1989-04-05

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech the Government proclaims its support for sustainable development, but a commitment to implementing it at home and abroad is simply not there.
There is no commitment to implement sustainable development by way of reviewing budgets, programs and policies in key Departments such as energy, agriculture, fisheries, finance, forestry, regional development, transport, defence, northern development, international aid, science and technology. In addition, we learn the federal Government will only participate in the establishment of a Centre on Sustainable Development in Winnipeg, a retreat from the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) commitment last year to the UN General Assembly. There is not a word about climate warming, about energy policies, about integrating the economy with the environment.
We are afraid that the Government is preaching rather than practising, and prefers image over substance. Canadians believe that to pay lip service to the Brundtland Report is not good enough.


DISASTERS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, today in Camrose, Alberta, a small Prairie city of 16,000 persons, a memorial service will be held to bereave the untimely death of a young family of fine people.
Tony Deis, 35; his wife Marilyn, 34, and their three daughters, Amanda, 10, Jaclyn, 7, and Kimberly, 5, were all killed in a plane crash near Newport, California.
My home city is in shock. Local citizens are still trying to comprehend the magnitude of this unfortunate tragedy. This was a family with unusual talent who worked extensively for the betterment of their community. Everyone who met them thought of them as friends.
On this hollow and unhappy day, the citizens of Camrose grieve. May we, as a collective House of parliamentarians, take some time on this day to reflect on the sadness of this occasion and be reminded of the fragility of life.
Camrose and Canada have lost a family of extraordinary fine character. May we all share in the sorrow.


DUBIN INQUIRY-ACTION TAKEN BY ONTARIO TRACK AND FIELD ASSOCIATION
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that nothing be done to impede the Dubin Inquiry's pursuit of the truth about the use of banned substances in Canadian and international sport.
The Ontario Track and Field Association's action in withdrawing the records of athletes who have told the truth to the Dubin Inquiry is a blatant threat to the due process of the inquiry which was established with the support of all Parties in the House.
All Canadians, including the sports federations, must be told clearly and firmly by the Government that they are expected to co-operate fully with Mr. Justice Dubin and that they must wait until all the evidence is in and has been reported upon. To do otherwise will be treated by the Government and this House as intentional interference in the inquiry and a contempt of Parliament under whose legislation the inquiry was established.
I ask the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest) to step into this matter today. It is time the Minister got tough with sports groups that prejudge the inquiry and interfere with its work. We in this House will

April 5, 1989
not stand by and permit any Canadian sports federation to undermine the due process of this important review.


SPACE AGENCY
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure to present in this House the minutes of a meeting of members of the Outremont City Council held on Monday, April 3, 1989:
Whereas the City of Outremont is located at the centre of the Montreal region and is easily accessible;
Whereas the Ecole polytechnique, the Hautes etudes commerciales and the Universite de Montreal are located on Outremont's border and nearby are McGill University, Concordia University and UQAM (Universite du Quebec a Montreal)',
Whereas the City of Outremont and the surrounding municipalities, including the City of Montreal, have a considerable pool of technical and intellectual talent that can contribute to the work of the space agency;
Whereas many private companies that have acquired a great reputation in the field of space and communications are near the City of Outremont;
Therefore be it resolved:
That the Government of Canada be asked to establish the head office of the space agency in the City of Outremont;
That City Council supports the efforts that the Member of Parliament for Outremont intends to make to obtain a favourable decision in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, we are very quickly approaching the end of the century. In a few years, we will be in a new millennium.
We must prepare for our entry into a new century, a new millennium, if we want to oppose this crisis of excess. With this in mind, the space agency belongs in the city and constituency of Outremont, because life there has remained on a human scale. It is a suburban city on the slope of Mount Royal, in the geographic centre of the cities on the island, part of one of the most beautiful urban parks in Canada, a city where beauty and socio-cultural diversity come together and contribute to maintaining a personal quality of life.
Outremont has everything required to host the space agency and would be delighted to do so. We have become "modem" while continuing to value tradition-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but the Hon. Member's time has now expired.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations is in the process of sending to Namibia a UN observer force which includes 247 Canadians to supervise the withdrawal of South African troops and SWAPO from Namibia. Since last weekend, approximately 190 rebel troops and Namibian police have been killed in battle. This represents the heaviest fighting and the largest military incursion by guerrilla forces in the 23-year war between South Africa and SWAPO.
The South Africa Government has now demanded that the UN force, presently numbering 1,000 and including 65 Canadian personnel, take immediate action to prevent further SWAPO incursions and to enforce the peace agreement or it will abrogate the treaty and initiate its own military action. The security and safety of Canadian troops appears to be threatened by this dangerous escalation of the conflict.
I call on the Government to inform the House of the status of our peacekeeping force and to make clear what contingency plans it has to ensure the safety of our troops and to secure peace in Namibia.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the men and women who make half of Canada's clothes washing machines intend to go on making them for Canadians. Soon after the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal came into force, the Inglis Corporation, 70 per cent owned by Whirlpool in the U.S.A., announced that it will close its only washing machine factory located on Stra-chan Avenue in Trinity-Spadina. It plans to supply the Canadian market from its huge, newly equipped plant in Ohio.
April 5, 1989

Within days, 600 enthusiastic plant workers, members of Local 2900, United Steelworkers of America, declared they would mobilize to take over the plant and continue making washing machines for Canadians. Their union, which has carried through half a dozen successful worker buyouts in the United States, bringing moneylosing plants back to economic health, is convinced it can do that with the profitable Strachan Avenue enterprise.
Toronto's Mayor Eggleton has agreed to ask Toronto City Council to contribute to the cost of the feasibility study and protect the manufacturing zoning of the Strachan Avenue site. Canada's capitalists may be quitting but Canadian workers will take over.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1942 Japanese Canadians were uprooted from their homes, relocated, and interned in camps or deported, because of unrealistic fears and discrimination. On April 1, 40 years to the day that the Government of Canada restored full rights to Japanese Canadians, I attended a plaque unveiling ceremony commemorating their internment at the very site of the staging facility used in the 40s, the Pacific National Exhibition grounds in Vancouver.
The plaque, in English, French, and Japanese, follows up the Prime Minister's announcement last September of a redress settlement for Japanese Canadians. I would like to give special recognition to 88-year-old Reverend Canon Gordon Nakayama of the Diocese of New Westminster who, in a clear, strong voice, described what it was like in 1942 when he had to help comfort the Japanese Canadians who were being forcibly relocated. He then stated: "Now I think Canada is the best country in the world."


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few weeks, Canadian consumers have been
subjected to skyrocketing credit card interest rates. This is not the first time in the Government's history that consumers have suffered as a result of rising credit card interest rates. If the Government maintains its hands-off policy on this issue, it certainly will not be the last.
In March of 1987 recommendations proposed by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, together with the threat by the then Minister of State for Finance, the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Hockin), managed temporarily to lower the interest charge on unpaid credit card balances. Canadian consumers need a commitment from the Government that they will be adequately protected from the recurrence of rising interest rates in 1989. The Government must ensure that consumers are not victimized by these excessive fees.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the federal riding of Oxford which many colleagues will know is the daily capital of Canada. Both the dairy industiy and Canadians have benefited from a supply management system run by efficient provincial milk marketing boards. As a result, Canadians enjoy dairy products of the highest quality and at price increases well below the cost of living.
I would like to urge our Government and our GATT negotiating officials to resist very strenuously any movement to eliminate or compromise on Article XI of the agreement. In its present form and interpretation, Article XI does not consider domestic marketing boards as providing unfair advantage in international trade.
Further, Canada's milk supply management program which is the envy of many other countries contains the elements for ensuring that world markets are not oversupplied with low-priced dairy products. Thus, the focus of our participation at the GATT negotiations should be on agricultural export subsidies and not on Article XI and our own domestic supply system.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
April 5, 1989

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. We heard much ado about nothing in the Throne Speech regarding the Government's commitment to the environment. Yesterday in the House of Commons we heard more hollow assurances about the Canadian Government's contingency plan to clean up any possible results of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Yet we know from information from the Canadian Coast Guard that our Government's equipment is antiquated, out of date,and certainly not able to handle a similar spill of the size of the Exxon Valdez.
How can the Minister continue to plead his concern about the environment when his Government is so obviously unable to back it up with the facts, the dollars and the equipment to do the job?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environ-ment):: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to try to raise false alarms. It is another thing to look at the real facts.
The real facts are that this Government and all the resources of the involved Departments stand ready to step in if the improbable arrival of the oil would happen. We have activated our contingency plans. We have hundreds of people on alert. We have stockpiles of equipment ready to be used, so there is no reason to be alarmed.
Furthermore, there is another reason not to be alarmed. According to our information and our close monitoring of the movement of the oil, it is absolutely- well, very highly, almost absolutely impossible for the oil to come down to Canada. We all know that the spill is located now, as it was 11 days ago, at about 1,000 kilometres from the coastal border of the U.S. and Canada, and we know that the movement of the spill has been constantly in a westerly direction toward the open ocean. This has been confirmed this morning by an independent UBC scientist, and our own government scientists have an international reputation.
There is no reason to try to alarm Canadians. This being said, it is absolutely our duty, all of us, to check and to verify if our control traffic systems and response capabilities are able to cope with something improbable that could happen.


VALDEZ OIL SPILL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, there is a simple principle that the Canadian people understand even if the Minister of the Environment does not, and that is that what goes out must come in. It is ridiculous to suggest that an oil spill of the magnitude-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -of the Valdez is not going to affect-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Government may consider this a joke but I am sure thousands of people who live on the coast of British Columbia whose livelihood depends on the fisheries and the other industries do not consider this a joke.
As we speak, Exxon, which has hardly been a good corporate citizen, is in the process of floating the Valdez. The oil has not been completely removed from the ship. Is the Minister prepared today to contact the U.S. Government and demand that the U.S. Government and not the company involved supervise any movement of this tanker which may in any way affect the Canadian coastal waters?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to state my ignorance of a new principle of physics that would have impressed Newton as well. As far as salvaging and refloating the ship is concerned, I can confirm there have been discussions between representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard, the U.S. Coast Guard and Exxon to examine various possibilities. The Canadian Government, through our Coast Guard, has made it clear that no movements would be authorized with the ship, if salvaged, without submission of a complete transportation and evacuation plan. Our conditions for authorizing movements by this ship will be very strict indeed.


SPILLAGE OF PCBS INTO SAINT-MAURICE RIVER
Sheila Maureen Copps: We can hardly expect to trust what the Minister says, since in August last year, the other Minister, "mini-bouch", went to Saint-Basile-le-Grand to tell the people there would be no more PCB spills in Quebec. We now know that since Monday, 6,800 litres of PCBs have been spilling into the St. Maurice River, which may affect the drinking water of the people of Trois-Rivieres, Shawinigan and Quebec City. I would like to know why the Government expects us to believe the promises they are making now with
April 5, 1989

Oral Questions
respect to Canada's West Coast, when what they said about PCBs in Quebec turned out to be false.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just received a call with the information that a PCB spill did in fact occur in the St. Maurice River. Before entering the House, I asked my Deputy Minister to check this information, take any emergency measures that may be needed right away and report to me after question period.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since 1985 there have been at least 57 near collisions within a 50 kilometre radius of Pearson International Airport. Only sheer luck and the grace of God have prevented the occurrence of an immeasurable disaster.
Yesterday the Canadian Aviation Safety Board released two recommendations in response to the three near misses in December, 1988, and in January of this year. It called upon the Minister to implement new safety measures to protect the Canadian traveler. The Minister need not wait the required 90 days since the report says, and I quote.
"These problems should be addressed without delay".
Will the Minister assure this House today of what he will do immediately? In fact, with the safety of the travellers in question, what will he do within the hour to implement those vital recommendations as presented by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board published this report yesterday and we received it today. Meanwhile, however, departmental employees have been working on the problem it raises, and it is a pleasure to be able to inform the Hon. Member that controllers have now been informed of the procedures and given the appropriate training, and the procedures will be in effect as of April 7, in other words, this Friday.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. I don't think Canadian travellers can afford to play Russian roulette with air safety as they go into airports.
What are we doing about more air controllers at Pearson International Airport, Mr. Speaker? That is a vital question. What are we doing about more controllers at Pearson International Airport so that the safety of Canadian travellers can be assured?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Thunder-Bay- Nipigon should have listened to his colleague from Port-au-Port-St. Barbe who confirmed that Canadian skies were not insecure, that they were safe.
As for procedures at Lester B. Pearson, obviously there has been a considerable increase in traffic. Our controllers at Lester B. Pearson have a certain number of flights they must control. People who are surprised at the delays at Lester B. Pearson should understand that the directives are quite clear. We handle the number of flights that air traffic controllers are able to control. We have done everything we could.
We have the maximum number of controllers in training at our facility in Cornwall. We have made an appeal to U.S. controller trainees, and we also have people who are being trained in the field.
Mr. Speaker, playing with air safety matters is a very dangerous game. When I, as the Minister of Transport, guarantee that Toronto's airport is safe and that we have all the mechanisms we need, I do that because I think it is true, speaking as a Canadian and not as the Minister of Transport.

