1989-04-14

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to ther speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in the speech at the opening of the thirty-fourth Parliament, the Government stated that culture, together with the economy, social affairs and the environment, is one of the essential building blocks of our national identity. At a time when there is a tendency among the nations of the world to regroup in large economic units, when borders established in the 18th and 19th century are being erased to allow for the necessary circulation of goods, services and information, creators and artists, whom we may have taken for granted in the past, are now becoming increasinly important to their respective communities.
We are entering the so-called information society, which throughout the world is bringing about a likeness in our goods and services. Creators, however, are doing the exact opposite. They explore, search and experiment and in doing so, express what makes them and what makes us unique. Our identity is reflected in their works.
How to reconcile this development of our authentic cultural uniqueness with the imperatives of the information society is the most important challenge we have to meet as Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's cultural reality is made up of four components. First, a necessary technological infrastructure: our telecommunications; second, a broadcasting system that must reflect what we are; third, an
aggregate of cultural industries: publishing, films, recording and design which, unfortunately, do not enjoy a normal, healthy existence as far as their operations are concerned; and finally, the artists and creators without whom none of this is possible and who form the ever fragile foundation of this system.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Communications assumes the Government's responsibility for these four components. I will touch on them briefly.
First, the telecommunications sector. In 1987, this sector contributed nearly $16 billion to our Gross Domestic Product. Telecommunications is one of our economy's fastest growing industries, with an annual growth rate of 8.4 per cent in 1987 and 6.8 per cent last year, compared with 2.3 and 4.8 per cent for Canada's manufacturing industry as a whole.
The telecommunications industry, with 86.5 per cent Canadian ownership and 79 per cent owned by the private sector, is becoming an increasingly important instrument for our economic development. To own and operate an integrated telecommunications system that is universally accessible and to do so at affordable rates has become one of the essential prerequisites for any advanced economy on this planet, and its importance is increasing. It is not surprising that the Japanese have made telecommunications their development priority. Nor is it surprising that the European community has identified telecommunications as a priority prototype sector for integration in the "single market" in 1992. However, the benefits of our telecommunications system and the information it carries are not purely functional. The sector will, and in fact already does, have an impact on the daily lives of all Canadians. It will affect our social and cultural activities and help very substantially to reduce regional disparity.
Twenty years from now, countries that have not taken advantage of technologies such as high definition television, for instance, will no longer be in the running.
In addition to being the main motor of our economy, these technologies, these electronic media which are already partly responsible for disseminating our culture, will also be the main source of job creation in Canada during the next twenty years.

The Address-Mr. Masse
In Canada and all over the world, technologies are already considered an essential tool for ensuring the competitiveness of companies in every field. Not only will they have an enormous impact on the economy, but they will also considerably alter our social reality, education and training programs, and of course the distribution of our cultural products both at home and abroad. The importance of this technological revolution cannot be overstated.
Now, can you tell which country is among the three or four world leaders in the field of technology development? Yes, it's Canada. We are the best there is in a field generally considered to be a key sector, which should ensure our economic development. All we have to do now is to remain the best. Our strength lies in telecommunications which must become a fundamental part of our industrial development in the present state of the economy, where competitiveness is more and more important.
In this race, we start with a definite lead over all the industrialized nations. We must then improve and strengthen our communications infrastructure so as to meet the economic and technological needs of the 21st century. This infrastructure must be used to link Canadians to each other and to the rest of the world.
Broadcasting is the most popular and powerful vehicle for culture available to us now. Statistics Canada has recently published data showing that 99 per cent of all Canadian families own a radio set, 98 per cent have a television set, and more than 50 per cent have a VCR. That should tell us the tremendous power those media have when it comes to the spread of information, the sale of products and services, the influence on public opinion, the making of stars, and especially a chance to give the majority of people the opportunity to share a common experience.
The Government must therefore undertake to ensure that a full selection of quality Canadian programs reflecting our reality and intended directly for us is available in this country. Our political and cultural sovereignty requires it, if we do not want our culture to become marginal in Canada itself.
It is therefore important for our television broadcasting system to give priority to our own television production and for the Government to encourage its growth.
For if television does not show Canadians an image of themselves, if this image is lacking in quality, we can ask how they will strengthen their feeling of belonging. A television set is not just a receiver. It is the primary tool to cement culture in the modern era. As anthropologist Edward T. Hall notes:
The phenomenon of identification is perhaps the most important
psychological aspect of culture, a bridge that links personality to
culture.
In 1985, the cultural sector was the ninth largest manufacturing industry in Canada and earned more than $12 billion.
The cultural sector is the fourth largest employer in Canada. Cultural industries, including broadcasting, provide Canadians with more than 105,000 direct jobs. Some 4,000 people work full time in museums and heritage institutions and about 5,000 work there part time. The sound recording industry provides 15,000 direct jobs, mostly for young people. The labour force is growing faster in the cultural area than in other sectors of the Canadian economy.
In addition, the number of cultural institutions is increasing all the time. From 1972 to 1986, the number of arts organizations subsidized by the Canadian Government increased considerably: from 49 to 197 theatre companies, from 63 to 160 music ensembles, from 11 to 41 dance companies. This remarkable growth shows Canada's cultural vitality!
These figures, impressive as they are, must not hide the problems facing cultural industries that we must solve in the coming years. Those industries, needless to add, are in a state of under-capitalization and more often than not have no access to economies that would enable them to compete here in Canada even with the major producers of mass culture events.
The basic problem of our culture industries is that they are working in a distorted market where they are structurally unable to compete profitably with global-scale firms already in the field.
The Government must step in to allow Canadians to do business in our own land, just as the others do in their own country. Let me mention here the Musicaction Program established by the Department of Communications three years ago, which did much to put the French and English-speaking segments of the record industry on their feet again.

For its part, the film industry must cope with a number of difficulties. Of course, Governments afford our film and TV production a kind of support that is unequalled in any other country, to the tune of nearly $200 million through the activities of large agencies such as Telefilm Canada, the NFB and the CBC, on the one hand and incentives like the capital cost write-off on the other. But we must do more and come up with a series of steps to solve the problems behind the imbalance in the Canadian distribution market, that is to ensure to Canadian distributors the availability of their own market. Right now, our distributors collect only 10 per cent of the total receipts from movie theatres and home videos, even though in 1984 they distributed 28 of the 29 feature films produced in Canada.
As a last example, nearly 80 per cent of book publishers in Canada are Canadians, and they put out nearly 70 per cent of available publications. However, they can fill no more than 35 per cent of the schoolbook, reference book and general material market. Further, most Canadian publishing houses hardly reach the break even point, and in the best of cases only exceed it by 5 or 10 per cent.
It is important therefore to ensure that Canadian products are offered as efficiently as foreign products are on the market. The strength of this country's identity is at stake. The Government of Canada is conscious of the importance of that matter.
But cultural products must be made before they become available on the market. They constitute the output of creative men and women who play a leading or even decisive role in defining and promoting the Canadian identity. Given today's major communication and information networks, these men and women cannot be left to fend for themselves even though they work alone within their own society. To the extent that this society needs them it must ensure their survival. But do they really manage to live off their art? Let us briefly examine the financial predicament of Canada's professional artists.
Every week our creators devote 35 to 40 hours to their art and have to work at something else 10 to 15 hours to make ends meet. Their artistic endeavours barely enable them to survive in a world where, oftentimes, material wealth is the hallmark of success. Canadian annual income statistics indicate that authors earn $15,200, dancers and choreographers $16,800, visual artists $21,500, actors $24,500, and musicians $25,100. No wonder more than half of Canadian creators, when queried,
The Address-Mr. Masse
look upon their artistic activities more as a calling than as a business or a profession!
That being the case, we have to see to it that public authorities give some kind of priority to defending the interests of artists and creators. We see our own reflection when we look at our artists.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we intend-as the Speech from the Throne puts it-to improve the distribution of Canada's cultural products in broadcasting, film and video, and provide our authors with a system which acknowledges the significance of their contribution to the life of our community.
Broadcasting is the most popular and powerful instrument of our identify. The Government is committed to ensuring a complete range of quality Canadian programs that reflect our reality and are aimed at us. In that respect, we will continue implementing our agenda, which calls for a systematic, determined strengthening of the legislative framework of Canadian culture.
It is that spirit that the Broadcasting Bill will be reintroduced in this House, as well as major legislative initiatives in the areas of filmmaking, museums and archeology.
We also intend to propose the implementation of Phase 2 of the Copyright Act, which we feel essential in every way, an innovative approach to Canadian artists' and creators' living conditions.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian culture is the first expression of our identity. It is also and perhaps foremost above all the contribution of Canadians to humanity's artistic values and heritage.


Mr. Harb:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister's speech with a great deal of interest. He spoke about telecommunications and transmission policy concerning television as well as radio. He then moved on to talk about the educational end of things as well as the arts community in general.
Since we have Crown corporations such as the CBC, the National Arts Centre and the National Research Council, will the Minister agree that rather than cutting funds from these institutions we should be encouraging them and not taking away from them? I was somewhat shocked to learn through the media that the National Arts Centre Orchestra will be privatized. I also heard some discussion about the possibility of passing on the National Arts Centre to the NCC.

The Address-Mr. Masse
I do not know whether the Minister has had time in the past, present, or will have in the future, to sit down to look at this aspect of Canadian culture in terms of what it really means to Canadians. Look at the idea of the arts and how we can use the arts to promote tourism and encourage economic development. When talking about radio and television transmission, consider how they are connected to research and development.
When the Government sits down to have a sober look at what it is doing in the area of culture, will the Minister be working with his colleagues and pushing them to press ahead in areas such as research and development and culture, that is, ensuring that the content of television and radio transmission will focus more on Canadian culture and content?
I think the Government can really take a leadership role when it comes to the arts community. We are in the best position to take that role by maintaining agencies such as the National Arts Centre and by investing more in terms of incentives. If there are difficulties with some of these agencies, I think the best approach is to sit down with management to try to work out the differences rather than to say that we have had enough and it is time now to pass them on to the private sector. If we do pass these agencies on to the private sector and rely solely on the private sector, eventually what we will end up doing, as a Government, is absolutely nothing. We have a leadership role to play. It is important for the private sector to enter into partnership with the federal Government. However, it is also important that the federal Government stay in place as a watch-dog and be there in terms of playing the role of facilitator with these different agencies in order that Canadian culture and unity be promoted. That is what Canada is all about. Will the Minister comment, please?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Many matters were raised that could be debated for days.
Let me say first There is no direct link between the amount of money spent in anyone sector and that sector's success or failure. I referred to the Canadian
film sector. Of all Western countries Canada probably has invested directly in film making the most public money-nearly $200 million. And this probably is the sector where Canadians have the most difficulty seeing Canadian productions. Two hundred million dollars for 26 million Canadians. But in our movie theatres, 97 per cent of films seen by Canadians are foreign. Three per cent only are Canadian films. Despite the fact that three agencies-Telefilm Canada, the NFB and to a degree the CBC-are involved in film production. But at the movie theatre level Canadians derive no benefits from that at all. It is not for lack of public money. Would the problem be solved if we were to throw in another $100 million? Absolutely not! The problem is not a monetary one. It's not a funding problem public funds but rather a set up problem, a structural problem in the set up of our Canadian film industry.
This is the reason why we should be cautions, Mr. Speaker, before we ask the Government to invest more money. Throwing more money into a bad policy will not get the positive result we expect. This is why I believe we must work at two levels. Of course a minimum of public effort is needed. In the next few months I will have an opportunity to show that Canadians are making a tremendous effort by investing in their own identity through their culture. But the problem we have is to organize our market and establish creator-to-customer relations in this country. That is where the problem lies. We need legislative and regulatory measures to encourage our creators, to turn our creators and artists into men and women who are proud of their profession and their activities. We will re-introduce copyright legislation and measures designed to enhance the status of artists. The Government will actively promote creative endeavours.
We must also take action to organize our market and make sure that our publishers are in a position to distribute Canadian books and that school books in Canada are produced by-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Minister to conclude his remarks, please.


Marcel Masse: Well, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion is that the Government must continue to be very active in that field


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the Speech from the Throne as a Member of Parliament from an area that lies between London and Sarnia, Ontario. It is a riding that has four Indian reservations within it. I was very disappointed when I read the Speech from the Throne under the theme "A Caring Nation".
I was disappointed because I did not see one word about our native peoples, those native peoples who are today demonstrating in front of this institution on Parliament Hill. They are demonstrating on behalf of their children who are being deprived of an education at the highest level. Certainly at this time in Canadian history such an education is essential to the future not only of our native peoples but of our nation as a whole. This right cannot be limited by Government. This right cannot be held hostage by the federal deficit, a deficit that is being fought on the backs of the poor, the sick, the disadvantaged and the unemployed. If there is any group which needs help under our Unemployment Insurance Program it is our native people who rely on fishing, tourism and other aspects of life that have been built around the social systems which we have in place in Canada.
We have out in front here today Verna Brown of Oneida, Karen Deleary of Muncey, Candess Bressette of Kettle Point with Laura George, Brian Monague, Tammy George, Ron George and Maynard George. We have in our gallery today Wayne Hill, his wife and their two sons. They are here to protest what is happening to the education of native people. They are here to try to convince this Government that their sons deserve an education, an education that should be available to all Canadians, not just the privileged few of families of the elite.
A couple of days ago the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Valcourt) spoke in this House. He said that he will assist business to adapt to changes in our systems brought about by the Free Trade Agreement. In the last few years we have heard a lot concerning bringing about harmonization of regulations between Canada and the United States. When I look at some of the changes that have taken place in the last couple of years, I am shocked that instead of raising the standard on United States products coming into Canada, we are undermining Canadian standards by allowing sub-stan dard products to come in from the United States. In fact
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
the President of Weston Foods said: "Unlike Canadian products shipped south of the border, items coming into Canada from the United States are not stopped at the border if they do not meet federal guidelines".
The Grocery Products Manufacturers estimate there are nearly 300 improperly labelled products on grocery store shelves in Canada at the present time. This is shocking. We have established Canadian standards of great quality that have served this nation well. They are recognized around the world.
I want to give another example of what is happening. In our Canadian beef industry we have various grades of beef that ensure consumers that when they buy Canada Grade A, it is a youthful carcass with tender meat, a shiny bone texture and a minimum fat cover of not less than four millimetres and not more than 19 millimetres. A certain amount of fat is necessary to ensure good quality beef.
I am shocked to learn that there are about one million pounds a week of ungraded-it is called unrolled beefcoming into Canada, beef that is essentially cow beef. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with cow beef provided you do not mind the toughness and you do not object to chewing on it for a while. This beef is being offered in our stores without any identification, with nothing to tell the consumers that it is inferior quality. It is being blended with the Canadian beef. That is that we as beef producers from Canada have to compete against. From what I understand only one consumer in 10 will complain. Consequently, consumers are being taken to the cleaners. If you have one consumer who complains, you can rest assured there are 10 unhappy consumers who do not tell their friends and associates where they made their purchase.
We have gone into an agreement with the Americans assuring that any imported goods are stamped with a grade that is equivalent to that of what we have here in Canada, not only to protect the interests of the consumers, but to protect the interests of the purchasers here in Canada. After all the talk we have heard about level playing fields, surely the Government has a responsibility to make sure that these products are labelled with a grade equivalent similar to what we have here in Canada.
To sell this beef under the impression that it is something else can only harm the industry and lead to a drop in consumption. I suggest that this is the most important issue facing the beef industry today in Canada. Measures must be brought in to protect the consumer and the industry as a whole.

The Address-Mr. Ferguson
I am further shocked at the emergence of imported products showing up on store shelves that do not conform to our Canadian quality standards. Surely if this Government is going to continue with harmonious relations with the United States, it should insist that U.S. standards be brought up to ours and not ours be brought down to theirs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Ferguson: The next issue I want to speak about very briefly this morning is the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board without consultation with the Canadian Wheat Board or with the producers. In fact, the Minister has broken the Government's own rules for regulatory reform. I fully realize that this code is not enforceable by law, but the citizen's code of regulatory fairness was established in March, 1986, to give the public access to decision-making before the Government makes regulation changes.
I am sure that the Minister will try to convince us that this commodity of oats only accounts for less than 1 per cent of the value of the Canadian Wheat Board sales. He will try to convince us that it is a very minor issue. But the fact is that if oats go out this year, will wheat and barley follow next year and the year after?
I together with the farmers believe that this is true or else the Minister's resignation would not have been called for. I believe it is the Free Trade Agreement that calls for the free trade movement of grains across our borders when levels of subsidies become equal, and that barley and oats will be next to go. Let me tell you that the subsidy level for oats will be at par this year with that of the United States. For wheat and barley, it will be level next year. It is not much wonder that the farmers of western Canada and eastern Canada are upset that barley has been removed from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Their information also points out that barley and wheat will have equal subsidies in both countries within a year to a year and a half. When this happens, the farmers of Canada will lose the most sophisticated marketing system in the world, and will be thrown to the mercy of a few multinational companies and the commodity exchanges that have been rocked by recent scandals and investigations.
Just let me quote from a series of questions asked the Ministers of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. The first question: What will be the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in the marketing and pricing of wheat with the understanding that import and export authority will no longer be within the Wheat Board mandate? They did not get an answer. Second: What Department or under what Minister will the decisions be made regarding the establishment of the North American price for wheat and equalization of subsidies?
The third question: How much authority will the Canadian Grain Commission have in policing the end use certificate policy? End use certificates will not require the grade of wheat to be indicated. This allows the import of low-grade wheat at lower prices than Canadian wheat of top grade or even lower grade because of quality control disparity trading, creating unfair competition. How will this serious problem be resolved? Certificates will not require the grade of wheat.
I spoke just a moment ago of ungraded beef coming into Canada, what it is doing to our markets and what is happening to consumers who purchase this beef. Now we are facing the same situation with wheat. How much authority will be implemented regarding the import of wheat-based products into Canada, or will there be any authority at all implemented? Who in the federal Government will decide what is a subsidy on either side of the border? Will the federal Government establish a direct payment compensation program to address this discriminatory pricing of wheat other than through stabilization? Will the federal Government permit direct producer input in overseeing price determination domestically, or will it in turn take the route it took with the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board? In fact, the Government broke its own rules of the citizens code of regulatory fairness.
Those are the questions that are asked by the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. They had another question that is essential to the continuation of that board. Will the Canadian Wheat Board continue with an initial payment pooling system? If so, how will the initial payment be established? Will the Minister put that in writing?
The wheat producers are asking the Minister to put it in writing because they are not satisfied with the answers so far, if indeed they received any answers at all.


