1989-04-11

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to table the eighteenth annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, for the 1988 calendar year, pursuant to section 34(1) of the Official Languages Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(a), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in the House in both official languages this Government's labour force development strategy entitled "Success in the Works".



Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am veiy pleased to rise this morning pursuant to Standing Order 33 to inform the House of the Government's new labour force development strategy.
A few moments ago I tabled two documents entitled "Success in the Works", a policy paper and a background paper on Canada's emerging workforce. These docu ments outline the policy and the rationale behind the labour force development strategy.

This strategy, Mr. Speaker, is aimed at preparing Canadians for the labour market of the 1990's so as to ensure that they will be able to adapt to an evolving work environment.

It is our goal to encourage in Canada a training ethic within the private sector. We will do this through a national skills development advisory board to provide us with guidance on the needs of the private sector, by increasing funding for greater human resource planning and selected industries and sectors and occupational associations and individual firms by doubling the funding for the industrial adjustment service which helps workers and their companies face technological change, major expansion or closure, and by increasing funding for the Community Futures Program which is now helping 201 small communities plan their own solutions to counter changing market conditions.
Through the labour force development strategy we will place a greater priority on entry level training by taking immediate steps to improve the apprenticeship program, quadrupling our support for co-operative education, and designing a new program for entry level training in emerging skill requirements.

We are also asking the provinces to match increased federal funding for programs which provide job skills training for social assistance recipients and so improve the job prospects of an additional 20,000 people on social assistance.

Another area where the Government can help unemployed Canadians is through the Unemployment Insurance Program. We intend to shift its focus from one of passive support to an active response built around training and job readiness. Unemployment insurance recipients will now have access to training programs and employment and counselling services earlier in their claim. Funding under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the fundamental training tool of the.pro-gram, will be doubled. Unemployment insurance claim-

April 11, 1989
Statements by Ministers
ants with viable business plans will be able to capitalize their benefits to help defray business start-up costs.

When older workers lose their jobs, they face a much more difficult time returning to the workforce. They will benefit from the programs I just mentioned and from increased funding to employers who hire and retrain displaced workers.
We also intend to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it more equitable, so that it reflects the changing work patterns of Canadians and responds to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We will be proposing amendments to provide more flexible sickness and maternity benefits, more generous parental benefits, and extended coverage for the growing number of Canadians who choose to work beyond the age of 65. At the same time, the Government will be addressing fundamental concerns about the Unemployment Insurance Program.
The current minimum qualifying requirements in Canada's Unemployment Insurance Program will be extended from 10 to 14 weeks, to 10 to 20 weeks, depending on regional unemployment rates. In areas where unemployment remains high the qualifying period will not change. Also, we will eliminate the current repeater provisions to improve access to benefits for seasonal workers. However, we propose to increase the penalties for workers who quit without just cause, refuse a suitable job or are fired for misconduct.
Finally, the Government proposes to strengthen considerably the penalties for fraudulent use of the UI program by claimants and employers. Let me assure Hon. Members that there is no question of removing the unemployment insurance safety net for those who truly need it. At the same time, Canadians want a program and particularly the unemployed want a program that helps workers move back into the workforce.
The labour force development strategy will integrate income support for employment services with labour market programs and it will encourage greater private sector involvement. I will be tabling in the House the necessary amending legislation on the Unemployment Insurance Act in late June. I am confident that Member-sof both this House and of the Senate will study it with great care and will provide Government with their advice
and support. Until that time, I will be continuing to consult with other partners, with business, with labour and with provincial Governments, all of which have a share in the future of the opportunities we are trying to build, on how we can best help prepare Canadians and help Canadians prepare themselves for the changes that are coming in the workplace of the future.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 and again in 1988 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he would not cut social programs, that social programs were a sacred trust. Today, once again, the Prime Minister has broken his word with this savage attack on the unemployment insurance system.
The Government is taking $1.3 billion out of the unemployment insurance fund and has not said how many workers will be affected, how many will lose their benefits, how many will go without unemployment insurance, and it has not said what regions will be most hurt by this policy. It is interesting to note that between 1984 and 1989, employment and training programs were cut by 30 per cent by the Government, from $2.2 billion in 1984 when the Liberals left power to $1.5 billion this year, 1989. That was a reduction of $700 million.
This morning the Minister announced that she is putting $800 million back into training programs, almost the same amount her Government took out during the last five years. Over the last five years, the Government created a severe problem in the area of training and skills development and now it is fixing this problem by going back to where we were in 1984. Unfortunately, the major difference and the great inequity in this plan is the manner of paying for these training programs.
In the past and up until today, labour market planning, development and training was paid out of the general tax revenue because these programs benefited the whole community. Now they will be paid for out of the unemployment insurance fund; that is, by the workers and by employer contributions. What does this mean? It means that all workers will pay for training without any assurance that they will benefit from that training. It means that labour-intensive industries will subsidize training for high-tech industries which are often capital intensive. It means that the slow growth regions of Canada will help subsidize the high growth regions. Workers in Atlantic Canada will help subsidize the development of high-skilled training in Toronto, fore-xample. It means that low-paid service workers will help pay for the training of high-tech workers.
April 11, 1989

Under the present unemployment insurance program, workers and firms pay into a fund knowing that the money will come back to them in the form of benefits if they became unemployed, sick or pregnant. Now, under this proposal, they have no assurance that the money paid in will come back to them in their own regions.
For example, according to the program, $230 million will go for a national skills development advisory board. That is a good thing. It is a board that will give advice to the Government on skills development. However, I would have thought that this would have already been done by the civil servants in the Minister's own Department. This probably means that the Government will be rehiring the people who gave that advice in the past but who were fired, laid off or let go, but they will be paid with unemployment insurance fund money rather than general tax revenue.
Let us look at the $65 million for human resource planning. Again, it is a very good thing, but should that not have been done over the last four or five years? Once again, money will be used from the unemployment insurance fund, money that was available for workers when they were laid off, to pay for human resource planning within the Department of Employment and Immigration.
This proposal raises many questions which are unanswered. For example, will the Unemployment Insurance Commission control these new programs that come under the unemployment insurance program including resource development, the futures program and the like? Will they fall within the ambit of the Commissioners of the Unemployment Insurance Commission? What about part-time workers, a growing percentage of the workforce? How will they be affected by this policy?
A more serious issue is the half-baked approach to this proposal. It is half-baked because it is a proposal to take unemployment insurance money and use it for training skilled workers, but there is no policy to insure work for these workers and no policy to ensure that the work is more equitably distributed in all regions of the country. A labour force development strategy must be combined with a full employment policy, with an industrial strate gy, with an effective regional development policy, a
Statements by Ministers
policy for research and development and a policy for post-secondary education. The program announced this morning says nothing of those things.
It is interesting to note that only a few years ago during the last Parliament, through Bill C-96 the Government again savagely cut back on assistance for post-secondary education, programs which go in the same direction as training programs that are talked about in this policy. The Government will train workers, but it is not sure how they will benefit or how they will find employment. Will there be jobs for them in places other than the Golden Horseshoe area around Toronto? How will we ensure that these workers who will be trained will find jobs?
We must recognize that the great growth in jobs since 1984 has been in the service sector where there is low pay, no unions and low benefits. What does this program do for those workers, particularly for those who work over 15 hours a week and must pay into the unemployment insurance fund? Those numbers are growing. How will they benefit from this program? It seems to me that these workers will be subsidizing others' training programs.
Nor has the Government explained how those who are cut off unemployment insurance will pay for their groceries and rent while unemployed. It is clear that the Government is shifting this burden to the provinces, but it has not yet consulted with the provinces with respect to this program and it has made no commitment to the provinces to help them pick up this burden which will have to be covered by the social assistance programs of the provinces.
This is another example of Tory flimflam politics. Before the election, the Tories had the deficit under control and were spending money like profligate children. They promised $22 billion in commitments in the pre-electoral period. They spent over $100 million in the Lac-Saint-Jean byelection. They poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the Manicouagan riding in the years prior to the election. They did this with the biggest tax grab in Canadian history. Now, all of a sudden, after the election, there is a crisis with the deficit. Who is the first to pay the bill? It is the Canadian worker and his unemployment insurance fund.

April 11, 1989
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, and I quote, "There is absolutely nothing that will prevent the Government of Canada from maintaining all its social programs, all its regional economic expansion programs, absolutely nothing! We absolutely will maintain all our social programs in full."
Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister has forgotten his promises and attacked Canadian workers with this policy of cutting unemployment insurance.

I make a commitment today that we in the Liberal Party will fight against this plan with all the resources at our disposal. The Government is in for the fight of its life!


Some Hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We in this House of Commons have just witnessed one of the largest thefts in Canadian history. After the last election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised Canadians they would be protected from the worst effects of free trade. The Government promised it would provide adjustment and training programs for people who lost their jobs. Well, the Dalton Gang of Brian and Michael and Barbara have just strapped on their six-guns and ridden into town to loot the Unemployment Insurance Commission vault.
Canadian workers do not object to paying their UIC premiums because they know it is an insurance policy and insurance fund that will guarantee them some dignity if they lose their jobs. With this program, this Government is robbing Canadians of that dignity. The Department has admitted that many Canadians will lose 10 weeks or more of benefits, even in places where unemployment is 10 per cent. Thousands of Canadians who can claim unemployment insurance today will not be able to after this program is passed. Thousands of Canadians will see their claims expire and be forced on to welfare, which will be an additional cost to the provinces of this country.
What is the Minister doing with the money she is looting from the unemployment insurance fund? Well, she is going to make more money available for parental benefits. The Government deserves no credit for this. It is being forced into this by the courts, not because itwants to or thinks it is right. It proved that when it appealed the court's decision to grant parental benefits.
The Minister says they are going to use some of the money to encourage "the training ethic in the private sector". Why should unemployed people pay for an enhancement of the training ethic in the private sector? It is the failure of the training ethic in the private sector that created the problem of work shortages in the trades. Training ethic in the private sector, indeed.
The de Grandpre report had some ideas about encouraging training in the private sector. It called for a levy-grant system which would force business into injecting some of its own money into training. But this Government will never do that, not when it can steal money from working people. It is putting more money into what it describes as helping social assistance recipients.
I come from the Province of Saskatchewan where it seems this whole idea was hatched. I have seen how the government program works. What the Government is really talking about is forced labour, work for welfare, work or starve. Who are these people? They are the Canadians least able to protect themselves and most deserving of Government help.
I can tell this House that the raid on the unemployment insurance account is only the first raid. In the Department's report, it says:
Changes to the way the unemployment insurance program is
financed will be announced by the Minister of Finance in the
forthcoming Budget.
That means the Government will stop paying for regional extended benefits. It will be shifting billions of dollars worth of costs from Government contributions to premium contributions. In other words, it will be taking its deficit reduction off the backs of working people as well as its training programs.
This is a betrayal of the working people of Canada, and there is no way that the New Democratic caucus can support this.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the first report of theactivities of the Canadian section of the Association internationale des parlementaires de langue frangaise.
April 11, 1989



SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION ACT


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an Act respecting senior citizens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to establish a senior citizens' commission to study and identify the needs of senior citizens in Canada. The commission would make recommendations to the Governor in Council with respect to the needs of senior citizens. We recognize that advances have been made in providing for seniors in Canada. There is much more that could be done and should be done. This would be a way to accomplish that.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The purpose of this Bill is to transfer to the Minister of the Environment responsibility for the operation of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. By Order in Council dated May 14, 1971, pursuant to Section 28 of the Act, the Governor in Council delegated certain of its powers under the Act to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Minister of Transport. This Bill would transfer those powers to the Minister of the Environment in an effort to get more environmental consideration of developments in the North.
Introduction of Private Members' Bills


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-221, an Act to protect water in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The purpose of this Bill is to protect Canada's waters. This Bill would not only protect the water in Canada but would forbid the export of water in Canada by inter-basin transfers. This was an item of considerable debate in the last number of months. With the passing of this Bill, inter-basin transfer of water would be no more.


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

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-222, an Act to amend the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act (country of origin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lynn Hunter: The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit the sale of fruits and vegetables unless their country of origin is shown on the said fruits and vegetables, on their container, or a sign placed near them. Consumers could then make more informed choices about the type of purchases they make.


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


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an Act respecting a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace.

April 11. 1989
Petitions


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I rise today to introduce a Bill asking that April 28 of each year be designated as a day of mourning to honour all persons killed or injured in the workplace.
If this Bill passes we will recognize both the enormous numbers of people who are injured or killed while at work, and the great need for a new emphasis on health and safety in the workplace.
According to the latest Labour Canada statistics, one million people are injured in the workplace each year. Deaths from injury average nearly 1,000 each year.
Statistics for deaths that occur because of exposure to unhealthy working conditions are unavailable, because such deaths go largely unreported and uncompensated.
It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill will focus Canadian attention on the real need for greater workplace health and safety.


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


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-224, an Act to protect and enhance the quality of drinking water in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: The purpose of this Bill is to protect and enhance drinking water quality in Canada. It provides opportunities for public involvement in making regulations and to set maximum permissible levels for contaminants and other substances in drinking water. The regulations would apply to both the public and private water systems.


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


Neil Young: for leave to introduce Bill C-225, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (Staff of Members of the House of Commons).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: The purpose of this Bill is to provide equitable treatment to the staff of Members of the House of Commons, including the staff of the Speaker of the House of Commons, when their employment is lost as a result of Members ceasing to be Members, by according them the same priority to be appointed to the Public Service that employees in the following offices now enjoy: the office of a Minister, the office of the Leader of the Opposition, the office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the office of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.


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


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to humbly present to this House a petition from my fellow citizens who humbly declare that at this time, there is no law in Canada to protect the lives of unborn children from conception to birth. Because they believe in the sanctity of human life from conception, they also believe in the necessity of a just law to safeguard the right to life of the unborn child and the right to be protected while it grows until it is born. They believe that it is our duty to protect life and they also believe in faith in our future and that this can only be guaranteed by showing respect for life, from the unborn to the elderly. They also believe that families and other groups or communities have the duty to develop various forms of support and shelter to assist future mothers in need. They humbly ask Parliament to draft and pass a law to protect life from the moment of conception, a law that would seek to save the life of the mother and the child at the same time.
April 11, 1989

The Address-Mr. Foster


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FUNDING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of Canadians who are concerned about the funding of post-secondary education.
The petitioners are of the opinion that the result of lack of proper educational funding has resulted in increased university tuition, over-crowding of classes, and deteriorating educational facilities. The petitioners believe that this results in Canadian students leaving post-secondary facilities with staggering debt loads. They ask Parliament to consider the advisability of increasing funding for post-secondary education in order to cover the real cost of maintaining accessible quality education for Canadians.
The Province of British Columbia does not provide any funding for post-secondary education, and relies totally on that which comes from the federal Government. This is obviously reneging on its commitment to post-secondary education.


REQUEST FOR SPACE AGENCY TO BE LOCATED IN VILLE SAINT-LAURENT
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the Ville Saint-Laurent Chamber of Commerce. In view of the fact that all the infrastructure required to create a suitable environment for the Space Agency are available in the riding, the petitioners humbly request that, in the interest of the country, the Parliament of Canada take the necessary steps to locate the Space Agency in the riding of Ville Saint-Laurent.


CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES IN VILLE SAINT-LAURENT
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from the YMCA Seniors Neighbourhood Association in the riding of Saint-Laurent. The petitioners pray that the health of the people be made the priority of all Canadian parliamentarians. The petition is further to the request that the Government of Canada change its mind regarding the purchase of two nuclear submarines and grant that money to senior citizens.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN NAME OF CONSTITUENCY
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from the residents of the Montreal sector of my riding.
They humbly request that the Parliament of Canada take the necessary steps to change the name of the riding of Saint-Laurent to that of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville for the benefit of all the constituents.


CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR SUBMARINES IN VILLE SAINT-LAURENT
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the senior citizens of Our Lady of Fatima Church in in the riding of Saint-Laurent. The petitioners request that the Government cancel the construction of two nuclear submarines and commit the money to research for AIDS, cancer and cardiovascular illnesses.


DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of constituents in my riding who are calling on the Government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all the questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 10, 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.
[Stage Direction]
April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Foster
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to join in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to speak about the agriculture industry in Canada since I believe that there is profound unease and concern with respect to exactly where the Government is going in terms of agriculture. The concern may have stemmed from the free trade deal which the Government passed last December and in commitments which the Government made with respect to removing oats from the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
There is also concern with respect to the promise the Government made last November 10 concerning the provision of $850 million for drought payment. Most of those payments will not arrive until well beyond the seeding period this spring.
There is profound concern in the agriculture community with respect to exactly where the Government is going in all these areas. But perhaps the greatest concern is with respect to the question of free trade and the GATT negotiations. In looking at the document entitled: "Speech from the Throne" most farmers will find very little comfort. There are only three lines in it to suggest where the Government is going with regard to agriculture. It is stated in the document:
Canada's efficient agricultural producers cannot compete fairly in a world in which trade-distorting subsidies wreak havoc with market disciplines, while bringing undue pressure to bear on the nation's treasury.
Surely, the Government should have more than this to say about the state of agriculture in Canada. It is interesting that one of the themes in the Speech from the Throne is " A Strong Economy". Yet there is no reference to agriculture in terms of that strong economy, even though 17 per cent of Canadians are involved in agriculture or the food processing industry in some way.
Under the theme "Preparing Canada's Future" there is no reference to Canadian agriculture. Under the theme "Jobs for Canadians" there was no reference to agriculture. I can understand why the Government did not want to discuss agriculture under this theme since just about a year ago there was a report that some 25,000 jobs in agriculture had been lost in the previous 12 months in western Canada alone. How much the figure is for the whole country is anyone's guess.
Under the theme "The Environmental Imperative" there is no reference to agriculture. Nor is there a reference to it under the theme "A Caring Nation". That is probably the greatest tip-off that the Government does not care and that it is certainly not concerned about the agony faced by thousands of Canadian farm families in terms of their debt and other problems.
Thus we are left under the theme "Canada's International Role" with the three-line reference to agriculture. Yet part of it is devoted to the suggestion that agriculture and farmers are an undue pressure on the Canadian Treasury.
The Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) announced out of the blue a few months ago that he was removing oats from under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. That has to be one of the most damning decisions that any Minister has ever made. He certainly has been damned for it.
There are some 24 Canadian Wheat Board advisory groups across western Canada, groups which are elected by the producers themselves. It is interesting to note that at some 22 of the 24 public meetings held by the advisory committees it was demanded that oats be reinstated under the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system. It is also interesting to note that at 10 of the meetings it was demanded that the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds be replaced.
One can see how effective the Minister has been in persuading these 24 advisory committees across the West that his decision with regard to oats was a good one. Clearly, this has to be some type of a pay-off to those in western Canada who are opposed to the Wheat Board. They are smaller groups but they have been opposed to it for years in terms of orderly marketing. This is clearly a pay-off to the big multinational grain companies who want to see the small exporters and the small individual operators out of the business.
It is interesting to note that as members of my caucus held a number of meetings across western Canada with the grain producers it is not now only the small individual farmer who will be hurt by this decision but small private enterprise exporters who will also be hurt since they will now have a secure supply of oats to export into the special niche markets in the U.S. This is something which they now have. We will actually lose this type of orderly marketing.
April 11, 1989

In Oak Bluff, Manitoba, at the producer committee meeting some 117 voted to see oats remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board while 46 voted to have it removed.
Yet if we consider a place such as Wapella, Saskatchewan, we see that some 85 of those attending the Wheat Board Advisory Committee meeting voted to have oats reinstated-zero voted to do what the Minister wanted to do.
Clearly there is great unhappiness and concern with the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds and his cavalier method of removing oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board with very little support from the producers themselves. I have not heard anyone say that his approach was the right one especially since he did not consult with the prairie pools or other farm groups. Of course, he was soundly condemned by the pools as well as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which, in a resolution, demanded that oats be maintained under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.
This document does little to reassure farmers of exactly where the Government is going. The Government may argue that it did not really want to spell out its neo-conservative agenda until after the Newfoundland election. This only creates more concern for farmers. The Government will not spell out exactly what it is doing with agriculture until later because of the political fall-out from Newfoundland or other parts of the country. So we have to wait until the Budget comes down later this month.
I believe that there is great concern as well regarding the Government's direction with regard to marketing boards. We argued during the election campaign that marketing boards would be incompatible with the free trade deal because when you remove tariffs on processed foods, it is not possible for the Canadian processing industry to compete with processed foods coming in from the U.S.
Clearly that is exactly what is happening. The Grocery Products Manufacturing Association met recently with some members of our caucus and said,"We simply cannot compete, we told you this before the election, we told you this before the free trade deal went through and we are telling you now that the Government has to get rid of marketing boards or we will have to move our processing industry to the United States."
The Address-Mr. Foster
I am sure that the strategy of the Government is to blame the grocery products manufacturers and to blame GATT for the destruction of the marketing boards.
We believe that that is a real threat. Clearly when you look at the de Grandpre Report, that is the direction in which they are heading. They are saying that we should establish a two-price system for our farm products, marketing commodities like poultry, turkey eggs and the dairy industry. If it is impossible to establish a two-priced marketing system, then they suggest that the quotas be increased. Mr. Speaker, that scenario will ultimately see the destruction of the whole marketing system which, I understand, farmers in Europe and the United States admire very much. They would like to have a system where they are paid on the basis of their cost of production, a formula price which guarantees them an adequate return for their investment, for their labour, for their management. It is a system which has served Canadian agriculture very well.
I suggest that if we hadn't had controlled commodities in dairy and poultry during the past three or four years when prices have been very low for many other farm commodities, the scene would have been much worse than it is today. But clearly the signals coming out from this Government, from the de Grandpre Report, from GATT are that the Government has put the whole question of farm marketing boards, Chapter 11 of GATT, on the negotiation table. Only time will tell, but certainly the signals are very bad.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is significant that the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Don Knoerr, in a press statement on March 29, condemned the de Grandpre Report. He said in his press statements:
It appears that the only concern expressed by the Council was that Canadian processors must be allowed to obtain their raw product at a price comparable to that in the United States.
He went on to say:
It is hard to understand how the Advisory Council on Adjustment could, after listening to a few briefs from the processing sector, could conclude that the concerns raised by the Tariff Board were irrelevant, and that no consideration had to be given to measures that may be necessary to maintain a viable horticultural sector in this country.
Clearly the de Grandpre Commission Report was simply to say, we have to look after the processors, not the farmers, that is their problem. So I do not think, Mr. Speaker, there is a very great concern with where exactly this Government is going with regard to national farm marketing boards in this country.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Foster
I want to speak as well, Mr. Speaker, about the farm debt situation. Last year the agriculture committee made a number of recommendations with regard to this country's farm debt situation, and yet there was no reference at all to it in the Speech from the Throne. Our report last July indicated there was a $6 billion debt which could not be financed under current available Farm Credit Corporation programs, and yet in the Speech from the Throne we hear nothing.
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture put out a press statement a couple of days ago calling on the Government to be more concerned about the farm debt crisis. It pointed out that only $83 million of a $160 million fund established to assist farmers had been used, that only 253 Ontario fanners out of 1,148 that had gone before the Farm Debt Review Boards had received assistance, in spite of the fact that in 1988 farmers suffered a severe drought, hog prices were veiy low and interest rates increased dramatically.
We have seen very little action by the Government with regard to the debt situation in this country. We are now facing some of the highest real interest rates in the history of the country. With a 4 per cent inflation rate and a bank rate approaching 14 or 15 per cent, we are looking at real interest rates of around 8 to 10 per cent. Farmers cannot operate with real interest rates at that level.
So we are disappointed that the Speech from the Throne makes no provision for the farm debt situation, no new provisions for the very high interest rate that farmers face this year. The drought assistance will arrive too late and simply will not be of benefit to many producers. Furthermore, the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program, which was announced with great flourish last fall, has not been made available to farmers. Fanners have said that it has been one of the most confusing programs ever. Farmers were asked to make their application by March 15, but many of them had not received their application forms.
The headlines in many papers described the difficulties faced in that regard: "Drought Aid Assurances Ring Hollow for Farmers", "Drought Pay Disappoints". Those are just a few headlines from farm papers. Other headlines include: "Politicians Hear Drought Aid Frustrations", and, "Drought Aid Battle Drags On". Thew-hole situation is untenable for agriculture in this country.
Therefore I want to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Vanclief): That the following words be added to the Address:
This House regrets that Your Excellency's advisers 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;
(2)	by removing oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board without consulting with, or obtaining the approval of, the major farm organisations 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.
(6)	by not providing any new initiatives through the Farm Credit Corporation to cope with the farm debt crisis and high interest rates;
This amendment sets out our concerns with the Speech from the Throne and the lack of action by the Government in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will cariy on with questions and comments while I look at the amendment.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assini-boia):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment and ask a question of my friend, the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who has served many years in the House and has a special interest in agriculture.
Of course, as is his job, he was critical of the Throne Speech and the Government's policy toward agriculture. However, I note that he was rather temperate and certainly not vociferous in his criticism. In fact, it is probably fair to say that his comments were rather half-hearted. I think he knows that no government in the history of this country has made a commitment to western agriculture equivalent to what this current Government has done over the past four years. I think he will be aware of the continuing commitment that the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. May-er)has made, coming forward with programs such as the Canadian Special Grains Programs I and II, which put $2.1 billion into the Canadian farm economy.
April 11, 1989