April 5, 1989
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Three months ago we had a major oil spill off the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and the Department of the Minister revealed itself to be totally inadequate in rising to the task of cleaning up the damage. We had to rely on the volunteer effort of people in that area to do the job.
We now have another major potential serious situation for Canada which, as the debate in the last 24 hours has shown, once again the Government is totally unprepared to cope with.
What did the Minister of Transport do in the last three months in terms of major reorganization of his Department here in Ottawa and on the ground, both on the West Coast and on the East Coast, in order to cope adequately with such a disaster?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is succumbing also to the temptation of using false alarms. We all know that the performance of the Coast Guard and all the Departments involved last January has been completely professional, serious, and very efficient.
I was there. I could see it. I do not know if the Leader of the NDP was there but I was there and I checked personally that everything was going very well. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the process has been followed since then.
We terminated the operations of clean-up a few days ago. We have no answer to the third phase of when it rains what will happen and going to a post-mortem of the old operation.
I think it is under control and we are completely ready to cope with any situation.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is not directed to this Minister but to the Minister who is responsible for the problem in this region.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows that I am not critizing the particular individuals in the Coast Guard service. I am critizing the Minister for
not having enough people and enough equipment on the ground. Everyone in British Columbia knows that. Everyone in British Columbia knows that it was volunteers who did the job.
I want to ask the Minister who is carefully not answering the questions. He is responsible for the Coast Guard, not the Minister of the Environment. I want to ask the Minister responsible what steps have been taken in the Coast Guard, and beyond that, since there is much more shipping on the East Coast than there is on the West Coast, will the Minister do the right thing now and set up a public inquiry into procedures pertinent to the shipping of oil in tankers and clean-up procedures and report back at the earliest possible time to the Government of Canada?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when an accident affects the ecology and the environment, the whole Government is concerned. We cannot dissociate the responsibilities of the various ministers and individuals who are working on the operation.
As for the matter of regulations and the rather excessive request for a commission of inquiry, Mr. Speaker, we are a responsible Government. We know where our duty lies, and we know Canadians expect us to review existing regulations and improve, if necessary,-and we don't think it is-our response when intervention is needed.
Mr. Speaker, the House may rest assured that we will do what we have to do so that Canadians will know the environmerft is in safe hands.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF TRANSPORT ESTABLISH PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to go back out to Vancouver Island and take a look. My colleagues from British Columbia have told me that they are still cleaning up where it was damaged three months ago.
I want the Minister who is responsible for the Coast Guard to answer the questions. Will the Minister of Transport undertake what he ought to do, the responsibility to have a full public inquiry, so we can get in place the proper regulations that could hopefully head off such disasters in the future?
April 5, 1989


Benoît Bouchard: No,
Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. His own officials have confirmed that the fish quotas allotted to France in that infamous agreement last week exceed the catch levels dictated by sound management conservation practices.
Will the Minister of Fisheries explain, to the House and the thousands of fisherman and plant workers who were hung out to dry by that cowardly capitulation to international blackmail last week, his treachery in standing idly by-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question and not use the word "treachery".


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain why he stood idly by last week and allowed the conservation advice of his officials to be trampled underfoot? Is it true that the Minister is being ignored, is being silenced, is being muzzled by the Prime Minister on this issue?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of negotiations the Department of Fisheries officials, with the assistance of their Minister and other Ministers here, have concluded an agreement that protects Canadian fishermen in the long run, and succeeded, in a disputed area which is not under Canada's control, in convincing France to reduce the catch of 26,000 tonnes that it allotted itself for the last three years down to under 16,000 tonnes this year.
I wonder if the hon. gentleman would explain to me why it is that the president of the French fishing company Comapeche in St. Malo has stated: "We've been rolled in the mud. Canada has put French fishermen up for sacrifice. I can only say we regret the attitude of Canada." He also said that Canada has been playing a waiting game for three years "So France had to go for an agreement and this is better than nothing. It gives us barely enough to survive, just hardly enough to keep from starving, and there will be some cadavers". That is what the French think of this agreement.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that was the muzzle or the muzzle loader. Perhaps the real Minister of Fisheries,
Oral Questions
the Minister from St. John's West, would explain to us why Mr. Vic Young, the president of the Newfoundland-based Fishery Products, the world's second largest fish company, and a good friend of the Minister, has condemned the deal.
Will the Minister tell us if this deal is the best thing since sliced bread, as he says, why he cannot convince his friends, the officials in Fisheries, and the industry itself that it is a good deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, most persons want to take a non-partisan objective approach to this. I wish to quote from a transcript of a program on CBC on April 3, at 12.20 p.m. on which I appeared with Mr. Young. He was asked the question: ". . .do you think the sacrifice was worth the cost of getting the deal?" Mr. Young answered: "Well, I think the deal had to be done, yes. I don't think there's any doubt about that."
Go back to your sources again, my son. You are way behind the times.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, he refused to formally commit himself to maintaining the principle of universality for social programs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that as far as the government was concerned this principle was unchallenged. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the former Minister of National Health went so far as to write that universality was sacro-sanct and that deficit reduction would not be carried out through a reform of social programs. Then a month later, the government tried to deindex old age pensions and reduced family allowances by 1.2 billion dollars.
My question to the Prime Minister. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Out with it!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Don't get excited. I'm getting there. I want to get a clear and honest answer. Can the Prime Minister give senior citizens the assurance that their old age pension cheques will be fully indexed and that those with lower incomes will not be subjected to double taxation? In other words, can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that he will not in any way cut old age pensions to reduce the deficit?

April 5, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Government made it clear both in the Speech from the Throne and yesterday in response to a question from the Hon. Member that the principle of universality was one which was supported.
The hon. gentleman now is asking for comments related to taxation measures. Those are properly dealt with in the context of a Budget and it would not be appropriate for me either to confirm or deny any suggestions that he puts forward. He should wait for the Budget.


M. Malepart:: The cat is almost out of the bag, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Denis had better get ready for another bout!


INTEGRITY OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES.
Jean-Claude Malépart: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.

Could the Minister assure the Canadian families that the family allowance will not be cut to reduce the deficit? [Translation]
Can Canadian families get the assurance that the Conservative government will not cut family allowances to reduce the deficit? Yes or no?

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Heath and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, during its term in office the Government has significantly increased family allowances in Canada. We expect that they will continue to increase in the future.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay- Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. When the Liberals tried to cut the deficit by taking apart VIA Rail, just like this Government appears to be set on doing, the now Deputy Prime Minister took a PC Thsk Force across this country in defence of VIA Rail. Its report entitled "The Last Straw" concluded that the federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that rail passenger services in Canada be retained, modernized, and expanded as an important part of our national transportation system.
Will the Government live up to its report and its promises of the 1984 election by ensuring that VIA will not only receive the funds necessary to maintain its existing operations, but also to modernize it operations? Will he do that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave to an Hon. Member the same answer I will now give the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. The answer was that any decision concerning VIA Rail or any other Crown corporation for that matter will be made in due time.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Iain Francis Angus: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I am quoting from a newspaper article. When Maritime Tory MPs plead for VIA's life and the Minister himself has told his own constituents "There will be cuts", it is no wonder the people of Canada suspect the worst. Will the Minister make a commitment in this House that VIA will not be cut back at all so it can maintain its existing operations?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I receive representations on all issues I have to deal with, but this in no way changes my earlier answer. When a decision has to be made on VIA Rail, I will make it.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the constituents in my riding of Erie and the people across Canada have a growing concern about the huge deficit that we have.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: The Minister of Finance deserves congratulation for the fine work that he has done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Canadians are well aware of the fine job the Minister of Finance has done-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga East.
April 5, 1989

Oral Questions
SOCIAL SECURITY	ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING-STUDENT'S UNIVERSALITY OF PROGRAMS	HUNGER STRIKE


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Throne Speech contends that an expanded economy is the only way to maintain our cherished Canadian social programs. Canadians know that the only way to maintain social programs is for the Government to protect the sacred trust.
Why is the Government not prepared at this time to commit itself to maintaining the universality of existing social programs?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Perhaps the Hon. Member was absent the last couple of days when this question was asked. The Government supports the concept of universality.
The point which the Hon. Member makes is an important one. During the tenure of this Government, we have provided jobs to over 1,300,000 Canadians. We have provided new opportunities for Canadians, and we have done away with the massive unemployment and inflation that were robbing Canadians of their opportunity to get ahead.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND OLD AGE PENSIONS
Albina Guarnieri: I can appreciate the Minister's reply, but there is a difference between principle and application. I can also appreciate that perhaps his colleague, the Minister of Finance will torpedo another one of the Minister's ships.
My supplementary is that seniors know from previous experience the value of this Government's word. Can the Minister reassure this House that programs such as family allowances and old age pensions will still be available to all Canadians?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we have always supported the concept of universal payments. I have indicated this on several occasions both yesterday and today. Most importantly, when we are worried about the condition of the weakest and poorest in our society, what is essential is that the Government get its economic house in order and not return to the days in which Canada's pensioners saw their life savings stolen from them by the cruel tax of inflation as a result of prolific government spending.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. I met with eight students from Thunder Bay who are on the fifteenth day of a hunger strike to protest changes to the post-secondary education funding of native students. This is a crisis. This is a very serious life-threatening situation.
How can the Minister on the one hand sing the praises of this successful program and on the other hand impose an arbitrary capping to these funds? How can anyone take seriously the reference to aboriginal people in the Throne Speech when the aboriginal people have just received such a slap in the face from the Government?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her appointment as critic.
Secondly, I would like to agree in part with my honourable colleague that the hunger strike is a life-threatening situation, and I urge the students to put an end to it and go back to university.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LEVEL OF FEDERAL SPENDING
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: In view of the devastating effect this amendment of the education policy will have on thousands of native students, will the Minister reconsider his position and put a moratorium on the financial freeze so that we can see whether the Government has a true commitment to the aboriginal people of Canada?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have already indicated to the students on the hunger strike in a letter to them after they made a request in writing last week, and I quote: "Every response to the consultations was reviewed carefully, and we listened to what was said. Important changes to the policy were made, and my officials have been instructed to review the policy periodically to ensure that it is responsive to the changing needs and priorities of students and Indian communities."
My response today is the same. I am prepared to review the new policy as it is put in place. If there are improvements to be brought forward, I will bring them forward.

April 5, 1989
Oral Questions


POSITION OF ALBERTA CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS MEMBERS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: I have a supplementary question to direct to the Prime Minister. I have a letter addressed to him from the Chair of the Alberta Conservative caucus which states:
We believe that the effect from these proposed cut-backs will be
severely negative with unfortunate ramifications to Native education
and our political acceptability.
Will the Prime Minister listen to his own Alberta colleagues, which include the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and put a moratorium on the capping of this program and restore the program to what it was before?


Pierre H. Cadieux: All the people of Canada who have looked carefully at the new guidelines realize there are no cut-backs.


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE RESTORED TO FORMER STATUS
Robert Evans Skelly: Everybody who has examined the new guidelines finds that with the increase in native population, as a result of Bill C-31, and the fact that the vast majority of those people are around the age of 25, the demand for post-secondary education will be growing in coming years. Capping the program will mean that more native Indian people will be denied post-secondary education.
At a time when the Government in its Throne Speech is expressing a commitment to literacy, native economic development and native languages, it does not make sense to put a cap on the program. Will the Minister consider removing the cap and restoring the program?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Obviously it would be a lot simpler if everybody read the guidelines. There has been no cap put on at this time. Two years ago my predecessor announced that this program would have to function within its budget. Notwithstanding that, the budget has been increased since then by 10 per cent and will most probably continue to grow as needs continue to grow. There is no Government, Mr. Speaker, that has done as much for Indian people and northern people in this country as this Government has.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When will this House and the country receive the Minister's Budget?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I appreciated the previous question that was tending in that direction. Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a Budget in a very short while. It is absolutely essential that we in this House understand the significance and the importance of the deficit and debt problem that we have, and I know that a number of Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged the seriousness of this problem. We propose to address this in the Budget.
The Budget will be brought down on April 27, and at that time we will be able to respond to the concerns that have been expressed by people, as I said, on both sides of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIA RAIL
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister. In 1984 the present Deputy Prime Minister announced that he was going to "put romance back into passenger rail", but now the Prime Minister has threatened to force an unwanted divorce. Mr. Speaker, I hope that today the Prime Minister, having misled the country with his mischievous misrepresentations-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that he is going a little too far. Would the Hon. Member put his question leaving out those words?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister have the honesty today to lift the threat of execution from VIA Rail, and will he do it now?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 5, 1989


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier, as I stated to my colleague yesterday, that concerning the operations of Crown corporations coming under the Departement of Transport, decisions are made on an ongoing basis. We will continue to do so, and that is the only announcement I wish to make.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I had addressed my question to Charlie McCarthy, not Edgar Bergen. Or vice-versa; it doesn't make much difference.


An Hon. Member:: The question is from Mickey Mouse.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, during the 1981 VIA Rail debate the Conservative Party argued that no decision on VIA Rail should be taken without "the right to hold public hearings, to be heard and have an opportunity to express concern about the criteria of public convenience and necessity."
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment now to hold public hearings before any cuts occur in VIA Rail?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member puts the same question twenty times, I will give him the same answer twenty times.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Grains and Oil Seeds. Last November 10 he promised that he would bring in a drought assistance program providing up to $40 per acre for wheat in the worst affected areas of western Canada and up to $50 per acre for com in the worst drought affected areas in eastern Canada. So far, practically no farmers have received any assistance, even though they are getting ready to put in their crops.
Will the Minister stand in this place and answer one simple question? Are the amounts that he had announced last November, with or without any provincial government participation, to be paid, because the interim amounts have been very small and certainly do not
Oral Questions
represent 70 per cent of the amount that was promised last fall?
Will he be paying up to $40 per acre for wheat in western Canada where the crop is totally lost, and up to $50 per acre in eastern Canada for corn where the crop is totally lost, as he promised in this press release last November 10?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of making interim payments as the Hon. Member knows, which amount to $12 an acre in parts of western Canada and up to $16 an acre in Ontario for corn and soybeans.
The estimates that we talked about last fall stand exactly the same. Nothing has changed. It is a program that is designed based on crop concerns, information we gathered from the provinces, and we have identified about 65,000 producers who are eligible for interim payment. At the end of this week we anticipate about one quarter of those cheques being in the mail, and we anticipate all the interim cheques being in the mail by the 3rd of May.


