1989-04-13

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of the Order in Council regarding Canada's peacekeeping force to Namibia.


BANK ACT
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State for Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a Bill that will provide for better disclosure of bank charges and that will improve the mechanism by which consumers can make known their complaints.

This Bill is the fulfilment of the commitment of the Government to reintroduce a bank service charge Bill which died on the Order Paper last year.

Whereas the old Bill only covered personal accounts, the scope of the new Bill is broadened to include
business accounts. The new Bill also includes some technical changes.


[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.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition in the House pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition falls out of the Raffer-ty-Alameda issue. The Government was brought kicking and screaming into this matter as a result of the court decision to carry out the appropriate environmental review of the matter. The petitioners are concerned about this unwillingness of the Government until forced by the courts. They are submitting this petition and humbly praying and calling upon Parliament to enact an environmental assessment review law requiring all initiatives under federal jurisdiction to receive open scrutiny and public comment. This law will establish strict criteria.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by several persons who are criticizing the Government for an unfair and complex income tax system. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to introduce a simpler and fairer tax system that establishes a better balance between corporate and personal taxes and restores indexation to the Child Tax Credit.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present 17 petitions signed by more than 600 people on the use of the Port of Churchill. This is in addition to the four petitions that I tabled yesterday.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Finestone
The people of the communities The Pas, Moose Lake, and South Indian Lake have expressed their concern with the lack of use of The Port of Churchill. In their opinion, they believe that the Port of Churchill could improve the economies of Canada's prairie provinces, and that there is is a need for the federal Government to develop the obvious potential of Canada's only inland seaport.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to direct the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board to ensure that, at the very least, 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments be shipped through the Port of Churchill, and that the Government aggressively pursue additional ways to utilize this important seaport to ship exports other than grain.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of the Senior Citizens Council of Saint-Laurent. As with several other petitions that I have had the pleasure of presenting to the House, the Senior Citizens Council of Saint-Laurent is requesting that the federal Government invest the $4 billion that was scheduled for nuclear powered submarines into research for AIDS, cancer, and cardiovascular illnesses.
I also have the same petition to present on behalf of the concerned parishioners of St.-Paul's Lutheran Church in Saint-Laurent.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you another petition from the Saint-Sixte Social Club in Saint-Laurent asking for the same thing, namely that Canadians' mental and physical health should be considered a priority for the federal Government and that health should take precedence over nuclear submarines.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the high-tech industry workers in Saint-Laurent requesting that Parliament establish the Canadian Space Agency in the riding of Saint-Laurent because of the infrastructures which are already in place.
I have another petition with fairly close to 1,000 signatures from Bombardier Canadair-


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you another petition from Bombardier-Canadair asking the Government of Canada to take the necessary action to set up the Space Agency in the riding of Saint-Laurent, which has all the essential infrastructure to create a favourable environment so this agency can achieve optimal performance and world influence.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from the Conservative ridings of Lachine, Bourassa, Mercier, Verdun, Rose-mont and Laval and from the beautiful riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie. These men and women ask the Conservative Government to cancel the construction of two nuclear-powered submarines costing $2 billion each, or $4 billion in all, and to take this money and spend it on health, which is important for everyone, on research into cancer, cardiovascular diseases, AIDS, etc. and to give this money to hospitals so that they can buy equipment to heal the sick.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 12, 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.
April 13, 1989
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to greatly acknowledge the support I received during the last election, and on an ongoing basis, from the members of the riding of Mount Royal. It is on their behalf that I rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne, and I hope I reflect-and I believe I do reflect-the majority views held in that riding.
Every Government makes a Throne Speech, and every Parliament debates it, but the fundamental aim of a Throne Speech is to present a Government's vision of the future. It is to present a Government's evaluation of where it is, where society is, and where it plans to go. Its vision, in other words, for Canada.
I would suggest that this Throne Speech is one the Government can ill afford to be proud of. It is one that looks at a very complex society in an international world that is becoming more and more complex and shrinking nonetheless in terms of international global action. This Government does not seem to be wakening up in the same country, with the same people and the same concerns as those people whom I know, and who are reflected through 57 per cent of the vote of this country.
Canadians are not impressed with this Throne Speech. It is a one-issue, deficit-cutting mind-set, market-force philosophy, and a very narrow-minded vision. The Government cannot and should not be proud of the message it is sending out. This is a Government that will cut wherever possible, and just as an assailant would, it indiscriminately cuts down anything that crosses its path. It is showing an inhumane face where it should have a human and warm response to the people of Canada.
Whether it is cutting benefits to the unemployed, failing to provide adequate resource services for the immigration system-and in my riding immigration is a very serious issue-whether it is ignoring the real needs of workers with respect to retraining and upgrading of skills in reading and in understanding new technologies, Canadians are wondering what type of cold, heartless, Tory Government they bought into in all blindness, I would suggest, in November.
When a family needs space for a quality child care facility, Canadians expect the Government to have solved that space problem, not only talk about it.
The Government talked about the environment, it did not indicate any direct action in one of the most crucial and important areas that affects each and every Canadian, regardless of the political spectrum in which they find themselves.
The Address-Mrs. Finestone
In general, I would suggest that the Throne Speech leaves many Canadians wondering whether Conservatives see many of the challenges that face real Canadians in real neighbourhoods which they deal with every day of the week. I suggest that the Government has no human face.
I am afraid that all we have in the Throne Speech is a lot of the same old tune, and perhaps a few new words with promises that have been recycled and which reflect the fact that the Government failed to act in its last mandate and we can expect very little from it in this one except cuts, cuts, cuts.
The Government agenda is not based on offering better services to the residents of my riding, or of any other riding. Instead, it wishes to disregard those needs. It wants to arbitrarily make cuts wherever it can, and in the view of the Government this is supposed to make it a better world for all Canadians.
While I may have very well-to-do and comfortable citizens on either end of my riding, the centre of my riding is soft. It is an extremely high unemployment area, and the type of proposals this Government puts forward will certainly not help those residents.
Does anyone expect Canadians to be impressed by the fact that it took the Tory Government five months, from November 21 to April 3, to supposedly study and consult about its new mandate. Then the Government had the nerve to deposit a Throne Speech that was one of empty rhetoric. We have vague promises, vague solutions, with a few surprises that had never been promised during the course of its campaign. If this is the best that the Conservatives can come up with in almost half a year of thinking, is there any hope left for the next four years?
Where have all the great promises gone? What happened to the promises of the best adjustment and retraining programs in the world? Well, one heard the new Atilla the Hun, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) tell us where she plans to go. If I was a marginal worker, the last in and the first out, the Minister does not give me much comfort or hope. The fact is that the Minister is in the process of enabling us to depopulate our regions by giving most of our regional people who want to retrain great opportunity and a plane ticket. Of course, there will not be any more railways. We will have to take the plane to go where? To the centre cities of our country. It is a disgrace and the Government should be ashamed of itself.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Finestone
What about the assurances that no social programs would be cut? What does one call the unemployment insurance system? It was an insurance system that is part of the social fabric of this country which is being cut. This will touch tens of thousands of Canadians. Members opposite know that as well as I do. I am glad I am not going to be in their shoes when they return to their ridings and face their very angry constituents.
I would suggest now that the polls are closed, the ballots have been counted, the votes are all in, and Canadians cannot change their mind, the real Tory agenda is left out of the bag. This Government is not showing leadership, nor are Canadians impressed. I see Canadians returning to their old views of this Government before long. Once they settle into their old ways, the habit of putting out nice packaging on empty policies will once again erode the Government's favour.
The return to the old dark days of Tory Government is not far off because their Budget is coming. It is true we have had all kinds of leaks. It is rather unusual. I thought Don McGillivray handled it very well. His article about how our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was the advance man for his own Budget indicates his concern about how badly it is going to be received. He is trying a temporizing measure in order to soften the blow, telling Canadians: get ready, tighten your belt. Tighten it so tight you can hardly breathe, so that when I present the facts you will open up one notch and say, thank God, I did not drop dead. I am only half-way there.
The old saying was Tory days are dark days. Tory Government is tough Government. I can tell you, tough times are Tory times. I am glad to see all my colleagues happily smiling about the fact that Tory times are tough times. Other than the upper-income bracket, I wonder who else is going to enjoy that kind of approach.
In the Throne Speech there is a section called a caring nation. There is a section called national issues. I would like to talk about the language crisis. If this Government was not in hiding, if this Government had been present and taking leadership when issues of serious concern were facing this nation, perhaps we could have avoided many of the issues of concern.
With respect to the issue of language crisis, I put this point to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). When the Government of Quebec told the province and the country of its plan to trample linguistic minority rights in the province, to ignore the Supreme Court of Canada's carefully crafted and thoughtful distinction as it described what could be a well-understood principle of the distinctiveness of Quebec society, where was our Prime Minister?
Where was his voice? Where were the words other than soft rhetoric? The Prime Minister's rhetoric was harsh when it came to Alberta and Saskatchewan, but when it came to the English-speaking minority of Quebec, where was he? I suggest that the destabilization of that community and that society is serious. I suggest that the Prime Minister's voice was absent at a very important time. When the Government of Quebec trampled on linguistic rights and minority rights through Bill C-178, that was the moment that the Prime Minister, and no one else, should have acted, should have interceded, and should have challenged the Premier of Quebec not to ignore the Charter of Rights, not to ignore the three courts including the Supreme Court, the Quebec Court, not to ignore and let wither his own commitment to minority rights, and to ask for the withdrawal of this reprehensible piece of legislation.
Unfortunately for us that historic moment was lost. The Prime Minister did not prevail, nor did his views. I guess we really could not have expected otherwise from this Prime Minister because we now know the Prime Minister believes that the Constitution is not worth the paper it was written on. Therefore, what point was there in his standing up and speaking up for minority linguistic rights? If it was so important for him to amend and to look at Meech Lake, why was it so important if he did not believe in the Constitution in the first place?
The Prime Minister could have been forceful and effective as he was with Alberta and Saskatchewan. He could have redoubled his efforts to ensure that Quebec respected freedom of expression, and have Quebec accept the view that protecting and promoting the French language and culture did not require the sacrifice of minority rights, a view I fundamentally and completely believe in. Quebec's French language needs promotion, protection, and an understanding heart and attitude by English-speaking minorities in Quebec.
April 13, 1989

There are far more creative ways to approach that issue without trampling on English rights in that province, or French rights, for that matter, anywhere across this land. There should be a stamp of bilingual Canada from coast to coast. I have said that from the day I came into this House, from the day we started to look at broadcast and cultural issues. We must see to the stamp of a bilingual Canada, because two languages open the doors to two wonderful cultures, allow us to travel in this world and be better understood by all people. Three cultures and three languages would be better, or four or five, but certainly we should have the two which are the official languages of Canada and the social contract of this country. I acknowledge that the Prime Minister's statement in support of minority rights was made, but my point is, what good are mere words when they do not produce the absolute recognition of minority rights.
This week the Prime Minister refused a chance to really make his mark for minority rights by supporting the motion of my Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), that would have obliged the federal Government never to use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to override fundamental freedoms of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Did he take that opportunity? No. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if the Prime Minister is really committed to minority language rights, this would be the way to at least show the direction. The lack of leadership is rather obvious. Once again the Prime Minister lost the moment, and only history will judge that loss.
I applaud this year's report of Mr. D'Iberville Fortier, our Official Languages Commissioner. I support his call for full federal leadership in the protection of minority rights. The anglophone experience remains a humbling one in Quebec for the time being, but my hope is that this Government will in the remainder of its mandate ensure that its commitments to minority rights become more than just words by ensuring that minority rights are not trampled upon again by any Government, federal or provincial.
The second issue that I wanted to address relates to corporate concentration and take-overs, which is talking about Canada's future.
The Address-Mrs. Finestone

The lack of leadership is apparent from this Government's failure to provide any kind of vision for Canada. They are selling off our heritage. If they don't believe me, I suggest they read the paper we were sent by the F.T.Q. which urges us to stop this cultural and economic take-over.
I believe that the F.T.Q. and the Caisse de depot have expressed their concern and their disapproval of this Government's failure to act. In a word, our common heritage is going down the drain.
I will read what they wrote:
that deregulation, privatization and free trade have precipitated an unprecendented wave of sales, mergers and restructuring;
that plant crossings by Gillette in Ville St-Laurent, by Jarman Shoes in Lachine, Kruger in East Montreal, and shutdowns announced at Northern Telecom in Aylmer and Sanyo in ville St-Laurent, will result in numerous lay-offs.
Other companies are mentioned as well. This is something that has been completely ignored.
that other companies have merged or are thinking of doing so to survive free trade, thus causing even more lay-offs, for instance, Domglass with Consumers, Canadian International with Wardair, Molson with O'Keefe and Imperial Oil with Texaco;
that Canadian companies are being sold or are about to be sold to American interests which are buying us lock, stock and barrel;
I hope that sooner or later, the Government is going to look at this country and decide whether it is going to sell everything we own.
The Government has been hiding from a wave of mergers and take-overs that have begun to sweep the country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude her speech. Before questions and comments I will give another minute to the Member so that she may conclude.


Sheila Finestone: If I have to terminate, I will just deal very quickly with one other area in which I feel the Government has changed its mind and has failed in its leadership.
I refer to its choice to end restrictions on official contact with the PLO allowing for upgrading to top level. Speaking for myself, I regret my Government's turn toward increased contact with the PLO, an organization

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Finestone
that has proposed of late a moderate agenda for western consumption while reaffirming to its own people in Arabic the PLO's commitment to the strategy of stages for the liberation of all of Palestine. This is an organization that professes a willingness to reach political compromise, yet still refuses to repudiate its covenant which calls for Israel's destruction.
I must also express deep personal concern regarding the endorsement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) of Palestinian self-determination. Because of its particular meaning in the lexicon of the Middle East, and its code word effect, I fear that many will choose to interpret his comments to mean Canadian support for an independent Palestinian state, or whatever else the Palestinians will unilaterally choose. That interpretation would contradict longstanding Canadian policy which has assiduously avoided pre-judging the outcome of negotiations. Indeed, Canada has, and I trust will, continue to support vigorously a peace process based upon direct negotiations between the concerned parties and an incremental approach toward lasting peace in that region.
At another time I will indicate my concerns in terms of the communications and culture dossier in my remarks following the Speech from the Throne. I hope that although there are many comments made about communications and culture as a senior issue the item-


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


Ms. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what the Hon. Member or Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone) had to say in her response to the Speech from the Throne. She said that the unemployment rate was incredibly high in her fiding. My comments being those of someone not from her riding, I imagine the Hon. Member would say that my perception of Mount Royal is perhaps slanted. However, when we think of Mount Royal, we think of a riding that is relatively well-off, compared to rural ridings where the unemployment rate is sometimes as high as 17 or 18 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member of Mount Royal whether- She appears to be, and of course all Opposition Members are, against the unemployment insurance reform program. After all, they are against practically everything. Canadians know that, Mr. Speaker.
She forgot some very important points. For instance, she said her party was against the program, but have they offered any alternative? I wish she would tell me, for instance, why she is against the fact that the Government helps someone who is on unemployment insurance and who enters a retraining program to get a steady job. The world is changing, and companies are changing as well. She doesn't mention that. She criticizes the program without offering any alternatives. Let's talk about the retraining program let the Hon. Member tell us quite honestly whether she is against employees enrolling in a retraining program. That was my first point.
My second point is that she did not mention the positive aspects. She did not mention that the Government has added nearly ten weeks of parental leave to the existing maternity leave for women.
This is a very positive measure which women have been asking for for a long time. Of course, the Hon. Member would rather overlook the positive aspects of the Minister's unemployment insurance reform!
Finally, Mr. Speaker, she mentioned a language crisis. There is no such thing! There is a sign crisis in Quebec, not a language crisis. Canadians agree as far as our two official languages are concerned. However, Quebec has a sign crisis. They are trying to distort reality, Mr. Speaker, by making the notwithstanding clause look like the end of the world. The Hon. Member is a great fan of the former leader of the Liberal Party, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. She cannot be that fond of him today, since he was the one who gave the provinces the notwithstanding clause. The Hon. Member is more or less saying: Well, we gave you a clause, and now we don't want you to use it. So the notwithstanding clause is the provinces' business, and signage is the business of the province of Quebec. The Hon. Member knows that. They are playing petty politics with a subject that deserves to be taken seriously, more seriously than the attitude reflected in what the Hon. Member has been saying in the House.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it may be because of ignorance or lack of understanding of what is going on in my constituency of Mount Royal that my colleague failed to grasp the points I was trying to make. But I made myself very clear; I said that the people living in two areas of my riding can be considered well off, but that there is also a high level of unemployment in the center of my constituency. We are the immigration centre of Montreal, the landing point of immigrants coming from over 35 countries. We are a reflection of Quebec's reality. We are proud of these immigrants. We are proud of their input, of their contribution to our society. But we have to remember that they are starting a new life here, in Canada, and they need some form of training suitable
April 13, 1989

for our new market. But if you don't give them the necessary assistance through unemployment insurance and training, they will contribute nothing. So far the necessary assistance has not been for the coming.
Next you talked about the sign language crisis, you said I made a big fuss about that. Well, let me tell you that when you are rejected from your home, you will know how it feels to be an outcast. I was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind Members that because of the order that the House adopted yesterday speeches are 15 minutes and the question and comment period is only five minutes. That does not give much time, so I would ask Members to keep their comments or questions short. The same applies to those who are answering.
We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Red Deer.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague, I too welcome the opportunity to participate in the Throne Speech debate. Every time I enter this Chamber I do so with a profound sense of gratitude to the electorate of Red Deer who entrusted me with the privilege and responsibility of representing and speaking for them. On their behalf, it is my intention to work as diligently as possible to make certain that their views are heard by this Government.
We in Alberta were very pleased that the honour of moving the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was given to an Albertan. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Calgary Southeast (Mr. Richardson) and the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau) on the excellent speeches they gave to introduce this debate.
Although the two Hon. Members represent ridings that are very distant from each other, and they each spoke in one of the official languages of Canada, they articulated a common vision for Canada. In the Throne Speech Her Excellency the Governor General outlined the Government's vision for the country. She laid out the goals and priorities for this mandate. I want to take this opportunity to reflect and discuss how these issues will affect my riding.
The Address-Mr. Fee
On November 21 of last year the voters of Red Deer returned a Member to the Progressive Conservative Government. They voted for the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement. They voted for fiscal responsibility. They voted for the Party best able to govern. In Red Deer they voted for the Government, the first Government in many years, that paid attention to the issues and concerns of westerners.
In 1984, the Government that took office recognized the needs and aspirations of the regions of the country and set about to rectify some longstanding ill feelings. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) showed real leadership in bringing together the First Ministers to discuss constitutional change. Through co-operation and effort he reached a milestone in constitutional history, the Meech Lake Accord, an Accord supported by all 10 Premiers and all three federal Parties. This spirit of conciliation and harmony laid the groundwork for a more unified, dynamic and competitive country. Prior to 1984, Mr. Speaker, Red Deer, like the rest of Alberta, was deep in the throes of a recession that had been fueled in part by the disastrous national energy policy, a policy which devastated the small Canadian-owned service companies. The Government dismantled this program. We also got rid of the petroleum gas revenue tax. As a first step in the mandate of the first session of this Parliament we achieved secure access to the huge U.S. market by means of the Free Trade Agreement.
To quote the well known Alberta journalist who has not always been in support of this Party, "If Brian Mulroney can achieve the free trade with the United States, he will have done more for western Canada than any other Prime Minister in Canadian history".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Fee: The positive impact of the Free Trade Agreement has already been felt. We have seen increased investment in Alberta. In my riding a consortium headed by Shell Canada is planning to invest some $700 million to build a state-of-the-art natural gas and sulphur recovery plant near Caroline, Alberta. The plant is going to create some 1,200 construction jobs and over 150 permanent jobs. Over $17 million a year will be pumped into our local economy.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Fee
Another positive example: Just north of my riding, Novacor Chemicals is investing some $600 million to expand its petro-chemical plant in Joffre. According to the president of Novacor himself, "This investment would not have happened without the Free Trade Agreement". Access to the U.S. market and lower tariffs will create 200 new permanent jobs in Joffre.
Agriculture is still critical to the economy of my constituency, Mr. Speaker. For a variety of reasons known to most of the Members of this House farmers are hurting. Some have lost their farms, but when you talk to the farmers, they acknowledge that never has a government done so much for agriculture as has the Conservative Government in the last four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Fee: This Government was there when farmers needed it, whether because of low prices or drought. If not for the billions of dollars paid in support during the last four years, there would have been many more farms lost. The problems that are facing agriculture are complex. They are not going to be solved overnight, but this Government, through its Ministers, is working with farm groups and actively pursuing reform of the crop insurance system and a stabilization program in order to provide farmers with a more secure market-oriented environment.
The fundamental problem facing farmers across the country is one of uncertainty. We cannot go on responding to emergencies on an ad hoc basis. We need to have a system in place that will allow farmers to plan for the long term.
Agricultural reform is also needed at the international level. International trade subsidy wars are devastating our farming economy. Rural subsidies now cost approximately $200 billion a year. I believe that our farmers are the very best in the world. Our products are quality products. We can compete against anybody, but it is difficult to compete against the world treasuries of other Governments. Canada and this Government have taken a leadership role in negotiations to eliminate unfair agricultural subsidies. I congratulate the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) and his officials for their part in the recent GATT negotiations at Geneva that achieved some significant agreement in this area.
There are those who say the West has been ignored. They have not been paying attention. This Government has been listening and acting, and will continue to listen and act for the West and for all of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Fee: On November 21 last, Canadians also voted for a government that believes in fiscal responsibility. We have reduced the rate of growth of the annual deficit. We are now taking in more money than we spend on government programs. If it were not for the responsibility of paying interest on a massive debt, we would be in the black today. This Government has made progress on the deficit, but we still have to deal with the problem of the accumulated public debt.
We now pay almost a third of every tax dollar on interest charges. To put this in perspective, we spend more money on debt programs than we do on any other single government program. We spend twice as much on debt programs as we do on government assistance to the elderly. We spend 12 times more on debt payments than we do on the total family allowance payments. We spend three times as much on debt charges as we do for the entire defence budget.
The more we borrow to pay for government spending, Mr. Speaker, the greater goes the upward pressure on interest rates. This is a serious concern to the people of my province and my constituency. We have a veiy valid and real concern over rising interest rates, but to combat those interest rates, we have to reduce our debt. I am very thankful that our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has a plan and is prepared to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Fee: The message that I have gotten from my constituents has been loud and clear: eliminate the deficit, reduce government spending. Above and beyond that, they tell me that Government cannot and should not be all things to all people. We are a caring and a compassionate country. We accept that we have a moral and social responsibility to help those in genuine need. But surely we realize that only with a vibrant growing economy can we afford to give the best social programs.
A liberalized trading environment which encourages and rewards initiative will help the regions and economic development. Traditionally Alberta has been a major producer of primary products. We have got our agricultural product and our energy products. In the past, because of preferential freight rates and high tariff walls, our manufactured goods have been imported from other areas. The Free Trade Agreement is going to open new



April 13, 1989

markets to us and encourage investment in value-added manufacturing. This Government will continue its role in diversification by providing direct assistance to the western diversification office. This, too, is good news for the West.
The Government is also committed to dismantling unnecessary interprovincial trade barriers. In my riding, there is already evidence to support the positive impacts of liberalized trade. A company called Sun Pine Forest Products in Rocky Mountain House is investing some $32 million to build a new sawmill and timber processing plant which, when completed ,will employ about 270 people. Much of the product that they finish will be exported to the United States.
In the City of Red Deer, the case of Drummond Brewery proves that the spirit of entrepreneurialship is alive and well in Red Deer. This is a small brewery. It was recently purchased by local businessmen and some employees of the plant. It is now aggressively expanding to market a new product in Alberta and to the United States called Dry Beer.
It is the small businessmen who are the backbone of our economy. We need entrepreneurs because it is they who get out and create wealth and jobs, not the Government. Our responsibility is to set the mood, to encourage small businessmen to build and invest for tomorrow and to create jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Fee: We are very anxious for economic development, Mr. Speaker, but not at any cost. We see more and more every day how important the environment is to our health and well-being. The emergency debate last week discussed the devastating effects of the Valdez oil spill. We have all heard scientific reports about the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer and acid rain.
The people of Red Deer value the richness and the beauty of the land. This riding is a showcase for the very best that Alberta has to offer. We have the Rocky Mountains and a portion of Banff National Park in the West. We go from there to the ranch lands and the foothills which give way to the lush farmlands in scenic Red Deer River Valley in the east. The people of Red Deer exemplify what the Governor General was referring to when she said in the Throne Speech:
The Address-Mr. Fee
Canadians possess a unique sense of their relationship to the land, a
land whose vast, rich diversity has shaped their values and
experiences.
It is because people of Red Deer value and respect our natural resources, Mr. Speaker, that they applaud the Government's commitment to the environment. The Throne Speech makes it abundantly clear that this Government is fully committed to the principle of sustainable development as articulated in the Brund-tland Commission. We can have economic growth, and we can protect our environment.
This is a concern that we are facing right now in my riding. I mentioned the Caroline area gas development group. This project has raised some serious questions about the effect of the industry on the environment and on our life-style. A very good dialogue has been established between the developers and the residents in the Caroline-Rocky Mountain House corridor. The developers have met with local land owners and concerned groups. They have established a local advisory council. I am confident that this consultative process will continue.
Having been the mayor of a small town for the last 11 years, I know first-hand the difficulties that municipalities have faced with regard to waste management. There is an accepted need for better handling of all our wastes.
I want to salute the initiative taken by the Government of Alberta with respect to hazardous materials. It has established, developed and is operating a special waste management facility at Swan Hills, where hazardous wastes can be safely disposed of in an environmentally conscious manner.
We realize the world is facing an environmental challenge. It is a challenge that goes beyond municipal, provincial and federal levels. It is international. Pollution obeys no borders. All of us must be concerned. Everyone must be involved.
There are many challenges ahead of us. Like the people of my constituency, I am not afraid of challenges, I like them. Our challenge is to make this remarkable country an even better place to leave to our children. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the House in contributing toward that goal.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Fee


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for his inaugural speech in the House of Commons. During his speech he referred to the issue of the deficit and the national debt. I am sure he knows that 50 per cent of the total national debt has been accumulated since the Conservative Government came to power in 1984.
I want to discuss some of the cut-backs envisaged by the Government, particularly in the area of unemployment insurance. Is it the view of his Party that the present cut-backs are fair and equitable? I do not think they are. For instance, unemployment in the constituency I represent in Prescott County is 13 per cent. In Glengarry County it is 11 per cent. However, because we are located in eastern Ontario in which lies the City of Ottawa, we are in the same Statistic Canada zone and therefore are evaluated as though we had an unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent. Therefore, in my riding the benefits have been cut from 52 weeks to 35 weeks under the Minister's scheme, and the waiting period has been extended from 14 weeks to 20 weeks. Does he think that is fair in an area that has 13 per cent unemployment?