Now there is the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program, bringing another $850 million toward those producers in the countiy who have suffered as a result of the 1988 drought. It is an immensely complicated program that is taking time to put together. However, this is a situation where we have a choice between fairness and simplicity. In this case we are going to opt for fairness. We are going to do the program right to ensure that these moneys are distributed fairly and equitably across the country.
The Hon. Member talked about meetings of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee that were held in various places across western Canada. I believe the purpose of those meetings was to discuss proposals for quota review, whether the method of allowing farmers delivery should be changed from an acreage base to one based on production. It is true that there was extraneous comment about the matter of oats being removed from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, but the thrust of those meetings was to do a quota review. In fact, 77 per cent of the producers in my area are absolutely against those proposals for review being put forward by the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee.
Does the Hon. Member and his Party favour those proposals for review which are being put forward by the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee? Does he feel that the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee is wrong in its recommendations, as indeed many producers feel the advisory committee was wrong in its criticism of the Minister in regard to the decision to remove oats from the jurisdiction of the Board?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia (Mr. Wilson) outlines that the meetings with the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee were held for a number of reasons. There can be no question about the general trend of those Wheat Board meetings when resolutions to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board marketing systems were passed at 22 out of 24 of the meetings, and resolutions calling for the resignation of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds were passed at 10 meetings.
In all the years I have been a Member in the House of Commons I do not recall an advisory committee to a Minister and the Wheat Board, a committee that ise-lected by individual producers in an area, passing a resolution to get rid of the Minister whose agency it is supposed to be advising.
The Address-Mr. Foster
For instance, at the Weybum meeting in the Hon. Member's area in southern Saskatchewan, a resolution that oats be kept under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board was overwhelmingly passed, with only five voting against it. I believe there were 160 at that meeting and there was overwhelming support. I do not believe there could be any question about whether the vast majority of those producers were opposed to the proposal.
The Minister argues that oats represent a very small volume of the total exports of the Canadian Wheat Board. The concern is not only with the actual decision itself, which tends to favour the Minister's friends in multinational grain companies, but with the process. The Wheat Board represents a group of 140,000 to 150,000 producers. Surely it is a decision that should be made jointly with those producers, rather than by the Minister with whom there was no consultation, according to the prairie pool members whom we met. There was certainly no approval, and that is suggested in my amendment.
I believe the Minister is attempting to make some kind of pay-off or provide a benefit to his friends who are opposed to the whole system of orderly marketing, and to his friends in the multinational grain companies. It is not a decision that is flowing up from the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. Members of the advisory committee say that in the past couple of years, the Minister has never even attended one of those meetings. If he were to take this action, one would think he would at least consult with his own advisory committee. It is not appointed by him but by the individual producers throughout the prairie region. The advisory board should have a valuable input for the Minister. It is now being given through public meetings held this spring, but the Board should have been able to give it directly to the Minister before he made his decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know how important this topic is so I will allow a very short supplementary question from the Hon. Member and a very short answer.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the wrong impression may be left by the Hon. Member, who knows full well that major farm organizations in Western Canada including the barley growers, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers,the United Grain Growers and indeed, many, many thousands of pool members, in fact support the Minister's decision.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Soetens
This is a question which was open. There were arguments on both sides. The Minister made a decision. The Hon. Member criticises the Government for not putting a policy into the Throne Speech. Now that policy is in fact laid out by the Minister the Hon. Member is critical of it.
I would like to repeat the question I asked the Hon. Member which he failed to answer in his long-winded response. What is the position of the Hon. Member and of the Liberal Party in so far as quota review is concerned? That was the purpose of the Wheat Board meetings about which he is speaking.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member thinks that that is the way for the Government to make decisions with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, that tells us exactly why Canadian farmers are very concerned. That is why the Government did not have a lot of support in many areas of Canada on its free trade deal. The people are concerned that the U.S. Government is putting pressure on the Canadian Government to get rid of the Wheat Board. It may become just one more token for the Minister to pass on to Carla Hills, proving that they are doing something to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, I did not see the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Hovdebo) rising. If he has a very short question, I will entertain it. Otherwise, the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendment that the Hon. Member put before the House is a limited litany of the shortcomings of the agricultural policy of the Government. I wonder why he did not include in it the fact that the Government has made no move to establish an income security policy which would give some security to Canadian farmers right across Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is impossible, in one amendment, to cover every conceivable problem facing Canadian agriculture. Clearly the Hon. Member for Saskatoont-Humboldt (Mr. Hovdebo) has raised an important issue, one with which I hope the parliamentary committee will deal.
The items I mentioned in my amendment are just some of the most urgent problems with agriculture. Clearly the question of stabilization and income supports an important one, but I did not add it to this list. There are many other items I could have added as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. In reviewing the amendment, I find it to be in order and I shall accept it.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address my colleagues in this House. Of course, the subject of my participation is the debate on the Speech from the Throne delivered by Her Excellency, the Governor General.
In order to participate in this debate, something which I clearly wanted to do, I had to go through a rather intensive job interview, much like all of us here in this House, for a period of some 51 days. I was in competition with four other candidates. In the end, the residents of Ontario riding, the voters, chose me as their voice here in this House.
As a new Member of Parliament for Ontario riding which is made up of the three municipalities of Ajax, Pickering and Whitby, it has been my displeasure to listen to those members of the Opposition here in this House, members of provincial legislatures across Canada and reactionaries across Canada continuously attack the prosperity that we in central Canada enjoy. Yes, my riding, Ontario, is sharing in that prosperity.
I could raise numerous responses to all of those reactionary comments, but I think it is sufficient to point out that during the last four years, Conservatives from Ontario supported the Government in its actions to correct the injustices foisted upon the regions of Canada by the Liberal Government of the previous 16 years.
More significant, however, is the point that when the Liberals were in the process of destroying the fabric of Canada during the 1970s and the early 1980s, Conservatives from Ontario sang a common refrain with Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament from across Canada in opposition. We were the only national Party speaking for Canada. Now, this Speech from the Throne reflects the continuing reality: the Progressive Conservative Party is still the only national Party.
I have listened to my colleagues on the government side relate the good things in the Throne Speech that will be received by their ridings back home. It comes as no surprise to me that the constituents of an Ontario riding have a very similar perspective. During the recent election campaign, I talked about the problems of the deficit, even if my opponents did not want to. In fact, they made spending promises as though we did not even have a debt, never mind a deficit.
April 11, 1989

At a recent public forum I had with my constituents less than two weeks ago, 80 per cent of the people present wanted the Government to reduce the deficit, to make programs more responsive to those areas in need and to take whatever steps are necessary to accomplish that goal. Yes, central Canada is very active, but I think it rather naive of people to think that inflationary pressures in central Canada will not affect them in their regions.
I would refer Hon. Members to an article in this morning's financial section of the Globe and Mail. It deals with a report by Statistics Canada, and I would like to quote one paragraph from it: "The price of new houses in Vancouver rose faster in February than in any other major city in Canada including Toronto, Statistics Canada reported". I caution all Hon. Members, if they think they are immune to inflation, to watch out.
Just ask the fireman, the policeman, the electrician, the steelworker or any other unionised employee if they are prepared to work for less in your part of Canada when the negotiation process they believe in and participate in clearly uses comparisons to lever their salaries up. Ask the banks, the civil service and corporations which have offices across Canada how difficult it is to promote people who live in the regions because they cannot afford to bring them to Ontario. Do you really believe that people in my riding with large $100,000, $150,000 or $200,000 mortgages can afford high rates any better than people in other ridings, or that small business in an Ontario riding is not affected by the bank rate? Of course it hurts, but at least this Government is trying to do something about it.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Liberal Government of the day did nothing but spend money while mortgages increased or rose to 20 per cent and 21 per cent levels. All they did was spend, spend, spend, while farmers were evicted, businesses of all kinds went broke and homes were repossessed across Canada.
Need I remind this House of the infamous Finance Minister from Cape Breton whose Budget in the early 1980s was so bad that it had 49 amendments within months and was soon thereafter cancelled? His reward was to lead the Liberals in the Senate. The deficit must
The Address-Mr. Soetens
be reduced, and the Speech from the Throne clearly indicates that it will be.
In Ontario riding, we have very low unemployment levels. It hovers around 4 per cent, yet as can be witnessed in the local media, there are numerous jobs available. I have a copy of one of the newspapers distributed in the local media. It is called the News Advertiser. It is not known for its job opportunities advertising, but I have four pages of ads listing jobs that are available. Let me read some of the jobs that are available in my riding. This is just a sample. A nuclear medicine technologist; a landscape carpenter; a landscape maintenance foreman; kitchen staff and preparation cooks; journeymen; millwrights; management trainees; financial analysts; sales secretaries; drivers; production workers in the marine industry; menu clerks; hair stylists; receptionists; telemarketers; machine operators; accounting manager; assemblers; photographers; journalists; maintenance mechanics; electricians; mechanics. There are jobs for students. There are jobs for mature people. There are full-time jobs. There are part-time jobs. There are even jobs available, subject to retraining, for members of the Opposition when they are defeated in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René John Soetens: It is too easy to collect unemployment insurance, and this program clearly needs to be responsive. It is not the role of the unemployment insurance fund to support people who do not want to work. If the money were used to retrain people to meet the job skills that are required, this 4 per cent level could be reduced even further. This comment was written prior to the speech this morning of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall). I am happy to endorse the comments that she has put forward in an effort to make the retraining program work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René John Soetens: When one is served by 13 and 14-year-old students in fast food restaurants or not served at all in retail establishments because they cannot find anyone who wants a job, it says to me that the Government must take steps to match the labour force with the market. Fortunately, those steps were announced this morning and I look forward to their implementation.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Soetens
Living in an urbanized area next to a big city brings with it many unique problems relating to the environment. All those industries create air pollution. All those people create garbage. All those people use our parks and preserves in such volumes that the use alone disturbs the environment. The household chemicals that go down the sink or the industrial effluent that ends up in the sewer ultimately ends up in the lake. When the beaches are closed because the coliform count in the water is too high, we need action. The Throne Speech promises us that action.
First and foremost, the expanded responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) will ensure that environmental issues are fully considered in the course of decision-making. The Government is committed to further limiting the environmental impact of toxic chemicals through new regulations in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We will improve the quality of our water through new legislation. We will protect the fragile atmosphere of our Arctic regions. We will clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, but more important, we will attack the land sites that cause the leachates that hurt the ecology.
Most significantly, the Government of Canada will encourage the expansion of Canada's environmental industry, along with the clean and environmentally efficient production process. The Government will create an environmental partners' fund which will finance initiatives promoting the production and consumption of environmentally sound products and encourage recycling programs. Yes, we will do something about our atmosphere. Whether it is negotiating an agreement with the U.S. on acid rain or working internationally to protect the ozone layer, Canada will play a leading role, just as we have done in the last four years.
Canadians have always placed a premium on tolerance and fairness. We care about the quality of life in this country for all of our citizens. We have always recognized our obligation to help the less fortunate both at home and abroad. The Mulroney Government shares in these values. Ironically, that is why the deficit is so important. We must address it to ensure our ability to maintain the quality of our social programs in the years ahead. That is why, despite our financial problems, we will continue to provide assistance to families and the elderly while directing greater assistance towards those with low incomes.
Income security is only one of the many challenges facing our society. The Government will introduce new legislation to reform Canada's legal system and sentencing practices. I only hope this results in swifter actions through the courts and punishments more suitable to the crime. We are going to review the Young Offenders Act, and if that results in those youths who choose to break the law being more appropriately dealt with, then I am sure all Canadians will cheer that action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René John Soetens: The Mulroney Government has a commitment to national unity and fostering the values that make Canada unique. We have achieved much in little more than a century. We have much to be thankful for and much to celebrate, and celebrate we shall in 1992, Canada's one hundred and twenty-fifth birthday.
The Government will also be introducing a new citizenship Act. As well, we will be establishing a new Canadian relations foundation. We will build upon the recent achievements of parliamentary reform. We will establish new conflicts of interest standards for all parliamentarians, and we will have a commission to recommend reforms to the electoral laws. When thousands of people are denied their right to vote because of the incompetence of an enumerator, clearly a review is in order.
The Meech Lake Accord must be ratified. The Senate must have restored to it some useful purpose, and at the same time it must not be allowed to interfere with the will of the elected House of Commons.
Undoubtedly there is much more that the Government can do and must do. Although not defined in the Throne Speech, I trust we will continue our commitment to our Armed Forces by giving them the equipment they need, including those nuclear-propelled submarines. I find it unacceptable that we would expect our Forces to work with anything but the best of equipment and the manpower training that goes along with it.
Finally, we in Ontario riding have been the participants of a very buoyant economy since 1984 and fully expect that this buoyancy will cany on. We are not looking for government hand-outs but instead readily hope that our contribution to Canada by numerous means, including taxation, will allow the Government to continue its regional development programs. We in Ontario riding fully realize that not until all of Canada enjoys the wealth of opportunity that we in Ontario have, can we say we are truly one nation. This government
April 11, 1989

program, through the Speech from the Throne, will continue to work toward that goal.


Mr. Hughes:: I wish to make a few comments and also pose a question to my hon. colleague. He mentioned the Unemployment Insurance Program and the changes announced by the Minister this morning. I believe that they are important and necessary changes, and I am sure that many people in my riding will also find that so. These changes reflect the modern needs of our society today. They will help to ensure that all Canadians meet their own needs by using their own initiative, and also providing assistance when it is needed.
The program reinforces the use of private-sector training. That is through a program such as the Community Futures Program. In my riding there are two such programs, one in High River and one in the Crowsnest Pass region. They have a positive track record. I am pleased to see that this program has had an additional $50 million added to it.
My riding is very different from that of the Hon. Member. It is very important to help these small communities to develop a strategy for creating new jobs and employment within those communities.
Another commendable group of initiatives announced this morning will help those who find themselves unemployed to become employed again. The Government will provide 60,000 more people currently on unemployment insurance with an opportunity to gain retraining. There is an additional $350 million applied there. This works for the people in my riding of Macleod. It works in communities such as High River, Fort Macleod, and the Crowsnest Pass region.
Does my hon. colleague find that this is true in the riding that he represents? Is that true in the Towns of Ajax, Pickering, and Whitby? If that is so, then this is a program that is both flexible and adaptable to the needs of all Canadians.


René John Soetens: I must agree with the Hon. Member and concur that the announcements this morning will offer tremendous opportunities to the people of the riding of Ontario.
There are numerous jobs available in my riding. There are also numerous people who are collecting unemployment insurance. In various discussions with unemploy ment insurance offices, the problem that appears to exist
The Address-Mr. Soetens
throughout the riding is that they cannot match the skills to the jobs available. I found it encouraging to hear the Minister announce this morning that there will be increased training emphasis to address that inequity and bring those people who are looking for jobs to the jobs that are available.
There are a number of ways to do that. One of the ways is through counselling. Many people who choose to move to the riding of Ontario from other parts of Canada come with certain expectations, and do not know where to go to look for the variety of jobs available. Improved counselling facilities for those people will be excellent.
One of the best items is the attack on fraudulent claims. That alone will encourage many people to return to the workforce.


Mr. Parker:: I wish to question the Hon. Member for Ontario on some of the comments that he made. I hope he realizes that in other parts of Canada, particularly western Canada, there are very serious problems. When he talks about the employment opportunities in Ontario, I wish to tell the Hon. Member that in my riding of Kootenay East, real estate agencies are advertising a $500-bonus for someone to pick up fairly new houses. A $500-bonus is being offered if they will pick up the mortgage on these houses. That is the type of thing going on in my riding.
We have a Community Futures Program which is attempting to establish new businesses. This group is very active and is working very closely with communities and civic leaders to bring about some developments in the area. It cannot find any entrepreneurs who wish to become involved.
Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the unemployed in the area should leave their homes, as they have had to do in my riding, and offer someone $500 to buy their homes in order that they can move to Ontario and pay $200,000 or $300,000 for a home in order to get a job that the Hon. Member is suggesting they may be able to find?
The Hon. Member also talked about a caring society and the environment. I wish to ask the Hon. Member a question with regard to the environment. In my riding there is a pulp mill which is exceeding the level of emissions allowed. Crestbrook Forest Industries is entering into Alberta for a $1.3-billion expansion. Yet in myriding it is exceeding the emission level allowed from its pulp mill.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Soetens
I have met with representatives of the Department of the Environment with regard to this. For the first time in North America this company is burning in a beehive burner the caustic chemicals coming out of its pulp mill. At the present time the only place that that is being done is in Russia. I have asked the Minister to investigate this, and to date I have not received a response. Are the lakes in Ontario the only places that the Government is considering cleaning up?
We have received a request from the environmental council of Helena, Montana. Residents of northwestern Montana have expressed concern over the burning of caustic chemicals in an open burner.


Mr. McDermid:: What do the provincial regulations state?


Sidney James Parker: It is not a provincial regulation. If we are talking about cleaning up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There are two more questions here. If the Hon. Member would put his question, there will be time to recognize two more Members.


Sidney James Parker: This is the first time in North America that this type of pollution is taking place. Caustic chemicals are being burned in an open beehive burner. I have asked the Minister to investigate it. Under this new proposal of cleaning up the environment, the Hon. Member has stated that the Minister is prepared to take action in central Canada and in Ontario, but he is not prepared to take action in western Canada. Will the Hon. Member express concern for all of Canada and not only for his riding of Ontario?


René John Soetens: I believe there are two questions, one relating to the environment and one relating to economic activity in the riding of my colleague. I wish to respond to the environmental question first.
The Government has been world-recognized for its leadership in environmental programs. During the last term of the Government the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was passed. It clearly will deal with toxic emissions. If the Member had read the Speech from the Throne, or had been listening, he would have heard that the Government has committed itself to limiting further the environmental impact of toxic chemicals through new regulations in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Government has addressed this point, and it applies across Canada and not only in my riding.
The Hon. Member also makes the point of things being good in the riding of Ontario, and he asked whether we have no concern about the riding of the Hon. Member. I wish to repeat my closing statement, in case the Member did not hear it.
We are not looking for government hand-outs, but instead hope that our contributions to Canada, by numerous means, including taxation, will allow the Government to continue its many regional development programs. We in the riding of Ontario fully realize that not until all of Canada enjoys the wealth of opportunity that we in Ontario have can we say that we are truly one nation.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment on the theme "A Caring Nation" found in the Speech from the Throne and on the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Soetens).
The Liberal Party is indeed proud to have spent for the poor and the disadvantaged of Canada. We are proud of our record in that regard. I should also note that there were many Members from the Government side who lost during the last election and who would benefit from the retraining program to which the Hon. Member alluded.
Under the theme "A Caring Nation" it states:
My government is considering the implications of the latest
jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject of
abortion -
It is a political sin of omission on the part of the Government not to address this issue with great dispatch. In fact, it is one of the greatest human injustices of all times. More than one year ago Canada lost its law against induced abortion. The Government has not shown leadership on this critical issue. It has only continued to state that it will act. However, by its inaction the Government is responsible for leaving the country with an abortion-on-demand policy. The Government has too long delayed on this issue and, therefore, justice has too long been denied the unborn child. The Government cannot long continue to procrastinate. It must bring forward immediately the necessary legislation to protect the life of the unborn child.
I have two questions for the Hon. Member. In terms of the Race Relations Foundation, the purpose of which is to establish social harmony, I submit that so long as there is employment inequity there will be no social harmony. Will the Hon. Member pressure his Government to ensure that there are sanctions to federal Departments
April 11, 1989

which do not comply with the Employment Equity Act? Second, will he pressure his Government to bring in legislation on abortion before the summer recess?


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond to the Hon. Member's questions. I agree that there are problems in Canada concerning race relations and also perhaps inequity of employment opportunities. I can only reiterate that a statement made by the Minister of Employment not too long ago addressed successfully the concerns raised by the Hon. Member.
With regard to abortion legislation, I can only refer to the previous legislation which was rushed and hurried. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that it was flawed. I can only hope that when and if the Minister brings forward legislation it will be appropriate and that it will not be taken to the Supreme Court and proved to be flawed but that it will stand the test of the laws that are appropriate at the time.


M. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the Throne Speech pronounced last week.
First of all, I want to say this is a very vague speech, although during the week we started receiving more specific information, this morning for example, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDou-gall) introduced a number of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which are actually quite welcome, with a few exceptions.
Before commenting any further on the subject, I would like to say that I support the stand taken by my Leader (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in direct conflict with the spirit and the intent of the Charter. The House will recall what the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, did in that province just before Christmas, when Bill 178 impinged on the Anglophones' freedom of speech, specifically in the area of bilingual signs. I know what I am talking about, since Quebec Anglophones have been denied that freedom. I am also very concerned as a Franco-Ontarian. However, I want to express my appreciation to the Peterson Government in Ontario for its recent statement that it would never impose that kind of legislation on Franco-Ontarians.
The Address-Mr. Belair
In the Throne Speech, the Government also made some allusions to reducing the deficit. Although they were just, I am very wary of any measure that will be taken to reduce this deficit. There are no specifics. There is a reference to budget cuts. I think we will just have to wait until the bills are introduced in the House, to find out what to expect.
The Government has again made a commitment to earmark certain sums of money for regional development.
If I may go back somewhat in time, the FEDNOR Program was announced in the spring of 1987. I imagine it was a calculated coincidence that we started seeing the colour of that money in the North only a few weeks before or at least not until the month preceding the election in November 1988.
At that time, $100 million was granted over a period of five years, which means $20 million per year. So far we have yet to see any of the $20 million the Government promised us. We are very aware of our isolation, being far from the main urban centres where the economic action is, and we in Northern Ontario intend to make sure we get our share of the pie, in order to help our small businesses.
There was also a reference to subsidies or grants or economic assistance for Native people. I wish the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) would visit the reserves in the North and the Arctic and see for himself the conditions in which these people have to live. I will talk about housing later on in my speech.
During the last ten years, we have been talking about political autonomy for Indians. Political autonomy is possible only if Native people are economically independent from the rest of Canada. The potential for economic development exists, but these people do not have the necessary financial resources to develop that potential within their own culture and in their own language, while still living in a cultural context they understand.
I spoke earlier about unemployment insurance, and this morning the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) proposed a number of major changes. There are some positive aspects I would like to mention, especially assistance for older workers who are likely to have trouble finding employment, depending on the economic situation where they live.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Belair
Once a person has reached a certain age, it is always difficult to retrain for another job, and the Minister was right to help these people. Where I would like to make a few suggestions is on the subject of fraud. Mr. Speaker, everybody knows there are unemployment insurance profiteers who abuse the system, and the solution would be to appoint more investigators to track them down and bring them before the courts. The suggestion aimed at lengthening the qualifying period for entitlement is not necessarily good: keep in mind the handicapped, people who are not overly talentuous, or others who may be slightly retarded and you will appreciate that these applicants would certainly find it difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance.
The Minister should also consider the case of seasonal workers. To be more specific, an employee must work at least 15 hours a week to be covered. At the end of 20 weeks that employee would qualify for unemployment benefits, having worked 300 hours. What about someone who works 10 hours a week, 52 weeks a year yet does not qualify for benefits with a total of 520 hours of work? I feel that is an injustice which ought to be eliminated by the Government.
The Speech from the Throne refers to environmental matters, and it is obvious that popular pressure has struck a responsive chord in the Government. Suffice it to mention extremely positive aspects concerning toxic chemicals, the quality of our drinking water, and ozone layer protection; the idea is to protect the atmosphere and shield people who inhabit the Earth from harmful sun rays. Our forests is one sector where the Government has fallen short. All one needs to do is fly over Canada's northern expanses and see the ravaging effects of acid rain: ever more reddish spots, our evergreens are turning red because they are being choked by acid rain. Extremely important steps certainly could be taken in that direction. Suffice it to mention in passing that the forest industry is the largest employer in Canada, with one million directly or indirectly employed, a fact which should warrant the Government giving it a little more respect and priority.
Since I am on the forest industry, Mr. Speaker, let me send a very important message to this Government-it concerns the effect of the 15 per cent export surtax slapped on the lumber industry. In February 1989, the Northern Ontario Liberal caucus visited a number of cities. We heard 30 people who made representations on the impact of that surtax on the lumber industry. Let me
say only that right now, in Northern Ontario only, five sawmills are shut down. This has meant the loss of 900 jobs, and a number of industry owners and managers told us that currently, a number of mills are operating at a loss or at cost. Combining the exchange rate now estimated at 15 per cent on the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar, and the surtax, we see Mr. Speaker that the industry is operating with 30 per cent less income than it was on December 30, 1986, when the tentative agreement was signed with the U.S. Trade Department.
I think the Government is extremely aware of the importance of that surtax. Since the damage has been done, would the Government not consider repealing that tax, with the 30-day notice provided for in the Free Trade Agreement, and let the Americans take their countervailing action, that is go before the GATT and attack that tax.
The industry has clearly shown that it too would be ready to help eliminate this tax, even with the aid of an international tribunal, as was suggested to us during our hearings. Surely it cannot be worse that the present situation. We have everything to gain by eliminating this tax.
A few moments ago, my colleague spoke about abortion. I fully agree with what he said to the effect that the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. . . and I would have much preferred that it render a decision on the Borowski case to establish once and for all whether a fetus is a human person from the moment of conception. In my mind, there is no doubt about it, but since we have to live in a country where the Supreme Court is the final authority on any dispute, I am prepared to wait, but I expect the Government to take the necessary action to prevent abortion on demand.
Mr. Speaker, we could also talk about what is not included in the Speech from the Throne, especially the Canadian Government's approach to the U.S. Commerce Department regarding the definition of a subsidy. Everyone knows that this definition will have a major impact on the whole Canadian economy. If the Americans consider a subsidy for small Canadian industries or small businesses to be unfair competition, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the impact that will have on our country? We are only 26 million people. Obviously, the number of companies is proportional to the population of Canada compared to the United States and we have an extremely big country geographically. There are wide open spaces between the towns and villages of our land.
April 11, 1989

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the problem of transportation in Canada. Many industries are subsidized for the distance goods have to be shipped, in order to remove any regional disparities that might exist.
Let us also talk a little about housing. In his budget cuts-which have already begun, by the way-I am referring here to RRAP, the Rural Rehabilitation Assistance Program, the former Minister of Housing, whom I see across the aisle, did not see fit to give more money to help poor people repair their houses and renovate, especially in isolated regions.
I just spoke about native people. As far as housing is concerned, one has only to visit remote reservations to see the atrocious conditions in which these people have to live. I am convinced that no one in Canada deserves such a fate and that more money should be given to Indian reservations so that they can provide proper housing for their residents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have three minutes left plus comments after three o'clock. Point of order? The Hon. Minister of State.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the House sat until 1.25 o'clock today because of Statements by Ministers. If I am incorrect I will be happy to break for lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The extension continues only when we reach Government Business. The Throne Speech is not Government Business.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.01 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my statement concerns the requirement for people in the Avalon region of my riding to have 16 weeks of qualifying time for unemployment insurance benefits increased from the normal requirement of 10 weeks due to the regulations that cause certain things to happen when the unemployment rate drops below 11.5 per cent.
Notwithstanding the Government's new labour force development strategy that was tabled here this morning, my concern and that of my constituents is that the qualifying time has increased while the employment opportunities have not. Of the three UIC regions in Newfoundland, the Avalon region is largely driven by the employment opportunities in the urban area of St. John's. Specifically, the unemployment rate there is in the order of 8 per cent while in other rural parts of the region the rate is more than double, approximately 19 per cent. Yet all recipients are being treated the same. They require 16 weeks instead of 10.
Those outside St. John's have enough trouble obtaining 10 weeks. How can they now be expected to get 16 weeks? They are being devastated.
I have written the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) in more detail and her staff would be aware of this concern.
May I ask the Minister in the strongest terms that the Avalon UIC region in Newfoundland be separated immediately into urban and rural so that UIC recipients in the rural area where unemployment continues to be high can be treated more justly and fairly and in consonance with the employment opportunities available.



NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK

Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge Canadians to celebrate National Wildlife Week, April 9 to April 15, by taking part in conservation activities across Canada.

April 11, 1989
National Wildlife Week was proclaimed in 1947 to raise awareness about the problems affecting wildlife and its habitat and it is just as applicable today. In recent years, many private organizations have joined with Gov ernments to focus public attention on the threats facing wildlife by organizing such activities as nature workshops, wilderness trips, film festivals and special exhibits.
Although the challenge to reverse and prevent damage to our precious wildlife heritage is daunting, the task is one in which Canadians from all walks of life can participate. I urge Canadians everywhere to join with a local conservation organization and participate in wildlife conservation activities throughout the year.
Let us do all we can to make every week wildlife week in Canada.



SAFETY OF MINE WORKERS

Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, last week in Timmins another miner was killed on the job. This accident is the second such tragedy in the same community in the last two months. While safety remains an overriding problem in this industry, the Government's attitude has been unacceptable.
At the upcoming meeting of the federal and provincial Mines' Ministers, the stated first priority for discussion is to be "maintaining the competitive edge".
I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to give the mines portfolio a Minister of State for Mines so this important area will receive the attention it deserves. I call upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) to change the agenda for the August Mines Ministers meeting so that safety for mine workers becomes the priority of the Government. I also call upon all Members of the House to support the Private Members' Bill introduced today by my colleague, the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), calling for a national day of mourning for workers killed in the workplace. Workers' lives should not be allowed to pay for corporate profit.

Mr. Speaker, our miners have no use for yet more studies. The research has been done and the recommendations have been made. Now is the time to act responsibly and protect the health and safety of Canadian miners. The Government should give top priority to safety in the mines.
Action is what is needed, Mr. Speaker!



RESEARCH


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, animals have been used for centuries as living tools for the achievement of human knowledge. An estimated two million animals a year are used for research in Canada.
Although there are areas of medical research where animal testing might be necessary, many uses such as testing cosmetics, furniture wax or paint cause unnecessary pain. Animals too often suffer for questionable human gain.
It is unacceptable for animals to be sacrificed for our vanity and it is time that we asked ourselves if the end justifies the means.
I urge the federal Government to encourage research by finding alternatives to senseless animal testing where possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring it to the attention of Hon. Members that I am obliged to make sure that statements stay within the 60 seconds as set out in the rules.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in the annual report he has just tabled, the Official Languages Commissioner sounds the alarm in connection with bilingualism at Canada Post: under the privatization program of the Conservative Government opposite, franchise operators offer postal services and this is a threat to bilingualism at Canada Post Corporation. The Official Languages Commissioner tells us that the least we could expect would be to have franchise operators sign contracts and make formal commitments with Canada Post with a view to providing bilingual services.
Better still, Mr. Speaker: Why not do away right now with the postal service privatization scheme so that once and for all we would be sure of bilingual services at Canada Post, just as it has always been the case? That is the only solution to the Canada Post bilingualism pro blems.
April 11,1989	COMMONS



NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION WEEK

Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House that this week is National Soil Conservation Week.
Canadian farmers know that good soil is an important element in producing the quality food products for which Canada is famous. The Government is to be commended for establishing programs such as the Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement Program. This program will assist in reducing the phosphorus loadings in the Lake Erie Basin from cropland run-off and improve the productivity of southwestern Ontario agriculture in reducing or arresting soil erosion.
On behalf of the agricultural community in Elgin County and Norfolk Township, I would like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) for their foresight. This initiative will ensure that future generations will have productive land to farm and will be able to continue producing Canadian farm products that are wholesome and of high quality.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, on December 23, there was a major oil spill off the Washington coast which seriously impacted on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. On March 28, an even more serious oil spill took place off the coast of Alaska, and the effects are still unknown.
On April 5, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) turned down a request for an inquiry. I am asking him to reconsider in view of the fact that at this very moment a press conference is being held in Vancouver where a committee representing some 158 prominent British Columbians are asking in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for a full inquiry into the environmental and social impacts of the exploration, production and transportation of oil and other dangerous substances in Canadian coastal waters. I ask the Minister of the Environment to reconsider in view of this interest in the Province of British Columbia.



TRIBUTE TO JEAN-MARC HAMEL

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on March 30 last, in the presence of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada, Mrs. Jeanne Sauve, bestowed on Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Outstanding Achievement Award, the highest award in the Federal Public Service. Under Mr. Hamel, was appointed on June 6 1966, the Canada Elections Act has undergone a positive evolution.
Mr. Speaker, we also appreciate the competence of the impressive team he heads in Ottawa. On behalf of all Elections Canada employees and of all Parliamentarians,
I would like to pay a special tribute to Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel and to offer him my most sincere congratulations.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, cold fusion could well revolutionize the energy production and utilization on our planet if this process can be proven and commercialized. The importance of the current research on cold fusion, should it prove routinely verifiable, cannot be exaggerated and would surpass any previous scientific development in history.
The successful development of cold fusion would minimize environmental problems and radically change world political and economic influences now exerted by major oil producers.
My contacts with Canadian and American researchers indicate that many are becoming believers. Two possible pathways of reaction have been identified.
With our vast freshwater supplies and heavy water technology, Canada should be on the forefront of possible development.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, as the critic for the Canadian International Development Agency, I like many other Canadians hear persistent rumours that major cut-backs

April 11, 1989
will soon be imposed on government spending. After this morning, we tend to believe it more. These cuts include Canadian aid for Third World development.
I appeal to the Government to do everything in its power to ensure that international aid, particularly that directed to Africa, the poorest of continents, is spared if the Government does in fact reduce its budgetary expenditures. Consider these facts: Per capita income in Africa is lower today in real terms than it was 30 years ago. Between 1979 and 1983, life expectancy declined in nine countries of the sub-Sahara. With regard to education, primary school enrolment has fallen in 12 countries. Surely these people can be made an exception to this lean and mean Government.



TRIBUTE TO THE HON. ROBERT STANFIELD

Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 11, is the 75th birthday of a former distinguished Member of this House and distinguished son of Canada, the Hon. Robert Stanfield. My first recollection of Robert Stanfield is from the provincial election of 1956 where as a young student, I was sent to cover the inevitable re-election of the then Liberal Government of Nova Scotia. I got there too late because Bob Stanfield, having taken over the Party eight years earlier with no members provincially or federally, had achieved a victory.
Bob Stanfield's career would have been complete had he never left Nova Scotia, but in 1967, he accepted the unhappy and difficult task of national leadership. Through three difficult elections and nine years, he re-built this national Party into the central institution it has become today. His unswerving integrity and commitment to full equality in terms of language rights and social justice, his progressive approach to leadership, his belief in the reconciling of regions and of making this an important place for the debate that would make this country viable has contributed much to the public life of Canada. Today we salute a great Canadian on his 75th birthday.



VIA RAIL


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is not a caring and compassionate Government, it is a callous and careless Government.
Via Rail links this Confederation from the East Coast to the West. For many thousands of Canadians, the rail lines through their towns or cities are a symbol of how vast this great country is and how yet we are all Canadians. The Government was callous when it brought up the idea that Via Rail would be cut in the upcoming Budget. Families across the nation wondered if there would be a pink slip waiting for them the next day.
The federal freight rate subsidies are vital to the Atlantic economy. We need these subsidies to transport our goods to market and distribution points in central Canada. We cannot afford to lose 12,000 jobs.
This is a careless Government. Uncertainty at the national level with regard to the continued funding of economic development programs has created chaos among the workers and businesses of Atlantic Canada.
Cut-backs in Via Rail, the Atlantic freight rate subsidies and the Economic Regional Development Assistance Programs appear to be on this Government's agenda. Via Rail, the freight rate subsidies and ERDAs are essential to Atlantic Canada and must be maintained.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TFanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that today, the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) rose in his place to talk about National Wildlife Week while remaining silent about a judgment rendered on the Rafferty-Alameda project, a judgment that was brought forward as a result of an action taken by the Canadian Wildlife Federation, a judgment which showed that the federal Government did not live up to its responsibilities with respect to a federal environmental assessment on the Rafferty-Alameda dam, a judgment which has quashed the licensing of that dam.
April 11, 1989

Oral Questions
I now call on the Government to correct the error made by the former Minister of the Environment, and I call on the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. L. Bouchard) to live up to his responsibilities, not to appeal the decision, to initiate a federal environmental assessment review and to ensure that Saskatchewan does not defy the law of the land and proceed with this project regardless of the court judgment.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Tory Government has not launched an attack on poverty, today it launched an attack on the poor. It has not launched an attack on unemployment, today it launched an attack on the unemployed.
Canadians who honestly and legitimately find themselves out of work or lose their jobs are having their benefits cut by $850 million. Why should a Canadian who, through no fault of his or her own, loses a job, pay for human resources training by big companies? Why are unemployed people, who have to feed their children and pay their rent, pay for training programs in Canada? Why is the Government forcing unemployed people onto welfare to pay for what should be government training programs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is, of course, wrong on all counts. We are ensuring that people who are unemployed continue to have benefits. Yes, we are saying that they will have different kinds of benefits. We are ensuring that they will have access to training and that they will have the possibility of having secure jobs in the future. We are paying for the kind of training that they will need to have those jobs. That is a better kind of benefit than staying at home when most of them do not want to stay at home.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the issue is who is paying for the training. Under this plan, the unemployed will be paying for the training.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is taking money from the unemployed to pay for retraining people who already have jobs. Is the Prime Minister going to pay or the Minister? Certainly not! Quebec's textile workers and British Columbia's forestry workers are going to pay. Why should workers who don't have enough money for their rent, clothes and food, have to pay the cost of retraining programs? Why should people who have enough problems of their own, and are unemployed, be made to pay for the cost of retraining others, which is the Government's responsibility?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first I think retraining is the responsibility of all of us because it is the future of Canadian workers that we in this Government are concerned about. The right hon. gentleman is always talking about doom and gloom, but for every story that he can come up with about gloom and doom, I can point to a Canadian who has benefited as a result of the Government's economic policies, and under this program, they will benefit more.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, so much for the Prime Minister's undertaking that our social programs were a sacred trust. So much for his statement made during the debate among the three Leaders, particularly his response to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), that all our social programs would survive the trade deal. So much for his promise during the election campaign that Canada would have the finest adjustment programs in the world for our labour force. All that has gone by the board. Why did the Prime Minister not tell Canadians the truth if this was going to be the result?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we are making this program a better one, and I do not understand why the Right Hon. Member would suggest that this program is being cut. The size of this program remains the same. The people who are unemployed will now have access not only to income support, but under the training programs in the UI program, programs which are not a new phenomenon but whose funds are being doubled, they will get income support, transportation allowances, child care and the cost of the training program. What could be better for unemployed Canadians than that?

April 11, 1989
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This morning, we had a preview of the Budget which indicated that nearly one million Canadian workers will lose their unemployment insurance benefits, either altogether or partly, as a result of the program announced by the Minister today.
Does the Minister agree with these indications, and if not, what are her own predictions? And is she prepared to produce publicly, here in the House, her own impact study on this issue?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Government of which this Member was a part did change the entrance requirements under unemployment insurance. We did not invent this. This has been done before. This time it was done in a way that those people will have access to other programs. When his Government did it, it simply extended-reduced the ability of people enter the program. We are saying those people will have access to a secure job and a secure future.
The Hon. Member is saying a million people will be affected. I do not think that number is right. We have been sensitive to regional disparities so people in higher unemployment regions will continue to have access to the program at an earlier date.
We have also eliminated the repeater provision put in by that Government. We made it easier for these people to find a job and to find training. We brought our programs together in a continuum for employed and unemployed to ensure that our workforce in the future has the greatest security of job opportunity in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND-WORKERS' CONTRIBUTIONS
William Warren Allmand: asked the Minister to produce her impact studies to show us how many people will be affected by this program. She has not answered that. We want those impact studies.
The Government announced it was taking $850 million out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund by reducing benefits and redirecting moneys to training, labour market development and consultation, worth-while activities, but all matters that in the past were paid for out of general revenue because they benefited all Canadians.
My question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration is this. How can the Government justify this radical attack on the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and what will it do to assure Canadian workers across this country that moneys they have paid into that fund will be returned to them in benefits or training in their own provinces?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Hon. Member has clearly missed the point because that is exactly what will happen. We had in the past a mixture of programs under the Unemployment Insurance Program and under General Revenues that provide training and benefits to workers. That will continue. What we will do is double the effort under the Unemployment Insurance Program and under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, which remains whole. This is a change from their policies whereby they make work; we make jobs!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: We are reinforcing a positive direction recommended by a committee of this House that unemployment insurance become more active.


FUNDING OF RETRAINING PROGRAMS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: No matter how the Minister deals with the issue, the question that workers will be asking right across the country is: "Who will pay for the retraining involved?" Is it the unemployed themselves, as the Government wants to do, or is it those who can afford to pay for retraining programs? That is the issue.
My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. What she did amounts to taking $1.3 billion out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, out of the pockets of the unemployed, a direct or indirect tax on them. Why didn't the Minister, as her buddy Ronald Reagan has done in the United States, institute a minimum corporate tax on profitable companies? She could have raised over a billion dollars there and taxed those who could afford to pay, namely, the corporations that are making money, for these changes, instead of the unemployed themselves.
April 11, 1989


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Leader of the New Democratic Party is singing the same old song. He sings it on every issue. A billion dollars from corporations is supposed to pay for everything.
Let me say that premiums paid into unemployment insurance are paid by employers, as well as employees. It is a benefit to employees who are unemployed or may be unemployed in the future that we will see people changing jobs more often. The Hon. Member knows that. There is a different kind of benefit going to the unemployed now. It is one the unemployed have asked for. They want training and secure jobs. They are ready to pay for them.


REQUEST THAT MINIMUM CORPORATE TAX BE INTRODUCED
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has learned her lines well. Every question she is asked today about who will pay for this, she turns around and talks about retraining. No one on this side of the House is arguing against retraining. We are saying the unemployed should not have to pay for that themselves! That is the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister is smiling. She is not the one looking for a job.
Why is it the United States can afford to have a minimum corporate tax and other industrial countries can have a minimum corporate tax on profitable companies, and this Government would rather tax the unemployed? Why don't you bring that tax in and do the just thing?


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is both employed people and corporations that pay for unemployment insurance. It is not the unemployed. The unemployed do not pay for unemployment insurance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Both companies and employees pay into the Unemployment Insurance Fund in order to have access to the benefits of the program. We are shifting the benefits of the program in a way that is more positive and will ensure workers in the long run will have access, not just to money to stay at home, but money to go out and get another job.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Unlike the United States, we still have
60,000	profitable companies that do not pay any income tax. The Minister may think that is all right, the Conservatives may think that is all right, but the majority of Canadians want that changed.

The unemployed will have to pay for these changes. Does the Minister think that is fair? Why not make the rich or profitable companies pay? Is this the Conservative Party's idea of justice?


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Government has done much to make the tax system more fair in this country. I am interested to hear the Hon. Member quoting Ronald Reagan and the Americans. It is the first time he has ever done that in this House.
Within this program we are dealing with changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program. We will ensure that Canadian workers have access not just to benefits but to the right kinds of benefits under a program that already exists for their benefit. I say that Canadians, Canadian workers, the Canadian unemployed, people like single mothers, social assistance recipients, will all be better off under this program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUMBER OF WEEKS OF WORK NEEDED TO QUALIFY
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: The
Minister said in this House last week:
Those who need unemployment insurance will get it.
Well they got it today from this Minister. They got it right straight between the eyes.
My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. According to a document she released today, it says the minimum entrance requirement around Saint John, New Brunswick, will go up from 10 to 15; around Halifax, Nova Scotia, 12 to 18; and around St. John's, Newfoundland, from 10 to 14. That covers the entire Avalon Peninsula. How can the Minister say the unemployed have nothing to fear when now they need additional weeks of work that do not exist?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland will benefit considerably from this program in a number of ways.

April 11, 1989
Oral Questions
First, let me point out to the Hon. Member that he has missed something in this. The program for fishermen remains whole, remains the way it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Second, we have eliminated the penalty for repeaters. This means that seasonal workers in Newfoundland will be better off.
Third, we have expanded the funding for the Community Futures Program which covers a large number of communities in Newfoundland and in Atlantic Canada. We are giving Newfoundlanders and other people who live in Atlantic Canada hope for a real job with real training.