Canadian farmers have a right to know. The Govern ment must respond, if indeed this is a democratic country and if the Minister is interested in the welfare of the producers. Instead, is he only interested in the welfare of a few very large multinational corporations?
All the signs that come from the Government and other sources indicate that the Government is moving to dismantle one of the most sophisticated marketing systems in the world. As further processed products are brought into Canada, many of which are of lower quality and consequently lower priced, Canadian production will have to be cut and food processors will be forced out of business. As the food processors are forced out of business, so will the farmers. Scores are being forced out at this time.
It only takes a few percentage points of surplus to wreck a market and destroy an industry. As the old adage goes, two buyers after one cow means a good market, but one buyer after two cows is a disaster.
I was shocked to see some of the explanations and options being considered by the United States. In fact, in a recent document to the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture and Nutrition, the U.S. Trade Representative laid out the options for negotiating the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board and wheat product licensing requirements, and explained their preference. This document lays out those preferences. It states:
There are several ways in which the question of restrictive Canadian import licensing of wheat and wheat products may be addressed. The first of these has been incorporated into the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The FTA provides that when the level of Government support for wheat in the United States becomes equal to or less than the level of Government support in Canada, Canada shall eliminate any import permit requirements for wheat and wheat products originating in the territory of the United States.
That is what is happening to the Canadian wheat producers. When it happens, the Canadian Wheat Board will be stripped of its powers.
In the last two years, I have had scores of farmers ask me what the Government is doing to our marketing system. The dairy farmers of Lambton and Middlesex Counties and the whole poultry industry are realizing that this cruel big business Government is quite prepared to give away their marketing structures for the sake of making a deal at any cost.
The Address-Mr. Ferguson
There are only three lines concerning agriculture in the Speech from the Throne. It referred to the industry as being a drain on the nation's economy. I am a farmer. At this time of year I always look forward with anticipation and optimism to the spring planting season and the year ahead. I look forward to the creation of new plant life and hopefully a bountiful harvest. I resent being told that I am a drain on the nation's treasury.
The Government has thrown us to the vultures in this whole free market economy. There seems to be a double standard in the Government. It is okay for the huge corporations to exert more power on the market-place, but if Canada's farmers try to maintain a countervailing force in the market-place they are told to become more efficient.
When I return home to my riding every week-end, I am shocked at the number of farmers who are coming to me for financial assistance. In fact, in my colleague's riding of Essex-Kent, there are 200 farmers being forced off the farms through Farm Credit Corporation actions alone.
I am proud to be a farmer. I am proud of the role we play in society. But I cannot understand why any Government would possibly contemplate destroying our systems and our quality standards to become part of the law of the jungle.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on the Throne Speech and the Member's speech. I am pleased that in the Speech from the Throne the Government talked about a strong commitment to a strong economy and recognized the importance of deficit reduction. However, we should not forget that in 1984 our total debt was approximately $200 billion. Now, in 1989, it is $320 billion. Annual interest rates on that debt now consume 31 cents of every dollar of Government revenue, and these payments are putting pressure on the Government's ability to meet other priorities.
Canada has been borrowing money solely to pay the interest from previous borrowings. In order to reverse this trend, expenditures must be reduced and revenue must cover the cost of Government programs.
In the Speech from the Throne the Government talks about tax reform and proposes a new federal sales tax to replace the manufacturers sales tax. This new federal sales tax could be a value added tax, or a tax on consumer goods and services.

The Address-Mr. Littlechild


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but I understood that we were on the five minute question and comment period with respect to the speech which was just made by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson). So far, I have not heard either a question or something that related to comments made by our colleague.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy) does not necessarily have to ask questions, but I am sure, with the experience he has, his comments will relate to the speech by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make a connection with what the Hon. Member was talking about.


Ralph Ferguson: I was talking about beef.


Alex Kindy: This concerns the value added tax and how it affects farmers. I would like to continue.
I would oppose the value added tax for two reasons. First, it would leave less money in the pockets of taxpayers than the present taxation system. Second, it would require additional staff positions to be implemented.
Canadian taxpayers are already over-burdened. In 1984, a study of the value added tax by the United States Department of Treasury estimated that implementation of a value added tax in the United States would require 21,000 staff positions and would cost some $700 million to the United States Treasury. While administrative costs for implementation of a VAT in Canada would be lower, the reduction in cost would not be proportionate to the size of the Canadian economy, since there are clearly economies of scale in establishing and administering a tax system. If costs in Canada are one fifth of those in the United States, implementing a value added tax would require some 4,000 staff positions and some $200 million in public expenditures a year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I must give some time, and the period of questions and comments is over.


Alex Kindy: I would ask the Hon. Member how it would affect farmers if we implemented a value added tax, and what he thinks about it.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am against any value added tax as far as farmers are concerned. We have a very difficult time now adjusting our cash flows. That is another added expense to the farm community.
Perhaps I should point out to the hon. gentlemen, that in 1984, when the Government took office, the national debt was $130 billion. It is now at $320 billion, almost double.
We had just gone through a period of recession and had positive growth since December, 1982. Consequently, that deficit and the national debt should have been brought down, not allowed to escalate. I can point out to him that Government expenditures increased dramatically since that time as well.
Two days ago I tabled two petitions in the House. One was on behalf of the dairy farmers in Lambton-Middlesex in southwestern Ontario to point out to the Government that their systems are in jeopardy and the whole industry is in jeopardy. I tabled a petition for beef producers who are upset about the "no-roll", ungraded United States beef coming into this country. If the agriculture industry in Canada is to survive under this Free Trade Agreement, we must go back to the systems we had in place and that have served this industry for many years. We must ensure that the United States raises their standards to our standards and not tear ours down.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address this House on the Throne Speech. The Throne Speech is a positive plan, a direction for the Thirty-Fourth Parliament. It sets out a plan of objectives and purposes of this Government for the future. This future presents our constituency with its own set of opportunities to participate.
I want to comment on the fundamental objectives in the Throne Speech that present my constituents with both challenges and opportunities. The constituency of Wetaskiwin is very diverse in cultures and economic base, but nevertheless it is very economically active. When I see objectives like building a strong economy, preserving Canada's environment, maintaining a caring, compassionate society, fostering a confident sense of Canada's cultural and national uniqueness, I welcome the opportunity for my constituents to share and participate in the constructive direction of our second mandate.
I want to review each major component of the Throne Speech in retrospect by recalling incidents during the election campaign. With respect to the economy, there were many times when I knocked on doors to find constituents very concerned about the deficit. We have since received calls and letters, as I am sure all my colleagues in the House have, from constituents who say or write: "please do something to reduce the deficit".

With regard to preserving Canada's environment, during the first two or three weeks of my campaign, the number one issue in my constituency was the environment. As we moved to the second half of the campaign, freer trade became the issue.
It is with gratitude that I listened to the Throne Speech, because the most important concerns of my constituency, the economy and the environment, are being addressed by this Government as priorities.
The constituency of Wetaskiwin has some of the most caring and compassionate people in the nation. The family, including children and the elderly, are the strength and base of our communities. Communities like Leduc, Ponoka, Lacombe or Wetaskiwin, communities whether they be urban or rural, agricultural or energy based, all have this same quality of caring and compassion.
In like fashion, Wetaskiwin has the richness of multicultural heritage. My constituency has as diverse a culture as anywhere in the country. The valuable contributions of the German, Swedish, Oriental, Philippine, French and others are evident from one end of the riding to the other. I am proud to say this is possible by working together with the aboriginal people, my people, in Hobbema.
As I listened to the Throne Speech, I was encouraged as I could hear how this Government was planning to involve my constituents in the constructive development of our nation because of its commitment to national unity.
Let me go back for a moment to address some specifics. Shortly after the election, a constituent, Mr. Hitchcock, wrote to me and expressed concerns about the environment. He did so in a manner to remind me of what one of my forebearers said in 1854:
The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors.
If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred and you must teach your children that it is sacred- The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst-The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath -the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath -
The Address-Mr. Littlechild
This we know. The earth does not belong to man: man belongs to the earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected.
Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life. He is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself-
The white man too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all the other tribes. Continue to contaminate your beds, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.
These were very prophetic words. I need not mention the Brundtland Commission's reference to native people as being some of the best environmental protectors in the world. That leads me to another aspect of the Throne Speech.
I want to commend the Prime Minister on the inclusion of aboriginal people in the Throne Speech, as we set out on a positive direction for the next few years. I want to refer to the future constitutional development including aboriginal rights. I quote from the Throne Speech:
My Government is concerned that our native peoples participate fully in Canada's economic development prospects and, to this end, will be extending its programs to assist native economic development.
I welcome this, as one who has constituents among the Four Nations of Hobbema, and look forward to both objectives and to taking advantage of opportunities under the Free Trade Agreement. It has long been my personal belief that education and economic development opportunities for my people are the key essentials to meaningful involvement in our nation. It is only with these tools and skills that we can participate and contribute fully as self-reliant Indian Governments.
I want to compliment our Government's initiative to renew its fight against drug abuse. We have seen its devastation in some communities, and I am encouraged by this commitment as I believe preventative programs for young people.
Another initiative I wish to recognize, because of numerous constituents confiding in me during the campaign, is that of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Program. I welcome on behalf of my constituents these changes, especially as more resources will be directed toward active training. To quote again from the Throne Speech:

5. ft 31
The increasing participation of women in the workforce underlines the need for initiatives that promote equality of opportunity in Canada's economic life.
This will now happen. A recent contribution to the Wetaskiwin and District Chamber of Commerce provides a concrete example. They will be training women, who have been out of work, for job re-entry so they can become participants during this second mandate and beyond. There will be greater opportunities for productive and rewarding experience in the workforce. The Wetaskiwin PALS, a Program for Adult Literacy Skills, is encouraged by the literacy initiatives mentioned in the Throne Speech.
There are many more opportunities to which I can make reference. We realize there are also many challenges that face us in the coming years. We have made commitments to a more competitive economy; a human resources development strategy; a commitment to sustainable development; maintaining our social programs; fostering our national identity; a strong action to reduce the deficit; and a constructive approach in our environmental international relations. We welcome these challenges and endorse the plan of objectives as outlined in the Throne Speech because we see a brighter future for Wetaskiwin.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The National Energy Board has to decide on a proposal to export nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas, about 10 per cent of our total supply. The proposal could mean that future generations of Canadians will be deprived of nine million millions cubic feet of gas. We would remain "hewers of wood and drawers of water".
It is unfortunate that this Government seems uninterested in our future needs. It should at least direct the National Energy Board to make approval contingent upon the condition that exported gas would replace and not add to oil or coal burning. Natural gas pollutes less than oil or coal. Therefore, it contributes less to global climate warming.
The proposal before the NEB should not be examined as a request for export in isolation from our long-term interests, but rather in the context of an energy strategy
for Canada with the reduction of global climate warming as a goal.
Unfortunately, this Government is not interested in long-term energy policy, climate warming and the needs of future generations.



VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday will begin the National Volunteer Week, during which we should reflect on the tremendous efforts made by the Canadian volunteers to improve our life.
I am very pleased to honour the volunteers in my constituency, especially the people working at the Volunteer Action Center in Orleans and the Help Center 23, as well as all the volunteers helping the chronic and mentally handicapped patients at the Saint-Augustin and Robert-Giffard Hospitals.
In Canada, the economic value of volunteer work is estimated at some $4 billion, which I hope you realize is an outstanding amount! But the true value of these people's work cannot be measured in economic terms. Instead, we are talking here of some irreplaceable efforts made by millions of Canadians who make a point of improving the quality of life in Canada and to build a more human and friendly world.
Mr. Speaker, the National Volunteer Week gives us the opportunity to recognize the wonderful work of Canadian volunteers and the profound influence they have on our society.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture, at the request of the food industry, has prepared an information kit designed to link up food processors, producers and distributors with food banks in Canada.
This move indicates that the Government's view of food banks is as a formal and institutionalized component to Canadian social services. It also indicates that the Government is anticipating an increased demand for

food banks because of such policies as the restructuring of the Unemployment Insurance Program.
We are seeing the abrogation of the Government's responsibility to provide jobs and a decent standard of living for Canadians by further relying on the private sector to do a job that rightly belongs to government.
The Government should be putting its resources into programs that will eradicate the need for food banks. Instead, the Government appears to be acknowledging that food banks are an appropriate remedy for its inaction and inability to get Canadians working.
I call on the Government to find ways to end the need for food banks, rather than to look at ways of making them a permanent feature of Canadian life.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, there was more killing and bloodshed in the occupied West Bank yesterday.
Surely it is high time for Israel's friends to tell her, in no uncertain terms, that the continual murdering of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli military is cruel, intolerable, and must stop.



ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) will be aware that Canada has over 100 Native Friendship Centres.
Their primary objective is to improve the quality of life for aboriginal peoples in an urban environment.
The Minister will also be aware that, following the recommendations of a 1988 study, the federal Cabinet, prior to the 1988 federal election, decided to renew the Friendship Centre Program on a permanent basis.
The Government is now in the process of reviewing all program expenditures with a view to budget cuts.
In light of the capping on post-secondary funding for natives, concerns have been raised as to whether or not the funding for these centres might fall prey to the same type of action.
In the event of any reduction in this program, the Minister should know that for every dollar cut by the Government the centres will lose three times that in funds received from other sources to support these centres.
Cuts or reductions in support will affect not only the centres themselves, but the economy of the surrounding communities.
I call upon the Minister to reassure the House that there will be no cuts or reductions of the Friendship Centre Program in the April 27 Budget.




Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address myself to the native students who are presently on a hunger strike on the issue of the new post-secondary assistance program.
These students should discontinue their hunger strike and meet with the Minister, as he has suggested.
The students are asking for a delay in the implementation of policy, and bilateral negotiations. The Minister has stated that the policy will not be implemented until September, providing time for the discussions that the Minister has begun. He has also emphasized his interest in the presence of student representatives at that table. I feel that the position of the Minister is reasonable and conciliatory.
I know that all Canadians agree that discussions, negotiations, and even demonstrations are legitimate exercises in a democratic society. Hunger strikes and other forms of coercion are not.



THE LATE ABBIE HOFFMAN

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the death of Abbie Hoffman, notorious anti-war protester, one of the Chicago Seven, and a leader of that heterogeneous but nevertheless united phenomenon called the counter-culture.
Those of us who were affected, indeed inspired at times by the various philosophical critiques of modern society offered by the counter-culture, and by the creative irreverence and questioning of authority of leaders like Hoffman, may have grown to see that the world is a more complicated reality than we thought, and that even counter-cultures are fraught with pitfalls.

However, I believe there are many in Canada and in the United States who are still living out their opposition to establishment values in their work in the church, in community-based organizations, in development and peace groups, in trade unions, in politics, in education, and in the environmental movement.
We have not forgotten, or closed our eyes to the heart of darkness that lies at the center of a civilization willing to destroy and/or poison the earth, to starve children in order to pay the banks, or to send the young off to be killed in wars to protect the business interests of the corporate elite. We may be more mature now, whatever that means, but we will overcome. Wait for it.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, this year, the National Citizenship Week will be held from April 16 to 23.
What better opportunity than to reflect on the tremendous privilege that is ours of living and prospering with complete freedom in our great and beautiful country, a country rich in unique natural, cultural, and human resources.
During the National Citizenship Week, let's not forget to thank and honour the men and women who have built Canada, as well as all the others who keep working hard to make our country a better place to live for our children and grandchildren.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the House to a clear case of human rights violation and ask the Canadian Government to urge the authorities concerned to stop such violations.
I refer to the case of Mr. Remi Gahutu, President of the Palipehutu, who is the main Leader of the Hutu Opposition in exile and is currently the victim of harassment from the Government in power in Burundi.
We have been advised that the Burundian intelligence services are hunting down refugees abroad, especially in Tanzania, offering bounties and bribes to whoever will persecute them. It is not the first time that Mr. Remi Gahutu is thus subjected to arbitrary arrests and harassment by local Mpanda officials on behalf of the Burundian Government.
I ask therefore the Canadian Government to contact without delay the authorities in Dar-Es-Salaam and insist that they leave Mr. Gahutu and his supporters alone and respect their human rights.



GLOBAL POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of colleagues in the House some interesting activities, both past and future, of the international Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development.
Last April the Global Committee co-sponsored, together with the Temple of Understanding, which is an inter-faith group based in New York, the Oxford Forum of Parliamentarians and spiritual leaders on global survival. This forum was held in Oxford, England, and it was so successful that, in January, 1990, the U.S.S.R. will sponsor a similar meeting in Moscow which will be hosted by an interesting group of three, namely, the Supreme Soviet, the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Orthodox Church, to discuss those issues affecting global survival.
There will also be a meeting in Quito, Ecuador, in March, 1990, in which Parliamentarians from the western hemisphere will participate in discussions dealing with the issues of the environment and how that affects population and development.
Of special interest to colleagues in the House, in June, 1989, there will be a seminar on the Hill in Room 200. There will be a dinner and a meeting in the evening where issues of population and development will be discussed.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: In a few weeks, Mr. Speaker, the Committee for the economic recovery and employment in South Western Montreal will make public its report on the economic crisis which is now raging in the South Western part of the island.
For a number of years, the industrial base in that area has been deteriorating, with the result that thousands of Montrealers have lost their jobs. This drain must stop.
It is essential first of all to keep the jobs we have, create new ones, foster economic development, implement without delay re-adjustment programs for workers and make sure that the three levels of Government combine their effort to come up with a true industrial policy for that area.
Therefore, I strongly support the CREESOM initiative and the action of such organization as the Association Urgence Sud-Ouest, PEP, as well as the many South-West community groups and unions organizations whose common pupose is to make our elected representatives, the contractors and public generally more aware of challenges to come.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, vast investments in fossil fuels ignore the terrible potential consequences of the greenhouse effect. The energy sources of the future must be renewable and non-polluting. To trivialize wind power or solar power, as the Minister of Energy (Mr. Epp) did yesterday in order to justify heavy cuts in alternative energy research is to fail to provide the type of leadership that the country needs.
The discovery of cold hydrogen fusion, if confirmed, places every nation with electrical power and water and a commitment to research and development on the same
starting line. With the potential development of a revolutionary technology it is no overstatement to say that it could prolong the very existence of the earth.
It is a real commitment to research and development that Canada lacks. I have asked the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Winegard) to begin consultations so that Canada can be ready when the race begins for the development of practical fusion technology. I now ask when will the Minister answer, and what will he answer? Will he resort to the trivializing ignorance of his colleague in energy or will he show the foresight that science requires but which is so politically rare?
Shall Canadian creativity at last be unleashed? Or will we be in the grandstand watching the race for a place in creating a sustainable economic future for mankind? Our scientists, our industry, our workers, and our nation await an answer.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Parkdale-High Park, and in every other city in Canada that has an apartment building with a superintendent couple, women are being treated as second-class citizens.
Mrs. Alma Weaver signed a contract with Cadillac-Fairview guaranteeing that she would do the work as specified in the contract and that she would not take a job outside the home. Although she works side by side with her husband, she was not paid a salary. Therefore she was unable to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, or the company pension.
The largest and fastest growing group of people who live under the poverty line is made up of single, widowed and divorced women over the age of 65. If Mrs. Weaver were to lose her husband in any circumstance she would be forced to join this group, because the owners of the building were allowed to hire two people and pay benefits and salary to only one.
What protection has the Minister of Employment provided in her UI changes for the protection of thousands of women like Alma Weaver who is the urban version of the farm wife?