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up and be able to respond to a question that is usually directed to our friends and colleagues in the front benches. This question has been directed repeatedly during Question Period in the last couple of days to one of our Ministers. I feel she has done a very admirable job in answering the question.
First, there are no cut-backs. We are not cutting back on the amount of money; it is being re-allocated in a way that is far more useful to Canadians. I talked to the people in my riding. I believe I have a very good relationship with them and a knowledge of their views. The people in my riding are a caring and compassionate people. They understand that there are people with needs and there are social programs to meet those needs. We want to help people gain meaningful employment. We do not want to pay people who quit jobs unnecessarily and do not want to work. We want to provide programs to train them to get meaningful employment. That is the gist of the employment program that has been announced by the Minister.
The people in my riding to whom I have spoke support that initiative. They think Canada will benefit and they believe that we will be a stronger country because of it.


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to listen to Members opposite describe how the country has prospered over the last four years and how great it will be in the future. The Hon. Member talked about the farm community and how it has managed under the Conservative Government, with its management of crop stabilization.
I come from a riding where the Free Trade Agreement is not helping but hindering farmers in my area. The grape-growing farmers in the area have been devastated by the Agreement and the Government's attitude toward them. As well, the soft fruit industry has been flushed down the tubes as a result of the Government's attitude to them in the Free Trade Agreement. They have been sacrificed on the altar of the Free Trade Agreement.
The Hon. Member talks about how well small business has done. I agree with him completely that small business is the backbone of Canada. Yet in my riding I hear complaints from small business people who make their living from farmers and the farm community, which has also been flushed down the tubes by the Conservative Government.
Will the Member push his Government to bring some equity to farmers in the Okanagan region? Will he push his Government to ensure an equitable system of income stablization for the western farmers and farmers in the Okanagan Valley of the British Columbia region?


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind answering those questions at all. I am proud of what has happened with the Government. I am not necessarily proud nor pleased with the state of the agricultural economy in this country.
If the Hon. Member listened to my comments, he would have heard me say that farmers in this country have been devastated for the last few years. If it had not been for the subsidy programs put in place by our Government, I do not think we would have a viable agricultural sector in Canada now.
Those of us who are new to the House have a lot to learn. People must realize that when we discuss free trade there is a difference between what is affected by the GATT and what is affected by the Free Trade Agreement. When we discuss grapes, we are talking about something put in place by the GATT Agreement, not necessarily the Free Trade Agreement.
April 13, 1989

The Address-Mr. Caccia
The Hon. Member asks what I would do to encourage our Minister and the Government in regard to subsidies for farmers. I would encourage the Minister to carry on as he has. He has been holding meetings with farm groups and farmers from coast to coast in Canada. He is soliciting input from the people who are working there. He is getting their ideas and will formulate his policy based on the recommendations he gets from the people who are most effective. I think that will be the basis for good Government and positive programs in the months and years ahead.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that in the Speech from the Throne there is a reference to the continued progress in reducing the deficit. I would like to deal with that for a moment, particularly for the benefit of Members opposite who are making claims about fiscal responsibility on the part of the Government they support.
When the Government came to power in September, 1984, alas, the deficit of the Government of Canada, according to figures from the Department of Finance, amounted to $177 billion. It was due to a number of reasons, including the fact that during the world recession we suffered in 1982 and 1983 the Liberal Government of Canada pumped money into the economy to create jobs when employment was very high. That was a very important social economic initiative which served to provide the necessary shock absorbers to overcome a very difficult period in Canada and elsewhere.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that today, when considering figures about the deficit of the Government of Canada, we see that it is an astonishing amount of $321 billion. This means that from the time the Progressive Conservative Party came to power in September, 1984, until today, there has been an increase in the deficit of $144 billion. That is the reality. To make in the Speech from the Throne a reference to continued progress in reducing the deficit is really taking the Canadian public for a ride, to say the least. It just shows the sense of irresponsibility on the part of government Members, including the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Fee) who just finished his speech a moment ago, who are claiming that the Government is committed to fiscal responsibility.
How can a Government be committed to fiscal responsibility if it is capable, in the four years since it came into power, of increasing the deficit of Canada by $144 billion? That defeats the imagination and the intellect of anyone. Only Tories can attempt to create that kind of a smokescreen, though I am sure most Members present in the Chamber right now do not believe it. However, some perhaps do if they are absorbed or drowning in their own rhetoric. The record of this Government since it came into power is an increase in the deficit of $144 billion. So much for fiscal responsibility.
Let us look for a moment at this immense preoccupation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Because of reasons well beyond the control of this Government, the Minister of Finance feels that we must reduce the deficit. Because of international expansion in the economies of the world, we had four years of expansion in our economy as well. The pie has become larger. The wealth of this nation is greater. Therefore, as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product, a fancy economic phrase to reflect the wealth of the nation at any given time, the deficit has gone down from roughly 7 per cent in 1985 to 4.9 per cent in the fiscal year just concluded, 1988-89. As a percentage of our total wealth, the deficit is shrinking by over 2 percentage points. This means that the obsession on the part of the Minister of Finance with the deficit has to be justified, explained and corroborated against the trend in the figures.
The figures are important because we have to look at these figures not in abstract, not in isolation, but as they relate to the total picture. When we do as I am attempting to do this morning, which is to attempt to relate the deficit as a percentage of our total wealth, we find a decline in that percentage. That means that on the whole, the deficit is coming down as a percentage of the total.
It is true that we have high interest rates which are probably the result of mismanagement on the part of the Government and which could be the subject of another speech, were it not for the fact that I would like to deal with the environment. That is another matter. The important main points are that as a percentage of the total, the deficit is going down and that during the first Parliament in which these Progressive Conservatives were responsible for the finances of this nation, the deficit went up by nothing less than $144 billion in the name of fiscal responsibility.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Caccia
Let me move on to this great title in the Speech from the Throne, "The Environmental Imperative". It is a very impressive title, I must say. It really makes one stop and think: "The Environmental Imperative". Who wrote it, one might ask. Yet when one reads what comes under this high-sounding title, one begins to wonder.
For the benefit of new Members across who perhaps do not know certain things which are, however, on the record, the Government which wrote this Speech from the Throne is the same Government which cut from Environment Canada, during the last Parliament, some 336 jobs. It is the same Government which increased its Budget, in the last year of the previous Parliament, 1988-89, by 3.6 per cent while the over- all increase in all government spending was 8 per cent. In some Departments, it was 11 per cent or 14 per cent and even 24 per cent as in the case of Agriculture.lt is the same Government that watched the shrinking of the Environment Canada budget by more than $70 million between 1984 and 1989 because of inflation. Not only was the Department of the Environment not able to keep up with inflation in the previous term of the Progressive Conservative Government, but it lost ground to inflation to the tune of some $70 million.
Let us look at what we find in the Throne Speech under this impressive heading. We find a reference to a Drinking Water Act. That would be good were it not for the fact that it was also promised in the 1984 election campaign. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? Some of us do, unfortunately. It was promised in 1984, but the Government is now able to trot it out to make it seem to be a novel thought, something that all of a sudden has inspired and illuminated the progressive thinkers across the aisle.
What else do we find? We find a promise to introduce environmental assessment legislation. That is good stuff too, no doubt. However, it was also promised in the 1984 election campaign. Not only that, but in the light of the federal judge's decision on the Rafferty-Alameda dam, which is based on a Liberal Order in Council of June 1984 from which he drew the powers, this environmental assessment legislation may no longer be necessary.
We also find in the Speech from the Throne under research and development a promise of leadership. This time it is a promise of leadership, whatever that means. We do not know. It is interesting to compare this promise of leadership with the fact that during the 1984 election campaign, the then not yet Prime Minister and the so-called Progressive Conservative Party said that they would double research and development spending, but they have now chosen to go for leadership.
Then we find in the Speech from the Throne a promise to create regulations for toxic chemicals. This again sounds very good, but whoever drafted it under the instruction of the Government did not realize that the power to write regulations for toxic chemicals is already in place. We have an Act in place, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to do exactly that.
Then there is a reference to support for environmentally sustainable development but no commitment on how to do it and where to do it. There is a tiny reference to participating in the creation of the sustainable development centre in Winnipeg. Here the language deserves a moment of attention. It is quite different from the commitment the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulro-ney) made before the General Assembly of the United Nations last summer when he committed himself and his Government and therefore the Canadian nation to establishing such a centre. There was no qualification or wavering. There was no shade of meaning. It was a clear-cut commitment to establish. Instead, we find during this term that the Government will participate in the creation of such a centre. That means if Manitoba puts money on the table, perhaps Ottawa will do something. It is no longer the clear-cut federal commitment that earned the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) applause at the United Nations when he made that speech.
We should also approach what is missing in this Speech from the Throne. The first item that comes to mind is that there is no reference to expansion of our national park system, something Canadians hold dearly and something that should be on the agenda of a Speech from the Throne.
Second, this Government does not realize we have a major issue of global climate warming. Not one word or reference is made to climate warming and the role of the Government of Canada to tackle this long-term, difficult issue. It does not exist on the agenda of the Government for this session of Parliament.
April 13, 1989

Flowing from that, there is not one word or reference in the Speech from the Throne to energy policies. These policies are essential if we are to tackle the question of global warming. There is no commitment to energy efficiency. There is no commitment to launch a new wave of R and D into renewable resources of energy. There is no commitment to reduce our dependence on the burning of fossil fuels that contribute to the climate warming trend. This is astounding.
There is no reference in the Speech from the Throne to how this Government wants to implement sustainable development by integrating the economy and the environment. Budgets and programs must be announced to integrate the two.
I see my time is up.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear my hon. colleague clearly dissect the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. Blaikie:: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Transcona (Mr. Blaikie) rises on a point of order. I know what it will be.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You know what it will be, Mr. Speaker, because I have raised it before. The intent of the question and comment period is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know full well what the intent is.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -to hear Members from other Parties first. That is my understanding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member is correct in everything he is saying. If the Member for Winnipeg-Transcona will give me a little time I will become familiar with the ridings. I knew this Member's riding. The Member for his Party normally would be chosen first and will be chosen at this time.


Mr. Brewin:: I rise on a point of order. If the general rules are that you recognize someone from the other Parties first, Mr. Speaker, it would be possible to do so now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is left to the discretion of the Speaker. I have chosen this Member now. I will choose the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin) when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Pagtakhan) has
The Address-Mr. Caccia
finished. I understand what the Member for Winnipeg- Transcona is saying.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I remain convinced that this Government has exercised fiscal dishonesty rather than fiscal responsibility. This Government is a government of promises and not a government of commitment.
I remain convinced that the Government-


Mr. Merrithew:: Where is the question?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I am coming to it. I remain convinced that the establishment in Winnipeg of an environmental centre for sustainable development may be in jeopardy. The Manitoba caucus for the Liberal Party will fight the Government on that issue.
My question is directed to the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). How does he see the issue of interest ratebearing on the deficit?


Mr. Caccia:: It is an interesting question, and I wish I could master the economic knowledge to answer the question in an expeditious manner. There is a definite relationship, and one should be aware of that. However, to give the Members from Winnipeg-Transcona and Victoria (Mr. Brewin) a chance to ask their burning questions and rehash the past-


John F. Brewin: I do not want to miss the opportunity to rehash yours.


Charles L. Caccia: The Tories love the word "leadership". When it comes to the crunch and putting money on the table, they somehow waver.
The future of the centre in Winnieg will fall victim to lack of leadership by the same Prime Minister, Government and Party who proclaimed they are the champions of giving leadership. It would be a sad development if the Government were not to keep the word the Prime Minister gave to the General Assembly of the United Nations.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to give some compliments to the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), but I will have to reduce my comments in order to give him a chance to reply. I remember him as a progressive member of city council in Toronto. I watched his career with interest. It stands as a mark for other progressive Liberals as to the fate that awaits them in the Liberal Party. I always thought the Member should be a member of our Party.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Malone
The Hon. Member for Davenport talked about deficit budget cutting-


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: You see, Charles, you missed an opportunity.


John F. Brewin: Yes. The Member may have gone further had he chosen better at the beginning.
The Hon. Member gave his speech largely on the Budget. There is one element of the Budget we look forward to with anticipation. That is the treatment of defence spending. There is a likelihood that defence spending will be treated by this Government as a sacred cow, that it will not look hard at how military expenditures are directed in this country. We heard rumours that nuclear subs will be retained. Excuses are being trotted out as to why that should be.
There are hard questions that should be asked about the extent of expenditures on the military in this country. We all honour the work of those in the armed services. That does not put them beyond the requirement that services rendered to this country be subject to a rigorous set of questions. The services rendered in anticipating potential military risk to this country, are they responding to any likely risk at all? How do frigates respond to any perceived risk or threat to the security of this country? What is the military expenditure in Europe? I am looking forward to the Member's response.


Charles L. Caccia: I thank the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin) for his kind and generous words. It seems that he has put forward the question and answer much better than I could.
When examining whether or not the defence budget should be of a certain size, first I have to ask, who will attack us? Who is going to attack Canada? Until that question is clarified, a defence budget cannot be defined. It is as basic is that.
Second, what is on the agenda of the world? What issue is there to warrant a war? Is there item that would warrant a war? That is also a question that ought to be tackled and an answer provided.
Unfortunately, the Progressive Conservatives live with a psychosis of the 1940s and 1950s and have not realized that the world is changing very rapidly. Therefore, they are launching budgets for defence which may have been warranted in the 1930s. History is full of examples of generals who have been preparing themselves for the past war.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the House. I am always honoured to address the Chamber, particularly on Speeches from the Throne which give us latitude to talk about a range of subjects.
First, I wish to express my thanks to the people of Crowfoot for once again allowing me to be here in the Parliament of Canada. I believe that the past four years between 1984 and 1988 have been particularly advantageous for western Canada, and certainly no place more than the Province of Alberta, by the fact that the Progressive Conservatives have served as the Government of Canada.
During that period of time we were able to put in place the Free Trade Agreement. It was ratified in the early part of this term. It was a great national debate, and one on which people believing strongly in their country took different points of view. I believe that no matter what side of the issue the people were on, they did so from the conviction of how deeply they loved Canada.
Having said that, it is now a period of time when observations can be made. Certainly on the Prairies there is new investment coming into our country. In western Canada, where the bulk of our red meats comes from, we were sending them to other parts of the world for processing. We are now developing processing plants. I single out particularly one of the most technologically advanced meat packing facilities in the High River community of Alberta that will put in place a world-class meat processing and packing unit that will largely be aimed at the western United States coastline, particularly focused on the City of Los Angeles. Because of the reduction of tariffs we will have an opportunity to penetrate that market and to value add to bring into realization the opportunities of new jobs that come from added manufacturing.
The same point can be made with respect to the petrochemical industries. On the issues of ethane and methane we have had to climb over tariff barriers of 16 per cent and 18 per cent respectively. Now, because of the opportunity for tariff reductions, we have a capacity to penetrate a market and to manufacture rather than to export raw product through pipeline, and thereby create jobs.
Those who were the great defenders and stated that we ought not to have such an arrangement, in effect were continuing to ask not only for the export of natural gas through the pipelines to another country, but to ask for the export of the jobs of sons and daughters through that same pipeline by denying opportunity to value add and create job opportunities.
April 13, 1989

In grain, in manufacturing, and in the red meat producing areas of our country, that part of the western area of the Prairies, we certainly have enriched opportunities to penetrate not only the western United States market, but because of the skills and the technological advancement of those manufacturing bases, also to penetrate Asia.
We have to pay increasingly more attention to Asia. By the year 2005, 70 per cent of the world's population will be on the Asian continent. It behooves Canada, but more importantly it is a signal to western Canada, to pay significant attention to Asia, its dynamics, and potential.
In the last Parliament I was pleased to have a fairly influential role in attempting to bring about the Terra Agreement between Canada and China. The Terra Agreement may not be well-known to many Members of the House of Commons, although I know it is well-known to members of the Alberta caucus. It is a program of relationship signed between Canada and China to do first research, and then to expand to a world-class travelling museum that will focus on palaeontology, or specifically to talk about the dinosaurs of the Red Deer River Valley of Alberta-


Mr. Robinson:: The Alberta caucus.


Arnold John Malone: -and the Mongolian desert of China.
One of the Members of Parliament from the New Democratic Party thought he saw some humour in talking about dinosaurs. I want the Hon. Member to know that when people who attend exhibits around the world are polled as to what it is that they want to see, whether it is in Sydney, Australia, New York, or Paris, the number one exhibit that those people want to see is that of the dinosaurs.
The new Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller, Alberta which is in my constituency, looked too large when it was built a few years ago, and is now overcrowded. Last year 600,000 people, mostly world citizens, attended that magnificent and spectacular museum.
When this program is in place between Canada and China, there will be a world-class travelling museum equal to that of the King Tut exhibit that will focus a new emphasis on tourism in western Canada and will bring world citizens from far and wide to see the tremendous history of this large creature that roamed in that area some 60 million years ago.
The Address-Mr. Malone
I want to talk about some things that we can do in this Parliament to pay tribute to some of the groundwork that has already been established. First, there is a great deal of work and effort to be undertaken with respect to the GATT. I am proud of the fact that I belong to a Party that took the initiative with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In Tokyo 3 or four years ago the Prime Minister first raised the subject of agricultural subsidies. That was followed up in Uruguay by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) when he insisted that agriculture be on the agenda for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was Canada's persistence that forced that issue to be on the agenda, which it never was before, and which was resisted very strongly particularly by those in the European Economic Community.
This past week we started to see the results of the GATT negotiations. New corner posts are being struck and new commitments are being made to bring about a resolution that will hold some hope for our farmers, unlike that which we have seen in the past four, five, or six years. Tbday Canadian farmers come up against a $200 billion subsidy wall in Europe and in the United States and have to compete against that treasury force in order to get our product on the international shelf. Here we are as a small nation of 25, 26, 27 million people having to come up against an international wall of treasury support by the United States and Europe of $200 billion. Clearly, that has the capacity to destroy our farmers, unless we are able to bring about a negotiated settlement of the General Agreement on TARIFFS and Trade. I am so pleased that at least that past inflexible position of the GATT has been broken and the optimism is there. I wish our negotiators well for the sake of agriculture.
In Alberta it is important that we give some new attention to hydrogen as an optional fuel. There is a desire among some in Ontario and the Province of Quebec to do research into the potential of hydrogen fuels. It is my hope that as a nation we can jointly recognize that this is a concept that has the capacity to be researched, developed and worked upon in both sides of the counOztiy at the same time. I believe that Ontario and Quebec from its hydro power has a capacity to do some work with hydrogen. Likewise, I believe the Province of Alberta with its natural gas resources from which hydrogen development can likely be advanced more

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Malone
quickly is a very key and important player in this development.
It is important that we start looking for options for fossil fuels, because any concern that we have for the environment will have a tone of hollowness to it, as long as we have only the perspective of fossil fuels now or in the future. I hope that we can continue to work as two sides of this country, to enhance and advance the utilization of hydrogen as a fuel in this country. In the interim it would seem to me that the time has come when we should signal to the manufacturing basin of Canada in southern Ontario that they should pay more attention to the utilization of low-sulphur coals from the west, rather than bringing in the high pollutant coals that they are presently importing from the United States. One of the major causes of acid rain from our sources is the fact that the present coals are high in sulphur, and high, therefore, in the emisions of sulphur dioxide. I believe there are other options for which we can spend Canadian dollars in Canada, buy from ourselves, and at the same time have a tremendous and positive impact on the reduction of acid rain within our country.
I want to talk about the debt for a few moments, and to say that I have never heard anything quite so hollow as I did a few moments ago when I heard the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) try to dismiss the seriousness of the debt in this country. The debt is growing at a rate where the interest on the debt itself is now increasing at $3 million an hour. That is the kind of burden that this country faces. Eveiy day we have loaded upon us another $80 million of burden. Those who would like to somehow turn a deaf ear to that signal, and pretend that we can go on with programs and government expenditures without raising taxes and without ever paying our debt, are the same people who would relish anything that they might achieve for themselves today, as long as they can put the burden of that price into the future, and on their children. If this issue is not tackled now it will lie as a burden for all future generations. That is a burden that is unacceptable and absolutely and totally inappropriate. We are in a situation where that debt must be brought under control.
The debt stands as one of the major engines of the present situation of high interest rates. When we talk about the debt there is in this country a tremendous notion among the individual citizens that the debt is the federal Government's debt. But it is not just limited to
that. The fact of the matter is that the private debt in this country is double that of the federal Government's debt. When some agency, like the International Monetary Fund, or World Bank, takes a look at the question of the country's debt, it does not ask only the question as to what is the federal Government's debt. It wants to know that nation's debt position. In other words, it is asking the question about the private sector, the federal Government, provincial Governments and municipalities. All those totalled together are something in excess of $1 trillion. That is the number that we need to focus on, that magnitude of 26 million people, a $1 trillion in debt. It is with a view to that scope of burden that we have to address the whole question. It is with the realization that it is not just the federal Government's problem, it is a Canadian problem at every government level and in our private lives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke (Mr. Kristiansen).


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) a question, but first of all I would like to assure him that I along with my family have also enjoyed the exhibits at Drumheller. I and countless other Canadians look forward to the day when all of the various members of dinosaur species, including some of the Members opposite and those who have been opposite in the previous four years, will find themselves on permanent display as an example of the interesting but quaint relic of ages past.
More seriously, we have seen a lot of examples of dinosaurs' wrecks in the statement on UIC changes by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) in the House the other day. But there are a few examples that obviously were inspired by some of the gentler members of the species. One of those is the provision within that statement that is allowing workers access to benefits during labour disputes in which they are not direct participants, and allow workers to draw sickness or maternity benefits even when a labour dispute takes place at their place of employment.
I am interested in hearing from one of the Members opposite, in particular the Member for Crowfoot, as fond as he is of dinosaur exhibits and their history, to give me his rationale, or the Government's rationale and justification for those changes, which many of us welcome. These will be welcomed by a number of working people
April 13, 1989

across the country, particularly by pulp and paper workers of Canada Local No. 1 in Castlegar, who have asked for some of those changes. Coming from someone of a conservative bend I am particularly interested to hear how the Hon. Member justifies, when there is no loss of earnings, the drawing of sickness or maternity benefits even when a labour dispute is taking place at that employee's place of employment, and thus there is no interruption of earnings. That may be a valid and a very proper social program, but I would like to hear from that particular Member of the Conservative caucus, or in the future perhaps any other Member, as to what their rationale is for that, and whether they think those provisions are going to survive the first labour dispute under federal jurisdiction that takes place after these proposals are hopefully implemented.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Hon. Member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke (Mr. Kristiansen), that I do not find any particular amount of humour in him playing around with the notion of the dinosaur museum, or the museum of palaeontology. I know there have been expressions in the past about the dinosaur disappearing, and all of the other expressions that go with that. This is one of Canada's finest exhibits. This is one of Canada's most proud tourist attractions. Within a very few years, perhaps as short a time as three to five years, it will be the second largest attraction of tourists in Alberta, next to that of Banff National Park. I submit that we should see it as Canadians with a sense of pride. It is not a matter for tongue-in-cheek remarks. It is a very fine Canadian exhibit.
I wish now to deal with the question concerning unemployment insurance and the changes that have been made and which were announced by the Minister a couple of days ago. I cannot think of anything that would give me more pride, and I believe Canadian workers more of a sense of stability, than to have the realization that workers and employers jointly through the efforts of the Unemployment Insurance Program will be taking at least some of those funds to put Canadians into a position of retraining. In this way they will have the skills and abilities to do what they want to do, that is, to be employed and to retain their dignity through being able to work.
The Address-Mr. Robinson
Only a socialist would think that once one has lost his job it becomes the duty of the Government to pay that person to stay off the job. It is our view and intention to put those people into the position where, because of their capacity to work from the training they will have received, they will have the dignity to go back and to be employed meaningfully as they ought to be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to be able to participate once again in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I will have had the honour of serving as a Member of this House for 10 years in the coming month of May. I was first elected in May of 1979.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in the new constituency that I represent, the new constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway, for their solid support in the most recent federal election. It is a new constituency. I want to say particularly to those who live in the newer parts of my riding, the North Burnaby part of the constituency and in the City of Vancouver itself, that I will certainly do whatever I can to work hard on their behalf, to stay in touch with them, to communicate with them and to remain accountable to them.
As well, I want to say that certainly I know that my colleague from Kootenay was not implying that the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) did not represent with eloquence and distinction the dinosaur perspective from his constituency. I know he certainly did not intend to suggest that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the Speaker of the House and yourself as the Deputy Speaker for your re-election at such prominent and distinguished positions in our Parliament.
The fact that the NDP was unable to elect one single Member in the province of Quebec was, as far as I am concerned, a major disappointment in the last election. Having personally worked very hard to convince the people in that province to trust us, I was saddened by the results. We will, of course, continue our work in Quebec, but I did feel very disappointed. We will have to step up our efforts in order to get the respect and support we need from the people of Quebec.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Robinson
I know that we had excellent candidates and that those people will keep on working in Quebec. I am sure that they will succeed in the next election and that we will finally have New Democrat Members from the province of Quebec.

Responding in the brief time that is available to me to the Speech from the Throne, I want to place my remarks in the context of the concerns of my constituents, the fundamental concerns that have been raised by them, whether it be in the area of jobs and job creation, of post-secondary education, of peace and disarmament, of environmental protection on other concerns, including equality for women and minorities. I want also to speak briefly from my perspective as spokesperson for my Party on justice and human rights.