PENALTIES FOR WORKERS REFUSING SUITABLE JOBS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Minister, I have a feeling that perhaps what Newfoundland and the Maritimes will need under this new legislation is a notwithstanding clause.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: I want to ask the Minister, among the gobbledegook that came out this morning, what did the Minister mean when she said: "We propose to increase the penalties for workers who refuse a suitable job".
Does the Minister mean that a man or a woman who has children to feed will have to take a job at less money than what he or she was receiving on unemployment insurance? How many other hidden hammers will hit Canadians under this legislation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we are going to put all the resources of our Canadian Jobs Strategy and the Unemployment Insurance Programs together to ensure that we can assist people to find suitable jobs sooner.
Is the Hon. Member telling me that he wants the people in Newfoundland to stay home? Is that what he wants? Does he want them to stay unemployed? Does he want them to not have access?
The House Commission in Newfoundland has done some work on this very topic. It has stated that the people in Newfoundland want to work, and we are providing them with the means to do that, and to upgrade their skills under local conditions that are suitable for them.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the months leading up the 1988 election the Government announced spending promises totalling $18 billion.
During the election campaign the Minister of Finance explained that these were not promises, they were government spending commitments whose cost was zero.
The Minister assured Canadians that the Government had the money and would not need to increase taxes or reduce spending to honour its promises.
However, yesterday the Minister stated that the Government will reduce spending and increase taxes. Today the first program to be officially cut is unemployment insurance.
Will the Minister of Finance explain why last autumn he was adamant that the Government's election promises could be paid for without cutting existing programs or raising taxes, and why today Canadians are told that there will be severe cuts in government spending and major tax increases immediately ahead?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first may I say right off the top that the Hon. Member's statement that the Unemployment Insurance Program has been cut is quite clearly wrong, and that has been made very clear by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
There are other things in the very long preamble to the Hon. Member's question which are incorrect. However, I will not get into those.
Yes, we do have a debt problem. The Hon. Member is very clear on that. This problem must be dealt with. I indicated in my speech yesterday in Toronto the basis on which we had to deal with this.
I wish to quote something that the Hon. Members and others in the House will agree with. An article in The Winnipeg Free Press stated: "Any finance minister, of any party, would have to do the same. The issue has little to do with ideology and much to do with paying the price of past irresponsibility", which was in that party, the party of which the Hon. Member is a member of, and which we know we have to deal with and deal with fast.
April 11, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COST OF MEETING COMMITTMENTS
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions the Minister has stated on a number of occasions that high interest rates are responsible for the inability of the Government to meet its election promises, or what the Minister described as spending commitments. Yet, at the time of the election, interest rates were over 10 per cent and climbing. The rate was certainly much higher than forecast in his own last Budget.
Will the Minister now tell the House whether he informed the Prime Minister during the election campaign that the promises he was making, or the spending commitments he was announcing, would be impossible to honour in the face of rising interest rates, and if not, why not?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member goes back and looks at the promises we made during the course of the campaign, he will see that there were very few promises during the campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there was an increase in interest rates during the month of September and subsequent to the election campaign.
The point that we have to recognize here is that those interest rates, related to increases in interest rates in other countries in the world, are making very clear the exposure that we have as a country today to the high level of debt combined with the high level of interest rates that we have. This is the problem that we have to address, and that we will address in the Budget.
As I said in my remarks yesterday, it is something that is a national issue, a national challenge that must be faced on a national basis.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment.
Oral Questions
Last night we discovered that officials in her Department had estimated that at least $30 million would be taken in unemployment benefits out of the Province of Newfoundland.
In view of that reality, how can the Minister justify that Newfoundland will receive benefits when $30 million has been pulled out of that province in benefits?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, because the funds will be going back by way of training, by way of Community Futures, and by way of maternity and over 65-benefits. All the benefits that are in this program will be going back into the regions of Canada.
We have made the commitment that we are going to ensure that we are sensitive to regional concerns.
The Hon. Member is taking out the costs and not looking at what is available to benefit Newfoundlanders under this program. If the Hon. Member wants to ensure that Newfoundlanders do not have access to benefits, then he can defend the status quo all he wants. However, the status quo is not working for everyone in the country, and that is why we have to change it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canada has already been hit by the suspension of $500 million in ERDA agreements. Now, $30 million is being pulled out of the pockets of people right across the Province of Newfoundland. Is the Minister trying to make Margaret Thatcher look like a paragon of human kindness compared to this Government? Is that what she is trying to do?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to take any lessons from the NDP in how to create economic growth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: If you look at Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker, since this Government took office in 1984 you will see that there has been a 12.4 per cent increase in the number of jobs. They are good jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Many of those jobs have come about as a result of programs such as the Community Futures Program in which local enterprises make the decisions

April 11, 1989
Oral Questions
about local needs with local business and local workers. I can assure the people of Atlantic Canada and the people of Newfoundland that the Government stands behind them in order to build their future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHAIRMAN OF THE ITALIAN SENATE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Senator Francesco Macis, Chairman of the Italian Senate Commission on Elections and Parliamentary Privileges.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE LEADER OF THE ALBERTA NEW DEMOCRAT OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ray Martin, Leader of the Alberta New Democrat Official Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. By restricting the requirement for access to unemployment insurance and by tying the period of benefits to the regional unemployment rate the Government is penalizing workers who find themselves unemployed or dislocated through no fault of their own. What does the Minister suggest they do besides reverting to provincial and municipal welfare rolls? What does the Government intend to do to help the provinces which have to pick up the tab?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first, what we have found in the past, and what the people of Canada found when the Government which the Hon. Member supported introduced changes to the entrance requirements, was that people were able to find more work.
We have expanded the provisions for social assistance recipients. If the provinces co-operate with us we will be expanding that to $800 million. That is a very successful program which we introduced under Canadian Jobs
Strategy which helps social assistance recipients get off welfare.
I would also remind the Hon. Member that the federal Government does pay half of those costs.


CRITERIA FOR RETRAINING PROGRAMS
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks about co-operation and participation with the provinces. Yet a couple of weeks ago she cancelled meetings with the provinces on precisely this topic.
In the obvious absence of a broad employment industrial strategy can she explain by which criterion or set of criteria she set up the programs? Who will be responsible for developing them? What government employment objectives for disadvantaged regions are being used to create this hodgepodge of programs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is clearly not a hodgepodge of programs. This is creating a continuum whereby with the private sector, which includes labour and business, and with the provinces we can put together a program that is a continuum. We will ensure that there is entry level training, that there is re-entry level training, and that there is skill upgrading for people on the job.
I suggest that the Hon. Member read the program instead of talking to his friends at Queen's Park who have not read it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It concerns the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, tabled in the House today. In this report we read that 1988 was a stormy on the language scene. Consider Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec, which adopted regressive legislation to deal with their language minorities. Meanwhile, the Conservative Government kept quiet and refused to condemn these reactionary policies. We even heard the Secretary of State's predecessor admit that he understood and justified using Section 33, the notwithstanding clause! Recently however, we heard the Prime Minister say that this section was-and these are his own words-"immoral and the mistake of the century". I want to ask the
April 11, 1989

Oral Questions
Secretary of State, the present incumbent, what his position is on Section 33. Is he for or against?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks for the Government of Canada. He said very clearly what our position is. We are entirely in favour of promoting language diversity in this country and supporting minority official language communities. The report published by Mr. Fortier this morning admirably compliments what our Department is doing. I will have a chance to discuss the report's recommendations with him at a meeting a week or two.


ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULATIONS UNDER OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In his report the Commissioner of Official Languages talks about the need for action. He talks about the need for a law that has teeth and has regulations. The law passed last year must have regulations. To have them there must be a consultation process. The green light for this process has not been given by Treasury Board or Cabinet.
When will this law be given the regulations required so that it can be followed to the letter and in spirit? When will the Government move on this Bill? Will it wait? Will it drag its feet like it did in introducing the Bill?
In the calendar of events will we see a timetable from the Government to know exactly when this law will come into effect with the appropriate regulations?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, to quote the Commissioner of Official Languages who said, in referring to the new Official Languages Act:

"The new Act is eloquent testimony of your Government's commitment to greater linguistic harmony and equality".

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that regulations are essential in order to implement the new Official Languages Act. After consultations with all Parties in this House, with the departments, with the groups concerned and with parliamentarians, we promised that this would be done. In today's report, the Commissioner said that he hoped regulations would be tabled by the end of 1989. I can assure the Hon. Member that the regulations will be tabled in the House well before that date, so that we can have final consultations with all Members of this House.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the Government's intrusion today into the Unemployment Insurance Fund is an admission that its economic policies, including free trade, are a failure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ron Fisher: The Minister says that the status quo will not do-and the Minister is exactly right. Just under one year ago I worked at a plant where 200 or 300-


Mr. Andre:: I am sure that your mother is very proud. Ask a question.


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


Ron Fisher: Considering the fact that the changes have been made, and that they will very adversely effect unemployed people, why did the Minister not take the advice of the de Grandpre Commission which suggests a levy from people in society who can afford to pay for unemployment insurance, not from the people who are unemployed?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that the Hon. Member is now supportive of the de Grandpre Report.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the premise of the Member is wrong. I would like to thank him for his first question in the House since we have been together in a session, but what we are doing is paying a different kind of benefit

April 11, 1989
Oral Questions
under unemployment insurance. It is very important for him to recognize that the kinds of benefits that we are going to be providing under unemployment insurance are the kind that will provide people with training opportunities and with future jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRAINING FOR AVAILABLE JOBS
Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the job training which is going to be available will amount primarily to MAC-jobs at MAC-bucks.
I ask the Minister when she is going to get serious about putting in programs which really train people for jobs which are available?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we got serious about this in 1985 when we introduced the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We began then, Mr. Speaker, to move from old programs that make work to new programs that make jobs. We believe in opportunity and we will continue to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Many of the constituents of my riding of Markham are concerned about certain flaws in the Young Offenders Act. They are particularly concerned about the reluctance of judges to refer certain violent crimes committed by 16 and 17-year olds to an adult court.
Since the Speech from the Throne promised a review of the Young Offenders Act, will this be done quickly so that society will be better protected from certain violent young offenders?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate my colleague's interest in this matter. The Government's concern, which I believe is shared by all Members of the House, is that this law balanced protection of person and property with rehabilitation of young people, but there are some concerns about the adequacy of the transfer provisions. There is presently a working group of federal-provincial Ministers and officials looking at this, and the matter is going to be fully discussed at the federal-provincial meetings in Prince Edward Island in June.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Kenneth Ross Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the Minister please comment on Canadian experts' views of the cold fusion experiments that are going on in the United States now and their possible potential for commercialization in Canada?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a somewhat difficult question, but I will do my best to explain where we are at the moment. I am not sure that anyone knows whether we have indeed experienced a breakthrough in terms of fusion. We still have a mixed result. Something is obviously going on, but we are not sure that it is indeed fusion. However, the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is following this with some considerable interest and some experiments.
Just a few days ago I established through the vicepresident of science of the National Research Council a special committee with special advisers from Canada to track what is going on anywhere in the world so if anything does breakthrough with our experiments or through others, we will be on top of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Federal Court struck down a federal licence for the Rafferty-Alameda Dam project in Saskatchewan. This project was struck down simply because the federal Government did not follow its own guidelines under the environment assessment and review process when issuing the licence.
Considering that the Government has ignored its own regulatory obligation, will the current Minister agree to comply with the decision of the Federal Court as well as apologize to the people of Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the Government's ignoring its sacred trust of the environment?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to read the judgment quickly and I intend to read it more carefully. I am waiting for an analysis from Justice. What I can say is that I will get in touch today with my colleagues in the
April 11, 1989

provincial Government of Saskatchewan about it, and we will make a decision very shortly. Of course the options are whether to comply with the requirements set out in the judgment or to favour an appeal. I can assure the House and the people that this decision will be made taking into full consideration the protection of the environment and the assessment requirement. We will also have to take into account the necessity of meeting the local need for water.


FEDERAL COURT DECISION-PROVINCIAL APPEAL ANNOUNCEMENT
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. I hope that he moves quickly. I am sorry to hear that he has not already phoned his Deputy Minister or the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan who has already announced that he is going to appeal and is going to proceed with construction. Will the Minister assure the House that he will speak to his compatriot in Saskatchewan and ensure that if this appeal does go ahead they will not allow construction to continue?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my friend understands that it is a matter of minimum courtesy to call my fellow Minister in the provincial Government, and this is an occasion to confirm that the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne about the necessity of implementing a new legislative assessment review was well founded.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for York West and a single question from the Member from Regina-Qu'Appelle.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration. On December 28 of last year, the Minister announced measures to deal quickly with the huge and growing backlog of refugee claimants. Yet after three months, nothing has been done and not one case has been processed. On March 31 the announcement was made that they will not begin until the end of summer at the very earliest.
Oral Questions
Why announce a plan last December, do nothing for three months, and then in fact postpone the eventuality until the summer? Why won't the Minister, once and for all, end this bureaucratic limbo and get down to the serious business of clearing a human backlog that numbers over 110,000 individuals in this country?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that we are very sensitive to the human concerns around the backlog. That is why I announced early what we were planning to do. We have spent the intervening months getting ready to ensure that cases get heard as efficiently as possible.
We have also used that time to ensure that people who did hot have work permits before have them and are able to work while they are waiting for their claim. They know now what the conditions are and what the criteria will be under the backlog. I think that is a great step forward for those people.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As he surely knows, a federal judge has told the Government that his predecessor failed to comply with his statutory duty and had exceeded his jurisdiction.
When will the Government recognize that it cannot pay lip service to the environment but has to act and follow its own law? Why will the Minister not stand up in the House today and announce that the Government will order an environmental review, with public meetings and hearings, and that it will request, in fact demand the Province of Saskatchewan to cease construction until there have been full hearings on it? When will you really stand up for the environment instead of just giving lip service to it?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will have to announce the same thing tomorrow but I repeat that I intend to make a conference call with my fellow Ministers in Saskatchewan.
It is certainly true that this Government was right in contemplating and committing itself to present to the House a Bill for a new law implementing a compulsory assessment review process. This will be the only way to remove the current ambiguities from the present process.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Belair



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session; and on the amendment of Mr. Foster (p.326).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Belair) has three minutes remaining in debate and 10 minutes for questions and comments.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have only three minutes left, and I find it rather difficult to get back to my subject, the Throne Speech, after such a long pause. Nevertheless, I would like to raise a number of points. I would have liked to see the Throne Speech deal with the problem of air safety, and more specifically at Toronto's Pearson International Airport. When you travel by air every week and have this nagging feeling that you might not be able to land or your plane might have a mid-air collision, it should be enough to make the Government and the Minister of Transport make this very serious problem one of their top priorities.
Also absent from the Throne Speech was any mention of the purchase of nuclear submarines. I don't think Canada needs them. What good would a few nuclear submarines do if we are stuck in a cross-fire between two world superpowers, the Americans and the Russians? Since we don't have any other form of military support, what good would these nuclear submarines be? The money could be better spent.

In conclusion, may I reiterate my disappointment at the total exclusion of the forestry issue from the Throne Speech, considering that the industry employs a million people in Canada and the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber is a very serious blow to its viability. It is extremely urgent that the Government was initiate a new round of negotiations with the United States to eliminate this devastating tax. It is of the utmost importance that the federal-provincial agreements on forestry
resource development be renewed. Forest regeneration is the future of the industry. Access roads to reach mature timber must be constructed.
The Government should be praised for creating an independent Ministry of Forestry. Now it should live up to Canadians' expectations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? No questions-


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question or two. At the outset I want to congratulate him on a very fine speech. He certainly has distinguished himself in the House in the very short time that he has been here. His commitment is not matched by anyone in the House when it comes to matters affecting his particular jurisdiction.
The Member has spent considerable time analyzing the Speech from the Throne. We on this side of the House have been very critical of what has been missing from the Speech from the Throne.
The Speech from the Throne is supposed to outline in principle the general thrust, and general programs of the Government for its mandate for at least this, the Second Session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. Needless to say, as my hon. friend has pointed out, the Opposition and Canadians generally have been terribly disappointed by the general thrust and direction the Government will have us take.
We noticed today, for example, that the Government appears to be more concerned about the deficit than the lives of Canadians and Canadian families from one end of the country to the other. There was very little mentioned in the Speech from the Throne about the Government's intention to be so brutal in dealing with the deficit.
Is it any wonder that Canadians throughout the country call into question the integrity and honesty of that particular Party and the Government when, during the election campaign, the Government through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a number of different promises to Canadians? We heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) say today that they did not make very many promises during the election campaign. It was quite laughable to listen to the Minister of Finance say today that the Government did not make many promises. It leads one to ask: When is a promise a promise?
April 11, 1989

During the election campaign the Minister of Finance said that they were simply election commitments and not promises. We can imply from his comments today during Question Period that because they were not promises, somehow the Government is not bound by the commitments it made to the people of Canada during the election campaign last fall.
My question concerns the Government's integrity and honesty. There is no doubt that my colleague's Conservative opponent in his riding made a lot of promises during the election campaign, no doubt duplicating the promises made by the Government itself. Will the Hon. Member comment on some of the promises that were made by his Conservative opponent in his riding and comment on the Finance Minister's statement today that not very many promises were made? Do his constituents feel, as mine do, that the Government is totally lacking in the area of integrity and honesty?


Réginald Bélair: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a number of promises certainly were made during the election, concerning for example, regional development. The House will remember that in the Spring of 1987, the Government announced the FEDNOR Program. It only took a year before we finally received some moneys from the Government, and by a well-designed coincidence, some projects were accepted only one month before the general election. The intention no doubt at that point was to prove to people in Northern Ontario that a Conservative Member would be more acceptable than a Fiberal Member, but I am sorry to tell them that the Conservative candidate was beaten, and by quite a margin!
During the campaign, the Conservative candidate also recognized that the 15 per cent export surtax on softwood lumber was harmful to Northern Ontario's people and forest industry. If we agreed on one thing, that was it. I am not sure whether that candidate was speaking on behalf of his party, but he fully recognized it-anyway the three candidates fully agreed that tax is harmful. We saw the results-five sawmills have shut down since the agreement was signed. There was a loss of 900 jobs, without the governments, then and now, doing anything to launch re-training programs for those employees.
The Address-Mr. Belair
Going further, Mr. Speaker, I could add that across Canada a lot of small sawmills, a lot of independent owners without links to the pulp and paper industry are hurting tremendously.
The message I would like to convey to the Government is to remind the Minister of International Trade, as my colleague from Winnipeg did this week, that he should start anew very serious negotiations with the Americans to repeal that tax that will do new harm across Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Belair) on his speech. He is not only a distinguished Member from northern Ontario, but is also one of our co-critics for forestry. He has done a commendable job of outlining the problems and difficulties of the softwood lumber industry. Clearly, no industry has faced such a difficult time as has that industry in northern Ontario.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) suggested a couple of weeks ago that he thought it would be inappropriate to go to Washington now to negotiate. More recently, he has said that he feels there have been changes and that now the whole softwood lumber agreement should be renegotiated.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior just how urgent it is for the Minister to go to Washington or for the American Secretary for Trade to meet with the Minister here in order to renegotiate this agreement. How urgent would this be for communities like Hearst, Sioux Fookout, Thessalon, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie? How close are those communities to losing jobs and having their mills shut down? Could the Hon. Member outline for the benefit of government Members and the Minister for International Trade just how urgent this situation is?


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of the Hon. Member for Algoma. Again I repeat that the message I have for the Government is that the Minister for International Trade should contact the American authorities at the earliest opportunity and attempt to renegotiate an extremely harmful tax.
As I said, five mills have already closed their doors. When in Thunder Bay we met with a very large group of workers who had been laid off just before Christmas. If we combine this tax with the rate of exchange of the Canadian dollar as compared to the American dollar, the

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Collins
result is that the industry must now make do with an income 30 per cent lower than it was on December 31, 1986.
Mr. Speaker, anyone can see that no single industry in Canada would continue to operate after sustaining such huge losses in terms of both profits and manpower. Now, a few words about the impact of these lay-offs. Municipalities have to hand out additional welfare benefits and the workforce is highly depressed. Remember that these people have worked hard to improve their working conditions and then, practically overnight, they are left with absolutely nothing, not even a retraining program. The human consequences are severe, Mr. Speaker, and the Government must take immediate action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are over. Debate. The associate Minister of National defence (Mrs. Collins).


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is a sincere pleasure to have an opportunity to participate in the debate in response to the Speech from the Throne. First, I would like to pay my respects and offer my congratulations to the Speaker of the House who still remains the first Member ever to have been elected to that position. That is something very important to remember and should not be quickly overlooked. During this Session, while we will not agree on very many things in the House, we certainly have agreed on the unparalleled respect that we have for the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and indeed his Deputy, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski).
I would also like to extend my very warm welcome to the new Members who are serving in this Thirty Fourth Parliament. Their constituents have placed great trust in them, and I am sure they will never give them any cause to doubt that trust in either their motives or their convictions. It is my sincere hope that our new colleagues will derive as much pleasure from the proceedings of this House as I have during the past four years.
It was just a few short months ago that the people of Canada reaffirmed their support for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this Government. With the passing of the Free Trade Agreement, businesses across Canada and particularly in my home Province of British Columbia can now begin to plan for the months and years to come with the full understanding that they will not be
undermined by wilful Government interference in the market-place.
This Session will be particularly challenging and rewarding to me personally as I have been tasked with the responsibility of serving as a Minister of the Crown, Associate Minister of National Defence. I can assure all Hon. Members that they have my commitment to serve this House and all Canadians with all the vision and vigour that I can muster.
I have heard some say that perhaps my appointment as the first woman to hold a defence portfolio is nothing more than sheer tokenism. I for one certainly disagree with that sentiment. My Cabinet colleague, the former Minister of National Defence, now the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty), was in fact very important in breaking down the barriers to women within the armed forces. I am proud to carry on the work that he began after his appointment nearly three years ago. If my appointment by the Prime Minister is any indication, I would have to suggest that those internal barriers have finally disappeared. As Sir Winston Churchill used to say, this is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently released its findings on an issue of fundamental importance to the Canadian Forces and for equality rights in Canada. The tribunal has ruled, as Hon. Members know, that there is no basis in law for the Canadian Forces to restrict the employment of women in either the regular or reserve forces except in submarines. This decision when implemented will open to women combat roles, both on land and at sea, roles which had previously been open to men only. I was pleased to announce on behalf of our Department that we would be fully implementing this decision over the next decade.
I want to stress, however, that the equality of opportunity for women in the Armed Forces is not a goal suddenly imposed. Rather, on the contrary, Canada has been a leader for almost 20 years in the employment of women in military service. Since 1971 when only 1,500 service women were permitted in the regular force, the numbers have risen to some 8,300 today. This represents almost 10 per cent of the current regular Force. Within NATO, Canada is second only to the United States, with
10.2	per cent of its military comprised of women.
April 11, 1989

The Department of National Defence has many proud traditions and I take much delight in my association with them, and the Minister, the Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloyminster (Mr. McKnight). Together we have been deeply impressed by the professionalism and dedication of both the civilian and uniformed members of our Department. I would also like to commend both the reserve and the cadet groups across Canada who make up an integral part of our mandate. They have given me the warmest of welcomes, and they know they have no stronger supporter than I.
This Department is steeped with tradition, since the appointment of Sir Georges Etienne Cartier as the first Minister of Militia and Defence under Canada's founding Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. I believe it is a great challenge and privilege to be the first woman to join the ranks of such distinguished Canadians as Cartier, Mr. Brooke Claxton and Major-General George Randolph Pearkes, another British Columbian who was awarded the Victoria Cross while serving as a uniformed member of the Canadian Armed Forces, and indeed our former colleague, Allan McKinnon from Victoria, whom we miss very much in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: Our Armed Forces are known around the world for their particular talents as keepers of peace, and we in Canada have a very proud tradition in this respect. Yesterday morning I had the opportunity to visit with over 200 young men and women gathered in Petawawa who will be leaving later this week to join the UN peacekeeping forces in Namibia. This group was excited about the opportunities they will be facing. I was deeply impressed by the dedication they were showing to this very challenging task.
As they set forth across the ocean, I want to say a special word of appreciation to them and to their families who will be staying behind. We will be watching them with a great sense of pride as they work in this difficult and challenging situation. They follow in a tradition of similar groups, Canadians who have formed part of the peacekeeping operations in the Suez Canal, in Cyprus where Canada's own Commander Milner is now in charge of the peacekeeping force, and in the Golan Heights. We all wish them a very safe journey.
Another area of our Department I have a particular interest in and wish to encourage is our civilian air search
The Address-Mrs. Collins
and rescue associations. This responsibility was transferred to National Defence in 1976 and has flourished through a much needed blanket of safety across many remote areas in this vast country. The spirit of altruism shown by the men and women who serve in these associations is a welcome sign of compassion that is often too scarce in today's society.
I hope I can bring a more diverse face to our Armed Forces. As we invite more women to train for the Armed Forces, so too should we recruit more young Canadians from different racial and cultural backgrounds. For many decades, our country has seen the increased predominance of those who were not of British or French origin. Within our Armed Forces, however, such a mixture of backgrounds and heritages is not as strong as it should be. I believe the human face of our Armed Forces should reflect the ever-changing plurality and make-up of Canada. For an institution to be vibrant and dynamic, it needs to mirror the values and character of the community it is required to serve. We have an opportunity to build on the traditions of the past, exploring and accepting new ideas and thoughts that will in the long term make our Armed Forces a stronger and fuller player in Canadian life.
While we celebrate the opening of this session of Parliament we must not overlook another milestone that we, as a country, reached this past week. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, just celebrated its fortieth anniversary, which has served as a cornerstone of our Canadian foreign defence policy. NATO was born in the aftermath of the Second World War and has continued to represent the benefits of collective security through 40 years of relative stability in Europe. NATO has been put to many tests, but the unity and determination of the Alliance has not wavered.
NATO provides a regular forum for interaction between different nations and has developed over its 40 years a very healthy economic and trading relationship. Many members of this House have participated in various NATO groups. They have talked to me about the tremendous opportunities and experience it has provided. Today, NATO provides for the common security of over 600 million people in 16 nations on both sides of the Atlantic.
If I might quote my colleague, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark):

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Collins
The modem era is marked by conflict, yet Europe, the region with the highest concentration of sophisticated weaponry in the world, is enjoying the longest sustained period of peace and stability since the height of the Holy Roman Empire.