SIZE OF PAYMENTS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the same Minister. I want to point out to the House that the Minister represents the same riding, the same area where I grew up.
I am not happy about that, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: It is an embarrassment to be in the same riding-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would put his question again.


John Harvard: Farmers need that money now. They are getting into seeding. They do not need the money in July. The question is this: Are you going to come through with a full $850 million or are you going to ask the provincial Government to kick in a share?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to keep it a secret that we both grew up in the same area, and I am not happy about it either. Mr. Speaker, with that kind of a performance, I am not too sure that any us would agree that he ever did grow up either.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to live in the same area and farm in the same area, and I want to tell

April 5, 1989
Tabling of Documents
the Hon. Member as a farmer that farmers need money in June and July, and that is when they are going to be getting money and it is going to be of assistance to them, and they are getting it now. Between $250 million and $300 million is going to be in the mail to farmers by the 3rd of May. That is a fair amount of money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. According to a statement to the RCMP made on November 9, 1988 by the Prime Minister's Former Chief Secretary Peter White, the Conservative Member for Chambly, and I quote: "is concerned because he believes he has been involved in improper actions in 1985 and 1986."
When did the Prime Minister for the first time hear of those serious allegations, which led to an RCMP investigation into corruption, fraud and breach of trust charges? What steps did the Prime Minister take to check those allegations, before he approved Richard Grise's candidacy?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and minister State (Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts mentioned by the Hon. Member come under the responsibility of the Solicitor General. From time to time, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP launches investigations in Canada. I believe it is complety improper in this House to make public comments on those investigations, because this would hinder the RCMP in the proper conduct of their activities.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Grise's candidacy was approved by the Prime Minister, not the Solicitor General.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. The RCMP seized all documents pertaining to the electors in the constituency of Chambly and the Conservative Member has disappeared from the picture.
What actions will the Prime Minister undertake to ensure that constituents in Chambly are not penalized under these very serious circumstances?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, in my mind a Minister of the Crown should not enter into irresponsible speculations. In this country, everyone is entitled to a fair trial. If the Hon. Member is aware of facts involving any individual, let him go to the RCMP and make a statement-and this applies to all candidates in his own party.
It is the RCMP's job to make investigations. The matter is presently under investigation and there will be no further comment in this House on irresponsible speculations.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to table in both official languages the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, an important new reference work on parliamentary procedure.

I have the honour to table in both official languages the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, a thorough reference work on parliamentary procedure.

Over the past three years, staff, under the direction of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk have been working toward the publication of this companion volume to the Standing Orders which provides almost 500 pages of thorough and up-to-date commentaries, historical summaries and reference notes on each Standing Order of the House. [Translation]
The annotated version of the Standing Orders is intended to make livelier and more productive reading and especially to provide more practical information.
A brief commentary is given beside each Standing Order, which describes the current interpretation given to the rule.
The historical background and development of the Standing Order and a description of significant changes which may have been made since Confederation are also provided.
April 5, 1989

All this is followed by references which constitute an essential collection of examples of the rules' application.

The annotated version of the Standing Orders is intended to make livelier, richer and more productive reading, and especially to provide more practical information.
A brief commentary is given beside each Standing Order, which describes the current interpretation given to the rule. The historical background and development of the Standing Order and a description of significant changes which may have been made since Confederation are also provided. All this is followed by references which constitute an essential collection of examples of the rules' application.
I know the annotated Standing Orders will be a valuable complement to other works of reference on the procedures of the House and as such I hope all Members will find it both useful and informative as they carry out their duties.
I know all Hon. Members will want to join me in complimenting the Clerk, Deputy Clerk and all their staff on an absolutely superb work which will be of great benefit to our deliberations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know it is unusual to do so under tabling of documents, but let me say that I have had an opportunity to review somewhat, not at length, the annotated Standing Orders book. I think it is an immense contribution to this House.
I want to join with you and I am sure all colleagues in the House in complimenting the Clerks and everyone who was part of it. I notice that it expanded on our history in this place. I think that is important and valuable. I am not sure my friend from Ottawa-Vanier needs the assistance since he has most of this committed to memory, at least that is what he assures me whenever we are arguing the points.
I am sure that you worked your way through the first 400 pages, Mr. Speaker, and are now working on the annotations and footnotes. For my purposes, I want to be able to find emergency debate. The Table has been of
Tabling of Documents
great assistance to me in the last 100 times I have had to look it up.
I do not think I should go on any longer because there are more speeches to be made today, except to say that this is a work of art. In fact, it is a gift from the Clerk Emeritus, our Clerk and all of those who worked so hard to put it together. On behalf of myself, my colleagues, all Members of the House and those who follow us, I want to say thank you to everyone else.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) whose remarks were generous and certainly well intended, I believe, may have some difficulty in finding in this new work the item "emergency debate". However, I suggest he might look under "oil spill".


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I want to commend the team of people who put together this volume of the annotated Standing Orders of the House for their outstanding work. This work is a tremendous contribution not only to Canadian parliamentary law but to the facilitation of the operations of this House.
I hope that the kind words of the Government House Leader and Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) indicate a commitment that he and the Government take these rules so seriously that they will no longer have recourse to using their majority to suspend or throw these rules out the window anytime it suits their purpose. If what the Government House Leader and Minister of Justice says about these rules is to be taken seriously, and certainly I intend my remarks about these rules to be taken seriously and I am sure that will be the case for the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, we must not only praise those who produced this outstanding volume, we must commit ourselves to live by and within these rules if parliamentary government is to be taken seriously.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues on behalf of New Democrats in the House of Commons to extend my thanks and appreciation to all of those who made these new Standing Orders with the appropriate references available for us today. I suspect that many of us, let alone people who watch this process, often are mystified as to just what is happening. I suspect many of us shared that mystery in trying to understand why we are doing certain things, trying to understand precedents and so on.

April 5, 1989
Introduction of Bills
Something that makes this particular reference work different is that it is our own. We have always had to depend on outside reference work. This we have done ourselves and it reflects our Parliament. It is very professionally done and very practical. Indeed, it is a milestone in Canadian parliamentary jurisprudence. It is an excellent work, and, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) indicated, it is a piece of art. To those of us who try to make sense out of the mystery that surrounds this place, it is a piece of art and we appreciate it very much.


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in council appointments which were made by the Government in 1988.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I had raised a matter yesterday regarding the anti-smoking Bill that passed this House, and it was confirmed today in The Ottawa Citizen that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Corbeil) is amending this private Member's Bill rather than proclaiming it. I did not argue that yesterday, but I consider it to be a serious breach of Members' privileges.
However, given that the situation is an ongoing one and I raised it yesterday, I will not pursue the question of privilege today, but I will flag it as a matter that I will take the liberty to raise again in the House of Commons if the Government does not proclaim this Bill as soon as possible.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the official parliamentary delegation to the Conference on the Environment in the Arctic in Moscow, U.S.S.R., on January 28 to February 3. This was the first time for the Soviet Union to host such a conference of parliamentarians to discuss the circumpolar environment, and a tone of utmost co-operation was evident throughout the conference.
I was particularly pleased to hear in the Throne Speech this week of our country's determination to work with other northern allies and neighbours to develop a new co-operative ethic in the Arctic. It was further discussed that subsequent meetings of parliamentary delegations be held concerning the circumpolar environment. I table the document with you today.


CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the Thirty-sixth Report, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (scabs and essential services).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a Bill to amend the Canada Labour Code so as to prevent Crown corporations from using scabs during a labour dispute.
I want to be consistent with the approach I took two years ago when I joined the picket line in the Canada Post dispute to show my disdain for the antidemocratic, antisocial and retrograde use of scabs during a dispute, particularly since this was on the first day of the strike.
I introduce this Bill in the hope that all Members in the House will support it, especially now that we are just beginning to implement the Free Trade Agreement. We have to show that labour relations in Canada are altogether different from those which prevail in the
April 5, 1989

United States, that we want not only to stay ahead in that field but also improve labour conditions in this country so they will be quite different from those south of the border.
I thank my colleague from Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) for supporting my Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY CHANNEL
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have three brief motions which have been reviewed with my colleagues, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I believe there would be unanimous consent to put the motions immediately.
The first one is as follows. I move:
That the subject matter of the proposal by the Canadian cable television industry and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a licence to operate a bilingual specialty programming network, styled the Canadian Parliamentary Channel (CPaC), be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure for examination and study and for report to this House not later than May 26, 1989.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That pursuant to Section 2(1) of an Act to Amend the Criminal
Code (Prostitution), Chapter 51,1st Supplement, Revised Statutes of
Canada, 1985, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor
General be the committee to review the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Motions

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to revise Standing Order 104(2) which is the listing of committees. Copies have been provided to the House Leaders of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. I would move:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, -That Standing Order 104(2) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) The standing committees, which shall consist of not less than seven and not more than fifteen Members, and for which lists of members are to be prepared, are those on:
(a)	Aboriginal Affairs;
(b)	Agriculture;
(c)	Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism;
(d)	Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations;
(e)	Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members'Business;
(f)	Energy, Mines and Ressources;
(g)	Environment;
(h)	External Affairs and International Trade;
(i)	Finance;
(j)	Forestry and Fisheries;
(k)	Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women;
(l)	Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons;
(m)	Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development;
(n)	Justice and the Solicitor General;
(o)	Labour, Employment and Immigration;
(p)	Management and Members'Services;
(q)	National Defence and Veterans Affairs;
(r)	Public Accounts: and
(s)	Transport.
NOTE: For the purpose of this Standing Order, a Parliamentary Secretary shall not be a member of a standing committee which has in its mandate the review of a department to which the said Parliamentary Secretary is attached."
That Standing Order 108(3) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) The mandate of the Standing Committee on
(a)	Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism shall include, among other matters:

April 5, 1989
Petitions
(i)	the monitoring of the implementation of the principles of the federal multiculturalism policy throughout the Government of Canada and in order
-	to encourage the departments and agencies of the federal government to reflect the multicultural diversity of the nation; and
-	to examine existing and new programs and policies of federal departments and agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and to preserve and enhance the multicultural reality of our nation; and
(ii)	the review of policies, programs and their administration, in the areas of citizenship, citizenship development and promotion and related programs which provide opportunities for fuller participation in the educational, economic and social life of Canada.
(b)	Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business shall include, among other matters:
(i)	The review of and report on the Standing orders and procedure in the House and its committees; and
(ii)	the selection of items of Private Members' Business pursuant to Standing Order 92, and the consideration of business related to Private Bills;
(c)	Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons shall include among other matters:
(i)	the reviews of any report on the reports of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which shall be deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Table; and
(ii)	the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian Society;
(d)	Management and Members' Service shall include, among other matters:
(i)	the review of and report to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members provided that all matters related thereto shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Committee upon its membership having been established; and
(ii)	the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with the operational and expenditure plans of all operations which are under the joint administration and control of the two Houses and other related matters as the Committee deems fit;
(e)	Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Table;
and any other matter which the House shall, from time to time, refer to the Standing Committee."
And, that the references in Standing Orders 91, 92,132,133(2), (3) and (4), 135(1), 140 and 141(4) to the "Standing Committee of Private Members'Business" be changed to the "Standing Committee of Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present, on behalf of constituents of Scarborough, a petition which concerns the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough, and this is the first petition of the second Session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament that I would like to present.
This is a particularly beautiful area of Metro Toronto. The petitioners are calling upon the federal Government to protect this endangered wildlife and wilderness area in the Rouge Valley. This has become a particularly crucial issue because the provincial Government is presently threatening to put a garbage dump or a freeway right through this unique, environmentally sound area.
The federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has already established his support for this protection. The Mayor of Scarborough has supported this as have the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations. The petitioners call upon the federal Government to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that I table these petitions, given the date of the budget in April.
Constituents of mine humbly submit that the sales tax on music lessons will hurt the average family for whom music education will become too costly. With the sales tax on music lessons, Canadian children will suffer, talent will go undeveloped and the future of Canadian music both nationally and internationally will be jeopardized. Music educators are active participants in education departments in every province of Canada. Their knowledge and expertise provides students with qualifications which enable them to enter our universities and faculties of music.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government consider music study as an educational process and therefore exempt music education from the proposed sales tax.
April 5, 1989


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to present a petition signed by several dozen of my constituents which states that whereas the Canada Post Office Corporation has threatened to effect closure of the Victoria Post Office, wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject proposals which will decrease the postal service to our local community, to take strong and immediate steps to assure us that our post office, which serves a great need in our community, will not be closed, put out on contract, relocated to another community, replaced with supermailboxes or any other inferior service.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to table two petitions in the House today. They have been certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36 by the Clerk of Petitions.
The first is with regard to the need for an effective and efficient national passenger rail system in Canada. The petitioners point out the record of the previous Liberal Government and the current record of this Government and call upon the Government to live up to its original pledge to support Via Rail, to abandon plans for further cuts to its budget and to operate the necessary resources to allow Via to operate as a modern effective transportation company rather than a museum.


Iain Francis Angus: The second petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with a matter of very urgent importance. A number of students from my community, Thunder Bay, who are actually residents of all of northwestern Ontario are currently on a fast or a hunger strike and call upon the Government to put a moratorium in place dealing with post-secondary funding.
These petitioners from Thunder Bay call upon the Government to fulfil its rightful obligation and duty by withdrawing the draft policy and begin a process of consultation with First Nations and First Nations' students who will be most affected by the said policy.
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52,1 ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. This concerns the need to renegotiate or cancel if necessary the 15 per cent softwood lumber export charge which remains on lumber produced in Ontario for export to the United States.
This export charge is especially harmful to the softwood lumber industry in northern Ontario, which has already suffered losses of hundreds of jobs due to the combined effect of the export charge and a higher Canada/U.S. exchange rate. The export charges are a severe burden on the industry and the Government's failure to seek and negotiate the charge with the U.S. requires the attention of the House and urgent action by the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: I should say to Hon. Members and to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who, of course, gave me notice of this application, and I have looked at it carefully, the matter, of course, is of considerable concern to the Hon. Member and to many Canadians.
However, I have to advise the Hon. Member, taking a careful look at the rules that I must be guided by in calling for an emergency debate, that the situation at the moment at least does not merit that.
I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention.



