1989-04-12

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canadians and specifically Prince Edward Islanders will not accept the Tories' agenda of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The proposed elimination of VIA passenger service is one of the many examples of this agenda.
The constituents of my riding of Hillsborough know what it is like to be cut off from passenger train service. Why? Because we do not have such a service. We have to hop a bus and travel to Moncton. The only tracks left in our red soil are left by the people dragging their feet to the VIA bus.
Aside from the passenger train service, there will be direct and indirect damage done if VIA Rail is canned. Think of the effect on our highways and our tourist industry, and what about the 7,500 Canadians directly employed by VIA Rail? If other industrialized countries can successfully operate such a transportation service, then surely Canada can as well.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, there are only two sources of human food. One is water and the other is soil. Unlike the civilizations of old such as those along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, humanity no longer has the option of relocating after it has destroyed its food-producing resources.
One of the great myths of Canadian society is the commonly-held belief that we have an abundance of agricultural land. We do not. Only 7 per cent of Canada's land mass, situated in climatically favourably areas, has been deemed agricultural. Moreover, a very large percentage of Canada's original agricultural land has now been permanently destroyed. More than 50 per cent of the original farmland of Ontario is lost to urban sprawl and transport systems. On the prairies, vast regions of once productive lands are now marginal or barren because of erosion or degradation.
I want to salute the initiative of the Minister of Agriculture to have a task force to consider new and appropriate approaches to soil conservation and crop management. May this process bring about a greater respect for our soils and the need for their conservation and enrichment.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: As this is National Volunteer Week, I would like to express most sincere thanks to the millions of people across this country who devote their time and talents to voluntary service. I speak not only on behalf of myself and all my parliamentary colleagues but also for all Canadians who take such fervent pride in our tradition of service to others.
Volunteers are men and women from all walks of life. They are retired, employed, homemakers and students- people from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, people from all religious, racial and culture groupings-Canadians both young and young at heart.
Canada's volunteers play a strong and vital role in our national life. They deliver much-needed human and social services, they champion worthy causes, and they simply make things happen. Volunteers serve on community and citizen action committees and on the boards of volunteer organizations. They place the needs of others before their own. Thanks to them, a stranger becomes a neighbour and a neighbour is more like a friend. All Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to our volunteers,

April 12, 1989
and we, the Members of this House, are honoured to pay tribute to them.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker Canadian policy on international development assistance is to link aid to a country's human rights record. Since 1983, Canada has provided over $13 million in bilateral aid to the Government of El Salvador.
With the presidential elections concluded, government-supported violence and repression are on the increase. Last week, Christina Gomez, a Salvadoran leader of the Women's Popular Movement and mother of four, was abducted by heavily-armed men and summarily executed.
Canadians do not want to be associated with a regime which utilizes human rights violations and murder. Canadians are proud of our record of promoting peace, yet our Government, through bilateral aid, does business with this Government which refuses to negotiate a settlement to the nine-year war.
There are dozens of non-governmental organizations promoting peace and the necessary social reform to ensure peace. I call on the Government to reconsider our bilateral aid program to El Salvador so that the aid is channeled through non-governmental organizations until we see a substantial improvement in the human rights environment.


THE HONOURABLE ROBERT C. COATES APPOINTMENT AS HONORARY CHIEF OF MICMAC INDIAN BAND
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a former Member of this House who served here faithfully for 31 years. Of course, I am referring to my predecessor, the Hon. Robert C. Coates, and I am pleased to announce that on April 7, Bob was given a very unique honour by Chief Lawrence Paul of the Micmac band in Millbrook near Truro, Nova Scotia.
Bob was made an honorary chief in a very moving ceremony conducted by the band medicine man. This honour is even more significant when one realizes it has never been awarded to anyone before. The new name bestowed on Bob kind of says it all. They have named him "The Chief Who Kept Many Promises", and this title is indicative of the feelings of the constituents of our riding and at least partly explains why he was elected for 11 consecutive terms.
I do not know if protocol calls for him to be referred to as Chief Hon. Bob or Hon. Chief Bob, but whatever it is, it will probably be just plain old Bob to the rest of us. I know you will all join me in congratulating Chief Bob and wishing him good luck in any future opportunities that may present themselves.


ABORTION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, many people in my constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and elsewhere in Canada are deeply distressed that for more than than 14 months there has been abortion on demand in Canada. I share their concerns.
Legislation to protect the unborn in Canada and to fill the void left by the Supreme Court decision of January 28, 1988, is an urgent necessity and is long overdue. The Government's feeble undertaking to study the implications of the Supreme Court jurisprudence is just not good enough. There has been ample time for study. The time now is for action, and action means the speedy introduction of a Bill that reconciles the legitimate right of the mother with protection for the unborn from conception onwards.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised during the Leaders' debates prior to the election that legislation would be introduced upon the return of the House. I urge the Prime Minister to keep his promise to Canadians and indicate to this House when we can expect to consider this important matter.
April 12, 1989

Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) unveiled yesterday the government proposals for unemployment insurance reform. Thousands of Canadians across the nation were both surprised and stunned by the news. But for millions of others, it was a clear indication that the government wants to remedy abuses.
Who hasn't heard, at one time or another, of some people who quit their jobs for no reason at all, except to enjoy the good times while living off unemployment insurance benefits? Or of cases of fraud where workers who have a job keep receiving UI benefits?
The proposed reform, Mr. Speaker, must aim at remedy this kind of abuse, but must also give a new direction to Canadians by encouraging them to actively search for new jobs. The reform must give Canadians new hope and means to find work. This reform will guide us, Mr. Speaker! As we enter the era of free trade, we will increase our efforts by directing additionnal funds toward the training of our workers.



Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the impact of the Government's recent announcement of changes to the unemployment insurance system on the people of my riding. Many of my constituents are employed in seasonal occupations such as construction, tourism, forestry and the fruit industry. These people play a vital role in the local economy of the East Kootenays. During the off-season, which differs depending on the industry, many seasonal workers depend on unemployment insurance benefits to make ends meet.
Under the past system I had over 80 inquiries relating to UIC. The majority of them come from women employed in seasonal jobs. It is one of the single biggest issues I have dealt with since my election.
While I have no problems with increased funding for retraining, I object to additional funding to be paid for by the unemployed of my riding and the country as a whole. It is clear that the needs of my constituents and the citizens across Canada will be ignored.
My final observation is that if the Government wants to cut the deficit on the backs of the unemployed, it should be up front about it instead of portraying the new system as a measure to help unemployed Canadians.



Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) for the announced changes in Canada's Unemployment Insurance Program. In particular, I want to commend the Government for its continuing commitment to worker training programs and job-creation. The future of our country does rest on a skilled and disciplined workforce, and the Minister's priorities are directed to the appropriate areas to achieve this. The fragility of Atlantic Canada's economy was not overlooked.
The announced changes are moving us in the right direction as we prepare to enter the 21st Century.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, during the federal election the so-called nonpartisan Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities, the primary pro-free trade lobby, spent $5.2 million on behalf of the Conservative Government and the free trade proposal.
I and Mr. Hurtig of the Canadian Council had the audacity to challenge the Council suggesting this was one way for large U.S.-owned multinationals to interfere in the Canadian election process. We were promised there would be full disclosure of where their donations came from. Mr. D'Aquino, the hired gun for the Alliance, had this to say in a letter to every Canadian newspaper. He ". . .looked forward to reading a public retraction. . .when the list of donors is made public next year".

April 12, 1989
Oral Questions
We learned yesterday that some big Canadian corporations, Noranda, Shell and others, donated $250,000. The Royal Bank was a little measly. It only put $200,000 into the pot. All the foreign-owned and controlled corporations refused to disclose what kind of contributions they made to that Alliance.
This represents a serious threat to Canadian democracy. It is a silent, invisible, alternative form of government. I suggest it is time we reform the Elections Act.


SKILLS CANADA PROGRAM
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today with great pleasure and excitement to inform my fellow Members of an historic initiative which occurred in my riding of Simcoe Centre this past Friday.
On behalf of the Hon. Barbara McDougall, Minister of Employment and Immigration, I had the honour of announcing federal funding to the Barrie and District Industrial Training Council that will be used to help launch an experimental project in participating high schools throughout the Simcoe County School District.
Skills Canada is intended to improve the image of manufacturing careers and provide an incentive for students to pursue technical careers boosting the sagging enrollment in many technical colleges and schools and providing technical workers for industrial growth.
This program is unique in Canada. Our Government has shown innovative leadership by providing these start-up funds.
The private sector's initiative is the best catalyst for economic growth, and Skills Canada is a positive and cost-effective method by which the private sector can work in concert with the Government towards educating more skilled workers among the youth of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Government wants to take unemployment insurance benefits away from the unemployed and replace them with welfare benefits.
Will the Minister confirm that, under the new system she proposes, an unemployed person living in Trois-Rivieres will lose up to $3,267 in net benefits?
Will she also confirm that this unemployed person in Trois-Rivieres may have to go on welfare nine weeks earlier?
Will she also confirm that the minimum benefit for an unemployed person in Trois-Rivieres is $45 a week.
How can the Minister explain that? Why would a resident of Trois-Rivieres who did not cheat or abuse the system and who lost a job through no fault of his or her own end up on welfare, with $45 a week?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be confirming any such thing. When we look at what we have done with unemployment insurance and the duration of work required to gain entry into the unemployment system, we have increased the entry levels marginally except in very high unemployment areas. The Government of which the Hon. Member was the Leader had done the same thing from time to time. We have ensured there are training, child care and transportation benefits to people taking training. In the process of creating more jobs in that region, which we have done, we will provide training for future opportunities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENTRY LEVEL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND
John Napier Turner: I notice the Minister did not challenge the figures I submitted because they were derived from calculations in her document.
April 12, 1989

I see the Minister of Finance smiling. I do not blame him, because the Minister of Employment and Immigration has done his dirty work for him.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


John Napier Turner: She is funding job training at the expense of the unemployed. She is setting up the Minister to slash the contributions of the Government to the Unemployment Insurance Fund when the Minister of Finance brings down his Budget. So he should feel satisfied with that particular manoeuvre.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: How does the Minister justify throwing people off insurance onto welfare? What she says is the Government will give people more training.
Well, I want to refer the Minister to page 7 of her own document which I have read carefully. She says there that the Government, as it refers to the Entry Level Skills Development Fund which she rates at $100 million a year, will take four years to phase in that particular program. In other words, she cuts benefits as of January 1 and takes four years to phase in a training program. My question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration is this. Where does that money go?


Barbara Jean McDougall: There is no dirty work on this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I am extraordinarily proud to be a colleague of the best Minister of Finance this country has ever had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Including the Right Hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker, we have in place now the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which has been helping people to gain employment and to gain training. We will be phasing the programs in as rapidly as we can.
While these programs are phased in, there will be programs available under CJS and under the new program in order to benefit Canadian workers. Under this Government we have created many jobs, and we will continue to do so.
Oral Questions


PRE-ELECTION ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASED BENEFITS
John Napier Turner: When The Minister was complimenting her colleague, the Minister of Finance, she was looking at me, apparently as if I was going to get some message. I noticed that the Minister for International Trade was clapping very weakly. I can understand that. The Minister and I both had a Budget defeated on the floor of the House of Commons, except we won the election afterwards.


Mr. Beatty:: You haven't won one since.


Mr. Crosbie:: Those were the good old days.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Member has the floor.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned some dirty work. I very much regret challenging her own integrity in how I put this question.
I would like the Minister to confirm that on November 15, 1988, that is to say only six days before the election, she announced a 7 per cent increase in unemployment insurance benefits.
How can the Minister, four months after the election, justify slashing direct cash payments to unemployed people in this country when six days before the election she announced an increase in those benefits?
How does she explain that as an example of Conservative honesty, and honesty with the people of Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is the Hon. Member who was once quoted as saying: "I never thought I'd see the day when I was calling for more unemployment insurance".
The Hon. Member is suggesting that by providing training benefits, we are not providing benefits. Ten dollars' worth of training is worth a lot more to people on unemployment insurance than $10 which does not take them anywhere.
Canadians want to work and they want training for new opportunities. Under this Government, they are going to get it.


REDUCTION OF BENEFITS - GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie:
Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the same Minister or to the Prime minister. How is it that you had the shameless nerve to announce an increase in unemployment insurance benefits when you knew that four months later, without telling the people, you would
[Stage Direction]
April 12, 1989
Oral Questions
deceive them, cut the number of weeks and take back much more than you gave them before the election? How come you deceived the people, when you knew?
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the arithmetic on other side of the House. We have said that the program remains the same size as it was before. We are going to alter the way the benefits are delivered in a way that will provide more permanent help for Canadians in terms of getting a job in the future and taking advantage of future opportunities.


LOSS OF BENEFITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not understand the figures, although they are her own figures we are using. Can you believe that the unemployed are well protected with a Minister like that!
You don't need to have been through university to understand this example. If someone had 32 weeks of unemployment insurance at $200 a week, and he is cut back to 27 weeks, he will lose money. That is simple, clear and straightforward!
Why does the Minister not want to admit that some people, whether they are in Trois-Rivieres, Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, will lose more than $1,000? And that all those who worked less than 12 weeks in 1988 will lose up to $11,000 in unemployment insurance benefits during the year? Why not tell the truth?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in the areas that the Hon. Member refers to there are jobs available right now.
Part of the problem is that the people in those areas don't have the skills to take advantage of those opportunities. We are going to provide those workers with the opportunity to take advantage of new jobs.


