1990-11-21

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that more and more Canadians are concerned about their future. I want to say to them that our best assurance of a prosperous future is to have confidence in ourselves and in our ability to build a better world. Optimism is the best policy, Mr. Speaker. Conversely, fear and dread attract disaster. In the Beauce region, there are many examples that bear out that all problems can be overcome with hope and self-confidence.
Although the Beauce region is far removed from our large urban centres and major highways, from airports and sea ports, its residents have astounded more than one pessimist by making the Beauce one of the most dynamic regions in this country, all because we believe in our potential and our ability to do better.
Mr. Speaker, I wish Canadians would ignore these prophets of gloom and doom. With a positive outlook on the future we can create a healthy, dynamic environment.


GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Ontarians listened with anticipation to the throne speech by the newly elected New Democratic Party government in Ontario. They waited to hear if Premier Rae would keep all those election promises that he made. The public has not forgotten those NDP
negative campaign ads filled with false information, which ended with a big x on the TV screen.
Now, Premier Rae, it is time to move to the next letter of the alphabet, the letter i. Why didn't you deal with your campaign promise to fund 60 per cent of elementary education costs? Why didn't you deal with your promise about the 10.5 per cent mortgage financing you were offering for home purchases? Why didn't you follow up on your promise to protect Ontario's agricultural land base from indiscriminate development? Why didn't you follow up on your rhetoric on waste management and the plan to put a garbage dump in the Rouge Valley?
Now, the last letter of the alphabet, z. That is the mark I give to the NDP in Ontario for a vacuous and disappointing throne speech.


BILL C-45
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, for four and a half years this Conservative government and the Ministry of Labour have demonstrated their contempt for the health and safety of our parliamentary employees and contempt for Parliament itself.
In June 1986 Parliament passed Bill C-45, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, which applied the key provisions of the Canada Labour Code to Parliament Hill workers. Part I of the act was proclaimed that same year, but Part II, Labour Standards, and Part III, Occupational Health and Safety, have never been proclaimed.
Because of the government's failure to act on this expressed wish of Parliament, our workers on the Hill, unlike all other private and public sector workers in the federal domain, do not have the right to refuse work which may be dangerous to their health; do not have the right to require a government inspector to investigate the many health and safety problems in our work place; and do not have the right to have work place health and safety committees monitor their working environment.

This morning a number of these employees and their unions demonstrated before the Peace Tower to express their grievances regarding widespread asbestos contamination and air quality hazards.
I plead with the government to provide for due process, to end the double standard and end its contempt for Parliament and its employees. Proclaim Parts II and III now.


BILL C-210
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-210, a private member's bill to shorten the extradition process, is coming up for its second hour of debate on December 6. It will die on the Order Paper, unless it is referred to a committee and brought back before the House rises at Christmas.
Members of the NDP are blocking this bill because they are concerned more with the welfare of criminals than with the rights of Canadians. The NDP wants the taxpayers of Canada to continue to pay millions of dollars to help people like Charles Ng, people who abuse our criminal justice system. The NDP is inviting criminals to take refuge in Canada. This must stop.
We can pass this bill. The minister and the Department of Justice want this bill made into law. I condemn members of the NDP for stalling and call upon them to help pass this legislation.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the NDP member for Chambly appeared before the Belanger-Campeau commission, but we still do not know the NDP position on Quebec.
The member for Chambly says different things at different times. At one time he said that Quebec was a viable nation state; another time that he was a sovereign-ist. Another time he said that sovereignty association was a strict minimum.
What is the NDP policy with respect to Quebec? Is it the policy of Louise O'Niell, its candidate in the Sainte Marie by-election who also declared herself a sovereign-ist? Or, is it the policy of the present leader from the Yukon who opposed at the same time the Meech
Accord, her former leader from Oshawa and the present premier of Ontario, all of whom supported it?
It seems that the NDP has three policies on Quebec: one for the west, one for Ontario, and one for Quebec. When will the NDP tell us the truth? What is its real policy on Quebec?


GOVERNOR GENERAL
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the Governor General has received a lot of unjustified criticism for not being in Ottawa for Remembrance Day.
I had the privilege of being with him in Japan where he officiated at three ceremonies on that day.
The first honoured those men of the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Montreal who died in Japan after being captured at Hong Kong.
The second honoured those Canadian servicemen who gave their lives in the Korean conflict.
The third ceremony honoured all the Commonwealth veterans who gave their lives in the Pacific theatre. This was attended by Prince Charles and Princess Diana and many other heads of state. Canada was responsible for this ceremony. Two Canadian Victoria Cross winners accompanied the Governor General.
Rather than insulting Canadian veterans, I believe he truly honoured them.