POINT OF ORDER


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, immediately before Orders of the Day are called, I would like to indicate that there has been the usual discussions among the Parties, and it is agreed today we will have both the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr Turner) and the

April 5, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
Leader of the New Democratic Party complete their contributions to the address debate today and that immediately thereafter the House will adjourn. That would mean that in the event the Leader of the New Democratic Party's remarks went beyond six o'clock p.m., the time would be extended to allow him to finish his remarks.
I would like to point out, if I may, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has written to the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition with respect to his activities today. He will be required to greet the President of Costa Rica at the airport at 5 p.m. and, therefore, he may not be able to be in attendance for the completion of the remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Obviously the Prime Minister regrets that because of this diplomatic commitment he is unable to be here for the major speeches. That is why he took the precaution of writing to the individuals and that is why I have confirmed it in writing.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 4, 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.
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the House, from all quarters of the House, for their best wishes during my recent operation and recovery. I am pleased to report that the healing process appears to have been successful and I am feeling renewed, refreshed and reinvigorated.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra:) My first reaction to the Throne Speech is that the document is not a confident agenda of a Government heading into its second mandate. Indeed, it is a tired repetition of some of the same old lines we have heard before. It is not as if the Government has not had enough time. It has had 97 days to explain to Canadians whether it intends to break election promises, raise taxes or cut expenditures. After waiting all this time, we now know that the Government intends to do all three. Canadians are going to get
shafted by the Mulroney Government, shafted by a new regressive and inflationary value added tax or consumption tax; shafted by tax increases; shafted by a policy of high interest rates; shafted by the Prime Minister's broken promises on investment programs and shafted by changes to the unemployment insurance system.
What about child care? We have just a vague promise. There is no commitment to legislation. There is no commitment to do anything about post-secondary education in this country when most Canadians recognize that education is the key to our future. There is not a word in this speech about the housing crisis. There is no mention of minority language rights. Air safety is not mentioned. There is no mention of the renewal of the ERDA agreements, fundamental as they are to regional equality and regional development in the country. What about the commitment in the speech to do something about predatory overfishing on the Atlantic coast three days after this Government sold out Newfoundland to the French? What about the claim in the speech that the Government's regional development programs are working well? Tell that to Atlantic Canadians. Tell that to people in northern and eastern Ontario. Tell that to people in western Canada. How about yet another promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to clean up the ethics of his own Government? That will hold until the next scandal.
Speaking of scandals, Mr. Speaker. I was pleased about one feature of the Throne Speech. I was pleased that the Governor General was permitted to read the speech herself. After his recent breakthrough at the Academy Awards, I was surprised that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) did not try to elbow Her Excellency out of the way!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: And the winner is. . .


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: There are presidential tendencies by this Government and this Prime Minister but at least that decorum was maintained.
As is the tradition, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne, the Hon. Members for Calgary Southeast (Mr. Richardson) and Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau) respectively. Considering the limited material that they had to work with, I felt that they were fertile in terms of creativity, did the best that they could, and indeed made excellent personal speeches.
April 5, 1989

We are happy to welcome our new members, men and women from all regions in this country, including the Territories. They are taking their first steps in Parliament, but they are dedicated, hardworking, observant and very determined to represent their constituents effectively.
Mr. Speaker, you may rely on our full co-operation in maintaining the high standards, dignity and discipline expected in this House. However, I wish to inform the Prime Minister it is our firm resolve to form a vigilant and vigourous opposition. We intend to remind the Government as often as necessary that Canada is not the private domain of the rich and powerful, of the businessmen of this country. This country also belongs to people across Canada who cannot make ends meet. There are businessmen who try to make a profit at any cost, but there are people across this country who are suffering and who need the assistance of governments at both levels.

Parliament, except for two weeks in December, has not been sitting for six months. As Parliamentarians we have had a wasted winter. After the November election we were called back only briefly to accede to the trade deal. We lived up to our commitments. Since then the Government has been on autopilot, drifting, delaying the recall of the House. Meanwhile, Canadians have been caught, hit with sky-rocketing interest rates, accelerated concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer and fewer people; foreign take-overs, mergers. American Express has come to Canada and it is "not going home without it". In fact, we have given them a bag.
Air safety is in chaos. Talking about air transport, there has been nothing but ministerial sloppiness and incompetence. Following the Gander crash we demanded a full public inquiry. The Government denied that there was a problem, yet the Canadian Aviation Safety Board gave the Government a split decision on the reasons for the crash. We needed a public inquiry. Safety warnings were not passed on to the airlines in time. Twenty-four people lost their lives in the Dryden crash. An assistant Deputy Minister of Transport was fired. There was confusion and turmoil in the Department. Canadians are worried. Are our skies safe? We have two Ministers and
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
neither one is doing the job. There is ministerial incompetence, and departmental chaos.
Where is the plan to deal with spiralling interest rates? Where is the plan to deal with the devastating impact that those rates are having across the country? How high will the Government allow these rates to go? How high will the Minister accede to the Governor's wish to push them higher and higher, 14, 15, or 16 per cent. Where does it stop? I suppose we must await the Budget.
After spending four years of slashing the budgets of environmental programs, of ravaging Environment Canada, the Government and the Prime Minister had a deathbed repentance during the election and they discovered finally what the Throne Speech eloquently calls the environmental imperative. It talks of limits on toxic chemicals, improving water quality, protecting the Arctic, and an acid rain treaty with the United States. We understand that vocabulary here; that was our program.
There is also something called an environmental partners' fund to encourage awareness of the environment. We do not need anything as Canadians to make us more aware of the environment. Canadians are aware of the environment. They know that four years of inaction and budget cuts have taken a severe toll on the efforts of Canadians to meet the environmental challenge ahead of us. Canadians want action and not rhetoric. So far all we have seen is the Prime Minister grandstanding at an environmental conference in Europe.
The following is what the respected international environmental group Friends of the Earth had to say about Canada and two of the other countries at that conference in The Hague. "Particularly hypocritical are the Canadian, Dutch, and Italian Governments which have in turn slashed energy efficiency and conservation budgets in recent years." So much for that award. The Prime Minister in this type of posture is embarrassing all of us. I challenge him to get serious.
If last night's debate is any indication of the preparedness of this Government on environmental matters when we debated on an emergency status the Alaska Canada oil spill, then the Government is hopelessly unprepared. The policy announced last night was "Don't worry Canadians, it will all blow away." Wait for the right tides, wait for the right winds, and pray to God that nothing happens. That was the policy of the Minister of the Environment(Mr. Bouchard).

April 5, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister shouted from the roof tops that Canadian men and women should vote for his party because, and I quote: "We can manage this country. We can manage change." But where did all those change managers go? They vanished into thin air. The only memorable incident since then was a statement by the Minister of Finance who solemnly informed us that his Government did not intend to keep its election promises. No less! The only statement in four months!
During the campaign, the same Minister of Finance made a very clear distinction between the Government's policies and election promises. He denigrated our platform. Our political platform was just a bunch of election promises but the Government's election promises were commitments! Quite a difference! He defended that position seriously, talking about billions of dollars that would be spent. Well, we were wrong to believe the Minister of Finance.
Before the House resumed sitting, the Minister had already changed his mind. He put all those billions back in his pocket, because today, four months later, we can no longer afford to spend them. Mr. Speaker, this Government, this Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have fooled us with their promises. This Government has quite simply deceived Canadians across the country.
It is quite obvious they never had the slightest intention of keeping their word or meeting their commitments. They were only interested in buying Canadian voters, in buying the election so they could sell this country at a discount to the Americans.

During the last election the Liberal Party fought what we believe was a good, tough, and clean campaign. We talked about the issues. We talked about losing control over the economic and social levers necessary to shape our future, and the disastrous impact the trade deal will have on this country because it abandons those levers and surrenders our sovereignty.
We were told by the Prime Minister, when he launched the negotiations with the United States, that the sole purpose of a primary bilateral deal with the U.S. was secure access into the American market. We told him that that meant two things. It meant an exception from American protectionist trade law, and it also meant a dispute settlement mechanism to enforce that exemption. The issue of secure access to the American market was never discussed or defended by the Prime Minister during the last election, and with reason.
Under Articles 1902 and 1904 of the trade agreement, American trade law, countervail, antidumping, surtax, and quotas can still be applied against Canadian exports. Under the American Statutes of 1930, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Omnibus Trade Bill of 1988, the same laws still apply against our lumber, our potash, our steel, our fish, and they are still to be applied on a daily basis by the Americans. True, we have a dispute mechanism. We have a tribunal headed-up on our side, coincidentally, by strong supporters of the deal. This tribunal cannot challenge American law. Under the agreement, it can only apply that law against American judicial precedent and practice.
Those on our side who were fortunate enough to meet with the senior members of the U.S. Congress and who asked if there was any way to negotiate a more secure access to the U.S. market were told by Senators on the Republic democratic side that there is no way the United States Congress would ever yield its jurisdiction over trade law. That being so, the sole purpose of this deal was not obtained. It is not a free trade agreement. It is not even a trade deal. It is the Sale of Canada Act.
Look what we gave away! Energy. Americans wanted secure access to our energy, and they got it, especially in times of shortage. The same regime applies to all our renewable and non-renewable resources, including water.
There is now an explosion of plans to export trillions of cubic metres of natural gas from our Arctic. I welcome that development for the people of the Territories. However, since deregulation, gas exports to the United States have increased by over 70 per cent. This is going to continue. Because of the proportionality regime in the trade deal, we could find ourselves as Canadians locked into supplying 60 to 65 per cent of our gas to the United States at bargain basement prices. Once those volumes are established, we are bound by those volumes under
April 5, 1989

the trade agreement. The upcoming National Energy Board hearings do not make much difference because that body has been turned into nothing more than a monitoring agency with no authority to limit or change export levels.
Agriculture. We on this side of the House told the Government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ma-zankowski) that there was no way we could contemplate free trade in agriculture. Our climates are too different. Our growing season is shorter. Our costs are higher. Our burdens are heavier. Yet our farmers' cash crops, vegetables, fruits, and horticulture and everything that was protected by marketing boards is now thrown into direct competition with the farmers of California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. They have a 12-month growing season, and our farmers are caught in a climate they have been dealing with for over two centuries in a very courageous fashion.
The agricultural supply-management system will be negotiated away. We were warned that food processing would move out. Quaker Oats, Heinz and McCain's have already said they are leaving.
Fishing. We have talked about fishing in this House, but what this agreement did was give up our rights under GATT There is no exemption in favour of our fishing people or our fishing processors as the Government claims.
Control over foreign investment. The screening has evaporated to a limit of $150 million on a direct acquisition and no limit on an indirect takeover. We now have unlimited takeovers. In anticipation of the trade deal, the increase in foreign ownership was under way prior to the election. According to Investment Canada's report for 1987-88, foreign takeovers, 70 per cent of which were American, increased sharply to $22.2 billion worth of investment, up from $12.5 billion the year before. American business is now poised under the deal to pick up Canadian companies at bargain basement prices.
Capital markets. We said repeatedly that our banking insurance and investment industries are now wide open to American penetration, particularly banking. We do not have any reciprocal rights into the American market, primarily because of state jurisdiction over banking and the prohibition against linking banking and investment under the American legislation. We do not have reciprocal rights. American Express was at our doors the very day of the election, and they will be the first of many.
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
During the election campaign, we won the battle for the minds and hearts of Canadians. On the trade issue, more than one and a half million people voted against that deal than voted for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We won the message. The message was winning the election for us. The Conservatives did not respond to our message on trade, a message that Canadians were concerned about. They attacked the messenger. They launched an unprecedented, personal attack on my character, sincerity and competence. Their negative ad campaign was a textbook model to be studied for obvious comparisons to similar events south of the border.
We also saw the unprecedented intervention of big business with millions of dollars, uncovered by the Election Expenses Act, in an advertising campaign in support of the deal.
We saw democracy stripped of its majesty. It was a cynical manipulation of public opinion, a power-hungry reach for the lower side of human nature. The Government was playing to fear and not to the pride of a nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I say again to the Prime Minister: You have a tarnished mandate. You have a sullied victory. You bought an election and sold out a country, and Canadians will not allow this country to be sold out!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Over four million Canadians have supported the Liberal Party. Fifty-seven per cent of Canadians voted against the deal. Canadians in eight out of ten provinces voted against the deal. We will continue to oppose the trade deal in accordance with the mandate given to us by those who supported us. We will seek to lessen its negative impact on Canadians by promoting adequate adjustment programs, programs the Prime Minister guaranteed Canadians would be in place in time to prevent any hardships that might follow the deal. Once again, the Prime Minister has made promises that he will not and cannot keep.
How often did we hear from the Prime Minister that the trade deal was not going to hurt anybody? The Prime Minister and his friends in the business community knew that thousands of workers ran the risk of losing their jobs in the so-called "rationalization" of North American business. The Prime Minister said it would not be a problem because his Government would bring in adjustment programs. We all remember that.