But first of all, Mr. Speaker, I must object to the cruel and unfair cuts to the Canadian unemployment insurance system.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign. Conservative candidates never said a word about their intention to cut unemployment insurance benefits. The province of Quebec will be hard hit by the bill the Conservative government will introduce. This new bill will put more pressure on the welfare system, and as a result of course local taxes will be raised.
We were told how important training is. It certainly is. However, Mr. Speaker, let's not forget that in Canada, for example, the employers contribution to professional training in 1987 was only $1.5 billion while in the U.S. American companies contribute $80 billion every year to this end. In Canada, three out of four companies offer no training at all.
So, you see, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of larger Canadian companies to spend more money for training. However, their friends in the Conservative government have decided, instead of asking them to pay the cost of training, to charge it to the Canadian workers. That decision, Mr. Speaker, is unfair and unacceptable. What do you think will be, Mr. Speaker, the effects of such a decision in the more deprived areas of Quebec- for example, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and the Mauricie, where the unemployment level is over 12 per cent? Workers will have to work three more weeks before being eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits for a shorter period of time of eight or nine
weeks. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is totally unfair.
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, I believe, that these cuts in the unemployment insurance program really represent a subtle attempt to harmonize with the American unemployment insurance system as part of the Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
For example, in the United States, the eligibility criteria for the unemployment insurance program are approximately the same as those our Government is now proposing. So it is very clear that the Conservative Government is cutting benefits for Canadian workers along the lines of the Free Trade Agreement and for us in the NDP, that is totally unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the Conservative Government talks about eliminating or suggests the possibility of eliminating passenger rail service-VIA Rail. Mr. Speaker, obviously about 90 per cent of Quebecers are against this proposal of the Conservative Government. If the Conservative Government wants to cut, Mr. Speaker, it would be better to cut the crazy program to buy nuclear submarines. Mr. Speaker, it would be much more important to give priority to improving rail service in Canada instead of trying to eliminate it.

During the last federal election the Conservatives were silent on cuts to unemployment insurance. We did not hear anything from them at that time. They were silent on cut-backs to VIA Rail. They said nothing about tax increases.
We all remember the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he said in one of his moments of candour for which he is so well known: "Mr. Speaker, we cannot tell the people of Canada what we do as a Government because if we did they would never vote for us". He is right. What we have seen is that the Government has failed to keep the promises that it made to the people of Canada.
The Speech from the Throne talks of-and I quote now from the speech- "maintaining a caring and compassionate society". What kind of caring, compassionate society is it when the Conservative Government allows an economy in which over one million children live in poverty? What kind of caring and compassionate society is it when the Government knows that the line-ups at the food banks are getting longer, that the
April 13, 1989

number of the homeless is getting greater and that the number of hungry children is increasing? At the same time we have the obscenity of the great disparities in wealth and income in our country. Just last week The Financial Post reported under the headline "Pay Bulges for Top Earners" the fact that the number of Canadian top executives who earned more than $1 million in fiscal year 1988 has more than doubled over the previous year.
The head of MacMillan Bloedel received total compensation of $625,000 in 1988. Their number two vicepresident, Don McLaughlin, received total compensation of over $400,000. The head of Canadian Pacific receives over $1 million a year, at the same time that Canadian Pacific pensioners in too many cases are living below the poverty line. It is that profound disparity between rich and poor which is increasing under this Government.
We know as well the national shame of the treatment of native people in this country. It is tragic that we have a situation in which native young people are on a hunger strike seeking to prevent cut-backs in the post-secondary education program which in fact has been a success in ensuring greater participation of native people in postsecondary education.
I recently returned from Labrador where I met with the Innu who are fighting a battle for the survival of their nation against low-level flights by aircraft which in some cases fly at 100 feet above their traditional hunting and gathering places. These Innu, and those who support them, are being tried as criminals in the courts when in fact the true criminals are those who are responsible for the flights that are destroying their way of life.
We have seen the level of suicides and attempted suicide among the young people, the level of child neglect and abuse, the level of alcoholism and poverty, the level of unemployment. I spoke with one of the young leaders, Peter Penashue, who said that the only hope of the Innu people at this point is to shame the rest of Canada to make them aware of the fact that their nation is being destroyed, that it is under attack. I would hope that the Government would heed that plea and would put an end to the low-level flights.
The Address-Mr. Robinson
As Justice critic for the New Democratic Party, I must point out the absence of any reference in the Speech from the Throne to a promise of amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, amendments in the area of improving pay equity provisions, equal pay for equal value, amendments to expand prohibitive grounds of discrimination to include sexual orientation and political belief, amendments promised long ago in the area of reasonable accommodation, assisting particularly Canada's religious minorities and the disabled, amendments to assure direct reporting by the commission to Parliament.
In other justice areas there has been no commitment to strengthening freedom of information legislation, no commitment to improving sentencing in Canada, no commitment to taking tough and effective action, no long overdue action on Nazi war criminals, no promise that this Government will not recriminalize abortion and no promise to improve Canada's legal aid system.
The Speech from the Throne is silent on the housing crisis which faces Canadians, particularly which faces the people in British Columbia and in my own community of Burnaby and Vancouver, silent on high interest rates, zero vacancy rates for rental accommodation, incredibly high housing prices which make it impossible for people to get into the housing market. In fact as New Democrats, we say the time is long overdue for tough action, for a tax to eliminate the profits from speculation in housing. We are disappointed that the Government has not acted on that.
In the area of the environment, why has the Government not responded to the call for a public inquiry in the devastating oil spills off the West Coast of Vancouver Island and in Alaska? Why was the Government silent on this most important question?

Why the silence on acid rain that is destroying maple trees in the Province of Quebec?

Why the silence on forestry? It is the most important industry in the Province of British Columbia, and yet there is not one word on our vital forest industry. There is no excuse for that failure to act in this important area.
In concluding my remarks on the Speech from the Throne, I want to again condemn the Government for its absence of vision, for its absence of any sense of hope for the future for our young people, indeed for all Canadians and for moving us toward a country which will be

April 13, 1989
5.0. 31
meaner, crueler, which will not respect the environment, which will increase the gap between rich and poor. I fear as well that in the international domain, the Government will cut back on our obligations to those who are poor in other parts of the world, and will cut back on our foreign aid.
I have not spoken much in terms of praise, but I did welcome the decision of the Government to upgrade its contacts with the representatives of the Palestinians in the Middle East, the PLO. I would hope that the Government would continue to push for an international peace conference and would recognize the right of self-determination of the Palestinians.
I wonder who it is that speaks for the Liberal Party on this question? Is it the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who condemned those contacts?

Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'h-omme) support them? Who speaks for the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker?

In conclusion, once again I want to thank my constituents for the support they have shown to me and assure them that I will speak out on their behalf over the coming years. I will speak out for justice, for peace and disarmament, for full employment, for equality and for a more decent Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party, from British-Columbia, and I must admit I was rather surprised by some of the comments he made before the House, especially when he referred to the last election campaign and our Government's promise regarding universality and similar issues.
I wonder whether the Hon. Member misread, because he related these issues to the unemployment insurance reform tabled in the House by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall). He said that the Gouvemment had been less than forthright with
Canadian workers. Mr. Speaker, he said the Government was incapable of keeping its promises and was making cuts.
Mr. Speaker, he did not read a single word of what the Minister tabled in the House, and I would like to ask him, since we are now into questions and comments, how he explains the fact that the Government, under the same program, will increase the number of weeks of unemployment insurance benefits from 15 to 30 weeks for mothers and single parents. Why didn't the Member for the New Democratic Party mention that Canadians 65 years old and over will now be able to draw their unemployment insurance benefits which had been cut by the Liberal? Why did the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! Order! I am very sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member from Champlain (Mr. Champagne), but since it is nearly one o'clock, I will give the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) one minute to reply.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me a chance to stress the impact of cuts in unemployment insurance. In Montreal for instance, a person will have to work 16 weeks instead of 10 to be entitled to a minimum of 27 weeks of benefits, as opposed to the current 32 weeks. In Quebec City, a person will need 18 weeks of employment instead of 12 for a minimum of 21 weeks of benefits instead of 26.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to increases in benefits, but the truth is that this reform constitutes an attack on Canadian workers and the Canadian unemployed. Why should the unemployed have to pay for training? Why shouldn't the big corporations pay their fair share, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
April 13, 1989


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my grave concern over the effect that cuts in freight subsidies provided to shippers in the Atlantic Provinces will have on the economy of Prince Edward Island.
The Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Program is the cornerstone of the transportation policy in Atlantic Canada. Since the program's inception over 60 years ago, it has stood as an effective means of support for Atlantic Canada's fragile industrial base. It is essential to maintain a competitive position in the Canadian market-place for manufacturers and producers in the Atlantic region.
I am also concerned about the possibility that the Feed Freight Assistance Program could be affected by budget cuts.
I hope that the Government's recent review of this program will result not in cuts but in increased benefits to producers in Atlantic Canada. Fiscal restraint cannot and should not be administered at the expense of the fragile economy of the Atlantic Provinces.



RAIL TRANSPORT


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, passenger train service from Montreal to cities like Abitibi is vital, and must not be eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail will have to respect the needs of remote areas like ours.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest monthly labour
5.0. 31
force survey, the level of unemployment in the Okanagan-Shuswap now exceeds 19.6 per cent. People are out of work not because of a lack of job training but because of a lack of jobs.
The recent proposal of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) to carve $1.3 billion out of unemployment benefits to finance job training programs will not help the unemployed in the Okanagan-Shuswap where there are precious few jobs to be had.
No one in the House argues with the intrinsic value of job training initiatives. But in many regions of our country we also need a healthy dose of job creation.
By savaging the unemployment insurance benefits the Minister has disqualified thousands of our unemployed from receiving financial assistance. Others will be forced to pay for their own training. Does the Minister not recognize that while taking these training programs our unemployed still have to eat, or does she expect them to eat cake?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission's application for financial assistance on the 1988 potato crop. Members are certainly aware of the assistance offered for drought stricken crops, but are likely unaware of the disastrous problems cause by flooding in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, including my riding of Delta. Due to these rains, some 8,000 tonnes of late potatoes were drowned out and never harvested. Eighty per cent of the producing area was affected, impacting negatively on 58 per cent of the provincial crop.
The 1988 floods are another in a series of hardships for these farmers. They have also been hit by years of low prices, and have twice been forced to pursue anti-dumping suits against U.S. producers. Although both of these suits were successful, the legal fees reached $120,000, with no government assistance.
I call on the Department of Agriculture to assist the potato farmers of Delta, as they attempt to recover from this ruinous 1988 crop year.

April 13, 1989




Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the House, particularly to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), part-time Minister of Agriculture, that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has come out strongly against the recommendations of the de Grandpre Commission as it relates to agriculture. In fact, Mr. Don Knoerr, the President of C.F.A. went so far as to say: "If I hadn't appeared before the Council myself I would question whether they had even talked to farmers".
The recommendations for agriculture in this report will not only hurt supply management, it will destroy it.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to stand in the House today and reject those recommendations. If he is not prepared to do that, will he please have full consultations with farmers and their organizations before he makes any decision?
The constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk have worked hard for and depend on the stability of supply management. Once rights and freedoms are taken away they are very difficult to get back. My colleagues and I will not stand idly by and see that happen.



NATIONAL CHILD SAFETY WEEK

Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wildrose):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, April 16 to April 22 is a very special week. It is National Child Safety Week in Canada. I can scarcely think of a value more important to any society than the safety of its children, and Canadian society is no exception.
It is my firm belief that the single most important resource of this rich country is our children, for it is they who will be the leaders and the decision-makers of tomorrow. Simply put, our children are our future.
The safety of Canadian children is an issue which concerns us every day of the year. But this week we remind Canadians that we all have a responsibility for our children's safety, a shared responsibility which will not end on April 22. No, each and every Canadian has a vital role to play each day in making Canada a safer place for our children to grow up.
Unfortunately, our children face many serious hazards every day and I implore Canadians everywhere to employ care and common sense-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


Louise Feltham: -in caring for our children.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to a $14,000 advertisement on page A-ll of today's The Globe and Mail. This advertisement contains a thoroughly repugnant picture of an infant shackled by a ball and chain. The text below this tasteless picture concerns the need to cut Canada's deficit.
Last November during the federal election campaign this country saw corporate Canada finance the free trade agenda of the Conservative Party through an unprecedented amount of advertising. Now that free trade is an unfortunate fact of Canadian life, it appears that corporate Canada is continuing to act as front men for Conservative policies. While our Parties may disagree on just how the deficit should be addressed, I think all Members would agree that ads such as this are distasteful, inappropriate and unacceptable to all Canadians. I call upon the Government to make this known to its supporters.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take this opportunity to recognize the important contributions made by a group of valuable Canadians, namely, volunteers. Volunteers are being honoured across Canada through National Volunteer Week. It is also important for Canadians to use this week as an opportunity to realize just how important the role played by volunteers is to our society.
Each day volunteers make significant differences to the lives of those around them. Many organizations such as the Red Cross, firefighters, Canadian Cancer Society, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, would be unable to offer the same range or quality of services without volunteers.
April 13, 1989

As the Member of Parliament for Erie, I want to join my fellow Canadians in saying thank you to volunteers, for giving of their time and energy, and for making a difference.



ROYAL WINNIPEG BALLET


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, The Royal Winnipeg Ballet is in mourning following the loss this week of both its co-founder, Betty Farrally and its popular artistic director, Henny Juriens. On behalf of my colleagues and all Canadians who have enjoyed the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, I wish to express our sadness and sympathy to the families and friends of both these great contributors to Canadian culture. Fifty years ago, Betty Farrally co-founded a dance studio. The Royal Winnipeg Ballet evolved from the performance club established for its best students. Today, it is a company that all Winnipegers and indeed all Canadians take great pride in. We were all saddened to learn of the death of this great cultural pioneer.
Henny Jurriens and his wife Judy died tragically Sunday. Mr. Jurriens is remembered as an enthusiastic and popular member of the troupe. Both Betty Farrally and Henny Jurriens will be sorely missed by Canada's cultural community. Their contributions will long be remembered.
*
*



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, April 17th will mark the beginning of a special week honouring Canadian volunteers who so generously participate in social and community activities, and particularly in recreation, cultural, sport and service programs offered to the needy.
We don't always know the names of these volunteers, but we do know about the unlimited generosity and tireless efforts they put in their work. Unfortunately, we often ignore the expenses these people incur for the association and community they serve!
If the municipal, provincial or even federal governments were to pay the salaries and expenses of all the volunteers, they would be faced, I think, with costs beyond belief.
I for one would like the various government levels to be more sensitive to the financial needs of volunteer organizations.
In conclusion, I wish to express my gratitude to all the volunteers in the 52 cities and municipalities of my beloved constituency of Richmond-Wolfe.



VIA RAIL


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there are precious few issues on which 89 per cent of Canadians agree, yet Gallup informs us that 89 per cent of us from every region of Canada want VIA Rail retained and upgraded. Given the tools to do the job, VIA could increase its service and ridership dramatically, yet the Tories have consistently sabotaged efforts VIA has made to improve itself as part of the Government's agenda eventually to destroy VIA Rail completely.
At this moment, the final assault is being led by Erik Neilsen, the Tory who has always called for VIA's end, as he holds hearings in an effort to mobilize popular opinion against VIA Rail. The Government and Mr. Neilsen have failed. Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians disagree with this Tory agenda item. They feel betrayed since, during the election campaign, the Tories said they would expand VIA. Now they are in the process of destroying it.
The Government should listen to the people, keep its promise, live up to its word and keep VIA Rail. If the Government must cut, may I suggest that it cut Mr. Neilsen.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) announced the Government's progressive new labour force development strategy and improvements to the unemployment insurance program which currently costs over $13 billion a year. The focus of the unemployment insurance program will shift from passive income support to a more constructive and active

April 13, 1989
Oral Question Period
involvement in the labour market. More generous UI benefits for new parents and workers over 65 years of age were announced.
Elowever, there will be an increase in the penalties for workers who quit without just cause, refuse a suitable job or are fired for misconduct. Penalties for fraudulent use of the UI program for workers and/or employers will be significantly increased.
I applaud the Minister. The proposed changes will help all Canadians cope better with the changing workplace of the 1990s and beyond while maintaining a caring and compassionate approach for those who are truly in need.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the 1989 snow crab management plan for the Gulf of St. Lawrence announced by departmental officials last week is grossly unfair. Under the plan, the P.E.I. snow crab fishermen are limited to set 30 traps in a small zone where stocks have been depleted and are greatly at risk. New Brunswick and Quebec fishermen are allowed to set five times as many traps and their mobility is not restricted.
The plan calls for elimination of the fall season which will spell disaster for fishermen, fish plant workers and entire fishery communities in my riding. To add insult to injury, for the fourth year in a row, 14 permit holders are left without permanent licenses. I say to the Minister that the time is up. Give Prince Edward Island fishermen a fair deal now.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the plight of the historical Hotel Macdonald in downtown Edmonton. This is a fine structure that has stood since 1915. It is a vintage historical landmark and was designated as such in 1985 after having sat idle for two years, having been phased out by the CN hotel chain. Since that time, it has been acquired by Canadian Pacific and is still awaiting restoration.
CP has recently announced a $500 million restoration program for its hotel properties not including the Hotel Macdonald. I call upon Canadian Pacific to either restore Hotel Macdonald and remove the eyesore from the heart of Edmonton or sell it to someone who will.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). On October 13, 1988, in the middle of the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) appeared at what was a major Conservative election rally at the Hotel Newfoundland. My question is about what the Minister for International Trade said at that event. I want to quote from the St. John's Evening Telegram:
The federal Government has no plans to make changes to the unemployment insurance program, Trade Minister John Crosbie said. "It's complete nonsense," he replied to questioning by reporters.
Then the reporters asked the Minister whether he had checked this with the Prime Minister, and the answer was:
"You're damn right I asked him (the Prime Minister) about it and he said no. No one is planning any changes in the unemployment insurance program. There hasn't been any change proposed to us since we dealt with the Forget Commission. We're not contemplating any changes," Mr. Crosbie said adamantly.
To put it bluntly, either the Prime Minister did not tell the truth to the Minister for International Trade, or the Minister for International Trade did not tell the truth to Canadians in the midst of the election campaign. I want to ask the Prime Minister who is telling the truth in this particular instance.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is a Member who is veiy good at changing his own tune, because I will tell you what he said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: On Tuesday, July 24, 1984-


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question!
April 13, 1989


Barbara Jean McDougall: You do not want to hear it, do you? This is what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said when he was the Prime Minister of Canada in July, 1984. He said:
Yes, we must sustain our unemployment insurance systems. It must
be converted somewhat to a training and a retraining system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I went on to say that never should those funds be taken out of the pockets of the unemployed. They should be paid for by the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I notice that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for International Trade had the guts to respond to that particular question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member can put his question in appropriate language.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the headline in the St. John's, Nfld. newspaper during the election campaign was:
Change unemployment insurance? "No way," says Crosbie.
The Minister for International Trade told the Canadian public that he had asked the Prime Minister whether there would be changes to the unemployment insurance program and that the Prime Minister had answered him that there would be none.
If the Minister believed that he was telling the truth, then he was misled by the Prime Minister himself. I would like the Prime Minister to tell us whether he misled the Minister or whether it was the Minister who misled the Canadian public.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the program that we announced provides $15 million more for the Province of Newfoundland.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: It is unacceptable when a quotation like this is read in the House of Commons to the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade, both of them present at that meeting-I doubt whether the Minister of Employment and Immigration was there-and neither of them deigns to stand up and reply to this particular quotation.
Oral Question Period


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: That is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind Hon. Members that there is no obligation on any Minister to answer.


An Hon. Member:: We know that.


Mr. Speaker:: I am reminding Hon. Members of what the rule is. Comments along that line are very close to being out of order. The right hon. gentleman may put his question.


John Napier Turner: It is not often we hear in this House about a $1.3 billion falsehood.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


John Napier Turner: Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration was asked why the Government did not tell the truth during the election campaign. This is what she said to the House: "We were somewhat pre-occupied during the fall in terms of the kind of attention we were paying to ongoing issues". Too preoccupied to tell the truth!
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. When is he going to admit candidly that his Government lied to Canadians during the last election?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member cannot find any substance in this policy that is not in the interests of Canadians, he is becoming singularly abusive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHANGES TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the silence of the Prime Minister and the Minister involved prove beyond any doubt that working people were misled during the last election campaign.
I will give our national "Charlie Brown" a chance to correct himself.
My question is for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. Following the statement by the Minister for International Trade that mentions beyond any doubt that he consulted you and that the people could be reassured that nothing would be changed in the unemployment insurance program to penalize them, why- Can the Prime Minister answer this question?

April 13, 1989
Oral Question Period.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it improves the unemployment insurance program for Quebecers, among other Canadians. It is time that this Hon. Member admitted it.


CUTS IN BENEFITS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, since the Prime Minister, by keeping silent, admits that he misled the people. The Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of State are trying to convince the Canadian people that the only ones to be penalized are dishonest workers who cheat unemployment insurance.
Can the Minister explain to us why a man or woman in Quebec City who has worked for 30 years and paid unemployment insurance premiums will have 9 weeks of benefits or $3,267 cut off with her new program?

Why are the workers of Hamilton, St. Catharines and Windsor losing ten weeks of benefits, or $3,000?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Hon. Member is ignoring that there is a value in training for the people of Quebec and other Canadians. Yes, we have changed some things within the unemployment insurance system just as that Government did when it went from a flat entry of eight weeks to a variable entry of 10 to 14 weeks. There is nothing different in what we today from what they did then, except we provide benefits for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PROPOSED CHANGES IN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During the election campaign and Leaders' debate in the fall, I suggested to the Prime Minister the trade deal would jeopardize existing levels of Canada's regional development and social policies. The Prime Minister at that time denied the argument, but he went on to say: "The problem is not in the text. It is somewhere down the road".
The Prime Minister knows the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance regulations raised from 4 per cent to 6 per cent the level at which regional benefits can click in. Will the Prime Minister admit this move from 4 per cent to 6 per cent is not accidental, because 6 per cent is precisely the level that exists in the United States?
Will he also acknowledge that the harmonization of Canadian social programs down to the level of the United States has already started?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Let Barbara answer.


An Hon. Member:: Does he speak?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I am
having trouble following the Leader of the NDP. Today he is being critical of things in the United States. A few days ago he was encouraging us to support Ronald Reagan and his tax policies.
The changes announced are designed to-


Some Hon. Members:: Harmonize.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be happy to try and answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, they are designed to contribute to something I know offends socialist ears- the creation of new wealth and new jobs for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: from September of 1984 until March of this year, unemployment went down from 11.6 per cent to 7.5 per cent. One million, four hundred thousand new jobs have been created for Canadians from one part of the country to the other. That is what we were elected to do. That is exactly what we will continue to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL PROGRAMS-PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister has an indefensible case, he answers a question that was not answered-he answers one that was not asked.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is smiling. The Prime Minister promised Canadian workers that social programs would not be affected. It is the Prime Minister who has betrayed those social programs since the election. That is the case.
April 13, 1989

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he stand behind what he said in the election campaign that social programs would not be affected? If that is the case, can the Prime Minister tell the people of Canada how we have changed the click-in point for regional unemployment insurance benefits to coincide with the United States? The Government has betrayed Canadian workers, and the Prime Minister should admit it.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I do not think that providing jobs and better benefits for Canadian workers is a fundamental violation of social programs. It is making them better. It is a made-in-Canada policy. It recognizes regional disparities. The Member is caught in the old socialist ways, and the status quo does not work. That is why we are here and not you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DURATION OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, nothing so discredited the Government, after the election of 1984, as the experience of Canadians who found that, in 1984, the Government said one thing and did another thing. The Government is doing exactly the same thing this time.
I will ask the Prime Minister, who seems indifferent both to Canadian workers and the promises that he made, or the Minister, to deal with the following. Not only has the regional rate changed at which benefits click in to coincide with the United States, but also the duration for which Canadians can claim benefits coincidentally has moved downward to the U.S. level.
For example, will the Minister acknowledge that a Canadian worker from Vancouver Island who, prior to the announced changes worked for 20 weeks, was eligible for 50 weeks of benefits and is now eligible for only 39 weeks? Coincidence of coincidence, that is the same as Washington State.
Is that or is it not harmonization?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member does not recognize that the United States does not have a national system, and that we do have a national system. We have recognized regional realities in Canada historically. We have continued to do it in this program.
Oral Question Period
I might point out that the average duration that unemployment insurance is claimed is 22 weeks. We intend to get people back into jobs faster and into training programs faster in order that they can have the jobs of tomorrow. That is a Canadian policy, and it will continue to be a Canadian policy.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to return to the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition earlier today. This question can only be answered by the Prime Minister, because it concerns an important matter of credibility in the Government.
Did the Minister for International Trade ask the Prime Minister to confirm that there would be no changes in the unemployment insurance system before October 14? Did he tell the Minister that there would be no such changes to the effect that "Mr. Crosbie said he asked the Prime Minister about the report and he said no, the Government has no plans to change the plan. No one is planning any changes in the unemployment insurance program."
I ask the Prime Minister, was he approached in this manner by the Minister for International Trade? Did he give that answer to the Minister?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made-


Mr. Gauthier:: Who is he answering for? Who are you answering for, the Prime Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Charest:: What are you complaining about?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am answering for myself and for the Government, Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked by the hon. gentleman opposite.
The statement that I made on October 13 in reply to the suggestion that UI benefits were about to be cut, which was a suggestion that the opposition Leaders were making in the usual unscrupulous manner at that time, was absolutely correct. Those statements were complete nonsense. UI benefits were not about to be cut.
At the present time those benefits have not been cut, because over-all there are positive changes involving increases in benefits, as well as some changes in benefits in Newfoundland, as well as in Canada.

April 13, 1989
Oral Question Period
There was nothing planned at that time because the Minister of Employment and Immigration never produced any plans for these suggested changes until after the new year some time in February, and certainly not last October.
My statements are absolutely correct. They were in response to devious falsehoods being put about at that time by the opposition Leader.


