to school children, men and women, and to all citizens about respect for the law, about an acceptance and a toleration for the constitutional framework that we have, can be so cavalier and callous in his dismissal of it. It is a remarkable and unprecedented intervention by the Prime Minister of this country. I hope we will never see it again.
The Prime Minister has done a great disservice to all Canadians for purely crass, political, partisan reasons. He has regurgitated that strange streak of revenge that is embodied in his soul in an effort to get back at the previous Prime Minister and the Liberals. He has to wreak his bile on somebody, so he tries to regurgitate history by saying Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals were responsible for some of the impasses that we now have in the constitutional development of this country. The fact that the Prime Minister will twist, turn, and distort history does not bother him a bit.
That type of assertion has been false and is irresponsible. I think all Members of Parliament should use this
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
opportunity of the Throne Speech to remind the Prime Minister of his solemn oath of office, which is to defend the laws of this country, not to break them down and crash them to bits.
I want to take issue with the assertion the Prime Minister made. He attempted to demonstrate that the Government of which I was a member was itself responsible for undermining national unity by introducing and passing in this Parliament the ratification of the new Constitution in 1981 and 1982. What an incredible, silly, stupid assertion to make.
As the Prime Minister well knows, that was an historical moment. One of the great attributes of great politicians, of which he is not, is to seize the moment. Fortunately, we had a Prime Minister who understood how to seize the moment. Mr. Trudeau saw that convergence of events, that may not occur in this country for another 100 years, come together with a change to repatriate and restore our Constitution into Canadian control and to provide Canadians with a Charter of Rights that has become one of the most important documents in the history of Canada.
If you read the legal, judicial and constitutional experts, they say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reflects the new reality of Canada. It reflects the new rights, powers and privileges that have been denied women for so long. It gives expression to the multicultural character of this country. This is a document written in the 1980s, not 100 years ago. It gives expression to a new sense of rights of aboriginal people that have been denied for so long. Each of the articles in that charter are now in front of the courts across this country. They are being tested by lawyers to demonstrate how we can broaden, expand, elaborate and shape the law. To say the Constitution means nothing, that it is not worth the paper it is written on, is a total denial of what is taking place in a dynamic and effervescent way in this country. In Family Courts, Juvenile Courts or Supreme Courts of this country, cases are being heard based upon that Charter.
The Prime Minister says that because we had to agree to the "notwithstanding clause" somehow the Constitution is worthless. Well, I say to you for all the many Canadians who feel that the Charter is their endowment and the ratification of their rightful place in Canadian society, the words of the Prime Minister will sound hollow and sour in their ears.
Mr. Speaker, even on the notwithstanding clause, let us look at a little bit of the history. I do not want to regurgitate but I want to say something very clearly.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
There was one reason only why the previous Liberal Government accepted a notwithstanding clause. That was because Premiers of provinces, including Conservative Premiers-the Sterling Lyons and the Peter Lougheeds of this world-would not allow any constitutional development to take place unless they got that clause. It was an expression of that virulent provincialism that is so much alive in this country today, where we are fragmenting the country into pieces. That is the reason.
There was nothing in the original proposal by the Liberal Government, by Mr. Trudeau, by Mr. Chretien, by the Cabinet of the country, by the Parliamentary assembly. It was clearly an unequivocal condition of approval heaped upon us by a group of provincial Premiers, who have a very different concept of Canada and a very different view of how this country should be governed. They did not believe in the supremacy of the individual and that at the base of all law should be individual rights. They said no. The collective rights of a provincial majority in our assemblies takes precedence.
I understand that. That is, in a sense, the traditional kind of Conservative theology. It represents that societies are organized around groups, regions or collectivities, not around individuals. He was joined by the New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan who shared that view. That is why we are so different from the other two parties. It is because we have put as the basic premise of everything the sacred democracy, the right of the individual. But that was challenged by provincial Premiers.
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) laughs about that.


Mr. Thacker:: Did the National Energy Program support the individual?


Lloyd Axworthy: He laughs about the rights of individuals. He laughs about the fact that it was his own colleague, Peter Lougheed from the Province of Alberta, supported by the Member from Lethbridge who insisted upon the notwithstanding clause.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Did the National Energy Program support the individual?


Lloyd Axworthy: If anybody is responsible, it is the Member from Lethbridge.
It is not sufficient to have Members of the Conservative Party try to cover up their own calumny of several years ago by now having their Prime Minister get up ranting and raving about the iniquity of the notwithstanding clause. Like the Soviets did when they took over, they are trying to rewrite history. We have across
from us our own example of that kind of re-interpretation of fundamental fact.
The important point is not who was responsible. What is important is that it is there and it has been used in a way to suppress individual rights. Surely that is the real lesson that has to be learned. Surely the responsibility is not upon the Government of Canada to change that. The fact of the matter is that when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) had that opportunity behind the closed doors of Meech Lake, he did not use it. He did not even bother to raise it.


An hon. Member:: He did not think it was a problem.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right! At that time I did not hear the Prime Minister saying anything about that when he came before the House of Commons. We listened very carefully when he spoke about his Constitutional proposals. I heard nothing about the notwithstanding clause. Liberals raised it. Our Justice critic raised it. Our Leader raised it and said that should be part of the package. We introduced it as part of the amendments. I ask this: it is not too difficult a question. Even a Conservative Member of Parliament could understand it. If it was such a big problem, if it was such a terrible sin, if it was such a horrible smirch on the honour of Canada, then when we brought in the amendment why did not the Prime Minister and his colleagues agree to it? Why did they vote against it? It would not have been hard to do.
I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday and today he was in high dudgeon. High dudgeon is okay after the fact. But when he had the chance, where was he? I know where he was. I know where the Prime Minister was. He was not dealing with it at that point because he was trying to make a deal.
We see it as a problem, Mr. Speaker. We want it changed. We think it is very important for the operation of federalism to make that change. When our Leader spoke in the Throne Speech debate, again it was a question of trying to solicit from the Prime Minister a clear statement, not a high roll of anger but a clear statement.
My colleagues and I remember very well the period of this assembly just before Christmas when the issue emerged because of the Premier of Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause. We had the then Secretary of State sneaking behind the curtains rushing out to give little press conferences for the Quebec press saying he thought it was a good idea while the Prime Minister was in here saying he did not think it was a good idea. We could never get the two of them to agree as to who was right. The only good thing I can say about having the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. L. Bouchard)
April 7, 1989

in his existing portfolio is that he is no longer the Secretary of State. He is no longer responsible for defending minority rights. What a paltry record he had in that position.
The Conservatives are the Government and we want to know. Even after all this time it is hard for them to recognize their responsibilities. When you start out not believing in Government, it is kind of hard to recognize its importance. But the Conservatives are in Government and they must take responsibility. It is pretty easy to end this debate. All the Prime Minister has to do is say "Okay, let us get this House of Commons together and come to an agreement on how we get rid of this clause". He does not have to dance around in his Gucci shoes. He does not have to jump up and down in anger and push and shove and yell and scream. All he has to do is say "Let us get the Commons together and do it". We are on side. The New Democrats are on side. I say to the Prime Minister wherever he may be, whichever watering hole he may be in at this moment, let him sort of decide what he is prepared to do.