April 5, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
Now we have the long-awaited de Grandpre Commission appointed by this Government. Mr. de Grandpre and his colleagues have stated that there cannot be adjustment programs targeted to help those who are hurt by the trade deal. The reason he says there can be no specific programs to ease the pain is that the impact of the trade deal is so large and varied. Once more, either the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about, did not know the facts, or simply did not want to let the facts interfere with his story during the election campaign.
It is now the duty of this Prime Minister and Government to provide Canadian workers with adequate adjustment programs. On this side of the House we will insist that they be sensible programs directed specifically to the workers who will pay for the Prime Minister's trade deal with their jobs, financial insecurity and social dislocation.
We also intend to be vigilant and watchful during the five to seven years of negotiation on the definition of "subsidy". Those subsidy negotiations are critical for us. They will define what future Canadian Governments can or cannot do for individuals and for the disadvantaged regions of the country. Canada has agreed under the deal to negotiate for the next five to seven years over what is an allowable subsidy. The real negotiations are now under way. This Government signed a trade deal with the United States before all its terms were negotiated or signed. That is like signing a real estate contract to sell your house before you have agreed to negotiate the terms. The Americans have aggressively stated, their goals in these negotiations. They include removal of the exemption for Canadian culture, an end to any investment screening of business, a definition of an unfair subsidy as any Canadian Government, law, regulation, or practice that is "an adverse impact upon American business and producers".
This is a vital issue facing Canada. This vital issue facing us in the next few years is the negotiation of subsidy. Yet there is not a single word about these negotiations in the text of the Throne Speech.

Who is going to negotiate for us? Will the provinces be involved? Will we, as Members of the House of Commons who, after all, represent Canadians, be informed of all the aspects of these negotiations? The Prime Minister made a solemn commitment that social programs and regional development would never be affected, but we have heard all this before. We have heard this tune many times. We have also heard the Prime Minister refer to our social programs as a sacred trust, but that did not keep him from trying to deindex old age pensions. Today, the threat looms even larger, when we hear the Prime Minister's friends, Canadian businessmen, demanding cutbacks in our social programs. Incredible, what a difference a few months make in the Conservative vocabulary! During the last election campaign, social programs had once again become inviolate and sacred. In Quebec City, taking his own mother as witness, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
Why would I want to hurt my mother?
In public, businessmen claimed that the Mulroney agreement had nothing to do with social programs and would have no impact on them.
However, even before the election we thought there was something fishy when we read the September bulletin of the Conseil du patronat. In its bulletin, the Conseil du patronat maintains that to remain competitive with the United States and with their American rivals, Quebec businessmen should no longer be required to finance certain health insurance programs.
More recently, the President of the Manufacturers Association, Mr. Laurent Thibault, wanted the Government to reduce the deficit by cutting certain social programs because, and I quote:
They undermine our ability to make the transition to free trade.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce sings the same tune. Pressure on our social programs does not have to come from the United States. The Prime Minister's friends are quite capable of bringing that pressure to bear themselves.

The trade issue will haunt this Parliament and our country. It has added fuel to the merger mania. It has thrown open our businesses to American takeovers. I have heard the arguments-synergism, more efficiency, more productivity-but in a world where the Japanese have led the way into the smaller decision-making groups, to bringing decisions to the work floor and the factory, I have never seen convincing proof.
April 5, 1989

Where are the new jobs as a result of these mergers and takeovers? Where is the new technology? Where are the new ideas? Where is the new efficiency? The case has not been proven. I say once again that the trade deal is takeovers unlimited. It is what the economists call the rationalization of North American businesses, rationalization in favour of American businesses at the expense of Canadian workers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, you read about it every day. No sooner was the election over than there were plant closings, mergers, takeovers, Gillette, British Footwear, Northern Telecom, Texaco, Wardair, Consolidated Bathurst. The list goes on and on.
Combine that growing concentration of economic power in Montreal, in Toronto, especially across the border, with the deregulation and privatization of our transport services in this country sponsored by this Government-Air Canada, VIA Rail, Canadian National-and you have the trend toward the shutting down of rural and small town Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in private legal practice to appear in several major cases before the regulatory agencies of this country and of the provinces. There used to be a phrase in our statutes: "Public convenience and necessity". It meant that anyone who wanted a licence to transport goods or people across this country had to prove public necessity, had to prove public convenience and had to prove that equal service would be given to Canadians no matter where they lived in this country. That has been eliminated and now market forces are king.
Privatization. We have seen before our eyes the elimination and dissipation and dilution of the public infrastructure of transportation in this country, publicly owned, again to ensure that there was equal service no matter where you live. Now the service of Air Canada has been cut-Stephenville, Sydney-I could go through all the communities. The same fares will be paid, but not the same service, not the same style of aircraft. We are getting to a situation with VIA Rail. What have the Conservatives argued for years in opposition? They argued that VIA Rail should be strengthened, that we should have high speed passenger trains, particularly on the Quebec City/Windsor corridor, that we should have high speed trains to allow us to compete with other industrial nations to take the load off the airports, off
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
our highways which are becoming more and more congested around our major cities and to reduce automobile pollution.
In 1985 the Deputy Prime Minister said this: It is now time to turn VIA into a strong system that is cost effective, national in scope and one which Canadians will be proud of and will use. That is the Member of Parliament from Vegreville.
The current Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) is now contemplating the elimination of passenger rail service in this country supported by the Prime Minister who says use it or lose it, quoting statistics that only 20 per cent of it is being used anyway.
Well, he is wrong again. The proper figure according to VIA is 52.4 per cent with even higher capacity on lines in more populous areas. As my colleague from Miramichi has put it so well, if the Prime Minister is determined to scuttle VIA Rail, the least we can expect is he tell the public the truth.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That would be a switch.


John Napier Turner: We appeared this morning with the Atlantic caucus under the chairmanship of the Member of Parliament for Beausejour in New Brunswick. We heard the workers from Atlantic Canada wondering what their future and their jobs were under this governmental policy of dismantling VIA Rail. We now know that the Liberal Members are being joined by the Atlantic Members who are expressing the same concerns, that if this is a free parliamentary system, we want to see those Atlantic Members from the Conservative Party join us in protesting what has happened.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I notice that the Hon. Member for Annapolis is keeping his counsel and his head low in a rather unusual prudent fashion, but anyway I recognize him as a friend of long standing, and I am sure that he must be wrestling with this particular problem.
What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that if you live in this country anywhere outside of Vancouver, outside of Toronto or outside of Montreal, under this policy of concentration of power, deregulation and privatization of our transportation services, dismantling of our rural postal routes, you are going to be out of luck because the Tory Government has abandoned 120 years of nation building where every Canadian was to be given equal service and treated equally .They have now embraced the philosophy of the unfettered free market.

April 5, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this country was not built solely on market forces. We built this country east and west and north with a railway and a national airline and a national highway and a pipeline and a broadcasting system. We built it with a public infrastructure. We built it against the pull of north/south market forces. We built a public infrastructure to bind this country together. We opposed the trade deal so vigorously because that deal was a sell-out of everything that we had stood for and upon which the country had been built. The same philosophy of the trade deal permeates the Throne Speech: laissez-faire, free market forces, neo-conservatism, profits before people, let the weak take care of themselves, the strong will profit and everything is fine, Jack.
We will be an aggressive opposition, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand up for the less powerful in our country. We are going to continue to hold this Government to account every step of the way. We are going to monitor this trade deal. We are going to challenge the growing concentration of economic power. We are going to oppose the shut down of rural and small town Canada. We are going to highlight the despoiling of our environment. We are going to resist the deterioration of our health care and other social services. I warn the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that we are going to give the upcoming Budget sharp scrutiny.
The Prime Minister now talks about reducing the public debt. What happened since 1984? Who is responsible for the situation that this country finds itself in?
Since the Government assumed power in September, 1984, it has pushed up the public debt from $170 billion to over $320 billion today. It has piled up as much public debt as every previous Government since Confederation. It did that in only four years-despite the biggest tax increases for individuals in Canadian history. The tax increases over the last four years have been larger than they were during two world wars.
Despite the strength in the economy the Government has spent the last four years mismanaging the country's finances and piling debt on top of debt. It is now asking Canadians to pick up the tab. The Prime Minister knew the numbers. The Minister of Finance knew the numbers. They have misled Canadians. They are now going to answer to Canadians for what they have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

M. Turner (Vancouver Quadra)-Mr. Speaker, we must be extremely vigilant. The Government's drift, its inability to act in a coherent, thoughtful way in dealing with the great problems of this country are a serious threat to all Canadians.
This House has not sat for six months, except for a few days in December. In the meantime, a significant number of events have occurred and they have very tangibly altered the mood and the unity of our country.
Absent, invisible and silent since last fall, the Prime Minister has let the situation deteriorate to a point where basic values are now either being threatened or downright trampled underfoot.
The whole history of Canada, since the very day it was founded, reflects the fragile balance between the two founding peoples and the two language communities. It is the duty of all of us here in the House, the elected representatives of the Canadian people, to work zealously, carefully and generously to cement the links between these two language communities.
Mr. Speaker, when I entered this House for the first time in 1962, as a Member from Quebec, we were just beginning to provide services in both official languages. That was thanks to John George Diefenbaker. He must be given credit. During Mr. Pearson's administration, there was sensitivity to the problems of national unity and of accessibility for both languages, especially at the federal level to begin with. Mr. Pearson appointed Andre Laurendeau and Davie Dunton to prepare the Laurendeau-Dunton report on bilingualism and bicul-turalism.
Thanks to these inquiries, we were finally able, under Mr. Trudeau's administration, to present an official languages bill.
April 5, 1989

Then, in 1969, I was Justice Minister. I crossed the country because I had much responsibility for this bill.
I consulted the provincial governments, I negotiated with the attorneys general of the four western provinces because there were objections, I appeared before provincial legislative committees throughout Canada and, as in all cases involving language, this law to legitimize equal status for our country's two official languages was hard to accept in some parts of our country. We needed great patience and determination to reach our goal.
But we did reach it, thanks to Canadians' tolerance, generosity and good will.
I have thus spent much of my public life advancing the cause of French in Canada and especially ensuring the key position of Quebec in our Canadian Confederation.
It was in this spirit, Mr. Speaker, that in an interview with the Montreal daily Le Devoir in June 1986, I presented a reform plan to bring Quebec back to the constitutional negotiating table.
Of course Quebec is legally tied to the 1982 agreement, but the Government of Quebec did not sign the document. I do not intend to delve into the reasons for that. We had to complete the 1982 initiative so that Quebec would politically, emotionally and psychologically regain its place in the great Canadian family. We had to anchor Quebec in Canada. We had to make sure that all Quebecers, Anglophones and Francophones alike, would feel at home within the Canadian confederation.
Our non-partisan propositions did reach that objective, so much so that Premier Bourassa at the time described them as being positive, precise and concise. Despite its flaws, the agreement signed at Meech Lake a year later was indeed a step ahead. We supported it then and we still do now. However right from the beginning we kept saying here in the House and through our Senate colleagues that it had to be improved and we introduced the appropriate amendments. I am still firmly convinced that these improvements are an essential aspect of the proper balance in Canada's federalism.
Unfortunately the Prime Minister chose to take an uncompromising and radical attitude. He has systematically refused to consider our coherent and legitimate propositions. And so did the Premier of Quebec. What is worse still is that by rejecting the Supreme Court ruling on Bill 101 last December, the Premier of Quebec struck a hard blow against the spirit of national reconciliation.
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
It seems clear to me that by endorsing the concept of a distinct society in Quebec we as Members acknowledge, in the regulations and facts alike, the role and status of Quebec's Francophone majority. In the same breath, and just as clearly and as explicitely, we acknowledge the role and status of the Anglophone minority in that province. It is the fact that these two communities are jointly and solidly bound which makes Quebec distinct. My interpretation of a distinct society has been re-affirmed by the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court confirmed that approach. In an enlightened and concisely drafted ruling the Court expressed the view that the language of each of the two Quebec communities ought to be reflected in the linguistic fabric of the province.
Quebec must protect, Quebec must promote the French language. Yes, that principle is absolutely essential. French must be mandatory and have priority and supremacy everywhere. There can be no exception. French must be the language of work in Quebec, at the office, in the plant and in the boardroom as well.
That is the most convincing and effective instrument to make everybody and particularly new immigrants learn French and then blend easily with Quebec's Francophone majority. The Government of Quebec has laws and regulations to preserve Quebec's identity and promote the French language. That too has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The federal Government has tangible means to promote French throughout the country. I would therefore urge both governments, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec, to take every means available to them to make French the language which all Quebecers will spontaneously use in their day to day activities. Still, it seems just as clear to me that, in Quebec as elsewhere, respect must be shown for the minorities' freedom of expression.
Well, by using the notwithstanding clause to deny the rights of Anglophone Quebecers, Mr. Bourassa not only violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also his own Quebec Charter of Rights. Mr. Bourassa himself admitted it during a press conference held on March 14 when he stated, and I quote: "It is the first time in history of this province that a Quebec Premier did not hesitate to deny individual freedoms to protect and defend the French language.