HOUSING
Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Co-op Housing Federation of Canada has issued its assessment of this government's performance on co-op housing. It seems the government knows how to talk about co-op housing but is having some difficulty in delivering.
In its mid-term report card the Co-op Housing Federation noted that no new units were sponsored in Saskatchewan in 1989, only 43 were sponsored in Nova Scotia and that amount will drop to 6 this year.
So far not a single new co-op housing project has been developed on federally owned land, even though the Prime Minister himself made that a priority in the last election campaign.

In the meantime, other Toronto area sites, including parts of Malvern and Vaughan, have been sold off to private developers at market prices. Land on two federally owned sites in Vancouver has been promised but not yet delivered.
It seems that this government is doing all right in terms of verbal skills. It is having trouble in the sandbox. It cannot seem to get anything built.


GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, more on NDP hypocrisy. Back-flip Bob Rae scored a perfect 10 yesterday by performing a number of flawless flip-flop moves during Ontario's throne speech.
Believable Bob made myriad campaign promises to Ontario residents during the election campaign, promises such as 10,000 non-profit day care spaces along with subsidies for 10,000 families. He promised to expand community based health care and improve conditions for health care workers. He also campaigned on promises to increase the province's share of education.
What did Ontario get after voting for Reversal Rae and his promises? Nothing, except a lesson on the techniques of avoidance and flip flopping on important issues.
Whatever happened to the NDP promise of a tax for non-recyclable packaging? Where is the fund for low interest loans to home buyers, farmers, and small businesses, or the promise of strict rent controls?
For that matter, whatever happened to the self-proclaimed saviour of the little guy? The NDP abandoned all principles in its rush for power.


NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AGAINST RACISM
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an initiative taken by college and university students.
The Canadian Federation of Students has designated November 21 as a National Day of Action against Racism. This initiative reflects a firm resolve to counter the devastating effects of racism at all levels.
The students' action will continue beyond November 21, as students are encouraged to make the fight against racism a cause to support and defend, both within and outside the academic community.
I may also point out that this initiative is an admirable adjunct to the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination held on March 21 this year.
I therefore ask all members to support the students and show that they stand behind this initiative to eliminate the problem of racism in our society.


ITALIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the recent apology for the internment of hundreds of Italian Canadians during World War II was long overdue.
During the war, many Canadians of Italian origin fought and died for Canada. Ironically, some Italian Canadians were fighting for Canada even when their loved ones were interned as enemy aliens.
To add insult to injury, no internee was ever proven to have done anything to undermine this country. They were Canadians. They came to Canada because they knew this country offered freedom and hope.
The Liberal Party welcomes the recent apology to Canadians of Italian origin because it is a step toward easing the pain our fellow countrymen felt.
The Canada of today truly regrets having inflicted so much pain and suffering on innocent Canadians. As a country, we must leam from our mistakes and ensure that this will never, ever happen again.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval West):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend it was reported that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had announced a budget cut of $900,000 in the news department of the French network. The English network's budget remains intact. Why are Francophones once again being deprived in this respect? Hon.

members will recall that some time ago, the CRTC postponed until February its decision on a 24-hour news channel in French, while the English news channel is broadcasting, even in Quebec.
Why are Francophones obliged to pay cable tv companies for a service they cannot receive in their own language? Are there two classes of Canadians? Does the minister intend to clean up the mess at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the CRTC?


NATIONAL DRUG AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, drug prevention agencies have designated the week of November 18 to November 24 as National Drug Awareness Week. Its purpose is to focus attention on the need to deal with the devastating problem of addiction to dangerous substances. Drug Awareness Week and the themes it uses generally focus on alcohol as the drug most often abused in this country.
Using the theme "Keep the circle strong", and with the co-operation of Amerindian and Inuit leaders and band chiefs from across Canada, about 750 native communities and groups will take part in various activities co-ordinated this year by the Nechi Institute of Alcohol and Drug Education in Edmonton.
Canada's anti-drug strategy is based on the premise that all Canadians have a role to play in the struggle to reduce and prevent the disastrous impact of alcohol and other drugs.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare wishes to congratulate native and non-native communities on their enthusiastic support for this event.