AVALON PENINSULA-EFFECT OF CHANGES ON WORKERS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows from the changes that she has proposed in the scheme that today if an unemployed worker in the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland, which includes St. John's, had been able to a get a job for only 10 weeks, he or she would be eligible for benefits of some $8,000 after that to add income to pay for the rent, and to buy food for the family.
According to the scheme that the Minister has introduced that income will be reduce to zero for that worker. In terms of paying the rent and buying food for the family what will the Minister tell that worker in terms of what he or she is supposed to do?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is really unfortunate that the Hon. Member continues, as he has done before, to put fear into the hearts of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: In the Avalon Peninsula the unemployment rate has gone down steadily. It is now lower than it has been for many years, and that is because of the policies of this Government. There are more people working right now than there have ever been before.
Let me also state that in the Province of Newfoundland, there will be $15 million more going into its economy next year under this plan than there will be this year.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the working family in the Avalon Peninsula. I want to say to the Minister that it is not me cutting away at the Unemployment Insurance Program; it is the Minister, and she should admit that.
With reference to the Avalon Peninsula, today there are 9,000 unemployed in the St. John's region. This Government has put the Hibernia project on hold and has transferred jobs from Newfoundlanders to the French in the fishing sector. High interest rates mean nothing but bad news for the region.
Will the Minister be candid with the unemployed worker in Newfoundland? I repeat, in that region there are 9,000 unemployed. Is the Minister not introducing a policy whose effect will be like a trampoline that will bounce that worker into welfare or all the way to Toronto?
April 12, 1989

Is that not what the Minister is saying?


Barbara Jean McDougall: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Hon. Member knows, we have not put Hibernia on hold, and the people who are going to work on Hibernia are going to need skills to take advantage of those opportunities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Our program is geared specifically to taking advantage of that type of opportunity. I do believe that the Hon. Member thinks that we should still be paying people income support, giving them no hope for the future, and no training programs, other than for blacksmiths.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that those who are already suffering ought to pay for the retraining programs. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Speaker, if we consider the unemployment rate in northern Quebec, in a region that includes the Prime Minister's riding, now an unemployed person who worked for 10 weeks, for example, can get around $4,000 in benefits. But with this program, this working man or woman cannot get benefits, only welfare, not unemployment insurance, only social assistance, and there are no new jobs in that region! Is that the Conservative Party's idea of fairness?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this program has been designed so that it remains sensitive to areas where unemployment is high. It is also sensitive to the fact that local people dealing in a local economy are the best ones to define the jobs. That is why we have the Community Futures Program.
We are not only looking at people in big cities. We are looking at people all across Canada, particularly in high unemployment regions, in isolated regions, and in small communities. They will be among the chief beneficiaries of this program.


BASIC EDUCATIONAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton - Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She has been talking about the area of skills requirements and skills development. According to
Oral Questions
her own report, almost one-half of the new jobs by the year 2000 will require more than five years of combined education and training beyond the high school level.
I draw to the Minister's attention that one in six adult Canadians is functionally illiterate. The national dropout rate, according to her figure, stands at better than 30 per cent. Less than 45 per cent of young people entering high school are being prepared for post-secondary education. More than 70 per cent of Canadians currently enter the job market without post-secondary education or training.
How can the Minister justify cuts in UI benefits to the unemployed in order to fund programs without addressing their basic educational training?
Hon Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, the last I heard education was a responsibility of provincial Governments. I suggest that if he is going to get his cue cards from Queen's Park he get some better ones.
We introduced a literacy program. A year ago we announced a literacy program to help adult Canadians with their numerical skills and with their reading and writing skills. We did that because we do think that is important.
But we have also said that we will be working with the provinces because they have a stake in this too. That includes education. We will be working with the provinces on our literacy program, which my colleague, the Secretary of State, announced last year. We are expecting every element in our society to start to pull toward the objectives that we all have to meet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, despite the assurances of the Minister we have been given an indication that there is an absence of an over-all employment strategy. Certainly, yesterday in this House, she gave us an indication that there had not been prior consultation with the provinces, none with the industries, and none with labour.
Under her proposal the unemployed will be taking the burden of the Government's agenda with a 17 per cent cut in UI benefits. Does this mean that, as my Leader said just a few moments ago-


An Hon. Member:: Which one?

April 12, 1989
Oral Questions


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: There is only one, and he has been making all the right points.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Given the Minister's assurances of just a few months ago that there would be a 7 per cent increase in unemployment insurance benefits, and in light of her current proposal, is the Government reducing its financial participation, which is currently at 26 per cent, or is it abandoning it altogether?
Hon Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Hon. Member is way off base on this matter. We have done a number of things in this program. Let me just point out this to him. Members opposite keep talking about throwing people on welfare. We initiated a program for social assistance that has been very successful. We are increasing that by $100 million. If the provinces join in there will be $200 million more for social assistance recipients. It is a training program. That is what people on welfare want, too. We are not throwing people on to the welfare rolls. We are getting them off unemployment sooner.


HIBERNIA OILFIELD PROJECT-POSITION OF MOBIL OIL COMPANY
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. As he will know, the deadline for signing the Hibernia development agreement has come and gone. Indeed, last week, the Minister from St. John's West called one of his damage control news conferences to try to explain this latest broken Tory promise.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, come on!


Roger Simmons: He is touchy today, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the Minister of Energy if he will confirm that Mobil Oil now wants to change the basic design for the production platform to save costs. If so, will he indicate what the job loss will be to Newfoundlanders, and what the lost revenue will be to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, what I will confirm is that the hon. gentleman's Party opposed the Atlantic Accord. The Atlantic Accord made possible the negotiations for Hibernia. It made possible for the first time in a long
time the fact that Newfoundland would be able to get the benefits, the revenues from offshore development.
I have been very public about this, as has my colleague the Minister for International Trade. With the March 31 deadline there were a number of points. First, there were the legal requirements. Second, there was the testing of the financial markets. Third, there was the engineering design. Those are three areas that needed completion.
What we have also said is that the 1995 date for completion and for the first oil flow remains in place.
Those are the details I have given before. There has not been any change. That is what the Minister for International Trade has said. If there are any other differences, I say to the Hon. Member get back to those facts that have been on the table quite openly for quite some time.


TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, of course the question is whether those facts will still be on the table after next Thursday's election in Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are very, veiy nervous, Roger.


Roger Simmons: I cannot help it if the Hon. Member for St. John's West feels very nervous about the answers being given by his colleague-


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


Roger Simmons: The Minister will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that one of the partners in the Hibernia agreement, the Government's own Petro-Can, has in the last day or so labelled the undertaking as a very enormous risk because of oil price uncertainty. Will the Minister assure us that the project's future is not in jeopardy notwithstanding the statements of the vice-president of Petro-Can yesterday? Will it go forward according to the schedule that the Government agreed to in last summer's statement of principles?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. gentleman- and this was also identified earlier-that obviously in any large project energy pricing is a factor. What I will say to him is this. If he waits just for a short period of time, Petro-Canada not only has said publicly but I will make it official again, that it is fully in favour and supports the Hibernia project. It is not only Petro-Canada but Mobil and the other consortium members, as well as the provincial Government and the federal Government, that fully agree with the statement of principles, and we are working for completion of that statement of principles. Election or no election in Newfoundland what is
April 12, 1989

important is the development of Hibernia. What I would hope is that Members opposite would start supporting Hibernia as much as this Government is supporting it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who also happens to be the Minister responsible for the status of women.
The Minister knows that her changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program will have a severe impact on women, especially on young single mothers. Many of these women will be penalized for quitting their jobs when they do have just cause, when they have no other choice. These women face discrimination on the job, sexual harassment, and problems finding child care, particularly with shift jobs. These women and their families will face up to three months with no income.
Can the Minister ensure that not one woman will fall through the cracks of this legislation and be charged these outrageous penalties?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her question. I want to assure her that among the chief beneficiaries of the new program will be women, including single mothers. I think the Hon. Member would agree that what we have done on maternity benefits and parental benefits is something about which all Members of this House should be proud. That will be of particular help to that group.
When we talk about quitting without just cause we are talking about people who walk away from a job without a reason. Sexual harassment, or the transfer of a spouse to another city, or unsafe working conditions are other categories. Those are the three most important ones. The impact on women, when those are the things that they have a great concern about, will not affect their ability to collect benefits.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE WOMEN WILL NOT BE PENALIZED
Dawn Black: I am
sure that we are pleased with the extension to parental benefits, but I would remind the Minister that this initiative was pushed on the Government by the courts of Canada. Women may have the right to appeal an unfair penalty through unemployment insurance, but we know that the immigrant women of Canada do not appeal in many instances. They do not have the same access in our society to the appeal process. What assurances can the Minister give that no women will be unfairly penalized through these new measures?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in answer let me just deal with the preamble. We were not forced to do this by the courts. In fact we went further than the judgment because we incorporated sickness benefits in a way that had nothing whatsoever to do with the court decision. Under these rules, parents are going to have much more flexibility around special benefits including sickness benefits as well as maternity benefits. That is important for women to know. So I hope that she will not obscure those facts.
Secondly, immigrant women are the people who are going to benefit from this. They are the people who need the training the most. They need to think about jobs beyond the minimum wage. They need to think about getting into non-traditional jobs that these training programs are going to provide. We have done more for immigrant women than any Government in the history of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AID
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of External Relations. The North-South Institute this morning informed me of their concern about budget cuts to Canada's official development assistance. In fact, in the Throne Speech, the Government does not give a substantive commitment to maintaining its current level of overseas development assistance.

April 12, 1989
Oral Questions
In the speech delivered by the Prime Minister to the United Nations General Assembly last September 29, he affirmed that Canadian assistance will continue to increase to reach the target of .6 per cent of the GNP by 1995, and the desired .7 per cent by the year 2,000.
Will the Minister guarantee a continued commitment to this objective?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well I cannot comment at this time on her speculations on the budget for development assistance, and that the Minister of Finance will bring down his Budget on April 27. However, for the benefit of the Hon. Member, I would like to add that since this Government came to power, our development assistance program has had the highest growth rate of any of the Government's non-statutory programs, and that this year's budget for development assistance is $1 billion more than it was in 1983-84. I think we should remember that, Mr. Speaker.


ELIMINATION OF POVERTY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Christine Susan Stewart: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is again to the Minister of External Relations. In the words of the Prime Minister himself, "Poverty undermines security. Alleviating poverty must be given a new priority on national and international agendas. We must work to achieve social justice for the poorest of our world". And then the Prime Minister states, "Increased development assistance, especially to the poorest countries, is another imperative."
Why do the Prime Minister and the Minister not confirm right now that they will at least maintain their present level of commitment to the poor of our world?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to words spoken by the Prime Minister which I wholeheartedly endorse. I would also like to add, for the benefit of the Hon. Member, a passage from the Throne Speech which refers to Canada's international mission, and I will give her the quote:
My Government will continue to take a strong stand in defence of
human rights. It will continue to be among the leaders in
peacekeeping, in international development, in strengthening
international organizations, and in relieving the devastation of
famine or of national disaster.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add that since 1984, thanks to the Prime Minister's leadership, Canada has acquired an international dimension, and that is something we must not forget.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. Repeatedly the Conservative Government indicated that research and development activities are essential to the development of a competitive Canadian society. Current support for research and development in Canada is at 1.42 per cent of the Gross National Product, roughly half of what it is for the U.S., Japan, and Sweden. The Conservatives, when in opposition, had committed themselves as the future Government to increase research and development activities to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product.


Some Hon. Members:: Question, question.


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


Ron J. Duhamel: Is the Minister prepared to commit himself today to finally meeting his Party's 1984 campaign promises?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, this is basically the same question that we answered the other day, and let me remind my colleagues-


Lloyd Axworthy: And the same stupid answer.


William C. Winegard: In the last two years, and in particular the last year, this Government has promised through the Prime Minister's National Advisory Board on Science and Technology to put $1.3 billion into this field. I can give you some of the details. There was $240 million into the Centres of Excellence Program that will bring together universities and industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: There was $80 million into the Canada Scholarship Program.
April 12, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Another $200 million into the Granting Councils over the next five years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Another $200 million into the new technologies, biotechnology-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I have got a long list, but I am sure the Member gets the point.


FINANCING OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship). The federal Government's contribution to provincial financing of post-secondary education and health services is based on the average Gross National Product, calculated over a period of three years, less 2 per cent. I may add that this formula is 2 per cent less than the one used by the previous Liberal Government.
Is the Minister prepared to make a commitment today to provide a level of financial support that will at least maintain this level of financing for our colleges and universities?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we will have to wait and see what the Minister of Finance says on April 27.
I am sure all Canadians are getting impatient, but the time will soon be right.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. As he knows, those Indian students who are fighting the unjust freeze in native post-secondary education are ending their 22nd day of the hunger strike. Permanent damage to their livers and kidneys is ex-
Oral Questions
pected soon if they do not stop. In fact there is a tragedy just around the corner, as the Minister knows. The Minister continues to swagger like a schoolyard bully while refusing to meet these students who are being held hostage by him. Will he stop this swaggering? Will he agree to meet those students immediately so that he can play his role and stop permanent injury to these students?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated already in the House last week, I am prepared to meet with the students as soon as they put an end to then-hunger strike. I was also informed on Monday of the new demands, or repeat of the demands of these students, when they state that their demands are a moratorium on any changes to the E-12 policy, an establishment of a bilateral process at the grass-roots community level on secondary and post-secondary education matters.
I have already indicated that a bilateral process of discussion already exists. I am prepared to review the new guidelines. If they can be improved and I can be convinced that improvements are needed, we will certainly look at them and bring them in. But that has to be done in normal circumstances.