REPORT OF QUERY DIRECTED TO PRIME MINISTER
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is making the situation worse. The credibility of the Government is becoming even lower than it has been at any time before.
The Minister very clearly stated that it is complete nonsense. He asked the Prime Minister about the report, and he said: "No, the Government has no plans to make changes. You're damned right I asked the Prime Minister about it and he said no, no one is planning any changes in the unemployment insurance program".
I again ask the Prime Minister, was he approached by the Minister for International Trade? Did he give that answer to the Minister? If so, how can he justify these cruel changes today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, everything that I said on October 13 was correct. It remains correct today. It will be correct tomorrow. It will be correct in five-years time.
As to whether or not I approached the Prime Minister, I am not going to inform the hon. gentleman when and how often I approach the Prime Minister, but it is a lot more often than he approaches the Leader of the Opposition.


TRAINING NEEDS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Nowhere in her announcement on Tuesday did the Minister mention the particular training needs of women, especially sole-support parents who are under-paid, under-educated, and often dependent on social benefits to provide for their families.
Even as the Minister spoke in the House, programs out there helping those women get training and jobs are being cut.
Why has the Minister failed to address the particular training needs of women properly, especially women with dependent children? What does the Minister intend to do to satisfy these training needs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have done as a Government, ever since we announced the Canadian Jobs Strategy in 1985, is take into account the particular needs of women. We are doing that with this program. Women will be the chief beneficiaries. They are the ones who need the training and who can take advantage of this training. While they do that, they will be provided with income support, with training support, with child care, and with transportation allowances. They will be the ones who will benefit from this.
Raise your sights!


REQUEST THAT WOMEN HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO TRAINING
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, after four years of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, 5.5 million Canadian women earn under $15,000 a year. Women earn only 66 cents for every dollar that men earn.
This week the House learned that the private sector is not giving women an equal chance at jobs. Now the Minister wants to take away women's benefits. She wants to give them to the private sector, and she wants to trust the private sector to provide training for women.
Why is there no guarantee from the Government that women will have equal access to training and to good jobs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the guarantee from this Government is that women have continued to be better off under this Government than they were in the past.


William Warren Allmand: Baloney, Barbara!


Barbara Jean McDougall: The parental benefits and the paternity benefits that we put into this program are specifically designed for women. The programs that are there will ensure that the business community gives women a chance to have their jobs and continue their jobs after
April 13, 1989

they have borne children. It will ensure that they provide training for women, just as we do under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, where we have particular targets for targets that they are taking advantage of.
I have visited the training programs for women across the country and they are working well.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LEADER OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Michael Harcourt, Leader of the Official Opposition in the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for International Trade. The fishing industry in British Columbia is concerned, as all Canadians should be, at the prospect of losing our right to process Canadian salmon and herring in Canada. With regard to ongoing negotiations with the United States, will the Minister assure the House that his Government will reject the so-called Murphy 2 proposal which would allow the Americans to purchase fish directly from B.C. vessels without a Canadian landing requirement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and I have been engaged for a number of months now in dealing with the situation cited by the Hon. Member.
A GATT panel found that the present regulations, soon to be revoked, prohibiting any export of certain kinds of salmon from British Columbia, were contrary to the GATT rules. We accepted the GATT panel report.
We have put an alternate plan before the American authorities, one which we believe to be GATT consistent, involving a landing requirement in British Columbia. That is the plan that we are going with. We do not
Oral Question Period
propose to change it. In our view, and according to the experts who advise us, it is a GATT-consistent landing requirement necessary to ensure proper management of the B.C. salmon resource. That is the plan with which we will be proceeding.


LANDINGS OF SALMON AND HERRING
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister.
He mentioned salmon but not herring. There is some concern about herring as well. With respect to both, the previous Minister for International Trade said on March 21 in this House that salmon and herring caught off the Pacific Coast will be landed in Canada in order to ensure accurate catch reporting, inspection, grading, and quality control.
Will the Minister assure us at this time that his Government will not sell the B.C. fishing industry down the free trade deal river as it did with B.C. grape growers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to see rhetoric take away the common sense of the hon. gentleman. I proceed on the assumption that he has common sense, since he is a lawyer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a large assumption.


David Stupich: That is an insult.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Some things are indefensible.


John Carnell Crosbie: His honour will know what is indefensible being a lawyer himself.
The position is that the GATT panel finding was that the regulations with respect to both B.C. salmon and herring were inconsistent and violated the GATT rules. Therefore the regulations as they apply to herring are also inconsistent with the GATT.
In due course we will be proposing other options with respect to herring. It is our intention to deal with that matter. However, it has to be dealt with under a different plan than with respect to B.C. salmon, the landing requirement, and the manner in which it is being proposed at the moment.

April 13, 1989
Oral Question Period ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


OIL SPILL IN VANCOUVER HARBOUR
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. British Columbia Members are very concerned about the repeated oil spills off the West Coast of Canada. We heard again this morning that there was another oil spill on the West Coast, this time right in Vancouver Harbour.
What is the Government doing to clean up this latest oil spill on the West Coast?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, an oil spill of 1,800 litres of fuel oil took place two days ago in the Vancouver Harbour. By yesterday at 5.17 p.m. the clean-up was completed. A summons will be served to the the ship which is called the Lok Pratima. We should have news about the summons in a few days.
I must add that I will be in Vancouver tomorrow-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lucien Bouchard: -to meet representatives of the petitioners who are asking for an inquiry about the condition of maritime traffic off the West Coast of Canada. I will be listening to them.
I can tell the House that the review we have undertaken in my Department will include an element of public input. I will have more news for the House later on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Connaught Laboratories is Canada's leading biotechnological firm. It produces medicines such as insulin and the Salk vaccine.
In a deal concluded on March 12 control of this leading Canadian company will pass from Canadian hands into the hands of the Government of France. Will the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to keep control of Connaught in Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, under the Investment Canada Act this transaction would have to receive my approval. As of today we have not yet received notice from Connaught or Institut Merieux in respect of this issue. If and when it is brought before Investment Canada, a strict test of it being of net benefit to Canada will be applied.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, since the Tory Government gutted FIRA and created Investment Canada in July, 1985, there have been 606 takeover applications by foreigners. Every one of them has been approved. So much for Investment Canada.
Looking at this specific deal there are no conditions contained in it to protect Canadian jobs, to protect Canadian research and development, to insure Canadians exports, or to protect the special relationship of Connaught with the University of Toronto. Will the Minister intervene to protect Canada's interests? Will the Minister please put Canada first?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, over the period of time that Investment Canada has been in existence 1,400,000 new jobs have been generated for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Many of them have helped to make the Hon. Member's brother look good as Premier of Ontario.
The reality is that in fact Canada has been attracting investment from all over the world. In spite of that Canadians still invest more outside Canada than foreigners are investing in Canada. The proportion of ownership in Canadian shares vis-a-vis the United States, for example, has been increasing. The picture the Hon. Member has portrayed is not accurate.
I reiterate what I said in answer to his first question. The net benefit to Canada test will be strictly applied.
April 13, 1989

Oral Question Period


HIBERNIA OIL FIELD DEVELOPMENT-DATE OF CONCLUDING BINDING AGREEMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last July 18 regarding the Hibernia project he said that a binding agreement, and I quote, "would be implemented as expeditiously as possible, but in any event no later than March 31, 1989. It is anticipated that it will be done much sooner than that, since most of the hurdles have been overcome".
Last July, the Deputy Prime Minister did not hesitate about giving us a date when we would have a binding agreement. The only problem was the date was not correct. Will he now try again to give us another date as to when we can expect to have a binding agreement?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question before. The hon. gentleman can read it in the record.
Let me give him the salient points again. He knows that there were three issues. The first was in terms of the legal requirements. The second concerns the testing of financial markets. The third concerns the best industrial benefits with the best modem technology. I think I mentioned that yesterday in the House. That has not changed 24 hours later. That is what we are working on.
When we have a binding agreement I will obviously announce it in the House. I will not give him a specific date. All the parties, namely, the Government of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada, and the sponsors of the consortium are all working toward that goal.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy gives us information but he fails to tell us exactly when we can expect this binding agreement. The Minister for International Trade said on July 19 that they will all be legally bound by the end of March, referring to the companies involved, and: "In the meantime, we are morally bound. We are completely bound".
If the Government is bound, surely it can tell us when the people of Newfoundland can expect a binding agreement to secure this very important project. Or is this just another assurance similar to the assurance the Minister for International Trade gave on unemployment insurance?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that his Party did not approve the Atlantic Accord. It is the Atlantic Accord, the underpinning of Hibernia, which gives possibility to Hibernia's completion.
Secondly, during the election campaign the hon. gentleman's Party said that Hibernia would not be followed through by this Government after the election. Wrong again.
Lastly, what I am saying to the Member is this. He is a lawyer and I am not, and that might be an advantage, but I will not say for whom. I will say to him that until the legally binding agreements are completed, until we have tested the financial market and until we have the best deal, both for the consortium, for the Government and people of Newfoundland and for Canada, then we will sign it in order that we can have additional Hibernias.


ENERGY ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS-TERMINATION OF POSITIONS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, another question for the Minister of the Environment. The Government pledged in the Throne Speech that it will ensure that "environmental issues are fully considered in the course of its decision making". There are now some 300 people working in energy alternatives programs in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Over the last couple of weeks, since the Throne Speech, notices have been given to about 110 of them-that is one in every three-that their positions will be terminated.
My question to the Minister is this. What full consideration of environmental issues was undertaken before these termination notices were sent out?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says there will be cuts in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The answer is, yes, there will be. It goes back to 1985. I appreciate that he would not have known that, but some of his colleagues could have told him. In 1985, there was a MYOP, a Multi-Year Operational Plan ending in 1991 in which there were going to be reductions. Additionally I say this to the Hon. Member-I am sure the Party would have these clippings-if he goes back to the clippings of January 5 in this community, he will find that this issue was raised and aired at that time, and we repeated the 1985 decisions. So what I say to him

April 13, 1989
Oral Question Period
is that we are going to move away, as we have since 1985, from a disastrous National Energy Program which people in his province were also against.


ALTERNATIVE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Ross Harvey: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I assume the Environment Minister is pleased that there is now in this House a Member from Alberta who takes alternative energies seriously. I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources then-is that all there is? I mean, are we content that we have done the development necessary in energy alternatives? There is nothing more to be done; is that what he is saying?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what I am content with is that the National Energy Program is finally being killed and put to bed and dead.
The second point I say to him is this. The program was based on a lot of wind technology, in case the Hon. Member missed that at all. There was obviously other technology as well.
So what I am saying to him is that where before we were funding programs-for instance solar panels which were great for heating swimming pools, and I do not know how many Hon. Members opposite in that Party had that problem, we are moving away from that program. What we will do is continue research and development on the warming effect and on C02 emissions. That work will continue, but I am not going to fund solar panels for swimming pools any more.


BRANCH STAFFING CUTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and I would like to think that the Prime Minister actually takes the issue of the environment seriously since it is obvious that his Minister of Energy does not. I would like to ask him how he can justify his statement. He calls it in the Throne Speech the environmental imperative. He says it is going to get the top priority. We now know as a result of a copyright story in The Winnipeg Free Press that in fact one-third of the Energy Department that is working on alternative energies is going to be laid off.
Will the Prime Minister give us today a commitment in the House that he will reverse those cuts and he will return to full capacity those in the Department of Energy who are working on the most critical area of alternative energies, or is his commitment to the environment merely bunk and window dressing?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition makes the classical error that if you spend more money and have more PYs, that somehow you are going to do more for the environment, and that does not follow. She refers to a copyrighted story of today. I remind her of the stories of two or three months ago.
So what I am saying is simply this. We will continue on research and development, on alternate energy sources. We will continue working with industry and other provinces in order that we can industrialize some of the technologies that have developed, but I will not fund programs which incorporated this great idea developed by that Party that the more money spent by government and the greater the National Energy Program, that somehow you are doing something for the environment. In fact if she looks, she will find that as the federal Government spent more and more money in the NEP, during the time when you were in office, how come emissions in fact went up rather than down?


CUTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment, the same man who spoke with the Prime Minister this morning. I know, or I think, that he made a certain promise about the environment. He told us that as the leading Minister, he could deny cutbacks or programs established by other Ministers. I would like to ask him whether he is ready today to cancel the cutbacks in environmental research that were just announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and whether, together with the Prime Minister, he will show the Canadian people that his statements on the environment are worth at least the paper they are written on.
April 13, 1989


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy and members of this Government are fully in agreement with the points that the Minister of the Environment made, namely, that we would have full programs within the Department of Environment, and ancillary programs in other Departments, including my own, respecting the environment, but what we have to do, as I have said in terms of these reductions, is to fund research and development. We will fund the application of that research and development in order that emissions can be reduced. We will actively pursue international agreements as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of External Affairs have done. That will be the condition by which we will proceed. We will not simply say that because there was a National Energy Program, because there were PYs, because there was all kinds of money spent, that the environment was not being protected. There is the fault of the former administration. There is the fault of their blinded approach. That is, by spending more public money, somehow the environment-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIDS DISEASE-COMPOSITION OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate him on his new responsibilities and to wish him well in those new endeavours.
As the Minister knows, 2,500 Canadians have been diagnosed to have AIDS. Of those, 1,400 have died. That, coupled with the resignation of Dr. Gilmour as the Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS, has caused a great deal of anguish and uncertainty. I would like to ask the Minister if he could explain to the House why, on his particular committee, there are no victims of AIDS or representatives of groups who work with these individuals who could assist him and the Government in developing sound and pragmatic public policy to address a tragic situation.
Oral Question Period


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the Hon. Member for his kind comments and for the thoughtful and very constructive suggestion that he has made.
I am currently considering what structure NAC AIDS should have in the future. It is important to ensure that when we get advice with regard to how best to deal with this problem of AIDS we draw from all sources but in particular those people who are asked to live with AIDS, those people who are helping to provide assistance to those people living with AIDS. They should be fully consulted.
In particular, as we develop a new national strategy to deal with this vital issue of AIDS which has caused so much suffering for so many people, I want to ensure the very broadest possible sources of consultation.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT OF FUNDS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response but I remind him that the seriousness of this issue requires strong and consistent leadership by the Government of Canada. In view of the previous election commitment of additional moneys which would be addressed toward this tragic disease, totalling $168 million, will the Minister indicate to Canadians that on the grounds of compassion, human dignity, sanctity of life, his Government will stand behind that commitment of a minimum of $168 million to address this very tragic situation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will know that in the Speech from the Throne the Government talked about a new commitment to AIDS, to ensure that every effort was made to deal with this disease. We have committed ourselves to $168 million over the course of the next five years. We are continuing with that.
In addition, we are redoubling our efforts to ensure that all of those who are involved in this area, including persons living with AIDS and those people who are charged with the responsibility of assisting them, work closely together because if we are to lick this disease we must work closely together at all levels, both public and private, to ensure our success.

April 13, 1989
Privilege-Mr Layton PRIVILEGE


USE OF POSTAL FRANK BY MEMBER FOR NOTRE-DAME-DE-GRACE
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine -Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, franking is a special privilege granted to all Members of the House to facilitate and ensure postal communications with their constituents.
It has come to my attention through a report in the Weekly Press in the west end of Montreal that this privilege has been used to circulate partisan Liberal Party materials, not to constituents of the Hon. Member in the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grace but solely and directly to Members of the Liberal Party in my riding of Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.
I do not believe that the franking privilege was granted for political partisan purposes such as membership development or fund-raising. If this practice in my riding today were to be approved and applied across the country, Canadians would be flooded from every Member with propaganda at their own and taxpayers' expense.
The mailing in my riding of Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis transferred over $1,000 in costs from the local riding association and its defeated candidate, Victor Drury, to the Canadian taxpayer. I believe that the spirit and morality of our franking privilege has been abused, if not breached, by this action, that my rights as a Member are affected, and that the practice should be discontinued.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I welcome a ruling from you, from the committee, or the Parliamentary Counsel. What I did was to send out a notice of meeting with respect to Liberals in the Lachine-Lakeshore riding.
I must say that it is a surprise to me that one cannot send out mailings that are of a partisan nature to anywhere in Canada. For years now all sorts of mailings have been sent into my riding and out of my riding that were extremely partisan, but I will comply with whatever ruling. It was sent in good faith and I will comply with whatever ruling you deem fit.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect this question of privilege. Perhaps I can make a suggestion that I am sure my hon. colleague on the government side would accept. It is that when the
Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services is reconstituted perhaps your Honour would see fit to send this question to that committee. It has happened in the past. Members from all Parties have had to agonize over this kind of question and we have always come to a happy ending.
Perhaps with the co-operation of my hon. colleague from the government side, and any other interested Member, your Honour may see fit to send the whole question of the frank to the Members' Services Committee when it is reconstituted. That should be within a very few weeks.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. gentleman should have checked with his Leader about how the franking privilege should be used because four years ago the Young Ukrainian Organization brought to me an envelope in which there was a lot of literature from the Government, including a Progressive Conservative brochure encouraging young Ukrainians to vote for the Conservatives. If the Member wants to raise that question of privilege, I suggest he check with his Leader and set an example for everyone in the House.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I too am surprised at the question of privilege raised by the hon. gentleman. I would ask him to account for why I got letters from the Rt. Hon. Robert Stanfield and the Rt. Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) when they were leaders of their Party, asking for donations to the PC Canada Fund, on their frank.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to rise quickly because I expected this to go on and on. That is exactly why I made the suggestion that you may see fit to send this to the committee on Members' Services.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my hon. friend and have the matter referred to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that procedurally the Speaker can necessarily refer it to the committee. However, perhaps I can say that I think it would be a very good idea if the committee took up the matter and all Members who are concerned had a chance to discuss it. I thank the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for what I think is a very helpful suggestion.
April 13, 1989


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I want to ask the customary question of the Government House Leader as to what business he intends to call for the coming week.
While I am on my feet, I want to ask the Government House Leader specifically whether he will agree to call during Government Orders the motion of the Rt. Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) which, if supported by the House, particularly the Conservative majority, would take away from this House the opportunity to use the notwithstanding clause.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that today and tomorrow we will continue with the seventh and eighth day of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. On Monday, April 17, we will begin second reading of Bill C-2, the Bill on Transportation Safety. In the event that we do not finish that Bill on Monday we will continue with it on Tuesday in an effort to wrap up debate on it. The back-up Bill would be Bill C-3, the Bill to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. As the week progresses, we will see what we are doing with respect to those Bills and other items.
With specific reference to my hon. friend's request that we subvert the private Members process and bring forward in an unfair manner the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I should tell him that we are very, very loath to do that for that reason. Also, we are on the record as indicating that the Meech Lake Accord ratification process is going well. Eight out of 10 provinces representing 93 per cent of Canadians, as a matter of fact, have ratified the Meech Lake Accord. We are also on the record as saying that there should be no parallel actions which would in any way interfere with that ratification which I would hope my hon. friend wishes to proceed with. For those two reasons, we will not be dealing with the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concerns expressed about the effect of the notwithstanding clause on our current constitution, I would ask the Government House Leader if he would be willing to put down the same motion offered by the Leader of the Opposition in the name of the Prime Minister. If that is
Business of the House
the case, we would be willing to agree to withdraw the motion that was put down by the Leader of the Opposition under private Members' business.
I do not accept the Government House Leader's argument that to do what I suggested in my first intervention undermines the private Members' business procedure, but in order to remove any doubt on that score, I say right now that we would be willing to give unanimous consent to withdrawing the Leader of the Opposition's motion if in its stead there is put down under Government Orders the same motion in the name of the Prime Minister which could be then called for debate and quickly disposed of, if the Government is willing to support it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are following the rather unusual procedure of proceeding with the Government's business during Government time and according to the mandate given to us by the people.
As I have said before, the Meech Lake ratification process is proceeding. We do not want to interfere with it in any way. We do not want to clutter it up. It is in the Speech from the Throne that we are presently debating that we intend to continue the constitutional process after the Meech Lake Accord is ratified, and we hope that that will be very soon.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Government House Leader, I am wondering when we can expect legislation to create a full Department of Forestry. When might such legislation be introduced in the House?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his compliments. We have a Ministry of Forestry and a Minister of Forestry. My hon. friend has quite rightly pointed out that we are the first Government to have given prominence to this very important industry, and I will take his representation under advisement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the point with the Government House Leader, I think it must be said that at the moment, we have a Minister of State for Forestry, quite different from a full Minister. I think what my hon. friend from Prince George was indicating was that the Government did promise many months ago to name a full Minister of Forests, with the accompanying enabling legislation to set out the parameters of that Ministry. That is the question. We all realize we have a Minister of State for Forestry, but that is not keeping the Prime Minister's promise to have a full Ministry.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr Cole


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate my hon. friend also adding his compliments to that of his friend with respect to this very important step the Government has taken for the forest industry, and I will take his representation under advisement.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could further enlighten my hon. friend who represents a British Columbia riding. In September last year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the establishment of a full Ministry of Forestry, and of course, the operations of Government is entirely a Prime Ministerial prerogative. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Forestry is operating as a full Department under an Order in Council, and legislation is in preparation in final draft form that will be presented to the House at an early stage.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader could assure us that the fisheries committee would be organized soon. There is a serious problem of overfishing of halibut as represented by the industry and the unions, and they would like an opportunity to make representations to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: It may may very well be an important matter. The Minister may want to answer, but this is getting well beyond the ordinary exchange between the Opposition and the Government on next week's business. The Minister may want to respond, but I certainly do not think he is bound to.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Perhaps I could see the Hon. Member behind the curtains and we can discuss it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
{English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate as our Government begins the second session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I would first like to take this opportunity to commend the Government of which I am extremely proud on its past performance, a performance that will be equalled if not surpassed in the next four years, and I am sure many more years to come. I compliment our Government on its achievements in initiating so many new policies encompassing such diverse areas.
When I was asked to speak on the Throne Speech, I asked myself what is a Throne Speech, and I looked up a definition. I quote from the book Government of Canada written by Dawson. The Throne Speech:
- is a statement, drafted by the Prime Minister and approved by the cabinet, which reviews concisely the state of the nation and recites in fairly general terms the program which the cabinet proposes to Parliament in the upcoming session.
As I see it, the Throne Speech outlined a course of action for the future while reflecting on the past accomplishments of this Government. As a result of the endeavours of our Government, Canada's economy grew faster last year than those of the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy. In real terms, our economy grew by 4.3 per cent. The Canadian economy will continue to grow with increased international trade under the direction and leadership of this Government.
Since 1984, Canada's job creation record has been the best of any major OECD nation. The unemployment rate was cut from 11.2 per cent to 7.8 per cent in December, more recently to 7.6 per cent and it was just announced last Friday that it was 7.5 per cent. Under the previous Liberal Government, in 1982, this country experienced record high unemployment. That Liberal Government had allowed youth unemployment to climb to unacceptable levels, while our Government cut youth employment by one-third.
Our Government is dedicated to maintaining for the youth of this nation a prosperous labour market in which to grow and participate with a sense of accomplishment. This Government's dedication is very evident in my riding. For years, the employment situation in York- Simcoe and surrounding ridings has been excellent.
April 13, 1989