An Hon. Member:: Thanks to NATO.


Mary Collins: Thanks to NATO. That collective success is something in which we should all take pride.
As the Prime Minister said recently, we believe there exists in Canada today a profound desire to get on with the job of preparing a better future for our children and their children. This Government was elected on November 21 to serve our nation. Last week's Throne Speech was a map for the next four years of Government. It has often been said that when you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. The Opposition is all too familiar with taking any which road, only to end up at a dead end. Our Government has a map that will lead Canadians along the road to continued prosperity, a road map that does not circumvent or miss the important elements that are necessary to every successful journey.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tall order and an enormous challenge, but will remain vigilant in our economic and social policies. I believe it will serve the interests of all Canadians in the years to come.

Over time, many issues will be discussed in this House. My constituents in the riding of Capilano-Howe Sound will agree with me when I say that perhaps no issue is of more importance at the moment than the protection of our environment. My home province is proud to bask in the splendour of nature's beauty. We are blessed with the expanse of the Rocky Mountains, the crispness of glacier-fed streams, the abundance of animals and marine life, and the grandness of the Sitka spruce trees in the Carmanah Creek Valley. We do not take our good fortune for granted.
The recent disaster of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker off the coast of Alaska brought home the delicate balance between nature and commerce. I was pleased to participate in the emergency debate held in this very place last Tuesday evening. I said that night and will say again, that no system can ever be perfect. This Government has learned from the mistakes of others and is prepared to deal with any difficulties that should threaten the coast or islands of British Columbia. I must remind the
members of the Opposition who indicated the Government was somehow responsible for this tragedy that we on this side of the House are here for the sole purpose of representing the best interests of our constituents and to safeguard those delicate balances that contribute to the quality of our daily lives. As such, I can assure Members opposite, when I stand here and tell them that we will do everything in our power to prepare for any future disaster, that is the actual situation, plain and simple.
I too must answer to my constituents. As many of them live on the rocky shores of the Pacific or Georgia Strait, one can be sure that I am paying close attention to developments which come out of the Alaska oil spill, and the lessons that we must learn from this incident.
A concrete example of the commitment of the Government to foster economic development in Pacific Canada was demonstrated last year with the creation of a Pacific directorate of the Department of Supply and Services. On August 6, 1988 my colleague, the Hon. Member for Oakville-Milton (Mr. Jelinek), elevated the status of the office in Vancouver to that of a directorate. That means that British Columbia businesses can do business with the Government of Canada in British Columbia as opposed to coming to Ottawa. Combined with the Western Diversification Office in Vancouver, and the western procurement initiatives announced this past year, one can see that the situation is changing for the better. We can count on the determination of the Hon. Minister responsible for western diversification to bring the situation that much further to one of parity between all regions of Canada.
One aspect of the western economic development in which I have had a particular interest is that of the Asia-Pacific Initiative. This past week I was honoured to be appointed the lead British Columbia Minister responsible for this far-sighted program. It was conceptualized by our dear friend and former Minister for International Trade, the Hon. Pat Carney. With almost one year left in API's mandate, I have already begun to collect advice from the Blue-Chip Advisory Committee which includes members from the private, public, and academic sectors. The advisory committee has appointed task forces that are addressing opportunities and advising both the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia in the areas of international finance, trade, transportation, tourism, and cultural and social impacts, as well as the export of professional services.
April 11, 1989

All told, more than 100 senior volunteers from the private sector are engaged in some aspect of this operation. The Asia-Pacific Initiative has built strong links between our country and the many nations of the Pacific Rim which serve both our economic and cultural interests.
I am proud to be a member of a Government that is concerned about the long-term as well as the short-term development of our regions. We are committed to providing an atmosphere where people can be optimistic about their day-to-day lives. Our neighbours and our constituents have asked that we maintain the caring and compassionate aspects of our society. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has promised that this will be done. I can assure all Hon. Members that nothing in the Throne Speech will undermine that commitment. Our Prime Minister is committed to supporting those who are in need of assistance, whether they be seniors, children, veterans, or the handicapped. However, we cannot continue to live beyond our means without inviting disastrous consequences. That is the other message which is so important to convey to Canadians today.
I hope that my own children, who are just reaching adulthood, and all children of Canada, will be able to enjoy the same benefits and opportunities that I have had. This will be impossible unless our generation of Parliamentarians comes to the realization that we cannot continue to spend freely and mortgage the birthright of those who are yet to come. Not to act now would be tantamount to making our children economic hostages and slaves to our own largesse. We cannot allow that to take place. We need resolve and determination if we are to develop the more productive and competitive economy that we have committed to in the Speech from the Throne. We shall bring forward measures in the Budget later this month which will diffuse the ticking time bomb of growing debt, and establish a new framework for fiscal responsibility that my children and yours demand of all of us.


Mr. Robinson:: I would like to congratulate the Minister on her historic appointment as Associate Minister of National Defence, and to particularly commend her for the position taken by the Government on the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on full involve ment of women in combat positions within the Canadian Armed Forces. We welcomed that decision.
The Address-Mrs. Collins
I would like to ask the Minister about another equality issue within the Canadian Armed Forces. The Minister will recall that she was a member of the special committee on Equality Rights which reported to the Government of Canada in 1985. It unanimously recommended that the Canadian Armed Forces bring its employment practices into conformity with the Canadian Human Rights Act, as amended, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Member, now Minister, concurred fully in that recommendation of the committee.
In March, 1986, the Government promised to take whatever measures were necessary to ensure that sexual orientation was a prohibited ground of discrimination in relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction.
As the Hon. Minister knows, men and women within the Canadian Armed Forces who happen to be gay or lesbian still are not accorded full equality and justice. I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that the current policy within the Canadian Armed Forces is as stated in a written answer to a question on the Order Paper which I submitted last May. The answer of the then Minister was as follows:
Current policy has been further modified in that the involuntary release, under Item 5(d) of QR&O Chap 15, of serving members actually engaged in the practice of homosexual activities has been suspended pending government consideration of the Canadian Force policy.
I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the policy of the Government of Canada. When will the Minister finally recognize the oppression and the cruelty of current policies? Men and women who are qualified and capable of serving their country have their careers in limbo, are not entitled to take part in career development programs, are not entitled to promotions, and their security clearances can be jeopardized. When will the Government finally recognize equality and justice for gays and lesbians within the Armed Forces? When will the Government finally live up to the promises that it made? When will the Minister live up to the commitment that she made as a member of a committee that unanimously recommended equality and no discrimination for gays and lesbians within the Canadian Armed Forces?


Mary Collins: I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway (Mr. Robinson), for raising this issue on which we have certainly had discussions in the past. I recall our work together on the committee on Equality Rights during 1985 in which we discussed these issues at great length with Canadians

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mrs. Collins
across the country. That was one of the reasons that I was particularly pleased that within weeks of my appointment I was able to make the announcement that women would be allowed full access to practically all occupations and trades in the Armed Forces. That certainly reaffirmed the recommendations of that particular parliamentary committee.
Many of the recommendations of that committee caused some concern at the time. I am sure my hon. colleague will recall that. However, in the fullness of time, and it may take some time for all recommendations to be implemented, they will certainly stand in good stead. I feel very proud of the work that we did in that committee.
I would also like to confirm to my colleague that what he has said about the existing policy of the Department of National Defence with respect to sexual orientation is indeed true. Following my former colleague, the now Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty), an appearance was made at the Standing Committee on this subject. At that time he made a commitment that there would not be any involuntary release of personnel because of their sexual orientation, until there was an opportunity for a full review. This was a change from the policy which had existed earlier that involved releases in certain situations.
Since my appointment I, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight), have been addressing this issue and asking for a review of the policy. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss it with my other colleagues. We will bring forward our report will make it known to Parliament in the fullness of time, which I hope is not too long in the future. I cannot give the Hon. Member a date, but certainly a review is ongoing and I am sure we will keep him well informed of its outcome.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have indeed derived pleasure from the proceedings of this House. However, I have also derived pain from the Throne Speech. It will impact negatively on the poor and disadvantaged of our country.
As Associate Minister of National Defence, can the Hon. Member in fact muster, as she said, with all vigour, the scrapping of all nuclear submarine programs?
Does the Associate Minister agree that the right to live is the beginning of human right as is stated in The Hague Declaration of last month signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)? If so, will she lobby Cabinet to promptly introduce legislation against induced abortion to protect the right to life of the unborn?
Will the Minister share with the House the position of the Government as to how it will handle and help the unbearable debt that Third World countries now shoulder?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and I will deal with the different parts of it.
With respect to the issue of abortion, I am sure that if the Hon. Member has read Hansard over the past years he is well aware of my personal position on the matter, a position which I have held long before I was involved in politics. There is certainly no wavering from my position that this is a matter of choice for women.
With respect to nuclear submarines, I would like to give a little history on the matter. When the Government took office in 1984 we inherited a situation with respect to our Armed Forces that was utterly terrible. The morale was gone. There was no equipment. If one talked to many of the women and men who served in the Armed Forces they would have seen that it was really a dispirited group. That was as a result of 17 years of neglect under the former Government.
When we formed the Government we initiated the first review of defence policy which resulted in the White Paper on defence tabled in the House in 1987. As I am sure the Hon. Member will recall, we also introduced separate uniforms for the different commands. I must say that that has been a measure which has helped to reinstitute a great sense of pride in the men and women who serve in our Forces.
Uniforms are not enough. We cannot have soldiers, sailors, airmen and submariners without proper equipment. They do not have it. They have not had it. A major part of the White Paper looked at the equipment requirements of our Armed Forces to develop a plan to
April 11, 1989

refurbish them, to give them the proper equipment in order to do the job.
In the Navy, a number of alternatives were put forward. As the Hon. Member knows, we have the frigate program which is going ahead for the construction of a dozen frigates, the Trump program, the mine counter-measure vessels for our reserve forces and the proposed submarine program. If we look around the world we see that the navies of the world all have submarines. It has become the technology of modern navies. Yet Canada, with a tri-ocean coastline and despite 75 years of submarine service, has very outdated oberon-class equipment in the Oberons.
It was the recommendation the of White Paper and of the Department that we should embark on the construction over a long period of time-27 years-of a new, updated modem capability for our Navy in the focus of nuclear-powered submarines. As I said in the House yesterday, we are all facing the Budget which will come down on April 27. There has been a review process. Until we know what the resources will be for our Department we cannot make final decisions about the major capital purchases of a variety of items. I do want to say that the White Paper on defence continues to be the policy of the Government with respect to defence issues.
The Hon. Member asked me about our support to Third World countries. Quite honestly, I cannot think of any Government which has done more with respect to our involvement through CIDA and the involvement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recently on Third World debt issues than our Government. Our Canadian International Development Agency programs are looked upon around the world with tremendous respect. I look at the work it has done to ensure the improved role of women in Third World countries, something in which we have been a real leader in the various programs that we have developed. I look at the recent developments to decentralize CIDA, to put our people right out on the front lines so that they are knowledgeable about the needs of programs and the tremendous changes that have taken place, and the improvements in our international development programs since this Government has taken office.
I would think that the Hon. Member would want to congratulate the Government on the tremendous role it has played and the sense of responsibility it has shown toward Third World countries. This is in the interests of us all. We all know that unless we can see those Third World countries developing and providing more economic independence for themselves that in the future we will
The Address-Mr. Brewin
not have markets or good global economy. It is certainly in the interests of us all to help support those initiatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired. The time allotted for questions and comments has expired. Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Victoria I have an announcement to make.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Althouse)-Agriculture-Payment of compensation for drought/ Release of data; the Hon. Member for Burin-St. Georges (Mr. Simmons)-Fisheries-French overfishing/ Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Markham (Mr. Attewell)-External Affairs-Soviet Union-Plight of Refusnik.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Richardson for an Address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her Speech of the opening of the session; and on the amendment of Mr. Foster (p.326).
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your re-election to the Chair. You have been a great credit to this institution. It is a matter of great pride for me personally to serve in this House under your Speakership. May I also say that I appreciate very much your personal courtesy on a number of occasions already in this new Parliament.
May I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Hon. Member for Calgary Southeast (Mr. Richardson) and the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mrs. Gibeau).

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Brewin
I would also like to extend my thanks to the voters of Victoria. It is a great honour to represent the community of Victoria and Oak Bay in this House. The constituency of Victoria has been represented by a diverse number of people over the more than 100 years British Columbia has been in Confederation. I suppose the most notable is the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald. All of the Members until today have been either Members of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. We now have representing Victoria the first social democrat. I am very pleased and proud of that.
It is my intention to share the perspectives of the people of Victoria. I should say that I think the political evolution of Victoria is only a precursor to the political evolution of the country.
Victoria has the reputation of being a tweed curtain, a rather quiet and retiring place. In fact, it is a very creative, lively and imaginative community. I suppose all of us would be inclined to proclaim the geophysical beauties of our own constituencies, but Victoria is a very beautiful place.
We have a very dynamic arts and cultural community, and have had for many years, producing some of the finest artists and musicians in the country. It is perhaps for that reason that we are particularly upset with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for its persistent failure to provide even the minimum production and broadcasting facilities in Victoria. We have had 50 years of neglect. We are the only capital in Canada which has no radio or television production services, a fact we intend to remedy in the next few years.
I have had some very useful discussions with senior representatives of the CBC. I hope that in the next few years, with the active support of the people of Victoria, we will see a change in that direction.
We are a very active sports community. We have produced champions. It is partly because of that that we took interest in bidding for the Commonwealth Games in 1994. We are very pleased that in Seoul last September, Victoria was given the honour and responsibility of hosting the Commonwealth Games in 1994.
Victoria is a community with above average numbers of seniors, partly because of its commodious climate and
its rich cultural diversity. Because of that we are in some respects on the cutting edge of a social change that all communities in Canada are going to face in the years ahead. As a result of a much higher percentage of seniors in the community, there is a need for changes in medical services, in transportation, in community services, in housing, and in policing.
As a result, we have a number of very important and innovative programs in Victoria which I think the countiy will do well to study. I particularly draw attention to the neighbourhood policing project that, with the support of the Solicitor General's Department, we are finding to be a most effective way of delivering police services in our community.
Having pointed to some of those, let me say that we are not without our problems. I suppose, in keeping with most communities outside the central part of Canada, we have particular problems with the quantity of jobs and the quality of jobs. We have persistently high unemployment and persistently high underemployment. The Minister responsible for employment was proclaiming with great enthusiasm the Government's record in job creation, but we have to look behind the numbers to see the kinds of jobs that have been created.
We in Victoria are as experienced as most other communities in Canada with the problem of low-paid, insecure jobs which do not challenge the minds and creativity of those who hold them. As a result we too suffer a drain of our young people from our community and the lack of challenge the job situation provides.
We are working ourselves on those problems, but I believe the federal Government has a major role to play in diversifying in a regional way the good jobs in this countiy and planning for the long run so that people can continue to live and work in the communities in which they grew up.
However, underlying what is generally for most people a reasonable standard of living is an anxiety felt all across this land, not for ourselves but for our children and our children's children, an anxiety about the future of this planet.
We hear on the news night after night about the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, PCBs, oil spills, the destruction of our forests, many of which occurrences we see right around us. This fear is beginning to be reflected in the responses of all political Parties in Canada. I suggest that it is the critical issue before this Parliament.
April 11, 1989

As a result of this, I come to this Parliament with an agenda which includes a number of specific matters for the community of Victoria. At the top of the list are environmental issues, and a number of specific ones to Victoria include the requirement for land-based sewage treatment. We still pump raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is a situation which all community leaders have concluded must stop. In due course we will need federal assistance to eliminate it. Studies are now under way by the Capital Regional District to see what the specific requirements are, but in due course in the next couple of years, we will be back to this Parliament and to the Government for assistance. The Government has provided assistance for Halifax. It must provide assistance in this area for communities such as Victoria.
As well, there are specific issues of economic development in which the federal Government is directly involved. I am thinking here of Ogden Point, the lands owned by Transport Canada. It will be a major source of development in the years ahead, and it will be very important for this Government to give sensitive attention to the development of Ogden Point.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me move to what I believe is my mandate from the voters of Victoria, to raise issues of national importance with a perspective from our community. I am going to list and try to develop in the few minutes left to me five issues: First, the environment; second, Canada's role in the world; third, issues of national unity; fourth, the questions of national economic development; and fifth, questions of social justice.
On the issue of the environment, I was struck by the references in the Speech from the Throne to the environment, but putting that in juxtaposition with some references made earlier in the Speech to the free market economy. It was as if two different people had written these two sections of the Speech from the Throne. It made me wonder whether the Government has actually read the Brundtland report.
On the one hand, the Government committed itself to the virtues of the free market economy and, second, lauded the Brundtland report. Yet, the Brundtland report is a stunning indictment of the impact of the free market economy over the last 100 years. It is impossible to achieve the objective of saving this planet if we leave economic decisions simply to the workings of the market-place. The Brundtland report states very clearly that
The Address-Mr. Brewin
there is a place for the market, but it must be overridden by the community imperative of saving the environment.
As the Government moves along the path of increased concern for the environment, I ask that the Government take its concern to its logical conclusion. As we have had the specific issues put to the House during the last 10 days, in each case the Government's response was that it would act more effectively, more quickly. In that lies the long-term strategy for coping with the environmental crisis. No one in this House could believe that if the forests of British Columbia and Canada are left to the forest companies alone to decide we will have any forests left within the next 10 years. The only way that we can preserve the forests is for Governments at all levels to intervene and ensure that they are protected.
We have other environmental issues, but rather than deal with the specific issues, let me just outline some thoughts on a general strategy. The Government must crack down on polluters. The Government must encourage an orderly transition of industries which are recognized as damaging the environment. The costs of that transition cannot properly be expected to be borne by the employees, the workers, even the individual companies that are working in an area which we now see must be phased out. We must work in a planned, effective way from an environmentally destructive economy to an environmentally sustainable one. That transition will require careful, step by step planning. It will have to involve communities, companies, and workers. Plans will have to be put into effect to have a transition. The costs of that transition must be borne by society as a whole. Therefore it will be with great interest that I will be listening to the Budget two weeks from now to see whether it is in any way integrated into the imperative requirements for saving this planet.
We are fortunate in Canada to have economic growth virtually every year. A recession is when we slow down the rate of economic growth, but that economic growth as it is presently structured is leading us to environmental disaster. We must begin to see that there can be no increase in personal wealth for the top half of the earners in this country until we bring the environmental issues under control.
The Budget must deal effectively with consumer spending of those who already have too much. It must begin to divert the economic growth we are looking at over the next number of years toward saving the environ-

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Brewin
ment and distributing the goods and services that we produce in this country in a more fair manner.
I want to speak briefly about Canada's role in the world. This is a matter of great concern to the people of Victoria. We are proud of the fact that we have one of the largest peace walks every year in this country. We are a community that is committed to peace. We want to tell the Government that the time has come, given the dramatic developments in the Soviet Bloc, for Canada to take effective and vocal leadership in exacting from the West a flexible response to the initiatives taken on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
This planet has lived in jeopardy of nuclear destruction for 40 years. We have still not moved away from that particular danger. The world is still armed with 50,000 nuclear warheads. It is of crucial importance that we take this moment in history to try to move on both sides, now particularly in the West, to break down the arms race and step back from the abyss, to reduce our reliance on nuclear and conventional weapons.
We also want to see a reduction in the reliance on conventional weapons around the world. We want to see the Government regain the initiative in Southern Africa to rid the world of the evil of apartheid. We want to see the Government finally pay some attention to the needs and concerns of the peoples of the islands of the Pacific who now suffer from living in the world's nuclear backyard.
There are also issues of social justice and national unity. We in the West believe that it is critical that we bring Canada's aboriginal people into Confederation. We agree with the concept of a distinct society. At least I know the vast majority of my constituents believe in the concept of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society as acknowledged in the preamble of the Meech Lake Agreement. However, we disagree vehemently with the Prime Minister's intemperate outburst of last week in his attack on the constitutional amendments of 1982 and the development of the Charter.
We say this is a time for patience on all sides of the House. We ask that those from central Canada and Quebec in particular, now that Quebec has reached a new maturity in Confederation, take a sensitive response and reaction to what is happening in western Canada. There is a deep sense in western Canada of being left out of the decision making.
The Government may say that that is unfair, but it is a view that is a deep-seated reality. The Government has not responded to that, including the Government of the Province of Quebec. It is not enough to dig in one's heels on Meech Lake and insist that it be passed without change. There must be an indication of flexibility.
I am proud that this is a bilingual country. I do not agree with those who say that French is being forced down our throats, but it is an attitude which must be dealt with in an understanding way. The way in which Mr. Bourassa responded in December to the Supreme Court decision fell far short of that mark.
Let me address the issues of social justice since this affects the area in which I am critic, particularly that of Solicitor General. There are issues of grave concern to all Members who are concerned about issues of social justice. They include conditions in our prisons, the conditions among our native people, the loneliness of people who are aged, and the grotesque division of wealth in this country. Some people struggle to get the bare necessities. It is a fact in Canada today, I know in British Columbia, that children go to school hungry, and the Government says there is no money to feed them.
As I wind down my speech, I want to conclude by saying something I looked forward to saying since I was elected. I want to pay personal tribute to the Leader of our Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), for the service he has rendered to this country.
I was disappointed when he said that he would step down. I had looked forward to serving in this Parliament under his leadership. Every day that he intervenes in the House I am renewed in the conviction that he has a tremendous place still to play in the history of this country. I believe our Party does him honour and I know this House does him honour.
I am gratefully looking forward to the opportunity of serving Victoria and my country as a Member of Parliament. It is a tremendous honour and one which I believe all Canadians should have the opportunity to experience. As one who has been chosen to exercise that responsibility, I can merely say that I will do my best in this position.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, I too should add my thoughts to those of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Brewin) about our Leader and the contribution he has made to this country and our Party in particular. There is still the future to hear from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).
April 11, 1989