Mr. Corbeil:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Minister of Labour (M. Corbeil) on a point of order.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this characterization of the Prime Minister is in order in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think that the Hon. Member from Winnipeg-South-Centre knows the Rules.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is not here, I suppose I must send him an invitation to get a response to my proposed solution on the notwithstanding clause.

Before I conclude, I think it is also important that this kind of shell game come to an end. I thought after getting a second mandate we would have a somewhat different kind of Prime Minister. I thought maybe we would get someone a little more honest and straightforward. He is now a world's statesman. He has turned the Government of Canada into a travel agency to arrange his world tours. I thought maybe this time we would get things a little more in order and that when we got the Throne Speech maybe we would get some straight facts. Again, I listened to the speech yesterday. Was it a whopper. You should have heard the things the Prime Minister was saying, Mr. Speaker, about why the economy was going wrong and why we have to get the deficit down.
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
I had the occasion to pick out a speech that was given by the present Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. It is fascinating to note what he said in 1984 and what he is saying now. In 1984 he said that "one of the reasons this Liberal Government is so terrible is that there is a flight of capital from Canada. That is what is driving interest rates up". He went on to say, "There is a flight of job creating capital". He said $17 billion has left the country. "As a result, this huge equity outflow is forcing the dollar down and interest rates up and we must do something about it".
Is it not true that last year some $30 billion left Canada? It is almost double under the Tory regime as to what it was under the Liberal regime. I did not hear the Prime Minister talk of that. I did not hear him talking about the reason for the flight of capital is because he has lost control over the whole question of foreign investment.
Then we come to the great matter of the deficit. Was he mad in 1984. You should have heard him. "Those Liberals, and the debt has reached $180 million". That is what he said as the Tory Leader of the Opposition in 1984. In 1988, it is $340 billion. As long as this this debtor's spiral continues, long-term interest rates will not be coming down. What was true in 1984 is true in 1988, and we had better do something about it. I did not hear the Prime Minister attribute those types of causes.
Here is an another titbit. This is the Prime Minister of research and development. He is the one who states that high technology is going to make the day. Back in 1984 he stated that the present rate of spending was terrible because only 1.3 per cent of GDP was spent on R and D. After five years of Conservative Government, it is now
1.2	per cent. We are even falling behind.
When one looks at the cut-backs in all the departments, one has to ask where was the Prime Minister when he should have been reading his 1984 speeches? I am going to send this speech to him, Mr. Speaker. This would be an awfully good speech for 1988. We only have to upgrade those figures. We only have to double the figures on the deficit, double the figures on the interest rates, and send him the speech. The only problems are his solutions, and that is where we always come a little bit of a cropper.
Tories are not very good at solutions. They do not know how to use Government very well. They do not have an understanding of the public sector. They do not have a sense of its capacity or ability to serve Canadians. We know how the Government serves its friends, but we are not so sure how it serves the rest of the country, which represents 99.9 per cent.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
Unfortunately, when one refers to the Throne Speech, I guess we can say that the masquerade is over. The charade has come to an end. We no longer have those Tories talking about themselves as being Progressive Conservatives. Now we have the real agenda. Now we have the hard-rock, neo-conservative, put-it-to-them, jackboot philosophy that we knew was there all the time.
We have a Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) who in her brief tenure in office has made Margaret Thatcher look like Mother Theresa in terms of compassion and caring. We have a Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) who drops so many messes that I feel I should take a newspaper into the House and swat him on the nose every day to clean up those messes. He does not have an understanding of his portfolio.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the highly respected senior statesman of the party, is now hiding behind the desk because his brave promises of saving VIA Rail for western Canada are now going on the cutting room floor of the Treasury Board. The Government is betraying itself.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) has finally climbed out of his bathtub and is now preparing to do the same in the health and welfare field that he did in the area of defence, that is, to resurrect the cold war. This time it is not a cold war against Russia. It is going to be a cold war against poor people, aging people, and all those others who look toward Government for some kind of survival.
I tried to find a way of describing the Throne Speech. My vocabulary was not sufficient. I went to the new Oxford Dictionary and found the interesting word "entropy". It means lack of judgment, lack of guidance, chaos, no planning, no direction, no path. That is a good way of describing what we have. However, underneath it is that mean-spirited sense that the Government is not there to try to provide a sense of direction, a feeling amongst Canadians that they can rely upon a Government that will respond. There is a sense of a Government that carries a blind eye to the reality of the world. It does not care about the takeovers, acquisitions, and restructuring of our economy. It gives two lines to foreign policy. There are enormous things happening in the world. Disarmament and arms control are becoming one of the great opportunities of our time.
I spent a little time becoming acquainted with the area of international trade. The Government talks about our
new opportunities in Europe and Asia. The Free Trade Agreement with the United States gets a passing mention. Now the Government is talking about Europe and Asia and how we are going to do great things there. It does not mention that in the last couple of years it has cut back all the expenditures on trade development, trade promotion, and trade fairs.
Our current accounts are falling. In 1985 we had a $900 million surplus with the United Kingdom. Now it is a $3.1 billion deficit. In 1985 we had a $327 million surplus with European trading companies. Now it is a $4 billion deficit. We are falling behind in every area of the world. At the same time, the Government is cutting expenditures to help small and medium-sized business to provide promotion and development of trade opportunities around the world.
Once again this document is exposed as being a totally fallacious accounting. It does not deal with reality. It deals with the fact that the Government is going to squeeze, pummel, and inflict pain upon the Canadian people for its own incompetence, mismanagement, and flagrancy. The message of the Throne Speech is that someone has to pay the price for Tory incompetence. The Official Opposition will not let the Government get away without telling the people of Canada exactly what is going on in the House of Commons.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the Hon. Member's remarks he referred to the deficit and, of course, that was one of the matters referred to in the Speech from the Throne. It has been drawn to my attention that, in The Toronto Star of March 21, a member of the Hon. Member's party, and I believe the financial critic for the party, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren), was quoted as saying:
The federal deficit could be reduced by taxing back family allowance and old security payments from those who don't need them, the new Liberal finance critic suggests . . .if the Conservatives dare touch such programs directly the move will be attacked by the Liberals and blamed on free trade, even if the trade deal isn't to blame.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, he stated:
But drastic action-possibly including both tax increases and spending cuts-is needed to cut the federal deficit. . .
Could the Hon. Member tell me if he agrees with the statements of the finance critic of his own party? Is it the official policy of the Liberal Party, as outlined by the finance critic, that the deficit should be reduced both by expenditure cuts and by tax increases?
April 7, 1989