CONDITION OF STUDENTS
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we know what the Minister's consultation with Indian groups has been. Not one of the over 560 groups he consulted prior to this change accepted and agreed with the Department's changes. We know what that consultation means; it does not mean anything.
The Government indicated in the Throne Speech that it will take measures to ensure that native peoples participate fully "in Canada's economic development prospects and to this end will be extending its program to assist native economic development". On the one hand the Government says something, on the other hand the Government does something else. It is time the Minister took action and it is time he made these changes.
My supplementary question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Chris Axworthy: It is
shocking the way these Members carry on.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.

April 12, 1989
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The subject matter, of course, is serious. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Chris Axworthy: Do one
or more of these students have to die before the Minister acts?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I already indicated a few moments ago, the first demand of the students is that I put a moratorium on any changes to the E12 policy. I am being asked to put a moratorium on improvements to the E12 policy.
I want to indicate to the House that consultation was carried out. As a matter of fact, I have a document of the First Nations called "Tradition and Education: Towards a Vision of Our Future", Volume 2. I would like my hon. friend to read the document. I think it is very important. It states:
Currently, student eligibility for resourcing is covered under a DIAND document entitled Circular El 2.
That is policy to which they want to revert.
It sets rigid criteria for student eligibility and limits the amount that First Nations councils and education authorities can resource students. Circular E12 does not account for the actual financial needs of individual students and the cost-of-living in the area of the post-secondary institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for London-Middlesex.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Terry Clifford (London -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Earlier he referred to the blue chip investment our Government made in the young people of Canada through our Canada Scholarship Program in Science and Technology. However, it has come to my attention that some students in this program are not meeting the minimum high standards such as those held at the University of Western Ontario in my district.
Will the Minister assure Canadians that he is on guard to ensure that for this first-class investment we maintain first-class participation of our students, both to enter the
program and to carry on with the program? Will he give Canadians that assurance?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the question is yes. We will insist that all those entering into the second year of this program do so only if they have a first-class standing. I tried to make that clear last weekend in Montreal when we announced the second year of the program. The 350 students who were with us were thrilled at that kind of announcement because they recognize that they wanted the excellence themselves.
# * *


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I have in my hand a question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Read it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I have in my hand a letter from the provincial Minister of Natural Resources in the Government of Manitoba, addressed to the Minister, requesting that the federal Government not appeal the decision on the Rafferty-Alameda Dam, and to proceed immediately with an environmental impact assessment. Of course, this has been the position of the Opposition for several months now.
Will the Minister indicate to the House that he is ready to proceed with such an environmental assessment review? Will he proceed with it vigorously in terms of public participation, public hearings and scientific research?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House and my hon. friend that today I have instructed officials from my Department to undertake a complete assessment of the impacts of the Rafferty-Alameda Dam project on the United States, Manitoba, fish, migratory birds and federal lands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: It is about time.



April 12, 1989


Lucien Bouchard: I will have discussions with my colleagues whose Departments might be affected by the judgment. I will particularly obtain the view of my colleague, the Attorney General.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Given that the Federal Court ruled that there is a duty owed to the public, and an essential part of the process did not occur, will he reassure the House that this process will be public and open to all people who wish to speak to this issue?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just said, and I repeat, that the due process of assessment will be followed.


PUBLIC HEARINGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Am I correct in understanding that what the Minister has just stated is that the Government will not proceed with an environmental assessment review process, an EARP, that there will be no public hearings on this and that instead the Government is going to have an impact study before deciding whether to go ahead with a full investment or impact study? Am I correct in that?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that we sit in the same House. What I said in plain English-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lucien Bouchard: -is that there will be a complete assessment of the impacts of this project on the United States, Manitoba, wildlife, fish, migratory birds and federal lands. You will find them in the judgment. As far as legal aspects are concerned, my colleague will see to it.
It is a very serious question. There are many questions raised in this judgment. It is a very important judgment. I deal with the practical environmental questions, and as far as those purposes are concerned we will proceed to the complete process of assessment.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister again in very slow and plain English-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Simon Leendert de Jong: Will there be an environmental assessment review process and will there be public hearings?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, a complete review will be held. We all know that there are two stages. The first stage is to conduct studies. Those studies of the aspects I just mentioned will be conducted. When we have read the studies, and according to the conclusions, the Minister always has, in due process, to make a decision as to whether or not there will be a public hearing. That will be a decision to make after we get the results of the study. That is the normal process.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Atlantic fisheries are going through very difficult times. The inshore and midshore fisheries are in a full-fledged crisis situation. Fish stocks are declining. We have overcapacity, both with respect to fishing vessels and processing plants, and the Minister seems to be totally ignorant of the situation.
Some plants have already closed down and other plants are about to do so. Several thousand jobs are at stake. A number have been lost already.
My question is simply this: What immediate steps does the Minister intend to take to examine this very serious situation and help these communities?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Of course, as we go through the 1989 fishing season, we are plagued with a problem of overcapacity and depressed prices for the fundamental groundfish products, but I should point out that in the past fishing year, there were 100,000 tonnes of other non-surplus stocks available to the fishery of Atlantic Canada. We are working with the various fishermen's advisory committees to find better ways to make use of these non-surplus stocks which have not been harvested in past years.

April 12, 1989
Statements by Ministers
We have also just announced a new enterprise allocation program for the gulf in the Hon. Member's area, and we have taken a number of other important positive initiatives to deal with this very real problem.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise Hon. Members that that concludes Question Period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
f Translation ]

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the annual report of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation for 1988.


NOMINATION FOR APPOINTMENT
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a nomination which was recently made by the Government. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


DEPLOYMENT OF PEACEKEEPING FORCES TO NAMIBIA
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to deposit in the Chamber an Order in Council approving the deployment of Canadian forces in support of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Namibia.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again underline the importance that this Government attaches to international peacekeeping and peaceful resolution of disputes. Much has been made in recent months about the radical improvement in international relations. This is best reflected in the increased rhythm of peacekeeping activity in various parts of the world.
My colleague and predecessor, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty), stood in this House only last September and again in December to comment on Canada's peacekeeping efforts around the world and to comment again on the dedication and commitment of our Canadian Forces members to the cause of peace in foreign countries near and far.
Canada has participated in virtually every peacekeeping operation undertaken by the United Nations since the end of the Second World War. Canadian peacekeepers currently serve in such far-off places as Cyprus, Syria, the Sinai, Iran and Iraq, Afghanistan and now Namibia.
Later this afternoon, the largest contingent of troops will be on their way to Namibia. I know these men and women and their families are acutely aware of the magnitude of the tasks facing them and their individual responsibilities for the success of this mission. They know of the important role they play in preserving peace in that region and ensuring the independence of the world's newest nation. They also know of the proud tradition of Canadian peacekeepers who have gone before them and of the respect and the appreciation of the world for their efforts.
I would also like to point out to my colleagues that we have this week responded to an additional call from the United Nations above and beyond our troop commitments and will be providing additional air support for the speedy deployment of the UN force.
Peace is a precious thing. It needs to be nurtured. It needs to be cultivated with patience and with diligence. It is hard sometimes and at times it is dangerous work. It cannot be taken for granted. Canada is committed to this task, and when the United Nations has asked for our assistance in the past, we have not hesitated to respond. We will not hesitate to respond in the future.
I know that all Hon. Members wish to join in offering our best wishes and support to the Canadian peacekeepers. I cannot think of a more appropriate role for our forces and for our nation.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I am pleased to say that of course we approve of this decision of the Government, which by Order in Council officially approves the deployment of Canadian Forces in support of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Namibia. Obviously, we are even more pleased when we remember that one of our former colleagues, the Hon. Don Jamieson, and then-Canadian Ambassador William Barton were both the driving forces at the United
April 12, 1989

Nations to present Resolution 435, which was the first original resolution of the Security Council on the process of Namibian independence.
Of course, we also join the Hon. Minister in wishing these Canadian soldiers good luck and in thanking them for agreeing to participate on behalf of all Canadians in this effort for peace anywhere in the world.
The Liberal Party of Canada has always been a great advocate of using the Canadian Forces for such peace missions. In this regard, I need only recall the words of my leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), in a very important speech that he gave in Vancouver, where he outlined the main points of foreign policy as advocated by the Liberal Party and in which he reproached the Conservative Government for a certain timidity over the past four years in not offering the United Nations the greatest possible use of Canadian troops abroad.
The Minister's remarks are unfortunately incomplete and I deplore his failure to say anything about the situation in Namibia since April 1. Obviously, the recent incidents, the loss of life of many SWAPO members, greatly concern us Canadians. When the Minister tells us that he is sending troops to that part of the world, he should give us an overview of the situation and give a report to us in the House, to the Canadian people and especially to the families of these service people who are going to that troubled part of the world. Is the Minister absolutely sure that this peace mission is able to do the work that it is supposed to do in Namibia?
I need only say that originally, we were talking about a United Nations force of some 7,000 soldiers. We know that there will only be 4,000. Many impartial observers consider this force much too small to really do the job, for we all hope that it will make a tangible contribution to peace in that part of the world. Now, the Minister is completely silent on this matter.
Secondly, he does not say either that troops should already be on the scene. This process that should eventually lead to Namibian independence is already underway. As he speaks to us in this House, barely one quarter of the military forces have arrived. We are unable to explain this situation. And by the way, since the Minister told us that he agreed to make additional air support available to the United Nations for the more
Statements by Ministers
effective deployment of troops, I wonder why this offer of additional support from Canada was not made several weeks ago already, so that those men and women who will go in the coming days to help this United Nations contingent would already be in place and performing their peacekeeping duties.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I welcome the Minister's announcement. We share with the Government and Canadians the considerable pride we have in the role our Canadian Forces have played in peace-keeping operations around the world. That they are serving with distinction whether in Cyprus, Syria, the Sinai, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan signifies the commitment of Canadians to the peaceful resolution of disputes. It is the reason why our Forces are recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In the case of Namibia, as recent events attest, Canadian troops are entering a sensitive and dangerous situation. They are there to oversee the implementation of Namibian independence resulting from negotiations which did not involve the Namibian Contact group, of which Canada is a member, nor the UN Council for Namibia, but rather Angola, Cuba and South Africa. SWAPO and the myriad South African occupying forces have been engaged in bloody conflict. This is partially a result of confusion surrounding the peace process, perhaps exploited by both sides. It is equally the result of the failure of the Security Council, of which Canada is a member, to ensure speedy deployment of UNTAG forces in sufficient numbers.
Canada is highly respected in southern Africa. Its participation in UNTAG will be welcomed. However, the safety and effectiveness of our Forces as well as Canada's prestige will depend upon Canada's role in restoring trust and confidence in the role of the UN itself. That will require that the strength of UNTAG forces be set at the agreed upon level of 7,500 persons. It will depend upon ensuring that the elections are not controlled by South Africa but by the United Nations, and that there be a stop to South African manipulation and intimidation. Only then will Namibia become the world's newest nation.

April 12, 1989
Introduction of Bills


CANADA-EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION TABLING OF REPORT OF CANADIAN DELEGATION TO COSTA RICA AND GUATEMALA
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Pursuant to S.O. 34(1), it is my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to table in both official languages the report of the Official Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association on the Forum on Strengthening Democracy held in San Jose, Costa Rica Februaiy 6-8, 1989, and their visit to Guatemala of 8-10 February, 1989.
Concerning the report on the meetings prior to the 7th Parliamentary and Scientific Conference and the meeting preparatory to the XVIIth Annual Meeting with the European Parliament held from January 30 to February 3 and on March 29-30, 1989.
As Canadian parliamentarians, we are all agreed on the principle of establishing a Central American Parliament to foster peace, tolerance and understanding among the peoples of Central America. When Costa Rica ratifies the proposal to create such a Central-Am-erican Parliament, Canada will consider financial support towards that end.

The Parliament of Canada will host a conference for 200-plus parliamentarians and scientists in Ottawa in June, 1990, entitled "Global Environmental Changes, Science, Democracy and the Survival of the Planet". I urge Members of this House to become involved and to demonstrate Canada's resolve to be a leader with real expertise and solutions to offer this global challenge.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and to amend the Access to Information Act in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-5,. an Act to amend the Railway Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


RADIO ACT
Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Radio Act and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: 
CRIMINAL CODE
Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (pari-mutuel betting).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS

[Stage Direction]
[English ]

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The purpose of this private Member's Bill is to clarify the definition of election expenses under the Canada Elections Act.
If passed, this Bill will significantly change the manner in which expense are defined. All expenses and liabilities incurred for the purpose of directly or indirectly promoting a particular registered Party will be considered the expenses of that Party.
Introduction of Bills
In every election some candidates are able to exceed the appropriate spending limits because of the fuzziness of the Elections Act. This Bill will remove that confusion.
If this Bill had been passed before the last election, it would have resolved what happened in the past. It would have clarified the problem that existed with regard to the definition of election expenses that were identified by the all-Party committee looking into the matter of the campaign expenses of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse).
Ideally, I would like to see companion legislation proposed either by the Government or the Opposition that will deal specifically with the role of advertising by third Parties in Canada's elections. This is necessary in order for us to have a clean election Act that all Parties, all individuals, all corporations, and all unions are able to live up to.


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

Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an Act to amend the Labour Code (severance pay).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ron Fisher: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill. It will have the effect of ensuring more adequate severance pay for older, longer-service workers, namely, those with more than 20 years of service.