MARITAL VIOLENCE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Recently, Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Federation des ressources d'heberge-ment, supported by the Chambre des notaires du Quebec, launched a $240,000 publicity campaign to make the people of Quebec aware of the marital violence problem. The theme of the campaign is "Violence
breeds violence, let's act now!", and the whole exercise is aimed at today's children who might turn out to be tomorrow's aggressors.
Mr. Speaker, this publicity campaign is designed to encourage friends and neighbours to intervene in cases of marital violence so that the woman will no longer suffer alone, and it would have been an uncertain undertaking had Quebec notaries not pledged their financial support.
As a member of that profession I want to commend the Chambre des notaires and the Federation for this joint initiative. I hope that other interest groups will take similar action to help eradicate this scourge from our society.
 * *


NORTH AMERICAN DAY OF ACTION AGAINST RACISM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, sadly, today is the North American Day of Action against Racism, which is sponsored by the Canadian Federation of Students and Young New Democrats in collaboration with some United States student organizations.
I say this is sad because this day should not be necessary. But it is because racism continues.
At the University of Western Ontario, Philippe Rush-ton teaches his students that human beings are unequal; skinheads and Nazis have held rallies in Ontario and Quebec; a black student was beaten by white students at a Nova Scotia community college.
New right policies have not helped. They have stoked the fires of insecurity from which racism flares. When people are set at each other's throats by dog-eat-dog economics, the blame is too often directed not at the truly culpable who seem oblivious to their cries, but at convenient scapegoats who are equally their victims.
Thke action today against the new right policies that, by dividing Canadians, exacerbate intolerance. Defeat the present government when the non-confidence vote is held this afternoon. Put Canada back on the path to social democracy.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the Great Whale project.
Yesterday the minister told the House that work on the infrastructures will not begin before a complete environmental assessment of the whole project has been made. On his way out of the House, however, he flipped and flopped and made an about-turn when he stated that the road could be built before the completion of environmental studies on the entire project. So my question is: Who is telling the truth? The Minister of the Environment inside the House or the Minister of the Environment outside the House. Who is telling the truth? The Minister of the Environment last week or the Minister of the Environment today? Who, Mr. Speaker, is telling the truth? The Minister of the Environment this morning or the Minister of the Environment this afternoon?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to my colleague by quoting from yesterday's Hansard, for that might refresh his memory concerning what I said. This is what I said yesterday, as recorded in Hansard on page 15467:
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the hon. member opposite to read a few more paragraphs from the letter, because at the beginning of this letter, Mr. Robinson explained very clearly, and I quote:
"The federal environmental assessment and review process, a federal resource for environmental assessment and review, applies to the Great Whale complex since it is expected to have an impact in areas that fall under federal jurisdiction such as fish, marine mammals, migratory birds and the ecology of Hudson Bay."
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the letter that the federal government maintains all its prerogatives in terms of environmental assessment, and this is repeated throughout the document the hon. member just quoted.
Mr. Speaker, we intend to have a full environmental assessment process on the infrastructures and the project.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I must say after listening to that, I am beginning to have a lot of sympathy and I certainly understand the problems Grant Devine has with this minister.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. On October 3, 1989 the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, on November 23 the same year the Chairman of the Review Office, and on October 29, 1990 the Acting Minister of the Environment all confirmed federal jurisdiction over the Great Whale infrastructures. Only when this minister came on the scene did the federal government begin to backtrack.
Will the Minister of Justice impart some resolve to her colleague? Will she confirm that the James Bay Agreement does not reduce the federal jurisdiction over roads and airports? Will she finally explain the mysteries of life to him?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member opposite may rely too heavily on the media as a source of information. It is interesting that one of the largest media in English Canada ran this morning the headline: "Quebec permitted to start Hydro Project", with about three columns of text under it, while Mr. Francoeur's article, in Le Devoir was titled: "Ottawa conceeds nothing to Quebec on Grande-Baleine." He even quoted the Quebec Minister of the Environment. Here is what he said:
In Quebec, the Minister of the Environment did not look like a minister who just got the go-ahead from Ottawa. Brushing aside the hasty conclusions of the reporters, the minister pointed out that the president of the FEARO did not give Quebec a free hand in his letter. Instead, he reaffirmed Ottawa's jurisdiction in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we did. We reaffirmed our jurisdiction in this matter.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is beyond belief. I was outside. I heard what the minister said in the lobby. I know and the Cree know what the minister's representative said at the meetings and I heard a direct contradiction of what the minister has just said.