Lloyd Axworthy: I am pleased to answer that question. The critic for finance in our caucus has a very difficult job trying to explain or understand Conservative policy. The only expression that we have heard from the Minister of Finance in the last several months is his declaration that Canada is now in the same category as Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela. He was not prepared to talk to the press and tell them exactly what was going on. Our finance critic, who is a man of enormous generosity, compassion and understanding felt that it was important to outline to Canadians, by way of the interview, what type of options the Tories are considering.
That is all he said in looking at this hokum that is now being told about the deficit. Part of the problem is that we can never get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the country long enough to tell us what is going on. I guess he got his frequent flyer points from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and as a result he is part of that world-wide network that the Tory Party is now engaged in. Our critic of finance stays home, and as a result he was simply trying to provide an important public service by outlining to Canadians what types of terrible Draconian options the Tories were going to be putting forward as part of their deficit reduction measures.
As a result, Canadians are more alerted and now understand what uncivil and deliberate tactics have been followed in this deficit game that the Government is playing. I think the Hon. Member, before he became a member of the bench, used to have a certain reputation for honesty and would appreciate the fact that our critic for finance is now saying something that he himself probably would have liked to have said.


John Horton McDermid: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that if the records were checked over the first mandate of this Government, they would clearly show that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was in this House a lot more than the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: On questions and comments the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett).


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Hon. Member who spoke in the context of his own history and experience in this Chamber. I want to frame
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
it with as much generosity as possible. I want to ask him what worthy cause was served by the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday in terms of nation building. What was the intent of making that type of attack on the Constitution when the framework of Canada was under severe attack and it called for a consensus of all political leaders?
At that particular time-not that I am in defence of the Liberal Party-there was statecraft taking place in the construction of a Constitution that would have not solved every problem. One of the decisions was to include the notwithstanding clause at the insistence of two very right wing provincial Premiers, as well as the Premier of Saskatchewan. It was resisted by the then Leader of the Opposition who later became the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
I put this question to the Hon. Member. What is the mischief that is intended here? We understand that the Prime Minister can kick the Opposition, kick the New Democratic Party, but to attack the former Tory Prime Minister who agreed to that compromise is some kind of mischief that spells another agenda.
I ask the Hon. Member who has more experience at these higher levels of Government to explain to me what kind of Machiavellian reason would inspire the Prime Minister to lower himself to that kind of irrational debate, dragging out arguments from the past that add nothing to positive nation building? Was it the purpose of attacking his own colleague sitting next to him? Or is he moving ground away from the position that he has entrapped himself in dealing with Quebec today?
We have real serious problems in the country. They call for some leadership, thought, prudence, caution and wisdom. We did not see any of that yesterday. The Hon. Member has been here a long time. Has he seen that kind of performance before from a person who sits in that seat? I did not expect it, neither did editorialists. Perhaps the Hon. Member could explain to me what the real motivation of that absurd attack yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, after the Hon. Member's assertion with respect to my time in the House and my long experience I feel I should apply for my old age pension.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. G. Turner
First, I believe that matters such as this are so fundamental that the kind of performance we saw yesterday is of no service to anyone. I would not want to attribute any undue motivation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The fact that he may have certain historical reasons for differing with his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), on fundamental matters is in the public record. Who am I to say that history is now repeating itself?
What I want to say is this. I expect better from a Prime Minister of Canada, especially this Prime Minister. One of his attributes that I did admire-there are not many but there is one I did admire-was illustrated when he came to this House. We were at that time dealing with the very difficult issue of French language rights in Manitoba, based upon the Supreme Court decision. I presented a resolution on behalf of our Party in terms of urging the Province of Manitoba to agree with the decision, to go along with it. The newly arrived Leader of the Opposition made a very eloquent, very strong, very provocative and important statement supporting that resolution. He gave a real sense of the protection of rights across Canada. I think we all admired and respected the statement at that time.
I want to know this: If he could say it in 1984, where was he in 1989? Why the change? Why the retreat? Is it because it is a different province? Is it because it is a different region? I do not know. The fact of the matter is he had a precedent. He had shown his capacity to understand a sense of nation building. What we have seen since does not give me much confidence about what he is doing now. That statement yesterday has set this country back another 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the last question and comment the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Edmonton Southeast.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that in 1973 when the Member from British Columbia was briefly Premier of British Columbia he was asking that the entire Canadian oil industry be nationalized. The Member from Fort Garry was supporting the National Energy Program. So let us talk about walking your talk, to the Member from Fort Gariy.
When he left office the deficit was $38 billion. I am told, and I hope he will contradict me, that when he left office, Mr. Speaker, he had 90 men and women from the Department of Transport, his Department, working on
his ministerial staff. If I am wrong, he will tell me how many he did have doing that. I regard that as being a gross abuse of ministerial office.
What we are talking about today is walking your talk. I put it that nobody is in a worse position than the Hon. Member who just spoke, and his companion, his petit copain ici, a cote to discuss this subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would correct the response by pointing out that in 1973 this nation was in an energy crisis. I said British Columbia would take a pan-Canadian position and share our oil and gas with all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate.