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Thrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister but in his absence perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister would address himself to it.
This week we finally saw the ugly side of members of the Conservative Cabinet. They have broken their election promises, what the Minister of Finance called commitments. They have misled the country. They have been complete hypocrites on serious constitutional issues. They are playing tough guys with a group of students who are lying ill on a hunger strike. They have launched a savage attack on the unemployed of the country.
Their harsh agenda is no longer hidden. Canadians are finally seeing the real Tory Party.
Since the Prime Minister refuses to tell us whether he authorized the Minister for International Trade to tell the people of Newfoundland and the people of Canada that there would be no changes to the unemployment insurance scheme, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister authorized the Minister of Employment to raise benefits for the unemployed just six days before the last general election?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been spreading all sorts of information around this week which bears no resemblance to reality.
First, the announcement during the election was the normal annual announcement made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission which relates premiums to average industrial earnings. That was the announcement that was made last November, as it is made every November, and as it will be made next November.
The program that we have announced involves a reallocation of $1.29 billion for the benefit of the unemployed. It is an approach that was advocated by a committee of this House which presented a unanimous report whose authors included Members from the opposite side of the House who suggested to the Govern
ment that we should extend the training benefits and the active uses of unemployment insurance.
When will the Hon. Member stick to the facts and the history?


CONTRIBUTIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, last November's announcement was authorized and even made by the Minister. The Government has just shown all the electoral cynicism it displayed on the subject of unemployment insurance benefits. I would like to know whether the Government will also show the same cynicism regarding premiums-yesterday, it was benefits; today, it is premiums-paid into the unemployment insurance fund by workers in our country? On November 15, the same day, the Conservative Government reduced by 17 per cent the unemployment insurance premiums that employers and employees have to pay in Canada. In effect, that corresponds to a tax reduction which can amount to $184 on the premiums paid for all Canadian workers.
Can the Minister give us the assurance that no change will be made to these premiums, which were reduced in November, in the Finance Minister's Budget?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is the Leader of the Liberal Party who is cynical because in the debate in 1984, he said: "We must maintain our unemployment insurance systems. They must be converted to some extent into training and retraining. We must update our concepts."


John Napier Turner: As I said last time, the Minister has to read the whole quotation. I said that it must never be done on the backs of the unemployed and that training must be the responsibility of employers or the Canadian Government, depending on its income. That was the question.


PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister since obviously the Minister does not choose to respond to questions. She comes up with a line.

I know that the Minister of Finance will not customarily reveal his budget posture. However, the Prime Minister allowed the Minister of Employment to cut premiums paid by working Canadians on unemployment insurance, premiums paid by the employers and the employees, during the election campaign, by 17 per cent. The Minister does not appear ready to honour that commitment in this House. The Minister of Finance will not reveal, obviously, what he wants to say in the Budget. But the Tory Government cut those premiums paid by workers by 17 per cent six days before the election.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister guarantee us and Canadians that at least this election commitment will be kept by the Minister of Finance?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, knows full well what the formula is for the premium structure in unemployment insurance and that an independent commission has a mandate to establish the premiums. They have been doing that every year, Mr. Speaker, going back into the mists of time. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that any changes to funding, any kind of funding, come in a budget, but the legitimate changes that were made last fall were made by an independent unemployment insurance commission, just as they have been done through years and years of unemployment insurance.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs on the unfair practices of the Government with respect to native post-secondary education. Last night I met with several chiefs from the riding of Kenora- Rainy River. People have come from across Canada to support native students who are in their twenty-fourth day of fasting. Can the Minister tell me how I can explain to those Chiefs who have travelled great distances to Ottawa what he means by his words:
There is no need for them to continue in this dangerous and essentially undemocratic undertaking.
Oral Questions
How can the Minister say this when nothing has been resolved? Why, Mr. Speaker, do people in this country have to go to extremes to get their message across to this Government?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to all Members of this House, to all Canadians and particularly to the native students that are involved in the hunger strike, that they do not have to resort to a hunger strike to have meetings with me. My hon. friend may have met with some Chiefs last night, Mr. Speaker. I have met with Chiefs also. I have met twice with Grand Chief Erasmus and a representation of 12 or 13 other Chiefs from across Canada. We have discussed this issue. Unfortunately there is no resolution to date because their demand is unreasonable.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre H. Cadieux: All I am asking is that they do put an end to the hunger strike, that they sit down with me and discuss this policy which I am prepared to discuss with them, this policy that they themselves find unreasonable. First Nations find Circular E-12, which is the old policy, to be unacceptable and totally inconsistent with the principle of First Nations' jurisdiction over education. We agree, Mr. Speaker. We have got new guidelines that are more generous, and I am prepared to look into them again. If they can improve, we will certainly look into it.


BILATERAL PROCESS
Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the same Minister. We have sat here in the last few weeks and listened to this rhetoric over and over again. I would like to ask the Minister today to give us a hand and commit himself to begin a bilateral process with the Indian people, without restrictions on time and demonstrate respect on behalf of all the people in this House to the native peoples and First Nations of our country.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, who is getting entangled in which rhetoric. If the Hon. Member, and the others who are yelling across the floor, have been listening to what I have said, I have already indicated that I am prepared to sit down and discuss the new guidelines. In my mind bilateral means that there will be representatives of my Department and/or myself and representatives of the native students and/or the Chiefs obviously. That is bilateral. That is

Oral Questions
what I have been saying, and that is to what I am committed. As soon as the students put an end to their hunger strike, come and meet with me. My door is open.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OF MEETING
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: My
question is also to the Minister of Indian Affairs. As we have heard, Mr. Speaker, this is the twenty-fourth day of a fast by 16 young Canadians. I trust that I speak for all Canadians when I say that this is a situation that cries out for resolution. Would the Minister confirm that, upon receiving notification that the fast has ended, he will initiate a substantive and effective bilateral process of consultation and ensure that this process includes recognized representatives of both the Indian leadership of this country and of the students, confirm that there is no predetermined cap on future funding and that it is his intention to seek such funding within the budgetary framework as required to meet the demand? Will he include an effective mechanism to address the treaty applications of this issue within the bilateral process and ensure that during the interim period no individual Indian students will be worse off than they would have been under the old guidelines?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member, for his question which I think was a very reasonable one. I have already indicated from the very start of this unfortunate hunger strike that I was ready to discuss the new policy. I agree with First Nations when they say that the E-12 document, the old policy, obstructs rather than facilitates post-secondary education for First Nation students. We have brought in a better policy. If it can be improved, let us sit down like reasonable people and discuss it. I am prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond John Funk: thank the Minister for his response, but I was wondering did the points which I in fact outlined represent his position? If they do, do they also represent the position of the Government?


Pierre H. Cadieux: My understanding of government operation, Mr. Speaker, is that when a Minister puts down a policy, it is the position of the Government. Therefore, yes, the policy that is there now since April 1, and that will take effect on September 1, is a better policy. But I am prepared to review it.
I have another document, Mr. Speaker, which is the analysis of our policy prepared by the students, and they say, "the new rates proposed in March are higher than those available under the old E-12 post-secondary policy and guidelines".
It is already better, Mr. Speaker. If we can improve on it, let us do it under normal circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S UNDERTAKING
Raymond John Funk: As a
further supplementary, I am sure we welcome the intention of the Minister to improve the situation. I would like to ask him again-do the points that I outline accurately represent his thinking on this issue?


Pierre H. Cadieux: If the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, is referring to my undertaking to sit down with the students themselves once they put an end to their hunger strike, and/or representatives of native people including Chiefs, I am prepared to sit down and meet with them once the hunger strike is over. Yes, Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S MEETING WITH SENIOR EDUCATORS
Douglas Fee: My question, Mr. Speaker, is also for the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was reported last night that he met with two senior educators from northern Ontario at their request in an attempt to end this hunger strike by native students. Inasmuch as a demonstration by natives is currently in progress, I am wondering if the Minister can report to this House on the progress of that meeting last night?


An Hon. Member:: He did if you would listen.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I will obviously thank this Hon. Member for his question also which I think is a very reasonable request. If my friends from across the floor really listened to what I said, they would have realized that I referred to meetings with the Chiefs and the Grand Chiefs, not with these two representatives of the universities in Thunder Bay where I am informed, Mr. Speaker, most of the hunger strikers come from. I have met with them and they are as concerned as I am with the process that is being followed in this particular instance which is a hunger strike, and they agree with me that it should end and that we should sit down and discuss the issue, Mr. Speaker.
i


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister for Employment. Under the existing Unemployment Insurance Program, the legislation assures that the Unemployment Insurance Fund, that is unemployment insurance money, will go to unemployed workers in the regions where they live, very often the regions with the highest unemployment. Under her new proposals, what will she do as Minister to assure that the $800 million redirected to training and human resource planning will go to these same individuals, the unemployed in Canada, in the provinces where they live? Will she put this requirement in the law as it now is, or will this targeting be left to the discretion of the Minister, which means the money could end up very often in the high growth areas of the country rather than go to the underdeveloped areas of the country?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me point out, for example, that the money going into Newfoundland as a region will be higher under this program than it is under the old program.
The training under unemployment insurance is voluntary. We are not forcing people to take training. We are saying that we will provide accessibility to training under this program, which people will want to take. We will do it under the Community Futures Program which benefits the high unemployment regions in this country, as we have been doing under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The funds will be directed to those who have the greatest need.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, she is taking $800 million out of the fund and redirecting it to matters that are not purely protection for the unemployed. There is no assurance that that $800 million will go back to the provinces and the people who need it most.
Oral Questions


WHITE PAPER-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister states in her White Paper that a Bill will be introduced in the spring of 1989. We are now in the spring and I presume she will introduce the Bill quickly. She also says there will be major consultation between the Government, business, labour, education and the provinces, but she says nothing about Parliamentarians who must make a decision on this matter.
Will she agree to refer the White Paper she has produced this week to the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration as quickly as possible early next week, with a mandate to have a wide range of hearings across the country on this important matter that touches all Canadians?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, when we provide so much better training for Canadians and better benefits for workers, I am sure the Hon. Member would like to see the legislation and discuss this when he has all the information in front of him-


William Warren Allmand: No, right now. Before the legislation.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -that makes some sense for the way Parliament works.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN BLACK COMMUNITY-EFFECT OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the changes she has announced for the Unemployment Insurance Program. The Minister will agree that visible minority groups such as our native and black communities suffer disproportionately the burden of unemployment. In my constituency the rate of unemployment in the black community is often eight times the normal regional rate. Will the Minister not agree that her changes will hit hardest those communities, forcing them on to the welfare rolls, and will cause further ghettoization of these groups in our society?


Barbara Jean McDougall: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what will happen. If the Hon. Member looks at the Canadian Jobs Strategy he will see, for example, that our job training planning since 1985 has been directed specifically at doubly disadvantaged groups, at groups like visible minorities, the disabled and others who have particular needs. We will continue to do that under the new scheme.

Oral Questions


Ronald MacDonald: I thank the Minister, but those assurances do not put bread on the table of the groups affected the most, the minority groups in this country.


EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS-REQUEST FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STIPULATION
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the documents tabled on Tuesday the Minister slashed benefits and indicated that more moneys would go to training programs. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that she will attach an affirmative action provision to the spending of these funds to ensure that those minority groups who will be devastated by these unfair changes will be given priority consideration, or will she continue to show callousness in the treatment of these minority groups?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe anyone in this Government can be accused of callousness towards minority groups-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Canadian Jobs Strategy provides exactly what the Member is asking for. Let me say as well that we have a very large program for social assistance recipients. If the provinces co-operate we will have $200 million more available for social assistance recipients. I would expect, as under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, that those are the people most in need. Many of them are visible minorities. Many of them are single mothers who are also doubly disadvantaged. We are targeting this directly, with an additional $200 million to make it an $800 million program, to groups with particular needs.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The newspaper Le Devoir revealed this morning that the Government is planning to withdraw from funding unemployment insurance. Another official quoted said that regional contributions would disappear. This means that every employee and every employer will have to pay 15 per cent more in contributions. Is it fair to pay more for less benefits?


Barbara Jean McDougall: First, Mr. Speaker, I am a little tired of hearing from the NDP about fewer benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I guess you are.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The size of this program remains the same.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Let somebody else answer the questions, then.


William Warren Allmand: It is only 11.30.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the House would want to hear the answer from the Minister.


John Napier Turner: Democracy is really boring, isn't it, Barbara?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The size of the program remains the same. We are doing something that has been done before under previous administrations. We are altering the balance between the benefits for income support and the benefits for training, which get people off the need for permanent income support. It gives them a better chance at the future.
I should also point out that, as the Hon. Member knows, anything that has appeared on funding is speculation and straight buzz. Anything having to do with funding concerns the Budget and concerns the mandate of the Commission.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I feel for the tiredness of the Minister, but I feel a lot more for the people throughout the country who are going to be hurt by what she is doing.


An Hon. Member:: Save it for the convention.


HARMONIZATION WITH UNITED STATES QUERY-MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister think she is justified in taking money from the pocket of every taxpayer in this country through increased contributions, in decreasing the amount unemployed people will get and at the same time setting up a situation in which people who are paying for an insurance program must pay more? How can she justify that? Is it simply a question of harmonization with the United States?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's Leader started into this nonsense about harmonization yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me say that the only things we are trying to harmonize are Canadian workers and Canadian skills with Canadian jobs and opportunities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me point out the facts. In Canada we devote 2.24 per cent of Gross Domestic Product to unemployment insurance. The size of the Unemployment Insurance Program remains the same. That compares with 0.83 per cent of GDP in the United States. We spend more in this country, and that will continue.
Let me say more about the selective statistics on harmonization used yesterday by the Leader of his Party who picked five States in the United States that provide unemployment insurance benefits, none of which are equivalent to ours in any way at all. They do not include maternity benefits and parental benefits. My knowledge of the U.S. system began when I looked up a response to this ridiculous statement about harmonization.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to ask the Minister what action he is taking as a result of the previously secret document on meat hygiene revealed yesterday. This report is a startling document. It suggests that 2.5 million Canadians become ill each year, several hundred die, and losses to the Canadian economy in terms of wages, health care costs and human suffering are over $1 billion. I want to ask the Minister what action he is planning to take as a result of this document?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this food advisory safety committee was structured in 1986. It was made up of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, consumer groups, unions and members of the industrial sector to look at safety standards, risks associated with the handling of food, and the inspection program.
Oral Questions
If the Member wants to refer to the report, perhaps he might want to look at its conclusions. The report concludes that the observation of the committee was that the meat hygiene program is detecting the problems and adequately giving assurance that wholesome meat supply is reaching the Canadian public. It went on to say that there remains a great deal to be done in the area of food-borne disease incidents in Canada, which is not within the mandate of the hygiene program, especially as it relates to the handling of the product at home and in the food preparation area. It said the spread of many food-borne diseases may be prevented by proper cooking and handling of foods.
The conclusion of the advisory committee regarding the hygiene inspection division is that wholesome meat is reaching the Canadian public.


SALMONELLA INFECTION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Of the 14 diseases covered in this report, which was secret until yesterday, I want to ask the Minister about the problem of salmonella infection. The report suggests that half of those people suffering from salmonellosis, some 313,000, are due to the meat inspection regime in this country. The losses involve almost $400 million, and some 300 deaths occur. The report makes recommendations about what should be done about salmonella infection in this country with regard to meat inspection.
With regard to this one disease, can the Minister say he has implemented the recommendations of the report?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to repeat again the findings of the advisory committee. The committee said, and I quote: "Agriculture Canada is ensuring that wholesome meat is reaching the Canadian public". For the Hon. Member to stand up and sensationalize and dramatize this issue not based on facts, based on misinterpretation and erroneous conclusions, is an unfortunate situation. It does not do a great service to the agricultural industry.
With respect to salmonella, three years ago Agriculture Canada and Health and Welfare created a co-ordinating committee to look at critical points such as processing plants, hatcheries and feed mills where contamination could occur. The committee looked at ways and means of reducing the opportunity for this to happen. An action plan was implemented. As the Auditor General said in his report, 95 per cent of the action plan has been completed. There have been increased inspections. The Auditor General pointed out he was impressed by the dedication of the Food Production and

Oral Questions
Inspection Branch management and the inspection staff and the high regard in which the branch is held internationally. That should give the Hon. Member confidence. I am sure it gives Canadians confidence as well.