April 5, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
Mr. Bourassa's decision to allow Quebec's anglophone minority to use its language on indoor signs only, not even everywhere, is a superficial response to a complex question. It is a response not contemplated or permitted within the parameters of the Supreme Court judgment. It is a response which is neither good for Quebec nor good for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Every Member of the House from all sides will know that I said the same thing in the same terms when the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Premier of Alberta in turn refused to recognize the full impact of Supreme Court of Canada decisions. I said it was bad for Canada then. It is bad for Canada now. They have the same duty to protect French minority linguistic rights in their provinces that the Province of Quebec has reciprocally in Quebec.
By his silence and his inaction, the Prime Minister of Canada is an accomplice to a direct attack on the basic fundamental rights of the Quebec anglophone minority. In December I pressed him to come out strongly. You can recall the whole week of the second week of the trade debate, day after day in Question Period this Party pressed the Prime Minister for a firm position on Quebec's reaction to the Supreme Court decision and Bill 178. Because he gave us no reaction, contrast it with what he wrote a few months earlier to Premier Devine of Saskatchewan when the Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Saskatchewan language rights case. I quote the Prime Minister's letter to Premier Devine:
In its judgment, the Court observed that language rights are rooted in a deeply sensitive Canadian reality and are reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which establishes among our fundamental constitutional values the acknowledgement of English and French as the official languages of this country. Thus I know you will share my view that the issues raised in the Supreme Court decision go well beyond the borders of Saskatchewan. They have implications for all provinces. Indeed, they go to the essence of the Canadian Federation.
That same letter should have been sent to Premier Bourassa in the same terms.
What did the Prime Minister say about Quebec Law 178? Nothing. What did he do about the Quebec law? Nothing. I know that I have heard in certain quarters people ask: "What are you worried about? It is just commercial signs". The Supreme Court of Canada was quite clear. Commercial signs form part of the fundamental right of free expression, and liberty of expression is part of the most essential character of liberty in this country. There is no way that any Government can duck that implication by saying it is just a matter of commercial signs.
Rights are rights, as Clifford Lincoln said in the VAssemblee Nationale the day he resigned from the Quebec Cabinet. I do not know whether there has ever been in any forum in this country in recent years a better speech than that. This is what he said:
Rights are rights. There is no such thing as inside rights and outside rights. No such a thing as rights for the tall and rights for the short. No such a thing as rights for the front and rights for the back, or rights for the east and rights for the west. Rights are links in a chain of fundamental value that binds all individuals in a society that must, to be credible, be just and fair.

Well, by using the notwithstanding clause to curtail the rights of the minority, Mr. Bourassa sent out a terrible message of intolerance. How did the Prime Minister of Canada respond, the Prime Minister whose mandate is to protect, promote, develop and saveguard our national unity? He decided to pit regions against regions. He said something in one place while his ministers said something entirely different elsewhere. Moreover, he made all sorts of statements while disregarding the true facts. He simply continued what he had done during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker. For days and weeks on end, the Conservative Leader proclaimed everywhere in Quebec that I was going to tear up the Meech Lake Accord. Well, everyone knew, including the Prime Minister, that I have always supported this Accord against hell and high water from the very beginning. In spite of the enormous difficulties I faced as a political leader because of this position, I never changed my mind, whatever the price I had to pay. Through his despicable behaviour, the Prime Minister was guilty of the worst kind of petty politics which has no place in such an important debate for the unity and future of our country.
Here is another example of his treachery. When the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision on Bill 101, the Prime Minister of Canada stated, and I quote:
The notwithstanding clause is inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That is clear. Meanwhile, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard), the then Secretary of State, contended that the use of the notwithstanding clause was, in his own words, "absolutely essential".
April 5, 1989

Well, the main responsibility of the Secretary of State of Canada is to protect minorities wherever they are in this country. What an outrage! A Secretary of State directly associated with the violation of rights of both our minorities!
Again, the Prime Minister kept quiet. Not a word, not a rebuttal. Later, when we wanted to question the Secretary of State himself, he did not even show up in the House. He simply behaved in a weak and cowardly manner, preferring to hide not to have to account for his action. He tried to use the same strategy for a while yesterday. Finally, I told one of his colleagues: Canada does not operate under a presidential system but a parliamentary system. The Ministers are not here simply to make statements but also to listen. That is important.
That our Prime Minister should have done nothing is all together unacceptable. He should have corrected this situation as soon as possible. Even today, we still do not know the real position of the Government on this issue in spite of the ambiguous rhetoric used in the Speech from the Throne. The fact is, the Prime Minister has absolutely no intention of enforcing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So far, he has had all the time in the world and every opportunity to delete the notwithstanding clause from the Constitution. That is a proposition we had made ourselves and which was endorsed at our November 1986 Convention, but the Prime Minister would not even lift a finger. He never raised this issue with his counterparts during the Meech Lake negociations. Mr. Bourassa's offensive on the language issue, concealed with the silent support of the Prime Minister of Canada, triggered a strong reaction throughout the country.
With every passing day, those of us who have supported and still support the concept of Meech Lake meet with growing hostility towards the Accord. And this attitude contrasts with the very nature of this country and its citizens, since Canadians are first and foremost a tolerant people with an inborn sense of justice and equity. This also applies to Quebec Anglophones, whom I have had the privilege and honour of representing for many years in this House.
But, Mr. Speaker, the Anglophones from Quebec also want to protect and to promote the French language and culture. They have chosen to stay in Quebec. They are willing to work and live in French. They want to contribute to the development of the province of Quebec.
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
There is no need to suppress all the other languages to ensure the influential development of the French language. The vast majority of Quebecers, Francophones as well as Anglophones, show goodwill and an immense potential and a profound desire for cooperation.
Consequently, these feelings must be developed, this goodwill must be built upon.
While this House was not sitting, I had the opportunity to travel across Canada to over half the provinces. I found the mood of the country sour. The Meech Lake Accord is fragile. Quebec's language legislation has revived old feelings of mistrust. The repercussions of the trade deal are starting to be felt in the loss of sovereignty, the unprecedented spate of mergers and takeovers and the growth of economic concentration of power. The Government's high interest rate policy is causing hesitation and hardship. The Minister of Finance has vowed to break election promises. The Government is not enjoying a honeymoon. This Government has already dissipated the good will of Canadians.
We are a tolerant and hard working people. Generally speaking, we are receptive to the needs of others. We are willing to make sacrifices, but for us Canadians, one word is key to our response, and it is "fairness". The solution has to be fair and it has to be seen to be fair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This Government has pitted region against region, favouring the wealthy and large corporate interests, leaving lower and middle class income Canadians to their own resources. This Government has demonstrated a meanness of spirit, a callous disregard for so many Canadians.
The sole value that this Government has promoted since 1984 has been money and profits and the glory of the free market. The Conservative Party and the Prime Minister see Canada as little more than a mini version of the United States. They ignore the historical, geographical and cultural differences which make us unique.
The Americans were bom of revolution. We were created by the joining of the British and French traditions. Their constitution calls for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Ours calls for peace, order and good Government.

April 5, 1989
The Address-Right. Hon. John Turner
The American frontier has been closed for almost a century. Ours remains open. Our northern frontier is a vital symbol for us. The Americans are a giant melting pot. We are a cultural mosaic. They are unilingual. We enjoy two official languages. Ours is a parliamentary tradition. Theirs is a presidential system with the separation of powers.
We as Canadians are more influenced than any other nation on earth except perhaps the Russians by our geography, by our environment, by our vast expanse of wilderness. Americans put their faith in market forces. We put our faith in the goal of fairness and sharing, and we believe that those goals are better met with a mixed economy.
I believe that over the coming years, as Canadians, we will need to look to ourselves and to our own traditions to respond to the challenges we are going to face. This Government has not made it easier for us, because while we admire our American friends, we do not want to become American. With respect, American answers are not necessarily Canadian answers.
People from across Canada tell me that no matter how they voted, somehow they rediscovered a sense of Canadianism in themselves, that in the election, they had a very difficult decision to make: Was this good for us as a country, was this good for us as Canadians.
I believe that as Canadians, we can and will rediscover the sense of our own identity which defines us as a nation. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this Party intend to speak out loudly and often in this Parliament to encourage and promote that rediscovery of our identity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Our agenda for the future includes the close monitoring of the trade deal, especially on the subsidy negotiations, to protect what is left of our sovereignty. Our agenda includes a strategic plan for our economy, a plan which incorporates the need for training and retraining for young people and for those older workers who have been displaced by new technology, a plan which has a national apprenticeship program as a central feature and reflects our firm commitment to education as a key to individual growth, to economic prosperity and to our ability to compete, a plan which recognizes and encourages the research and the development which are critical to our growth and expansion, a plan which will encourage our industries to
widen their range of trade into horizons beyond this continent into the Pacific Rim, Europe and the Third World.
Our agenda will also reflect our environmental consciousness as Canadians. A concept of sustainable development must indeed guide our economic and political decision making not only here in Canada but around the world. Our very lives and health depend on it.
The march toward real social justice must not only continue, it must be accelerated. We must forge a new social consensus which will reverse the trend under this Government of increasing the gap between rich and poor, and the fact that the fastest growing group of poor is children is a sad commentary on our failure to come to grips with the reality of poverty in our country.
We must reach our goal of full equality between men and women in all areas of our society starting with the workplace. We must once and for all recognize the legitimate aspirations, the historic aspirations, the inherent rights of the native peoples of this country and move toward self-government.
Every Canadian in eveiy part of Canada must be given an equal chance to participate fully in our country. We must convince even the most sceptical that social justice is not only fair, it is good business. The rights of the individual, for a Liberal, must remain paramount.
We must also, all of us, do our best to rekindle the bonds between our two linguistic communities, to encourage and revive the spirit of harmony and tolerance which is lacking today.
As Canadians, we must do our part to encourage the continued improvement of relations between the superpowers. The recent initiatives on disarmament are very encouraging. There are still, however, numerous regional conflicts, regional problems, around the world claiming, thousands of innocent lives, and Canadians must reclaim our leadership role in the search for peace.
I am confident that the values on which this country was built can survive. It will take great effort, more effort, to realize our vision for our country in view of the unprecedented challenges I have recited. We in this Party are committed to meeting those challenges. We will continue to fight for a more generous, fair and sovereign Canada. It is for this reason that I move, seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), that the following words be added to the Address:
April 5, 1989

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 ccess 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.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I find the amendment to be in order.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in my view-and I suspect I am by no means unique in this regard-a Speech from the Throne ought to be a call to action to all Canadians to come together and move toward overcoming, if not actually succeeding immediately, our common problems in an equitable fashion. It should be a challenge to a nation to achieve more fairness, a greater sense of justice. It should be clear and balanced in its economics and noble in its goals.
Instead of doing this, the Government has given us a Throne Speech aimed at benefiting only one part of the Canadian community to the detriment of Canadians in all the rest of the country.
I say-and I want to make this clear in my speech as I continue this afternoon-that the Government may well have had, as it did, the organized and financial support of the business community in the election that took place last fall. But it is the people in this country who actually did the voting-including those who voted for the Conservative Party-such as nurses, fishermen, miners, loggers, steel workers, bank clerks, and housewives.
The Government we now have that has produced this Throne Speech was elected therefore by all the people. A government elected by all the people must serve the interests of all the people and not just the minority of the privileged and the powerful.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Just as after the 1984 election, so too this time the Government is producing a hidden agenda. After 1984 we got the trade deal. As all Canadians know, the trade deal was not discussed at all in the 1984 campaign. And during the 1988 election we had promises not only by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulro-ney) but by candidates who are now elected as Members of Parliament for the Conservative Party, promises on economic growth, on regional development and on tax fairness.
Now we are getting a policy of slashing, cut-backs and tax increases affecting ordinary Canadians in every part of our land. Instead of inspiring Canadians with a commanding call to work for justice, this Throne Speech will do just the opposite. It will remind Canadians of what the Conservative pollsters told them before the last election, something which they have always suspected about the Conservatives: Theirs is a Party where policies and programs are not aimed at benefiting the majority. The Conservative Government is one that carries out all its objectives in the interests of all those who already have too much power and influence in our society.
I can tell you now-and the House has already seen it in the past 24 hours-that New Democratic Party Members of Parliament elected in the fall of 1988-having in particular seen this Throne Speech and having heard in the past weeks what is the real agenda of the Conservative Party-have no intention of sitting back and letting it happen. We are going to oppose with determined vigour every Bill that flows out of this Throne Speech and every budget item that will come in the weeks ahead.
Not only have the Conservatives turned up side down what they campaigned on in so many regions of the country in the fall of 1988. They have ignored one of their most crucial commitments which some of us thought at least they might take some steps toward resolving. During the election campaign and after, in the debates that took place here in the House of Commons during the Christmas period, the Government promised-in terms of the few negative consequences, which it acknowledged might flow from the great trade deal in terms of certain sectors of the economy-that it would produce a compensatory program to deal with the men and women who will be laid off in certain sectors and that it would deal with the communities so affected.

April 5, 1989
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
The Prime Minister, as is his wont, characterizes the approach of the Government in terms of such words as "generous" and "massive". "Massive adjustment program" and "a generous program" were also used. Then, with typical understatement, the Prime Minister said that it would be "the finest program" that exists anywhere in the world in terms of aiding the men and women who would have inflicted upon them, as a consequence of a deal against which most Canadians voted, an economic program that forced them out of a job. We now know that the Government has no intention of doing that.
[ Translation ]
Instead of keeping its promises, the Government is examining the totally inadequate recommendations made by the Grandpre Commission. Before and during the election, business lobbyists launched an aggressive campaign to promote free trade with the Americans and support the Conservative Party. The interests of Canadian workers have been ignored so that the Government can meet the agenda set by his friends in the business world.