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

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 12, 1989
Introduction of Bills


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The purpose of this Bill is to make the office of the Auditor General a more current and effective institution by allowing it to report comprehensive audits as they are completed, rather than once a year as at present.
For many years, at least the last 10 years, public accounts committees have supported this idea. Many Members from both sides of the House have also supported the move.
The Bill is very simple and it would only require the addition of one word to allow the Auditor General to report as each comprehensive audit is completed.
Motion agreed, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-229, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act (murder).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jim Karygiannis: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill which proposes amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
Canadians are demanding changes to the Young Offenders Act. The amendment that I am proposing would go a long way toward achieving the necessary changes to this Act.
The Conservative Government has waited too long to consider changes. The people of Canada demand action now.
The need to protect society is far greater than the need to protect the young offender.


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

Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-230, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (oats and barley).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I am pleased to introduce a Bill which amends the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Lately there has been a definite need for such a Bill. This Bill will give producers of oats and barley the same legislative protection as wheat producers presently have, which is protection from uncaring, out-of-touch Governments which are neither consultative nor considerate.
If this Bill is adopted, the Government will be obliged to bring any proposed changes to Wheat Board marketing of oats and barley before the House as legislation.
The Government will then have to consult with and hear the views of the people affected by its policies, something which it unfortunately does not presently practice.
The Wheat Board is funded by agricultural producers and they should have a say in changes that take place.


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

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-231, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (list of ingredients).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce this Bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act because there are many people who don't know what is in the food they eat in a restaurant.

This Bill would compel every restaurant to make available for public consultation a list, either in French or in English, of all ingredients in any food sold by it, with the intention of informing consumers and giving them the
April 12, 1989

same right to know what they are eating in restaurants as they presently have when they buy food in grocery stores.
It is a life-saving measure. I believe in the last Parliament it received the support of Members on all sides of the House, and I fully expect that in this Parliament it will become the law.


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

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-232, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (sexual orientation).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting once again a Private Member's Bill, the purpose of which is to implement the repeated recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the unanimous recommendation of the parliamentary committee on equality rights to prohibit discrimination within federal jurisdiction on the basis of sexual orientation. At the present time, lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men are not protected from discrimination in employment or access to services or accommodation. As the Canadian Human Rights Commission points out:
.. .it has long been on record, for example, as favouring the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibitive type of discrimination, as is already the case in Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario and the Yukon. There is absolutely no question that such discrimination exists and that it is socially harmful.
Hopefully, the Government will finally act on its promise to move forward on legislation in this important area.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-233, an Act to declare the Canadian Arctic a nuclear weapons free zone.
Introduction of Bills


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At a time in which historic breakthroughs are being made in the struggle for peace and disarmament, I believe that this would represent a small step on the course toward disarmament. The Bill would declare the Canadian Arctic to be a nuclear weapons free zone. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, this would be part of a global initiative to declare northern zones in the U.S.S.R., in Canada, in Scandinavia, and elsewhere to be nuclear weapons free zones, as the first step on the road toward a nuclear weapons free Canada and indeed, a nuclear weapons free world.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-234, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The purpose of this Bill is to extend the present law relating to firearms acquisition certificates to the ownership, possession and use of firearms, and to change firearms acquisition certificate to firearms possession certificate. The Bill would apply the criteria at present for a stipulated firearms acquisition certificate, to firearms ownership, possession, and use. There is a clear need to strengthen legislation in Canada in the area of gun control. We have seen many recent examples of that. I would hope that the House would support this important legislation that will result in the saving of human life.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-235, an Act to amend the Criminal Code.


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

April 12, 1989
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code. That would in effect prevent parents and any persons standing in the place of parents from using force toward a child as a means of correction. This was recommended by the Canadian Commission on the International Year of the Child, by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, and indeed we have seen circumstances in which Section 43 has been used as a shield to cover considerable violence directed toward children and young people.
I would hope that we would recognize the serious problem of the physical and sexual abuse of children in Canada, and take this important step to repeal that section of the Criminal Code that does allow the use of force and violence against young people and children.


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

Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-236, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (reports to Parliament)


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the long standing recommendation of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that he transmit his annual or special reports directly to Parliament, as opposed to the Minister of Justice be implemented. In the most recent annual report of the commission, it stated that the commission believes its administrative independence from Government should be more clearly established. The purpose of this is because it is fundamental that the protection of human rights not be exposed to the possibility of arbitrary interventions by the executive, and because it is in the interest of the state itself that the agency it has designated to act in the public interest be manifestly able to do so independently and in a publicly accountable manner.
This is a long-standing recommendation of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to report directly to Parliament, and I would hope that Members on all sides of the House would be prepared to support this recommendation.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and tomorrow after Question Period I will be indicating the order of business for the balance of this week and next week. The discussion among the Parties related to the fact that we will be calling the eighth day of the Throne Speech on Friday. I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent for me to place the following motion immediately, and for the vote to take place immediately without debate. I move:
That on Friday, April 14,1989, the eighth and final designated day
for resumed debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the
Throne, in the event of any demanded recorded division or divisions,
such recorded division shall be deferred until 6:00 o'clock p.m. on
Monday, April 17, 1989.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) 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.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents pursuant to Standing Order 36 that indicates their concern regarding the Government's intentions in terms of changes to the unemployment insurance program. Rather than take time to go through a whole list of concerns, fundamentally they are asking that Parliament reject any proposals to fund the much needed retraining programs from unemployment benefit funds.
April 12, 1989


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to the House of Commons today a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Scarborough. The petitioners seek the assistance of Parliament to help save the Rouge River Valley system.
The petition states that the Rouge River Valley, which is in Scarborough on the east boundary of Metro Toronto, is a unique and precious natural area. It is crucial to protect the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas. It is in the national interest to do so. That national interest to preserve the Rouge River Valley system is shared by the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard). I am indeed pleased to state that the Minister of the Environment has accepted an invitation to tour the Rouge River Valley area. That will take place on Sunday, April 16. He will see first hand the beauty and the majestic qualities of the valley system.
Therefore, the petitioners join with the Mayor of Scarborough, the hundreds of volunteers of Save the Rouge River Valley System, the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley System as Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to rise to present a petition to the House signed by almost 250 dairy farmers and citizens of southwestern Ontario. They are concerned that their marketing system may be in jeopardy due to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement and the current round of GATT negotiations.
Canadian dairy farmers have developed the most sophisticated marketing system of any dairy people in the world and provide high quality products for our consumers. The Canadian systems have been geared to domestic requirements and have not contributed to surpluses in world markets.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to hold the Canadian system up as an example to the rest of the world and to protect it in its entirety at all costs.
Petitions


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by the residents of the capital area concerning the forthcoming Budget on April 27.
The petitioners state that a sales tax on music lessons will hurt the average family for whom music education would become too costly. They state that with a sales tax on music lessons Canadian children will suffer, talent will be undeveloped and the future of Canadian music, both nationally and internationally, will be jeopardized, that music educators are active participants in education departments, and that their knowledge and expertise prepares students with qualifications enabling them to enter university faculties of music. Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider music studies as an educational process. Therefore music education should be exempted from the proposed sales tax.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a number of petitions. The first three petitions are on behalf of residents of Thompson, Wabowden and Paint Lake in northern Manitoba and several other communities in the north of Canada. These communities were removed from a list of prescribed areas eligible for full northern tax benefits. The petitioners believe that the actions of the Minister were arbitrary and unfair, especially considering the fact that this was done before the Government appointed task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas reports back to the Government.
The petitioners believe that this is unheard of and makes a mockery of the entire task force.
I would like to point out that there will be over 5,000 signatures introduced into the House of Commons over the next few days.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to direct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to reconsider this major change of heart for the 1988 taxation year, and that there be no changes to any taxpayer currently residing in a community within the prescribed areas until the task force has completed its report.

April 12, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier IMPOSITION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege today to present a petition signed by more than 200 citizens of Thunder Bay. They are concerned about the Government's imposition of a 10 per cent telecommunications tax on long distance telephone calls.
Residents of northern Ontario are compelled to make more long distance calls due to the density of population and the distances between communities.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the Government to impose ceilings on the amount of telecommunications tax any individual is required to pay.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier I have a number of petitions to present. The second group that I will be dealing with today concerns the Port of Churchill. Residents of the communities of York Landing, Cross Lake, Gillam and Churchill, Manitoba have all sent petitions which I will be introducing today. There will be a number of petitions from other communities across western Canada.
The petitioners call upon the Government to have full utilization of the Port of Churchill. They believe it will improve the economy of Canada's prairie provinces. There is need for the federal Government to develop the obvious potential of Canada's only inland seaport.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to direct the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board to ensure that at the very least 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipment should be shipped through the Port of Churchill, and that the Government aggressively pursue additional ways to utilize this important seaport to ship exports other than grain.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of some Canadian citizens. It has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners request that the House consider the petitioners' view that the proposed sales tax not include a tax on music lessons. If the tax goes through the petitioners feel that music education will become too costly for the average Canadian family. It is imperative that music studies should be considered as an educational process and therefore not taxable.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to exempt music education from the proposed sales tax.


The Deputy Speaker:: I see the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) is standing in his place. I will recognize the Hon. Member on Petitions. Normally, I ask that members do all their petitions once they have the floor.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on another matter from some other producers in my riding, the beef producers. They state that whereas the Canadian beef industry is being undermined by increasing amounts of unrolled or ungraded beef being imported into Canada from the United States; whereas this beef is being sold to Canadian consumers who are expecting high quality Grade A Canadian beef; and where these imports are not identified as a quality or grade, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take immediate action to require that all imported beef in carcass form or as boxed beef be marked as to the Canadian grade equivalent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On
point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the Parties in the House about the fact that we all have quite a few Members who would like to speak in the current debate. Considering that Standing Order 52 provides that Members may speak for 20 minutes, with a ten-minute period for questions and comments, I think it would be in the interests of the House and all its Members to agree to cut our speaking time to 15 minutes, with five minutes for questions and comments.
April 12, 1989

This way, Mr. Speaker,-and I would ask the Chair to be strict about enforcing the Standing Orders-we could give more Members an opportunity to speak in this debate the next two days and perhaps give more of our newly-elected Members a chance as well.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations. I understand the proposal being put forward is for 15 minute speeches followed by 5 minutes for questions and comments. That is to be the rule for the remaining part of the Throne Speech debate. As long as we see this as not setting any kind of precedent it is in the best interests of the House and in the best interests of members of all Parties.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that those discussions have taken place. We are pleased to co-operate. We think it is an excellent opportunity to ensure that we have as many Members involved in this debate as is possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech of the opening of the session; and on the amendment of Mr. Foster:
That the following be added to the Address:
"This House regrets that Your Excellency's advisors have failed to recognize the importance of agriculture to Canada's economy:
(1)	by only making a three-line reference to agriculture in the Speech from the Throne implying that farmers are a drain on the national treasury;
The Address-Mr Bevilacqua
(2)	by removing oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board without consulting with, or obtaining the approval of, the major farm organizations thereby adding to concerns that the Board will eventually be dismantled;
(3)	by taking a position in the Free Trade negotiations which will lead to a weakening, if not the destruction, of Canada's orderly marketing systems in the grain, poultry, dairy and horticultural sectors and by not providing adequate adjustment programs as evidenced by the de Grandpre Report;
(4)	by failing to commence negotiations with the U.S. on an agricultural subsidy code so that farmers will not face U.S. countervail at the whim of U.S. lobby groups such as is now threatening Canada's pork producers;
(5)	by undermining the viability of the beef industry by allowing increasing amounts of "no roll" (ungraded) beef into Canada from the U.S.; and
(6)	by not providing any new initiatives through the Farm Credit Corporation to cope with the farm debt crisis and high interest rates."
Mr. Mauricio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise for my first time in this House to respond to the Speech from the Throne.
First, I would like to say how proud I am to have been elected to the House of Commons and to represent the people of Canada's most populated riding, the riding of York North. Getting here, I must say, was a bit difficult. As a matter of fact, I am perhaps the only Member in the House who had to win the same election twice before he could take his seat. I think my experience has given me a greater appreciation for the meaning of the often heard expression "better late than never".
No greater honour can be bestowed upon a Canadian than to have been elected by one's fellow citizens to the Parliament of Canada. This was possible only because of the overwhelming support I received from the hard working, compassionate and caring people who reside in the riding of York North. I am extremely grateful to them for their vote of confidence and their expression of faith in my candidacy.
I pledge to my constituents that I will carry out the duties and responsibilities associated with being a Member of Parliament to the best of my abilities. I will devote my full energies with integrity, honesty and compassion as we attempt to build a strong and just Canadian society.
At this point, I must take some time to thank all those people who devoted time and energy and their commitment to my campaign, and more important to the cause and division that it represented. I am a Member of Parliament today because of those people.