USE OF DRUGS BY ATHLETES-UNITED STATES-SOVIET UNION AGREEMENT
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. The United States and the Soviet Union recently entered into an agreement allowing for the testing of each other's athletes for illegal performance-enhancing drugs. The United States Olympic Committee stated they expect other countries to join.
I want to ask the Minister if he believes that Canada should become a participant, and if so, when can we expect an official announcement.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas on his election and his appointment as associate critic for fitness and amateur sport.
The issue of doping is extremely important in Canada. It was important for this Government in 1985 when we brought in the first policy, one of the most severe domestic policies in the world, in the area of anti-doping. In 1987 the Government brought forward an anti-doping strategy under the leadership of the then Minister of Health and Welfare that affords a multi-dimensional approach. In June of 1988 we had the first international anti-doping conference in this country due to the leadership of my predecessor. We have played a leadership role in the world. We intend to pursue that leadership role. We will look closely at any association we can enter into that will help Canada and this Government fight doping in this country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I am neither the critic nor associate critic. I am a co-critic.
In a recent poll, 87 per cent indicated support for frequent and surprise random drug testing and for Canadian amateur athletes, especially before an international competition. Given the results of this survey, I want to ask the Minister if he will act immediately and announce Canada's willingness to join this program?


Jean J. Charest: I am a
little intrigued. When the Member for Stormont-Dundas and his colleague are together, does that make them co-co's?
There is now a commission of inquiry looking into the issue of doping in sports. The terms of reference are very large. As far as the Government is concerned the inquiry is proceeding in a good way. We anticipate there will be recommendations coming out of the inquiry. In the meantime, the Government of Canada intends to maintain its leadership role in its fight against anti-doping in sport, and we will look into any agreement or any action we can put forward to help us in this fight.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton -Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The bank rate rose by some ten bases points yesterday. Real interest rates are at the same level as they were in 1981 when this country went into a recession from which many Canadians have not yet recovered. I want the Minister of Finance to explain why he is stubbornly insisting on repeating the Liberal mistakes of 1981 and 1982? Why has he not urged the Bank of Canada to bring down interest rates in this country in order to avert and avoid another recession? Why is he acting like Allan MacEa-chen?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are doing precisely the opposite of what the Hon. Member is saying we are doing. We are not repeating the same mistakes. The previous mistakes were made in the 1970s when inflation was allowed to get out of control. That led to the problems we ran into in the early 1980s.

The Hon. Member is asking me to ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada to print more money when today we are reminded that inflation is running at high levels. We must ensure we stop inflation from getting out of hand. If we allow it to get out of hand by printing more money, then yes, we will have the same problem we had in 1981 and 1982.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In 1981, the Minister of Finance, who was then in opposition, said a high interest rate policy would provoke a recession in this country. Now he is nothing more than the clone of Allan MacEachen.


INTEREST RATE INCREASE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the provincial premiers, including that friend of the Government of Canada, Robert Bourassa, called for lower interest rates in Canada. And yesterday, the Canadian Catholic bishops asked for exactly the same thing. My question is: Can the Minister now explain to the House why he does not listen to the provincial premiers, why he does not listen to the bishops of Canada, and could he now explain how high he intends to let interest rates rise before acting for the Canadian people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do listen to the Premiers. I do listen to the Catholic Bishops. I will listen to the advice of anybody who cares to provide me with advice. However, at the end of the road we must decide how to take that advice and how to use that advice. All the advice that is coming to us from those particular quarters can only be interpreted as saying "print more money".
Printing more money will not solve the inflation problem. It will compound the inflation problem. Compounding the inflation problem will lead to higher interest rates. Higher interest rates will lead to the problems that we ran into in 1981 and 1982, and then the high levels of unemployment and the serious recession that we had at that time. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, before the week ends I want to put a
Oral Questions
question to the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Minister can sense, as we all can, that the tensions are rising among our Indian peoples. The Minister has proved that he can be a hard-nosed negotiator.
I want to suggest to the Minister that it is not a crime for native students to protest the policy that, in their view, and in our view, prejudices post-secondary education for the aboriginal peoples. The Minister is not dealing with criminals or terrorists, but he is dealing with young students.
I wonder if the Minister could not make a little more effort to find a formula that will allow him to sit down with those students before this situation escalates even more?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his very serious question.
I want to repeat what the Hon. Member said a few minutes ago in a comment that was made during the answer of one of my colleagues. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said "democracy is boring".
It might be boring, Mr. Speaker, but it works. I believe in democracy. We have a policy that is in place right now. It has been in force since April 1, effective in reality September 1.
As I have been from the outset, I am prepared to sit down with the students, in normal circumstances, and go over the policy. I am also prepared to do that with the Right Hon. Member, if he wishes, with other Members of the House, and with other representatives of the native population. I am prepared to sit down and talk, in normal circumstances, with the students in particular.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEEK FORMULA TO BEGIN DISCUSSIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do object, parenthetically, to the Minister taking that remark out of context. It was in response to a remark made by the Minister of Employment who said "I am tired of the NDP". I shouted to her: "Democracy is boring, isn't it, Barbara?" That was the context in which I made the remark.
I believe in democracy as does anybody in the House.

Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That was a bit of a cheap shot taking that remark out of context.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: All the students want is the Minister to accept the moratorium so that bilateral discussions can begin with them. I find that a reasonable proposition, and I hope the Minister would.
I hope that over the weekend the Minister can find some formula to resolve this matter and begin discussions with the students and with the representatives of the Indian nations.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, perhaps contrary to other Members in the House, particularly those on the other side, if it was a cheap shot, I apologize.
If the Hon. Member really believes in democracy', he will join with me and urge those students to put an end to that hunger strike and then we will discuss.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier this morning of yet another ecological incident which supposedly happened in the Shawinigan are, at Goodrich?
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us what measures his Department intends to take with regard to this situation?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer on behalf of the Minister. I thank the Hon. Member for Terrebonne who has brought this matter to our attention.
Indeed, an incident was reported to us yesterday by the B.F. Goodrich Company. A harmful substance, which is a regulated substance, has escaped as a result of a faulty check well. It was immediately reported, and the Minister has dispatched someone to the scene to give technical advice and to make an assessment.
No injuries were reported. The gas is dispersed into the atmosphere. The company is required, within 20 days, to give us a full report, which includes any remedial action to make certain that such an accident will never occur again on this particular site.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last Wednesday, in response to one question, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appeared to have said that things with the Atlantic fisheries were not so bad and that the matter would resolve itself.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned. Is the Minister telling us that the market forces will eventually succeed to settle the problem? Is he saying that now the fate of the fishermen, the plant workers, and of the communities along the cost is left entirely to the market forces?
Is he, in fact, saying, Mr. Speaker, that we don't need extraordinary measures to settle this matter?

Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Beausejour on his designation as the lead spokesperson for fisheries on the part of the Official Opposition.
It is important that all Members of the House understand that there is indeed a serious shortage of fish stocks in Atlantic Canada this year for a variety of reasons. Coupled with depressed prices in the past year in particular this has led to some serious problems in communities in the various regions of Atlantic Canada.
That is why we have taken a number of initiatives to address the question of over-capacity to encourage the more efficient utilization of non-surplus stocks, as I mentioned in the House the other day, such as redfish, pollock, and turbot.
With the assistance of the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration we have put in place a number of initiatives under the Canadian Jobs Strategy directed at finding alternative employment and assisting specific communities that are hard-hit at the present time by this shortfall of fish stock supply.

I should point out to the Hon. Member that only two days ago in New Brunswick my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, together with his provincial colleagues, announced in New Brunswick a $5 million retraining program as one of the measures of assistance that the Government is giving to address this serious issue.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the measures announced by the Minister are just not good enough.


PLANT CLOSURES-EFFECT ON FISHERMEN
Fernand Robichaud: Can the Minister tell the House what he is going to do when hundreds of fishermen are idle in port? After fish plants have closed their doors and hundreds of workers are laid-off, what are these people going to do, and where are they going to go?
Surely the Minister is not naive enough to believe that changes to the UIC Act and retraining will bring back prosperity to those communities along the coast? Surely the Minister is not that naive.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not naive. However, I do believe in the context of the debates in this House this week about the future of the Unemployment Insurance Program that it is important to recognize the need to diversify the economy and the range of opportunities available to the people of Atlantic Canada.
Notwithstanding that fact, I take seriously my responsibility for the conservation of these fish stocks. If we are to see them rebuilt, to restore the abundance which has been the mainstay of the Atlantic Canadian economy, we must all work harder to ensure that these quotas are respected and that in Atlantic Canada where we can help that we assist in the adjustment measures that are necessary in many of these communities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will close Question Period with one question from the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.
Interparliamentary Delegation Report FOOD


EXPANDED USE OF IRRADIATION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty). Canada has now expanded the use of food irradiation by changes to regulations in spite of the example of the British experience with this technology which showed that it created more problems to the food system than it solved.
Did the Minister's Department study the British experience with food irradiation? If so, why is Canada persisting in using irradiation after the British tried it and have now prohibited its use?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there is a certain irony in the fact that the hon. gentleman should ask this question when just a few minutes ago there was another question from a member of the Opposition with regard to salmonella poisoning. The only way that we can be sure of 100 per cent eradication of salmonella bacteria is indeed by irradiation.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has indeed taken a look at the international experience. We are also aware of the position taken by groups such as the FAO and the World Health Organization. Our position is that we want to do what we can to ensure that consumers are safe and that they are spared disease caused by food-borne bacteria.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table the Annual Report of the Bank of Canada.

Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the report of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the thirty-fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Australia from September 18 to 25, 1988.

The Address-Mr. Harvey STRIKING COMMITTEE


PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, later this day I intend to move concurrence in it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, when a report of this committee is presented to the House and concurrence of it is sought at the same sitting, it is the custom of the House to have the Clerk at the table read the entire report to the House. Since this report is lengthy and copies of it are available at the table, may we dispense with its reading?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the first report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present which asks for the humane treatment of refugee claimants in the backlog. It asks that all refugee claimants who have notified Canada Immigration of their intention to make a claim be considered eligible for immediate employment autho rizations and a case review of their claims, that such review include humanitarian and compassionate grounds traditionally used by Canada Immigration, including the presence in Canada of relatives and the successful establishment of refugee claimants in Canada. The
petitioners ask that special consideration be given to those refugee claimants fleeing war zones, oppressive Governments and natural disasters.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask of the Minister. When does he expect that he will start answering questions?


Jean J. Charest: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an address to Her Excellency The Governor General in reply to her speech of the opening of the session.
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, may I at this time convey my sincere congratulations to the Speaker on his convincing re-election as this House's principal officer. To borrow from Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirate King: a first ballot victory,"it is a glorious thing". I look forward to benefiting from his counsel and direction over the coming years. I am certain of the impartiality with which he will discharge his high office.
I understand it to be the custom on these occasions for the new Member to praise the excellence of his riding, presumably best evidenced by the fact that she or he represents it, and the profound wisdom of those who live there, presumably best evidenced in their, occasionally otherwise inexplicable, willingness to elect her or him. If I may, I would prefer simply to describe Edmonton East and some of the elements which make it the unique and challenging place that it is.

Edmonton East suffers no lack of government. First, Edmonton's City Hall, old and projected both, are in Edmonton East. Second, Canada Place, the architecturally striking new federal building, is in Edmonton East. By the way, Canada Place includes the new joint office of the Hon. Members for Vegreville and Yellowhead. This is presumably an attempt to disguise the fact that Edmonton, alone among major Canadian cities of its size, and despite the fact that it is the capital of the most Tory province in Canada, has no direct representative in Cabinet. Regardless, I welcome my hon. colleagues to Edmonton East and hope they enjoy the many fine attractions of the riding.
Third, Edmonton East is the home of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, which I suppose makes me the MP for the provincial Tory Government. This is in some respects a particularly onerous burden but one that I will discharge to the best of my abilities consistent with my own conscience.
Mostly, Edmonton East is the vibrant, throbbing working-class heart of Edmonton. The Gainers Plant, that national symbol of successful worker resistance to the anti-union machinations of a ruthless and intransigent employer, and a former Tory leadership candidate, is in Edmonton East. So is the main Edmonton station for Canada Post and VIA Rail, and a host of smaller manufacturing and commercial firms. As well, a large part of the workforce for the city's east-end chemicals and refineries operations live in Edmonton East.
Edmonton East is also the cultural heart of Edmonton. The city's major theatre, the Citadel, is there, as are several of the smaller innovative theatre companies that continue to make Edmonton the leader in live theatre in Canada. Edmonton East hosts the annual visual arts festival "The Works", and at least part of the Jazz City events. Edmonton's library system, consistently among the most used in all of Canada, is entered in the Centennial Library in Edmonton East. Our three main sporting facilities: baseball's John Ducey Park, the Grey Cup champion Eskimos' Commonwealth Stadium and the Coliseum, home of the present and future Stanley Cup champion Edmonton Oilers, all are in Edmonton East.
The Address-Mr. Harvey
Edmonton's inner-city poverty, squalor, unemployment, in some neighbourhoods as high as 30 per cent, broken lives, food banks and other crisis services, these are in Edmonton East, too. Here is where cuts in services and unemployment insurance and hikes in sales taxes are most keenly felt. Here is where the effect of Tory Governments can be seen at its starkest and most terrible.
Finally, Edmonton East is home to a wonderfully varied and vibrant community of communities. The tongues of the earth mingle here in commerce, recreation, worship and family life. Ukrainian, German, Polish, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic and a multitude of others can be heard frequently on the streets of Edmonton East. All of these heritages, Mr. Speaker, come together to make Edmonton East the place that it is.
From the working class struggles of 66 Street, to the more private but nonetheless real struggles simply to continue waged by the independent businesses on 118th Avenue, to the celebrations in Giovanni Cabota Park, to the average working families trying to keep up a mortgage in Claireview, all of this is Edmonton East. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is a singular honour to be granted the job of representing so varied and vibrant a constituency. It is my fervent hope to do just that to the very best of my abilities.
In representing Edmonton East and the people who live there, I will be bringing a new voice into this Chamber, a voice not heard here for decades, a voice not of wealth and power, but of ordinary people and their communities. It is the voice of that other Alberta that does not content itself with Tory shibboleths. It is the voice of that Alberta which is consistently and grievously hurt by this Government's high interest rate policy, and that demands those interest rates be lowered and lowered substantially. It is the voice of that Alberta which knows that passenger rail service is the most efficient and cost-effective means of mass transport that there is, and demands not the dismantling of VIA Rail, but its expansion including the provision of a new high speed link between Edmonton and Calgary.

The Address-Mr. Harvey
It is the voice of that Alberta which does not fear the development of energy alternatives as a threat to Alberta's interests, but rather welcomes such development as the only rational course of preparing for the future and fighting the ominous greenhouse effect.
It is the voice of that Alberta that demands new answers to the problems facing Canada's family farms, answers that will facilitate rather than prevent generational transfer of land and that will ensure farmers a reasonable return on their labours.
It is the voice of that Alberta which rejects the doctrine of international fear and hatred and that seeks to extend the hand of friendship to all those on our planet willing to work with us in the creation of a new and better world, while holding out the rod of justice to those who would oppress and deny justice to others.
It is the voice of that Alberta that demands justice, fairness and safety in the workplace. That demands justice for our native people who for too long have been treated as an inconvenience at best and as peoples to be eliminated at worst. It is the voice of that Alberta which demands a thorough overhaul of our entire taxation system so that the concept of ability to pay is once again central, so that profitable corporations pay at least some tax, so that middle and low-income Canadians do not continue to be squeezed again and again by a government terrified of doing anything to distress its major corporate backers.
I will be bringing individual voices to this House as well, Mr. Speaker. I will bring into this Chamber voices of single mothers trying to raise a family and hold a job. I will repeat the cry of the elderly couple trapped, terrified and imprisoned in their home because the streets are not safe. I will throw out the angry snarl of the young person left to grow up without meaning or purpose. I will try to speak here with all these voices. But most of all, Mr. Speaker, I will speak with the collective, growing, ever louder, ever more purposeful, ever stronger voice of that large majority of people in Edmonton East who work for a living, who seek new and better truths and who will build a new and better Canada.
The Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, where it is not pious wish or half-truth is yesterday's news and tomorrow's cast-off. The people of Edmonton East know better. They can see more clearly and farther. They can hear
clearer tones struggling to break through the white noise of such chatter. They will not stand still. They will work together. They will build together.
A century ago, Mr. Speaker, an English Victorian poet by the name of John Addington Symonds wrote a poem about what we could be, about the world we could build. It is called These Things Shall Be, and it reads in part, "These things shall be: a loftier race than ever the world hath known shall rise, with the flame of freedom in its soul and the light and knowledge in its eyes. Nation with nation, land with land, unarmed shall live as comrades, free. In every brain and heart shall throb the pulse of one humanity. New arts shall rise of loftier mould and mightier music thrill the skies, and every life shall be a song when all the earth is paradise".
A utopian impossibility? Of course, but I would rather devote my life to striving after such a beautiful, mighty goal, however impossible, than live for five seconds in inert contentment with the gray chaos and inhuman imperatives of the market-place.
And you know what, Mr. Speaker? I do believe the electors of Edmonton East are similarly inclined. Thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Question or comments? The Hon. Member for Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker).


Mr. Blaine Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my friend opposite for the many things he said, but I think the underlying thing that he was trying to get across to the House is that he is going to respond to the people. We often hear that from the NDP, that they are going to respond to the people. That people are more important than us, and I agree with that. Let me ask him this question: We know from polls going back for dozens of years that well over 80 per cent of the people believe in capital punishment for first degree convicted murderers. Is my friend opposite going to respond to the people on that, or is he going to impose the NDP ideology on the people?


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. No, it is not my intention to impose NDP ideology on anybody,just as I assume it was not the intent of the Government to impose Conservative ideology when it allowed for a free vote in this House which, with the support of many Conservatives, rejected capital punishment.


An Hon. Member:: What will you do for the people in your riding?


Ross Harvey: What I will do for the people is argue in this House that the social conditions that give rise to the want, deprivation, and death from the inside out that creates murderers be addressed, rather than murdering murderers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. Questions and comments.