David Barrett: Just to correct the record, I said that we would share the oil and gas with all Canadians-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we will resume debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, may I make a response?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will have a short answer from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre and then we will resume debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much your generosity. I will just give the Hon. Member a very quick answer.
I have had occasion to briefly thumb through the Hon. Member's book-it does not take much more than a brief thumb through. The fact of the matter is something caught my eye. It was the enormous condemnation of his own Government's efforts in western Canada.
I would remind him that when I was Minister of Transport that Department introduced the modernization of the railways, brought $9 billion worth of investments into that region and signed ERDA agreements worth $2 billion-none of which has been repeated by his own Government. I say to him that if that was worth 90 people working, then they had better get 180 people working.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be taking part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, as it is a privilege to sit in this House. Our debate here centres around Canada's obvious problems, around our national goals, around the Government agenda and the future.
April 7, 1989

The Throne Speech touched on many areas but those which impressed me most were, first, the crying need for fiscal responsibility in the country, to really tackle our budget deficit and our national debt. I was also struck by the words of caring about the environment in the Throne Speech. I thought that was really a pivotal part in it. Perhaps this is our greatest responsibility to the future. I was certainly struck as well by comments on reforming the tax system. I think that Canadians really want us to work toward a fairer tax system in general.
Before I comment on some of those areas, I would like to say a couple of words about politics and partisanship. Some issues are simply too important for politics and for party positions. For example, I think environmental concerns should rise above politics. I also think that in many ways economics should rise above politics. In both of these instances we are talking about something fragile and wonderful, that is, the future. For example, if we poison our waters, pollute our air, our soil and our earth, then it is those who come after us who will really suffer. It is the same with our economy. If we indebt our land, if we bankrupt our children, the same will happen. If we indebt ourselves to foreign lenders, then it is not our generation that suffers immediately, but the generations which come after us.
These are clearly not Conservative problems, nor Liberal problems. They are not New Democratic problems. They are all of our problems. I think the Speech from the Throne indicated that the government is going to make reducing the deficit a national priority, and I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I stand 100 per cent behind that objective. I feel the Minister of Finance is most responsible in throwing every effort into cutting down the amount we are forced to borrow to run Canada.
Politicians have been too reluctant to talk about our finances. Maybe some of them do not understand. Maybe some of them do not care. Maybe others thought Canadians were not concerned about who pays the bills and how. Maybe the polsters told the politicians that talk about deficits is not sexy with taxpayers, and so politicians have not really been talking about Canada's dirty little economic secret, but it is clearly too late to pretend that it does not exist.
We have a national debt of $325 billion. Every year it costs us close to $30 billion just to pay the interest on that existing debt. Now the taxes that Canada collects are basically enough to support the expenditures that the government makes, but we do not have close to the $30
The Address-Mr. G. Turner
billion it that it takes to service that debt. So we borrow it, and every year that we borrow, our debt increases that much further. That is why we have a deficit. It is the interest payment on the debt.
It means every hour, every day, our country falls deeper into debt, and during the few minutes I am going to be standing here, Canada will fall into debt by another $1 million. Today alone, Friday, April 7, our country will be $18 million more indebted than it was at the end of the day yesterday. At the end of this year, our country will be thirty thousand million dollars more in debt than it was last year.
If we ran a business that way, the business would be bankrupt. If your family handled its finances that way, the family would be insolvent, homeless and penniless, and yet here is Canada living on borrowed money and borrowed time, and only now have we really started to talk about getting it back on track.
So I say that it is not a partisan problem. It is simply a tragic problem that we all need to address. I do not think that Canada should run deficits, and I do not think that deficits are anything more than deferred taxation. Deferred from where? Well, from future generations. Deficits are the economic equivalent of toxic pollution of the environment. They are like cutting down rain forests, like polluting water, like pumping sulphur into the atmosphere.
Deficits are irresponsible because they pollute the future. Deficits bring debt, and debt will kill Canada. It is just that simple. Debt will impair our ability to set our own interest rates for example. Debt will ensure that taxes will forever rise, and the middle class as a result will slowly be wiped out. Debts also put our social programs at risk. These deficits that we are running simply represent a transfer of wealth from one generation to the next, from the future generation to ours.
As the Finance Minister has said, it is time to be building for the future and not borrowing from it. So what are we going to do about it?
The Speech from the Throne started to pave the way, and that is why I support it. It paves the way for the Finance Minister to bring in a budget on April 27, which will be responsible and tough and which will do the right things. Doubtless there will be special interest groups and critics who will howl on budget night. But I would like to ask, who among us would be Finance Minister on that night? Who has the courage to stand up and tell Canadians what to do? It takes guts for a politician to do that. It takes guts for a politician to promise people less instead of incessantly promising them more. It takes guts to stand here and tell Canadians they have to make

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. G. Turner
sacrifices, when life seems good and credit at the bank is easy to get, but it has got to be done. There is no choice.
Everyone is saying it. For example, the Chamber of Commerce did a survey the other day that found that only 9 per cent of Canadian businesses thought the Government had done enough to reduce the deficit. The International Monetary Fund, as we know, wants our Government to cut the deficit by $9 billion. If it does not, it warns that we are going to be incurring deficits well above $30 billion for quite some time.
Editorial writers from across the country have been urging the government to do something about it, do more, cut further, be more responsible. Business groups have been there at the bar urging us as well, and I will quote from a speech given the other day by the President of the Business Council for National Issues:
Interest payments on the national debt today add up to more than twice what is spent on our major elderly benefit programs combined. Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplements and Spouse Allowances are three times more than the federal government spends on all economic and regional development programs. Even more worrisome is the prospect of recession, saddled with large deficits and soaring debts of servicing costs, the capacity of the country to respond to a significant economic slow-down is alarmingly limited.
Yes, those are voices from the business community, voices of people who have studied the economics of the situation and who are frankly concerned about it, but the business people are not standing alone. Standing shoulder to shoulder with them are legions of ordinary people.
Over the last few days, Mr. Speaker, my office has been swamped with hundreds of letters from individual Canadians who are concerned about the defict and who want a strong message related to the Finance Minister.
I would like to quote just a couple of comments that have come in.
Linda Adshead of Mississauga, Ontario writes me:
During the last federal election, my two major concerns were the deficit and the future of our environment. I feel that if we do not get these things under control, we will not have a country to worry about. The deficit has been a concern of mine for many years. It is now out of control, and something has to be done about it now.
Pat Kenler of Whitby, Ontario writes me:
The massive debt which the people of this country must support is overwhelming. When the budget is brought down in April, drastic spending cut-backs must be enforced. I am truly concerned about my future as a Canadian. I agree we should promote patriotism where Canadians should stop bitching about what the government does for them. We are in a country so vast, so full of resources that there is opportunity for everyone. Please cut back on all the money that is handed to people to get their vote.
Helen Gordon of Mono Mills, Ontario writes me:
The situation is as grave as the great depression. What should be done? First of all, action by all citizens, politicians, corporations, bureaucrats. Governments must reduce spending. Citizens will have to pay more taxes as do corporations. Lobbyists will have to reduce, if not eliminate, grandiose ideas of government grants for everything. Citizens will have to realize they cannot have it all. National support programs will have to be monitored and reduced to within operable range. Full co-operation from all aspects of society demands a tough attitude. This will not be easy. We have had it that way for too long. The time of decision is at hand.
Mrs. Penny of Mississauga, Ontario writes me:
I have reached the age of 60 and have watched with dismay our ever increasing spending and consequent debt. Everyone has been paid too much and lived beyond their means for the past 30 years. Shame and thrift used to be two very important words. We used to brag about how little we pay for something. Now all of us brag about how much we pay.
The Gaylord family of Campbellville, Ontario write me:
Mr. TUmer, we are prepared to help where we can. At J.F. Kennedy's exhortation is needed as a philosophy: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
Help us convince the majority in government that we need to reduce the deficit, that spending reductions are essential, that social programs need to be reviewed.
Lynn Schnitter of Stroud, Ontario, writes me:
I have read what you have written on the deficit. I looked at our five-year old son and I realized I must write to you now.
You see, I don't want our son growing up in a banana republic, nor do I want him to be part of a future USA north. We are trying hard to provide him with the financial security for our future and we are certainly not counting on our Canada pension for ourselves. We have swallowed personal sacrifices in the past and present and would do so again for the economic well-being not only of ourselves but for our country.
These are the voices of the people. It is not big business, not partisans, not politicians, just people. They know that deficits breed high interest rates. The people know that all we get is a vicious circle of more debt which threatens people further. It threatens their families, threatens their jobs and threatens our whole future.
April 7, 1989