April 12, 1989
The Address-Mr. Bevdacqua
Also kindly permit me to thank those people who have been very close to me throughout my life, my wife, Ellena, my son Jean-Paul, my parents, my sister, my brothers and my in-laws. Without their help, I would not have been able to sit in this Elouse.
If would like to say a few words about the riding of York North. I guess it can be best described as a dynamic socially and economically diverse area just north of Metropolitan Toronto. It is Canada's most populated riding consisting of four large townships, Aurora, Richmond Hill, Vaughn and King with an estimated population of approximately 180,000. It is a very interesting community of urban and rural regions creating a unique environment.
As I mentioned earlier my journey to Ottawa was not an easy one, but I must say that I was very pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the Government will appoint a commission of inquiry to make recommendations for needed changes and reforms to the electoral laws. I endorse their initiative. However, I must make veiy clear that that endorsement is conditional on the reform and that changes to the legislation be effective before the next general election. I hope that the commission does not become merely another way to further delay the progress in this very important and fundamental area of legislation.
Last April 3 when I finally got to the House of Commons, I realized that many years ago when I chose the Liberal Party of Canada as my political home, I made the right choice because it was the Liberal Party of Canada that allowed the son of an immigrant worker to seek public office, the Party that chose inclusion over exclusion. I have always believed that participation in political life in our nation is a passion and a vocation, and that the true politician is one who exercises that passion by fighting for causes that reflect the progressive vision of Canada of moving this country ahead without leaving anyone behind. I chose the Liberal Party as my political home because my faith in this philosophy, our belief in liberalism, gives us the strength to confront the powerful, to challenge the status quo, to question and seek the truth. Our faith in our Party has given us the strength to fight against anything and anyone that attempts to prevent the fulfilment of our dreams as citizens of this country.
Our Party has traditionally been the Party of reconciliation reaching out to unfairly treated minorities, to the dissatisfied regions, to disadvantaged groups of all kind and responding to their needs without alienating other segments of Canadian society.
In this Parliament today we meet at a crossroads, not at a point of arrival, but a point of departure. Where do we go from here? We must act on an agenda that challenges this generation as previous problems challenged our forefathers.
I see that agenda in the face of the single mother, who, with her children, has to stand in front of the local food bank for their daily meal. I see it in the apprehension of the 45 year-old factory worker who understands the personal threat imposed by this Government's insensitive free trade deal. I see it in the inequity of this Government's budget which has unfairly burdened our middle class while rewarding the chosen few. I see it in a failure to crack down on our drug problem which is ruining many young lives. I see it in the hurt the people feel when they are denied rightful opportunities because of discrimination based on sex, race, religion or ethnic origin and the frustration that they feel knowing that their children will be unfairly carrying the baggage of this ugly reality.
I see it in the human sufferings in South Africa, in Ethiopia, in the Middle East which cry out for a politics of caring and humanity. I see it in a country as rich as ours where there are still people without shelter, food or proper medical care.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurizio Bevilacqua: I see it in the sad eyes of the child sitting on the steps alone waiting for her parents to come home because our country fails to see the light when it comes to a national day care program.
While the Speech from the Throne used forceful language when talking about spending cuts, it was deliberately vague in reference to programs that might involve new money. If we are to plan for the future of Canada, we better start with the growing need for quality child care. The Government should recognize this and begin to plan for the future.
My concerns are obvious. We must decide what type of society we want to live in. Do we want a market-driven, profit comes first, people-last society or a compassionate, caring society that rewards people's efforts yet has the ability to help the weak and the disadvantaged.
April 12, 1989	COMMONS
Therefore, when I went to the Senate to hear the Speech from the Throne, I noticed that the over-all focus of this Government was on deficit reduction, and that reducing the deficit is of vital necessity if Canada's economic well- being is to be secured.
I would like, first of all, to be on the record as an individual who believes in the importance of being fiscally responsible. However, I sense that deficit reduction has become such a tunnel-vision view that I fear it will overwhelm all other issues mentioned or not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I am also wondering why this Government, that is going to raise taxes and cut spending, never told the Canadian people during the election campaign.
Over the past four years Canadians have been subjected to the sharpest tax hikes in Canada's history. These increases were introduced in spite of promises to the contrary. The speech was deliberately vague on what tax changes might be expected, but very clear that the taxes will occur. I wonder why this Government cannot tell Canadians exactly what it intends to do instead of keeping Canadians in the dark.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurizio Bevilacqua: I conclude my remarks by saying that the Throne Speech needs to be seriously examined by all Canadians. There is no reference to federal programs for housing or disposable federal land holdings for affordable housing or how the courts will deal with the Youth Offenders Act. No timetable for legislation was given.
Having the honour of being appointed associate critic for youth, I would be remiss in not mentioning the greatest resource Canada has as being in fact our youth.
I firmly believe that all government policy should take into consideration the impact that it has on youth and the environment. We must continue to establish programs which encourage young people to acquire skills necessary to meet the future demands of our economy.
Drug use in Canada, especially among our youth, continues to rise. I strongly support drug prevention programs and increased law enforcement to bring this problem under control.
Finally, I want to congratulate all Members in the House on their election. Let them always be mindful of the responsibilities we have toward Canadians and to never forget that what we do and, more important, what we do not do, seriously affects the future of this country.

The Address-Mr. Bevilacqua
Canada is many people, many regions, many cultures and many ideas, with one thing in common: we all strive to attain economic and social justice. It is our responsibility to achieve it.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague, the Member for York North (Mr. Bevilacqua), for his excellent speech. We waited a long time to have a colleague from York North after the election. It is quite evident that he was well worth waiting for. I am sure I speak on behalf of all my colleagues.
The Hon. Member stated how compassionate our society should be. I agree with that and everything he said in his speech.
The fourth fundamental objective listed by the Government in the Speech from the Throne is to foster a confident sense of Canada's culture and national uniqueness in which Canadians may have a greater sense of their common values and common citizenship.
As my colleague will know, this country was largely built against forces dragging us toward the United States. We have traditionally used such tools as the construction and maintenance of a national railway in order to keep the various parts of our country together.
I represent Glengarry, in which there is the town of Alexandria. It was founded by Father Alexander Macdo-nell in the early 1800s. We have the Montreal to Ottawa rail line, and the Mayor of Alexandria has written a small poem about the potential closure of the rail line. I want to read it and ask my colleague about his impressions on the maintenance of a national railway.
The poem is as follows:
Have you ever heard the story Of how Brian came to shame I'll tell you so you'll understand He is trying to scrap our trains
No wonder that we are proud of Via Rail from sea to sea And here's the way you politicians Please! Just let it be.
Sure'n our families and our workers Need a train that's bright and clean Cause you see were are not Prime Minister And we have no limousines.
We are proud to be Canadians So please treat us all the same You see we don't have buses And we can't afford a plane
Oh the airways and the highways Are quite crowded, use your brain Shut them down, it seems it's your way Then we'll get to keep our trains
Coast to coast we were united By our railways great and grand That is why we are so excited Canada our native land.

April 12, 1989
The Address-Mr. Thorkelson
Does my colleague believe, as I do, that it is important to maintain our national rail service in order to link the various parts of our country together and to fight those pressures we have always had in this country which draw us toward the United States? Does he believe, as I do, that it is important to keep that railway in order to strengthen the national identity?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacDonald (Rosedale)):: I am sorry to tell the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Bevilacqua) that he will just have a couple of minutes to answer his colleague.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for his question. It seems to me that now more than ever it is important to maintain a sense of national identity as Canadians.
Historically, I believe the railway has been something which has maintained that very essential nationhood that is Canada. It is also important that when we talk about the railway we also talk about the people in the multicultural diversity of Canada who use those railways to see what Canada is all about.
With respect to the issue of multiculturalism, I think the time has come for us to begin to review our policy and look at Canadians as equal partners in building this great land. During the election I began to look at new ways to deal with the social reality of Canada in cultural terms. I began to see that indeed we must review the policy of multiculturalism, to make it all-embracing rather than perhaps risk it becoming a policy of ghettoi-zation. By that, I mean when we talk about the policy of multiculturalism we should be talking about English and French Canadians in the same way as we talk about Italian, Portuguese and Greek Canadians.
I think it is time to initiate a policy that perhaps looks at the establishment of a super ministry of culture that will bring in everyone throughout the country.
We have talked about the railway and the people. I think they are both important elements in Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order not to be accused of plagiarism, I should mention that the poem I read was written by Mr. Jean-Paul Touchette, Mayor of Alexandria.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in my first address to the House I want to begin by congratulating you upon your appointment and the Speaker for his election to office. I was privileged to have been able to work for the Speaker during his term as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He governed for the whole country with distinction and my respect for him has only grown in the short time I have been in this Chamber. Once again, I offer my congratulations and best wishes.
I would also like to congratulate the mover of the Address to the Speech from the Throne, the Member for Calgary Southeast (Mr. Richardson), and the seconder, the Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau), for their significant and thoughtful remarks. While the Member for Calgary Southeast and I often disagree in our views on hockey-he actually thinks the Flames might beat the Oilers-we stand together in our support for the recent Speech from the Throne.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona for their support during the past election. I look forward to serving this recently redistributed constituency which encompasses the south centre of the City of Edmonton. It includes the historic old Strathcona area, the home of the Frinse Theatre Festival, the famous Strathcona Hotel and the Princess Theatre.
Historically, the City of Strathcona amalgamated with the City of Edmonton in 1912. At one time the riding of Strathcona went as far east as Lloydminster, and so far south that it almost went to Calgary.
Edmonton-Strathcona shares with the rest of the city the beauty of the wide and deep North Saskatchewan River whose valley is reserved for parkland, playgrounds, picnic areas and golf courses.
My riding is home to the University of Alberta, the second largest university in this country, a world-class institution with world-class scholars and facilities. The university is keenly interested in our Government's science and technology initiatives and is looking forward to becoming partners with the federal Government in a number of endeavours. I am here to make that happen.
Also a part of Edmonton-Strathcona is the Walter C. MacKenzie Health Sciences Centre, a state of the art hospital with enormous teaching and research facilities. It, too, is excited about many of our Government's initiatives.
April 12, 1989

The City of Strathcona was named after Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who drove the last spike of the CPR home. Lord Strathcona also served our country with distinction as a Conservative Member of this House. One might say that Conservative roots in Edmonton-Strathcona run deep. As a railway magnate, he contributed to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the impossible dream which joined Canada from sea to sea and made this country truly united.
It was the railway which facilitated settlement to the west and it is the railway which continues to play a vital role in the western economy and way of life. It is for this reason that my constituents and indeed all westerners support the survival of the VIA Rail service in our communities.
As a new Member, it is an honour for me to participate in the discussion on the speech given by the Governor General last week in the Senate Chamber. The people of Edmonton-Strathcona and all Canadians know this to be a Government of action and initiative and are looking for policies which will enable Canada to better compete in world markets. This is where the future prosperity of our country lies. This is why Canadians voted last November in support of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Canadians realized that liberalized trade was necessary to guarantee a healthier economy.
A first step toward this goal is the adoption of a strong commitment to increasing research and development. Canada must pursue an aggressive stance in the area of science and technology. Much has already been done. On March 12, 1987, Canada's first ever national science and technology policy initiative was signed by federal, provincial and territorial Governments. This project is to be commended in that it acknowledges at all levels of Government the importance of technological advancement to Canada.
As well, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced the creation of a national advisory board for science and technology. Its purpose is to offer the Government honest suggestions for the improvement of the status of science and technology in Canada. The Prime Minister himself is the chairman.
In addition, in January of 1988 the Government announced a Centres of Excellence program to encourage research and development in universities. This move signals a recognition of the importance of ongoing research at post-secondary institutions. The University of Alberta is looking forward to participating in this program.
The Address-Mr. Thorkelson
As part of the commitment of the Edmonton government caucus to this purpose, a task force on science and technology and economic development in Edmonton is currently being put together. It will consider ways of bringing increased federal participation in research and development to the City of Edmonton. I must commend my caucus colleagues for putting together this task force.
Advances in science and technology are important, but these exciting initiatives cannot take place if measures to control Canada's debt are not vigorously pursued. During the past week of debate on the Throne Speech, much has been said about the deficit and the importance of reducing it. On April 27, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will announce this Government's Budget. A plan which will address the urgency Canadians feel toward the debt problem, a plan which emphasizes restraint and which will include measures to reduce the deficit and bring Canadians out from under the burden of the previous fiscal mismanagement, will be introduced.
It is mind-boggling, to say the least, when one considers that 31 cents of every dollar of government revenue go toward annual interest payments. Money is being borrowed solely to pay interest on the debt of the past. How can any Government pursue effective programs for the well-being of its citizens with such an oppressive weight upon it? It is my conviction and the conviction of this Government that this burden must be lifted. It will be lifted.
The Government further demonstrates its commitment to ensuring a better Canada for its young people through its acknowledgement of the necessity of addressing our environmental problems. We are spoiled here in Canada in that we enjoy a nation diverse in the character of its regions: the warm beauty of the western coast, the stark challenge of the Rockies, the rolling prairies, the sprawling urban centres in Ontario and Quebec and the historic surroundings of Atlantic Canada. These are precious features of our country, a proud legacy which we must protect for future generations.
This Government has illustrated its resolution to safeguarding Canada's environment and has committed itself to policies which reflect the concept of sustainable development, an exciting proposal in which economic policies are not removed from their environmental impact. This Government's endorsement of sustainable development demonstrates a commitment to pursue policies which do not treat economics and the environment as independent of each other.