Mr. Waddell:: Yes, I would like to make a comment and ask my friend a question. I was most impressed, as I am sure most of the Members of this House were, when the Member said that he would be a voice not for wealth and power, but for working people in this House, and that would be a pleasant change from the previous Conservative Members from Alberta. We are glad we have a New Democrat representing Alberta, another voice from Alberta, and an articulate voice with passion. I congratulate him for his speech.
There is only one thing that I disagree with. When he predicted that the Oilers would win the Stanley Cup, I thought the Canucks would win the Stanley Cup who are based in Vancouver East, my old riding area. Perhaps I can make a bet with the Hon. Member. I would expect odds of course on that.
He raised the interesting point of regional theatre being based in Edmonton. As culture critic for my Party, I would like to know more about it. We are sometimes asked to give money to central theatre and institutions but I understand that regional institutions and theatre are growing rapidly.
Would he expand on the subject of theatre in East Edmonton, which is a working class area in the West, far from the central region where governments pour most of their money.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, right now there are a half dozen theatre companies in Edmonton, not counting the internationally successful Fringe Theatre event that occurs annually in the Strathcona district of Edmonton. Of those half a dozen companies, I believe four are located in Edmonton East. Much of their work is presented in the Centennial Library Theatre and in a smaller theatre space just west of the Coliseum.
The Address-Mr. Redway
All of them devote a substantial amount of their time and effort to the production of new Canadian, often Albertan and occasionally Edmontonian, plays. All of them can be seen to be theatre with a definite regional focus in that they are all drawn from that community and therefore must reflect the community of Edmonton, as it is their experience.
Many of those plays are locally generated and of consistently high quality. That is why I can say in the House, and say without fear of contradiction, that Edmonton does lead the country in production of live theatre. I believe most people would acknowledge that.
Let me return briefly to the matter of the Stanley Cup. I understand the joy the Hon. Member must feel at this time: that he may anticipate at least some Stanley Cup action in his town after years of grievous disappointment.
However, I regret to inform the Member that it is, to be charitable, unlikely that this joy will continue much past the next series of play-offs. I apologize for being the bearer of these unfortunate tidings, but I remain un-shakeably convinced that the Stanley Cup will continue to reside in Edmonton.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Speaker may interject, I think it will reside in Montreal. This year it will not reside in Toronto.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne in my new capacity as Minister of State for Housing. You and other Members of the House may find it somewhat strange, perhaps even astounding that I would want to participate in a debate on a Speech from the Throne when the House will note that there was not a mention of housing in the Speech.
Bearing all of that in mind, and bearing in mind that the lack of a mention of housing in the Speech from the Throne may indicate a lack of government commitment, a lack of government concern or a lack of prioritiy for housing, I must point out that it overlooks the fact that on January 30 of this year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed for the first time in this country a Minister of State for Housing who would be solely responsible for housing, with no other responsibilities.
As the House will know, there have been Ministers of Public Works who are also responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is the housing arm of the federal Government. We have had before Ministers of State for Urban Affairs. The Mem ber for Papineau-Saint-Michel (Mr. Ouellet), who was in the House until a moment ago, was one of those Ministers. We have had a Minister for International Trade respon-

The Address-Mr. Redway
sible as well for housing. However, until now, there has never been a federal Minister responsible for nothing but housing. I hope that sends a message to the Opposition and the people of Canada, because I know it sends a message to me personally and it sends a message to all of the employees of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal housing authority.
The message is that for the first time they have their own Minister, someone responsible for nothing but housing. These people are extremely dedicated to delivering housing for Canadians, to putting a roof over the heads of Canadians. I sense they feel an special glow as a result of the fact that they now have a Minister responsible for housing federally. They are also people who have a deep commitment to housing and making sure that housing in Canada, at the federal level, is delivered in a businesslike manner but at the same time a compassionate manner. They are people who care deeply about making sure there is a roof over every Canadian's head. I think we have sent a message to the employees of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation by this appointment.
It may be understandable as well that some may feel that the appointment of a Minister solely and wholly responsible for housing has been weakened somewhat by the fact that there was no mention in the Speech from the Throne of the issue of housing.
Again, I point out to you that we have been here for other Throne Speeches and have seen some things mentioned that have not proceeded and some things not mentioned that have proceeded.
Of course, back in the last Parliament, in the Speech from the Throne of 1986, the House will recall that there was no mention whatsoever of housing. In the same Speech from the Throne there was a mention of the fact that legislation would be proceeded with and passed on the subject of pornography. In fact, there was action on housing, with the Downsview Airport property being released last September, specifically for the purpose of housing. As far as pornography legislation is concerned, that has still yet to surface and pass into law.
While Speeches from the Throne may be extremely significant, they are certainly not the be-all and end-all of Government policy and the be-all and end-all of government commitment. Having said that, I think it is important for you and all Members of the House to know that I personally place a very major priority in the area of housing in this country, at the federal level. In doing the job and trying to emphasize housing, trying to place that priority, I need the help of you, Members of the House, and that of all Canadians.
I was disappointed to learn that in a poll conducted for CMHC by Decima Research last August, only 22 per cent of Canadians as a whole placed a priority on housing in this country. That is very strange.
In my community of Metropolitan Toronto, the priority was much higher. It was closer to 50 per cent. When one considers that housing is such an important part of the life of all Canadians, the fact that only 22 per cent of Canadians placed this as a major priority is somewhat disturbing to me.
Part of my appeal to you as Members of the House and Canadians is to let us all start to give more priority to the issue of housing. That is the only way we will get action, whether it be at the federal level, provincial level, or municipal level. We need to make sure that all Canadians put that priority where it properly belongs.
When I was first appointed to this job I received a letter from a good friend of mine, a retired professor from the University of Toronto who has had vast experience in the housing area. His name is Dr. Albert Rose. Some know Dr. Rose as the father of the Regent Park Housing Project in Toronto, one of the first geared-to-income housing projects in this country.
Doctor Rose congratulated me on my appointment. He said "Welcome to Canada's permanent housing crisis". That indicates what my role is all about and what the problem is with respect to housing. It is not a flash-in-the-pan problem. It is not a problem of affordability in Metropolitan Toronto or Vancouver. Canada has many problems: The high cost of housing; high interest rates which make it difficult for people to make mortgage payments; low vacancy rates which mean there are no alternatives when tenants are required to move; the homeless; poverty; rehabilitating existing housing; housing for our native people on reserve, off reserve or in our urban centres. There are a vast variety of problems in housing in this country, but they differ widely.

One common thread weaves throughout our problems, and that is the notion of affordability. Traditionally, we were able to find affordability in Canada. People should not pay more than 30 per cent of their income to pay for their housing. The 1981 census indicated that
375.000	families in this country spent 50 per cent or more of their income on housing. Half of those families were young families with children. That identifies why, when we see the poverty line statistics and the problem with food banks, all of these are impacted upon by housing affordability. This is the root of many social problems we have.
How do we solve these problems? All levels of government play a role in housing. Municipal Governments play a role through their zoning by-laws and by controlling densities. They have an impact on the cost of housing and the supply of land available for housing. Provincial Governments play a role through rent control, the rent review process, their over-all planning process and as a partner with the federal Government in providing rent-geared-to-income housing. The federal Government plays a role in providing insurance for mortgages. Some people say this is an inhibitor to affordability. People could not get a mortgage if that insurance did not exist. Under the National Housing Act, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has provided that insurance program and has helped to house thousands and perhaps millions of Canadians. It is interesting to note that 34 per cent of all households in Canada have mortgage insurance through Canada and Mortgage Housing Corporation.
Another role the federal Government has played and continues to play is through the provision of rent-gea-red-to-income housing or social housing, housing for seniors, families, singles, the disabled, people who cannot afford to pay the full market rents. Over the years, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the federal Government have played a major role. They provide 600,000 housing units geared-to-income from one end of the country to the other. That is being increased and added to each year to the extent of about
20.000	new units. The federal Government has a commitment of $1.6 billion that it spends on providing for rent-geared-to-income housing across the country every year. It is not a commitment you make one year and forget about the next. When you provide a rent-geared-to-income housing unit, it means you must go on and on. There are things the federal Government has done and
The Address-Mr. Redway
others that it must do. That brings me to my role in the housing picture.
In viewing my role, I must bear in mind the fiscal framework in which the Government finds itself today. I cannot go out and say there is a pot of money there that I can spend so we can provide more affordable housing for Canadians. I must realistically look at how I can provide more housing with the resources I have available, bearing in mind the horrible fiscal deficit and the fact we spend 31 cents of every dollar to pay interest on the national debt, not providing housing for people.
Hopefully, we can provide more surplus federal Government land geared specifically to providing affordable housing. We have released the lands at Downsview. We are identifying other lands. We are in the process of moving forward with a program to make surplus land available for housing in major centres of concern like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal.
We are looking at ways to help first-time home buyers to reducing downpayments on mortgages. We are considering the possibility of using registered retirement savings plans and registered pension plans as a vehicle to aid first-time home buyers. We hope to co-operate closely with all levels of government in an effort to maximize the resources available to us.
Canadians may never solve what Doctor Rose refers to as "Canada's permanent housing crisis"; but it is certainly the duty of all Members of this House to do everything in our power to try. I want to make a commitment to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Members of this House that as long as I am the Minister of State for Housing in this country, I intend to do just that.


Mrs. Catterall:: I am pleased to hear the Minister of State speaking on this issue. I bring a perspective to the debate because of having chaired the City of Ottawa non-profit housing corporation executive for a number of years.
I paid particular attention to the Minister's comments on fiscal framework and the percentage of all revenues going to pay for the debt. I believe there is reason to question that figure. I will come back to that in a specific question.
I am concerned about the comments with respect to public pressure. I hope we see policies from the Government based on things other than public pressure, such as the needs the Minister described and the importance of acting on those needs.

The Address-Mr. Redway
The Minister may or may not be aware that the Government over its last mandate reduced the amount of federal dollars going into housing. That has placed considerable pressure on the ability of non-profit organizations, co-ops and municipal corporations to provide housing for their communities.
Something he did not mention is that job generation is one of the prime benefits of investment in housing programs and that housing construction is the highest generator of jobs per dollar invested. If we want to reduce the deficit it would be extremely interesting to see what would be accomplished by having 1 per cent more employment and 1 per cent less unemployment with that 1 per cent paying taxes, not drawing on social benefits, and creating jobs for other Canadians by the purchase of required goods and services.
The land disposal question is the one that interests me most. I wonder if the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway) is aware that in the last Parliament 150 acres of public land, formerly belonging to the Experimental Farm in Ottawa West, were sold on the private market. I am sure the Minister is aware that no conditions were attached to that sale, either that it be housing construction, or that it be affordable housing.
Is the Minister aware that an additional 10 acres in the immediate vicinity is currently on the market, and does he know whether conditions have been attached to that sale with respect to the affordability of housing, or indeed for the provision of housing at all?
Is the policy of the Government now to direct DPW that, in all land or property sales, housing should be a condition of the sale, where appropriate? I doubt very much that that is the case. I wonder why not and when the Minister plans to change that. In relation to that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry that I must interrupt the Hon. Member. There is only five minutes and the Hon. Member has already taken more than three minutes, and I would like to give some time to the Minister to reply.


Marlene Catterall: The background is so important to the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I apologize. For the two days remaining in the Throne Speech there is only five minutes allowed.


Alan Redway: Within her comments and questions the Hon. Member has asked a variety of questions. Obviously, I would like to address as many as I can. On the subject of whether or not funds in the budget for housing have been reduced, if the Hon. Member would carefully examine the Budgets of the federal Government over the period of time in which the present Government has been in office, she will find that that budget has increased each and every year.
It may be that it has become more difficult, even with those increases, to produce as many housing units as the City of Ottawa Housing Corporation, or other similar corporations would like to do, and I certainly sympathize with that concern. If the Hon. Member examines the Budget carefully, I am sure she will find that funds have been increasing and have certainly not been reduced in any way.
With respect to the question of housing construction being a job generator, there is no question that the Hon. Member is 100 per cent correct that it is one of the largest generators of jobs in the country, perhaps together with the restaurant industry. In any event, it certainly is a big generator of jobs. Over the last four and a half years, the Government has been trying very hard to bring down unemployment, put people back to work and get them paying taxes to help bring down the deficit. In fact, the Government has been extremely successful at that.
As the Hon. Member is aware, over the last four years Canada has led the western world in job creation, and in increasing its Gross National Product in each and every one of those years. We have been very successful, and I am sure the Hon. Member will applaud the efforts of the Government in that respect.
The question of land disposal does present a true problem. As the Hon. Member is aware, at the present time the policy of the Government, which was brought into effect in 1985, was that surplus government lands would be disposed of at market value.
The reason for that was that there were concerns about the manner in which former Liberal Governments had been disposing of lands, or hanging on to lands that were surplus. As a result, the Government introduced that policy at that time.
The whole question of disposal of lands and whether housing is an appropriate use is one of the areas in which I see myself playing a role. If the Hon. Member is aware of lands from the federal inventory that seem to be on the market or are about to approach the market that we do not have some handle on, I hope she will bring them*

to my attention. It is certainly my intention to do the best to make sure that, where needed-and it is not in every part of this country that surplus government land is needed for housing-we will do our very best to ensure that it is made available for badly needed housing.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, of course, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the voters of Gatineau-La Lievre for the confidence and the honour that they have given me to represent them here in the House of commons. They and I would like to wish the Chair health and above all success as a fair and effective arbiter at all times, in spite of difficulties.

The constituency that I have the honour to represent witnessed, like all other areas of this great and unique land, the rise of a nation diverse in culture and language and dedicated to the concept that this is a country of opportunity and democracy, and equitable to all citizens.
One we obviously take for granted, while the others are at least debatable. A Speech from the Throne should always reflect these primary elements in our society. To what degree they are adhered to is a matter of ideology, or a point of view, if one prefers, but nevertheless a difference of approach.
Throughout our history many a debate has centered around these basic but treasured elements that constitute a truly democratic people. Our growth, notwithstanding a relatively small population and a vast land stretching from sea to sea, has been the more remarkable.
Prior to the First World War we were basically an agricultural society. After the First World War we became basically an industrial society. Since the Second World War we are in the age of information and high technology. We have become the creators, manipulators, and distributors of information with constant innovation necessary whereby scientific research and development are essential or we risk becoming a third-rate nation.
Has the Government lived up to expectations? I doubt it.

In the last four years, the Government, just before the 1988 election, felt it needed the assistance of the
The Address-Mr. Assad
business community, big corporations that used exorbi tant amounts of money in the media to help it get the re-elected.
One may wonder why in 1984 free trade was not an issue at all. I could quote the man who is now Minister of Finance and even the Minister of External Affairs. But in barely two years, this Government came up with an option that the people had not consented to in 1984.
On the eve of the 1988 election, it was observed that the big interests in this country needed the present Government to help them protect their privileges and the interests that depended on them.
Unfortunately, the middle class has to pick up the pieces-I refer to the disadvantages that will arise from this agreement for years to come.

I would like to bring to our attention the fact that we have never had an equitable tax system, and it has become worse over the years. It is probably the most fundamental characteristic of a democracy. Yet the present Government promised to bring in reform. After raising taxes in 1984 we began to hear about reform. I believe that this will require an incredible amount of political will when one realizes that the financial elite of this country have access to the levers of political power more than the middle class.
Does the present Government have the freedom to come up with a true and equitable reform for our tax system? Is the middle class in this country so organized as to protect its interest, to promote and insist that an equitable reform is necessary and should take place? They are being manipulated by financial interest, the financial elite of this country. I think the attention has to be drawn to the fact that the middle class would have to realize this threat against its interest. The business community in this country has never really had to face adverse conditions, when you consider the great benefits in the billions of dollars that they have access to through the federal Government. Yet they have the nerve to point the finger to social programs. We saw their timely questioning of the social programs, naturally after the election, and very shortly thereafter. This continued lack of leadership by the Government to address the problem will lead this country to social unrest, increased poverty, and visible class divisions that are incompatible with this countiy.

The Address-Mr. Assad
When we consider these obstacles, we have to ask the question, where is the opportunity? What opportunity is there for four and a half million people who live below the poverty line, when you consider that in the 1.2 million jobs created in the last four years, nearly half are slightly above the minimum wage?

Need I also tell you that studies, masses of statistics, show that women on the labour market do not earn as much as men? Is this also a lack of opportunity for women to advance in the working world? I claim that a Speech from the Throne should touch on opportunity, democracy and the freedom to pursue one's own interests; basically, we want every citizen in our country to be treated fairly. And as I said in English, the taxation system is an extremely important factor in our democracy and it must at all times be fair for all our citizens.

Opportunity is the driving force of a prosperous and contented people. But I feel it is narrowing visibly, and the results are affecting the social fabric of our society. We must remember that when we have growing poverty, and especially growing inequality in our tax system, we are going to have growing unrest. The growing unrest that we knew in the 1960s will seem quite insignificant when we consider that people will rise from all parts of this country and point the finger that they have been treated in a fashion that is inequitable, that the tax system has been geared to the advantage of the financial elite.
I am sure that is not the first time it has been said here in the House, but the fact remains that this margin is growing, and we must address the problem as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we heard in this House a number of speeches stressing the fact that we have a tax system that is unfair, especially to the middle income group. As we know, people in the middle-income group are quite busy earning their daily living. Unlike large corporations, they have no lawyers or other professionals to look after then-interests on a daily basis and can make representations to government decision-makers in order to ensure that
their interests are always protected or to find loopholes in our tax system. We should not expect that the people who are faced with higher taxes will always remain silent because they are the so-called "silent majority". Sooner or later, those people will rise up, and at that point there will be something akin to a revolution of the middle-class, who will demand explanations from the Government.
Looking at the deficit that is increasing yearly, what leeway will the Central Government have to impose new ones, and especially to tell middle income people: we are going to alleviate your tax burden. We will not be able to do so, and therein lies the danger.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, there are three essential items in our society: opportunity, democracy, which means the freedom to further one's interest, and of course fairness. Those three items should never be lost sight of.
There is another very important item that was not mentioned in the Throne Speech-it is the whole issue of education, the gaps in our education system, the need for reforms and for perhaps more investment into education.
Doubtless an efficient and forward looking education system opens up new opportunities. I remember that a few weeks after the French President Mr. Mitterand was re-elected, the following question was asked of him: In your second seven-year term, what is in your view, the most important item for France? And his answer was that during his second term his only goal, the only thing he would like to achieve was an efficient reform of the education system that would bring France back, well prepared, into the 20th century, and were that goal to be reached, France would be at the top of the industrialized nations.
Of course, I was struck by that comment, and the more I think of it, indeed the best tool we can give our people is to see to it that we have the resources needed to make education in Canada accessible to all, as this is the best way to achieve a fair society and at the same time open up new opportunities for our fellow Canadians, something that will cause the people to be satisfied not only with their Government but its achievements concerning both the nation and the individuals.