The supervisor of the Canadian Employment Centre for Students recently informed me of the tremendous employment prospects for students this summer. The original function of the centre was to find suitable jobs for students. However, and particularly this summer, its function seems to be finding enough students to fill the numerous vacancies businesses have posted at the centre. The students of York-Simcoe are extremely fortunate because not only are they being given an opportunity to earn money for university and college expenses, but they are gaining valuable work experience and getting a glimpse of the work and business world of their future.
The key words used in the Throne Speech were "building", "preparing", "protection", "caring" and "sustainable development". These words are descriptive of a Government that shows every indication of providing the next and future generations with a standard of living comparable to the one we cherish today as one of the highest in the world. However, our standard of living, the strength of the economy, the unemployment level will mean nothing to our children and grandchildren if we do not make provisions to ensure them of an environment in which life flourishes, not diminishes.
The commitment our Government made four years ago to making the environment a priority was reaffirmed in a mandate outlined in the Throne Speech. As the record shows, our Government's accomplishments in initiating environmental policies and directives have been vast. Agreements have been signed with all the provinces to cut in half acid rain causing emissions from factories by 1994. Actions were taken to have leaded gasoline emissions cut out completely by 1994. Bill C-30 was passed to improve the National Parks Act. Bill C-74 was passed to provide stricter controls on handling toxic wastes from their production to their disposal. In 1987, Canada hosted an international conference on the ozone layer in Montreal. That historic agreement, signed by more than 40 countries, is designed to reduce emissions, which destroy the ozone layer, by 50 per cent by 1999. As well, we hosted an international conference on the chemical contamination of the atmosphere which was held in Toronto in June of 1988.
As the Throne Speech outlined, our Government is going to continually develop policies that reflect the concept of sustainable development where our economic policies are not divorced from their environmental
The Address-Mr. Cole
impact. In Winnipeg, there is the creation of a centre for the international promotion of sustainable development. More information and direction will come from the round table on the environment and the economy, which is being chaired by the President of McGill University.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has been giving me responsibilities to ensure that environmental issues are fully considered in the course of Government decision-making. There will be new regulations to limit the impact of toxic chemicals; actions to protect the arctic environment; new legislation to ensure an appropriate environmental assessment review process; negotiations, both with the United States and globally, to improve the quality of the atmosphere; and initiatives to clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
As I stand here reflecting on and listing the many accomplishments and future directives of our Government, words to a song keep running through my mind: "Every generation blames the one before it". Under the leadership of this Government, those words will not be echoed in the minds of our children. If I may plagiarize the words of my wise colleague, the Hon. Don Mazan-kowski, "today's farmlands", today's environment, "are our children's heritage and we owe it to future generations to be wise stewards of this renewable resource"; of these precious lakes and forests; of this land.
I would like to speak a bit on the topic of a Human Resource Development Strategy and the pending necessity for the training and retraining of Canada's workforce, especially our youth.
Prior to 1986 and in the early part of 1984, businesses were able to select the best qualified, sometimes over qualified candidates, totally ignoring the less advantaged or less equipped candidate, such as high school dropouts. Fortunately, because of the leadership shown by this Government, we are experiencing record low unemployment. University, college and high school graduates are now able to find jobs better matched to their aspirations. They no longer have to settle for positions that are grossly below their academic credentials and career potentials. In many instances, graduates are able to choose the company they want to work for rather than have the company choose them. The situation has not improved that much for high school drop-outs, but we are making good strides in helping this forgotten group face and conquer the labour market.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Cole
The contribution of our Government in helping dropouts and potential drop-outs is evident in the region of York, which is a major portion of my riding of York- Simcoe. Last August, my colleague, the Hon. Barbara McDougall, in her capacity as Minister of Employment, approved the federal Government funding of a program designed to help potential high school drop-outs in Ontario's York region.
The funding, which came from the innovative program of Canadian Jobs Strategy, has helped to fund a three-year project that established a career centre to assess and give career counselling to potential high school dropouts. The drop-out rate in the region of York is about 33 per cent. I was astonished when I heard that figure. This program is designed to give students a glimpse of what the future would be like if they dropped out of school and to provide them with an incentive to stay in school. The intent of the program is not to make students feel that university or college, in the traditional sense, is the be all and end all for everyone. The centre does, however, promote the merits of finishing high school.
The funding also helped establish the York Region Education-Industrial Foundation which identifies sectors where worker shortages exist. Employers in York region have identified skilled labour shortages as the most critical problem facing them today.
The career centre, working in co-operation with the education-industrial foundation, helps steer potential drop-outs into trades in which the foundation has identified a need for workers. The centre is also assisting graduates, disabled and minority groups find employment.
This program is just one small example of how employment and immigration, through Canada's Jobs Strategy Innovations Program, encourages the development of new ways to ensure that Canadians have meaningful employment. Its funding of innovative projects designed to keep the Canadian labour market growing demonstrates our Government's commitment to meeting the ever-changing labour needs of Canadian businesses and their potential employees.
I would like to quote the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall).
The Government knows that Canadians want to work. We will therefore use unemployment insurance funds to actively help the unemployed find jobs. There will be faster, easier access to counselling, training and re-employment programs. The unemployment insurance program will continue to be an integral part of Canada's social system.
Our goal is to improve the UI system and current labour market
programs. These improvements redirect funds to new, more effective
ways to help unemployed Canadians.
"Innovative" is a word representative of this Government, and innovation will be needed in designing future programs to meet labour market changes, especially in a time of necessary fiscal restraint. New technology is being introduced in this country at an accelerating rate. New technologies will require more sophisticated skills.
Technology coupled with the aspirations of Canada's youth to surpass the educational achievements of their parents put a tremendous onus on this Government. We are faced with a wide discrepancy between the educational aspirations of young people and the present capacity and diversity of the education system to meet these expectations. More so now than ever, the job market calls for a higher level of skill than was required for earlier generations.
My riding, York Simcoe, which is part of the fastest growing region in Canada, is already faced with an employment crisis. Developers have been "building" and "expanding" in the last few years. Towns such as Newmarket, which had a population growth of 17 per cent from 1981 to 1986, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, and other towns in this area have had major growth spurts. Eighty per cent of the increase in this region is attributed to the migration of young families within the age group of 25 to 44. My riding has a shortage of skilled workers. The 15 per cent increase between 1985 and 1986 in business establishments creates a demand for trained employees that we are still trying to meet.
The migration to my area is due in part to the expansion of the 404 which now ends in Newmarket and to the York-Durham sewage system. The increase is also due in part to the exceedingly high house prices in Toronto. The price of housing in my area is not low.
Another major reason for our continual growth is attributable to the sense of community my riding has maintained despite its rapid expansion. New residents have found that towns like Holland Landing, Sutton, Keswick, East Gwillimbury, Tottenham, and Mourtt Albert are safe, friendly and family-oriented communities in which to bring up their families. You can still walk down any street in any one of those communities and recognize an acquaintance or a friendly face. These communities all boast strong municipal governments which provide excellent recreational facilities and activities that promote community interaction.
April 13, 1989

I am proud to say that the majority of people who do approach me are close acquaintances with whom I have worked in either a service organization or a voluntary group, cheered with at a hockey game, or even voted against at municipal meetings. Today, I am proud to demonstrate and represent the community spirit of my riding.
I know all my constituents will be looking to our Government to help maintain and foster the sense of community and sense of family so endeared to them, as I am sure it is to those in the rest of Canada.
Under the direction of the Prime Minister, I can assure my constituents that the Government will introduce legislation to create a child care program that addresses areas where it is required.
Despite the financial difficulties the Government faces, it will continue to provide assistance to families and the elderly, while directing greater assistance toward those with low incomes. We will be initiating legislation to reduce family violence, child abuse, and drug abuse. We will continue with criminal law reform which includes a review of the Young Offenders Act. We will also address the very sensitive issue of abortion.
Our approach to addressing the vast and diverse challenges in our changing Canadian society will be reflective of Canadian values. We have advised Canadians that we will be innovative in our approaches to handling the difficulties facing the Government.
Last November Canadians showed that they believe in the ways that we are trying to accomplish our objectives. In the Throne Speech we have shown that we will do everything in our power to ensure that the next generation will not blame the one before it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: I listened with great interest to my hon. friend on the Government benches as he discussed employment opportunities, post-secondary education, et cetera.
The Address-Mr. Manley
Yesterday I met with a scientific and educational society. Among other things, they were concerned about the loss of funding in the area of research, the loss of funding in the area of educational opportunities, and the brain drain that is occurring both in the public and private sectors. Our good Canadian minds are moving to the United States of America, to places such as NASA, a public facility where they are being offered large sums of money in order to work.
Those people cannot find jobs in Canada because of the Government's policies of cutbacks in the area of research. Over a period of time, research repays great dividends to the Canadian people. Whether it is geriatric research, agricultural research, or astrophysical research, we receive major returns in Canada from those dollars we put in. Yet we have seen a watering down of that in Canada over the last few years.
What will the Hon. Member do? Will he do more than talk about educational increases, employment, and the educational system, and press his Government to ensure that research funding is increased so that we can put an end to the brain drain from Canada and give our youth a future in our research community here in our own country?


John Cole: Yesterday, I also met with representatives of that group. When I spoke to them I was encouraged. One of the ladies informed me that she had just received a research grant of over $100,000. This was a totally new grant from a totally new base. It was an industrial grant that came from the private sector, not the public sector.
When I mention innovative changes and changes coming from within the Government, we should be encouraging those types of changes. We have to ensure that the dollars we are spending are productive for us. If they are not productive, then they must be cut in order that we will have a more productive use of and value from our dollars.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise to speak in this debate with a sense that Canada stands today at some historic crossroads.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Manley

It is a privilege to speak as the Official Opposition's critic for science and technology, since I am aware that science is very important for Canada if we want to compete in the global economy.

Canada is at an economic crossroads. We must soon decide how we will maintain our standard of living in light of the fact that we can no longer rely solely on the exploitation of our natural resources. The question we must ask ourselves is: Are we prepared to realize the potential of our far more important resource, our people?
The choice that Canadians must make is clear. We have to change our way of thinking, and our way of understanding economic development within the context of an environmental crisis. We have grown up believing that our natural resources are unlimited, that our wealth and standard of living is assured. This is not true.
As a people we have demonstrated determination, perseverance and ingenuity in conquering a massive continent, overcoming a hostile environment, and building a nation. We Canadians have pursued a path remarkable in its distinctiveness in the new world. History influences us deeply as we continually seek a renewal of the social compact that binds us together.
We are shaped by the strong influences of our two founding linguistic groups. However, we are also influenced in important ways by the special heritage of our aboriginal peoples, and by our more recently acquired multicultural diversity.
We forged a nation where logic dictated that none should exist. We built a new nation without denying our historic ties to our motherlands. We forged alliances, waged war against oppressors, and distinguished ourselves as international peace makers. We have set an example by sharing our wealth, although perhaps not enough, with those less fortunate, or those touched by destruction, disease, drought and famine.
Canada is a unique and special place. The world needs Canada, a middle power committed to freedom, to democracy, to peace; an open nation willing to criticize its friends while remaining loyal to historic alliances; an honest broker between superpowers; a nation able to understand the tensions and stresses of the world because it comprehends within its borders a richness of diversity and experience that mirrors the world at large.
The world needs Canada, and we have worked hard to create a place called Canada. Canada is more than a mere collection of regions, more than a nondescript adjunct to a North American superpower. Our single greatest achievement can be seen in the way we have related to each other.

Mr. Speaker, it is also my view that Canada is not only at an economic crossroads but at a constitutional one as well. Although the Prime Minister refuses to admit it, we are now going through a crisis. Canada's future is more in doubt now than it was in 1976 when Rene Levesque was elected.

Matters of human relations are not easy and they are always touched with fragility. There is no human relationship between individuals or between peoples that cannot be severed, no bond of friendship or loyalty that cannot be betrayed. Indeed, it is my view that there is no greater need in human society than the need for reconciliation.
That is why recent events have saddened me so much. I speak of the debate that has occurred in this Chamber and elsewhere on our Constitution. I speak of the legislative and public response of the Government of Quebec to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of minority language rights. First, I wish to address the matter of the Constitution and the process of constitutional reform.
For many years the sole exception to Canada's full legal status as a free democratic and independent nation was the necessity to seek the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to any constitutional reform. The abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and the completion of the unification of British North America with the entry into Confederation of Newfoundland in 1949 almost completed the picture. Almost, but not quite. For more than 30 years after 1949, efforts to solve the difficulty of agreeing on how we as Canadians should amend our Constitution thwarted efforts to repatriate.
Agreement on an amending formula was reached in Victoria in 1971, only to be nullified by Robert Bourassa in a decision that I believe contributes directly to the present difficulties.
April 13, 1989

When the Supreme Court of Canada decided in 1981 that provincial consent was not required by law to amend the Constitution, the federal Government's will to repatriate the Constitution assumed greater importance. The fact that agreement on a new Constitution could not be achieved with the Government of Rene Levesque, a government whose purpose though thwarted by the will of the people, was the withdrawal of Quebec from Canada is hardly surprising. Rene Levesque did not line up with the other Premiers to sign the 1982 Constitution. That would have been like Ronald Reagan singing when "Irish Eyes are Smiling" with Daniel Ortega.
The people of Quebec did sign the Constitution. They signed with the pen of Pierre Trudeau. They signed with the pens of Jean Chretien and Andre Ouellet. They signed with the pens of all their federal Members of Parliament, men and women elected in Quebec by Quebecers, and with a mandate to affirm Canada, not to tear it down.
Is it necessary to even bother to seek the consent of the Government of Quebec? Indeed it is. Our federation recognizes the mutual sovereignty of federal and provincial levels of government, legislating within their own jurisdictions. Therefore, I believe that where this sovereignty is to be affected the consent of each sovereign government should be obtained. We should not, we cannot continue indefinitely without the sanction of the Government of Quebec for the 1982 reforms. But the Government of Pierre Trudeau was right, and courageous in so doing, to not permit the Separatist intentions of Rene Levesque to block constitutional reform. In a brave and modern departure from British constitutional tradition, our new made-in-Canada Constitution included a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, it included a clause that preserved the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament by enabling laws to be enacted and enforced notwithstanding non-compliance with the Charter.
Pierre Trudeau and his Ministers did not favour including the notwithstanding clause. It was forced upon that government by Tory Premiers, such as Sterling Lyon of Manitoba. It was the price that had to be paid to have a Charter of Rights, as the former Solicitor General said in this House last week, the renegade Government of Rene Levesque responded immediately by invoking the notwithstanding clause in respect of all Quebec legislation. Despite the power to invoke notwithstanding, the
The Address-Mr. Manley
Canadian Charter of Rights establishes for all Canadians a concisely articulated statement of what we as a people believe should be the limits of power to be exercised by the Government. It also states clearly what we believe to be the overriding rights of the individual. A government invoking notwithstanding must now do so at its peril. We as a people have agreed on the Charter's formulation of basic rights. To suspend those rights must bring with it political consequences in a free society.
The Charter is not only a legal framework. The Charter is a standard, a measure of our freedom, of our respect for the liberties of the individual. It is for us all as parliamentarians, as law makers, as citizens, to point to the Charter, to hold it up, to assert its importance. It must grieve us all that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) would say that the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, is not worth the paper it is written on.
I need not quote the comments of the Right Hon. Prime Minister in this House last Thursday, April 6, his attempt to rewrite history. It is sufficient to say that his denunciation of the 1982 Constitution was so overstated and hypocritical as to make one wonder at its audacity. The exaggeration on the part of our revisionist Prime Minister is obvious. Notwithstanding took nothing away from the Charter of Rights that was there before 1982. Before 1982 we had no written Charter. Parliament was absolutely supreme.
Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, while a valiant and admirable effort, was a mere guide to statutory interpretation in its affirmation of rights. It did not limit Parliament's law-making ability. Of course, notwithstanding mitigated the effect of the Charter. But the Prime Minister is seriously misinformed when he tells the people of Canada that notwithstanding made the Constitution not worth the paper it is written on. Nothing was surrendered, only the gain was not as great as it might have been hoped. There is not one aspect of the Prime Minister's criticism of the 1982 Constitution that could not be applied with equal validity to his own efforts of constitutional reform in 1987, including the continuation of the notwithstanding clause. Why did he not attempt to remove the notwithstanding clause during the Meech Lake negotiations? If the 1982 Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on because it contains the notwithstanding clause, what value has been added to it by Meech Lake?

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Manley
The Prime Minister was not yet in this House when the 1982 Constitution was voted upon. But every Member of his present Cabinet who was a Member of this House at that time voted for the 1982 Constitution. The Prime Minister's attack last week is simply appalling, incredible, and indeed, disreputable. I would suggest that the example of public debate and consultation of the constitutional reform process in 1981-82 could well have been followed by the Prime Minister in his own effort.
The idea that the Meech Lake Accord was a seamless web, not amendable, nor even capable of meaningful debate by Canadians, is offensive.

I am convinced that the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party are essential and I fail to understand why the Prime Minister still refuses to consider them.

How is it that in a democratic society 11 men can lock themselves in a room all night, drink too much coffee, and change the basic contract whereby we live together as Canadians, and tell us that no, the other 25 million Canadians can have nothing to say about this? There were no women in that room at Meech Lake. There were no native people. There were no visible minorities. There were no representatives of the North. There was, in short, no respect for the need to have due process in the amendment of the Constitution.
The Prime Minister criticized the 1982 Constitution for having failed to enhance national unity. The divisions in this country provoked by the Prime Minister's effort at constitutional reform make the 1982 reform look like a children's birthday party.
Meech Lake is flawed and, tragically, it may be doomed. The Prime Minister knows it. The Prime Minister knows that the Premier of Quebec, by introducing Bill 178, may have sealed the fate of Meech Lake, and yet he will not say so. The Premier of Quebec, in claiming that notwithstanding would be unnecessary if Meech Lake were approved, is wrong since the Supreme Court decision was largely based upon the Quebec Charter, which is unaffected by Meech Lake. In this action the Premier has confirmed the greatest fears of
most Canadians about Meech Lake, and made its ratification exceedingly difficult. That is a great shame. It is a tragedy. I believe that Meech Lake should be ratified, but it must be further amended, because Canada needs to put an end to its pre-occupation with constitutional reform and language rights. Canada needs healing. Canada needs to focus its national will and build toward the future. Canada needs reconciliation, and therefore it needs national leaders who are reconcilers, healers.
Regrettably, the Prime Minister has failed in this task. He has let us all down by turning to partisan attacks when statesmanship was called for. I believe we can be sympathetic to the Premier's position as the leader of the only political entity in North America that has a Francophone majority.

We agree with Mr. Bourassa that the French language must be protected. Quebec must promote the French language.

But I would urge the Premier of Quebec, and indeed all the Premiers, to look again at the vision of a bilingual Canada. French language and culture is more endangered in a fortress Quebec, unilingual and isolated, than it is in a strong and bilingual Canada.
These are difficult and complex issues. I ventured to speak of them acknowledging my own inability to comprehend them fully, but believing as I do that Canada is a unique and special place, that Canadians are a people of considerable tolerance, and that the world needs Canada.
Canada is at a national crossroads. Unless we find our way here decisions about our economic crossroads may not long be ours to make together.
There are many other things, including the economic crossroads, that I would like to discuss, but my time has ended. Thus I will close on this final word. The world needs Canada. Canada more than ever needs leaders who are willing and able to be healers and reconcilers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 13, 1989



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows:	the Hon. Member for Halifax (Ms.
Clancy)-Child Care-Request for legislation-Request for action; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi)-Air Safety-Review by Departmental Audit Branch-Minister's intentions; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture-Drought assistance compensation payments.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Duhamel:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attempted to have the Government make a commitment to research and development and to continued support of colleges and universities. Frankly, and I say this with total sincerity and generosity, I was not at all satisfied with the answers I received.
In the Speech from the Throne it was indicated that the Government would be following the recommendations of the National Advisory Board on Technology. I am wondering if my hon. friend, the Official Opposition critic, can give me his evaluation of the Government's performance to date in research, science and technology.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question that he has put to me. It raises issues related to that economic crossroads that I was speaking about that Canada finds itself at.
Adjournment Debate
As I said in my remarks, we cannot any longer count on the sale of our natural resources to ensure our continued wealth and prosperity as a nation. What is critical for us is to go forward in new technologies, to train our people and to build on that key resource-our people. There are many numbers that show that Canada is lagging behind.
We know that the Prime Minister, before the 1984 election, promised to increase the ratio of gross expenditures on research and development to Gross Domestic Product, to 2.5 per cent, roughly double what it was at that time. Unfortunately, the record of the Government has been a failure in respect of that goal. In fact, by 1987 the gross expenditure ratio was 1.38 per cent compared to 1.37 per cent in 1984.
There are many other indicators that suggest that we are lagging behind in research and development. In our expenditure ratio we are last behind Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Our R and D personnel per 100 in the labour force has barely moved since 1982, in spite of the importance of having these people employed and doing new work.
According to the last year for which there are statistics, 1986, there were eight per thousand R and D personnel in Canada. France has 11.4. Japan has 12.9. The Netherlands has 10.7. Switzerland has 13.9. It is crucial that we begin to find ways to increase our concentration in science and technology, engineering and research. We have to take advantage of our intelligent population, of our vast expanse of educational infrastructure, to ensure that Canada can build the means to compete in the modern era.
Our resources will only last so long. Indeed, when one considers the recent developments in nuclear physics, one wonders whether a major resource, that of petroleum, is going to continue to be a source of earnings for us if the discoveries in nuclear fusion prove to be as exciting as they promise.
We have to deal with these items. We need to deal with them in a way that really takes into account the importance for the future of these types of expenditures, notwithstanding the level of the Government's deficit. Deficits need to be taken into account in deciding how any government money is going to be spent. Spending on research, on education and on our people is essential, otherwise our deficits in the future will only grow. Our economic prospects for the future depend on our ability to grow in science, engineering and technology.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Malepart


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, I have heard quite a few speeches in the House. I want to compliment my new colleague on what he had to say about Meech. I was hoping that he could address himself to this one question.
I would like to know his opinion on whether or not minority rights in Quebec were truly protected by this infringement when the Quebec Government brought in Bill 178. Could the Hon. Member please comment on that? I think he was leading to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Ms. Duplessis), on a Point of Order.


Ms.   Duplessis@: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa South started speaking at exactly 3.35 p.m. and it is now exactly 3.57 p.m.. I believe his time has expired, since it was agreed to allow 15 minutes for speeches and five minutes maximum for questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments had not expired when. . . You are right, the Hon. Member's speech went a little over fifteen minutes, but the period for questions and comments has not expired, so I will allow one more question.
[English\


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the graciousness you have shown me. My answer to the question is that where minority rights are not protected by any Government, it is indeed in my opinion the majority who is threatened. Each of us who are in today's majority must know that our own rights are only as safe as those of the weakest person in our society.
In failing to protect the rights of an Anglophone minority in Quebec, Mr. Bourassa has made it much more difficult for all of us who believe in and want to protect the rights of Francophone minorities elsewhere in Canada.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I prepared a long speech to explain that first of all, the Throne Speech contains a lot of "rehashed stuff" and that the
Government wanted to reduce the deficit but did the exact opposite during its first four years in power.
Second, when the Throne Speech refers to social programs, we know the Government has already cut $13 billion in funding.
However, I think I would rather skip my prepared speech and try to explain, speaking as a Quebecer and speaking to all Hon. Members and to English Canada, what it means to be a Francophone Quebecer in this bilingual country of ours where everyone dreams of being bilingual.
First of all, bilingualism is for Francophones and unilingualism, for Anglophones. An Anglophone in the House of Commons can show off his few words of French and say: Bonjour monsieur, fa va bien? But a Francophone has to be fully bilingual.
I think it is important for all Members of this House to realize how the population of Quebec is made up. Twenty per cent are Quebecers but they are Canadians first and Quebecers second. They live in the riding or Mount Royal, in Westmount. They are Anglophones. They believe in Canada first, and Quebec second. Another 20 per cent are at the opposite end of the spectrum. They are separatists, want nothing to do with Canada and are in a hurry to get out of Confederation. The remaining 60 per cent, and that includes me, are Quebecers first and Canadians second, and during the last referendum... Mr. Trudeau was able to patriate the Constitution thanks to the results of the referendum in Quebec. With other Francophones, I fought the separatists. I wasn't in the riding of Mount Royal then. I fought against Charron and Burns and all those pillars of the PQ establishment. Because of those results, even when no decision was forthcoming from the National Assembly, either from Fiberal or PQ members, there was an unwillingness to start the patriation process.
At the time I worked very hard because I was convinced that English Canada, my own colleagues and other Members would say: Yes, stay in Canada, we will try to understand. However, when I consider the reactions to Meech Fake, I get the impression that English Canada still doesn't understand. When I listen to comments on Bill 178, and I hear my English-speaking friends from Quebec complain, and then when I look at how Francophones in other provinces are treated-they are in a disaster area and Quebec's Anglophones are the best protected minority in the whole world!
April 13, 1989

We must realize that 60 per cent of the Francophones in Quebec are Quebecers first and Canadians second, but that 60 per cent said yes to Canada. However, the way things are now, I think if there was another referendum, I would work for the other side. Sometimes I wonder, when I hear some of the Provincial Premiers talk about Meech Lake, what Quebec has to gain from being associated with these people. We would be better off with the Americans. We might get more respect and be better understood.
The minority language at risk in this country is not English, according to D'Iberville Fortier, the Official Languages Commissioner, it is French. French is at risk in the other provinces, but can you imagine that even in the very heartland, as Mr. Trudeau said, of the French fact, even in Quebec the French community is at risk. Mr. Bourassa had no choice. I agree. He had no choice but to use the notwithstanding clause to protect the French fact. I am not saying that signs are the best way to protect the French fact, but Quebec must be able to keep some tools. It cannot leave it up to the Parliament of Canada to protect the French fact in Quebec, because history has shown that Canada has not protected French in Quebec.
At one time there were more English radio stations than French networks accredited by the CRTC in Quebec.
In the 1982 Constitution, Mr. Trudeau, although he did not support the idea, agreed to let the Canada Clause prevail in Quebec and the universal clause prevail in the other provinces with respect to the language of education. Although he did not support the idea because he was in favour of free choice, he knew perfectly well that his Members would not accept that, and perhaps if his initial proposal had been successful, it would have caused chaos in Quebec with respect to the language of education. In immigration matters, there again, Quebec and only the Parliament of Quebec can afford the province the protection it needs, and as Mr. Bourassa said: We cannot transfer the authority to protect the French fact in Quebec to another Parliament whose members belong mostly to the majority.
The same applies to the language of education and the same applies to culture.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec our most effective tool is the language of work. I was a Member in Quebec City when the Government passed Bill 22. I agree a number of mistakes were made in Bill 22 and what happened in the
The Address-Mr. Malepart
area of language tests was unacceptable. But Bill 101 was the legislation that kept the peace in Quebec. It enforced while respecting the rights of the anglophone community, rights of employers and unions alike, and there were no problems.
There was agreement in Ottawa to replace the Quebec clause with the Canada clause. Since we had decided to remain in Canada, it was right that anyone in Canada who had been schooled in English and was transferred to Quebec could have his or her children educated in English. But those who come from other countries to Quebec would have to go to French school and integrate. Language of work may be the area where the Bourassa Government has not done enough to promote the French fact, but I must tell you in all honesty that I do not think that my leader's speech and the Prime Minister's recent speech on the Constitution have done a lot to advance Canadian unity. All that they achieved was to force us Quebecois and the Premier of Quebec to oppose any change to the notwithstanding clause. And you know that a minority which feels threatened often is obliged to cling to symbols.
The question of unilingual French signs is a symbol and that is not what will save our language. But unfortunately, what Alliance Quebec and others are doing about Meech Lake just repels the majority of Quebecois, who at first were in favour of multilingual signs and who have had to take a harder line against them and want to maintain unilingual signs. I now wonder whether it would be better for the provinces to reject Meech Lake, because the way things are going, if my children some day want to say yes to independence, it would be preferable for English Canada to say no to Quebec's joining the Constitution, because then we could say that the first time, the Constitution was imposed and the second time, English Canada rejected us. We could go to the United Nations and say that we were separating, that we had nothing to do with that country, that we had tried everything.
I am talking to you as I would to an ordinary citizen. My way of talking may not be correct, but I think that I am expressing here the opinion of a majority of Francophone Quebecers who for years and years had to submit and they do not want to anymore. We want to have our own place. We want to have our place and the assurance that Quebec will be French, that my children will continue to want to work in French and I would hope that I can work only in French in Canada and be accepted and I would hope that my children can continue

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Malepart
to do the same, that they will not need to think of separating.
But I say to all those who are afraid of Meech Lake, who are afraid of the distinct society, that it is necessary if they really want Canadian unity and if they want Quebec to remain in Canada. I often had conversations with Mr. Trudeau. I understand him, his style; he does not need the distinct society. He can go anywhere in the world and that is fine.
But such is not the case for each man and woman in Quebec. Before the people of Quebec can feel at ease and at home in this country.. . because a visit to Ottawa will not convince them that they are in their own country. Some of the commissionaires do not speak a word of French, and some of the restaurant waiters and waitresses do not speak a word of French, so better not try to tell the people of Lac-Saint-Jean that this beautiful country is bilingual. And in the national capital to boot! If you go to Winnipeg, Edmonton or even further west people over there wonder what Francophones eat in winter! Quebecers want to remain in Canada, but they want the Constitution to make English Canada accept them as they are. We fought against separatism in Quebec because at the time-I was right here-Pierre Elliott Trudeau assured us that the Constitution would be changed and that Quebec would be understood. Unfortunately, I must say that Pierre Elliott Trudeau and other English-speaking Canadians still do not understand Quebec's majority as it is. And if in two or three years. . . Perhaps the Meech Lake Accord is dead right now because of the stubborness of two or three provinces.
Honestly, Quebecers will not insist all that much on having Meech Lake, but Canada will lose Quebec because we can continue to function. Legally we belong to the Constitution and the day we decide to pull out we will be able to do so politically because we have always sought to survive on our own and not depend on others. But English Canada stands to lose more if it continues to be inflexible and refuses to acknowledge the distinct character. People say: We want Quebec in Confederation, we want Quebec to promote the French fact, but every time Quebec does something to protect the French fact it becomes the target of criticism.
I spoke against Bill 178 because I did not agree when Mr. Bourassa granted what is called multilingual signs inside stores.
I can understand that English-speaking people were "offended", because Mr. Bourassa was wrong when he said: Listen, outside the stores, I cannot authorize the use of signs in languages other than English, because the ban does not apply only to English signs, but also to Chinese, Japanese, Polish, and other languages. However, I cannot stop you from using English signs inside your establishments. I can relate to the English-speaking people who were "offended" by Mr. Bourassa's behaviour. He should have said: As a result ot the Supreme Court decision... But we must not forget that, it was as a result of the Supreme Court decision which acknowledged that French was being threatened in the province of Quebec, that the Quebec provincial government used the notwithstanding clause which had been included in the Constitution by a Liberal government. So, Quebec cannot be accused of stealing anything, or of inventing a new strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is up. I do hope that the people in English Canada, and maybe even some politicians, whether they be Conservative, New-Demo-crat, or Liberal, who proclaim out loud that they want Quebec in the Constitution while in fact hiding their true feelings, will come to see, after hearing my speech, the other side of the coin, the point of view of a Quebecer, an ordinary French-speaking citizen of Quebec. And I think that I speak for 60 per cent of all French-speaking Quebecers who agree with me.