April 12, 1989
The Address-Mr. Thorkelson
The creation of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy as well as initiatives mentioned in the Throne Speech, such as the intention to limit the impact of toxic chemicals through regulations in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the creation of a centre for the international promotion of sustainable development to be located in Winnipeg, the promotion of environmentally friendly products and others are policies which the citizens of Edmonton- Strathcona and indeed all of Canada encourage and support. They are important for today and important for tomorrow as well.
Canada's future, for that is what we have been discussing this past week, will be shaped through our ability to adjust and compete in the technologies of tomorrow. It will be shaped through our ability to reduce and manage our deficit. It will be shaped too by our ability to accept responsibility for the damage being done to the environment and to reverse the frightening trends of today.
Canada's future will be shaped as well by our ability to face the challenges of constitutional change. The Meech Lake Accord has provided Canadians with the opportunity to strengthen our Constitution and to reinforce national unity. For the people of Edmonton-Strathcona, our Government's commitment to this purpose brings Senate reform that much closer to its realization.
Our Government has supported western Canada and has done much to alleviate western feelings of alienation. It was our Government that ended the National Energy Program, a Liberal program which crippled the western economy. It was our Government which eliminated the PGRT, a tax that devastated the oil sector in the West. It was our Government which put an end to discriminatory freight rates which favoured central Canada. Our Government has provided the avenue for the meaningful Senate reform the West has been seeking.
Last December, I rose in this House to express my wholehearted support for the Triple-E concept of reform of the Senate. I reaffirm today my commitment to that proposal and encourage those who are working, as I am, for a Senate which is elected, equal and effective. Only through election can the Senate have the mandate
to act in the manner originally defined for it. Only through equal representation can the Senate ensure that the concerns of each province are heard. Only through redefining the powers of the Senate can it be made effective in its intended role.
The Speech from the Throne has made clear the commitment this Government has to improving Canada's ability to hold its own in a world grown more competitive in its nature. There are many challenges ahead that this Government is dedicated to meeting, challenges which this Government must address to ensure a prosperous future for all of Canada.


Mr. Pronovost:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who is a newcomer to the House like myself and many other Members, took a very broad view and referred to all the regions in this country, something I appreciated very much. He spoke to environmental issues among other things. I am referring to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Thorkelson), one of the youngest Members in this House.
I would like to ask him the following question. He made a reference to the Meech Lake Accord. Considering the political climate in this country when the Liberals were in power, when we had almost total confrontation between the federal Government and the provinces, how does he see a re-elected Conservative Government as being instrumental in making Canada the united country it was before Liberal attempts to achieve the opposite?


Scott Jon Thorkelson: I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I agree that before the Meech Lake Accord was arrived at, there was much dissension and conflict within our federal system. The people in western Canada for the most part support the Meech Lake Accord because it helps Canadians shape their own destiny. It helps communities achieve their own aspirations and goals.
The Meech Lake Accord puts Senate reform at the top of the constitutional agenda, which is very important to western Canada. Premiers, by submitting lists of names to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), have an input into an important institution. In Alberta, Premier Getty has indicated he will hold an election to help him put together a list for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I support this. The people of Alberta support this. I
April 12, 1989

believe we will have our first election for a senator next fall during the civic elections. I encourage the Premier of Alberta to go forward with a plan to elect a nominee and submit a list with that nominee, the second runner-up and the third runner-up, to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Harb:: I want to congratulate the new Member on his speech. We have much in common. We are both interested in research and development. I appreciate it when the Hon. Member says we should be working together in order to improve in this area. The idea of a task force in Edmonton is a great one, and I hope the Government will get the signal from what is happening in Edmonton and start task forces all across the nation. I believe many of the solutions are in the hands of the communities. The communities know what needs to be done. They need tools provided by the Government. They need incentives and assistance programs.
I was involved with the research and development industry for a number of years. We have companies we can be proud of, Northern Telecom and others. This industry is penetrating the Japanese market like never before. It is prospering in the North American and European markets. Assistance in that field would be appreciated. The Hon. Member through his caucus and committee work should push the Government to invest more in research and development.
I am in total agreement with the Hon. Member that we have to save VIA Rail. We must work collectively to save VIA Rail. It is a reflection of what Canada is all about. It is the link that connects the east and west. It is a symbol of Canadian unity. It is a part of Canadian heritage.
My question to the Hon. Member is, how will you pressure the Government to save VIA Rail?


Scott Jon Thorkelson: I have indicated my support for VIA Rail. It was the railway that built the west. It continues to play a very important role in western Canada, moving goods in and out of western Canada.
The Edmonton-Jasper-Vancouver run is very important. Many Japanese tourists come into Edmonton. They take the train overnight through the Rockies. VIA Rail is very important to tourism.
The Address-Mr. Thorkelson
I have discussed my support for VIA Rail with my caucus colleagues and discussions are ongoing. However, we must wait and analyse the global impact of other programs. We must be efficient.
With respect to science and technology, I thank you for your comments. I will direct them to our caucus. Our caucus has been supportive and pro-active in putting together a task force. We hope we can come to a consensus of where we should specialize in science and technology in Edmonton. In Alberta we have a resource base. We want to add knowledge and value to that. We need to examine the whole question. When we do that, I will report the findings of this task force to the House.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: The Hon. Member mentioned the matter of deficit reduction. One of the banner programs the Government is contemplating is the imposition of a new national super sales tax estimated to generate between $8 billion and $10 billion in new revenue each year. That is approximately $1,000 a year for the average Canadian family.
The National Council on Welfare has informed us that for a family earning $100,000 a year, the sales taxes currently in place in Canada will gobble up approximately 4 per cent of that family's annual income. If they are earning $40,000 a year, sales taxes will take better than 6 per cent of their income. If they are struggling and trying to manage on $10,000 a year, that family will pay approximately 11.5 per cent of its income in sales taxes.
The Conservative Government of the Province of Alberta is implacably opposed to the imposition of this new national sales tax, as has been stated by Premier Getty, Alberta's Treasurer, Mr. Johnston, and by the New Democratic Party in Alberta. I will not pretend to speak for the Liberal Party in Alberta. They seem to have trouble determining that themselves.
Given all of this, given the nearly unanimous opposition to the creation of an at-the-till sales tax in Alberta for the first time, will the Hon. Member oppose the tax in this House?


Scott Jon Thorkelson: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his five-minute question on the sales tax issue. The Hon. Member should know that when the sales tax, business transfer tax or value added tax is finally implemented, the 3 per cent surcharge on our taxes will come off. There will be tax credits for low-income Canadians.

April 12, 1989
The Address-Miss D. Grey
One of the issues in this proposed national sales tax program is that we have a patchwork across the nation of different goods; some are taxed and some are not. It will be a lower rate, more broadly applied. In Alberta there is an awful lot of capital investment in the oil industry, in manufacturing and in other industries, that are taxed at a high rate. The rate will be lower. There will greater economic growth.
No, I am not opposed to the imposition of a business transfer tax, or a value added tax, or a new equitable and fairer sales tax.


Miss Deborah Gray (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member speaking for the first time in the House of Commons, I wish to congratulate and thank those who make this institution what it is.
I wish to congratulate the Speaker on his re-election as Speaker of the House, and sincerely thank him and the House staff for all the help and assistance they provide to new Members.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) and each Member of the Government on their re-election and, as a western Canadian, thank them for their willingness to pursue the free trade initiative.
I also wish to congratulate the leaders and Members of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party on their re-election.
In particular, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Young), and the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey), for introducing me to the House on Monday, April 3.
I would also like to extend my condolences to the family and friends of Beaver River's original Member-elect, Mr. John Dahmer, whose untimely death necessitated the by-election in our riding.
I am especially pleased to note that the word "reform" is creeping into the Government's vocabulary, and appears at least four times in the Speech from the Throne in reference to tax reform, reform of Canada's legal system, parliamentary reform, and reform of the electoral process.
The word "reform" means constructive change and represents a long and honourable tradition in Canadian politics from coast to coast.
It was the reform parties and reformers of Upper and Lower Canada and Atlantic Canada who secured representative and responsible Government for the Canadian colonies, and thus laid the foundation for Confederation.
In the West there have been five major reform movements since 1870: Riel and the Metis, Haultain and the Independents, the Progressive Party, and the Depression Parties of Social Credit and the CCF. Each of these played a distinctive role in advancing western economic, social, and constitutional interests within Confederation.
As the first elected Member of the new Reform Party of Canada, I hope to build upon this great tradition and bring a fresh and positive perspective to the deliberations of the House and the analysis of the Government's Speech from the Throne.
Most importantly, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the people of Beaver River for their willingness to be political pioneers.
Beaver River is a new federal riding in Alberta stretching from just east of Edmonton all the way to the Saskatchewan border. It encompasses an area of approximately 28,000 square kilometres inhabited by approximately 72,000 people.
Its three most basic industries are agriculture, energy and forestry. Our towns and businesses provide goods and services to these industries and the people employed by them. We also service a growing tourist trade attracted by our numerous and beautiful northern lakes.
Communities of Beaver River include Namao and Cold Lake, each the site of a major armed services base. Beaver River includes farming communities of Gibbons, Smoky Lake, Warspite, Thorhild and Waskatenau, many of them established and settled by pioneers of Ukrainian origin.
Beaver River includes the town and oil fields of Redwater, the site of a major oil strike in Alberta after Leduc. It includes the towns of Grand Centre, Bonny-ville, and Elk Point in the heart of Alberta's heavy oil country.
Beaver River is the home of seven major Indian reserves and four Metis colonies. It includes the towns of Lac la Biche, soon to be the site of a new pulp mill, and St. Paul, one of the oldest francophone communities in Alberta.
April 12, 1989

I am pleased to report that grassroots democracy is alive and well in Beaver River. Our people, in the recent by-election, seriously considered and expressed themselves on several of the major items contained in the Speech from the Throne, items which ought to have become major issues in the general election, but unfortunately did not because of the preoccupation with free trade.
Rightly or wrongly, many of our people believe that the legislative programs of the federal Government are too centralized in their orientation, focused on managing Toronto's economic boom and meeting Quebec's constitutional demands, to the neglect of the needs and interests of the more thinly populated resource producing areas of the country.
Rightly or wrongly, many of our people believe that the processes whereby the federal Government makes policy and decisions are executive processes dominated by that arm of the Government and beyond the reach or involvement of the common people.
For example, our people feel utterly powerless to influence the high interest rate policy of the Bank of Canada, or the imposition of a national sales tax, despite the fact that our businesses, home-owners, and taxpayers simply cannot afford to pay more interest and more taxes.
Our people are not unsympathetic to constitutional amendments to make Quebec more at home in Confederation, but they want concurrent constitutional amendments, namely, meaningful Senate reform to make the West feel more at home in Confederation.
In the past generation, Mr. Speaker, it is the West which has experienced the National Energy Program and the CF-18 decision, not Quebec. It is the West's grievances which the Government should be addressing with at least as much fervour as it brings to Quebec's demands.
In its present form, the Meech Lake Accord thus fails completely to win the support of the people of the West, and the executive dominated process under which the Meech Lake Accord was developed is even more unattractive to our people than its contents.
To us, Meech Lake is not an example of democratic constitution building, but executive federalism run amok. Professor Schwartz of the University of Manitoba says Canada is moving towards government "of the govern-
The Address-Miss D. Grey
ment, by the government, and for the government". The Beaver River, I must report, Mr. Speaker, is not a tributary of Meech Lake. Its waters come from different sources and How in a different direction.
I will be distributing summaries of the Government's Throne Speech and Budget Speech throughout Beaver River. I will be holding meetings in all our major communities to discuss these important documents. I shall then undertake to report back to the House, not necessarily what I think, not simply what my Party thinks, but what the people of Beaver River think about the Government's legislative program and budgetary measures.
The people of Beaver River are not as partisan as those of us here. They will not denounce the Government's legislative program as the embodiment of all evil and perversity, as some Hon. Members have done. Nor will they eulogize the Government's program as the embodiment of all virtue and wisdom, as other Hon. Members have done.
They will be more objective. They will ask and expect answers to simple, blunt, common-sense questions concerning each of the Government's legislative and budgetary proposals.
They will ask: Is it necessary? Is it fair? Who gets help and who gets hurt? Is it practical? What does it cost? Can we afford it?
I know my fellow citizens of Beaver River well enough that I can anticipate at least some of their reactions to the contents of the Speech from the Throne. For example, they will welcome the Government's commitment to environmental conservation, though they will wonder how it will work in practice.
They will welcome the Government's commitment to a strong economy and deficit reduction, but they will be looking for signs of real cost-cutting at the top, and in the thick layer of middle management that characterizes so many Government programs, before they will be willing to make sacrifices at their level.
They will frown as they read the words that the new federal sales tax is to be "fair and equitable", and they will not believe such words. Our people, you see, Mr. Speaker, were told that the National Energy Program, followed by two years of the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax, were to be fair and equitable, programs and taxes which crippled the economy of Beaver River.