M. Boudria:: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my colleague the Hon. Member for Gatineau-La Lievre (Mr. Assad) for his election. As neighbours we share a common boundary, and he happens to live just a few kilometres from my home. I am very pleased to see him as Liberal Member representing that riding. I must admit it is quite a change from the previous representation in that riding, quite a change for the better, of course. Quite an improvement over the Conservative Party Member who used to sit for the riding. The former Conservative Member was not quite as competent as my colleague, and again I extend my congratulations to him.
Like me, my colleague from Gatineau-La Lievre (Mr. Assad) represents a riding located very close to the national capital. I am sure my colleague knows that the unemployment rate in the national capital region is very low, I mean on the Ottawa side, of course, something like 5.7 per cent.
Outside the City of Ottawa and the neighbouring region of Ottawa-Carleton, however, at least on the Ontario side, the unemployment rate is much higher, so much so that in Hawkesbuiy in my riding, for example, the unemployment rate now stands at 13 per cent as compared with 14 per cent last month. Our constituents are severely affected by unemployment. What I want to point out to my colleague is the fact that in recent days the Government imposed even stricter restrictions on unemployment insurance, the idea being that in low unemployment regions the thing to do is to tighten up the screw a bit, if I may put it that way, because people really do not need as many benefits. Time though it might be in low unemployment regions, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to admit that. It is certainly not the case in Hawkesbury in my riding or in Cornwall or elsewhere in rural areas where unemployment is rampant. I should like to ask my colleague whether the situation is the same in his riding where rural unemployment is already quite high, and whether he agrees with me that the new measures imposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall)-henceforth, more weeks of contributions to be eligible for benefits which in turn will be payable over a shorter time-are totally unfair to Canadians living in rural communities, particu larly those in the vicinity of urban areas, because the statistics as I have just described them are erroneous?


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his kind words.
The Address-Mrs. Browes
The cuts in unemployment insurance benefits are going to affect rural areas. Previously, I had the privilege of representing a rural riding in the provincial government, and every time the unemployment rate went up, the impact was greatest on rural ridings. The cuts that were announced will affect these people first of all.
I would also like to draw the attention of the Hon. Member to a study on unemployment and unemployment insurance benefits, made several years ago by the Fraser Institute in western Canada. The study showed that in urban areas where the unemployment rate was much lower, people were less dependent on unemployment insurance. The study found that in urban centres, unemployment insurance recipients were people who earned $22,000 annually, compared with people in rural areas who earned barely more than the minimum wage. This means that the proposed measures tend to ignore the rural areas that are most severely affected. I think that as time goes by, the Minister responsible will realize that rural areas will be affected far more severely than urban centres, and that adjustments will be necessary.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to represent the people of Scarborough Centre in this Chamber. I am truly grateful for the trust and confidence they have shown in me. I am privileged to continue to represent the concerns of the people of Scarborough Centre in the nation's Parliament. It is here in Parliament that ideas, principles and policies are debated. But Parliament without democracy is meaningless and democracy without freedom is useless. Democracy and freedom are not just concepts or words with philosophical meaning, they are living principles that define a society and its heritage.
For over 200 years Canada has shaped, moulded and defended our own heritage of democracy. It is a heritage unlike any other in the world. History has given us a sense of independent freedom and a willingness to challenge new risks. From the native nations who first inhabited this land, to the explorers, to the fur traders, to the homesteaders and the pioneers who came later, Canadians have gained a very special spirit of enterprise and freedom.

The Address-Mrs. Browes
History has also given Canadians an appreciation that hard work is rewarded and that taking risks brings new opportunities. Indeed, throughout the 1800s and the 1900s, our founders spent over 100 years working to build a nation that was only completed 40 years ago when Newfoundland voted to join Confederation.
The forces and circumstances that have shaped this country have made Canadians optimistic about their future. History has prepared us for the challenges of the next century. The TTirone Speech is the reflection of that spirit. Because the Throne Speech and the policies which flow from it are more than a program for action; they are a confirmation of who we are as a people.
Our history as traders and entrepreneurs has made us a competitive people eager to compete with the nations of the world, and with the United States. Indeed, business people in my riding of Scarborough Centre are already pursuing new opportunities under free trade.
I was pleased to hear that the Canadian Thermos Products Company has announced that it will be closing its plant in the United States and creating 60 new jobs in Scarborough Centre. All the North American market for thermos products will be serviced from Scarborough. CDA Industries, the largest display advertising company in Canada, will soon be opening a new office in Atlanta to expand its markets. The jobs will be in Scarborough. The company will be selling through its Atlanta office. The Warner Lambert and Howden Group have also announced expansion plans because of free trade.
History has not only given us a sense of independent enterprise, it has also given us respect for the land itself. The first Canadians worked with the resources they had to create a sustainable existence. Today, we are again recognizing that humankind and nature exist in partnership. Canadians realize that we are not creators but users and protectors of a very precious natural heritage.
Some 40 years ago, during the Twenty-Third Parliament, a Member of Parliament from Northumberland rose to participate in the Throne Speech debate. He urged: "Today's crisis calls for an immediate uprising of the idea of conservation and development". That Member was my father, Major R. Earle Drope. Permit me to continue a 40-year family tradition by reiterating his call today.
The need to strengthen the partnership between conservation and development is a strong theme in the Speech from the Throne. The Environmental Partners Fund was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It will help community organizations involve more people in conservation. This program, together with the Environmental Protection Act, the new National Parks Act, the National Acid Rain Reduction Program, and the new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with the United States, reflects our appreciation of the natural treasure that we share as Canadians.
The people of Scarborough Centre share that appreciation. For several years now I have been honoured to work with thousands of volunteers in helping to save the Rouge River Valley system as a park. The Rouge River Valley is one vast remaining wilderness area in Metro Toronto containing unique archaeological ruins. Even though the land is owned by the Province of Ontario, our Government understands the natural significance of the area. That is why our Government has offered $10 million to preserve the Rouge River Valley system. That is also why the federal Minister of the Environment has accepted our invitation to tour the Valley this Sunday and see its beauty firsthand. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the province has not yet accepted our offer. In fact, they are still considering it as a potential dump site or route for a major freeway.
Just as my father called on this Chamber to further the cause of conservation and development, I now call on this Chamber and the province to work together to conserve this precious valley for future generations. Canadians deserve nothing less.
The Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, challenged the free enterprise spirit of Canadians and honoured their respect for our quality of life. But the Throne Speech also issued a challenge to us as legislators. Canadians are eager to take up the challenge of free trade, and the Throne Speech has called on us to help tackle this country's largest economic threat, the national debt. Our success in providing nearly 1.5 million new job opportunities proves that our economic system can succeed if given a chance. Reducing the debt will give it that chance. The largest expenditure this Government will make in 1989 will not be old age security, Medicare, national defence or any other federal program. The largest expenditure our Government will make will be the interest payments on the national debt. Without the burden of the debt, our Government would have a balanced budget today.

Last year, the federal Budget included $33 billion just to pay the interest on the debt. Just think of the other programs we could finance. Still the debt keeps growing larger every year, every day and every hour. In fact in the 20 minutes I have to make this speech today, the debt will have been increased by $1 million. That is just how fast this debt is escalating.
The Throne Speech stated very clearly our commitment to tackle this country's finances. Our actions over the past four years have resulted in a $10 billion reduction in the annual deficit. We must continue to reduce the deficit by reducing the size of the Public Service, selling off Crown corporations that no longer serve a public purpose and reduce over-all spending. There is no other option, Mr. Speaker, if Canadians are to have the economic foundations they need to continue to prosper.
One hundred and twenty-two years of Confederation and centuries of history have given Canadians a unique heritage of democracy and freedom. That heritage is honoured by every person who shares the responsibility of our citizenship. As someone who was brought up in rural Canada, I am very aware that while Canadians share a heritage of independent freedom, we also have a very special ability to work together. Our history is full of examples of families and communities joining together to meet a special need. Forty years ago in the small village of Harwood, where I was bom in Northumberland County, the community joined together to build a community hall which my parents spearheaded. Next week I have the honour to go back to that community hall to make a speech.
Today in Scarborough Centre, men and women volunteers visit seniors' homes throughout the riding to perform numerous services. Included is the Wexford Senior Citizens residence in Scarborough where my mother lives. Volunteers arrange events, hold activities and make seniors' lives more pleasurable and more fulfilled.
In concluding this debate on the Speech from the Throne in the 34th Parliament, the second session, let us be mindful of the words of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker in his famous Bill of Rights when he said, "I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my way, free to stand for
The Address-Mrs. Browes
what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? The Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duhamel).


Ron J. Duhamel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened attentively to the comments from the Hon. Member, and I just have a few remarks which I will perhaps culminate with a question.
Clearly the creation of jobs is something that all Parties endorse. It is not simply, and I say this kindly, one particular Party or the Government that is committed to that. I think the question we have to raise is what kinds of jobs are created with what kinds of opportunities for the future.
Likewise, the reduction of the deficit; I do not hear anyone here saying that the deficit should not be reduced, but I do hear a lot of people asking: How will it be reduced? That is a fundamental question that Canadians are raising today. A little caution on the figure of a $10 billion reduction of the deficit. If my memory serves me correctly, it was roughly $38.2 billion in 1984-85. That means it would have to be about $28 billion today. My information is that this is not so. I would just like to remind everyone here that 1984-85 had two different Parties in office. In fact, the current Government was in office for half a year.

What bothers me when I listen to speeches by Hon. Members on the Government side in this debate on the Throne Speech is that there were very few comments on the importance of research and development, additional funding for colleges and universities and additional aid for literacy training.
I think there is a flagrant contradiction here. The Government often says it is very important to fund these programs so that we will be able to compete in international markets. If we realize that Canada is funding research and development up to only 50 per cent of what is being done in the United States, Japan or Sweden, I think there is a contradiction here.

The Address-Mr. Kaplan
The capping of the educational funds for education of native students is another flagrant contradiction. These are people who are struggling for a better life. The Government says that educational research and development are important, but there is a gap. Does the Hon. Member not believe that more emphasis and commitment should have been placed in the Throne Speech to research and development, to literacy and to financing of colleges and universities?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member and thank him for directing the question to me.
First, let me comment on his remarks about employment. Indeed, the unemployment figures have decreased rather dramatically. Youth employment is something on which this Government has really concentrated. When we look at the statistics, we see that over 100,000 young people under age 25 own their own businesses. It is truly remarkable that the young people of Canada have decided that they want to own their own business and get into the free enterprise system to make it work. I am delighted that has happened.
Second, an emphasis has been put on training. In our community college, Scarborough Centennial College, we put a great deal of emphasis on training for real jobs. Let me give a particular example of a training program there. One of the problems facing our country is child care. In order to provide more spaces for child care, the Government financed a training program through Centennial College to provide training to approximately 25 students per class for persons setting up their own child care centres in their homes and instruction on how to start one's own business. They did not see themselves as babysitters, they saw themselves as providing a service through a business in the community. These are training programs that actually provide jobs.
In terms of the Budget, I think it is recognized throughout the House, particularly I hope at that end of the House, how important it is to reduce the deficit. In the past, over 80 per cent of the reduction of the deficit has been by the reduction of expenditures and 20 per cent has been through the increase of taxes. I believe the wise choices and wisdom of our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who will bring in his Budget in the next couple of weeks, will be truly remarkable. I am sure the Member will be very pleased with the results.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to devote all of my remarks to one sentence in the Throne Speech Debate. I want to begin by reading that sentence:
Finally, as my Government renews its commitment to national
unity, it believes the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord is
indispensable to the further evolution of the Canadian Constitution.
I found that a rather weak statement compared with the other priorities. There is no commitment to call meetings, no commitment to proceed, no commitment to make any effort. There was simply a statement that the Government believes something.
I did some checking and learned, to my surprise, that neither in the Langevin Block nor in the Bunker in Quebec City is there any plan or program to try to get the Meech Lake Accord constitutionalized. In 1980 and 1981, and in early 1982, emissaries were travelling from Quebec City across the country to meet with provincial Governments, or emissaries from the Langevin Block were travelling across the country trying to achieve the same result. I wondered why there was this appearance of the Government losing heart.
It occurred to me that there is a very good reason for that. It is that whether Meech Lake has been a success in the country or not, whether or not it is constitutionalized, in those two capitals, this city and Quebec City, Meech Lake is already a big winner. It is a big winner whether it lives or dies, and neither Government has any energy to expend in an effort to try and see it in the Constitution, as my Party believes it should be, amended and improved, as the nation is demanding that it be.
Why do I say it is a big winner? It is already a big winner for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Either it will go through or it will not. If it does go through, the great conciliator of Canada, who was a successful negotiator in the private sector, will be able to demonstrate that he has the right stuff of Government, that the extraordinary piece of puffery to which he constantly refers about making the country whole again, about bringing Quebec in, is some kind of reality and he will join the big league of constitution makers along with Pierre Trudeau.

On the other hand, if the Meech Lake Accord does not go through, he has an obvious scapegoat and he has already begun defining and building the scapegoat. The scapegoat is that group that his American friends refer to as the "L word", the Liberals. Surely he will not be able to include the Leader of the Opposition in the scapegoat, although he did so during the election campaign and repented on his first few days back in Parliament. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has gone to the limit to defend the Meech Lake Accord and support it, to try to see to its constitutionalization. However, there are other Liberals around the country, whose names the Prime Minister is already collecting on some list, to be the villains along with others who oppose the Meech Lake Accord, to blame as the reason why it did not go through. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, candour and consistency are not his strong points.
This approach I have taken to understanding the Meech Lake Accord applies equally to the view from Quebec City. Either the deal will go through or it will not, as I have said. If it goes through, Mr. Bourassa will have proof that a federalist Government of a province can achieve more than a separatist Government; that he was able, when Rene Levesque was not, to go through this constitutional stage and successfully negotiate the five point agenda which he brought forward to persuade the country that these five points were important and were adopted by the nation. I would also say that if the Meech Lake Accord goes through, in some ways that I will explain later, Quebec would be more comfortable within Canada.
On the other hand, if the Accord does not go through-and from what I have learned, Mr. Bourassa is making no effort to see that it does go through-he, like the Prime Minister, has a ready scapegoat. His scapegoat is one that has been available to some Quebecers for generations, for decades. That is, the rest of Canada. They can look to the rest of Canada and I regret to say that they will not have difficulty finding some statements, like those made at the hearings being held in Manitoba and elsewhere, to the effect that French is un-Canadian, that there should be no initiatives taken or efforts made to promote the use of French in the country. There are statements like that and I know my friend will recognize that they are not being made by Liberals, as I gather they are not being made by federal Conservatives. But they exist and Mr. Bourassa will be able to refer to them to explain why the Constitution went down.
The Address-Mr, Kaplan
There are Canadians providing the text for him to the effect that the fundamental contract and understanding by which French and English were to be preserved, was the basis for the establishment of Canada and must be the basis for its continuation. Mr. Bourassa will be able to beat the jungle drum about the need for stronger government in the Province of Quebec, the need for stronger measures like Bill 178, a Bill which, by its own admission and in its terms, violates the rights of English speakers within the Province of Quebec and violates the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I think we will soon see that it violates as well the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Fortunately, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no notwithstanding clause. We may reach a point sometime soon at which the Government of Quebec must deal with that. But the point I wish to make now is that a failed Meech Lake is not without some convenience to Quebec City and not without some convenience to the Prime Minister.
As our Party's spokesman for Meech Lake over the past four years, I can assure the House I am a keen observer of the Accord and I have thought about it a lot. It seems, in a certain sense, to be a mirage. It looks like an agreement, but the more you examine it the more you find it is full of intentional ambiguities.
I want to say a word about intentional ambiguities. We attempted, as others did across the country, to clarify the ambiguities, to make amendments to make it more clear. But I do not wish to dismiss the concept of the intentional ambiguity. I remember, before my time here, when the International Monetary Fund was established, I heard Louis Rasminsky, who was our representative at Bretton Woods when that was done, observing that one of the great achievements of the establishment of the IMF was that the document establishing it had no unintentional ambiguities. In other words, it had ambiguities but none of them were unintentional.
When a lawyer acts for a client, he does not want ambiguities, intentional or unintentional. You want to be able to tell your client in any situation exactly what his or her rights will be. To do less than that as a lawyer is to fail your client.
In building a constitution for the IMF, to use my example, or for a nation, intentional ambiguities are often desirable. They permit an agreement to be signed. Basically, the parties are saying, I have my interpretation of what this means. You have your interpretation. Eventually it will be settled, but we can live with the ambiguities in the meanwhile. We are ready in the

The Address-Mr. Kaplan
meantime to accept ambiguity for the sake of a deal. Lawyers and clients do not do that, but statesmen very often do.
So I do not mean to criticize the intentional ambiguity, but the trouble with the mirage of Meech Lake is that it is replete with ambiguity. So much so that on just leaving the room, parties who had just risen from the negotiating table were giving their various versions of what terms meant.
"Peace, order and good government" is an ambiguous phrase that if we had forced the Fathers of Confederation to settle in 1867 exactly what this phrase meant, or if we had asked the Fathers of the American Constitution to tell us what "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" meant exactly and what the court would say in every circumstance, they would have a lot of difficulty. But the Meech Lake mirage is too full of ambiguities. Our purpose in the Liberal Party, in the Official Opposition-read our minority report-is to clarify these ambiguities.
If we take the issue of the rights of women versus collective rights of the state as a distinct society, Premier Bourassa was saying the rights of women were not affected by the distinct society clause. But the women in the country, who had competent legal advisers whose legal advice I have read with great care, were able to say there is doubt, there is an ambiguity here. We tried on the Liberal side, in our amendments, to resolve it.
I want to give another example of ambiguity. It was the question of the national purpose in shared cost programs. Premier Peterson was able to say the national purpose will settle whether federal funding will go to a shared-cost program. But in the Province of Quebec, a completely different argument was being made about a very important clause that needed to be settled at the table. Some ambiguity could have been tolerated, but we needed to clear up those fundamental ambiguities.
The Government took the line we were facing a seamless web which could not be touched. In other words, a bubble that at one touch could explode into thin air. I did not look at it that way. I looked at it as a series of ambiguities that people of goodwill could resolve and ought to resolve. If you return to the analogy of what happened in 1981 and 1982, that is what we tried to do. We took amendments right down to the wire because they brought additional support for the package, and clarity to the Constitution of Canada that we were trying to establish.
In what I have said I may have given the impression that it is not important to amend the Constitution. I want to say I think it is extremely important to do so. But the reason why the resolution of the Meech Lake Accord one way or the other is less important than the process we have been taken through is because at the heart of the process the puffery about Quebec becoming part of Canada, or about every Quebecer being involved in the successful resolution of Meech Lake, is false. Underneath it all, every Quebecer knows he or she is a Canadian. Quebecers know that Quebec is part of Canada and most Quebecers are proud of it. I am not saying they are all proud of being part of Canada. We know what the result of the vote was. But I am able to say most Quebecers are proud of it. They pay taxes, as the rest of us do, and they benefit from services. To say the passing of Meech Lake was essential because otherwise Quebecers and Quebec would not be part of Canada is a total fraud.
The importance of constitutional reform is not to make Quebec a part of Canada, or make Quebecers feel they are Canadians. They already do. The importance of it is to improve the relations by which we live together. That was my own reason for supporting the Meech Lake Accord. I saw in it the beginnings of measures that would bring more justice, equity and clarity into our relations.
I do not have a lot of time, but I would like to give one example. There is something wrong with the way the Supreme Court of Canada is established under the present Constitution. It is not fair to ask a provincial Government to bring its grievance against the federal Government to a tribunal which is wholly appointed by the federal Government. That does not have the appearance of fairness. No one in private arbitration would submit their grievance with another party to an arbitrator chosen by the other party.
So Meech Lake had a point. It provided the machinery which gave the provinces more of a feeling that the arbitration would look fair, and from that would flow a sense of it being more fair. I could give the example of cost-shared programs as well, there being more provincial say over them. So we were onto something with Meech Lake and the point of my intervention today is to say how much I regret its abandonment by Quebec and by the Prime Minister and how much I think we should

be determined to try and get through a sensible stage of constitutional evolution, based on the Meech Lake mirage but fleshing the mirage out with the reality of interpretations and definitions and clarifications so we will know, when we get through it, that we have a country and that we are better off.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe what I just heard in the House today, from someone who claims, as he said, to be -

Is it true that the Hon. Member is the spokesman? For the record, the Hon. Member acknowledges that he is the spokesperson for the Liberal Party of Canada on the Meech Lake Accord.