Oral Questions
Let us be very clear. This government does not lack jurisdiction. It lacks competence and it lacks courage. This government does not understand that the Rafferty precedent establishes very clearly that $600 million cannot be spent on roads and airports without compromising the environmental process. Does the government understand that a road cannot be built without asking what it is for?
My question is very clear. Will this minister simply give us a yes or a no? Will the minister ensure that no work will begin on any aspect, roads or airports, without a full evaluation process being completed?
One more thing, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake that whatever his answer is in this House, it will stand at least until the scrum outside is completed?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the position of this government is that any major project of this nature over which the federal government has jurisdiction-and that is certainly the case here-will have to undergo an environmental process under the EARP legislation or under a process that is agreed upon to be equivalent to the EARP guidelines. That is the case we have before us. I have said in this House, time and time again, that there will be a full environmental assessment done and no decisions made before then.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in September the minister said: "We don't have two projects here. We have one and it should be looked at in its entirety". In October he changed his mind and said he did not object if Hydro Quebec went ahead with $600 million worth of work on roads and airports before the full environmental review was done.
Which is it, Mr. Minister? Is it one project, or is it two? Are we going to have a full environmental review before any work starts or are we going down the same rocky road where two years from now two or three ministers will have put us in a situation where a dam is done before a review is done?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, let me make the point once again very clearly so that maybe people opposite will fully understand.
We want this project to be assessed from an environmental point of view.
We want it to be assessed fully. We want participation from the provincial government. We would certainly like participation from native people who, as the hon. member opposite well knows, have a very great interest in this matter.
We are trying to work this evaluation process through the James Bay and northern Quebec convention that was signed in 1975 by the then Liberal government. Under that convention, there will be one joint panel appointed by the province and by the federal government to review all aspects.
They will have two mandates; one to review the infrastructure and one to review the project. After that we will see what decisions the federal government will take and what the decisions the Quebec government will take.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the minister said yesterday in the House that the government believes there has to be a full environmental assessment before work is done. This is not what he has said in other forums, where he is prepared to let $600 million worth of work go ahead. He has also said he does not object to those works going ahead.
If the minister is so unclear about what his responsibilities are, despite three court decisions telling him, will he join the Crees in court to find out what his responsibilities are? Will he take this matter to court so we can have a full environmental review?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the member opposite had listened to my answer before reading her prepared second question.
I said very clearly that no work will be undertaken on the project before an environmental assessment is done. That is very clear. The roads, infrastructure and airport will be evaluated. The project will be evaluated. Then you get to the stage where licenses are issued. I have maintained that throughout.
It is totally false to say that I ever suggested in any forum anywhere that work could begin before an environmental assessment was undertaken and completed.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago today Canadians re-elected this Conservative government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Steven W. Langdon: In its first full throne speech, we were promised, and I quote: "Continuation of the nation's prosperity". Two years later bankruptcies are up a massive 61 per cent, manufacturing output is falling. The Mexican ambassador is talking about jobs shifting to his country from Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that rather than giving Canadians prosperity, his deliberate high interest rate, high dollar, free trade, GST policies have engineered a recession, an economic decline right across this country?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance has reiterated many times in this House that in his budgets of 1989 and 1990 the economy would be experiencing a slowdown. We are experiencing that slowdown at the present time.
The hon. member talks about the number of bankruptcies using percentages and yet he does not relate it to the number of businesses that we have in this country, approximately 1.7 million. He does not relate it to the 350,000 new businesses that were created in 1989. He does not talk about that.
When the hon. member talks about bankruptcies, he does not talk about the personal bankruptcies. Those personal bankruptcies are about 80 per cent of the bankruptcies, exactly what the Minister of Finance has been talking about. The demand for credit was far too high. People were over-extending themselves and that caused an increase in inflation. That is what he said then. That is what is causing these bankruptcies.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this minister when he stands up in this House and somehow tries to blame people who have gone bankrupt, the victims, instead of the people who sit beside him on the benches.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Oral Questions


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 43,000 bankruptcies is the highest ever in this country. It is the highest whether one takes it absolutely or as a percentage of companies operating. Yet, the minister stands up and tries to excuse it.
Why is the government doing nothing to deal with these bankruptcies? Why is it doing nothing to deal with this recession? Surely the government sees that we are into a serious deep and desperate situation for many people.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor the government take any solace in people going bankrupt, but there are many reasons for people going bankrupt. A lot of it has been credit over-extension. There is no question about that.
The hon. member should remember something. The incidence of bankruptcy is 50 per cent less today than it was in 1982. He fails to mention that there are thousands and thousands more businesses operating today than there were back in 1982. He is comparing apples and oranges and it does not make sense.
What is the government doing to help with these businesses and so on? It is bringing in a fair tax system-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: -which will place our businesses on a fairly competitive basis with our competitors from offshore. That is what the government is doing.
You should be encouraging your friends up in the Senate, if you have any, to pass the GST as soon as possible.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the data shows that there has been an increase in bankruptcies of over 26 per cent compared to 1984. That is significantly greater than any increase in the number of companies that has occurred since then, according to figures which we had.

I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Ontario NDP government announced that a fund had been created to protect the salaries of the workers when businesses go bankrupt. Will this government plan something similar for the country as a whole?

Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, my officials are having discussions with the provinces and we are presently considering the various options we could put forward to meet this expressed need.
I applaude to and take interest in the announcement the Ontario government made yesterday. It is of course only one of the measures announced as part of the Throne Speech, but we will have the chance, in the next few weeks, to discuss with the Ontario government how he intends to do this. I can assure you that my department should have something for Canadians in the near future to deal with this situation.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment, or should I say this Monty Hall of the environment, who insists on playing Let's Make a Deal with the environment?
With James Bay II, the federal government has chosen to pit the right of the U.S. to import cheap power over the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Cree and Inuit of James Bay. In light of what has happened with Rafferty-Alameda and Oldman River, I would like to ask the minister about the government's legal obligation under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
Will he commit to recognizing the government's legal responsibility with regard to the effect the project will have on aboriginal and treaty rights under the 1975 James Bay Agreement and ensure that the Cree and Inuit will trust him on his word?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the environmental assessment of James Bay, the government can work under the James Bay convention in northern Quebec and establish a joint panel to make sure that a proper and full environmental assessment is made of all the aspects of the project.
What we mentioned in Mr. Robinson's letter, which was published earlier this week, followed advice given by the Department of Justice back in April, saying that under the terms and conditions of the convention per se
the federal government could not participate under Chapters 22 and 23. However, the letter stated very clearly that the full federal process can be applied. At the moment, we are trying to finalize negotiations whereby, rather than having a provincial evaluation on one side and a federal evaluation on the other side, we could have a joint panel that would also include the native people of the region, the Inuit and the Cree. We very much would like to see that happen.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, James Bay II, as everyone knows, is a massive hydroelectric project which will cause irreversible environmental and social damage. It may be constructed without a full public forum because of the sheer negligence of this minister.
If the minister has the confidence to state that there is the possibility of having one, will he state here and now that in fact there will be a full environmental assessment review and engender some kind of trust with the aboriginal people of that area, the Cree and Inuit? Here and now, Mr. Speaker.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I have said that time and time again. There will be an environmental-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: They can't take yes for an answer.


Robert René de Cotret: There will be an environmental assessment of the project, the roads, and the airport. It will be a public process.
It is a process that we would prefer to carry out jointly with the other interested parties. That is still under negotiation. But I can assure the hon. member that we have the power to have that kind of assessment and we will have an open and public review of the project and the infrastructure.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Bankruptcies in Canada have increased by 60 per cent this October over last October. Unemployment in Canada has increased for the fourth consecutive month in a row. The Conference Board of Canada

reports that a 30-year record of 79 per cent of business expects conditions to worsen in the next six months.
Despite all this documented evidence of a deepening recession and the possibility of a depression in the country, does the government plan to continue with its high interest rate policy and continue with the introduction of the goods and services tax? Does the government still forecast, brazenly and arrogantly, economic recovery this spring?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will draw to the hon. member's attention that interest rates have dropped some 1.75 points in the last number of months. They have shown a downward trend since May and are continuing to go down. As inflationary pressures fall, those interest rates will continue to fall. So, I think the record on that is very good.
If we compare the interest rates today with the interest rates back in 1981 and 1982, when people were paying 23 per cent and 24 per cent interest rate instead of the 13 per cent and 14 per cent today, the comparison of the definition of high interest rates between a Liberal and a Conservative leaves something to be desired, I can tell you.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister, who obviously has not a clue what he is doing standing in for the Minister of Finance, that there is still a five-point spread in interest rates between Canada and the United States. Interest rates in this country are still too high.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The government, in its vain and egotistical attempt to defend its failed policy, is playing Russian roulette with the jobs of Canadians. There have been 7,600 more laid off at GM, 6,000 in the forest industry, and fishermen and farmers devastated all across this land.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs, will the government abandon its high interest rate policy? Will it abandon the goods and services tax that we can no longer afford? Give up this Thatcher-like stubbornness and face reality.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should put things into perspective. When the government came into office, in his own home province of Newfoundland, for example, the unemployment rate was 23.5 per cent. Today it is down around 16 per cent. It is still too high, but it is certainly going in the right direction.
Nationally, the unemployment rate was 11.7 per cent or 11.8 per cent. Today it is 8.8 per cent. It is still too high. That is right.
What is necessary is to ensure that we make the proper structural changes and adjustments. The GST is an important tax measure that will improve the competitiveness of Canadian industry. It should be passed. It should be brought into law.
If the hon. member wants to provide some confidence to the Canadian economy, he would prevail upon his Liberal friends in the Senate and urge them to co-operate and pass this piece of legislation, because all Canadians need it.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last night, we were regaled with film of the minister, Rambo-like, swinging onto the deck of HMCS Terra Nova, proclaiming his support for the Canadian participation in Operation Imminent Thunder.
Did the minister personally authorize Canadian participation in Operation Imminent Thunder? How does he square that with the UN resolutions and with his personal commitment to the House to consult the House before a Canadian role in the Persian Gulf was extended?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague, who also had the opportunity to visit Canadian forces, did not have the advantage to use some of the equipment that was available and visit all the troops who were there.