We have a situation now that if deficits are not trimmed and debt is not refinanced, we will simply lose the ability to set our own interest rate policy. That will mean that homeownership will slip through the fingers of more and more Canadians as mortgage rates rise unchecked. It will make it harder for people to afford consumer and durable goods. That will ultimately result in the loss of jobs for thousands of Canadians. How long will we allow this to keep on?
Can we not say on April 27, when the Budget is brought in, that this is where Canada stands, this is where Canada says enough, from here on we manage events, we pay our own way. We are honest, we are upfront. We tell people what comes next. We ask for fairness for all. I think we can do it.
Between Confederation and Canada's Centennial in 1967, the country ran up $28 billion in debt. For that we built a transcontinental railway, we fought and won two world wars. But in the next 21 years we increased the national debt by 1,000 per cent, to the point where now we are one of the most indebted peoples on the face of the earth. At this rate it is only a matter of time before our whole national economy is threatened and we lose the ability to finance medicare, social programs, health, education, and all the rest for which we have fought so hard.
Obviously in a situation like this the Government needs the help of everyone. In particular, the country needs the help of those of us in the House.
I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) this morning trying to make a similar point, that all of us share the responsibility for getting the country back on track. All of us know that the ultimate threat we faced to our spending programs is $30 billion a year in additional borrowing. That one thought alone should bring us above the partisan frame, and I hope it does.
The problem can only be solved if we act as responsible individuals, especially here. Instead of simply dumping by rote upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on April 27, it is my hope that all the words that are spoken in response to what he does are constructive and designed to help Canada. Nobody wants more taxes, especially me. I am probably one of the few Members of the House who has had the privilege in the past to be outside waving a sign in front of this Parliament, talking about exactly this, the issue of taxation. What we face now is a war for Canada's future. What the Throne Speech tells us is that we have a duty, simply, clearly, responsibly, to take action.
The Address-Mr. G. Turner
I would rather see billions of dollars more spent every year on caring for my parents in their old age, or caring for the environment for our children, than I would see those billions go to foreign lenders in Tokyo and New York.
My seat here in the House of Commons falls on an imaginary line running between government members and opposition Members. My greatest hope is that during this session we can reach across the imaginary lines, lay down the rhetoric, and do something right for Canada.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Halton-Peel (Mr. Turner) on his speech. He has thought a great deal about what he wanted to say in the House.
If he is to cut the social programs, does that mean he would tell not only the House but the caucus and his Ministers that he is not in favour of the universality of the programs we have now with regard to family allowances, old age pensions and medicare? Would he tell us his personal view on the Government's proposed expenditure on the nuclear submarines?


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I support a progressive tax system which effectively takes from those who do not require social assistance programs and social assistance payments, and returns it to the federal treasury. I think that is the fairest way of dealing with the situation at this particular time.
As far as the nuclear submarine program is concerned, the Government has a plan by which over the course of the next 25 years annual expenditures are roughly $300 million will be expended to finance the construction of the submarines. Certainly the defence policy White Paper clearly defines the need. If we do make the argument and believe that we should defend Canada, it clearly stated that that was the most effective way of doing it.
I think we must go beyond merely looking at that expenditure because the cuts that will be required for the additional revenues will be in the area of $5 billion to $7 billion. We need to go much further than that program.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the Hon. Member to the House and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I enjoyed his comments about the deficit. I remind the House that the accumulated deficit has in fact doubled in the last four or five years under the Government of which he is a part.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. G. Turner
During his analysis I believe he stated that deficits caused higher interest rates. Yet my observation in the last four or five years, while we were running up the first $38 billion annual deficit which the Conservative Government shared with the previous Liberal Government, followed by a series of $30 billion plus deficits, is that interest rates actually dropped because we permitted the Canadian dollar to drop. When we had a 68-cent dollar, we had relatively low interest rates. The Government, for some reason, seems to be instructing the-


John Horton McDermid: That is not right.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Yes, it is right. Check the data.