He has just given us a speech full of misleading arguments and incredible contradictions, not to support Meech Lake, because considering in the time it took him to praise the benefits of Meech Lake and its importance for Canada, no, not to denigrate the Accord -that was basically what was said by the Hon. Member who is the federal Liberal Party spokesman on the Meech Lake Accord, Mr. Speaker.
To put things in their proper context, I would like to provide a historical perspective. It all started in the 1984 election, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Leader of the Conservative Party, who subsequently became Prime Minister of Canada, promised, in a speech he made in Sept-Iles, to ensure that our Government's first objective in Constitutional matters would be to bring Quebec back into the Constitutional fold, Mr. Speaker. That was our objective then and it has been maintained to this very day.
Subseqently, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec submitted five requests to the provincial Premiers at the annual Conference of First Ministers held in Edmonton in the summer of 1986. The provincial Premiers unanimously approved the objective of bringing Quebec back into the Constitutional fold. And that is what Meech Lake is all about. The whole point was to bring Quebec back into the Constitutional family.
The Address-Mr. Kaplan
Our Leader, after the signing of the Accord-


Mr. Corbeil:: With dignity!


Jean J. Charest: With dignity. My colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Corbeil), the new Member for d'Anjou- Rivieres-des-Prairies and very well known in Quebec, emphasized: "With dignity". That has always been the Government's objective and it still is today. However, the spokesman for the federal Liberal Party of Canada on Meech Lake referred to the Accord as a mirage. Is that what you call promoting the Meech Lake Accord which is essential for our province and for Quebecers? You called it a mirage?
He also referred to puffery. I am not sure what that means, Mr. Speaker, but I do know he does not mean it as a compliment to Meech Lake.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say just one thing. First of all I want to tell the federal Liberal Party spokesman that today he betrayed a commitment made by his Leader and his Party to Meech Lake and to Quebec. You have betrayed that commitment. Stand up and tell us whether you support it!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that we have supported and continue to support this process, as evidenced by our vote on the Meech Lake Accord when this issue was raised here.
I do not feel it is a question of bringing Quebec back into the constitutional fold. It is imporper to say that Quebec no longer belongs to Canada or that Quebec needs to join Canada again. Quebec is an integral part of Canada as a whole, something each Quebecer and each Canadian is well aware of. The question is not to save the nation. Quebecers who were here supported the Accord in 1982. At the time the Constitution was patriated, we had the support of all Quebecers sitting in this House. But what could we expect from a Separatist Government in Quebec? That it should be in favour of re-affirming and patriating our Constitution? Impossible!
We are here to improve our Constitution. We have put forward suggestions to that effect. The Government has even refused to deal with them and it is this attitude which is responsible for the demise of the Meech Lake Accord. They would not accept amendments. They refuse to broaden their outlook. The Constitution can not be amended just to meet the needs of a single province. This is simply not done! A Quebec round is out of the question.

The Address-Mr. Kaplan

What you need to have to amend our Constitution is a Canada Round, and that is what we tried to do, building on the structure of Meech Lake. We tried. We were shut off at the pass by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by a Premier of Quebec who, as I have shown, did not care whether or not Meech Lake went through.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister rises on a point of order.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I think you have come to realize that the Meech Lake Accord issue raised by the Hon. Member is a source of much interest not only among the Members of this House, but the general public as well. I seek therefore the unanimous consent of the House to let my hon. friend deal further with this issue-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) on the same point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With reference to the 10-minute period, I wished to ask a question. Are there five minutes left?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not a 10-minute question and comment period. It is a five-minute question and comment period for the time being. The five minutes is over. However, there is a request from a Government Minister to extend the question and comment period.
That cannot be extended for an indefinite period. If there is agreement in the House, I could propose to the House that this period be extended for 10 minutes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I Cannot speak for all my colleagues, but I would like to see it extended. I would agree to that, providing we also have an opportunity. I respect the Minister, but he cannot monopolize all the time. He has time to speak, and he could ask a few questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will agree therefore to extend the question and comment period.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I should inform the House that I have to leave town, but not until 10 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will extend the question and comment period on the speech of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for a short period of time, if Hon. Members will leave it at my discretion.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will ensure that a representative from the New Democratic Party is able to ask a question, and also at least one representative from the Official Opposition.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, if we were looking for an event which occurred over the past few years which could explain why the Liberal Party failed so miserably in Quebec during the last two elections, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has just identified it very clearly.
I never thought I would hear during my lifetime a York Centre representative claiming in this House to be a genuine Quebec spokesman who could better voice Quebecers' aspirations than the Quebec Premier himself. If the Meech Lake Accord has been signed, Mr. Speaker, it is because the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) who is much more eager to unify than divide-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Corbeil: -has agreed to sit with his provincial counterparts to try and find ways and means to bring Quebec back with dignity into the Canadian fold, as the Minister of State (Youth) stated a while ago.
And here we see the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) rising in the House and, substituting himself for Quebecers and the Quebec Premier, claiming that the Meech Lake Accord which, as the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) reminded us earlier, was unanimously concluded by the ten provincial Premiers, was the most important issue which we had to deal with as a priority. What I would like to know from the Hon. Member for York Centre is whether the Federal Liberal Party, or at least what is left of it, still considers now the Meech Lake Accord as the first and foremost constitutional priority?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I can answer yes and as proof, if I may ask and perhaps suggest a possible answer to the Government, they have lost the need, the sense of urgency that the Meech Lake Accord succeed. As I said, they are doing nothing now to tiy to have it ratified; they have got enough mileage out of it. We want to see our Constitution evolve. And I believe that if the Meech Lake Accord is not ratified, it will be due to their lack of effort, not ours. We supported this agreement.

Our Leader has sweated blood over Meech Lake, politically. He has held the Party together over it. I have supported it. I participated in the meetings on Meech Lake that were held on this Hill. I listened. I did not do what the Government did, talk about a seamless web. I listened to groups that came from all over the country.

Including Quebec, who had suggestions to give us on improving the Accord. I listened and these amendments-these clarifications-were needed. If the Government were really serious, if it really wanted the Meech Lake Accord to be part of the Constitution, it should have taken the amendments, not just ours, but the amendments suggested by Canadians: the Northern Territories were right; the multicultural groups were right; the women also were right with the suggestions that they made. But they do not want what they created, as I said, a sort of mirage. Because it was not clear enough, it did not have enough support from the Canadian people.

When the Canadian people looked at that constitutional package the next day, they had questions, and the signatories did not have answers. They were not able to tell us what this paragraph meant with clarity. That is why amendments were needed. The seamless web could have been the occasion of great rejoicing in the country.
I do not want denigrate the political importance of Quebec, the Quebec Government and Quebec City, approving of our constitutional arrangements. That is a very important step. But to say, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) likes to do, and falsely in my view, that this makes the country whole, that this brings Quebec in, this type of rhetoric is false.
The Address-Mr. Kaplan


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will take two more questioners. The Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) and then the Member for the Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). Debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree that it would be more helpful if Members talked about getting Quebec to sign the 1981 Constitution, rather than bringing Quebec in. There are about 70 MPs supported that. I think that would be a better way of saying it. I have opposed Meech Lake, but I favoured Quebec signing the document in 1981.
I should tell Hon. Members that Meech Lake is dead in western Canada. As a matter of fact, it is scary. It is scary because it is the old notion of French and English being accepted anywhere in Canada by a Francophone or Anglophone having rights and being accepted, having equality, no matter which part, as Canadians anywhere in Canada. We are losing that and it is scary. Some of the winds that are coming out of western Canada are quite frankly anti-Quebec. Mr. Bourassa has not helped himself, I might say, in some of the speeches he has given, particularly in Manitoba. I deplore that. I think if the Liberal Party wins in Newfoundland next week then Meech Lake will be dead in eastern Canada as well. I think the Government should wake up and understand that is what is happening.
I want to ask the Hon. Member a question, and I will not make it partisan. There is another Liberal view that Trudeau had of Canada that is different than what the Hon. Member has articulated. But he suggested in his speech that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Premier of Quebec wanted to have Meech Lake fail, and I wonder if he could explain that because I did not understand what he was getting at.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question because I certainly did not say that. I am glad to be able to make it even clearer that I do not think that they wanted to fail. I think they wanted to succeed. But they are not prepared to do anything to make it succeed because they benefit whether it succeeds or not. That was my point. They benefit politically. The most important thing that I want to deal with, the observation of the Hon. Member, and I think-

-at the same time, I would like to answer the suggestion that I am presenting myself as a spokeman for Quebecers. That is not at all the cases. I am a Member of Parliament- Now I would also like to say to the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) that I do not want to present myself as a spokeman for the West.

The Address-Mr. Kaplan

I do not think one ought to say that Meech Lake is dead. I think that Meech Lake can succeed, and I think we want it to succeed. We want it to succeed-

I feel that it can succeed and that we can have a successful Constitutional state now if the parties-and those are the ones I mean are not interested anymore- if those two parties were ready to have amendments proposed and to consider suggestions to improve it.

A Quebec Round is fine, but how can you validly have a Quebec Round that does not take account of the interests of the rest of Canada, that does not deal with the issue about the northerners? How can you say that this constitutional opportunity should not be enlarged? I regret the suggestion that it is dead. I hope that is not what the NDP are saying in that part of the country. I hope that what they are saying is that we have an initiative here that can work. The purpose of my intervention was to call on the Government in Quebec City and in Ottawa to do the things to make it work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on a question or comment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have just had some very strange statements by the Hon. Minister from Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest), and the Hon. Minister from Anjou (Mr. Corbeil). I would like my colleague, in particular, to comment on some of the implications of their statement.
To begin with, we have Ministers from a Party attacking our colleague here on this side coming from a Party whose Leader just the other day said the Constitution was not worth the paper it was written on. I am wondering whether the Hon. Minister who posed that rather aggressive question and the other Minister support that point of view. Do they support the point of view of their Leader that the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on?
We also have these questions put by members of a Party where the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says he is opposed to the notwithstanding clause, and he thinks it should not have been used against Bill 178 in Quebec. We have in the same Cabinet, Ministers such as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. L. Bouchard) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. B. Bouchard), saying they support the use of the notwithstanding clause. I would be very interested in knowing where the Minister for Sports (Mr. Charest) stands on this issue, and where the new Minister from Anjou stands. Are they with the Minister for the Environment or are they with the Prime Minister?
We also have this strange phenomena where the Government of Quebec says it is not bound by the Constitution of 1982, yet it uses the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution of 1982 to crush a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada. How one cannot be bound by the Constitution of 1982 and yet use one of the principal clauses to crush a judgment of the Supreme Court is a rather interesting situation. On that point I would like to hear the comments of my hon. colleague.
Linally, with respect to the Meech Lake Accord, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, after his election put forward five points for his signing the Constitution of 1982. Those five points did not touch upon at all the use of the notwithstanding clause. At that time he did not think that that was an important issue. He did not mention it at all.
The first Party to respond to the five points of Mr. Bourassa was the Liberal Party of Canada and the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. In our convention in 1986 we respected those five points. Unfortunately, when they came about to draw up the Meech Lake Accord they added a hang of a lot more than the five points originally put forward by Mr. Bourassa. It is those additional matters that we are trying to amend.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of Senator Lloyd Bentsen's observations about the presidential election when he talked about one of the candidates and said: "You are no Jack Kennedy". By watching the Prime Minister operate, and I say this in answer to my hon. friend, this is no statesman in the Prime Minister that we have been treated to in this alleged attempt to amend our Constitution.

The Meech Lake Accord from the beginning for the Prime Minister was a political vehicle for the Prime Minister. He has made maximum political use of it. It has served its purpose. For we on this side of the House Constitutions matter. Our Party, as Hon. Members will know, has suffered great anguish in reaching the strong consensus we had that we should take Meech Lake seriously, that we should work on it and accept it and explain it to the country. We did that. But for the Prime Minister to value the Constitution one day and to tear it up the next is nothing that anyone should be surprised about. This is not a Prime Minister we have in the House today who is trusted by the Canadian people. He is a Prime Minister, and this is a Government that says one thing and does another.
In this case I was struck by the sentence about the Meech Lake Accord. It made it so obvious that the Government had nothing going to try to make a success out of something that we on this side of the House did and do take seriously. In spite of the words of the Hon. Member from British Columbia, I hope the rest of the country will be willing to see it saved as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to join the debate on the Speech from the Throne which marked the opening of the second session of the 34th Parliament of Canada last April 3. I want to thank my constituents for expressing their confidence in me a second time.
I can recall with deep emotion the first time in 1984 when I rose to speak to Canadians in this venerable House. At the time I explained the four major objectives which had prompted me to run for election in Louis-Hebert under the banner of the Progressive Conservative Party. One of those objectives was that Quebec become at last become a full-fledged member of the great Canadian constitutional family. I had faith in our Prime Minister who promised to bring Quebec back into Canada's Constitutional fold, and the action he took during his first mandate proved me right.
Owing to his deep convictions and his negotiating skills he was able to secure the unanimous agreement of all his provincial colleagues about the Meech Lake Accord, a
The Address-Mrs. Duplessis
historical achievement not only for Quebec but for Canada as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that as a Quebecer I stood very proud the day the Meech-Langevin agreement was signed. At long last Quebec and all Quebecers would regain their rightful place at the Constitutional bargaining table. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) may not be in agreement, but yesterday he should have been listening to his colleague the Hon. Member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who, for one, understands Quebec's reality, understands Quebecers, understands how Quebecers feel.
That agreement that is good for Quebec but above all essential to Canada's higher interests, and which was supported in this House by a majority of members both from the NDP and the Liberal Party, must be ratified without delay. What is at stake is not only Quebec's future but the future of the whole Canadian Constitutional process.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, as a proud member from Quebec, I urge every man and woman in Ontario, Western Canada and the Maritimes to openly express their support for that most important agreement for our national unity and Canada's future.
It is imperative that it be ratified in the coming weeks by the two legislative Assemblies of New Brunswick and Manitoba, the only ones who have yet to do so.
As I said, and I can never insist enough on this, the ratification of that historic agreement is in line with Canada's higher interests. It involves our common future from East to West, the future of Canada.
Another theme of prime importance was raised to my great joy in the Throne Speech, that of research, science and technology.
The fact that that important, future-building area was again emphasized is another clear proof that this Government continues to view it as a priority.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned with high technology for a long time, and for a number of reasons. I was city councillor of Ste. Foy before I took active part in federal politics, and I had an opportunity to work at various matters of business for the City and the area, this gave me the opportunity to assess the importance of research and high technology for economic development in the riding of Louis-Hebert and the Quebec city area.

The Address-Mrs. Duplessis
In Louis-Hebert we enjoy a privileged environment because of our technological knowhow. The resources and potential are huge and available, and our Prime Minister in 1982 assessed this correctly when he stated during a stay in Quebec City, and I quote: "You have everything needed to become Canada's strategic research and development centre".
And the actions taken during our last term clearly show that not even once did that recognition of the Quebec city area by this Conservative Government fail. Let us recall the establishment of the high technology park in Ste. Foy, Quebec, the location of the National Optical Institute, a promise made by the previous Government but never implemented; continuous and increased support to research at Laval University, the establishment in Ste. Foy of the Energy, Mines and Resources Geo Resource Centre in Ste. Foy, something that over and above its impact on research remedied more than 110 years of injustice to Francophones, and I could go on and on.
A brief analysis shows that we can enjoy in Louis-Hebert the presence of researchers from the Laval University, the I.N.R.S., the C.R.I.Q. and the entrepreneurship of high technology industries like Bomem, Lab-Volt, Didatech, Digitech, Gentec, D.I.L. International, to name but a few.
The riding I am privileged to represent in this House naturally focuses on the development of high technology. For a number of years indeed, everyone active in the community has recognized this and work together to target projects in that direction.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their constant support during these last four years-the people in Laval University, Chambers of Commerce, the C.R.I.Q., the I.N.R.S., people in private enterprise, everyone supported my work and the achievements I referred to earlier, which were made possible by the determination and hard work of all interested parties in the community. This is why I am confident that together, during the next four years, we can carry on whith the work already undertaken and complete other major achievements.
Moreover, my role as Parliamentary Secretaty to the Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Mr. Wine gard) made me realize more than ever how vital the development of research, science and technology is to Canada's future. In an increasingly international world,
our businesses must adjust quickly to meet international competition, and this is where the high tech sector, as it relates to business and the economy, becomes even more important. Our Government realized that when, in our first term, it made research, science and technology one of the priorities of this country's business. We put this country on a new course towards the future, and for the first time in this country's history, we established, in consultation with the provinces, a national policy on science and technology.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall briefly some important events that have marked the past four years in the field of science and technology. In March 1987, the Federal-Provincial Council of Ministers of Science and Technology was created. The Council is responsible for supervising the implementation of a national policy and for consulting with the various groups working in science and technology in Canada.
The national policy approved by the federal and provincial governments in Vancouver, in March 1987, commits the parties to co-ordinating their efforts in six distinct areas. They are committed to assisting colleges and universities to meet our demand for highly-qualified individuals; to support basic and applied research while seeing to it that both academic research and investments by the private sector in research and development have a sound and durable basis; to promote research in the social sciences, especially on certain phenomena that are present in a society that is increasingly oriented towards high technology; and to promote development of a culture with an increased focus on science.
The Government has established a National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, consisting of 36 representatives from the scientific community, education, industry and labour, and chaired by none other than our Prime Minister.
In January 1988, I had the pleasure of attending the National Conference on Technology and Innovation, with over 200 decision makers from industry, the academic world and labour, and together we spent two days examining how science and technology could best serve the Canadian economy. We considered how productivity could be increased, how to increase the value of our products and especially how to make it easier for new high technology companies to get started.