April 12, 1989
The Address-Miss D. Grey
They will laugh, especially the Indian people, when they read that the Government believes "extending its programs to assist native economic development" will enable native people to "participate fully in Canada's economic development projects". The current programs, they say, simply do not work.
Lastly, the people of Beaver River will ask about the gaps in the Speech from the Throne. For example, they will wonder why there is no clear directive from the Government to the Bank of Canada concerning interest rates which are working immense hardship among small businesses and home-owners in the regions of the country where the economy is certainly not over-heated, and has not been for a long time.
They will also ask why the Government does not feel, in response to the demands of western Canadians, the same sense of urgency to pursue meaningful Senate reform as it feels in pursuing Meech Lake in response to the demands of Quebec. They will ask why the Government insists on subordinating Senate reform to the Meech Lake Accord.
I would ask the Government and the Members of this House to regard the concerns of the people of Beaver River as they would those of their own constituencies. The people of Beaver River are uneasy patriots, and look forward to the day when they become truly fair and equitable partners in confederation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by congratulating our hon. colleague, the Member for Beaver River (Miss Grey), both in her speech and, of course, on her election. The Hon. Member is the most recent Member to be elected to the House of Commons. I think I speak on behalf of all Members when I offer the Hon. Member our congratulations.
The Hon. Member speaks of the executive type of federalism that we have, which I believe was the expression used in her speech. She was obviously speaking of the ever-increasing power of the Cabinet over the other institutions of our country, namely, Parliament. I wonder if the Member has yet had an opportunity to acquaint herself with the fact that, contrary to tradition, the Government usually requests in the Throne Speech that Parliament grant Supply. In other words, from time to
time Parliament gives the Government money in order to operate. This Throne Speech does not include those key words, which are not only very traditional and historic, but are part of the conventions of how we operate as a Parliament.
Second, I want to bring the following proposition to the Member. The Government had an obligation to bring in Estimates, and to obtain Supply from Parliament last winter. In other words, to obtain funds in order to operate. Instead of doing that, the Government chose to prorogue Parliament in order not to have to go through the series of Supply days, or opposition days, as we commonly refer to them here. Instead, they prorogued Parliament and did not return until now. They went to see the Governor General in order to get an executive warrant to obtain funds in order to continue the operations of Government, rather than to ask this Parliament, the way we are supposed to do it under our conventions.


John Napier Turner: That is what Premier Getty did in Alberta, too.


Don Boudria: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) expresses the fact that that is what the Leader of the Government in Alberta had done as well.
I want to ask our new colleague if she does not agree with me that it is time we gave back to Parliament not only new powers, as some people are talking about, but at least restore the powers to Parliament that it has traditionally had in our country. I thought these powers still existed until I came to the sad realization only a few short days ago in this House that this Government, during the last recess, had made many of the powers we formerly had disappear by that one request for Supply to the Governor General, instead of seeking that consent from Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Beaver River.


Miss Grey:: I think what we are talking about is what should the federal Government be doing in terms of executive federalism. I do not want to comment on the whole idea of Supply. Obviously, I am not going to be arrogant enough to assume that I know everything that goes on in the House. What I will say is I think the triangle of true democracy has been inverted, whereby when we are looking in the social studies textbooks at elected representatives going to Ottawa with their constituents' concerns, unfortunately that triangle has become inverted. We believe very strongly in direct representation by the people. What we have seen is that
April 12, 1989

triangle upside down, with Government sending their representatives back to their home constituencies with Ottawa's words for them. That triangle is inverted.


Mr. Dorin:: I would like to welcome the newest Member to the Elouse, congratulate her on being elected and on her speech. In her speech the Hon. Member talked about a number of items that were either in or not in the Throne Speech and made some comments. Yesterday we had an announcement detailing one of the items that was in the Throne Speech, and that was the overhaul of the unemployment insurance program. Details were provided on that yesterday and I would like to ask the Member for Beaver River what the Hon. Member thinks about the proposals with regard to amendments to the unemployment insurance program.


Deborah C. Grey: I do not recall seeing the details of that in the Throne Speech.


An Hon. Member:: It wasn't there.


Deborah C. Grey: I think the people of Alberta, and the people of Canada are concerned about the Government reducing the debt. This debt has skyrocketed in the last four years, and the people in the west, as you know, are very disgruntled about that. If in fact the unemployment insurance rethinking, restructuring, will help the people and in turn do something about this staggering debt, then yes, I think it is good. I am a little disturbed about the cloudiness of the money and where it will come from and what will happen. If you discuss it with your constituents you will get a very clear idea of what they think you should be saying to this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Elk Island (Mr. O'Kurley) on a short question and comment.


Mr. O'Kurley:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to offer my congratulations to the new Member for Beaver River. The Member speaks about the deficit and the problem of controlling spending. The Member also suggested that one of the areas of concern is middle management. My question to the Member is this: What percentage of government spending goes into what you call middle management? What specific Departments would you recommend or suggest for cutting spending in these areas?
The Address-Mr. Axworthy


Deborah C. Grey: Your point is well taken. I do not have figures in terms of exactly how many dollars are allocated to that. What we are concerned about is a symbolic gesture from the top which would say that we in the higher ranking echelons are willing to tighten our belts and make some personal sacrifices, thereby sending a signal to the man on the street. I have to speak personally and say that at 36 years of age I do not know that at age 42 I should be entitled to a fully indexed pension. If I choose not to get re-elected after that, or do not get re-elected, that is my prerogative. I could probably go back quite comfortably into the workforce.
Specifically, the Nielsen task force came up with 200 recommendations as to what could be done in terms of cutting out this thick layer at the top. There is a symbolic gesture. There is a real gesture, and there is a sense of taking advantage of the recommendations made by the Nielsen task force, many of which the Government has not acted on.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Member for Beaver River (Miss Grey) on her excellent debut in the House of Commons, and excellent speech. We can all understand why she got elected. The Hon. Member made a very forthright presentation here. The Member talks about an inverted triangle, not a Palliser Triangle. The Member is talking about the inverted triangle of government. Does she think that contributing to that inverted triangle, as far as she is concerned, is an over heavy cabinet structure with 39 or 40 members, the largest cabinet structure in Canadian history? Does she think the country would do well to eliminate about half those people opposite?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit with which the Right Hon. Member asked that.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell him about the National Energy Program.


Deborah C. Grey: I think the important thing here is how efficient is the Government. If the Cabinet had been getting larger and larger and the debt had been getting smaller and smaller, I would have said: Hear, hear! I have not seen that happen, unfortunately.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by defending the Conservative Government from an unjust criticism made of it. Critics of the Government have claimed in the past that the Government has no philosophy and no ideas, that it is

April 12. 1989
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
driven solely by polls and that it has no vision of the country. This was finally disproved by the Speech from the Throne brought before the House on April 3. The Government has a well-defined philosophy, a neo-Conservative agenda that it is determined to force down the throats of every Canadian. No longer can it be said that the Government has a hidden agenda. The soft words of the Throne Speech barely cover the iron fist of the Conservative Government.
The Prime Minister's unctuous words cannot disguise the threats to ordinary Canadians promised by his Government. No longer will the economically disadvantaged be protected. No longer will a democratic government defend the sick, the unemployed, the poor, our first nations and our farmers. Instead, all will be subject to the iron discipline of the market-place where the strong survive and the losers are cast off.
No disadvantaged, no hard-pressed group of Canadians is safe from attack by this Government. We have seen that with the unemployed. We have seen it with Indian post-secondary students. Yet privileged groups, big business, the most well-off are safe. Billions in corporate deferred taxes are left alone. Some 60,000 Canadians who pay no tax are left alone. The rich who do not pay their fair share of taxes are not shouldering their fair burden of the deficit problem on which the Government is concentrating. Let us look at the Speech from the Throne and ask what the Government is saying and compare it with what the Government is doing.
For example, the Throne Speech indicates that the Government is convinced that the Canadian people will endorse its efforts to control federal spending in order to maintain economic stability and continued growth. Even if this is true, what does it say about the way the Government is going about it? In terms of the unemployment insurance changes, if yesterday is any indication the Canadian people disagree fundamentally. The rich and the powerful, such as the corporations, like the changes, but that is all. Ordinary folk, those who may need UIC after losing their jobs to free trade, global reorganization or whatever, do not like it. Neither do the three million people who used UIC last year, even though the majority of them used it through no fault of their own.
The Speech from the Throne carries on by stating that the Government believes fundamentally in those social benefits which support the family and the elderly while recognizing the need to direct more assistance toward those with low incomes. Yet through tax policy to date and the proposed national sales tax the Government continues to grab money from low-income Canadians. Through assistance cuts to the provinces the Government has reduced health services and social services available to them. On the one hand the Government talks about caring for Canadians while on the other hand it makes life more difficult for them.
The deficit is important. But there are many ways of dealing with it without attacking the less well-off. We should not forget that the Government has contributed over 50 per cent to the total deficit since 1984. Even though I am sure the Government is aware of other alternatives to cut the deficit, it continues to do so on the backs of less well-off Canadians and continues to ignore alternative suggestions which would be more fair and more appropriate.
I have three suggestions to make in this regard. We could deal with the interest rate. The Bank of Canada rate has risen from a low of 7.14 per cent in March of 1987 to over 12 per cent today. We all know that a 1 per cent reduction in interest rates reduces payments on the deficit by $1.5 billion. A slight easing of interest rates, maybe 1 per cent or 2 per cent, would help us avoid some of these problems. It would help us avoid a serious economic downturn which is a serious possibility in the regions of Canada. It would also assist in limiting the growth of the deficit. So there is room in interest rate policy to address the deficit.
Similarly, with regard to job creation and economic initiatives, austerity on the fiscal side has tended at least in the regions to choke economic growth. Anybody who wants to question that should spend some time in the regions. The Government seems to view as acceptable an unemployment rate of between 7.5 per cent and 8 per cent-over one million Canadians without work. Given that each 1 per cent drop in the jobless rate produces $2 billion in net federal revenues, action on this front is itself a deficit reduction strategy.
The Government has a responsibility to introduce effective policies and programs to generate high quality jobs, high paying jobs-not part-time jobs and not jobs in the service sector at minimum wage-particularly in
April 12, 1989

Canada's regions. Investments and upgrading municipal infrastructure, environmental protection, single-industry town diversification and research and development, for example, would not only create jobs but guarantee future income source.
What about the taxation system, a system which is becoming increasingly unfair? It is not one which is becoming more fair. In 1986, for example, the Auditor General estimated that the total annual value of personal and corporate tax breaks in the country was $28 billion. The Government could immediately move to limit or eliminate some corporate and personal tax breaks, contributing to the reduction of the deficit as well as to increasing public confidence in the tax system. We all know about corporate taxes, about profitable corporations paying no tax. We all know about rich Canadians who pay no tax. We all know that 1 per cent of the richest taxpayers in the country have had their taxes cut by the Government since 1984, while those less well-off have had to increase their tax burden. That is not a fair tax system. We could increase the fairness of the tax system and contribute to reduction of the deficit.
The Neilsen Task Force, as another Hon. Member pointed out, suggested that if we open Government procurement to more tendering we could save between a quarter and half a billion dollars a year.
Last, we might look at defence spending which has increased by over one-third in the four years since this Government took office in 1984, making defence one of the fastest growing areas of federal Government expenditure.
We do not need to attack the deficit by attacking those less well-off in society. We can find other ways. We can find other more fair ways.
From the beginning, the CCF and the NDP have articulated and put into practice the slogan, "people before profits". In doing so in my province, the Province of Saskatchewan, we have managed the government of the province in a way which has benefited people first and taken people first as an important agenda item. Government is about choices. Governments can put people first, or they might not. This Government has chosen not to. Saskatchewan, under the New Democratic Government, up until 1982 had lower taxes than it has now, higher social benefits and a balanced budget. Since the Progressive Conservative Government came to of-
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
fice, taxes have increased, social benefits have been reduced and a deficit has been created.
It is not necessary to take out the Government's deficit reduction program on the backs of less well-off Canadians. There is a more fair and appropriate way to do it. The Government has chosen not to put people first. We need only look at the United States and the United Kingdom to see the price paid by ordinary people there, governments to which this Government pays so much attention. We can see it at work in Canada, too. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting larger. Four million Canadians live at or below the poverty line, and children in large numbers go to bed hungry. This Government must not close its eyes to this situation. Rhetoric on the part of the Government is not enough. Governments have an obligation and a duty to address the concerns of those less well off in society, and Canadians who are less well off have a right to have their concerns addressed. Instead, this Government does what the privileged, the wealthy, and the corporate establishment wants. It responds to their concerns, not to the concerns of ordinary Canadians. The Throne Speech makes that quite clear.
This Government has reneged on its pre-election statements and has reneged on its obligations to less well off Canadians. Cut-backs in health and post-secondary education funding to the provinces will take place in the Budget of April 27. This is not only short-sighted, but it poses difficulties and is painful to those less well off Canadians who cannot afford health care and education on their own.
Canadians are our most important resource, and to reduce contributions to the provinces which will reduce expenditures in our health and post-secondary education systems is folly at best. Indeed, this Government's policy on these matters fails even within its own sense of priority in economic terms. An investment in the future in healthy and well educated Canadians can only bring returns.
The people of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing defeated a senior and well respected cabinet Minister of the previous Government. He was not defeated because he was a bad MR He was defeated because the policies of his Party did not represent what the people of Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing thought were important. They did not represent a people first ideology.