John Horton McDermid: Interest rates were about the same as they are today when the dollar was at 69 cents.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: If the Hon. Member will check, he will find that the interest rates have gone up nearly 4 per cent at a time when the dollar has gone up from 68 to about 83 or 84 cents.
The reason I raise it is that it seems the data do not fit with the theory generally abroad that deficits cause rising interest rates, and this is important for deficit cutters like the Hon. Member for Halton-Peel (Mr. Turner), because when the interest rate is kept down, that means that there is less cost in servicing that deficit. If we would go from a 12 per cent to an 8 per cent interest rate, for instance, rather than paying just over $30 billion a year in financing costs, that would drop to $20 billion and there would be an additional $10 billion for discretionary spending, or perhaps even a reduction of the accumulated deficit.
I was just wondering where the Hon. Member's analysis goes in that regard. Low interest rates and low dollars permit this country to continue to be a very valuable exporter and encourage the exports that helped us to maintain particularly the hinterland regions like mine.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to respond to that question, and I think it is well put by the Hon. Member.
In terms of interest rates, it would be clearly impossible for the Government to instruct the Bank of Canada merely to cause an across the board reduction in interest rates. That would simply send a negative signal to world markets and would result in a drop in our currency.
Ultimately, that would accelerate the problem by forcing us to re-examine our interest rate policy in order to rescue our currency. So I do not think that is an alternative.
I am sure the Hon. Member knows quite well the theory of supply and demand. When there is a great demand for a commodity, the price of it goes up. Simply put, the price of money is interest, and when there is great demand for the commodity of money, the price of money goes up. When a Government puts great demands on the capital markets, as a result we have competition for available funds and we do see interest rates rise as a result of that.
There is another element coming into play, of course. We do have an inflationary problem in Canada, particularly in central Canada. It is important for us to address and deal with that problem early on before it accelerates. We are in an economic situation now not unlike that of the late 1970s. It is important for us to put the brakes on the economy slowly, responsibly, before it runs away, and we have an inflation problem that takes double-digit interest rates to deal with. An ounce of cure now is much better than a pound of prevention later, and I fully support the Bank of Canada's policy.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the cost of the submarine program. It is my underscored understanding that Jane's Fighting Ships, the most authoritative document on this particular issue, has brought that cost in at some $20 million, substantially in excess of the Government's estimates. I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to comment on that.
I also wonder if the Hon. Member would like to comment on the fact that it is estimated that the vast majority of the technical work on these submarines will in fact be contracted abroad; in other words, that there will really be no industrial offsets or benefits to Canada apart from rather rudimentary steelwork.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will not presume to answer for my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight), and I think that that question should rightfully be directed to him at Question Period.
All I can say is that Jane's Fighting Ships is not an agency of the federal Government and I doubt it has more inside information than those who prepared our estimates, but I would ask that the Hon. Member direct that question to the Defence Minister.
April 7, 1989


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to take part in the debate on the second Throne Speech of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament. Some people may assume we are talking about the inaugural speech, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the case. In fact, we had a very short session before Christmas to accommodate the agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and his U.S. counterpart, the President of the United States.
I must say that I regret the outcome of the first session. I regret that the Canadian Government, despite our efforts to convince them that they were on the wrong track, nevertheless decided to ratify this Free Trade Agreement which in both the short and long term will be harmful to Canada's economy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking this opportunity to thank the people of the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for their tremendous support during the last election campaign. I am particularly thankful, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents decided to ask me to sit for a second term in this Chamber, and that they did so by giving me a vast majority, nearly 26,000 votes more than my nearest opponent. I am very thankful, and hope that during the next four or five years, I will be able to fulfil the duties attached to a mandate I was given with such an impressive majority.

The riding that I represent is indeed a very special one. I am sure that each MP thinks that the constituency he or she represents is the nicest, and it is after the one that I represent. We are probably all correct, of course.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Glengarry, of course, is the home of the first Premier of the Province of Ontario, Sir John Sandfield MacDonald. It is also the birthplace of the United Empire Loyalist movement, and it is, of course, a very, very special place in the hearts and minds of many Canadians.
Indeed, the Scottish tradition of Glengarry is still alive and well and there are still the occasional Glengarrian who can still speak Gaelic, although there are few of them left.

In Prescott County, however, which is quite different from the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, most of my constituents are Francophones. For instance, Longueuil Township, which is located in Prescott
The Address-Mr. Boudria
County, was known as the Seigneurie de Longueuil before the Constitution Act of 1791. At the time part of New France, it is now part of the electoral district I have the honour and the privilege of representing.

The County of Russell is different again from the two others. It is near the City of Ottawa. It is the area which is perhaps the closest to me for it is near that part of the riding in which I live. I live in the Township of Cumberland in Ottawa-Carleton near Russell County. I consider myself to be a resident of that area, an area where I have spent all of my life.
I also represent a very small portion of Stormont County, namely the Island of Cornwall in which we have the Akwasasne Indian community, a people who are very, very proud but have had considerable difficulty in functioning in an area which is part of Ontario, part of Quebec and part of New York State, all within the same community.
This difficulty has been with us for some time and successive Governments have failed, in my view, to assist the residents of Akwasasne properly. It is my hope that during the next few years, together, we in this Parliament can work constructively to assist the people of Akwasasne. If we succeed, perhaps some day the people of Akwasasne will exercise their right to the franchise. No one in Akwesasne voted in the last election, period. No one voted in the previous election or ever before that. There is one instance where one person voted in Akwesasne in the 1950s, and he was chased away from the community for having done so. That is a sad reflection on our inability to help those people. If we in this Parliament could ever convince them to do otherwise, then it would be a great day. If we could convince them to vote, it means that we will have earned that respect from that which we have failed to do thus far.
Mr. Speaker, the main themes of the Throne Speech are as follows: The Prime Minister favours (1) a strong economy; (2) protection of the environment; (3) he wants Canada to continue to be a caring nation; and (4) he wants to promote the values of Canadian citizenship. Those were the four main themes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address them one by one and give you my impressions on these themes, not as isolated concepts but in terms of the Conservative Government's past record and any action we will see in the future.

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Boudria

This Government, during the last election campaign, accused the opposition Parties of making commitments which they said were not in the best interests of Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) chastised the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and told him he was making promises he should not be making. Some very astute people in the media said to the Prime Minister: "Haven't you made promises?" "Oh, no," said the Prime Minister, "that is not the same. When I make promises, they are not really promises. They are commitments. We already have all that money in the Budget. We already have all that money in the Estimates, and of course we will deliver on everything we have committed to".
There are rumblings across the way that not only will they not be delivering on those promises, but they will cut back on what Canadians have already. For instance, the constituency I represent and the one represented by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Kilger), are served by VIA Rail. It is very important for our area. We are now hearing that there will be severe cut-backs, if not a total shut-down of that Crown corporation, at a time when the service is being more and more utilized by the Canadian public. There has been an increase in use in the last 12 months at VIA Rail of in excess of 10 per cent. If we did not have a VIA Rail, we would probably be planning to build one right now. Of course we would want it better than the way it is working. That is true of most things, but that does not mean that we should be shutting it down at the time that we are now.
Let us look at what the Government was promising to Canadians in the period between May 30 and September 30, 1988-1 am sorry, I should retract that, the commitments that the Conservative Government of Canada was making, because we have been told by the Prime Minister, and we would never want to contradict him, that they are not promises but commitments.
On May 30 in Ottawa, the Minister responsible for multiculturalism promised $62 million of funding for multiculturalism over five years. I am waiting to see whether that will stay in the Budget.
On May 31 in Calgary, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) promised $12 million for the emergency drought relief program for prairie farmers. We all know how poorly that program is being administered.
On June 3, 1988, in Montreal the Prime Minister promised $110 million for clean up of the St. Lawrence.
On June 7 in Ottawa, the Minister of National Health and Welfare promised $40 million for victims of family violence.
On June 7, the Secretary of State at that time, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard), promised $1.4 billion federal funding for teaching and promotion of bilingualism. That is a bit much coming from that gentleman.
On June 8 in Winnipeg, the Minister of Health promised $129 million for an AIDS research program.
On June 9, the Prime Minister promised $515 million for economic development over five years in the Province of Quebec.
On June 14 in Alma, the Prime Minister-need I remind you what was happening around June 14 in the Alma/Lac-Saint-Jean area. A certain person flew across the ocean and descended upon Lac-Saint-Jean to come and give his presents to the area.