Since the election we have seen coming into being what clearly members of the business community had in mind when they gave support to the Conservatives in that election, and specifically for the trade deal.
In the period leading up to the Throne Speech, from speeches, from selected press releases of Ministers of the Crown, and from public comments and statements made by representatives of the business community all across the land, we have seen that the Conservatives and the business community together have one narrowly focused agenda. What they have done is to focus solely on substantial cuts to government spending and on their joint desire to impose a massive regressive new sales tax on the people of Canada. They are not going to get away with either one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to spend a minute to show that this is not simply rhetoric or a predetermined attitude that we have as a social democratic party that these results would inevitably have occurred. Sometimes we are surprised. It would have been nice to have been surprised and not to have seen the co-ordinated attack
on the people of Canada-because that is the way I wish to put it-by the business lobby and the Conservative Government in recent weeks.
The Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the C.D. Howe Institute, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. All have had one message in their submissions to the Government in recent weeks, and in their calculated release of this information to the public of Canada in the period leading up to the Throne Speech. The message was clear: There had to be cut-backs in the public sector in general and on social programs in particular.
Members of the business community would like to convince the people of Canada that their agenda is somewhat different from that. They would like us to believe that what they are really concerned about, and exclusively concerned about, is the deficit. I do not believe for a minute that this is the case. I believe that some of them do have a concern with the deficit, and that is their priority. It is not ours.
However, there should be no illusion in our type of society-whether it is here in Canada, in western Europe, or in the United States of America-that there is an ongoing battle of power in society between those who already have substantial amounts in our economic system and the rest of the general population. That battle was being openly waged prior to the Throne Speech, and the business community saw, as a perfect instrument for gaining power, maintaining it, and using it to advantage, the Conservative Party of Canada.
If members of the business community were allegedly only concerned about the deficit, why did they not make some different proposals from the ones that they did? Why is it that they only focused on social programs and the need, to use their terms, for a "reformed" sales tax? Sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation in any society. Did members of those business groups that I have listed come forward and say: "Let us put an end to all those economically ineffective but lucrative programs that benefit us?"


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


John Edward Broadbent: That would have saved some drain on the deficit. However, they did not do that. Did they come forward and propose a minimum tax on all corporations that are profitable? This tax already exists not only in the United States of America, but also in many other industrial countries in the world? Did they do that?
April 5, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: No, No!


John Edward Broadbent: The absence of such a minimum tax in Canada is also a drain on the deficit. If they were really concerned about the deficit, why did they not propose such a tax?
As my colleague, has just said, did the business community come forward and say: "My goodness, there are over $30 billion in deferred taxes out there? This is shocking. What a drain on the deficit that is. This must be stopped." Collecting such taxes would help bring down the deficit that the business community is allegedly concerned about. But no, Mr. Speaker, they did not say a word about the deferred taxes.
That is the priority of members of the business community. They are not the politicians, and that is their right in a free society. However, we should not have any illusions about what they are up to, and the net affects of such a policy. The people I hold responsible are not the private citizens in the business community. I hold responsible the Conservative politicians who form the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The business community and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have not talked about these drains on the deficit, or about these overwhelmingly ineffective economic devices that are remarkably advantageous to a certain group and, from the point of view of equity, should be radically reformed. The Minister of Finance and the business community did not talk about these at all. All they talked about was the need to have cut-backs in social programs, such as the unemployment insurance scheme or such as putting an end to universality of family allowances and cutting regional programs that are absolutely essential to average and poor families in Canada.
I remind the Conservatives who were elected that it is the average families and poor families who make up the majority of Canadians, and just once the Government should listen to a majority instead of a minority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Yesterday I got up out of bed and turned on the CBC. I believe I was listening to a NABET announcer, however I am not sure. I heard the news yesterday morning. I heard that wonderful voice of the Minister of Finance talking from Washington, which is singularly appropriate. Michael has a tough time deciding whether he is in Ottawa or Washington. It does not
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
make a lot of difference to him. What he was saying surprised me. One of the things about the Minister of Finance, and I will be frank, is that he is normally straightforward. If he had written the Throne Speech, at least we would have got the goods straight instead of all this malarkey. We will get it straight-even if we do not like it-when we see the Budget in a few weeks.
The Minister of Finance stated that he could accept a levelling off, a turning down of the economy at this time. That is alarming, Mr. Speaker, because his argument was that the economy is overheated and as Minister of Finance he would not be unhappy to see some cooling off. We in the New Democratic Party say just the opposite at this time. Whatever Michael Wilson may think, most parts of this country have not fully recovered from the recession that began in the early 1980s. We do not say that it is time to turn down the economy. We still need economic growth in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: At a time when we have more than a million men and women unemployed, it is totally irresponsible for a Minister of Finance to say he can willingly accept a downturn in the economy. We need an economic policy of growth that puts its emphasis on regional development and a tax fairness phased in over the next few years whose ultimate goal is not virtual full employment in only one part of Canada but virtual full employment from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We believe, as has been achieved elsewhere in this world by social democratic Governments, that we can have an approach to the economy which does not accept that we must have a trade off between unemployment and inflation. We believe that if we have the right mix of policies, of taxes and interest rates, of getting the private sector and the public sector to work together, we could achieve the goals I have just alluded to.

The growing inequity in our taxation system is flagrant. Because we have no minimum income tax for profitable corporations, the Treasury loses nearly $1 billion a year. Because large profitable corporations do not pay their fair share of income tax, Canadian families are paying more than their share.

April 5, 1989
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
Instead of eliminating this inequity, the Conservatives expect to squeeze billions more out of Canadian families by introducing their new regressive sales tax. Year after year, the Auditor General points out that corporations owe billions of dollars in differed income tax. The total amount is now over $30 billion, most of which will never be paid.
The speech from the Throne contains no indication that the next Budget will oblige large corporations to pay their share.
Mr. Speaker, there are countries where corporations do pay their share, and it is high time corporations here in Canada did as well.
Mr. Speaker, to promote economic growth, it is generally desirable to promote competition. The Conservatives often talk about the importance of being competitive. However, Canada has the highest rate of corporate concentration among industrialized countries. Our economy is becoming increasingly concentrated. Nine families own 46 per cent of the total share-value of the 300 most important companies quoted on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Recently, Canadian consumers and Canadian workers who were directly affected could do nothing about the purchase of Wardair by Canadian, the Molson and Carling merger, Imperial Oil's purchase of Texaco Canada and the takeover of Consolidated Bathurst by a Chicago company. Because of the investment interest deduction, these recent mergers will cost the Treasury millions of dollars.
Instead of making decisions to remedy this situation, the minister responsible gave his blessing. Instead of changing the tax system that encourages this process, the Conservatives want to cut the budget for social programs.

What about interest rates? Interest rates stand today in the neighbourhood of 13 per cent. As our critic for financial matters pointed out in the House yesterday, real interest rates are already as high as they were at the highest peak during the Liberal's period in office at the beginning of the 1980s. At that time, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the present Minister of Finance when they were in opposition said that this was an horrendous and unacceptable situation. It was unacceptable then with a Liberal Government, and it is unacceptable now with a Conservative Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Such interest rates are terrible for small businesses, bad for men and women and families who want to buy homes or renew mortgages, terrible for farmers across Canada, particularly those on the Prairies where in the last few years almost nothing has gone in the right direction. Now these groups are being hit with record levels of interest rates once again.
A Government preoccupied with the issue of the deficit is well aware that for each percentage point rise in the interest rate, debt charges to the people of Canada increase by $1.5 billion. The difference in the actual interest rate and the rate projected by the Government in its 1988 Budget, if sustained for one year alone, will add a whopping $7.9 billion to the deficit for which the people of Canada will have to pay.
The Minister of Finance was in Washington at a meeting of the G-7. I do not want to pretend that the Canadian Government or any other Government could act in complete isolation from what is going on in the industrial world in terms of interest rate policy. But there is some room for freedom, and we have not exercised that. In terms of our historical relationship between Canada and the United States, we could still have lower interest rates than we now have.
There are so many Conservative Governments now in the industrial world that when the G-7 gets together it is like a meeting of the Albany Club; It is the Conservatives gathered together on a world-wide basis, regrettably with only one or two exceptions. The Government ought to be concerned about the negative effects of high interest rates in the regions outside southern Ontario and southern Quebec.
At the G-7 level, instead of automatically assuming a very conservative ideology on interest rates, there should be a determined effort by Ministers of Finance for all the industrial countries to understand what happened in the early 1980s. At that time, the same industrial countries began to increase interest rates to head off inflation. If we do that long enough, if we put millions of workers out of work, which is exactly what happened in Western Europe and North America, instead of healing a sick economy we kill a patient. This process did curtail inflation, but at untold and unacceptable costs in the life experience of millions of people here in Canada and abroad.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 5, 1989


John Edward Broadbent: What our Minister of Finance ought to be doing at the G-7 meeting is trying to get the other countries there to understand the lessons from the early 1980s and to make sure that the same errors are not repeated with this lock-step high interest rate policy going into the 1990s.
The Government has been indifferent to the consequences of its economic policy, particularly on the regions of the country. It has been particularly indifferent to the fact that the majority of the provinces have not got back to where they were in the pre-1981 period in terms of unemployment. We in this Party believe-and this goes to the root in so many ways of what it means to be a social democrat-that for the large majority of people, men and women, and clearly it now is with the majority of women in the labour force outside the home, that the major source of human contentment comes from having a job. We cannot remain indifferent to the persistent high unemployment reality. Thus we say to the Government: instead of what it is doing in attacking the Unemployment Insurance Program in this Throne Speech it ought to be attacking unemployment. That is where the problem is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am making an argument that if there is the right mix of policies one can deal with inflation, the need for more jobs and the problem of debt. I point out that every time the level of unemployment drops by one percentage point there is added some $2 billion to the Treasury because men and women are paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment insurance and companies, most of them, are also paying taxes.
We in this Party believe that men and women in Atlantic Canada, in northern Ontario and in northern Quebec, in the Prairies and in British Columbia ought to have the human right to get a job for its own sake. If they cannot do that then those of us who have political power are ultimately responsible. We believe it is important for its own right. But I also want to say as a Canadian leading a national Party that this country of ours cannot persist with a kind of two Canada's policy. We cannot persist in this country of ours to accept that there can be almost full employment in central Canada but permanent high levels of unemployment outside central Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Broadbent


John Edward Broadbent: It is important for its own right but it is also important for something called national unity. If we want to avoid irrational conflict, if we want to promote a sense of the Canadian family, then we have to promote a sense of equality of opportunity for all members of the Canadian family.
In terms of the regional concerns that any national Government of this country ought to have, both before and during the recent election the trade deal as it was discussed by myself and by my colleagues had as one of its core elements a negative impact on regional development policies. I say that because for those of us who believe in a mixed economy, serious regional development policies involve government action. Government action and government subsidies are regarded in that culture to the south of us as being unacceptable. They are not unacceptable to us. We accept them as desirable in principle. If we want to get a certain kind of industry going, perhaps in Alberta or in New Brunswick, because initially it may not be able to compete with southern Ontario, California or some other place, then it has to be given a kick-start to get it under way, as it was built in one part of Canada by a high tariff policy for so many years. To get it under way in certain parts of Canada, we say on principle that government involvement and government intervention are desirable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Because of the cultural differences between the United States of America and Canada where profoundly different historical patterns have developed, we have said that the trade deal definition of what would constitute a subsidy inevitably would impact negatively on our capacity to have our kind of regional development policy. This was pooh-poohed by the Prime Minister before the election and during the election. It was pooh-poohed by principal spokespersons for the business community when I raised it during the course of the election. We were told not to worry about it.
We have seen the consequence already, after the deal was signed, after we got things in place in this country, after the Conservative Government did the bidding of U.S. interests. What did we see? In Cape Breton we saw the Sydney Steel Corporation being singled out by the United States. Why? It was because it receives government assistance. For the American tradition this is an unacceptable subsidy.
We have seen the same attitudes being expressed in terms of processing our fish in this country for export. For God's sake, what kind of freedom does one have as a nation-which wants to develop its own resources-if it does not retain the right to finish to whatever level of processing a product in its own country before it is

April 5, 1989
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
exported? Under this deal now the Americans are taking actions that could completely undermine the tradition that we want to add to in this Party, a tradition of practical and serious regional development policies which do indeed involve government participation with the private sector.
I want to say about this particular aspect of the trade deal that discussions are going on now between Canada and the United States on what constitutes a subsidy, or an appropriate subsidy. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that all the members of the New Democratic Party caucus, no matter from where they come, have an interest in Canada as a whole. We are going to do everything we can to assure that at least the traditional Canadian definition of what constitutes an appropriate and acceptable definition of regional development policy will remain in Canada.
On the same issue of regional fairness in this country, some of us were not entirely surprised when in the past 10 days we heard that the Government froze the discussions that were going on with the provinces concerning regional development policy. Suddenly, they all came to a halt. We know why. What the Government is going to do is put a freeze on funds that were traditionally going out in recent years in adequate amounts to the provinces for regional development. We will see the final results of this, of course, when we see the Budget of the Minister of Finance.
The Government's adherence to the simplistic and self-serving big business agenda is also seen very clearly in its response to the problems of VIA Rail. VIA Rail, the passenger aspect of rail transportation in our country, has its equivalents in every successful industrial country in western Europe. It has its equivalent now in the United States, where even the United States has put public capital into Amtrak to make sure it works.
A few years ago the Conservatives blasted the Liberals at the time-and I was amused to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) say today that the Conservatives are going to be doing some wicked things about VIA Rail. I was here in 1980, and I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it was the Liberals who cut VIA Rail first, not the Conservatives. The present Leader of the Opposition is saying that he was not here.


John Napier Turner: That is right. You were making a good speech.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he was not here then, he may not be here in a short period of time either, and the Liberal Party is the Liberal Party. It said one thing when it was in power and another thing after.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to say not only to the Leader of the Opposition, who agrees right now with the position that we are taking on VIA Rail, but to others that this is important. It is important in most regions of Canada including where there are many Conservative seats. I am sure they are following with interest the debate on VIA Rail. It is an essential public service that can be made profitable.
I have had occasion, with my caucus colleagues, to meet representatives of Atlantic Canada today about VIA Rail. I pointed out to them that in my constituency of Oshawa, in the automotive sector for passenger travel, the company called General Motors put $2 billion of investment into one little community. General Motors does not expect to have a return within weeks or within months on that investment. General Motors plans years down the road to get a return on that investment. We say that there is only one group in our society that will make sure that VIA Rail will pay off in the future, and that is the people of Canada. Only the people of Canada through the Government of Canada can put money into VIA Rail to make it exciting and a much better service. It is good now, but the service could be much better, and the people of Canada through the Government of Canada should be doing that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say to some of the Conservatives here today who may have a bit of interest in this issue that one of the new bits of information I got from listening to people today was to learn Bombardier, a Canadian company, is currently supplying new equipment to Amtrak in the United States. It is not only supplying equipment to make Amtrak better, but it is doing so with subsidies from the Canadian Government through the Export Development Corporation.
April 5, 1989

Canadian taxpayers are helping Bombardier sell equipment to make Amtrak better for American passengers. I say to the Conservative Government: "If you can subsidize rail service in the United States, why can't you do it even more effectively here in Canada?"