Mrs. Dobbie:: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of empathy for much of what the Hon. Member said today and I apologize for my inability to speak to him in his language. I am working on that.
However, will the Hon. Member explain to the House and Canadians why the greatest opposition to the Meech Lake Accord in the Province of Manitoba is coming from his colleague, the Leader of the Liberal Opposition in Manitoba?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that it does not only come from a Liberal colleague; it comes from NDPers, Conservatives and
April 13, 1989

Manitobans. Perhaps what they want in Manitoba is to get even for the CF-18 maintenance, something that should not be considered. Maybe some people are getting involved because they lost the contract that Montreal got. I must say that their own Premier bungled it. He gave the impression that Quebecers stole the CF-18 maintenance contract rather than earned it. But I have the feeling that it is not only. . . If it were only one person on the Liberal side, we could take care of that. But I think that if you are sincere, if you travel around your region, in your area, and I have already been there, people, be they Tories, Liberals, New Democrats or Greens, have the same perception. They are against Meech Lake because they do not want Quebec to be a distinct society within this country.
\ English]


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member says may be correct, but I think he will agree that the leadership in opposition to Meech Lake in Manitoba has been Mrs. Carstairs. Would he confirm that? Would it not make a difference in the chemistiy in Manitoba if Mrs. Carstairs would support Meech Lake?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, first of all, when someone has leadership, the Leader of the Opposition does not move things forward; the Conservative Prime Minister does. If he had backbone, if he had courage, he would have moved things forward. I think that Pierre Elliott Trudeau could be blamed for a lot of things, but he always had the courage of his convictions. You could be for him or against him, but you respected that man because he was capable. If you have influence with your Prime Minister, if he is a Conservative Prime Minister with courage, he will take charge and lead proceedings in the House and not let the Opposition guide him. Otherwise, it would be better for him to resign and turn power over to others.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise today and join in the debate on the Throne Speech. I appreciate that the Throne Speech touches on many issues, economic and social.
In my capacity as Minister of Justice, I want to address the justice matters referred to in the Throne Speech, one briefly, and another in some depth. The part I wish
The Address-Mr. Lewis
to address briefly is that comment in the Speech from the Throne:
My government will introduce further legislation to reform
Canada's legal system and sentencing practices.
There have been a number of reports and studies to look into the question of criminal sentencing. There is the Canadian Sentencing Commission's Report and the Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General which was entitled "Taking Responsibility". I intend to work to determine the status of the various reports, to establish some focus and, from there, put together with my Cabinet colleagues a Government initiative on sentencing which will focus on the need to address the unwarranted disparities which occur in sentences in Canada.
Specifically today, I want to refer to the reference in the Speech from the Throne which states:
This will require a review of the current Young Offenders Act in
order to ensure that it better protects the rights of society while
advancing the rehabilitation of young offenders.
In the time available to me I want to examine the history of the Young Offenders Act, to review the difficulties, whether they are real or imagined, and to stake out our position as a Government and review the proposed course of action.
The House will know that the Juvenile Delinquents Act which governed juvenile justice from 1908 to 1984 had become ineffective and inappropriate. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was based on one clear and simple goal, and that was that juvenile offenders should be treated not as criminals but as children needing encouragement, assistance and guidance. Quite frankly, it became out of date.
It was revised by the previous Government and because of some criticisms I think it is fair that we review those briefly.
First, although the police, the courts and social welfare institutions were expected to act in the best interests of the child there was no expressed recognition in the legislation of the principle of protection of society. There was an imbalance between the interests of individual juveniles and the interests of society.
It stated that adolescents should be responsible for their actions and should be held criminally accountable if guilty of offences. The simple transfer of adolescents to the authority of child welfare authorities was not appropriate.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Lewis
Closed courts denied the public and the media access. The age level at which juvenile delinquents would become subject to the adult court system varied from province to province. Finally, young people were denied fundamental rights which were enjoyed by adults.
The Act was passed by the previous Government and I would say at this point that it had all-Party support. Its two main objectives are to ensure protection of the public and to promote the rehabilitation of young people wherever possible. It is based upon four key principles which attempt to strike that balance between the needs of young people and the interests of society. The first principle is that young people are responsible for their behavior and should be held accountable in a manner appropriate to their age and maturity. Second, society has a right to protection from illegal behavior and a responsibility to prevent criminal conduct by young people as well as an obligation to promote their rehabilitation. Third, young people have special needs because of their varying levels of development and maturity. The fourth principle is that young people, if they are to be held accountable, are entitled to the same rights as adults, to due process of law and fair and equal treatment in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To achieve the balance that the Young Offenders Act seeks, young people may require not only supervision, discipline and control but also guidance and assistance. For that reason, the Act provides alternative measures to the formal court process or perhaps no measures at all if the solution is consistent with the protection of society. In addition, the Act recognizes the responsibility of parents for the care and supervision of their children.
I should as an aside point out that I have discussed this with various officials at different levels and I was struck by the comment of one Crown Attorney who said to me that they see many more parents than they did under the Juvenile Delinquents Act because the Young Offenders Act puts an onus on the parents to be responsible for their children and they are seeing more parents in court. I think that is helpful.
The Act also says that young offenders should be removed from parental supervision only when that continued parental supervision is inappropriate. Parents will be encouraged and, if necessary, required to take an active part in proceedings that involve their children.
The Young Offenders Act is criminal law but it is different from the criminal law that applies to adults because of the doctrine of special needs. That doctrine says that the special needs of a young offender must be taken into account in determining the extent and the nature of the criminal law as distinct from or concurrent with interventions by the youth's family and by other systems such as child welfare, education or health.
As I mentioned a minute ago, when the Young Offenders Act was passed, it had broad parliamentary support. This is an issue that does cut across Party lines because there is no fundamental partisan or philosophical differences regarding young offenders. We all want to achieve that balance between protecting public property and persons and rehabilitating young people. We do not want young people to make one mistake and then find that that is just the first of many.
It is fair to say that the implementation process was difficult, especially the implementation of a maximum age of 17 years inclusive. I do not think anyone should be surprised to find that, when replacing a law such as the Juvenile Delinquents Act which had been in existence for 74 years, there were some implementation problems.
In 1985, when the experience of the first year's implementation showed that there were some problems and some concerns, our Government, under the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty), consulted with the territories and the provinces and identified specific problems which were based on the legislation itself. Amendments were passed to address these problems. They did not affect the fundamental principle, but they worked out a lot of the glitches.
The Act has been in force for four years now, and what has happened? What is the real experience of the Act as opposed to a few isolated and perhaps sensationalized incidents? I think Hon. Members will be surprised by some of the comments I will make, because I will talk about the actual experience across Canada.
Notwithstanding the wide range of dispositions available in the legislation and the principle of least interference, it appears that more young people are being sent into custody. Second, the bulk of young offenders commit property-related offences. That comprises about two-thirds of the charges laid. We are finding that a significant number of young offenders enter and exit the system only once.
April 13, 1989

Only 9 per cent of the offences recorded under the Young Offenders Act are violent offences, and only a minute proportion of those refer to the charge of murder, less than one-twentieth of 1 per cent. Probation is the most common disposition rendered, although there is compensation, community work and similar orders. Detention for treatment is rarely ordered as a disposition.
That is the experience. What are the criticisms? It is interesting to note that some say that the Act is too tough and some say that it is too lenient. The major criticisms have been the treatment order provisions which require the consent of the young person, the fact that children under 12 are excluded from the reach of the criminal law, the sufficiency of the maximum sentence, especially for murder, and the difficulty of transfers to adult court for serious crimes because of the necessity to prove under Section 16 of the Act that the transfer is in the interests of society and, and I think the difficult world is "and", having regard to the needs of the young person. The last criticism is the increasing proportion of young persons being incarcerated.
We have identified these areas in consultation with the provinces and the territories, and we looked at areas where there was a consensus that action had to be taken. In January 1989, all the jurisdictions involved agreed that on an expedited basis the focus of the study should be narrowed to the transfer provisions and dispositions for youth who murder.
We expect that this review will be completed shortly. I have asked that the results be available for discussion at an early meeting of provincial Ministers concerned with juvenile justice, and I can assure Hon. Members that we will act if we can find some consensus. We are looking toward a meeting with the provincial Attorneys General which I believe is in early June in Prince Edward Island.
I want to make one point, if I may, vis-a-vis the current incidents that have been reported in the media. Many of them have occurred in the Province of Ontario. There has been a suggestion that these alleged deficiencies are as a result of the Young Offenders Act. I want to suggest that they may be the result of administrative difficulties rather than deficiencies in the Act.
The Address-Mr. Lewis
To his credit, the Minister of Community and Social Services in Ontario, the Hon. John Sweeney, has ordered an investigation into possible administrative difficulties, and I have offered the co-operation of my Department in assisting him in those studies. If we can separate the administrative difficulties from those two items that I referred to, the transfer provisions and especially the sentence for the crime of murder, it would be helpful to try to understand who has the responsibility for what.
I would also point out that in the past the federal Government has cost-shared the delivery of juvenile justice services with the provinces and the territories. The original agreement was to cost-share the first five years and review the actual experience. That review is not completed yet, but I recently announced a one-year extension of the Young Offenders System Development Contribution Program and the Young Offenders Program Development Contribution Program in an effort to maintain that joint responsibility. We are cost-sharing to the tune of some $160 million per annum, and that will continue until we are able to reach some new agreements.
I just want to say in closing that I do not think it will ever be easy to draft a law for young people that will exactly suit every province in this vast country. There are different thoughts as to how young people should be treated. That is the way we are. It will never be easy to draft laws that balance protection of person and property with our concern that we rehabilitate young people so they are an asset to society and not a liability to society and themselves. That is the challenge we face.
We are attempting to meet that challenge in a nonpartisan way. It is evident the rehabilitation of young people, the effective treatment of them and the protection of personal property, cut across Party lines.
I am here to take part in the Throne Speech debate specifically in order to show exactly where the Government of Canada is headed in respect to any amendments vis-a-vis this very important law.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to commend him on the approach he is taking on the very difficult and sensitive question of possible amendments to the Young Offenders Act. As one who was involved in

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Lewis
the drafting of the legislation and saw it through the Justice Committee, we as New Democrats recognize there have been difficulties. In some jurisdictions, too many people are being incarcerated. In others, we recognize there is a problem of two extremes in the area of murder. The community does recognize a concern that there is a disposition of three years in the case of youth court, or a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years if the young person is transferred to adult court. We want to look at some means of reducing that wide disparity in sentencing and give greater options to the judges. I want to offer my co-operation and that of my colleagues in trying to arrive at an equitable resolution of this difficult question.
In the 1986 Speech from the Throne, the Government promised amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. A number of concerns were expressed in this area. In the Speech from the Throne tabled on April 3 of this year, there was no reference whatsoever to changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, serious concerns were expressed about the failure of the Government to bring forward long overdue amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. These amendments are in the areas of equal pay for work of equal value; reasonable accommodation, which affects religious minorities and the disabled; reporting directly to Parliament; and also expanding the prohibited grounds of discrimination to include political belief and sexual orientation.
On the question of sexual orientation, the Government promised over three years ago, and I quote from the Government's response to the Equality Rights Report:
The Government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction.
Lesbians and gay men continue to be victims of discrimination. They are fired from their jobs and denied access to housing and services. They are subject to harassment, violence and even death, as we have recently seen in Montreal. My question for the Minister is, does the Government stand behind the promise that was made three years ago to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction?
When will the Government be bringing forward the long-overdue amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which have been promised for some time? Will it be in this session?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate my hon. colleague's kind comments. I welcome his offer of assistance with respect to amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
We have been trying to balance our agenda vis-a-vis items such as the Young Offenders Act and other initiatives in the justice field. I am thinking in terms of sentencing, firearms legislation and abortion. The matter of amendments to the Human Rights Act are on the agenda. We are reviewing the human rights issues my hon. friend raised. We are looking at the current annual report which raised a number of new issues. We will be putting these issues together in the context of our legislative program.


Mr. Karygiannis:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Minister for taking the initiative and putting forward in the Throne Speech that amendments to the Young Offenders Act will be put into place. However, I did not hear the Minister today reassure Members opposite that some measures will be put into place. The Minister said that 9 per cent of the crimes committed are violent crimes. He said he has real experience. I have worked on amendments to the Young Offenders Act. I have received the same kind of letters the Hon. Minister has received. If he is reading those letters, he will see the Canadian public expressing a need for change. Violent crimes such as murder need to be addressed.
Would the Minister say he will take positive steps and not side-step the issue? Will the Minister reassure this House that when the charge is murder and the young offender is over 14 years of age, that young offender will be transferred to adult court? Will the Minister also reassure this House he will reflect what the Canadian public wants, a maximum sentence to be increased from three years to five years less a day? Will the Minister reassure us that those will be the steps he will take after he meets with his colleagues in Prince Edward Island?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I want to assure my hon. colleague that I read as many letters as I can to get a flavour of what people are thinking. That was my practice as a Member of Parliament and I have continued it as a Minister. I would state unequivocally that we are addressing the issue. Through the context of federal-provincial
April 13, 1989

meetings we are attempting to see if a problem in one province is a problem shared by the other provinces and Territories.
Our discussions have been narrowed down to two issues: (a) the transfer provisions which, when they are applied, do provide for a longer sentence than three years; and (b) the sentence for murder. I have given my undertaking to address that issue. I am doing everything I can from the standpoint of the federal Government. There was a consensus among all parties involved that those were the issues to be studied. I am pushing to get a resolution and consensus that I hope will be forthcoming in June. If we get that consensus, I will have some time in the summer to go back to my cabinet colleagues and see what amendments we can draft.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has expired. I know the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) has been seeking the floor. Is there unanimous consent to allow him a short question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: I appreciate the courtesy of the House in granting me time for this question. I was a member of the Justice Committee that dealt with the Young Offenders Act. I appreciate the Minister's observation that more and more parents are involved in court proceedings. That gives us encouragement that they are becoming more involved in their children's lives. I know there are many parents across Canada who have incorrigible children, and it is not the fault of the parents. It is simply that the children are incorrigible.
At the time we were dealing with the legislation and dealing with the clause that outlines the purposes of the Bill, and there were approximately eight of them. The last one, the eighth, was listed as working with the parents or giving parental responsibility for the conduct of the children.
The then Solicitor General, the Member for York Centre, found it impossible to accommodate a simple change that would have put clause No. 8 to clause No. 1. This would have given more direct focus to parental responsibility. I do not believe that it was a monumental request to ask for that type of change of simply moving the order of priorities. I believe it was a mistake not to do that.
The Address-Mr. Schneider
I would ask the Minister, given the fact that the legislation already gives focus to that and the fact that parents seem to have found help in the Young Offenders legislation in working with their children, if he would assure us that in the amendments to come there will be an even greater focus on parental accountability and parents' right to work with the courts to ensure that young offenders are held accountable?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I thank my friend for his question. I guess in spelling out principles one has to number them and place them in a certain order. I was not a member of the committee when it was studied, and I cannot give the Hon. Member any focus as to how I might have rearranged the responsibilities.
It is interesting that the one aside I used in my prepared text was to speak of a Crown Attorney who told me that they were seeing more parents coming to court. It is partly a policing matter and partly more effective work by the provinces in looking for new ways of dealing with rehabilitation.
I can say to my hon. friend that I do not believe it has been the thrust of a lot of demands by various provinces and the Territories for an amendment which would rearrange the principles and perhaps give a higher priority, if in fact listing does give a priority to the comment my hon. friend makes, but I will take it under advisement.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I bring you greetings from the unofficial rump of the Government. Although we are only 18 strong, we represent significant strength and support for our fellow members on your right. Our comfort level is high as our view is much better from here than is theirs.
It is an honour and privilege for me to rise in the House and take part in the Throne Speech debate. It is certainly a source of great pride being the first Member from Regina to be elected to the Government in 26 years, especially coming during such an historic election campaign.
On November 21, Canadians decided which direction the country would take, not only for the next four years but into the 21st Century. Canadians chose a Government with a vision for the future and rejected the closed isolationist view of Canada put forward by the opposition parties.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Schneider
Canadians elected a Government committed to building a stronger economy so that we can afford to maintain the type of caring and compassionate society that we now enjoy. We are committed to the enhancement and protection of our environment. We remain committed to the promotion of national unity, not only between English and French, but among all peoples who make up the multicultural mosaic of Canada.
Canadians correctly believed that the Progressive Conservative Party possessed the type of leader it takes to steer our country through difficult times. They saw a leader who had overcome adversity and not lost sight of his dream to build a better Canada, a leader with the integrity, determination and courage to fight and win an election against two opposition parties. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) showed us what it takes to move this country forward. Canadians chose a leader and a Party capable of adapting to the future.
My Leader and my Party are positive about the future of this country. That is why the Speech from the Throne confidently states our objectives and commitments. Unlike some opposition Members, I know that Canada remains a sovereign nation. As Canadians, we would not have it any other way.
We have entered into a trading agreement with the United States that will make Canada stronger and more competitive, and it is this strength that nurtures our sovereignty. I ask Members opposite to join with the Conservatives and the Ontario Liberals in supporting the Free Trade Agreement. It is time to stop fighting the election and get on with building a better Canada. Even the Liberals must realize that blaming every sparrow that falls on the Free Trade Agreement is divisive and counterproductive for this great country that we all share. Surely that is not their objective.
By accepting free trade we have acknowledged the need to compete in a global market-place. This is not a new idea to those of us from the prairies. Saskatchewan farmers have always competed internationally, and they have and will continue to be successful because they are extremely good at what they do.
It is not freer trade that hurts the farmer; it is protectionism and unfair trading practices. It is also protectionism which hurts the development of manufacturing and secondary processing in Saskatchewan and in Canada.
Of course, I have no illusions about members of the New Democratic Party's approach to free trade, or anything else for that matter. As if their ideological approach to the future were not already made clear enough during the election, the leader of the NDP restated it on April 7 in this House when he said: "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", for no specific reason other than opposition.
It does not matter what will come from the Throne Speech or the Budget, members of the New Democratic Party already know they must be against it. Perhaps things will change in November, but I rather doubt it. Members of the NDP will oppose any new initiative. It is not surprising they oppose the Government's new labour force strategy.
As was stated earlier in the House today, it is because the NDP is an old Party with old socialist ideas that even socialist countries today are rejecting them. I am sure that the additional $350 million for job training under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, enough to train an addition 60,000 Canadians, will be opposed. It is of interest to note how the New Democratic Party can selectively make use of information to suit its purposes in opposition.
In the House, Members of that Party have been known not only to criticize actions of the federal Government, but also be critical of members of provincial Governments who are unable to defend themselves here.
Criticism was levelled the other day at the Saskatchewan Conservatives. The comparison was made that while under an NDP Government in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan enjoyed a balanced budget, more social programs and lower taxes. Parts of the statement are true, while other parts are based on a jaundiced form of judgment.
This criticism is not honest in that it makes no reference to the fact that at the time the provincial Conservatives took office, world oil, uranium, and potash prices plummeted. As we all know, Saskatchewan has been victimized by drought. The recession caused the Government of Saskatchewan to invest in job creation programs and technology investment, not the least of which is an $850 million investment in Canada's first heavy oil upgrader in Regina.
April 13, 1989

The Address-Mr. Schneider
At that time the greatest tragedy attributable to the NDP Government in Saskatchewan was that when the provincial Conservatives took office in 1982, the cupboard of the provincial heritage fund was bare. The mice had taken it all. The explanation was that 50 per cent of Saskatchewan's potash industry was to be nationalized for the benefit of future generations. Members of the Saskatchewan NDP went down to New York for a loan. How can a U.S. loan, borrowed when the dollar was in the mid-80 cent range and attempted to be repaid when the dollar was in the mid-70 cent range, benefit Saskatchewan's future generations? Shortly after, world potash prices fell. Instead of owning an asset, Saskatchewan residents found themselves as the owners of a liability.
During the same period, the Alberta Conservatives chose to tax the mining of Alberta resources and not socialize them under the pretext of ownership. History shows the Alberta approach to have been a monumentally better decision for the average Albertan.
The Alberta Heritage Trust Fund has been used to allow Alberta municipalities to pay off large amounts of debt, and to pay for a large portion of the light rail transit systems in Edmonton and Calgary. As well, there is a long list for the average Albertan to benefit from.
No, Mr. Speaker, Members of the NDP do not possess a better way. They have no magic formula. A provincial NDP cabinet minister once conveyed to me a most honest statement. He said words to the effect that he wished people would stop asking the Government to do things for them. He went on to say that what people do not realize is that the more a Government is involved in our lives, the more of our freedoms we stand to lose. This was an honest admission that he detested his Party's basic philosophy. This man has since retired and I have not heard from him politically since. No wonder.
I want no part of a socialist entrapment. Socialists thrive on the takeover of the body; socialists excel at the takeover of the mind. That is the illness of socialism, and I want no part of it. My grandparents came to this country to be free people and it is under this Conservative Government that we will all continue to be free.
We cannot spend our time trying to please the NDP. We must continue to work for the people of Canada. They are the ones for whom we are all here. That is why the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) has announced her intention to revise the maternity, parental and sickness benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Currently, maternity benefits are available to natural mothers only for a period of 15 weeks. With these new changes a total of 30 weeks will be available. Parental benefits will soon be accessible to fathers as well as mothers, whether they be natural or adoptive parents. This will bring the Act in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is this kind of action that Canadians want and expect from the Government. So they should.
By developing a human resources development strategy the Government is investing in our strongest asset, our people. We are helping people adapt to a changing environment. It is the type of initiative that will prepare Canadians for the challenges that lie ahead. It is a recognition by this Government that it has a major role to play in maintaining the competitiveness of Canadians, and that skill development is crucial to competitiveness. That is why we remain committed to our initiatives in literacy, education, training and retraining. Our workforce, especially our youth, must meet the requirements of a modern economy. Through the expansion of labour force programs to encourage the continual upgrading of skills, we will maintain a stronger productive workforce, world class and world competitive. These are initiatives aimed at the average Canadian, designed to ensure that the average Canadian will benefit fully from a Canadian economy prepared for the pressures of the new global reality.
As we have in the past, we will ensure that Canada's first Canadians continue to make progress toward economic equality. In 1988-89, some 15,000 native people will receive close to $130 million in federal assistance for post-secondary education. I am confident that the Budget will continue to increase in the future, as it has over the past two years.
It is necessary to make sure that all Canadians share in the benefits of economic success, no matter what part of Canada they live in. That is why we remain committed to regional development throughout the country. The