Oral Questions
The hon. member is obviously saying that he does not understand what exercises are for. There is an important necessity that the hon. member is not recognizing. Forces around the world-Canadian forces, also-have to practise and exercise in order to do their job.
One really only has one opportunity. If one is not capable of fulfilling one's responsibility by exercising and being capable, then one is not able to protect the ships. If the ships are not able to exercise and fulfil their responsibility, they are not able to protect the hospital ships which happen to be there.
Canadian forces exercise daily. The squadrons exercise and the vessels exercise. I believe it is important so that the men and women who serve are able to do the job that they are assigned by the Government of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government clearly failed to grasp the vital necessity of keeping Canadian involvement within the limits of the UN mandate, but Let me turn to another point, Mr. Speaker, in my supplementary question.
In January, External Affairs asked CSIS to investigate whether or not Canadians or Canadian companies had assisted Iraq in developing long-range missiles, which today are aimed at our contingent in the gulf.
In view of the public interest in this issue, will the government make this complete CSIS report public? Can the government assure the House that no Canadian government agency in any way, direct or indirect, has assisted Canadians or Canadian companies in the development of Iraqi missiles?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific question about CSIS, my hon. colleague knows that it is government policy neither to deny or to admit any allegations with respect to CSIS's specific operations.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance but, in his absence, to the Acting Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Finance stated that he had asked his federal counterpart to exempt books from the GST. Does the minister intend to listen and act accordingly, or will he once again turn a deaf ear?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance made it very clear that the GST would be implemented as is. I believe the Senate votes on its last amendment tomorrow and, hopefully, it will come to its senses and take the final vote on the goods and services tax and get on with it.
The Minister of Finance made a commitment that he would review certain aspects of the goods and services tax once it is implemented and operating, but to make exceptions now would be very foolish. It must be implemented and we must get on with the timetable. I would encourage the hon. member to talk to her friends in the Senate to encourage them to take the final vote on the goods and services tax.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister well knows that this is not going to be passed in a hurry.

My supplementary is directed to the same minister. Since Quebec would have to follow Ottawa's lead in this matter, books would be taxed twice. If the minister is reluctant to accept the logic of this proposal and decides to apply the tax across the board, could he give us a guarantee in this House today that he will grant tax credits to prevent the disastrous impact his policy would otherwise have on Quebec's written culture?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to caution

the hon. member in making those kinds of statements because they are entirely inaccurate. First of all, books for education, libraries, and so on, are not taxable. She makes it sound as if'books are being taxed out of existence; that is just not true.
The Minister of Finance has made a specific commitment regarding books and the minister will keep that commitment, but he is not going to change the GST at this time. It is to be passed and implemented on January 1. Again, I encourage the hon. member to speak to her friends up in the Senate, to bring them to their senses, to pass this bill as quickly as possible, so that businesses throughout Canada which have adjusted to the tax will not be losing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars by the delay.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister is well aware, of course, that the low-level air defence capability for the Armed Forces is in some jeopardy with regard to the absence of a firing range near the base at Chatham. I want to ask the minister if he will assure the people of New Brunswick today that the firing range will remain in New Brunswick.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I have had communications with the premier of the province of New Brunswick, expressing to him the concern we have had over the apparent reluctance of the citizens in the area which he is referring to, around Chatham, in accepting the range. He knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that at this time there is an environmental assessment being done.
He also knows full well that the discussions we have had with the province of New Brunswick called for more than just a firing range. The province of New Brunswick is asking for some $25 million-plus to be provided, and to acquire a firing range and to retain low-level air defence. He also knows that the Department of National Defence has had a reduction in its budget. We are trying to make every effort we can to make sure we use those dollars efficiently. I cannot give the member the assurance he asks for.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I could take 15 minutes, which you would now allow me, to
Oral Questions
answer some of the allegations the minister has made. In any case, I want to ask him if he is aware that the economy of New Brunswick is very much wrapped up in this situation. Will the minister give us a commitment now that the firing range at Gagetown, which is being used by Americans, could be considered as a firing range for the low-level air defence operation at Chatham?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the contribution made by the Department of National Defence to the province of New Brunswick is indeed substantial.
I draw to his attention the construction of six Canadian patrol frigates that are taking place in that province today. I draw to his attention additional construction that will take place with the Canadian patrol frigates in his province, plus billions of dollars involved in these contracts. I can also assure the hon. member that the area that he is referring to is not of a sufficient size to test the low-level air defence weaponry that he is talking about. I can assure the hon. member that that range is being used as it is now to its fullest. Unless he wishes to jeopardize the operation of CFB Gagetown, I suggest he not talk about this any further.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. This morning in Saskatoon, Cameco, a company for which the minister is responsible, changed its plea from not guilty to guilty to provincial charges arising from the spill of 2 million litres of radioactive waste into Wollaston Lake last November. Since Cameco also pleaded guilty to federal charges last December, this means there is no mechanism left for the public to get answers to questions like: what was the role of the regulators in this fiasco? What impact is this industry having on northern people and their environment? Does the 1946 legislation, which governs this industry, have any relevance in today's world?
Therefore, I would like to ask the minister if he is now prepared to reconsider his own decision and request a public inquiry into this whole matter so that the public can finally get at all the facts.

Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


FRASER RIVER
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The minister is in receipt of a proposal from his Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region, which calls for the development of a long-term water management strategy for the clean-up of the Fraser. The report, which I have with me, stresses co-operation between all levels of government to define limits to human activity and implement strategies to ensure the concept of sustainable development is achieved.
I want to ask the minister whether he will commit his ministry to a co-ordinated clean-up of the Fraser River. Will he acknowledge the need to develop a local management plan on a watershed-by-watershed basis? Will he empower these agencies with the legislative teeth needed to ensure that our environmental legislation is adhered to?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, all I can tell the hon. member is that very seldom do we hear the members of the socialist team congratulate this government on any steps taken to protect our environment. If he cares to look at what is taking place in the province of British Columbia, the hon. member, seeing what we have done in the last five years, should have no doubt whatsoever that we shall do more in the future.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works in connection with his government's physical responsibility for these buildings on Parliament Hill. While we have been aware of reports of asbestos which may be contaminating the air of the Centre Block, West Block and Wellington Building, apparently more asbestos has been uncovered during recent renovations of the cafeteria area on the upper floors of the Confederation Building.
As one of the many hundreds of worried inhabitants of the Confederation Building, I am wondering if the minister can confirm the presence of asbestos in that
fourth Parliament Hill structure, how serious is the problem and can he advise us how and when his department is going to get it out of there?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am an inhabitant of the Confederation Building. I can tell the House and my colleague that I have had recent conversations with the Speaker on this important issue. There is fibreglass and asbestos in these premises. It is not the same in each building. Most of the substances I think have been removed from the eighth floor of the Confederation Building when that part of the premises was being renovated for different purposes. Work is proceeding in the Wellington Building as well.
I have asked my department to increase the vigilance that it has for inspection and to bring me a more detailed plan for the orderly disposition of this substance which, in its inert form, I am told, does not present a very serious threat to health.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled in this House the government's response to a report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs about the relocation of several Inuit families from northern Quebec to the high Arctic in the 1950s.
The government's response flies in the face of the committee's report. Why has the minister ignored the committee's report which was based on the testimony of Inuit who were part of that relocation experiment?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the government indeed responded to the report of the standing committee on Monday of this week, after having a consultant do an extensive evaluation of the circumstances relating to the voluntary relocation of a number of Inuit families from northern Quebec to the high Arctic in the period of 1953 and shortly thereafter.
The consultant's report says in summary, and I would like to read this briefly, Mr. Speaker:
We found that the decision by the government to actively encourage the relocation of Inuit families to the high Arctic in 1953, and in the two or three years subsequent to that, was not motivated by a concern to strengthen Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic Islands at that

time, but was indeed motivated by a concern to improve the social and economic living conditions of those Inuit people.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, the minister just pointed out that it was an extensive consultant's report. Let me point out that from the information we have, this consultant's contract was issued on August 8,1990, and the final report was due on September 14, 1990. Five weeks is not a very extensive consultant's report.
Mr. Speaker, I will now ask the supplementary. Will the minister agree that the timeframe allowed was far too short for a definitive and conclusive analysis of these events, and will he assure the Inuit people who were so adversely affected by the relocation that this study is not the final word on the subject, and that he is open to further discussions and negotiations with them?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the report goes on:
The evidence that we examined does not support the allegations that the government committed wrongdoing in the planning and conduct of this project. The material we examined leads to a different conclusion, namely, that the project was consciously planned and was carried out in a reasonably effective manner, and that the Inuit participated in it voluntarily in their own search for a better life and benefited from that experience.
In conclusion, I find this report, as does the government, completely acceptable.