An Hon. Member:: Very expensive.


Don Boudria: Veiy expensive fellow, yes. The Prime Minister promised-


An Hon. Member:: He got re-elected.


Don Boudria: Listen closely across the way. We will ask questions later.
The Prime Minister promised $40 million to build a road from Lac-Saint-Jean to James Bay. What happened on June 16 in Alma, a long period afterwards, two days? The fact that we were in the middle of a by-election to elect the Prime Minister's friend to Parliament had nothing to do with this, and I would never be suspicious of that. On June 16, the friend in question, who was the candidate for the by-election, promised $1.5 million to establish a new youth employment centre in the riding he was running in at that time.
On June 20 in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Minister responsible for external trade promised $800 million as federal compensation for the callous closure of the Newfoundland railway.
April 7, 1989

On June 23 in Ottawa, the former Minister of Communications, who was soundly defeated by my learned colleague from Kingston and the Islands on November 21, had promised $250 million to support the Canadian film industry.
On June 23, the same Minister promised $35 million of extra funding for the CBC for future expansion.
On June 24, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), alias the Minister responsible for the Post Office, promised $1.6 million as a bail-out for the Consumers' Association of Canada.
This is all before the election just happened, too.


An Hon. Member:: There was no national debt then.


Don Boudria: There was no national debt. It was only in the area of $300 billion before the election. What's $300 billion?
Let me continue, because there is more.


An Hon. Member:: Pretty exciting.


Don Boudria: I know it is exciting but let me continue.
On June 25, the Minister for multiculturalism promised $900,000 for government advertising. I know that is hard to believe, government advertising.
On June 26 in British Columbia, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans awarded a $1.8 million contract to carry out research.
On June 27, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs announced $5 million to establish a national review board to monitor Canada Post.
On June 27, the Minister of Agriculture, together with his colleague from Nova Scotia, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), announced a $30 million federal government program to assist Nova Scotia agriculture.
On June 28, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced $38 million in duty remissions to those poor fellows at Goodyear.
On June 29 in Ottawa, the Minister responsible for regional industrial expansion announced $7.2 million to establish international trade centres across Canada.
I could go on and on describing the millions and billions being spent. Let me give you another example where money was spent.


An Hon. Member:: Committed.
The Address-Mr. Boudria


Don Boudria: I am sorry, committed. I am sorry for that faux pas. I would never want to accuse the Tories of promising or otherwise spending. They are committing money, according to the vocabulary dictated to us by the great one himself, the Prime Minister.
I will go a little further and describe that on July 20, the amateur Minister of fitness and sports-no, I am sorry-the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sports-


An Hon. Member:: Captain steroid.


Don Boudria: -promised $600 million in contracts over the next four years.
The then Minister of Defence on July 21 announced the purchase of 820 northern terrain all-weather vehicles. That is a cost of $420 million.
On July 21, the Minister of Health announced a program of $1 billion for day care. By the million and by the billion, all from a Government during an election campaign. It was telling us then that it had all that money in the budget, all that money in the Estimates. If it were true then, Mr. Speaker, what happened to the estimation process, I ask you, if right now we have to cut back? Our colleague from Halton was telling us a while ago we had to cut back. At that time he was a writer, probably criticizing some of these outrageous promises that were being made. I do not know what happened. As my distinguished colleagues behind me say, the Tories obviously peeled back on some of the commitments they had made.
Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech the federal Government said we must protect the environment. Saying so is easy. It's like saying we should like apple pie. Of course we do, and of course we should or at least most people will want to protect the environment. However, when we see that during the last Parliament, during the last four years, the Government cut back staff at the Department of the Environment and either made budget cuts or at any rate refused to increase the budget and votes for the Department of the Environment in proportion to the rate of inflation, how can we be expected to take the Conservative Government seriously? Mr. Speaker, not long ago I heard on the media that an organization in the United States was going to present a medal or some kind of award to the Prime Minister for what he has done for the environment. It is nice to see that some Conservative Members are applauding, since the same group that wants to congratulate the Prime Minister has some of the biggest polluters in North

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Boudria
America among its members who, last year, congratulated President Regan. Would you want to be associated with what Ronald Reagan did for the environment?


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Perhaps the Tory Member who just applauded would like that kind of association, but I wouldn't, Mr. Speaker. Not me.

The Prime Minister said in the Throne Speech in his thirteenth theme that we should be a generous society. It is hard to believe that the Prime Minister is serious about this issue of being a generous society. I know that not everyone will agree with me on the following topic, but in my opinion any society who fails after this length of time to have any kind of legislation to protect those least able to help themselves-I am speaking here of the unborn-can hardly call itself a generous society under anyone's definition.
I respectfully submit that the failure of the Government to commit itself to a law on abortion-and I know we do not all agree on what the law should contain but it even failed to state that it wanted to have a law-in my view is totally inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told us he wanted to promote the values of Canadian citizenship. How can we take this statement seriously, when during the last three months, the Government has been using Governor General's warrants instead of facing the House? How can we, when the Prime Minister himself repudiated the Constitution of our country in this very House yesterday? I ask Hon. Members opposite: How can we take these comments seriously?