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Schneider
Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced that the regional economic diversification programs will continue to be funded for an additional five years, to support the efforts of Canadians in expanding beyond our traditional areas of strength. I know that in Saskatchewan we are taking advantage of the federal support to bring to life the ideas that lie at the root of all new economic expansions. We have always been proud of the ingenuity and the pioneering spirit which built our province. We are using those same qualities today to create new industries and therefore new opportunity. I know that the people of Saskatchewan can succeed in their effort to build a stronger and more vibrant economy. I am pleased to be part of the federal Government that will continue to work with us as we strive to achieve our goal.
Yet, as we work to create the kind of rich, varied economy that will bring a better life for all Canadians, there is a burden we must carry that impedes our progress. That burden is the massive national debt. There are those who would try to convince us that the debt is not a serious matter, that other priorities must come first, as if the debt did not intrude on every area of Government decision making. The fact is, the debt is slowly strangling our ability to deal effectively with the needs of Canadians.
It is not the kind of problem that can be casually cast aside and forgotten about. We must deal with it now. Despite our progress over the last four years in reducing the yearly deficits by some $10 billion more is required. I am afraid much more.
The debt is so large that it is almost beyond comprehension. The numbers have been repeated so often that they are becoming meaningless. Surely, though, when we reach the point that 31 cents out of every dollar the Government spends goes to servicing the debt it is time to act decisively and to act together.
Arguments are tossed back and forth as to who is to blame for the state we find ourselves in today. But that is seemingly insignificant. We must either begin to solve the problem or soon control will be lost. And when I say we, I again urge the support of the opposition Parties. I invite real criticism but please do not bother me with useless rhetorical opposition. The debt is our problem. It is Canada's problem. Given the proper attitude, it can be addressed.
Regrettably, debt problems are not new to the agricultural sector in Saskatchewan. The combination of drought and the international agricultural trade war have taken a heavy toll. But the Progressive Conservative Government has been there to support our farmers and have thus supported our consumers. There may have only been a brief mention about farmers in the Throne Speech, but this is a Government that believes in actions not words.
Between 1984 and August of 1988, this federal Government provided $10.3 billion in agricultural benefits to farmers. We have responded to the needs of farmers in the past and we will continue to do so. The Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program will put approximately $850 million into the pockets of Canadian agricultural producers. The assistance to farmers is much more than drought relief. We are active in developing the rural infrastructure through the Rural Water Development Program. The $500,000 capital gains exemption for farmers and the farm fuel tax rebate are initiatives which highlight our ongoing support for the farmer. We have worked tirelessly on behalf of the agricultural community on the international scene. Through our involvement in the Cairns Group we have lobbied for the kind of international trading rules that will allow our farmers to develop their competitive advantage. In Saskatchewan we have some of the best agricultural producers in the world. Our Government will continue to support them through concrete actions as they have in the past.
Mr. Speaker, our international role is not limited to economic matters. We will continue, as we have in the past, to take a strong stand in defence of human rights. Only the constant vigil of the free nations of the world and the weight of world public opinion can bring true freedom to the victims of oppression. In many parts of the world people suffer under the oppression of war. Canada remains committed to working with the United Nations as peacekeepers to help end this suffering, to do our best to relieve the pain of famine and other natural disasters.
We have a role to play in encouraging East-West co-operation while remembering that we are firmly committed to our allies in NATO. It is important to remember our historical ties with Western Europe, especially now when there is so much hope for change in the Soviet Union. We must do what we can to encourage these positive developments, but not at the expense of losing touch with the real situation. There is a long road to travel before the Soviet Union becomes a truly free society. Until that time we must remain vigilant.
April 13, 1989

Mr. Speaker, I have only mentioned a few of the areas in which the Government can act over the next four years. Judging from our past record, I am sure we will accomplish a great deal in many other areas as well. The agenda of the government is clear and confident. Our resolve is firm. I believe we will continue to move this country forward by working in the national interest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg Transcona (Mr. Blaikie) on questions and comments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Regina-Wascana (Mr. Schneider) on his speech, but my congratulations end there. The Member spent a great deal of time talking about the NDR We are grateful for the attention but it certainly is an indication to us who the Hon. Member regards as the force to be reckoned with in Regina and Saskatchewan. The Hon. Member, we know, is an old partisan of Saskatchewan politics, being a former mayor of Regina, if I remember correctly.
He mentioned that this is the first time in 26 years the people of Regina had elected a Conservative and, after listening to his speech, my colleagues and 1 are comforted to know this is something that will indeed be something which will only happen every 26 years. The people of Regina are entitled to make this mistake four times a century. It is not something they will do often, especially since the Hon. Member appears to be doing his best to ensure that that tradition will be upheld by distorting the political tradition which the NDP represents and which the Saskatchewan people hold dear.
I hope the Hon. Member goes on ranting and raving the way he did this afternoon, because I am sure this is the kind of thing which will only ensure that very shortly in the Province of Saskatchewan there will once again be an NDP Government.
The Hon. Member mentioned changes to the unemployment insurance. I am thankful he did that because it gives me the opportunity to speak about a change I would like to see to the unemployment insurance, a change which I am trying to promote through the introduction of a Private Member's Motion, which was not drawn unfortunately. I wonder what the Hon. Member's opinion would be of the change I would like to see happen, in addition to some of the positive changes that were made. We in this House think the changes the Government have proposed are on balance a disaster but
The Address-Mr. Schneider
there nevertheless has been some changes that we approve of which the Member mentioned. I wonder why there was not any action with respect to the concern that a great many people have concerning the UI regulations and parents who have children who are terminally ill, children who are in hospital and who have to be visited. Their parents have to be with them day in and day out in this very difficult time in the lives of these families. These are people who often have to leave their jobs. They are not entitled to unemployment insurance.
I have been lobbied in Winnipeg by groups of social workers and other people who work in hospitals in this situation to have a change made to the unemployment insurance scheme which would make allowance for parents who find themselves in this very painful and tragic situation. I was very disappointed that when the Minister had an opportunity to reform the UI system, and if she wanted to appeal to those who want to make the UI system more humane, this was not one of the other things that she undertook.
I wonder whether the Hon. Member would be prepared to get up to support that particular reform at this time.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I was heartened somewhat to notice that the Hon. Member way down at the other end of this side of the House made some reference to my ranting and raving. Obviously my statements excited him. I am extremely pleased to know that I could excite anyone down at that end of the room.
He is right. I was a mayor of Regina. He made reference to old, but only in terms of the fact that nine years of service was given by myself to my birthplace. He also made mention of the fact that I am familiar with partisan politics.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there seems to be a fair amount of criticism in Regina these days about the unfair comparison between taxes in Regina and Saskatoon. I would say that, yes, I did witness partisan politics for the greater period of the nine years I served there. The majority of my council, while ashamedly admitting they were all members of the New Democratic Party and had philosophies that way, did not admit it during election time. After the election it came out and was truly born. Yes, I am familiar with partisan politics. I watched them for several years.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
I am somewhat disturbed that he counters my claims of distortion with claims of distortion and hence the public is left to sit back in judgment and wonder who to believe.
He mentioned the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act to which I made reference and how glad he was that I had raised it because it gave him an opportunity. I consider that to be somewhat of a weak attempt to talk about anything that any Member wishes to talk about at any time, given the fact that the Throne Speech kept itself open to everything. I am glad he is glad about something.
With respect to his specific point, however, I think that it would be pure folly for any intelligent being to give a yes or no answer to effecting any change of government policy, proposed or otherwise, without having the full opportunity to have an open and intelligent debate leading thereto.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I see that the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is in the House. I am glad about that because most of what I will have to say will pertain to the Government's foreign policy. Perhaps we can have an exchange or two after I am finished.
I would like to begin, though, as is the tradition, with saying how grateful I am to the constituents of the new riding of Winnipeg Transcona for having been reelected. I will just say only this because we have so little time, and I want to give all my time to the Minister.
We know the origin of the name Winnipeg. But the name Transcona is the name of a railway town that was created in 1911 beside the new shops built for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railroad. Transcona literally derives itself from the notion of transconti- nental. Members will not be surprised, therefore, and have not been over the years, at the vehemence with which I defend transcontinental rail passenger service. It literally goes to the veiy heart and history of the community that I grew up in.


Mr. Boyer:: So your continental.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The problem with this Government is that it no longer wants to be transcontinental; it wants to be continental in the north-south sense. However, I will not be distracted.
I would like to address myself to the foreign policy record of the Government. I begin by saying that the Minister knows that on a number of occasions we have had opportunity to co-operate on various issues, but I am going to be critical today because I think the Government deserves a great deal of criticism in a variety of ways.
We know that Canada was just elected to the Security Council of the United Nations. This makes Canada a very important country in the international community. We always have been an important country in the international community, but this gives concrete expression to that importance. It gives Canada a true opportunity to be a leader in the international community, particularly, of course, at the United Nations. It gives Canada the opportunity to be a strong voice for a great many things that need to happen in the world. So my intention here today is to reflect upon just what kind of voice Canada is in the world with respect to international affairs.
As I look over the range of issues which one could talk about I see that the Canadian voice ranges from being in some cases no voice at all to being a hypocritical voice, to being a timid voice, to being a cold war voice, to being a fading voice. I would like to go through all these if I have the time.
What is at stake here is the cumulative erosion of Canada's reputation in the world as a country that shows leadership, as a country that is able to help in many ways to bring about the kind of peace and development that so many Canadians desire for the planet that they live on.
Perhaps I will begin with what I am sure must be a sore spot, even though he cannot admit it, for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that is, where Canada's voice has turned out to be a hypocritical voice. That of course has to do with South Africa and the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in 1985 stood up before the United Nations and in one of those rhetorical moments that the Prime Minister is so famous for said that if there was no progress toward the ending of apartheid in South Africa Canada would move toward comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions.
April 13, 1989

The world cheered, as did many Canadians. The Prime Minister basked in the glory of that statement for some time. He enjoyed a certain amount of political gain as a result of that statement. However, what has happened is that whatever gain accrued to the Prime Minister was achieved at the expense of Canada's international reputation. Now that the end of apartheid is no closer, that events in South Africa have arguably deteriorated in many respects since the Prime Minister made his statement, particularly with respect to the treatment of anti-apartheid activists in South Africa by the South African Government, and that the Canadian Government has not acted, Canada has been made to look a fool, literally, on the international stage.
I am sure that privately it must really irritate the Secretary of State for External Affairs to have to go around from conference to conference defending the hypocricy of one of his former arch-rivals in the political realm. I do not expect him to comment on that, but this is what I mean when I talk about a hypocritical voice.
When I say a timid voice I am referring to two areas, one in which I think the record of the Government is better than the other. I will start with the better one. It has to do with the Government's approach to Central America. I think the Minister has shown an openness to learning about Central America, appreciating what is going on there and appreciating the deficiencies of American policy in that area that is admirable. However, it has been a timid voice in this respect. The Minister, in the language of the Government, has not been willing to be as explicitly critical of American policy in that area as many people would want him to have been, particularly with respect to the funding of the Contras. Nevertheless, we are now moving to a point where it is conventional wisdom that the United States should no longer fund the invasion of Nicaragua by the Contras.
This is something that Canada could have said a long time ago if it were not so timid a country and if the Government had not been so timid. Could we not have helped that process along much earlier if we had been willing to say that? Having said that, I hope that the Government will try to continue to play the constructive role that it has in the peace process which has been encouraged by the Special Committee on the peace process. I know for instance that the Nicaraguan Gov-
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
ernment is interested in having Canada play a role in the months leading up to and including the election set for February, 1990.1 hope that the Minister will be open to any way in which Canada can be part of the international presence at the Nicaraguan elections, so those elections can be beyond reproach and can be seen to be a legitimate part of the peace process.
I would encourage the Minister at the same time to consider enhancing development assistance to Nicaragua in order to alleviate the severe economic problems that are a result of the war, the embargo and various other things.
I spoke of a timid voice. I am thinking also of the Middle East, Mr. Speaker. Here was a case where the Government was more cautious than the cautious. It was a case of waiting until everyone else had faced up to the changes that had been wrought in the Middle East by the changes in PLO policies. We certainly encouraged the Government, before it did so, to take the steps that it did.
We often criticize the Government for wanting to be in lock-step with the United States on many issues, but here was a case where not only the U.S., but almost everyone else on the block had faced up to this reality, and yet Canada was the last to do so. This again made Canada look far too timid in its way of dealing with these serious regional conflicts.
I have talked about a hypocritical voice and a timid voice. Where there is no voice at all seems to be in NATO one of the various institutions that the Minister and his colleagues like to defend, particularly if they think it is advantageous to them to compare their position to the NDP.
What is the role of Canada within NATO, and when is the Minister going to give us some kind of a comprehensive explanation of what the Government's policy is with respect to the debates that are going on within NATO as to the modernization of nuclear weapons?
I read that the government is in favour of modernization of nuclear weapons. If that is true, I would like to hear what the explanation is and so would the Canadian people. So much is at stake in that debate as to whether or not the Lance missiles are going to be replaced, whether the progress made in the INF treaty is going to be endangered by that kind of modernization.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
There are debates going on in NATO about the adoption of non-provocative defence or non-offensive defence. Where is Canada on this? Are we not part of the debate that is going on about how changes in Europe and east-west relations will be dealt with? Why do we have to be reduced to being a spectator? That is what I mean when I say that in this sense Canada has no voice.
Where we do have a voice it sounds like a cold war voice. There has been no repudiation of what was antiquated then, but what is even more antiquated now i.e. the rhetoric of the foreign policy paper of the Government. I believe it was called challenge and commitment or something like that. This was a document which was widely condemned at the time for being anachronistic, for belonging more to the 1950s than to the 1980s. As a result of events that have happened since then, both in the Soviet Union and in the west, the Government's cold war voice has become even less concerned with reality. Again we hear no updating of that.
I read the speeches that Mrs. Thatcher gave when Chairman Gorbachev came to London. The Government is in danger, in fact has been for some time of being to the right of Thatcher and to the right of Reagan in the last few months of his presidency. One wonders, are we simply waiting for Bush to make up his mind so that Canadians will know where they stand in respect of east-west relations. Or is this an opportunity for us to show some leadership in relationship with our allies instead of meekly assenting to whatever way the United States and NATO wants to use us, whether in the follow on Forces attack strategy which compels us to destroy the livelihood of the land of our Inuit people in Labrador through low-level flight testing or in testing the advance or Stealth Cruise missiles which many people contend could be used as a form of a first strike weapon and therefore is destabilizing? Why do we have to be such uncritical participants in all of this?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I mention a fading voice. By a fading voice, I am talking about when the Budget comes down on April 27 and whether we will see a significant slashing of Canadian support for overseas development and assistance. This has been the jewel of Canadian foreign policy. It has not been as good as we would like to have seen it. There has never been the percentage of GNP in terms of spending that we would want, but certainly Canada has a reputation abroad of being a country committed to overseas development assistance. I can tell you that many people are very worried. We had the North-South Institute and the Canadian Council on
International Co-operation expressing their concern yesterday. This really could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, Mr. Speaker.
In addition to all the things that I have talked about already where we choose to have no voice, choose to maintain the cold war voice and where we seem to have a hypocritical or timid voice, if our commitment to overseas development assistance is seen to be a fading voice, then the worries that many people have about the way Canada's international reputation is under attack, both because of sins of omission and commission on the part of this Government, will turn out to be true. I think it is a tragedy. In four years you can do some damage, but this Government has got another four years. Unless they change their ways, we will have had eight years of this kind of approach. By that time we will have gone a long way to changing the role of Canada in the world for the worse.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to seek unanimous consent to go on and on, but I have a hunch I would not get it. The Member from Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) might give it to me because we gave it to him not long ago, but I cannot be sure of everyone else.
So I look forward to whatever the Minister might have to say. Perhaps we can carry on the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) on a question or comment.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the Government's Throne Speech and the Member's speech itself. In the Speech from the Throne, the Government mentions its commitment to NATO and mentions disarmament. I hope for world peace, the initial statement by the two superpowers to reduce nuclear armaments will continue, but we should always keep in mind that nuclear arms have acted as a deterrent for a third world war.
We should encourage President Gorbachev in his efforts to liberalize the Soviet system with perestroika and glasnost and expand our trade relations with countries as long as they respect human rights. Therefore we should reconfirm our commitment to the Helsinki Agreement on human rights and monitor those countries that don't adhere to it. We should applaud the fact that the Soviet Union removed itself from Afganistan. I hope that this soon will happen in Lebanon where we have foreign troops, Israeli and others occupying that country. On the Palestinian question, our Government makes no mention of the fact that Israel has occupied that part of the world for many years and there is a constant human rights violation there. We should con-
April 13, 1989

demn such action and be part of the world community that expresses its condemnation at the United Nations.
We should also press for an international peace conference on the Middle East issue so as to bring justice to the oppressed people of Palestine. I hope the Hon. Member who just spoke would comment on the Palestinian issue.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did comment on the Palestinian issue in the early part of my speech. We have supported the call for an international conference.
The Hon. Member quoted sentences from the Throne Speech in which the Government welcomed the progress between the superpowers. On the other hand he talked about the need to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and so on. That is part of the problem. I believe we will not be able to respond adequately to the diplomatic initiatives, as well as others taken by the Soviet Union, if we do not show that we too are willing to change our way of thinking.
I agree that it is a difficult process to decide what action one should take and when, but I am very concerned that the West might be sending the wrong signal, that is, that it is not prepared to move and that it will be all give and no take. That is a concern.
The Hon. Member talked about the Soviet Union. I had an opportunity recently to be in Moscow with other parliamentarians for a Conference on Ecological Problems in the North. This is another area I would have dealt with had I the time. Environmental co-operation between Canada and the Soviet Union is another way in which we can begin to co-operate in the North and in other ways.
The whole question of the global environment is something that must be taken seriously. I got the impression that the Soviet Union is taking the problem seriously, possibly because serious environmental problems are coming home to roost there. I almost detected a sense of panic in their voice about the environment. Whatever sins we may have committed here, I have the feeling they have done some things I would rather not know about.
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
There is an opportunity for co-operation in the North and elsewhere that I hope will some day trivialize the differences we have had over the years. There is a need for planetary solidarity, a global human solidarity for the survival of us all. I suggest that that struggle for survival will make some of the divisions that we have experienced over the last 40 years seem quite trivial. I hope they will become trivial as changes take place in the Soviet Union and we respond intelligently to them, moving toward a world which is no longer divided between these two armed camps contemplating its destruction.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to miss the opportunity for debate but I do not want to do that. I was interested by the one word to which the Hon. Member consistently referred. That was the word "voice". He characterized the role of Canada in the world as being related to our voice and how we express our voice.
Certainly I remember countless occasions on which he has urged me to use Canada's voice to condemn some situation or usually some Government, and usually the American Government. It is a challenge that we have to face if we are realistic about how Canada exercises its influence in the world.
Let us take Central America. It is my view that had I accepted his voice and the voice of his Party over the last couple of years, and had we used our influence to condemn the United States in Central America, that probably would have cost us the capacity to play the very constructive, albeit quite limited and specific role that Canada is able to play in moving that region toward a peace process.
We are there because we have some credentials. In order to maintain those credentials, very often one has to restrain one's voice. One cannot always raise it.
Canada has more to offer the world than advice. We have some very substantial capacities as a nation. We have demonstrated them over time. We have honed them. They are respected very generally, but we can waste them. We can waste them often if we prefer the luxury of expressing an opinion to the harder work of having an effect on actual events.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Blaikie
I have spoken of Central America. The question that is perhaps of the most division between us has to do with the role of Canada to our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to the way we should seek to exert our influence on the changing situation in East-West relations. Obviously there are profound and important changes in the Soviet Union. Obviously, as has been demonstrated in Poland and is evident in Hungary and elsewhere, there are important changes in other East Bloc countries.
How do we best encourage those changes while respecting Canadian interests and the values and interests that people have lived and died for in this country and in the Western Alliance for a long time? We certainly cannot assume that perestroika has extended, for example, to the Soviet military. We certainly cannot ignore the continuing build-up in Soviet military preparation in the Kola Peninsula and elsewhere. We cannot be preoccupied with those sorts of things, but neither can we ignore them.
We cannot ignore the reality that the major agreement we have achieved on arms control has been achieved precisely because Canada and other western nations, other NATO nations stayed together to force the Soviet Union to come to negotiation on the INF.
What would have happened had Canada chosen the luxury of expressing a voice rather than being part of the NATO consensus that led to the INF Agreement? Had Canada split from the NATO alliance, would we have had the INF Agreement? I think the likelihood is that we would not.
Those are the kinds of decisions that Canadian policy makers have to confront, precisely because we have more influence in the world than simply a voice. I think the disagreement between the Hon. Member and myself-and I think it is a disagreement reflected in our two Parties-concerns whether we focus on expressing an opinion, which is easy, or whether we attempt the hard work of trying to effect actual changes in difficult complex situations.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister chose to comment. I will certainly tiy to reply.
We do have a difference of opinion, a difference of opinion with respect to the historical analysis of some of the issues to which he referred. I will begin with Central America.
I think it is a caricature of the argument to say that it is simply a choice between expressing an opinion which,
according to the Minister is easy, and doing the quiet constructive work that the Minister always talks about. Sometimes expressing an opinion is a very difficult thing if the person or country one is expressing an opinion about will be unhappy with that opinion, as the Americans would have been if the Minister had chosen to express an opinion about the U.S. funding of Contras when we asked him to do so. If the Minister believes that would have been easy, I think he would have to reconsider his argument.
I suggest the reason he did not express an opinion at that time is that it would have been very difficult, not easy, but had we expressed that opinion earlier we may have been part of that group of countries which eventually caused the United States to rethink its position.
It was ultimately Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, which is much more dependent on U.S. aid than Canada, who was willing to say that the Contras should not be funded by the United States. Surely if Costa Rica could take such a step, dependent as it is on the United States, we could have done so. We are not that dependent on the United States yet, although we may be after the Free Trade Agreement has been in place for some time. However, we have that independence now and have not used it.
The Minister talks about East-West relations and says that we cannot ignore the reality of the build-up in the Kola Peninsula and so on. I am not asking him to do that. I am not asking him to ignore any reality but to be part of the new reality. We should take an active, conscious, intelligent debating role in that new reality. Instead the Minister is perceived to be simply a spectator to that debate. If that is a wrong perception, I hope he will show me how. Every time someone tries to engage in the debate, the Minister pours cold water on the debate by caricaturing the debate instead of entering into the very difficult arguments involved.
I am glad to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is here, a very unusual event, Mr. Speaker. I hope it was foreign policy that brought him into the House of Commons and some of my remarks about his hypocritical stance with respect to South Africa and the fact that he has made a fool of Canada on the world stage by saying one thing about South Africa and doing another or not doing what he said he would do if apartheid did not come to an end.
April 13, 1989

I welcome the Prime Minister's intervention in this debate. We could really have some fun if he would get to his feet.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his kind reference to me. I am here because when I heard that he was speaking, I rushed down from my office.
I want to tell the Hon. Member to check Hansard. He will see that our good friend and his colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), pointed out in Hansard some years ago, watching me come to the House of Commons, that he had been in the House since 1968 and that I was the first Prime Minister who came regularly to listen to him as I wanted to listen to my hon. friend. I just wanted to put that on the record in case my hon. friend wants to become less bellicose and more peaceful as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and I are on these matters.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, do I get a chance to respond? You keep turning on the mike behind me. I do not want to turn my back on the House of Commons in order to speak.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) referred to a remark made by the Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden (Mr. Benjamin), a remark he probably made when he was still the Hon. Member for Regina West. Being in the House is something that the Prime Minister should do more often. It is a habit that I thought he was falling away from.
If this is the beginning of re-engaging the House of Commons and being present for debates, I would submit that that is a welcome trend. It is about time that more Members were present in the House of Commons and that we did have real debates between each other and not proxy debates through Hansard. If the Prime Minister's presence here is an attempt to encourage that, then all the better, as far as I am concerned.


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to to have this honour and opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne and to take part in the debate that has been going on this past number of days. I would also like at this time to thank those constituents I have represented for the past four years for the confidence they have placed in me again, as we look forward to another term of office, to represent the views and concerns of Canadians from western Canada.
The Address-Mr. Porter
The foundations of some of the initiatives outlined in the Throne Speech were established during the Thirty-third Parliament. One of those was building a stronger economy. Canada has seen the creation of 1.4 million jobs since 1984. This country's economic indicators have led the way among western industrialized nations. Maintaining that economic performance is essential and it will not be easy in a competitive world with inflation and interest rates under pressure.
We are closely tied economically through liberalized trade and commerce between nations. That is a fact of life in today's world. There is no doubt that events taking place in our global economy have an immediate effect on Canada. An example of that effect, which affects us all and certainly those in my constituency of Medicine Hat, is world energy prices. A movement of one dollar up or down results in a change of $150 million in income in the Province of Alberta and that has a ripple effect throughout that economy and that of all Canada.
As a result of the agricultural trade war, primarily between the United States and the EEC, we have seen grain prices halved in some cases. Several years of drought have exacerbated the situation in western Canada. No Government can offset the damage caused by droughts and by volatile world oil prices, but in the past four years this Government has implemented programs that have certainly helped, and they have helped a lot. There has been over $10 billion in assistance to agriculture in the last four years.
I have been involved in agriculture all of my life and I have seen droughts before. I do not recall a special grain program in the past. I do not remember a $1 billion drought package. The outlook is a little better this spring. Conditions relating to that drought still linger on. I hope it does start to rain, not so much for me but for my little grandson who will be four this fall. He has never seen rain out there before.
I would be the first to acknowledge that we have to continue to work toward some long-term agricultural policies. We have done a number of things, including tripartite stabilization programs and improvements to grain stabilization where modifications have been made. New programs and initiatives have to be carried out, they have to be voluntary and they have to be actuarially sound. I think the Grains 2000 option is something that is well worth consideration.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Porter
What concerns me, and I am sure most Canadians, is how we maintain let alone improve existing programs and social policies if we do not address the greatest impediment to our future, Canada's national debt. Like many of us sitting here, I have heard all the statistics, I have listened to the debate about our national debt, about when it got started, about how it grew, about whose fault it was. There has even been some pointed remarks about who fathered it. I do not think it matters at this point who fathered the debt, but somebody has to look after the baby.
A lot of things could have been done and should have been done. In 1978, the national debt was around $60 billion. It may be just a coincidence, but that is roughly the amount of funding that came out of western Canada as a result of the National Energy Program. I think many things could have been done with the debt at that time. Unfortunately, we cannot make hindsight retroactive.
As we discuss who is to blame, the debt continues to grow and we all have a share in it. That includes everyone in this House and each Canadian every one of us represents. We constantly hear complaints about someone not getting their fair share. Provinces do not get their fair share, special interest groups are not looked after, your constituency gets more than mine. Believe me, we all have a piece of the action when it comes to sharing the national debt. Anyone who has given any serious thought to where this country is headed has to be concerned. My constituents of Medicine Hat are concerned and I am sure Members on both sides of the House are hearing the same concerns.
Since 5.40 yesterday afternoon, this Government will have had to raise $88 million to pay for the interest on that debt. Since 4.40 today, the Government will have had to come up with $3.6 million. If you give me my allocation of time, Mr. Speaker, it will show that talk is not cheap. It will have cost all of us $1.2 million to service that debt.
Where does the money come from? I guess most of it comes from that 31 cents out of eveiy tax dollar that each of us sends in to Revenue Canada. There are no simple or easy answers. We could get rid of the debt next week if every Canadian man, woman and child sent Revenue Canada a cheque for $12,300. If they sent $100 a month, it would pay the interest. I think there are two chances of that happening, one slim and one fat.
If, through some quirk of circumstance, Members on both sides of the House agree to freeze all spending at today's level, the interest payments alone would double the national debt by 1995. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the Members who will occupy this Chamber in 1995 will find the situation any easier to deal with than those of us who are here today? Eight years from now, unless the debt is reduced, the Government will be paying more interest than it currently collects from total personal income taxes from all Canadians.
Rising interest rates are one of the major concerns in my constituency. They add to the price of consumer goods, they cripple small business, they hurt agriculture, they make owning a home or maintaining a mortgage in many cases impossible. Many people remember and are still paying the bills for interest charges of the late 1970s when no effort was made to address the problem. The strength or weakness of our overall economy has an influence on interest rates. Inflation plays a major role. Monetary and economic policies beyond our borders are a factor.
The greatest stimulus to rising interest is our reluctance to come to grips with our national debt. We all know the best place to cut is some expensive federal program, Crown corporation or tax incentive, but let us make the cut where it does not affect me, my family, business, profession, or even my province. Let us have it anywhere else, but let us go for it. The present economic performance and the future economic potential of Canada cannot be sustained if this fiscal indulgence continues to grow.
One area I want to touch on from the Throne Speech is that of the environment. I have raised cattle most of my life. Like most people in that industry, I have developed a close appreciation and respect for environmental issues. You learn to survive and treat the short-grass area of western Canada's Palliser triangle with utmost respect. It is a harsh, unforgiving region for those who abuse it. This land is so fragile that the tracks left by the wagons of earlier settlers can still be seen today. The trails left by thousands of buffalo on their way to water holes still remain. The last signs of a people who took no more from the land than they needed and left it as they found it are still out there on those broad prairies in the form of circles of stone known as tepee rings.
April 13, 1989

Mother Nature and Father Time can be a fickle pair. They have their own laws; they make their own rules. They are not enforced by legislation nor are they enshrined in any constitution; but we break them at our peril, and the penalties are swift and harsh.
In a time of high technology, fax machines in our offices, mobile phones in our cars, satellites in space, perhaps we should remind ourselves that our very existence on this planet depends on a six-inch layer of topsoil, a little rain, the good Lord and the people who husband this fragile, productive and renewable natural resource. We cannot continue to treat it as we have been. To quote from the Speech from the Throne: "Canadians possess a unique sense of their relationship to the land, whose rich, vast diversity has shaped their values and experiences".
This Government can continue to produce the economic, cultural values that this country of ours has become renowned for. We must work together to make this happen. We are in a very difficult time.
I touched on two issues that are of concern. There are no doubt many more. Every Hon. Member in this House has a concern that affects those you represent. On a global scale, we have concerns with the Uruguay Round of GATT and the effects it will have. In the industry I represent, we need changes to the Meat Import Act so producers trading in the North American market are dealing with the same rules. We are not asking for favours. Canadians can be competitive with any producer or manufacturer in the world, provided they have the opportunity. Those of us in government must ensure that Canadians have the opportunity to bring out the best in themselves and their country.
I want to thank the House for its indulgence. I am confident the Throne Speech tabled the other day will lead the way for this Government to bring about the important changes needed in Canada for all of us and those we represent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Harvey: I heard the Hon. Member mention the punitive link between the large federal debt and high interest rates. I do not have an economics degree, but I do have a memory. I remember the last time we had tremendously high interest rates was in the early 1980s. Those interest rates fell, right through to 1986 and 1987. This was a time when the federal debt was increasing. While interest rates were going one way, the
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
deficit was going the other. Yet I am told that high debt means higher interest rates. Our experience in this country does not support that contention. On what basis does the Hon. Member attempt to draw that relationship?