Another worthwhile initiative was the announcement, on August 4, 1987, of the creation of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. This new Department will play a major role in the formulation of economic policies geared to the development and implementation of technologies absolutely vital for the establishment of an industrial economy able to compete the international level. It will also have to increase the government's awareness of the needs and concerns of our industrial and scientific communities.
Toward the end of 1987, three committees of the Advisory Council worked relentlessly to come up with recommendations in an effort to guide the government's decisions in the field of science and technology. With regard to universities, one suggestion called for the govemement to fund Centres of excellence, create a scholarship program for Science and Engineering students, and increase the budget of three granting councils for research.
And that is why, in January 1988, the Prime Minister of Canada announced that the Govemement would spend $1.3 billion in the next five years towards new science and technology projects carried at Canadian universities.
The three major initiatives announced since directly result from the recommendations made by the Advisory Council and show how important university research and studies are for this Government. Let's review these initiatives: there was the creation of national networks of Centres of excellence, for which $250 million were granted, the establishment of a scholarship program in Canada for students in the field of Science and Engineering and related fields, which represent altogether $80 million, and finally a major increase of $200 million in the core budgets of the granting councils.
The purpose of setting-up a national network of centers of excellence is to promote co-operation between universities and industry and prevent the duplication of research as well as encourage the immediate spread of new discoveries, in order to better ensure Canada's long term competitiveness at the international level. So far, this initiative has been an unqualified success.
The Address-Mrs. Duplessis
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the number of projects submitted exceeds largely everything we had imagined, and the researchers I met recently insisted that they could never have obtained so much co-operation between the various universities without such a program.
They felt that such co-operation could only prove advantageous in every respect and the scientific community is universally grateful to the Government for providing them with this unique chance to create solid and long lasting contacts with their counterparts everywhere in this country.
So far, Mr. Speaker, university people and private enterprise are enthousiastic about the benefits accruing from the creation of the center of excellence network, and we are now involved in the review of various projects submitted by the ad hoc committees.
We can already foresee the more than positive spinoffs from the creation of centers of excellence and together with the researchers, I am delighted with the valuable impact of this happy initiative.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have dealt with all the other achievements of our Government in the area of science and technology. I refer here to the $1,2 billion contract under the Canada Space Program for the construction of a space computerized engineering robot which will generate jobs representing more than 100 000 men-year and will bring in $8 billion in revenues by the year 2000. I wish I could have dealt in depth with the Innovaction strategy, the $90 million invested in microelectronics, as well as the space agency, with investments of $3 billion over the next decade, which is important not only for Quebec, but for Canada as a whole.
My time is running out and I'll conclude by saying- and I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker-that much has been achieved. But in this field which is progressing daily, much remains to be done, and in view of the strong determination the Government has shown over the past four years, I am sure that during the next four years, with the co-operation of everyone, we will achieve great things, in the best interest and for the future well-being of this country.


William Warren Allmand: Early in her speech, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the Constitution. May I ask the Hon. Member whether she accepts the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister to the effect that the

The Address-Ms. Hunter
notwithstanding clause is bad and that we should seek ways to get rid of it? Or does she accept the policy enunciated by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Bouchard) to the effect that the notwithstanding clause is necessary and should be kept in the Constitution? Could she give us her opinion on this issue?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) for his question. I should like to tell him that a long time ago the Prime Minister had stated that the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause had weakened the Constitution, and if my Hon. friend had read yesterday's Le Devoir he would know that the reason his former leader, Mr. Trudeau, had included the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution was really to have control and to be able to weaken the Constitution if ever something happened which was not to his liking.
The right was granted and the notwithstanding clause was included in the Constitution. As a Quebec Member, I can understand why Premier Bourassa would use that clause since it already was in the Constitution. I think that the Prime Minister and the Provincial Premiers figure they will soon be able to discuss that item during new constitutional rounds, but they won't be able to do so until the Meech Lake Accord is ratified by all provinces. That's the important issue here.
I would like to add, as a Member for Quebec, that having been excluded of that famous night of negotiations, you remember when Mr. Levesque showed up here, sincerely wishing to enter the new Canadian Constitution-You remember that the province of Quebec was cast aside. Try to imagine how the people of Quebec felt, try to put yourselves in their shoes. The people in Quebec are saying: We were then excluded, and now two provinces in Canada don't want to see Quebec in the Constitution. Try to imagine what could happen. Yesterday, my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) went even further! We are faced with a dangerous situation, which could lead to the separation of one province. And that would be the end of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to make our English-speaking colleagues understand the situation, because they don't want to hear anything about it. That is the fact, and that is what each and every ordinary citizen of Quebec believe.
Right now, Mr. Speaker, we should not try to find out if it was a good idea to include the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution. Right now, Mr. Speaker, the entire population of Canada should unify and put pressure on the two provinces who haven't yet signed the Accord, because that's what is important.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today in the House to respond to the Government's Speech from the Throne. First, let me take this opportunity to thank the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands for electing me to represent them. It is an honour to serve as a Member of Parliament and a privilege to represent a riding of such natural beauty. The Gulf Islands of Canada have a reputation for their beauty as well as for their arts community and vibrant political community.
The Saanich Peninsula is a farming area and a bedroom community to Victoria. The daffodils we see from the Canadian Cancer Society come from my riding.
As a new Member of Parliament I am not unaware that a Speech from the Throne will be a blueprint for government policy. However, this Speech from the Throne is unusually devoid of real substance. However, it also contains some worrying signals.
The Government has bent over backward to sell the idea that Canada is in an economic crisis. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is busily speaking to business groups across the country, telling them of the doom and gloom on the horizon. It is interesting to contrast these new found sentiments with the rhetoric we were exposed to during the last election campaign.
At that time the Government said all was well with the economy and that we should stay the course. The Government claimed it was fiscally responsible and that the trade deal would not negatively affect our social programs or regional development initiatives. We now see the real agenda.
The announced cuts to unemployment insurance are a direct result of the trade deal. During the election campaign we on this side warned that the deal would adversely affect our social programs. With the announced cuts to unemployment insurance, the harmonization has begun.

We know that these pronouncements were all hot air. The Government has almost doubled the national debt since it came to power. We do not argue that the deficit is a major problem. Where we take issue with the Government is on how best to address the problem.
The big business friends of the Government want cuts to social programs. We will see the extent to which they get their way when the Minister of Finance brings down his Budget. If big business gets its way, and so far all indications are that it will, then we know who will be paying down the deficit. It will be the same people, small businesses, seniors, and average Canadians whom we in the NDP represent. They are the same people who will be adversely affected by the Government's regressive sales tax. They are the same people who are struggling now under the high interest rate policy of the Government.
I listened with interest to the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway) and his analysis of how that new Ministry will affect the housing situation in Canada. If the Government was really sincere about doing something about the housing problem in Canada, it would address the interest rate problem. The sincerity is lacking in the Speech from the Throne.
The Government, which seems so keen on adopting all the bad policies from south of the border, should try to adopt a good idea like the minimum corporate tax. In Reagan's America, a minimum corporate tax was adopted. I call on the Government to have the courage to do the same in Canada so that it is not the same middle class, seniors, and small business people who carry an unfair burden in the tax system.
High interest rates are also contributing to the deficit. All 10 provincial Premiers came to Ottawa a few weeks ago to urge an easing of the high interest rates. Why does the Government not wake up and look beyond southern Ontario?
Unemployment is still unacceptably high in the Atlantic and in the West. On Vancouver Island, where I come from, the official unemployment rate is over 11 per cent. People in my riding welcome growth in Ontario, but they do not accept being treated unfairly by the federal Government because housing prices in Toronto are fuelling inflation there. They are also fuelling inflation in my riding, where people from Toronto are coming to retire early. At least they will have the joy of having an
The Address-Ms. Hunter
elected representative who will speak out on their behalf.
I noted with some optimism that the Speech from the Throne made mention of the Government's commitment to continue its support in the progress toward arms control. However, the rhetoric was washed away with the reality. The Government will continue to test first strike Cruise missiles on Canadian soil. It will steadfastedly champion a defence strategy right out of the Pentagon Archives, circa 1950, complete with a fleet of nuclear submarines. What is more, later this year in Ottawa the Government will sponsor "ARMX '89", an armament swap and shop. So much for a commitment to arms control. There are a number of contradictions in the Speech from the Throne, but that is one of the more blatant ones.
The Government also talks of a reaffirmation of Canada's role in the international community. Last year, Canada gained a seat on the United Nations Security Council. This was achieved in large measure as a result of support from the less developed nations. Our reputation on the international stage has been built gradually by successive Governments over the past half century, Liberal Governments and Conservative Governments urged on, of course, by New Democratic Members of Parliament.
As with all things of value, the Conservatives of 1989 claimed sole credit. We have seen in this Government a withering away of the independence of our foreign policy. With respect to the free trade deal-it is all intermixed-we cannot see the economics separate from our international foreign policy. "Me too-ism" has struck down our former capacity to act boldly and with purpose internationally.
I have travelled internationally. It is not until you step outside Canada that you realize the extent of Canada's reputation in this area. It is far greater than the kind of money we are able to give, but it is based on that independence of foreign policy.
Over the past few months Canadians have witnessed foreign policy statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) one day and completely contradicted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) the next. The Throne Speech does little to assuage the perception that foreign policy is adrift. Rhetoric and action fail to converge. Whether it be with respect to

The Address-Ms. Hunter
environment, policy on South Africa, Central America, or a variety of other issues, the Government has provided little in the way of leadership.
The Throne Speech talks about a strong stand in defence of human rights. Again, the Government's record fails to support the rhetoric. I have a great deal of difficulty with the Government's notion that Canada must continue to lend comfort and money to repressive regimes if we are to have any hope of influencing their policies. There are many ways of influencing policies; giving them money is not one of them.
I now move on to overseas development assistance. This is an important aspect of Canada's international reputation, which I hope the Government will deem pertinent enough to support. The Government has given lip service in support of the Brundtland report which recognizes the responsibility of "have" nations to assist in the alleviation of poverty. I think it should be made clear that this should not be done out of a sense of charity. It should be done out of a sense of partnership with those countries. Canada was built in many ways by exploiting the resources not only of our own land but the resources of the Third World. I am not only talking about forestry resources or fishing resources; I am talking about people resources. We have benefited from the cheap labour of those countries.
In 1984 this Government backed away from the international commitment that ODA would reach .7 per cent of GNP by 1990 and instead set the date at 1995. In 1986 the Conservatives fudged again and rolled back the date to the year 2000. The Government should accelerate its plan for ODA and reach the .7 per cent level well before the year 2000.
The Government claims to be a world leader in international development, but ODA as a percentage of GNP has declined since 1984. We are behind Finland. Indeed in 1987 Canada was outpaced by all the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and others.
We have a good reputation in the field of development, but it is folly to think we have done our bit. As long as there is hunger and poverty in the world, I am confident Canadians will support more emphasis on improving our international development assistance programs.
I caution the Government, before it drops the axe on international development programs, it would be well advised to examine polling data produced by the North-South Institute. Its polling indicates that 72 per cent of Canadians feel government aid spending was about right or too low. The same poll discovered that 93 per cent of Canadians rank poverty, hunger and disease as the most important international problems. Interestingly, Soviet aggression ranked last on the list. Perhaps the submarine salesmen should take a look at what they can contribute to deficit reduction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn Hunter: I now move on to one hopeful point in the Speech from the Throne, that is the one regarding reproductive technologies and a royal commission on them. I applaud the Government on this initiative, an initiative called for by the New Democrats. We await the terms of reference to govern this commission, but I hope, as the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Burnaby (Ms. Black) called for on Monday, that 50 per cent of the members of that commission should be women. I think that all Members of the House should look into this whole aspect.
I had the opportunity of hearing from one of my constituents who had attended an international conference on this matter. She said that women who have the tragedy of infertility are willing to pay for medical care where, if we submit animals to it, the SPCA would object. It is a tragedy which I hope the reproductive technologies commission will look into.
Finally I want to talk about a subject which I feel is very important, that is, the Speech from the Throne and the environment. Once again, rhetoric and action do not converge. This is an area where we must be careful about the rhetoric being captured by the business community. Sustainable development is becoming almost a dirty word because of who is saying it. I caution people that when they hear those terms they must look behind the language and see the action. There must be an environmental bill of rights to assure Canadians that the Government is sincere in protecting their environment.
In closing, I wish to thank the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands, a politically diverse group that have never before elected a New Democrat. I pledge to work hard on their behalf on issues of national, local and international interest.
April 14 1989	COMMONS DEBATES	543


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on deficit reduction and the debt. One method of reducing the deficit would be to cut expenditures. This could be done by privatizing federal Crown corporations.
The total equity of the federal Government in a list of corporations which I have exceeds $13.5 billion. It costs the Canadian taxpayer another $4.4 billion to have these corporations operating. If those corporations could be sold off, this would generate $17.9 billion for the Government in the first year with the savings on its operation allowance.
The Conservative Government is moving in the right direction by making government more efficient, but we should stop giving hand-outs to inefficient companies and tax remissions to big corporations.


An Hon. Member:: Have you got a question?


Alex Kindy: In the Speech from the Throne the Government talks about expanding our trade. The Free Trade Agreement with the United States will be beneficial to western Canada, and we look forward to widening global and international trade. As a mature and confident people, we know that our economy cannot prosper behind tariff walls and restricted markets. Canadians prefer to support the cause-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is clear that the Hon. Member is repeating what he did this morning. He is not commenting on the Hon. Member's speech or asking her questions. He is making a new speech of his own.
I was a member of the committee on parliamentary reform that suggested that change in the rules. It was very clear that that period of time after a speech was meant to be used for comments on the speech of the Hon. Member or to ask questions, not to make a new speech. I would ask you as Speaker to keep the Hon. Member within the terms of the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast will relate his comments to the speech of the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
I would also advise Members that there are only five minutes left. I have one more question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, and the Hon. Member for
The Address-Ms. Hunter
Fredericton would like to say a few words. Therefore, I request that comments be short.


Alex Kindy: How can we afford foreign aid if we do not have our own house in order? How can we afford all the programs that the Hon. Member is talking about?


Lynn Hunter: I respond with pleasure to the question of the Hon. Member. Foreign aid, especially run under the Conservative Government, benefits the business community. All one has to do is look at the bilateral aid program, which benefits equally the business community of Canada as it does the countries of the Third World. If there was any talk of cutting bilateral aid, we would certainly hear about it from the business friends of the Conservative Government.
I am not advocating cutting aid. I am advocating a sensible policy that is in tangent with our foreign policy.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, of course I deplore the fact that I have only one or two minutes left, but still I want to commend the Hon. Member, particularly for her remarks concerning the international situation. I am sorry she did not get around to the last part because we could spend at least half an hour debating international issues.
When he took the floor, her leader said he wished very strongly that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) travel to Moscow at the earliest opportunity, in the spirit of detente which now prevails among the major powers. Had she been able to or had she had more time, I wish she would have spoken at greater length on that issue. That is my opinion. I hope the Right Hon. the Prime Minister will go to Moscow as soon as possible. In addition, I fully agree with her concerning a ban on nuclear tests in Canada. Had I been given an opportunity to make a speech I would simply have told the Government that, since it has its own agenda and that it includes giving the green light to nuclear tests, I for one would wish that in its agenda- not in mine, not in that of my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), and not in those of the New Democratic Party Members-at least one suggestion might be made to the Government.
I would like to hear some comments on that. We would urge the Government to suspend its nuclear tests in a spirit-

The Address-Mr. Bird


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Mrs. Hunter).


Lynn Hunter: One of the motivating factors that brought me into politics was my opposition to Cruise missile testing. It brings into question the whole relationship of Canada in the international community.
Once again, the Tory Government is ruining our reputation by bringing about this type of increased militarization of Canada at a time when the rest of the world seems to be coming to some sort of arrangement for a disarmament treaty.
Members opposite are out of sync with the rest of the world. I wish they would read The Globe and Mail once in a while and find out what is going on in the world, so that they could develop their policies with a little more intelligence.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, I have approximately 60 seconds to deliver 12 or 15 pages, so obviously I will have to go to the punch line very quickly.
To be within the rules, I would like to conclude the debate by saying that the Throne Speech does provide great reason for confidence and the ultimate reconciliation and unity of our country. Clearly there is an unflinching resolve by the federal Government to lead Canadians to a common vision of the nation and to an ultimate reconciliation of all interests, including Quebec, as willing partners in one Canada.
I am proud to share that vision and to share the responsibilities which it will demand of all Hon. Members to help convey that vision and challenge of one unified country to every one of our constituents.
In all respects, the Throne Speech presents to each of us an historic opportunity to serve our country.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 2.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 50(8), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the main motion. Accordingly, the question is the following one. Mr. Richardson, seconded by Miss Gibeau moves:
That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Jeanne Sauve, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Jean Corbeil: That the Address be engrossed and presented to Her Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 17, 1989