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As I said, Mr. Speaker, in a different context instead of derailing VIA Rail, why does the Government not simply sink its nuclear submarine policy?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: There are a couple of other priorities that we in this Party believe that this Government should be addressing in a much more serious way which have either been inadequately dealt with or ignored. One of these I want to mention is child care. The policy announced by the Government prior to the last election concerned every person working in the field-man, woman, easterner, westerner, Quebecois.

Quebecers or citizens of another region.

Everyone who knew something about child care condemned the program. There was not an expert that I talked to who thought it was effective. It seemed merely to be a politically expedient scheme so the Conservatives could say they were going to do something about child care. It was very regressive, as we pointed out at the time. It was to provide less money for new child care spaces than was already in the works under existing programs.
I had hoped that at least in this area of social policy the Government of Canada would have been responding to the real needs of our people and would have come back and said: "We are going to bring in child care. We are going to produce a child care program that is going to be universally accessible, that is going to be adequate for our children, and that is going to be available at a reasonable cost, at a rate that all people who need it can afford". That is what they should have been doing.
I want to say, in particular as a man, that it is important for future families that child care be available and that it meet the real needs of our children, as they are the ones who are affected by this. The family structure is so profoundly changed from the days when I grew up. At
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
some point one hopes men and women will share the parental burden on an equal basis, but we are kidding ourselves if we do not understand the real problem today. In terms of psychological requirement if I can put it that way, women want to work. Most of them are now outside the home. For culturally induced reasons they have feelings, much more profound than those of us of the male sex, in that they need to look after children.
We should understand that, if we really believe that a woman ought to have a real choice not just an abstract choice to stay at home, which is a desirable and legitimate choice. If a woman really wants to get out and work and feel that her children are going to be adequately looked after, we need an adequate child care program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Conservative Throne Speech and at all the statements that were made by the Ministers before it was presented, and what surely we are going to be getting from the Minister of Finance when he brings down his Budget, you will see that it means only one thing, that the persistent high levels of unemployment will remain and probably get worse. There will be an increase, not a reduction, in corporate concentration. There will be an exacerbation, not a reduction in regional tension. There will be cuts to social programs like unemployment insurance. There will be more money for the wealthy and less for the poor, greater benefits for large corporations and less for the smaller.
This need not be the case. It must not be the case and it would not be the case if we had a New Democratic Party Government in Canada. I can tell you that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What we need is imaginative leadership which understands that economic policy must transcend the narrow priorities of one part of the Canadian community. With the right mix of policies, as I have said, on interest rates, on taxes, on investment in the private and public sector, with anti-inflation policies that are directed at certain regions when inflation occurs there, we can build the kind of Canada that would go way beyond the dreams of those who currently hold power in this Parliament.
I want now to say something about the environment, Mr. Speaker.

April 5, 1989
The Address-Mr. Broadbent

We have inherited one of the most beautiful countries on this planet. Travelling from Newfoundland to Vancouver, from Whitehorse to Quebec City in any season is always very pleasant. For too long we have ravaged the beauty of our country and threatened the heritage of future generations with disappearance.
As the Brundtland Commission has shown, as television reports have illustrated, as all children now know, the problem of the environment, from the forests of Brazil to the ozone layer, is global. The future of the human race depends on concerted, well-chosen international political action. All governments must commit themselves to sustainable economic development and respect for our environment. Yes, the problem is global, but to obtain concrete results, each country must act on its own territory. Otherwise, this noble objective will become another overlooked cliche!
Consider the response of the Government to the oil spill almost two weeks ago and to another one off the west coast of Vancouver Island three months ago. We have seen a Government that has learned all the right cliches.
During the last election campaign I was proud of my Party which had, months before the election, laid out serious proposals on the environment. We were proud to take that to the people of Canada in the fall of 1988. Suddenly the Government, no doubt after it did its polling, found that the people of Canada were light years ahead of it on the environment. It began to talk about the environment during the election. The new Minister has talked about the environment since. Canadians are fed up with talk. They want to see some concrete action from the Government on the question of the environment.
Nothing was so indicative of its seeming opaqueness on the subject as the Minister's reply in the House today. The people of Vancouver Island are still working on a spill that took place three months ago. First, the Minister even refused to answer the question. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) acted as if everything was fine, nothing needed to be done and the Government was not responsible for the fiasco three months ago.
We believe there should be a royal commission that could act quickly and thoroughly on this subject. There are problems now, but if we do not take corrective action there will be problems in the future and the Government will be held responsible. In that context, some of the specific proposals I want to put forward now are drafted in such a way that we put legal obligations on the Government rather than depend simply on political will.

The Parliament of Canada must take the following action during the next session.
First, pass a charter of environmental rights that would give citizens access to all environmental information and the right to sue governments on environmental matters.
Show that we are as concerned about the environment as we are about property by including in the Criminal Code penalties for serious environmental infractions.
Pass a law requiring Cabinet to make all its economic decisions comply with the principle of sustainable development.
This is absolutely necessary to give real meaning to what the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have said about sustainable development.
Canadian legislation must be clear and override the trade agreement, which fundamentally contradicts the principle of sustainable development.
From now on, the protection of our land, our air, our water and our trees must not be negotiable. That is our policy.

I want to turn now to foreign policy. There has been what can only be described as the most serious absence of leadership by the Government on foreign policy issues. It is either doing nothing, doing it too late, or the Prime Minister is saying one thing while the Secretary of State for External Affairs is saying another.
The Government was the last representative of a country in the western world to recognize that Chairman Arafat had something positive, necessary and long overdue to say in his statements in Algiers and Geneva. The situation in the Middle East is terribly complex. I will not presume to be an expert on it, but some of us have followed it carefully and know that some of the conditions which have to be met include Palestinian rights and the right of Israel to exist. Israel is a good friend of Canada and there is no change in that policy. But it is totally unacceptable to the people of Canada for Canada
April 5, 1989

to lag so far behind in accepting change when it has taken place in that part of the world.
I said on other occasions that the Prime Minister at one point showed leadership in the Commonwealth on the South African issue. I heard from others who were at the meeting that on one important occasion the Prime Minister took on the Prime Minister of Great Britain in a commendable fashion in the interest of the black majority of South Africa. Again, the Government seems to have taken a fashionable approach to international politics as it has done with other issues.
What seems to have been the policy a few years ago has been dropped by the Government. The leadership that was forthcoming then has been abandoned because the Government has refused to follow through on the Prime Minister's 1985 commitment at the United Nations to produce a comprehensive set of sanctions against South Africa, as we ought to have in place.
Let us turn to East-West relations. Beyond any question, in terms of its ultimate impact on Canada and the world, the relationship between the Soviet Bloc and Western Bloc is by far the most important.
In saying this, I may obviously and clearly be wrong in my judgment, but if one looks at the history of the 20th century, apart from the abomination of the Second World War, two globally significant people in terms of their impact on history have emerged. One of them was Lenin, most of whose consequences I frankly suggest were negative, whatever the aspirations. When Lenin arrived at the Finland station in the early part of this century, history in a global sense began to move in one direction.
The other man of great and world significance who has come on the scene-and we must understand that he is trying to undo so much that has been wrong-is Mr. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. We should understand that and give support to those remarkable reforms that have been taking place.
I ask all Members of the House, particularly those in the Government of Canada, to think about the changes that have been made in the last three years by this remarkable man and the obviously progressive people with him. Let us consider the unilateral action that has been taken by the Soviet Union, such as on site inspection in the Soviet Union.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
I recall talking to Mr. Gorbachev when he was here before he became the head of his Party. The issue of on site inspection in the Soviet Union was discussed. He intimated in conversation that it may happen. It was never accepted before. There is now on site inspection in the Soviet Union.
There is the unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan, uncensored news reports, the travels of Sakharov and Bonner. There is the permission of critical theatre and printing. There is even an open competition for election, albeit within a one-Party system, but we will watch and see what happens with that.
There have been remarkable changes in that society in the last few years, and I repeat that they were unilateral. I also say on behalf not only of my colleagues, but, I am sure, of progressive and humane people in Canada and all over the world, that they were changes that were overdue and desirable. But what remarkable tenacity and courage must have been required by a number of people in that very different society from ours who launched them. So I am saying, therefore, if these changes are going on in a country that will have a major impact on the world, whether we like it or not, Canada should not be ignoring these initiatives. We should be responding by taking initiatives of our own as a country.
Surely we must understand in the West that if Mr. Gorbachev and what he stands for fails, the situation will not get better, it will get worse, and we will see or could see the return of the Cold War and all that that could mean, first and foremost for the people of the Soviet Union themselves, but also for us in terms of international politics.
This move toward democracy in the Soviet Union is important to men and women in the Soviet Union, important to men and women in the Baltic states, important to the people of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. It is important to men and women all over the world.
We have a role to play. It is a minor role, but it should not be dismissed. We have exercised that role in the past and surely we should be doing it now. I ask on behalf of the people of Canada, where is the Canadian voice?

April 5, 1989
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
A current discussion within NATO, for example, has Margaret Thatcher wanting to modernize nuclear weapons. Chancellor Kohl of West Germany is undecided, but the Prime Minister of Norway and the head of the Government in Spain are opposed and are openly saying that they should not be modernized. I say that instead of sitting back and watching the debate take place between Margaret Thatcher on one hand and Mrs. Brundtland on the other, the Prime Minister of Canada should make our position clear, and we should say that we are against the modernization of nuclear weapons.
There are other things that we can do to complement in part what I have said already are the unilateral actions by the Soviet Union. We can get rid of that decision to build nuclear submarines that is economically foolish and irresponsible in terms of world peace. We should say no to that right away. We should also put an end to the tests of air-launched Cruise missiles.
Again, I talked about that particular issue with Mr. Gorbachev when he was in this country, and he was quite candid in what he had to say. If we want to move in a sensible direction there, we should say we will put an end to tests in Canada. And then we could say to the Soviets, who are our northern neighbours: Let us initially have a joint treaty whereby they will not hold any tests and we will not hold any tests, and let us develop verification procedures together, because the Cruise field is complex. Let us try that, and then we could make it the basis, perhaps, of a global test. We are their northern neighbour. We have access. We have a role to play and that would be a constructive initiative. It would be something useful. I again say to the Prime Minister: "Get out and do it".
I also say that we should take seriously, instead of dismissing cynically, what Mr. Gorbachev had to say about the Arctic. We should test him on the seriousness of his proposals by talking about the Kola Peninsula and see just how seriously they are prepared to make changes in that part of the world.
In this context, I want to say that these kinds of steps taken by a Canadian leader ought not to be seen, as is so often suggested by Conservatives, as anti-American. The low level of argumentation that has to be dealt with is almost embarrassing. Anyway, look at Mr. Pearson, a Canadian Prime Minister, not of my Party, obviously. He incurred the wrath of Lyndon Johnson at one time on Vietnam. Pierre Trudeau's disarmament moves annoyed
Ronald Reagan. Mr. Diefenbaker, I remember at one time, did the same thing about Bomarc missiles.
I say to our Prime Minister that these Canadians did not do it because they were anti-American or to annoy the Americans. They did it because they were interested in making some realistic Canadian contribution to peace, and they stood up as independent Canadians and understood that the United States is a different country and that we can make our own polices.
I want to conclude my remarks in this vein by saying to the Prime Minister, certainly go to Moscow. Go without illusions, but understand that the Soviet Union has changed. Go there, speak up for freedom, speak up for disarmament, speak up for global peace. Do this and you will have every New Democrat, every Liberal, every Canadian in the country, I am sure, behind you, but go, Mr. Prime Minister, and do those things.
I want to conclude by saying that Governments, in my view, should be acting at home and abroad, in domestic and foreign policy, to promote the confidence and the security of the people of Canada. Now is the time to use the instruments of government to meet the needs of Canadians for jobs, for child care, for safe transportation, for environmental protection, and for regional fairness. Now is the time for lower interest rates, strong regional development programs and corporate tax reform. Now is the time to promote greater fairness and equality within Canada and peace and disarmament in the world at large. Now is the time to do our part, not complacently to leave Canada as it is but to see and achieve what Canada might become.
Having said that, I want to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis):
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words: 'And specifically regrets the failure of the Government to protect the environment through the criminalization of environmental offences and thorough review of the environmental impact of government initiatives: to establish a national child care program with national objectives of care; to provide a coherent, well-articulated foreign policy for Canada at a time when leadership is required; to put the needs of ordinary Canadians ahead of those of its corporate friends; to make sure that wealthy Canadian corporations and individuals carry their fair share of the tax burden; to provide assistance to workers dislocated by the trade deal and/or corporate restructuring; to meet the needs of Canada's regions; or to commit itself to a policy of full employment for all Canadians; and finally to ameliorate the harm caused to Canadian families and regions through its high interest policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 5, 1989

The Address-Mr. Broadbent


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I find the subamendment to be today, this House now stands adjourned until 11 a.m. in order.	tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

In accordance with the agreement reached earlier


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 6, 1989