In conclusion, I want to state that in eastern Ontario, outside the general area of the City of Ottawa proper, there still is considerable hardship and considerable unemployment. This Government has promised in the Throne Speech to have regional development programs for the Atlantic, for western Canada and for northern Ontario. All previous Governments had recognized that northern and eastern Ontario needed development. This particular Government has neglected the words "eastern Ontario". We, as Liberals, have 12 out of 14 seats in eastern Ontario. We refuse to subscribe to the doctrine
dictated to us by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). We want to stand up and we want our share for this part of our great country.
[Translation\
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like once more to thank my constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for the honour and privilege of representing them during another term.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am informed an incident is happening outside the House, and people inside are asked to remain here, even at 3 o'clock, until we can leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the last speaker's comments on government spending and the attitude of the Government toward its spending.
This leads me into another area near and dear to the hearts of westerners, particularly those in the Province of British Columbia, that of patronage contracts and the letting of procurements. In British Columbia, from 1984 through to 1988, procurement dropped from approximately 6 per cent to approximately 4 per cent, with British Columbians having approximately 11.5 per cent of the Canadian population. Given this inequitable situation, what is the position of the Hon. Member's Party with to the letting of government contracts? Will he encourage his Party and his Leader as a Member from British Columbia to encourage equity in the area of patronage contracts and in the area of letting government procurement contracts?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the Hon. Member for having missed the first few moments of his question. Our Deputy Whip informed me of the present unfortunate situation going on outside the Chamber, and I will leave that for the present moment. I do apologize. It was not that I did not want to pay attention to his question which is undoubtedly very important.
In the area of the awarding of contracts during the last Parliament and so far in this Parliament, I have been the Government's operations critic for our Party. One of the tasks for such a role in the last Parliament was to establish constructive criticism in awards of contracts, public sector ethics, lobbying legislation and so on, as policies for our Party.
April 7, 1989

Those were announced during the last Parliament. I was one of the people who contributed to the present lobbying legislation that we now have, which has not been promulgated yet, I do not think. At least it is not in effect at the present time, but we did adopt it as a Parliament during the last Parliament. I think it was a good effort in all-Party co-operation.
In terms of other public works and supply and service contracts, some measures have been improved over the last two or three years.
I think everyone will say-and even the Prime Minister acknowledged that particularly in the beginning of his mandate in 1984-85 or so-that there were considerable difficulties in the administration of that. I am not going to get into the activities that went on, the charges and so on that have occurred. Those are there on the public record.
I think what we have to do, and some of these things have taken place already, is to ensure that we lower the threshold which is utilized in order to determine what contract goes out for public tender. We need to enforce the regulations in so far as determining what the exceptions are to those tendering procedures. There are always emergencies when we have to call a plumber in the middle of the night to repair a facility, a boiler or a heating system. I think we all recognize that this kind of situation must continue. .
We must tighten up the rules as much as we can. We must also strengthen the conflict of laws that we have not only for Members of Parliament and cabinet Minister but for some of the senior civil servants as well. I think the stricter those rules the better they will be. Some people have said that stricter conflict of interest rules will discourage people from entering public office. 1 hold exactly the opposite view. In fact, hopefully the stricter the rules, the better the system will be. If the system is better, people will be more attracted to run for public office because it will enjoy a higher level of reputation than it does at certain unfortunate times right now.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: First, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words in this hour of debate that is coming to an end today on the Throne Speech. Also, I would like in the first place to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in Saint-Maurice for trusting me on November 21, 1988, when they elected me as their first Progressive Conservative MP in 97 years.
The Address-Mr. Pronovost
During the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, numerous references were made to all areas involving the environment, and my constituency has been very much in the headlines these last few days with the PCB spill from the Belgo plant in Shawinigan. People in my constituency have been very concerned, because this is the second toxic spill from that plant in three months and they have every reason to be disturbed. The Belgo plant in Shawinigan has been in breach of the environment laws on many occasions over these last few years, a fact that has surfaced a number of times.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I was very amazed during these last weeks to see how much the whole issue of the environment is an important one to people in my constituency and to Canadians from sea to sea.
I had the opportunity, pleasure and privilege to rise three times in this House in two days on the matter of the Saint-Maurice river pollution. I did some research to find out about the behaviour of the two Liberal Members who were my predecessors during the last 25 years.
To my great stupefaction, Mr. Speaker, and to the shame of my constituents, we have found that in 25 years of Liberal government, not once did these two Liberal Members, Mr. Chretien and Mr. Grondin, find a way to rise in this House to condemn the pollution and very deteriorated state of the Saint-Maurice river.
It was my pleasure to do so on three occasions in two days. And the constituents in Saint-Maurice wondered why Jean Chretien did not do that. Why did he not rise in this House during the 20 years he represented us here, why he did not do so? We understood why last year, Mr. Speaker, when Jean Chretien was elected to the board of Consolidated Bathurst. We are paying the price for 21 years of silence. Jean Chretien was rewarded for not saying a word in this House and for having let the Saint-Maurice river become one of the most polluted in Canada. Today, Mr. Speaker, pollutants are often spilled in the Saint-Maurice river. Consolidated Bathurst, Belgo Division, has never had any trouble with the federal government.
We now have a new Minister of the Environment (M. Lucien Bouchard), who will not be pushed around. The new Minister of the Environment is not afraid of Consolidated Bathurst. He has said in this House that if Consolidated Bathurst has broken the law, the Federal government will take legal proceedings. During 25 years of silence, never did Jean Chretien, who was Minister of Finance, who headed about every Department, never did Jean Chretien, with all his power and influence, dare say such a thing. The citizens of Saint-Maurice sure fixed his wagon along with that of his gang on November 21

April 7, 1989
The Address-Mr. Pronovost
last when the Liberal candidate finished third, behind the socialist candidate.
In a by-election held in my riding barely two years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal candidate got 65 percent of the vote. In two years, the Liberal Party in my riding, a so-called Liberal stronghold has fallen to 19 percent. And the next time, Mr. Speaker, he will lose his deposit!
The environment was a major issue during the election campaign. It was therefore conforting to see the Leader of the Opposition (M. Turner), contrary to the New Democrats for whom Quebec does not exist as far as pollution is concerned and who remained silent, rise in this House and, although he was a bit mixed up, pronounced for the first time in his life the name of the city of Shawinigan. He has been haunted by the city of
Shawiningan for the past four years! He nevertheless rose to ask a question about pollution in the Saint-Mau-rice River. However, the Leader of the Opposition does not know, Mr. Speaker, that the Saint-Maurice river is under provincial jurisdiction, that Consolidated Bathurst is a provincially chartered corporation. But the fact remains that, although this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, the Minister of the Environment has looked into the problem, into the whole issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 3 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.56 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 10, 1989