I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Victoria and some of his close associates and friends on being awarded the Commonwealth Games for 1994 in Victoria. It will be a major event for his city and also one of which all of us from British Columbia are proud.
I would like him to comment on the question of our forests which, as I stated during the emergency debate on the massive oil spill off the coast of Alaska, is our greatest environmental heritage. I was pleased that the Hon. Member for Victoria at least mentioned forests in his speech, because we heard nothing about forestry in the Speech from the Throne.
Does he believe there is a train of thought on the government side-perhaps they are all empty cars-on the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) time and time again about introducing legislation to create a full Department of Forests?
On January 30, he created the portfolio of Minister of State for Forests and said that legislation would follow. Would he comment on the regrettable statement by the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Oberle) who said that establishing a full Department of Forests is not a high priority of the Government.
Knowing the Member's concern about forestry and how it affects his riding, specifically Vancouver Island, does he see any concern about what impact that department may have on British Columbia and Vancouver Island?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, at one point the Government seemed to commit itself to the idea of having a full department of forestry. That was before the election. It seems to have vanished from its agenda now. This is a matter of great disappointment to the people of our area in particular.
Forestry is British Columbia's number one industry and is perhaps one of the major industries all across Canada. We are finally beginning to recognize the damage that we have done to our forests. Those who have worked in the forests, loggers and members of a number of the unions which I have been associated as legal counsel over a number of years, have for a long time seen what the problems were. They are caused primarily by a lack of management but also by a lack of government intervention to ensure management.
One of the problems is if the Government does not set down any rules, then each company is virtually forced to
The Address-Mr. Fontaine
do what it can get away with. Some companies have a slightly better record than others, but basically, all are driven by the bottom line, and it is their responsibility to their shareholders to try to extract as much as they can in the shortest possible time. This has left our forests denuded.
Even now, if one looks from Victoria toward Salt Spring Island, one can see that even the Gulf Islands are beginning to get caught. If one has an opportunity to fly across Vancouver Island, one will see that this is now becoming a major epidemic. This is happening in the interest of jobs now at the cost of jobs later.
It will be very important for all levels of government and the community to pull together to try to develop programs which will ensure that old growth forests such as the Carmanah Valley are preserved and at the same time ensure, to the fullest extent possible, that the first imperative is conservation.
The second imperative is, as far as possible, to get the maximum number of jobs out of our forests. This will include, for example, policies of prohibiting the export of raw logs and of ensuring the production of forest and lumber products here rather than abroad.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no further questions or comments, the time for questions and comments is now terminated. I recognize the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, after every election campaign Canadians must expect a description of the Government's major policy orientations. We did that in 1984. After the victory of September 1984, we told Canadians we were going to create jobs, initiate economic renewal and enable Canadians to get jobs. This time again, we recently put forward and are discussing today our orientation for the next few years.
Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to list and probably repeat the four major thrusts of our Throne Speech. First, to build a strong economy, encouraged by incentive and opportunity, an economy fully competitive among the world's trading nations and one in which all Canadians may share its challenges, risks and rewards.
Second, to strongly work out at preserving Canada's environment; to actively encourage increased public interest and involvement, and to give leadership and support to international efforts aimed at fighting the threats to this planet.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Fontaine
Third, to maintain a caring, compassionate society which will be able, through continuing economic prosperity, to meet its obligations and responsibilities to those who are less fortunate and in greatest need.
Fourth, to foster a confident sense of Canada's cultural and national uniqueness.
Mr. Speaker, the first item in our message, and one I consider to be the key to the others is a strong economy. And today I am happy to take part in this statement on our strong economy. I notice that my colleague, the Hon. Member from Langelier (Mr. Loiselle), the Minister of State (Finances), is in the House. Since I am sure he played a part in drawing up this economic statement, whose objectives and philosophy I share, I wish to congratulate him for having mastered, in a few weeks, the complexities of the subject.
Mr. Speaker, a strong economy means getting rid of the public debt. Last year interest payments amounted to $1,300 for every man, woman and child in Canada. For the average family, this works out to $5,000 annually or $400 monthly. This represents a big chunk in our mortgage payments, in our salaries.
Today, Mr. Speaker, $31 out of every $100 collected by Revenue Canada go to pay the interest on old accounts, in many cases, on old grocery bills.
As long as we must spend such a disproportionate share of our total resources on interest payments, the economy will suffer.
To bring the point home, Mr. Speaker, we spend on interest payments twice the amount we spend on pensions and other benefits for senior citizens. We spend nearly 11 million dollars on national defence, yet we spend three times that amount on interest payments on old debts. We spend 20 times as much on interest charges as on job creation programs. We spend 24 times as much on interest as on our regional development programs.
Mr. Speaker, these expenditures must cease. We must get better control of our economy and free ourselves from these interest costs and to do so, we must reduce our deficit. How can we reduce this deficit? We have various possibilities; one of them, which will probably be put forward in the next budget speech, is tighter control of our Government's spending.
When we took power for the first time in 1984, the deficit in our expenditure programs as such, those on which we could decide, including interest costs, was
nearly $38 billion. We have progressively reduced it year by year to less than $30 billion. Since the budgets of 1987-88 and 1988-89, our expenditures are less than our revenues-and that is important-if interest charges are excluded. That means that if the Governments that preceded us had not run up such a large debt to keep power from one mandate to the next, we would not have to pay interest costs of over $30 billion today.
Of course, another way of controlling our deficit is to ask Canadians to participate more in what the Government is doing. The Minister of Finance will likely convince Canadians that everyone should pay for the mistakes of those who preceded us over the last 20 years. In the end, Canadians have to pay for the mistakes the Liberals made during all their terms in power, when they were in good economic times and continued to add to our country's debt. So all Canadians will have to tighten their belts some more.
Another way to reduce our deficit, and I am getting into specifics, is to modify our tax system as our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will probably do. Canada's tax system is lagging behind that of most European countries.
I suggest we gradually shift from income taxes to commodity taxes. We must also do away with certain taxes whose only effect is to thwart our economic development, and I have in mind the repeal of the 12 per cent tax on manufactured goods. This tax certainly does nothing to boost our exports because when we try to sell our products in the United States or elsewhere, they cost 12 per cent more. Another consequence of this tax is that it favours foreign imports to the detriment of our domestic producers, in the sense that the importer stands to benefit to the tune of 12 per cent on most of his imported goods because that tax does not apply to the products we buy from the United States or other countries.
The bottom line is that the Canadian manufacturer is the loser, too often to the benefit of his competitors elsewhere in the world. This levy brings in $15 billion a year to the Canadian Government, but it has to go.
Finally, another way to trim our deficit would be to gain better control over inflation so as to make our economy even more prosperous. Sure enough, a lot of people in the Opposition speak out against the official position of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his fight against inflation.
April 11, 1989

You know, Mr. Speaker, the easy way out would be to signal to the Canadian economy and the various interest groups that no attempt is to be made to control inflation. All we need do is print more money. In the short term this would relieve some of the pressure on rising interest rates because the more money is available, the more lenders lend and interest rates would have to come down.
Should that happen, within a short time-a few months-demand for goods and services of every description would increase because people would have more cash to spend. This higher demand could not be met by the supply, that is by people who make the goods and provide the services.
If you have a given quantity of goods in stock and people want more, you have two options: either you produce more or you raise prices to set a new demand level. With this kind of scenario we would soon find ourselves in a period of raging inflation which would be just as disastrous as what we experienced early in this decade. A policy to control and prevent inflation is therefore a means of controlling our deficit.
Finally, another system that will be put forward in a few months by our Minister of Finance, with whose goals and philosophy I could not agree more, is the value-added tax. That tax will bring the Government the equivalent of the revenue lost because of the lowering of other taxes. The value-added tax will bring the Government $23 billion when implemented, but those $23 billion will not bring one additional cent to the Government of Canada. They will replace $15 billion derived from the tax on manufactured goods. They will replace an estimated $3 billion lost because of tax reductions granted to some individuals.
And also that tax will replace another tax on certain personal tax benefits that were allowed under certain conditions, for a total $23 billion reduction in revenues derived from our present tax system in the areas of income tax and taxes on manufactured goods, in exchange of which the Government will collect $23 billion from the value-added tax. This will not be peculiar to Canada. It is a trend in the Western world. It is a trend in the free world and, for the benefit of my colleagues from the Socialist Party, let me tell them it will become-an income tax will probably be levied soon in the Soviet Union because they have decided among other things to understand and find it valuable to their economy to use certain principles of modern capitalism.
The Address-Mr. Fontaine
Finally, another solution to balance our budget and reduce the deficit and foster better economic renewal is the continuation of our privatization programs. You know that overall, Crown corporations still end up costing nearly $4 billion and a half to the Canadian taxpayers. Is it normal to ask every Canadian taxpayer to shoulder the unprofitability of certain Crown corporations in a context of economic difficulty? I do not think it is. Our government is sending out a clear signal. We will pursue our policy of privatization because, as Conservatives, we believe that the business community is better able to assess the appropriateness and profitability of an investment, to harness the human and material resources required to produce goods and services in Canada.
We maintain that bureaucrats cannot do this from their offices. Because we believe private enterprise is much more imaginative, much more in touch with reality, we intend to continue giving it greater responsibilities in the management of big corporations which were once owned by the Crown.
There is another major point. We all heard this morning the speech given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) on the new direction of unemployment insurance programs. Questions come to mind. Canadians from coast to coast often ask themselves about this or that individual who systematically misuses unemployment insurance. These abuses must stop. On the other hand, the Minister stated quite clearly that the government must continue to ensure the security of those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. But the government will question more and more the appropriateness of helping those who chronically misuse the system. We must put a stop to this abuse by any Canadian citizen from whatever region. Here again, we will set things straight while caring, as I have said, about those who really need unemployment insurance. On top of that, the Minister said that she would strive to help in the development of our human resources who, because of rapid technological changes, would not have been able to adjust to the lifestyle and jobs of today. Measures to help those people were announced this morning.
Another thing: as a Member of Parliament, I often receive in my riding office people who are entitled to 40 or 45 weeks worth of unemployment insurance benefits. They tell me that they are thinking of starting a small business with their brother-in-law, their friends, their old boss, their son or their daughter. So I went to the unemployment insurance office where I was told that, if I

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Fontaine
started a small business, I could no longer collect unemployment insurance because I would be unavailable for work. Well, the Minister solved that problem.
An important point made by our Minister of Employment and Immigration in her speech was that anyone eligible for benefits that can amount to $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 or $14,000 can now submit a business plan to the Employment Canada officer and if that plan is considered valid, Employment Canada will immediately give the applicant who wants to start a small business the benefits he or she would have received over 30, 40 or 50 weeks. It is another advantage. Under the old rules, the budding entrepreneur would have lost that money. Now he or she can keep it and may even become a reliable employer and Canadian producer of goods and services. That is cooperation with Canadians. It is a message that we Conservatives have trusted small, medium and big business. We give the unemployed who have difficulty starting a business the opportunity to become employers.
Mr. Speaker, another message. You know that Canadians attach great importance-and it is becoming a matter of life and death throughout the world-we must stress environmental protection more and more. And speaking of the environment, the Speech from the Throne says:
Protect the environmental integrity of our Arctic regions.
And that, Mr. Speaker, gives us a certain opening, for two reasons. These days, many use environmental reasons to criticize the plan to build nuclear-powered submarines. Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that whenever a problem occurs in Canada, either someone is lost in a forest or on a hunting trip or a search mission or someone is lost at sea, the Canadian Forces are called on immediately. If the Canadian Forces had nuclear-powered submarines, instead of asking questions that today cannot be answered. .. Because recently, we saw Arctic mammals on television-and when I say mammals, I include humans-and it was observed that they were accumulating lead, PCBs and chemicals in their systems. At present, we have no way of controlling where that comes from. It is claimed that it might come from Arctic waters. But water in the Arctic is covered with ice twelve months a year. It should be realized the only way to check up on that is by way of submarines which we need, not only for military purposes but for the preventive and curative protection of our environment. The only means therefore is nuclear powered submarines.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this can also have benefits for our economy, especially in the area where I live.
Finally, the Trone Speech refers to:
. . . initiatives to clean up the St. Lawrence River.
It is a major economic link between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic. The St. Lawrence will remain the major economic link between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic, but in addition it will become a river of drinking water and this is a matter to which we attach certain priorities.
Finally, our Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney's) position concerning an agreement with the United States on acid rain is stated again. We know that unfortunately we are very good importers of American acid rain, and we know that even if we clean up our own house, we still need an agreement with our neighbors to prevent their acidic emissions. This is part of the Throne Speech message.
A third element in the Throne Speech is the message concerning a caring nation. There are three groups of Canadians: the young, people in the workforce and I consider us here to be part of the working force, and those who were our predecessors in our society, the men and women who made it possible for us to be here today. They need us today, and our message points to the continuation of our generous plans for senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I would have more to say on our Throne Speech-I could comment on our co-operation in the search for better agreements with the GATT, but I wish to let other Members rise and have their say on the Throne Speech. In conclusion, I suggest that a favourable evolution of our economy is everyone's business. We must all take part-each one of us must do his or her share, because only in this way will we continue enjoying a better quality of life.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have always listened with great pleasure to the Hon. Member for Levis who just gave us his views on the Speech from the Throne.
I must say I had trouble seeing nuclear attack submarines as beneficial to the ecology of my country. I found this rather hard to understand, and I am sure the Hon. Member would be willing to explain how an instrument of war could be beneficial to Canada's ecology, and more specifically, how the Hon. Member could possibly make such a statement, considering all the risks of having a vehicle, nuclear-powered or otherwise, in an environmentally sensitive area.
April 11, 1989

He also referred to the fact we would have to tighten our belts, saying we could not go on spending as if there was no tomorrow. I suggest we now have a good opportunity to save money by cancelling the whole nuclear submarine program which is going to cost Canadian taxpayers about $14 billion, even if they are ecological submarines according to my hon. friend opposite.
I have one last question, and perhaps he can answer all my questions at the same time. It's about this caring society. The Hon. Member referred to a caring society, and speaking as a Canadian, I think that in the past, we have had a society that I would call caring, at least compared to countries that do not have as many social programs as we do to help the needy.
Today, however, we heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) say in her speech that unemployment insurance recipients would see their benefits cut rather severely, even if they had very few prospects of finding a job elsewhere.
How can the Hon. Member claim his Government advocates this caring society, considering the statements that were made earlier today?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would have been very disappointed if the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had not asked me a few supplementaries today. We are starting another four-year term together, and I wish him the best of luck. And I hope that at the end of tips period, we will be able to renew our mandate together.
First of all, the Hon. Member mentioned the peacekeeping role and how it relates to the manufacturing of nuclear-powered submarines.


Don Boudria: I was talking about the ecological role.


Gabriel Fontaine: He mentioned the peace-keeping role and the ecological role. I will deal with each one separately.
Because of the improvers state of preparedness of our country and the quality of our military personnel that Canada has enjoyed such credibility over the past decades as a military force and has been called upon as much as 35 times, I believe, not to wage war, but to keep peace. And to be effective as a peace-keeping force, a country must be credible and well equipped. This goes to
The Address-Mr. Fontaine
show that peace-keeping and nuclear-powered submarines can go hand in hand.
Secondly, nuclear-powered submarines present no threat to the environment. They are no more dangerous than conventional submarines. As I have said, nuclear-powered submarines can, for days, weeks and months on end, travel under the polar ice cap conducting studies, taking water-quality samples, identifying sources of pollution which cannot be identified today because we cannot set up equipment there. And this is important because we see the effects of pollution on life in our northern regions.
Precisely because we attach so much importance to the protection of the environment, we need to go up there to see what is going on so as to avoid further accumulations of lead in Arctic life forms.
The Hon. Member wants to know how the Government can contemplate purchasing submarines at a cost of $14 billion. First of all, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is well aware that these submarines will cost exactly $8 billion, and not $14 billion. He is also aware that this cost will be spread over a 25 year period, which represents an average cost of $300 million a year, and that this purchase is necessary because it is recommended by the experts of our Armed Forces. Mr. Speaker, we certainly hope never to have to use these submarines in time of war, just like my fellow citizens and I hope never to need the services of the police. But when the mayor of our town decides to purchase a more modem car for our policemen, I say it is a good thing for these policemen to have the proprer equipment in case I should need it. And nobody blames the mayor for purchasing this upgraded equipment for our policemen, although we would prefer not to have to use it, but we know it is available. The same situation occurs on a national level. We need police cars to patrol our streets; we need more advanced equipment at the Provincial level, and we need still more sophisticated equipment at the Federal level.
In his last question, he referred to a generous economy. He wants to know on what this generous economy is based. When the Liberals were in power, the Government was most generous in incuring debts which we, our children and grand-children will have to pay back. That was how they redistributed the unearned wealth of the State, by accumulating debts which now amount to $320 billion. That is how generous that Government was!

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Fontaine
This Government, on the other hand, is being generous towards those men and women in our society who really need help; Mr. Speaker, we make it possible for our partners in the private sector to grow and make money. It is important to make money. We make it possible for them to make money. In turn, they will pay taxes, so that the Government will finally be able to share the earned wealth, instead of sharing debts which our children and grand-children who have no say about it, will have to pay back.
That is my understanding of a generous economy, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Kindy:: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congra-gulate you on your re-election. I think that the Edmonton North constituents made a good choice. I wish also to congratulate you for sitting in this House for the past 21 years. It is quite an achievement, and I hope that you will continue to seek the support of your constituents.
I certainly enjoyed the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), remarks which certainly reflect the policy of this Tory Government. Just the same, I should like to ask him a few questions, especially concerning Crown Corporations. He indicated that was one way we could bring down Canada's debt which now totals $320 billion.
Does the Hon. Member think that if we managed to privatize these corporations with a total value of some $13.5 billion, we could bring down Canada's debt while saving money, because we spend approximately $4 billion every year to operate them? That would make up a total of $17.5 billion. That is one of my questions.
I have a second question concerning the proposed value added tax. By the way, according to a study made in the United States, if that country wanted to institute a value added tax system, it would require approximately
21,000	employees more and cost $700 million to the US Treasury. In Canada, that would mean about 4,000 more civil servants, which would cost our Treasury, that is the Minister of Finance, something like $200 million, and all that, of course, in order to collect about $23 billion, as estimated by my friend, the Hon. Member for Levis.
I don't normally object to reducing the deficit. It certainly is a good idea. But I wonder if, by applying an added-value tax, we would not be creating another layer of bureaucracy in the Department of Finance. Consequently, shouldn't we look at this problem from another
perspective and try to find some other way to achieve a tax reform. For example, we could have a flat income tax rate of, let's say, 15 per cent. It would be simple enough and eliminate the need for more bureaucrats. Those are the two questions I wanted to ask the Hon. Member.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question of the Hon. Member for Calgaiy-North-East (Mr. Kindy), I would like to show you the results that can be achieved by privatization and I will use, as an example, the Canada Post Corporation. When we were first elected, in 1984, that corporation was losing $381 million. Nowadays, thanks to the guidelines we, in the conservative government, established for the management of this corporation, it is no longer in the red. I use this example because this corporation is now working in cooperation with the private sector, has increased the accessibility and quality of its services to private companies, and has succeeded at no extra cost to Canadian taxpayers.
We also found out other advantages in privatization, in the case of Canadair, for instance, a company, with de Havilland, that swallowed $2.3 billion because of the carelessness of the Liberal administrators who set them up. We made them private companies. Canadair has now increased its personnel. It exports some of its products abroad, and all of them, Canadair, de Havilland and Canadian Arsenals are now profitable and have hired more employees although our privatization objectives had met with objections. The Socialists and Liberals said at the time it was nonsense and that every one of the workers would lose his job. Quite the contrary! Nobody lost his job. Canadians have better jobs and more of them are working.
As for my colleague's concerns regarding the cost of collecting the added-value tax, I must inform him it is a matter that surely worries my colleague from Langelier who is Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Loiselle). I must also point out to him that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is working in co-operation with the representatives of the Finance Ministers of the ten Canadian provinces in an attempt to institutionalize a collection system that will take into account past experiments of previous systems, for example, the collection of tax on manufactured goods. Hopefully, there will be a very close and formal co-operation among provinces. Thus, we expect to reduce to a minimum the collection costs of the added-value tax.
April 11, 1989

The Address-Mr. Walker


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. gentleman for taking part in the Throne Speech debate. However, I am sure he would want his copy of Hansard to set the record straight.
He grouped Canadians into three categories-the young, the active and the elderly, as if to imply that the elderly are not active.
On Saturday I delivered an Horizons cheque to a Mrs. Rae in my riding. She is 83 years old and no relation to the leader of the provincial NDP. She lives in an apartment complex in which the seniors have very little to do. Yet, at the age of 83, suffering from arthritis and walking with the use of a cane, she took on a project of setting up a program for senior citizens in two apartment buildings. She is more active than the young people the Hon. Member put in his active category. I think we should set the record straight in this House. Many of the elderly are just as active, and in fact maybe more active, than some of our young Canadians.
I wanted to pose a question to the Hon. Member. I am pleased that he did address the deficit problem, but I wonder if he would set the record straight. I am sure it will look nice in his Hansard when he sends it out to his constituents. What was the public debt when his Party took office in 1984, and what is the public debt today. Could he explain why in the best of economic times, from 1984 to 1989, at a time when Canada never experienced such good economic times before, at a time when his Government sold off many Crown corporations creating billions of dollars as revenue for the Government, why has his Government allowed the public debt to rise to such an extent?
I think his colleague in his question said the public debt is something like $320 billion. So I wonder if he could tell this House exactly what was the accumulated public debt in 1984, what is it today and why his Government allowed it to grow that much?
He blames governments over the last 20 years. Past Governments went through good times, but they also had recessions. They built in a lot of new programs, but here is a Government in the best of economic times boasting to Canadians how they are reducing the deficit while hiding under the mat what is happening to the public debt. This is the real issue here. Let us be honest with Canadians.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I will try to give short answers to the two questions of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis).
In his first question he asked me to define what I understand by the young, the active, and the elderly. When I say active, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the group of people defined by Statistics Canada as being the men and women who, usually between the ages of 20 and 60 or 65, are considered in the labour force. That is the word economists and stastisticians use to refer to gainfully employed people.
As to the second question concerning the trend of the deficit between 1984 and 1988,1 am very pleased to have this opportunity to explain why our deficit now stands at $320 billion. Why do Canadians have to pay so much for the deficit? Because for years on end-from the time the present Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) was Minister of Finance-the Liberal Government systematically conducted its election campaigns on the strength of very expensive and very costly promises, and it had to pile up a series of deficits. So now we are paying interests on those loans.
When we took over in 1984 the economy was in such bad shape that we could not overdo it in terms of cutting expenditures and raising taxes. First we had to set the economy on an even keel. We did that, but we had no choice but continue to pay interests on the debts of our Liberal predecessors, and pay interests we did. Gentlemen, we had to service your debt and this is why we had to live with a soaring over-all debt in this country. Today, because of the irresponsibility of your colleagues and of your present leader, who was Minister of Finance when the deficits began to pile up. . . It is because of your irresponsibility that Canada has now accumulated a deficit of $320 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Time, time.


Mr. Speaker:: Time marches on. Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate?


David Walker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A Speech from the Throne is normally a time for a government to signal its concern about the state of the country, to outline the solutions that government intends to follow. All parliamentarians are concerned about the financial mess this Government has created, and we can understand this Government's preoccupation, if not downright panic, caused by the incompetence of its Ministers.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Walker
We also find it incomprehensible that the needs of so many Canadians are not even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It is not that those in need expect big chunks of money; they know that these are saved for Club Ritz Carleton, but think of the following: There is no mention of the homeless in this speech. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has changed his mind since the election when he said that one homeless person in Canada is too many. Maybe he now agrees with his former Minister of Housing who said that the homeless people do not want permanent homes.
The good intentions of the present housing Minister can do nothing to help those who are living under bridges or who are sleeping in doorways if the Prime Minister will not follow through on his commitment. Money has been spent by this Government to study this problem, but where is the money to solve it? It is certainly not on the streets of Winnipeg.
Also, Mr. Speaker, there has been no mention of the post-secondary education needs of native youth. Yet this Government is content to restrict access to education while saying they are prepared to give more money. They are saying you can go to school, you can get an education, but it has to be on our terms and you have to go where we tell you to go and study what we want you to study.
Even the Minister responsible for this mess follows this line. Those students felt they had no other means of protest other than going on a hunger strike, Mr. Speaker. If you want to talk to the Minister, you have to see him only under his normal conditions. I am not satisfied about this policy, and neither are the native communities across Canada. This is one of the most scandalous changes in the federal attitude toward aboriginal peoples, and this Government is going to let a generation of native students, whose only goal is to better themselves, pay the price.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of poverty in the city of Winnipeg and more specifically in my riding, especially among the elderly. According to official figures, 5,000 people in this group have an annual income of $7,000 or less. There is nothing for the elderly in the Speech from the Throne. The Government is doing nothing about this very serious situation. It proposes nothing.

Mr. Speaker, on speaking of the elderly in Winnipeg, and in particular Winnipeg North Centre, I am honoured to have an Honorary Officer of the House, Mr. Stanley Knowles, here listening to this address. There is nobody in the history of my city who has fought more arduously and more strenuously over the years for the elderly in Winnipeg North Centre than he has.