Robert Harold Porter: I do not have a degree in economics either, but I have been in business all my life. I have attempted to make things work in the real world. I had to go to banks to borrow money. Do you know today that to put a pound of beef on an animal in a feedlot requires $35 in interest costs alone? Those costs are reflected right through the system. They are passed on to the buying public.
When a government pays the amount of interest we are experiencing today, it has a bearing on the overall picture. Other factors come into play, such as global economies and inflationary pressures. Canadians will have to pay for the large debt in increased taxes and cuts in services that Members opposite do not want to see. The more we pay, the less we spend in other areas. This puts pressure on monetary policy. If I have less to operate my business, the banker is more reluctant to lend money. Pressure on interest rates tends to rise because the banks know there is more risk out there. In time, this will put pressures on us.
I do not understand socialist monetary policies. I hope I never have to. I live about nine miles from the Saskatchewan border. I know what a socialist government has done there. I have noticed what it has done in British Columbia. I do not want my family living under those conditions.
I do appreciate your question. I believe the federal debt and the interest charges it incurs have put pressure on our monetary system.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Throne Speech pronounced by the Governor General on April 3 when she opened the second session of the thirty-fourth Parliament of Canada. The Government, which of course prepared the speech, seems to have asked some unknown up in the attic of the Langevin Building, on the other side of Wellington, to write something which, as far we can see, is completely detached from the realities of this world and bears no relation to the needs of Canadians.

April 13, 1989
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
If the Prime Minister had just looked out the window on the other side, he would have been very much inspired by the people I have the honour to represent, the people of (Ottawa-Vanier.
There is not a single Member in this House who has not visited my riding. They all know my riding. It is rather special. It is probably the only riding you can reach on foot in a few minutes and which offers good hotels, a convention centre, wonderful museums, an interesting market, courteous and smiling people, and, as in many other ridings, problems that are difficult to solve, because we also have our poor, our needy, our drug addicts, all those people who depend on us for their survival. I have two soup kitchens, Meals on wheels, I have two places where people can get some food, so-called food banks. It isn't easy for a society to admit that it has to dispense food in a country as rich, as full of resources, and as envied as ours.
Mr. Speaker, at the foot of Parliament Hill, just a five-minute walk away, mothers are looking for decent shelter for their children. There are the unemployed and senior citizens-there are 7,500 in my riding-senior citizens who had a difficult time, having experienced the Depression and two World Wars, and now, in many cases, depend on us today for their food and board. There are young people who have lost hope and are involved in drugs and prostitution. They are among the most disadvantaged in our society. They are the forgotten, the neglected Canadians.
Today, our social safety net, and more specifically, our unemployment insurance system, is increasingly at risk because it is in the hands of a Government that does not understand. In my riding they would say this is a Government without a heart.
In the Throne Speech, the Government claimed it wanted to improve the unemployment insurance program's, and I quote:
. . .effectiveness and its fairness.
Now that they have shown their true colours and have proposed their amendments, I cannot help wondering, quite sincerely: Who and what do they have in mind?
I know the number of jobless will increase, as the number of welfare recipients, which will in fact go up dramatically in the next few months. I also know that people will have to wait in line in front of the Sainte-Bri-gitte Center, in my riding, or in front of the soup kitchen
and the Salvation Army where the poor seek haven, people who have no shelter, no place to sleep.
The government has not clearly defined its goals. They want, on the one hand, to tighten the rules in order to limit the number of workers eligible to UI benefits. Workers will have to work longer before becoming eligible and then they will receive fewer benefits. Unable to get unemployment insurance benefits, the jobless through no fault of theirs will wind up on welfare. As we know, Mr. Speaker, welfare services are a provincial responsibility. So, the government is in fact transfering to the provinces a difficult human problem instead of closely exmining it.
Moreover, the expenses incurred by the provinces for welfare will not appear on the balance-sheet of the federal government. Instead, its financial statements may show that they were successful in reducing the deficit. But in fact the public will be misguided because of a little game of hide and seek. The government is passing a problem on to the provinces when in fact they should have solved it since they have the means to do so, Mr. Speaker.
All in all, the taxpayers will not save a penny. Quite the opposite, since they will probably pay more with the federal tax the government has been promising. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is travelling across the country, saying: 'You can expect a tax hike!" I even remember, Mr. Speaker, the fiscal reform he proposed, and the sales tax which will apply to almost all services.
In my riding, people are concerned because during the election we discussed those problems, they came up during door calls. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the proposed sales tax is a problem to them, because it is regressive. It applies to everyone regardless of income level. The poor will pay a sales tax just as the rich. Oh, there is to be income tax credits and sales tax credits, of course there will be a system in place! At home in Ottawa-Vanier, Mr. Speaker, I have people who are honest but do not always understand those forms sent by the Governement that must be filled to quality for all sorts of credits, all sorts of rebates. And often the poor are the losers, because the rich, bankers, businessmen will not hurt-they have accountants who prepare their tax returns. The poor will be the losers, Mr. Speaker, they will be penalized. Unfortunately, we have not yet the resources in place to help those people.
April 13, 1989

In my riding right now, that income tax return is so complex accountants who used to volunteer their services to help senior citizens prepare their returns are telling me this year: "We have no time." It is too complicated! Although they told us they were going to make it simpler for Canadians it is the opposite. They made things more complicated, Mr. Speaker. They finally discouraged those in my riding who used to help people who needed help, seniors who are entitled to income tax credits, the poor who are entitled to income tax credits, and many have-nots who, because they do not understand the documents and forms, do not fill them out and do not apply for credits.
Let me repeat that this Government is hardnosed, Mr. Speaker.
I think we are all aware of the problems, Mr. Speaker.
I see you are preparing to interrupt me. Mr. Speaker, if it were possible, I would like to resume tomorrow morning, as it is 6 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House under S.O. 38 is now deemed to have been moved and seconded.
It is therefore moved that this House now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 38 to revisit an issue which I raised in this place on April 4 last. I am talking, of course, about the issue of child care.
On that day I called upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) to introduce comprehensive child care legislation in order to address the critical situation that has arisen. It is a situation critical not just for families right across this country, but also
Adjournment Debate
critical for the child care profession in general. My concern stems from a reference that was made in the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Governor General in the other place, and its scant mention of the Government's commitment to child care.
The relevant passage reads as follows: "The Government remains committed to a national child care program". What is of great concern to all Canadians is what the Government truly means by a national child care program. Does this refer to Bill C-144 as it was tabled in the last Parliament? I devoutly hope not. The vast majority of Canadian child care workers and parent groups alike rejected most of the Government's proposals as laid out in that Bill.
I am particularly concerned that the views that were expressed by these groups, from Vancouver to my own riding of Halifax, will continue to go unnoticed and ignored. Even a cursory glance at some of this testimony will underline deeply the rationale behind the recommendations and proposals that all these groups put forward. I will deal with some of these proposals later.
First, I would like to paint a clearer picture of the current status of child care in Canada. Almost two million Canadian children need child care outside the home, some part time, some full time. Under the present system only 10 per cent of those two million children can be accommodated. A staggering number of parents look for such care in vain. The remaining 90 per cent of children who are in need of child care are either looked after by relatives, friends, or babysitters, or unlicensed caregivers, or they are simply left alone, the latch-key children that we hear so much about. These statistics are profoundly disturbing. In 1987 the percentage of children under the age of 13 in licensed child care in Canada was remarkably low.
Let me give a few examples based on 1987 figures provided by the National Council of Welfare. In Newfoundland, where there are currently 30,998 children under the age of 13, only 1,318 of these children are being cared for by licensed child care services. In other words, 96 per cent of Newfoundland children under the age of 13 cannot be accommodated, should the need arise. Similar figures are equally disturbing in my home Province of Nova Scotia, where there are 48,298 children under the age of 13, some 42,901 of whom do not enjoy the possibility of a licensed quality child care space.

April 13, 1989
Adjournment Debate
In other words, 89 per cent of Nova Scotia's children under the age of 13 cannot expect the benefit of quality care if and when their primary caregiver must work outside the home. What this points to is a gaping child care crisis which will not be cured by vague promises and half-hearted commitments.

Our day-care centers are in a state of crisis. Last Friday, in Montreal, a great many of the 2 000 CNTU-af-filiated workers of various day-care centers went on strike for a day to show how impatient and concerned they were about the present situation Mr. Speaker, an action plan or a bill is needed to meet the needs of day-care center operators and those of all Canadian families.

It is clear that we have a crisis on our hands and that we need immediate action to deal with it. In the few minutes that remain I would like to briefly describe how we find ourselves in this situation and, second, to offer some remedies and suggestions about how we might end the crisis if the political will exists. Sadly the Government's commitment to child care has been, to say the least, intermittent.
In March 1987, the Special Committee on Child Care tabled its final report. The Conservative majority within that committee called for more grants to parents through the tax system in what they called giving parents a greater choice. They simply did not realize, nor does it appear as if they realize now, that this was an inadequate and meaningless solution.
What is needed is more child care spaces. Nine months after the special parliamentary committee tabled its final report, the Government responded by announcing its national child care strategy, three components of which were the following: a $100 million child care special initiatives fund to promote research and development activities in child care, federal-provincial cost sharing arrangements which would increase the number of child care spaces over seven year, and a set of tax measures to increase the annual child care deduction from $2,000 to $4,000 annually.
Since the election the Government has had nearly five months to develop a national child care plan that would incorporate the suggestions and proposals put forward by
many interest groups across Canada. After the Throne Speech the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when pressured to state his Government's commitment to a national child care program, responded by saying: "We are continuing to study the issue, but we have nothing to announce at the present time".
I know there are tens of thousands of families out there today who are wondering how long the Minister has to continue studying this matter which has been studied and analysed for years. When is the Government going to commit itself through legislation to a real national child care program that responds to the real needs of all Canadians. The solutions are there. What is left is for the decisions-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Lise Bourgault: Today, Mr. Speaker, the first time I am called upon to reply as Parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I want first of all to congragulate the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Clancy) on her being elected to this House on November 21, as well as her appointment as a Party critic on women issues. I am sure she must have been flabbergasted by the approach Liberal had taken to the day-care bill before the House adjourned.
I am sure that in her own riding, before the election, she must have found it absolutely horrible, because she is referring now to a crisis situation, and she might be right to do so; however, I should like to remind our audience that this crisis has been brought to a head by the attitude of a Liberal non-elected Senate who deliberately stopped this Bill before the election. She may say "Ah!" but that is the sad truth, Mr. Speaker.
Also, I urge the Hon. Member to be twice as vigilant, because the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) has just announced a reform of the Unemployment Insurance scheme which will greatly help women, especially in the areas of maternity leave and training programs; and she knows as well as I do that Canadian women, those in my riding, in the province of Quebec and the city of Halifax, need training and re-training. If there are people in our society who need that, women do.



April 13, 1989

Since she is the critic on women's issues, I would also strongly urge her to contact the school board in her riding or in her province at Halifax. She might suggest that these school boards apply for funds, because money is available from the special project assistance fund for, among other things, helping schools set up day care facilities, as she said in her remarks.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I might mention that the Minister has just announced a grant of $80,391 to the Leeds-Grenville riding school boards to set up the kind of child care services which meet the needs of families in that area. Mr. Speaker, another grant of $120,645 has been awarded to Quebec's Association des services de garde en milieu scolaire for a study. That is excellent. And then, Mr. Speaker, $422,207 to the Members of the Ottawa region for three assistance fund projects to help organizations find fresh solutions to the child care problem.
Nova Scotia therefore is also entitled to that money, and I would urge the Hon. Member to get in touch with the school boards in her riding and in her province and take full advantage of our Government's generous contribution under the Strategy. Above all, Mr. Speaker, she ought to appeal to the common sense of Senators so they will not unduly delay the legislative measures passed by the House, legitimately elected by Canadians.


AIR SAFETY-REVIEW BY DEPARTMENTAL AUDIT BRANCH-MINISTER'S INTENTIONS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on April 6, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) what preparations his Department made in anticipation of the removal of government controls in the airline industry.
The question was not answered by the Minister. I come here before you this evening, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to receive an answer. I thank you for the opportunity to requestion the Minister on an issue that is vital to the air safety of travellers who use these facilities in Canada.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the air corridors in our country are congested. The congestion causes safety problems around busy airports, airports where planes are headed especially during peak periods, airports such as Pearson International Airport.
Adjournment Debate
The situation is not improving. It is deteriorating. The Minister refuses in the face of overwhelming evidence to do anything to change these unsafe conditions.
The major airlines of Canada because of deregulation have been able to create what is known as the hub-and-spoke concept, the hub being the major airport and the spokes being those arms that extend to smaller communities. Some of the spoke communities are communities such as Thunder Bay-Nipigon, the region which I represent, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, Dryden and Windsor, areas such as these that funnel their aircraft into Pearson.
Since Pearson is a major international airport the traffic is further congested because it is a recipient of many international flights, as well as many flights that generate in other areas in Canada. Pearson can be referred to, and often is, as a main hub in all of Canada.
What bothers me, and I know it bothers many other Canadians from smaller communities, is that this hub-and-spoke concept has deteriorated the quality of air travel in the country without the approval of most Canadians. If you book a flight, Mr. Speaker, to one of these centres I have mentioned through one of the two major airlines available to us, you stand a very good chance of ending up on an airline to which you have no contractual relationship. The plane is much smaller than expected. Even in Toronto one has to go outside the airport and across the tarmac in rain or snowy conditions and climb the steps to get on the airplane. This is very unsafe for our aged and handicapped people.
Although these airlines try to offer the services that the larger airlines offer, services such as beverage services, meals and luggage services, it is physically impossible for them to do this. In fact, many of these aircraft do not have any washrooms. If they do, there are not enough to facilitate the number of passengers on the aircraft.
I can go on and on about these deficiencies on these smaller airlines, but the thing that really hurts me and hurts most Canadians from rural Canada and smaller centres is the very fact that when we book on these flights we pay the very same price as we would pay on an airline that offers a more sophisticated service, especially if it is on one of the airlines in Canada or on the international scene that has a competitive route.

April 13, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Airline travel in Canada for rural Canadians and Canadians from smaller centres has gone back at least 20 years. The responsibility for this falls directly on the shoulders of the present Government. Once again another institution of the country is sacrificed at the expense of rural and small town Canada.
What is of greater concern is the fact that most of these smaller airlines expanded operations or began operations as a result of deregulation or the operation of the hub-and-spoke concept. This leads me to the question I asked the Minister which he refused to answer. His own internal documents state that he lacked enough inspectors to protect the very safety of Canadians. The document states that regulatory reform of the domestic airline industry was introduced at a time when the Department possessed neither sufficient trained resources, the required planning and operational processes, nor the necessary enforcement capability required to monitor effectively and foster aviation industry compliance with established safety legislation, safety regulations and safety standards.
The Minister has failed to tell Canadians what he intends to do with respect to the safety of air travel in Canada. The Minister said in this House that decisions will be made without delay on the basis of air traffic safety. The air traffic situation is currently unsafe and getting worse. No measures thus far have improved the safety to the Canadian air traveller.
I ask my question again. When will the Minister address air safety with the urgency Canadians expects?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by reiterating something the Minister has repeatedly stated both in this House and outside the House. Canadian skies are safe. To suggest otherwise is both reprehensible and irresponsible, and as such most unworthy of any Member of the House.
I also want to mention that I fly on those small airlines, those commuter feeder lines that serve many parts of the country. I feel very secure and safe because of the care, consideration and individual attention that they give to us as travellers when we are travelling so frequently across the country. I use them every week. I am very pleased that we have the commuter lines because they do provide a necessary service with a very small aircraft which carries often as few as 19 passengers.
On March 29, 1989, the Minister announced the appointment of Justice Estey to review the entire record of the Gander accident investigation with a view to advising the Minister on whether any further investigation or inquiry is warranted. The Minister also announced the appointment of Justice Moshansky to conduct a judicial inquiry into the Dryden accident. These measures were taken in response to the concerns raised about the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which has served to undermine the confidence of Canadians in the board.
In addition, the Minister has reintroduced and referred to the standing committee Bill C-2 an Act to establish the transportation accident investigation board.
Furthermore, while the Minister and his senior officials believe that the inspection resources of the Department of Transport are adequate to the present requirement, nevertheless, the Minister intends to avail himself of the expertise of both industry and government to assist him in ensuring that we have the right resources and that they are used in the right way in order to meet the changing needs of the future.
With specific reference to Lester B. Pearson Airport in Toronto, I would remind Hon. Members that Ministers have just completed two weeks of extensive consultations which will lead to the development of a comprehensive plan for the whole of the southern Ontario airspace. An announcement will be made in due course.
I would like to emphasize that while we do have a shortage of air traffic controllers at Toronto the traffic flow is always matched to the controllers' ability to safely handle the traffic. This means delays, not a decrease in the level of safety.
I would also like to assure Members and the travelling public that every conceivable effort is being made to rectify the shortage situation.


AGRICULTURE-DROUGHT ASSISTANCE COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) on April 5, asking him if the Government was going to pay the amounts which it promised for drought assistance last November 10.
In that press release of last November 10, it said that it would pay $40 to $45 per acre of wheat in western Canada for the maximum drought damage per acre. In eastern Canada it said it would pay from $50 to $57 per acre where the total crop was lost for com and soybeans.
April 13, 1989

The Minister announced some time after that that he was going to pay about 70 per cent in the interim payment.
Since the election is over it has gotten very fuzzy exactly whether it is still $40 or $45. Also, the total amount is fuzzy. I did an open-line show with the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds during the election campaign which was broadcast across Manitoba and Saskatchewan. At that time he said the $850 million was not a cap, that it was just a notional amount of what the Government thought it might be. If it was more than that, based on $40 or $45 per acre, then the Government would pay the extra amount.
More recently it has been very hard to pin the Government down. Is the $850 million a cap? Is it going to pay the full amount?
Thus I put a question to the Minister in this regard and his response was this: "The estimates that we talked about last fall stand exactly the same. Nothing has changed".
He did not say a maximum of $45 per acre in western Canada for wheat loss occurred. He did not say that they were going to pay up to $57 for corn in Ontario, as he said in his press release. It is a great concern that he said last fall that the interim payment was to be at 70 per cent. The interim payment in western Canada was only $12.
Maybe the Government is going to welsh on this deal. Maybe it is only going to pay $20 and say to the provinces, "you pick up half". There was a great kerfuffle. When the Minister announced the program, he said he was going to try to rope in the provinces, but he had not consulted with them. The provinces, even the Tory provinces, said they were not paying any of his campaign promises.
What we would like to get tonight from the Parliamentary Secretary is a clear, unequivocal statement that there is no cap at $850 million. It is going to be based on $40 or $45 maximum in the West and $57 in the East. We want it very clearly spelled out.
This has really been a bollix. They sent out application forms to some people and not to others. Why did they not send out an application to everybody with a Wheat Board quota book and allow individual farmers to make a statutory declaration of what their crop losses were? It could easily be checked against the crop insurance data. Instead they are saying "if you lose more than 15 per cent, then you get a certain percentage based on crop
Adjournment Debate
insurance data". However, they are not saying what that data is.
Is it based on the last five years? Is it based on the last 10 years for each township? That is not clear, so nobody knows really where they are. The whole system has really been bollixed.
The drought was last May, June and July. The loss of crop was last August and September. There is no money. Until now farmers have been getting $12 an acre in the West and $16 for the most severe in the East, and the rest comes in July. We do not know what that other amount is going to be.
The Parliamentary Secretary is one of the most outstanding soybean growers in southwestern Ontario, and he knows what his farmers feel about this. They want to know exactly what the deal is, what the amounts are and when they are going to be paid. I just hope that these matters will be cleared up because many farmers are confused.
I recall that our caucus met with the officials of the Department of Agriculture over a month ago. The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Vanclief) had a number of farmers, I believe a couple of dozen, who had not received an application form. He sent in their names for application forms, and they just starting to get them now. That is a month ago. According to the data which came out for the program, they had to file their applications by March 15. I think we met with the Department about three or four days before that. Many farmers had not yet received their application forms, and those application forms were to be made and filed with the Department by the fifteenth.
This program has been badly handled. The drought was last year. Cash is coming very late. It should have all been on the table by at least January, February or March when the farmers were putting together the funding for this year's crop. I certainly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clarify that the deal is exactly the same, the amounts are the same as they were last fall and not just these estimates that we talked about then. Estimates of what? Farmers want to know where they are, whether they are going to be paid and when they are going to be paid.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to try to provide detail on the effective efforts by this Government to deliver the Drought Assistance Program to Canadian farmers.

April 13, 1989
Adjournment Debate
I would like to say to my hon. friend that it is white beans, not soybeans, but we will let him get away with that.


An Hon. Member:: He is an outstanding grower of white beans.


Murray Cardiff: I would like to say to him also that the deadline for the application has been extended and is flexible for receiving some of those application. The Drought Assistance Program will help producers that were hurt very badly in the 1988 drought. This Government is making every effort to deliver a program that treats producers in many different circumstances fairly, and it is very difficult to find a plan that treats them fairly.
We anticipate that about 120,000 producers may qualify for drought assistance, with over 100 different crops in over 45 different townships. It takes time to develop and deliver a program that deals with so many producers in so many different types of circumstances.
The Canadian Drought Assistance Program administration is working hard to deliver this program to Canadian farmers. More than 145 people are directly involved in its delivery including people on a toll-free line who have been answering up to 4,000 calls a week. Recently in response to the number of phone calls, we doubled the number of operators on the toll-free line to 20 people.
The administration is putting interim payments into the hands of producers as quickly as possible. About 4,500 townships have been designated as drought areas on the basis of preliminary provincial crop insurance data. More drought areas may be designated when final data is available from provincial crop insurance agencies in May.
Personalized applications have been mailed to about 120,000 producers in designated drought areas, and about 100,000 forms have been returned to date.
I am pleased to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that close to 19,000 interim cheques worth $80 million have been mailed so far to producers. About 65,000 producers will get interim payments. The payments will average $4,300 and will total about $280 million. The timing of these interim payments is similar to the timing of interim payments under last year's Special Canadian Grains Program. Final payments are scheduled to be mailed in July.
We are making progress in other aspects of the program, too. A method for delivering assistance to Ontario horticultural producers has been established. We are working with horticultural groups in other provinces now to establish a method for making payments. Progress is being made with the Province of Quebec on a proposal for program delivery. Discussions are continuing with the provinces on cost sharing.
In addition, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that producer review committees will be established in each province. This program may be rather complex, but it is resulting in the individual tailoring of payments and an accurate assessment of each producer's needs. The Canada Crop Drought Assistance Program is fair, well targeted and timely. It is being delivered effectively by this Government.
It takes patience, but we have to recognize that many crops in this country are not harvested in June and July of any year. We have many crops that are not harvested until the end of our calendar year which would be the first of December, and very often not delivered. It is very difficult to establish the amount of profit that has been delivered. Those things all take time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 14 1989