April 12, 1989
The Address-Mr. Axworthy
The people of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing voted against free trade. They were worried that the deal would result in fewer jobs in Canada. They were mocked by the Prime Minister and told that they did not understand what was happening. They were worried about threats to social programs and about the system of supply management which protects Saskatchewan farm families. The Prime Minister promised that all these would be untouched. Yet in the last few weeks, indeed yesterday, we have seen major attacks on social programs and on the Wheat Board. We have seen many job losses over the last short while. The Government says one thing and it does another.
In addition, we have seen a great disappointment with the Throne Speech among not only Saskatchewan farm families but other Canadian farm families too. As the amendment of the Official Opposition indicates, totally inadequate consideration was given to the problems of agriculture in this country.
In 1985 the Minister of Agriculture, after an ad hoc drought program that year which seemed not to be satisfactory, promised a permanent program in the future so that farmers would know where they stood financially. Yet we still have not seen it.
In the last election, the New Democratic Party's family farm protection policy put forward a strategy which could ensure that farmers would know where they stood from year to year and would know, when they planted their crop, what they could expect to receive from it. We argued strongly for strengthening farm marketing boards and supply management, for fairer alternatives to farm debt and for more tax fairness for farmers. We encouraged farm soil and water conservation policies. We argued to reduce the input costs experienced by farmers, and we argued for better commodity handling and transportation.
The Throne Speech makes no mention of addressing these problems, and I would like to move an amendment to the amendment which is presently on the floor, seconded by the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Burnaby (Ms. Black). It adds two items to the amendment and reads as follows:
(7)	by yet again ignoring the need for permanent crop disaster program as promised in December of 1985; and
(8)	by ignoring the needs of rural communities for basic income security and the refusal to provide a Family Farm Stabilization Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the amendment to the amendment and finds it to be in order.
There will be a five-minute question and comment period.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. As I was listening to the Hon. Member across the way stating that the Conservative Government had created a national debt, I would just like to make it clear on the record that in 1984 the previous Government left us with an annual deficit of some $38 billion. I do believe that it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that in the operation of the administration of this country that two factors come into play. One is our cumulative national deficit and our annual national debt.
In 1984, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe the national debt was approximately $190 billion, with an annual deficit in 1983-84 of some $38 billion. I would assume that if the Opposition had stayed in power our annual deficit would have sky-rocketed to more than $38 billion.
If we add four years times $40 billion, being very conservative to the Opposition, we arrive without servicing our cumulative debt at over $350 billion. If my memory serves me right, in 1985 the Opposition, after the economic statement of our great Minister of Finance, predicted that there would be in excess of over 200,000 jobs.
We know that just the opposite is true. There have been over a million jobs created by this Government in four short years. I would like to impress upon the Official Opposition and the NDP that the Conservatives did not create our national debt. If the Official Opposition had stayed in power, we would not be going into the year 2000; we would be running away from it.


Chris Axworthy: It is
clear, Mr. Speaker, that the questioner is not a rocket scientist. The point I wanted to make, and the point that is simply not admitted to by the Government, is that more than half of the accumulated deficit has been accumulated in its years of power.


An Hon. Member:: Bad management.


Chris Axworthy: It is not
a matter that can be generally ignored. It is true that over the last number of years we have seen a reduction in the deficit, but let us ask on whose backs that reduction has come. We have seen tax increases on less well off Canadians. That cannot be denied. They have
April 12, 1989

been taken advantage of in this deficit reduction process. There is no doubt about that.
What I have been trying to argue for, and what the Opposition and the New Democratic Party have continually argued for, is that if we are going to attack this deficit let us at least do it fairly. Let us be sure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes. Let us at least make sure that those 60,000 Canadians who do not pay any taxes pay their fair share.
Surely we cannot accept as a proper way of taxing Canadians that we tax those whose total income for the year is below the poverty line. The poverty line for a single person living in a Canadian city is around $11,000. We start taxing those people at $6,000, while we let Canadians earning over $50,000 pay no tax at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate ont the Speech from the Throne, and I will certainly have a few things to say to the dreamers who were telling us how to reduce the deficit.
After listening to speeches by several Members of the Opposition, our socialist dreamers and our Liberal friends, I think that at this stage, Mr. Speaker, we should remember that by re-electing our Government on November 21, Canadian voters indicated that they agreed with the way we as a Government had managed Canada during the previous four years. They were satisfied with our responsible approach to the economy and to how that economy should be managed, and I think they were also pleased with steps taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), by the Government and the House of Commons regarding our plans for national reconciliation.
By re-electing our Gouvernment on November 21, Canadians expressed their approval of the plans for the future proposed by the Prime Minister and the Government, plans based on a continuum that will lead to a stronger economy, a more caring society and a more united Canada. This vision of the future, Mr. Speaker, was based on the conviction held by Members of our
The Address-Mr Valcourt
Party that Canadians have the talent, energy and determination to face the future with confidence, confident in our identity as Canadians, our values and our culture.
As for the Opposition Parties, we all know what they promised Canadian voters! What the Liberal Party had to offer and it did have something to offer-was fear, withdrawal, and a desire to go back to times long since past. Canadians simply said no to all that. Canadians said no, and despite the fact that the Liberals perpetreated acts of intellectual terrorism across the country, despite the fact that they again wanted to tell Canadians the country did not have what it takes to face the future, Canadians said: No thanks. Canadians are people who have confidence in their own capabilities, but the Leader of the Liberal Party still rises in the House to say that Canadians made a mistake. He will not respect the will of the people! I heard him say last week it was our friends in the business world, Mr. Speaker, who helped us win the election. Lor a gentleman who spent almost ten years on Bay Street, I think he is rather quick to repudiate his friends. Unless it was the other way round, and his friends repudiated him!
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, and this is something the Opposition refuses to admit, that since 1984, we have been the Government of all Canadians, and that is why we were re-elected on November 21.
We are now starting on our second mandate in the same spirit with which we approached our first, with a renewed desire to stimulate economic growth and regional development, and a constant concern for social justice and equal opportunities in our regions.

I have listened closely in the last few days to the statements made by opposition Members in this House. To hear them speak, it is as if the Speech from the Throne were only about reducing the deficit. That is all they take from the Speech from the Throne. However, anyone who cares to read it to see what the Government has proposed will know that it is a plan for the next four years for the benefit of Canadians from all regions of Canada.
These people prefer to ignore the fact that reducing the deficit is not an end in itself but is, rather, an essential condition for achieving our objectives. These objectives are laid out in the Speech from the Throne. If we have to talk about the deficit today, it is because of

April 12, 1989
The Address-Mr. Valcourt
the army of Santa Clauses on the other side of the Elouse from an earlier Government.
I have heard many complaints from the two Parties in the Opposition. They were sorry that there was not a long list of promises in the Speech from the Throne. We have not said we would be everything to everyone. Rather, we have placed before Canadians a plan and objectives for what I suspect all Canadians want to maintain, that is, to ensure that in the future our kids can also benefit from the rich country that Canada is.
We are a trading nation. We are an exporting nation. The opening up of new markets will bring exceptional opportunities, provided that our economy is competitive and flexible. We intend to take the necessary steps to ensure that our industries and businesses adapt rapidly to the new market conditions. For example, it is proposed in the Speech from the Throne that we will assist small and medium sized businesses that wish to enter new export markets.
In this more open economy assistance to business will also involve two key activities-technological development and human resources development. This means that literacy training, occupational retraining and education are the keys for a workforce that is better qualified for higher quality jobs. These are also the conditions needed to penetrate an increasingly competitive marketplace effectively.
I think these objectives mean spending public funds in a way that returns dividends to society as a whole. That is what I think Canadians expect of us.

Mr. Speaker, last fall we asked Canadians to say yes to an exciting challenge. We did so because we knew that our fellow citizens do not have cold feet. They have confidence. They have the talent to do better what others do well. What the Speech from the Throne offers them today is to provide this great plan of freer trade, not only with the United States but also with other countries in the world, with the best chance of success. At the same time, the Government will continue to fight regional disparities.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Speech from the Throne announces that funding will be maintained for economic development agencies such as ACOA in Atlantic Canada, FEDNOR in northern Ontario and the Western Economic Diversification Office.
We will also continue to help those in greatest need: our seniors, our low income people, our youth, and especially those who are victims of family violence.

Building a prosperous economy, maintaining our social programs and developing our regions in a harmonious way must be accompanied by a strengthening of Canadian unity.
Nearly two years ago, the Prime Minister of Canada and the 10 provincial Premiers signed an historic agreement, an agreement which returned Quebec to the constitutional fold, which recognized its status as a distinct society within Canada and which committed the country's leaders to protecting Canada's linguistic minorities.
As a Canadian and as an Acadian from New Brunswick, I am delighted by the signing of the Meech Lake Accord. For reasons of their own the Premiers of Manitoba and New Brunswick have not felt themselves bound by the commitment of their predecessors. As a citizen of New Brunswick and a Francophone from that province, I regret the hesitation of provincial authorities in ratifying the Accord. No one on this side of the Elouse has ever claimed that the Meech Lake Accord is perfect. We are saying that it is an essential basis on which Canadians will build their constitutional future.
In a brief that I presented to the special committee of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, I said: "There is not one provision in this Accord which can put in jeopardy the rights of, or cause a backward step for, any group whether it be linguistic minority, women or native".
The Meech Lake Accord is a monument of balance and realism accomplished at the price of long and hard negotiation. It would be irresponsible to jeopardize it by opening new negotiations. If we took this route, we would be opening Pandora's box and heading for a new constitutional crisis that could drag on for a very long time. As Canadians concerned for the unity of our country, we cannot allow this to happen.
New Brunswick has always played an active role in the constitutional development of Canada. Two great Premiers, Messrs. Robichaud and Hatfield, have been leaders in promoting both official languages and the equality of their communities. In ratifying the Meech Lake Accord, Premier McKenna would be joining this great tradition of fairness and generosity in New Brunswick. He would be fulfilling the wishes of Acadians and


April 12, 1989

Francophones in his Province of New Brunswick. After the passage of Bill C-72 last year, the language communities would have available, with Meech, another instrument to serve their rights.

Of course, the Accord is not a constitutional panacea. The Government admits this in the Speech from the Throne by promising, once the Accord is ratified, to proceed with negotiations on Senate reform, aboriginal rights, fisheries roles and responsibilities and the language issue.
This is much more than politics, Mr. Speaker. It is the very future of the country, its balance, its ability to respond to changes, to meet requirements of flexibility and modernity.
The Canada of the Meech Lake Accord corresponds to reality and is not just a mental concept. It is made up of different people united by a common attachment to their country and inspired by a common feeling of fairness, tolerance and sharing. This vision of Canada must be written into the country's Constitution as quickly as possible.
Another challenge faced by Canadans is the environment. I am deeply satisfied that in the Throne Speech this Government put forward a plan to ensure that we will leave our children and their children a healthy-environmental heritage. Steps are put forward in the Throne Speech to ensure that our environment is protected, not by lip service but rather by taking action, implementing programs. It is my belief Canadians will welcome that initiative taken by this Government.
Another item in the Throne Speech involves social programs. Of course when we are working at creating wealth, at meeting social needs, protecting the quality of life, this as I said earlier is something we are doing for the benefit of future generations, because they must not have to shoulder the burden of our neglect.
And this is what is involved also when we speak today of reducing the deficit and the national debt.
We were famous over these last four years, Mr. Speaker, for being the first Government in decades with a serious commitment to tackle the deficit. I remember hearing in this House the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of those dreamers the necktie socialists tell
The Address-Mr. Valcourt
Canadians our budget reductions in 1984 were going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada.
The result is that 1.4 million jobs were created during those four years. And again we will hear the same prophets of doom after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has delivered his Budget speech. However Canadians have already seen the positive results of our sound financial administration.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to interrupt me. It is unfortunate that time be so short, but I am sure the Budget speech will provide us with a number of opportunities to respond to those who dream about bringing the deficit down and would have Canadians believe that a mere 60 taxpayers is all we need to reduce the deficit by $30 billion!

Mr. Nun/.iata: I want to ask the Hon. Member about an important issue facing our country, one that was given only a cursory glance in the Throne Speech. It is a problem that is destroying the very fabric of our nation and our youth. It will continue to destroy many young people in Canada. The problem is that of drug abuse.
I have concerns regarding the priorities of this Government and how it intends to deal with this issue. It was important for the Government to hold a royal commission of inquiry into drug abuse in amateur sport. We are all concerned about that, but that problem pales in comparison to the real drug problem in Canada. I am sure there is a problem in the Minister's own riding when it comes to drug abuse.
We in Canada have been fortunate that the drug problem is not as bad as it is in the United States. I had a conversation with several crown attorneys last week. They expressed serious concerns about the crack problem in Canada. They indicated that in three to five years our drug problems will be comparable to those in the United States. We are all familiar with the problem of crack, a derivative of cocaine. It creates violence. The City of Washington in the United States now holds the record for the most number of drug related deaths.
I would like to ask the Minister what the Government intends to do about this serious problem. Will he recommend to his cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that there be a royal commission of inquiry into the drug abuse problem in Canada?

April 12, 1989
The Address-Mr. Valcourt
Will he urge his colleagues in Cabinet to give this problem the priority it deserves? In the Throne Speech a few days ago, this problem was not given the prominence it deserves. May I hear from the Minister?


Bernard Valcourt: But for the tone of the Hon. Member's question, I am tempted to recall-


An Hon. Member:: Do it.


Bernard Valcourt: I will. A few years ago, the Prime Minister was in Vancouver talking about this exact problem.


An Hon. Member:: All he does is talk.


Bernard Valcourt: No, no. There were people in the House that laughed at the drug problem. They said the Prime Minister was exaggerating. They were the very people who were criticizing the Government for the Prime Minister alerting Canadians to the problem of drug abuse among young Canadians. You were laughing in those days. Today the Hon. Member is suggesting to us that this is a new problem. It is not a new problem. It is a problem the Prime Minister and others in the House identified long ago.


An Hon. Member:: He was jumping on Reagan's bandwagon.


Bernard Valcourt: There is a proposal in the Speech from the Throne. We know that this Government has allocated resources to fight drugs. The Prime Minister has a legitimate and personal concern about this issue. I think the Hon. Member can rest assured, if Members opposite want to work in co-operation with the Government, we will take every possible step to protect youths from this huge problem of drugs in Canada. Late conversions are better than none, and this is a welcome one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.30 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 56, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment and the amendment.
Accordingly, the first question in on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The next question is on the amendment of Mr. Foster.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this one. It would save time.
B Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being 6.03 p.m., this Elouse stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.03 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 13, 1989