An Hon. Member:: The Tories put him in.


David Walker: That is right. The Tories have singularly kept Mr. Knowles alive and well, I believe. I would like to say, too, that if there is one admonition that I receive from throughout my constituency it is that if you do not behave yourself, if you are not as good as Stanley, you will be gone by the next election. So your name is very much on my mind, sir.
Mr. Speaker, there has only been a fleeting mention about the plight of agriculture in this country. In those three lines where it is mentioned, there seems to be more concern about the state of the nation's treasury than the state of the family farm. A study done by Brandon University forecasts there will be a loss of 4,600 family farms in Manitoba by the year 1996 unless something positive is done. Without these farms, more people will move from the small towns to the larger centres in search of jobs and opportunities. We have seen this Government's attitude toward those who are unemployed, who will be seeking retraining. There is no mention of that in the Speech from the Throne either.
This Government is also silent on the issue of human rights, international and domestic human rights. There was no mention of reducing or eliminating the apartheid regime in South Africa, no policy to replace the bungling that resulted in censorship in the Rushdie case, no word on a more humane refugee or immigration policy, nothing about the concern for employment or pay equity, not a single hint that this Government will follow through on its promise made in 1985 to include sexual orientation, a group prohibited from discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Code. Silence is very convenient, but there are people out there in Canada, Winnipeg and abroad who are counting on this Government and this country to stand up and speak for them, people who live in fear of death squads or of repressive regimes, people who have families that they are worried about.
April 11, 1989

There are people whose economic dependence keeps them from speaking out against discrimination and harassment in the workplace. We hear a lot of noise now but there is nothing in the Throne Speech, the legislative agenda of the Government, to give those people hope.
The Throne Speech mentions nothing about two local issues that are of national concern. I am pleased that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) is listening to this speech because I know he too is very concerned about the future of Winnipeg, although he does not appear there any more. The first is the National Centre for Disease Control.
The Government states that it is concerned with biotechnology, the fight against AIDS, research into diseases associated with ageing, and a focus on centres of excellence, but there has been no mention in the Speech about following through on this commitment. The commitment was made by the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, the present Minister of Energy, and we await further announcements because it is much needed for the city.
Another matter of equal concern to Winnipeg, to western Canada and the Maritimes as well, is the fact that the Speech from the Throne made no mention of ERDA agreements which need to be renewed immediately by the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I am very worried about the future of my city, and my province. There is too much unemployment in Winnipeg North Centre. During the past five years there has been no federal planning or investment to help remedy this problem. There is no new hope in the Throne Speech for Manitobans. They want the federal Government to play a more important role in the economic development of the city and the province. I say we need programs and agreements for agriculture, science and transport, and so forth. What will my city's future be under a Conservative Government?

If silence is sometimes convenient, it is also quite eloquent. By its silence the Government speaks volumes on its indifference to the plight of so many people in this country.
Who does the Government care about? Why does it want to govern? More important, for whom does it want to govern? Apparently it does not want to govern for the people of Canada but for interests that we keenly await to unfold in the next couple of years.
The Address-Mr. Walker
The Government masks its silence behind platitudes and carefully crafted statements with just the right amount of spin. It may pat itself on the back for such an accomplishment, but it is offering no comfort for those who live on the edge in our society and are in desperate need of help from our Government. This silence is deadening. This silence is deadly.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not congratulate the Hon. Member for giving us such a fine speech this afternoon. I know that all my colleagues, in their usual objective view, will join me in congratulating him.
The Hon. Member comes from Winnipeg, a city which has chosen to elect a large number of Liberal Members. The good voters of Winnipeg should be congratulated as well for their thoughtfulness and wisdom in electing so many Liberal Members. I know they will be well represented in the next few years.
The good voters of Winnipeg have been particularly concerned about issues involving Canada Post. During the last few years we heard much about the so-called supermailboxes. I would hardly consider them super.
I believe that during the last Parliament we heard that people from Winnipeg had objected to the evaluation of their property during the assessment for the purpose of municipal taxes because they had supermailboxes in front of their houses. They said it lowered their property value. The Government denied such a thing and said the supermailboxes were beautiful. It was a great surprise to the Government, but a surprise to no one else, that the Assessment Review Court, or its equivalent in Manitoba, determined that the complaints were in fact correct. These supermailboxes were damaging the value of the property of those homeowners.
Does my colleague agree that the Canada Post policy on supermailboxes has been particularly unfair to those residents living in suburban areas or recently developed areas, who pay the same amount for postage stamps and other Canada Post services yet are offered an inferior service than counterparts living sometimes as close as one street away?


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, as usual my colleague has a very effective way of questioning and raising an excellent point about the way we are governed in this country.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Walker
My colleagues from Manitoba will recognize that the suburban delivery of mail in Winnipeg North Centre is a most pressing issue. The delivery service throughout Winnipeg has suffered badly due to the actions of Canada Post in the last five years. Several complaints have been raised about the supermailboxes which quite clearly no one in our city considers to be super. They are both of great inconvenience in receiving mail and also a personal cost to those whose property they devalue. Of course, the closer one is to a supermailbox, the less value attributed to one's property. The argument made by Canada Post originally was the opposite.
I think the people of Winnipeg North Centre were punished by Canada Post for many years because the House critic on Canada Post often came from that constituency. I could not believe how poor the mail service is in Winnipeg North Centre as a result of actions taken by the Government. I cannot believe that a Crown corporation could have been acting so incompetently completely independent of the Government, but was merely carrying out the wishes of the Government that wished to silence its critic.
There are several senior citizens in buildings in my riding in Winnipeg who must walk several hundred feet in the middle of winter to get their mail. That is a veiy difficult proposition for them. Furthermore, the Government wantonly changes mail service from the morning to the afternoon without telling people. They often cannot get their cheques in order to get to the bank on time that day. Many people live at the poverty level in Winnipeg. That is not a minor inconvenience but a major one for them.
Although these problems have been raised with Canada Post several times, it has not been nearly as responsive as one might expect from a Crown corporation. I trust this will change in the future.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Walker). Since he was elected just last year, he has not voted on the Meech Lake Agreement. What is his response to the fact that the Province of Manitoba has not yet signed the Meech Lake Agreement?
Will he tell the House what his position would be on the Meech Lake Agreement? Does he believe that if the agreement is signed we will have valuable Senate reform in the sense that it would be an equal, effective and elected Senate? What is his position?


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, again, that is an excellent question. I thank my hon. friend for raising it in the House.
We know that perhaps of people in all the provinces across Canada, Manitobans are most concerned about their Constitution. Presently we are in the middle of a series of hearings in Manitoba in which Members from the House and the Senate of Canada have taken time to speak to the provincial committee and express their views.
Members of the House have voted on Meech Lake in the past. It has not been raised here again. I am surprised that another Member would raise such a hypothetical question, knowing full well that the caucuses of all three Parties are firmly committed to Meech Lake.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was very interesting that this afternoon one of the government Members said that the Speech from the Throne was a road map for the future. I know that the Hon. Member represents a Manitoba constituency and that agriculture is a very important industry in that province.
I wonder what the Hon. Member thought of the road map that was provided, since we are debating the amendment I put this morning which condemns the Government for providing only three lines in the Speech from the Throne dealing with agriculture, part of that devoted to saying that agriculture and farmers are an undue burden on the nation's Treasury.
The Wheat Board Advisory Committee held four meetings in Manitoba, one in Oak Bluff, one in Holland, one in Melita and one in Swan River. At the Canadian Wheat Board annual meeting in Oak Bluff, 117 voted against the decision of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) to take oats out of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, and only 46 voted for it. In Melita, 77 were opposed to the decision and 15 were for it. In Swan River, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds really struck out because 33 were opposed to the decision and one voted in favour of it.
Since the Hon. Member represents a Manitoba riding, I wonder what he thinks of the whole procedure used by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds who announced unilaterally, without discussion or consultation or the support of major grain producing farm organizations, that he would remove oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
April 11, 1989


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for raising this question. In the last few years he has spent many months travelling throughout western Canada being a very effective representative of the interests of western Canadians. I dare say that if it were not for his interventions in the House, Canadians would not have a proper understanding of the importance of agriculture to the western and the Canadian economies.
The Hon. Member raised two points. First, he said that for some reason agriculture is now considered to be an undue burden on the Treasury. I have searched through several Speeches from the Throne, including those of the so-called hated Liberals who never paid attention to western agriculture, and never has a Liberal Government ever described agriculture as an undue burden on the Treasury. Traditionally, the National Treasury has respected the needs of farmers and has done everything it can for the farmers of Canada. We now find ourselves in a situation in which we are anticipating severe negative reactions and actions from the Government based on this notion of an undue burden represented by western Canadian farmers.
I am very curious about what the Government plans to do. More important, I am very interested in finding out what the response will be over the next few months of western Canadian politicians from the other side of the House as we begin to see what the Prime Minister means by an undue burden. Our city's economy is very dependent upon the health of the agricultural community, and I can say right now from representations I have heard that many farmers across Manitoba and the West are very worried about what this will mean to them.
Regarding the Hon. Member's second question, the arbitrary nature of this Government came into full public view when we saw how oats were treated. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and to my surprise he is still responsible for it, arbitrarily announced the removal of oats from the Wheat Board. Some farmers agree with that decision and some disagree with it, but they were unanimous in their condemnation of the process. A Minister should not touch an organization as important to the western Canadian economy as the Wheat Board which has been there for close to 50 years
The Address-Mr. Walker
and should not arbitrarily remove one of the most important commodities in western Canadian agriculture.
People say that the volume of oats is not large, but that is not the issue. In a symbolic sense, all the commodities handled by the Wheat Board are very important. I was very sorry to see the Minister make this decision without proper consultation.
Those of us who are not involved directly in the rural economy but who pay attention to it and want to represent it properly in the House were astonished to have to hear representations after the fact when we were powerless to do anything. It should added for the record that the Minister made this decision very callously when the House was not sitting so he would not have to respond in public before us for his actions.


Mr. Epp:: Good for him.


David Walker: You may say "good for him" and it may be good for the Minister to be arbitrary. Perhaps the government side-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was good for oats.


David Walker: Perhaps the government side really thinks it is proper to govern without Parliament. However, traditionally, Canadians have looked forward to hearing questions asked of Ministers in the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that we are still here, but we are still here and we will continue to represent western Canadians more properly than the Government will.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and to ask my colleague from Winnipeg North a question on the issue of human dignity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have to make a very brief comment. I have been very tolerant. If the Hon. Member could just come right to the question, I would appreciate it.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: There are still wasted talents, not only among immigrants and new citizens who yet cannot practise their trades and professions because the federal Government has failed to take the leadership to allow this to happen. The Minister of State for Multicultural-ism and Citizenship (Mr. Weiner) is present and the Multiculturalism Act has been passed. I was assured by a previous Minister for Multiculturalism, the Hon. Jack Murta, that that Act could provide a mechanism that would allow the orderly accreditation of foreign credentials.
I would ask my colleague if in fact this is-

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Reimer


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to my colleague from Winnipeg, I believe it is well established in this House that questions relating directly to jurisdictions other than that of this House and the federal Government are not within the purview of this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In this particular case, the question is related to the speech made by the Hon. Member, so I see no problem with it. I would hope that the Hon. Member would answer the question.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if in fact he shares my views.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, as you noted in the intervention, the federal Government chooses its most narrow definition of its responsibility whenever possible. There is an appointed committee which looked into the problem of accreditation among professionals in the new immigrant communities. That committee reported back to the federal Government saying that actions should be taken to increase the opportunities for new Canadians to get into their professions in Canada.
We saw today what the federal Government does. It ditches things on to the provinces so quickly that it does not have to do anything itself. This is a case in point. There should be some leadership on the part of the federal Cabinet on issues relating to the proper employment of new Canadians so that their accreditation is recognized. The federal Government should use its status and its moral authority to make it possible for new Canadians to get proper jobs.
We make no apologies for asking the federal Government to move on this issue.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I begin my comments on the Speech from the Throne by first congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, for your re-election to the House and for your appointment as our Deputy Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
In commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I would like to begin with an economic theme and place it within the context of where we have been and what has been achieved over the past four years, as well as where we are heading now as indicated by the Speech from the Throne.
Since September, 1984, 1,432,000 jobs have been created. To put it another way, from 1984 through to 1988, more jobs were created in Canada than in all of the
following countries combined: West Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia.
The national unemployment rate has fallen from 11.6 per cent to 7.5 per cent. In total, Canada's economy has expanded by 19 per cent. In real terms, after taking into account inflation, the economy has expanded by 19 per cent since September, 1984. Business investment in new machinery and equipment has climbed by 76 per cent since 1984. New orders in manufacturing have climbed by 33 per cent. Some 223,000 homes were built in 1988 compared to 135,000 in 1984, the year we were elected to our first mandate.
The number of Canadians living below the poverty line has fallen by 549,000 since 1984. Not only is that figure remarkable and important, but it includes 179,000 fewer children and 61,000 fewer senior citizens. In looking at the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, it will do much to improve our economic performance.
The Finance Department study concluded that the agreement should lead to the creation of 120,000 net new jobs, while the Economic Council study forecasts
250,000	net new jobs by 1998 over the 10-year phasing-in period of this agreement. With the victory of the Conservative Government, new investment has increased dramatically in my riding and in the cities surrounding my riding of Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph in southwestern Ontario.
When I look at the question of investment, total capital spending by business is expected to climb by 11 per cent this year, including a 21 per cent increase in manufacturing investment. In the 12 months following the negotiation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the annual rate of investment in new machinery and equipment climbed by 17 per cent in real terms, after taking inflation into account. To put this in perspective, 17 per cent in one year exceeds the total growth of 12 per cent that occurred in the four and a half years between 1980 and 1984 when the Liberals were in power. The annual number of small business births has climbed by 35 per cent since 1984.
Inflow of direct foreign investment doubled between 1984 and 1988. In my riding and the neighbouring ridings around me, it is difficult to find labourers for construction work to complete many of these construction projects.
April 11, 1989

Of these 1,432,000 jobs that have been created since September of 1984, including 86,000 in the first three months of this year, 85 per cent of those jobs have been full time. In contrast, 89 per cent of the jobs created by the last Liberal administration were part time.
When I refer to the number of jobs created during the term of this Government, I do not want to suggest that this Government created those jobs. Governments do not create jobs; people create jobs.
What Governments do is create a climate for investment and initiative where people take it upon themselves to create jobs, or Governments bring in policies that reduce that initiative, frighten off new investment and lessen the ability of individuals to create jobs. I am simply stating figures during the time of an administration.
Let us look at job creation as it affects women in our society. Some 807,000 more women are working today than in September, 1984. The unemployment rate for women has fallen by four percentage points since the election, from 11.9 to 7.9.
In comparison, the rate increased by 3.3 points under the last Liberal administration, from 8.6 to 11.9. Perhaps more significant, between 1984 and 1988, the number of women working in managerial and administrative positions climbed by 50 per cent. Managerial and administrative positions accounted for one-quarter of the jobs created for women between 1984 and 1988. Including occupations such as teaching, medicine and law, almost half the jobs created for women between 1984 and 1988 were of a managerial, administrative or professional nature.
If we look at youth unemployment figures from 1984 through to today, that rate has fallen from 18.2 per cent in September of 1984 to 10.6 per cent, its lowest level in 14 years. I was struck by an article in the Kitchener-Water-loo Record entitled "Students to enjoy a boom in summer jobs". The writer of the article had gone to post-secondary institutions in the neighbouring riding of Waterloo. In talking to people at the universities, he found the following:
Jan Basso, the director of career services at Wilfrid Laurier University, estimates summer-job availability is up by as much as 10 per cent in 1988.
In addition, Basso said salaries seem to be higher, with many more jobs in the $7-to-$8-an-hour range.
"There are lots and lots of (summer) jobs out there", added Kerry Mahoney, assistant supervisor of the University of Waterloo's career
The Address-Mr. Reimer
resources centre. 'Any student wanting a summer job this year should be able to get one. Many students can be quite particular, especially if they do their research and if they started early."
The increase in the availability of career-related jobs is particularly promising. Sharon Keogh, Conestoga College's career and placement services manager, said jobs range from general labour and clerical to career-related types in everything from construction to computers and accounting.
Thanks to a strong economy, placement officers with postsecondary institutions say the summer of '89 promises to be a veiy good year indeed. They say it's going to be even better than 1988, which was considered an exceptionally good year.
A major theme in the Speech from the Throne was the need for deficit reduction. The last Liberal Government, when it was in power from 1980 to 1984, increased spending by an average annual rate of 15.1 per cent. Under this administration, from 1984 to 1988, that increase in spending of 15.1 per cent was reduced to an average of 4.3 per cent, or about equal to inflation. If this Government had continued in 1984 at the Liberal rate of spending, the deficit would not have been reduced from
38.3	down to 28.9, as we expect for this year, but the annual deficit for this year would be about $58 billion higher or approximately $87 billion this year.
We can see what has been achieved and where we have come from. When we took office in 1984, the Liberal Government was spending approximately $16 billion more than it was taking in through taxation. This administration significantly reduced that excessive spending in its first year from $16 billion down to $9 billion, to $3 billion, to $1 billion, and in the past year to $4 billion.
Although we have taken positive action in reducing the amount we are spending compared to the amount we are taking in, it is not good enough because we are constantly adding to the debt. We are adding to the interest we have to pay on that debt. It is a good start, but it is not good enough because we are still adding to the problem. That is why it is essential that government spending is cut, that we increase taxes, and that we continue to promote an expanding economy to create new wealth and tax dollars to help us to address that problem. We can then reduce the annual deficit to the point where we are creating a surplus and can finally begin to attack the national debt to which we keep adding every year. The Speech from the Throne highlighted this issue in sharp focus. It stated that 31 cents out of every dollar that comes into the federal treasury goes to pay interest on the debt. If action is not taken, that will escalate and climb.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Reimer
Another major theme in the Speech from the Throne was the topic of the environment. Over the last decade it has become very clear that the world is facing an environmental challenge of unprecedented magnitude. It is not productive to sit around and blame one another. It is time for action. If any topic deserves non-partisan treatment, it is this one. We are all to blame, and we must all take action.
During the election the environment emerged as one of the primary issues. Of course, free trade was the prime issue, but the environment was second. In my riding, if the questions were not about free trade, they were about the environment.
The opposition Parties dismissed the record of the Government, but it has proved its commitment to the environment with action and not mere words. In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney) made a commitment to include the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) as part of the strategic planning and priorities cabinet committee.
Let us review the performance of the Government, where we have come from and where we are heading on this issue. To combat acid rain, the Government passed the toughest car and truck emission control standards in the world. During the last mandate the Prime Minister was able to obtain a commitment from the former President of the United States. It was the first commitment to American-shared responsibility for the problem of acid rain, and also a pledge to spend $2.5 billion to fight acid rain. We are all encouraged by the new administration under President George Bush, and also by initiatives taken in Congress that show a willingness to go further and begin to attack the problem of acid rain. Agreements have also been signed between the federal Government and the provinces to cut acid rain emissions in half by 1994.
Canada also initiated and gained the first worldwide agreement to protect the ozone layer at an international conference held in Montreal in 1987. In 1988, the Government passed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to ensure that Canadians have a right to a healthy environment.
In the Speech from the Throne we see it is our goal to develop policies that reflect the concept of sustainable development. "Sustainable development" are two very important words which came to us from the United Nations commission which looked at the question of
environment and development. I was struck by the words of Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway whose landmark report on environment and development was produced at the United Nations. She had the following to say about Canada and the environment:
Canada was one of the commission's midwives, one of its strongest political supporters. Few other countries have contributed so greatly to the report as Canada. . .and Canada reacted most strongly and positively to our report, not least by establishing the task force on environment and economy, a unique body in modem policymaking.
The international community is looking at this issue very seriously and when commenting on Canada has stated that a good start has been made.
In the Speech from the Throne there are other initiatives. For example, in Winnipeg there will be the creation of a centre for international promotion of sustainable development. We will hear more about the round table on environment and the economy, chaired by the President of McGill University. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) has been given new responsibilities to ensure that environmental issues are fully considered in the course of all government decision-making.
Environmental protection is not only the job of governments. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us. That is why the Speech from the Throne also stated that we want to encourage individual Canadians to become more aware of the environment with the establishment of an environmental partners' fund, the promotion of environmentally friendly products, and programs to encourage recycling.
I was encouraged by another theme in the Speech from the Throne regarding policies to strengthen the family unit. For too long the family has been neglected by government. I applaud the Prime Minister for his emphasis on the family unit, Canada's basic social institution. After all, the family unit is a fundamental building block of society.
The Government has and will continue to take important steps to curb the abusive influence of drugs upon society. The Prime Minister was truly visionary in his past assessment that drugs were approaching an epidemic level. Therefore, through government initiatives, a commitment was made to spend $210 million on a five-year ongoing program involving five different ministries to fight drug abuse. Without his leadership and the initiatives which he began, Canada would undoubtedly be fighting a battle of even greater magnitude.
April 11, 1989

I was struck by a small booklet on Canada's youth entitled "Ready For Tomorrow". It was commissioned by the Minister of State for Youth and Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest). It is a very good attitudinal study on young people aged 15 to 24. In this age group the young people value certain things as being very important. Although the family was not at the top of the list, it still received a strong two-thirds recognition of being very important in their lives. That is significant.
Those young people are very optimistic about future prospects for traditional marriage and of the family unit as we have always understood it. Some 69 per cent think it is very likely that they will stay married; an additional 29 per cent think it fairly likely they will keep that commitment to the same person for life. Only four in
1,000	think it is likely that they will experience separation and divorce. We would all welcome that statistic.
We should encourage Government and all departments, specifically the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty), the Minister of State for Youth and Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) to ensure that all policy decisions taken will help these young people and others, and will help the family unit and contribute to strengthening that unit within our society. I am also encouraged by what the Government has planned to assist in strengthening the family.
I am disappointed that the plague of pornography was not mentioned in the Throne Speech. As a caring and compassionate nation, we must be committed to the eradication of this harmful material. Pornography, like drugs, affects all Canadians, especially youth. Like drug abuse which begins with softer drugs and leads to harder and more damaging drugs, pornography begins at a softer level and progresses to a hard-core level. Extensive research indicates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that pornography is addictive, pornography desensitizes, and if allowed to escalate, hard-core pornography can lead to harmful acting out of that which is portrayed. I strongly urge the Government to bring back one of the two Bills introduced in the last term and that we deal with this question.
Mr. Speaker, you have signalled that I have but one minute left in my allotted time. I am encouraged that the
The Address-Mr. Reimer
Government will deal with the very difficult and divisive question of abortion. We know it is a difficult question. I am encouraged that it will deal with it. I am prepared to face the responsibility of doing so.
I urge that we as Members of Parliament set an example to the nation and that we all remember something. Let us remember where we are. Let us remember who we are. Let us remember the trust that has been placed in us. Let us govern our behaviour accordingly so that when the country views us in action here, its respect for this federal institution will increase, as well as its respect for Members of Parliament. I may be a bit too optimistic and a bit naive but I still think it is a very high calling to serve one's fellow man in public office. I think it is time for us to all unite together to make sure that when people look at us they say: "That is true, and I would like to do that some day too".


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the comments of the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) and how committed he is to the neo-Tory agenda. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said today that he really did not make any campaign promises, he only made spending commitments. If they are spending commitments then they were made before the election was called. That sounds as if none of those commitments can be broken. But to listen to the Hon. Member for Kitchener, it sounds as if he would like to break as many of those commitments as possible and consider them as promises. I would be interested to know which of the spending commitments catalogued in The Globe and Mail of April 10 he would like to see broken so that he can implement the agenda which he seems to have been spelling out in his speech.
For instance, there is the Hibernia oil field development and $1 billion for the OSLO oil sands project in northern Alberta. There is $800 million over 15 years for the Newfoundland Railroad. There is $515 million over five years for regional development in Quebec. There is $420 million for all-terrain vehicles for the Canadian Forces, as well as $400 million in new equity for the Farm Credit Corporation. There is $400 million for the federal share of the Husky Oil upgrader in Lloydminster, $250 million over five years for the Canadian film industry and $1 billion in additional support for farmers. Since we are debating an amendment which I put relating to farmers, I would be interested to know what the Hon. Member's position is on that one.

April 11, 1989
The Address-Mr. Reimer
There is $150 million for construction of a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, $129 million over five years for AIDS research, $110 million for the clean-up of the St. Lawrence River, $110 million for the national campaign against illiteracy and $88 million for support and adjustment for the grape and wine industry in Ontario and Quebec as a result of the free trade deal. Of course, there is an $8 billion price tag for the new nuclear submarine program.
Obviously, the Hon. Member for Kitchener is very determined that the Government should not keep these commitments, as outlined in his speech. I wonder which ones he thinks the Government should break. It seems evident that the Government in its Budget on April 27 is planning to break some of these, not promises but commitments that were made before the election was called last November.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) I would like to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has an excellent record, if we consider his Budgets over the past four years. At those times he brought with him his figures and his spending projections and just where the deficit will be at the end of that time. If I am not mistaken, three out of the four times he was below what he projected and did better than he thought he could do. The other time I believe he was just slightly over. That is a far cry from what we used to see between 1980 and 1984.
I think that if the Hon. Member were to read the whole article he would have noticed that the Minister of Finance indicated that those commitments were made, and that they were called commitments as opposed to promises because each one was budgeted for. Each one was in a Budget of the federal Government. Therefore, he knew that the spending and the requirement for funding was there and accounted for. If the Minister of Finance were here he would echo what I am saying right now. He would say that we have already planned for those expenditures and that they are in the Budget. That is why they are a commitment.
We all know that the Minister of Finance, on behalf of us all, has to deal with the fact of the deficit. He has to deal with the fact that 31 cents out of every dollar taken in goes to pay interest on the debt. We have to reduce that. I am sure my hon. friend wants to join us in reducing that.
I will not exercise my privilege to go on and say where a lot of that debt came from. The Hon. Member knows where it came from. Let us leave it at that. These are commitments that are in the Budget as distinct from
promises made by someone else on top of everything else the Government is going to do.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) began his remarks by addressing the Free Trade Agreement. That is one of the reasons I am here. The constituents of Parkdale- High Park voiced a very strong objection to the Free Trade Agreement in its format and its lack of protection for companies which might be affected by it. I am sure that as recently as last weekend the Hon. Member read in many newspapers about a number of companies that manufacture auto parts which are now moving to Mexico where the labour is 55 cents an hour, $5 a day. How is his Government going to address this issue? It is just the tip of the iceberg. There will be hundreds of similar companies moving to Mexico and other countries, or even to the United States where labour is cheaper. Does this mean that we in Canada have to lower our minimum wage? Does it mean we have to lower our pension plan for workers? Does it mean we have to lower our job safety record? Has this Government looked at some way of preserving the jobs of Canadians working in these factories, who are going to be unemployed because the companies are moving to Mexico where the labour is 55 cents a day?


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) is correct in saying that in the past election the Free Trade Agreement was a major issue. I have a great many auto parts suppliers in and around my riding. In fact, if I were to take five of the ridings together around there I would see there are well over 15,000 people who work directly in that market and about another 17,000 who service those people. Of course, there are many others involved. There are over
30,000	people involved either directly or indirectly in the auto parts industry who are benefiting from the fact that those people are very busy and working. It is a very important topic.
In response to the point he has made, I would like to read to him a letter from one of the largest auto parts producers in my riding, Bud Automotive. Let me just read what the President and General Manager of Bud Automotive stated with regard to the Free Trade Agreement in auto parts. He said: "Free trade in the auto industry has been good for Canada and Ontario. But Canada would probably not exist were it not for free trade. The Free Trade Agreement with the United States opens up new enlarged market opportunities for Canadian industries." That is what people directly involved in the auto parts industry are saying. It is one of the largest employers in my riding.
April 11, 1989

In that context I say to the Hon. Member that Members opposite are always raising the prospect of some fear that a plant might close down here or there. That is the difference between the two sides in this House in this debate. Instead of always looking for an example of one little change, this side of the House says: "Look at all the opportunities that are coming. Look at the new potential that is there". That is the difference. I am sorry it has to be such a sharp difference. Surely, everyone can see that if we secure trade with our largest trading partner and we bring in some rules to govern that trading arrangement and we enlarge the opportunity to trade further within that agreement, then the net result is gain. And there is no question of that. If it were true that everyone was going to move to where it is $4 or $5 an hour or even less, then why have they all not started to move? Why is there not a mass exodus out of the northeastern United States to the southern States, from the southern States into Mexico, et cetera?
Maybe my hon. friend can point to a few examples, but surely the industry itself says that it is going to be good for us, and so I will take their word for it. Thank you.


The Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Burnaby (Ms. Black). Question or comment?


Ms. Dawn Black:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Member from Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) deals with the early part of his statement. He was waxing on very eloquently about the rosy conditions for the children and women of Canada. He quoted a number of statistics, but he did not say where those statistics came from. I would like the Hon. Member to know that there is today another side to Canada, the side that we never thought we would see. Two societies are forming in Canada.
We see in Toronto and in other major urban centres the plight of the homeless. I know that in my own riding of New Westminster-Burnaby and around the Vancouver Metropolitan area, there are food banks now in operation that were created in the early eighties as a very temporary measure. We have children attending school hungry, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he has to offer these Canadians in the face of real poverty.
My second question deals with the issue of abortion.
The Address-Mr. Reimer
He raised the issue of abortion. I would like to know if the Member is proposing recriminalization in Canada of abortion and if that is the position of his Government.


John Henry Reimer: I have a response to the two-part question. For the first part, those figures simply come from the Library here. They are StatsCan figures. Those figures are not debatable figures. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. You can find those same facts and you can use them any way you wish.
With regard to the plight of the homeless, it is true we have food banks in some of our cities and it is true that even in some of the most affluent areas of our cities and ridings across the country, we have some school children who do not go to school with a proper breakfast.
Mr. Speaker, I would respond that the best social policy then is a job. This Government has got a very good record in encouraging job creation, and the Free Trade Agreement is one part of that strategy. We have to look forward to increasing trade with the Pacific Rim, to increasing our trade with Europe. Let us look at what is going to take place in Europe in 1992, continue to increase jobs and therefore the wealth of this country, to help those in need and create opportunities for full-time jobs.
The second part of the question had to do with abortion. The Government has simply said it is prepared to bring this issue forward. It is a free vote issue on this side of the House. I am not sure what the other Parties will do.
I do not know how many of my colleagues have read the Law Reform Commission Report called the Protection of Life, Crimes Against the Fetus. In the minority report section of that there is a very good statement by Commissioner Maingot which I would like to quote: "The criminal law is our nation's fundamental statement of public policy. It is the instrument by which the community draws a line between the tolerable and intolerable. Criminal law defines those whose interests are worthy of respect and protection, and in my view this should include all members of the human family. Ultimately the criminal law is a mirror of what we are. It reflects our commitment or lack of commitment to human dignity and equality".

April 11, 1989
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, when we get into this debate, I am going to stand up on the side of the sanctity of human life and its protection. I hope that when others contribute to this debate, they will realize that whatever we end up doing, that will reflect our collective commitment or lack of commitment to human dignity and to equality. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Time for questions and comments have expired, and I believe there is not enough time to start another speaker. Therefore, I will call it six o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In accordance with Standing Order 38, a motion to adjourn is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that at this time the House be adjourned.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On April 4, the first day that this House returned, I stood in my place to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) and got a response from the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer). I was seeking information about the Government's drought program. To this date there has probably not been a farm program in any country that has stirred up more questions nor been waiting longer for answers. In the Question Period we elicited only minimal information from the Minister. He told us, and I quote from page 37 of Hansard:
The information regarding crop losses and the basis for the maps that were established, the information was based on a loss to coverage ratio through crop insurance records which was exactly the procedure that was used in 1985 that people did not like.
I wanted to put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because the immediate question is: if people did not like it in 1985, why in heaven's name did the Government perpetuate the same idiotic system on the farmers in the drought of 1988?
He went on to tell us that the final data is not in yet. He tried to tell us that the program was designed by farmers, it is they who wanted us to target it, they wanted us to be crop specific, they wanted to get down to the smallest possible area, this is exactly what in fact we are doing. I take issue with that, Mr. Speaker.
It is quite clear that there was a better way of doing this. The NDP and myself put forward a program for the election last fall to put pressure on the Government to adopt a more sane policy of making drought payments. We had suggested that they use crop insurance data, and the smallest possible unit that it is possible to pay out under crop insurance is on an individual farm basis, farm by farm.
Instead of accepting that rational approach, the Government has once again insisted upon paying on a township by township basis so that each of the farmers who have land in each township will get a different factor of payment for each crop. This tends to be unfair and unequal and, even worse, creates an unnecessary production of data that nobody bothers to generate except on the instruction of the Government for a crop drought payment.
Now, the program that we suggested would have used data that is generated because it has to be by crop insurance, and yet the Government refused to use that data. They could have had the payments in the hands of those farmers who had crop insurance contracts almost immediately.
Most of those farmers had to be investigated and have their claim justified. The amount of loss would be known to the files in crop insurance. The Government rejected that simple and helpful suggestion, to go on and use the system that it is perpetuating on farmers once again. I want to reiterate that it is a system that the Minister himself says: "which was exactly the procedure that we used in 1985, and I stress that people did not like".
I have great difficulty understanding a Government that has this kind of feedback and persists in perpetuating a program that no one liked the last time it was used, and persists in putting it forward again.
April 11, 1989

It is failing to provide real numbers to people so that they can understand how the program will work. It has been a complete disaster. Although it has been before the public for six months, no one really knows how the program works to this very day.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide details on the effective efforts by this Government to deliver the Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program to Canadian farmers.
The Drought Assistance Program is helping producers who were hurt by the 1988 drought. The Government is making every effort to deliver a program that treats producers in many different circumstances fairly.
We anticipate that about 120,000 producers may qualify for drought assistance, with over 100 different crops in over 4,500 townships. It takes time to develop and deliver a program that deals with so many producers in so many types of circumstances.
On March 3, maps showing preliminary drought zones were issued. The information on these maps is based on preliminary crop insurance data supplied by provincial crop insurance agencies. The administration used this data to define preliminary drought zones so that interim payments could be made to farmers in the hardest hit areas.
These areas are not final. We will be able to announce the final drought areas when all crop insurance data is in.
The Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program administration is working hard to deliver this program to Canadian farmers. More than 145 people are directly involved in the delivery of the program, including the people on the toll-free line who have been answering up to 4,000 calls a week.
Recently, in response to the number of telephone calls, we doubled the number of operators on the toll-free line to 20.
The administration is putting interim payments into the hands of producers as quickly as possible. About 4,500 townships have been designated as drought areas on the basis of preliminary provincial crop insurance data. More drought areas may be designated when final data is available from provincial crop insurance agencies. That will probably take place by May.
Adjournment Debate
Personalized applications have been mailed to about
120.000	producers in designated drought areas and about
90.000	forms have been returned to date.
I am pleased to inform the House that interim cheques to producers began being mailed the week of March 27. Most should be in the hands of producers by spring seeding.
About 65,000 producers will get interim payments. The payments will average about $4,300 and will total about $280 million. The timing of these interim payments is similar to the timing of interim payments under last year's Special Canadian Grains Program.
Final payments are scheduled to be mailed in July. We are making progress on other aspects of the program as well.
A method for delivering assistance to Ontario horticultural producers has been established. We are working with horticultural groups in other provinces to establish a method of making payments.
Progress is being made in talks with the Province of Quebec on a proposal for program delivery. Discussions are continuing with the provinces on cost sharing. In addition, I can tell the House that producer review committees will be established in each province.
This program may be rather complex but it is resulting in individual tailoring of payments and an accurate assessment of each producer's needs.
The Canadian Crop Drought Assistance Program is fair, well targeted, and timely. It is being delivered effectively by the Government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SOVIET UNION-PLIGHT OF REFUSNIK
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, last week on April 4, 1989, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to intervene in the tragic case of Mr. Georgy Samoilovich of Moscow, a refusnik who is dying of cancer. I met his wife in Moscow on March 30, 1989.
This former mathematician first applied to leave the Soviet Union with his wife and son in 1972. He was continually refused an exit visa on the contention that he possessed secrets.
Even General Secretary Gorbachev has stated that the possession of secrecy rule should not apply for more than five years. The Samoilovich family has suffered hardship and deprivation for 17 years simply because it wanted to exercise a fundamental human right, the right to leave their country.
I brought up the Samoilovich case with two Soviet officials in Moscow on Thursday, March 30. They were

April 11, 1989
Adjournment Debate
very familiar with this case, and I got the distinct impression that they really had no justifiable reason to deny further Mr. Samoilovich an exit visa, especially when he is so much in need of medical treatment for enlarged lymph glands. This treatment has been offered at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, England, through the British Embassy in Moscow.
Fortunately, the Samoilovichs were advised on April 5 that he would be allowed to go to London for medical treatment. We are very grateful for this news. We hope it is not too late.
I have been chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry since December, 1986.
There is no question that dramatic changes have occurred in the Soviet Union over the past two years. Since General Secretary Gorbachev announced their new policies of glasnost and perestroika, Mr. Gorbachev has both pleased and shocked the world over various announcements of change, particularly those connected with arms reductions and other major decisions such as the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.
There have also been significant changes in the number of Soviet Jews who have been granted exit visas. In 1982, only 2,688 refusniks were granted exist visas. In 1986, the number dropped to 914. Then surprisingly, the number of refusniks receiving an exist visa increased sharply to 8,155 in 1987 and then more than doubled to 18,965 in 1988.
My previous visit to the Soviet Union was in May, 1987.1 led a delegation from the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry. We met with such high profile refusniks as Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak. I also met with members of the refusnik family which I had adopted, the Shnirman family.
Most of these people were released just months after our visit. It was thrilling to see many of these refusniks at the human rights rally sponsored by the North American Jewish Community in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, December 5, 1987. This was on the eve of General Secretary Gorbachev's visit to the U.S. and his meeting with President Reagan. I had the honour to represent Canada at this historic rally and to address over 200,000 people.
As mentioned earlier, many remarkable and progressive initiatives have been announced by the Soviet Union. While most countries in the western world applaud these initiatives, we must harbour some doubt and scepticism when it still takes years for a person dying of cancer to obtain an exit visa.
The Soviet Union wants to host an international human rights conference in Moscow in 1990 or 1991. Before Canada and other nations totally embrace and support this idea, I believe the Soviet Union should be confronted with the facts about many refusniks who are still struggling without success to leave the Soviet Union, and other human rights violations.
On March 29 and on March 30, 1989, I met with several of these desperate, discouraged refusniks in Moscow. I would like to highlight the facts concerning several of these people who simply dream and yearn to live in another country.
Igor Uspensky and his wife first applied to leave the Soviet Union in 1979. They were refused on the basis that Inna's brother, Professor Alexander Ioffe, had worked with classified material 10 years previously. Both Uspensky's were entomologists. In December, 1981, Inna was expelled from the institute and one year later Igor was dismissed. He has worked as a lift operator to avoid being persecuted as a "parasite".
On March 30,1 also met with Boris Chernobilsky and his wife Elana along with several other refusniks at their apartment. Mr. Chernobilsky first applied for an exit visa in 1976, 13 years ago.
The latest reason for refusing to grant an exit visa, according to the Soviet authorities, is the lack of a waiver. Boris' mother-in-law will not sign a waiver form which parents and in-laws have been required to sign in recent years.
When I discussed this rule with Soviet officials, and the fact that these in-laws or parents had absolute veto, I pressed the point about why this could not be changed. He mentioned that new laws which will be passed in six to twelve months could very well include a review of that, so there would be an appeal procedure.
The Roitman family of Kishinev was also discussed. They are also being denied an exit visa because Izik's father refuses to sign the waiver form.
There is some good news as well. I was, for instance, led to believe that the Livshitz family may finally receive their exit visa after languishing in despair for 10 years since applying in 1979. They received the good news last week. Similarly, I also got the distinct impression that Soviet authorities may finally reconsider their previous decisions of constant denials of exit visas to the Lurie family.
In closing, I want to commend General Secretary Gorbachev for many of the progressive initiatives put forth, particularly over the past two years. However,
April 11, 1989

there are still many Soviet citizens being denied the simple human right to leave their country. With the stroke of a pen, certain restrictive regulations could be changed. With the stoke of a pen, every one of the these long-standing refusniks could be granted an exit visa.
I urge the Soviet Union to stop using these unfortunate souls as hostages. Let them leave. Let them live. Grant them this basic human right. Only then will the Soviet Union have earned the right to host an international human rights conference.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Markam (Mr. Attewell) for raising the specific case he has and for raising the question of the general policy.
On the same date last week as the Hon. Member for Markam asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) whether he would intervene in order to support Mr. Samoilovich's application for an exit visa to go to London, Mr. Samoilovich was in fact granted permission to leave. I understand that the editors of the Guinness Book of World Records are still debating now whether to grant an award to the Hon. Member for Markam for his acuity and timing or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his alacrity in response.
The fact is, of course, that this was just one of a number of cases that has currently been raised by our Government in order to see, under the Helsinki Accord's family reunification provisions, that those seeking freedom in the West are able to obtain permission to come to the West. Certainly the granting of this permission to leave was welcome news.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we will see even fewer cases as the Soviet Union implements the provisions to which it committed itself at a follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, and on other occasions. Canada will do everything it can to encourage such developments.


FISHERIES - FRENCH OVERFISHING - MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Roger E. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, it is now 30 years since an administration led by the late John Diefenbaker made a decision to change the terms of union which joined Newfoundland and Canada
Adjournment Debate
back in 1949. That decision brought such a storm of protest across Newfoundland and Labrador that when the next election took place, not one single Tory MP was elected in the Province. As a result of that decision, Newfoundlanders showed all of Canada that they would not knuckle under to such a cowardly backstabbing by any federal Government, whatever the stripe.
Last week, for the second time since Confederation between Newfoundland and Canada, a Government- and it so happens it is a Tory Government once again- has displayed cowardice and weakness by giving away Newfoundland's precious stocks in order to get a mechanism for settling the boundary dispute with France.
Last week in St. John's, the gentleman from St. John's West, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Cros-bie), speaking for the Government said: "We have achieved our major objectives".
What are these objectives he claimed to have achieved last week in St. John's? On what day did he achieve them, by the way? With some sense of humour, the gentleman from St. John's decided to do this to Newfoundlanders on March 31, the fortieth anniversary of Newfoundland joining Canada.
What then were these objectives that the Minister spoke about and was therefore so happy to announce at a news conference on the very anniversary of our coming into Confederation?
First, they gave away northern cod stock. What makes that giveaway of a precious Newfoundland resource to France so grossly offensive is that the scientists have already told us that there is need for a severe reduction with disastrous consequences for jobs in fish plants and perhaps fish plant closures, and disastrous consequences for fishermen both inshore and offshore.
Not only did the gentleman from St. John's West and his buddies give away northern cod stock to France on a silver platter, but they also gave France large allocations of cod and other species on the St. Pierre Bank, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and off Labrador.
Third, on top of all that, the gentleman from St. John's West gave the French access once again to Canadian ports. They have carte blanche to come and go as they wish. They have also been given the right to board Canadian fishing vessels inside Canada's 200-mile management zone. That is where we in Newfoundland draw the line.

April 11, 1989
Adjournment Debate
When Canada won that hard fought international battle to extend its jurisdiction to 200 miles with the agreement of many countries, all countries lost the right to invade that jurisdiction, to come into that zone and to board vessels willy-nilly at their whim. Last week, of course, with this concession, all that has been changed. The French are now allowed to board these vessels.
I say to the gentleman from St. John's West that this is the biggest outrage, the most disgusting abdication of all in this so-called agreement with France achieved last week. It undoes much of the work that was done so well by one of my predecessor, the late Hon. Don Jamieson, and others back in 1977.
Not only Newfoundlanders but all Canadians should be hopping mad at the Tories for creating this dangerous and insulting precedent in last week's agreement with France. Can anyone in this House or in the country imagine what the French would do if Canadians were allowed to board their fishing vessels within a few miles of their coast?
I am not given to condoning civil disobedience. I am not that kind of person. However, I can foresee real problems arising when French inspectors try to board Canadian fishing vessels within a few miles of the Newfoundland coast or the Canadian coast generally.
It would not surprise me, nor it should surprise Members opposite, particularly the gentleman from St. John's West, if Canadian fishermen will strongly resent French inspectors snooping into their affairs, and it may only be a matter of time before there is a confrontation.
I fear that a confrontation will develop because Canada has kowtowed to France belittled itself as a nation and made itself the laughing stock of the entire world by giving the French the right to provoke, intimidate and harass our fishermen in their own territorial waters. What a complete farce.
I was completely dismayed to note in this sorry affair the willing acquiescence of Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet. For that dastardly deed, for his agreement with this, for standing silently by and allowing the biggest steal in Canadian history to take place, the name of the gentleman from St. John's West will be forever associated with this giveaway and will be forever tarnished as the Newfoundlander who betrayed his province and his country.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the settlement reached with France is in the best interests of the
fishermen of Atlantic Canada, especially those of the Hon. Member's own riding on the south coast of Newfoundland.
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) knows full well that when Canada declared a 200-mile fishing zone in 1977 France also claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone off the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. Canada has continued to maintain that France's claim to an area of jurisdiction outside the 12-mile territorial sea has no basis in international law. This conflict has created a large disputed zone which is located within an important fishing area known as 3PS.
The unresolved boundary has been Canada's number one fisheries conservation problem in 3PS, because without a resolution of the conflict or an agreement to refer the dispute to an international court for adjudication, France has taken advantage of the situation to fish excessively in 3PS. French catches went from an average of 4,000 to 5,000 tonnes annually prior to 1983, to over
25.000	tonnes in 1986.
In 1987, Canada took unilateral action to curb the French appetite for Canadian fish. All undisputed Canadian waters of 3PS were closed to French fishing, and Canadian ports were closed to French fishing vessels. France received no allocations in Canadian waters in 1988, and Canadian ports remained closed to French fishing vessels. The settlement announced on March 31 is a first and essential step in solving that conservation problem once and for all. A treaty has been entered into that will send the boundary dispute to international adjudication. A tribunal composed of five judges will declare the boundary.
When the boundary is established, this will end France's ability to overfish in disputed waters once and for all. This is critical to protect the livelihood of fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland over the long term.
Second, under the terms of settlement, France will reduce its catches in 3PS by more than 40 per cent, from
26.000	tonnes to 15,600 tonnes in 1989. In 1990 and 1991, these French quotas will be reduced by a further 500 tonnes each year.
Third, Canada has imposed important new conservation safeguards that will allow the Government to monitor French catches in disputed waters. For the first time since 1977, France will provide regular and timely reports on catches by its vessels in the disputed zone. Equally important, Canada and France will jointly carry out a series of at-sea inspections of Canadian and French vessels operating in disputed waters.
April 11, 1989

The rollback of French fishing efforts in 3PS, plus the measures to make sure that the rollback commitment is being respected, will help protect the livelihood of fishermen on Newfoundland's south coast in the short term.
As the Fisheries Council of Canada, National Sea Products, Fisheries Products International, the Newfoundland Fishermen's Union and other representatives of the Canadian fishing industry have all said, the boundary dispute must be resolved, and Canada has
Adjournment Debate
reached the best possible settlement to achieve that objective.
On behalf of his constituents, who stand to gain the most from this agreement, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's should also welcome this settlement. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 12, 1989