TOBACCO
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, there was some good news on the front page of the Globe and Mail yesterday. It pointed out in the news story that the consumption of tobacco in Canada is dropping rapidly: a 7.4 per cent drop in cigarette sales and a 23 per cent drop in fine cut tobacco sales, meaning that Canadians are smoking 10 per cent less this year than last. Clearly the government's strategy to reduce tobacco use in Canada is working.
My question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could he inform the House today of the government's plans to ensure that this excellent trend in public health continues in the years to come.
Oral Questions


An hon. member:: Excellent.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all members of Parliament should be tremendously heartened by the results showing the 10 per cent drop in the consumption of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco in Canada in the first 10 months of this year.
It is an indication that the legislation passed by this Parliament, the tax measures which have been taken by the Minister of Finance, and the public education measures taken by the government and by a whole range of social agencies across Canada are having a dramatic effect in improving the health of Canadians.
However, as long as 35,000 Canadians continue to lose their lives each year in diseases related to tobacco use, we must continue to keep up the pressure and do everything that we can to reduce this tragic loss of lives.


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture. Yesterday, a research group at Laval University concluded that the Tory government's proposal to GATT with respect to the dairy industry would reduce the incomes of dairy farmers by 21 per cent.
What does the Minister of State for Agriculture intend to do to protect Canadian fanners from the disastrous situation created by his colleague, the Minister for International Trade?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think we should put the findings of this study into perspective. I may remind the hon. member that the vast majority, if not all, of Canadian farm producers support Canada's position at GATT.
Mr. Speaker, the study published yesterday is based on the present situation and does not consider the various changes that will take place over the next 10 years, including improved productivity, increased domestic consumption, the development of new products, and so forth. And I may add, as I said only a month ago in this House, that dairy farmers do not accept the status quo. The status quo is unacceptable, and on that basis, the

November 21, 1990
Privilege
Minister for International Trade tabled an offer last March to clarify and strengthen article XI, which means, Mr. Speaker, that our Canadian dairy producers will be protected, all thanks to this government.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
Now we know that at least five provinces are considering robbing social assistance recipients of the GST tax credit. These poorest of Canadians deserve a clear commitment from this government that they will not have both their pockets picked: one by the federal government with the GST itself and the other by provincial governments robbing them of the tax credit.
Will the government undertake to obtain from the provinces an ironclad guarantee that they will not rob poor Canadians of the GST tax credit?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Finance and I and others have dealt with this question.
We have said in the past that although we do not have any direct control as to provincial taxation policies, we will take every possible step to encourage provinces not to pursue that objective.
I understand that my hon. friend has received his information from the poll taken by The Globe and Mail that five provinces are considering such a move, which of course is wrong because one of the major provinces, the province of British Columbia, has stated quite categorically that there is no such consideration.
If a province-and that is a hypothetical situation- would move in that direction we would take every step to discourage it because we find it to be immoral, improper, if not illegal.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the hon. Lloyd Roseville Crouse, Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants on a point of personal privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have given you notice of the question of privilege that I intend to raise today. I must say I did not realize I was going to bring the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia up here to help sort things out.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member would not want to draw the representative of the Queen into these very serious matters which he has to raise, but I think hon. members will notice that this is the first time we have ever known what His Honour's middle name really was.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on this point of privilege. We all know that points of privilege are a little spurious, but it gives me an opportunity to say a few things to help clarify my status as a member in this honourable House.


Mr. Speaker:: I have difficulty with points of privilege, but not often does an hon. member start off with suggesting that it may be spurious.
However, given the hon. member's many years in this place, I recognized the hon. member on a point of personal privilege. There is no legal authority, procedural or otherwise, historic or precedential, that allows this. It is just done every once in a while.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I knew it was difficult enough to do, but I did not know it was going to be this difficult to finally get it on.
In a serious vein-and this is a serious moment-there is obviously some sadness in this, if for no other reason than after 25 years I have come full circle. I find myself in the high rises of the backbench of the opposition,

which is about two seats from where I started a quarter of a century ago. I don't know, but that is some type of reverse progress. That is the sadness.
Obviously I shared many arguments with colleagues across the way, many debates, and many fine associations, which in part I hope will keep up. Especially what I intend to do and the dilemma it puts on loyal supporters who have supported me and my predecessor, my father, for years are not taken lightly.
On the other hand, I could not recite all the events that have led to today. I wrote a letter to my colleagues in caucus, which has been pretty well circulated and sets out some of my thoughts. There is the sadness, but I think I am honourably doing the right thing in the sense that over a period of time the yoke of caucus and blind loyalty to the leader have been very difficult for me to follow.
I am very serious. I am glad we are on television. We can always debate whether the televising of these proceedings is good or bad for this country, and I was for it. If there is anything that helps smother the respect of this institution, it is that Canadian men and women of good faith, intelligence and character have come here to try to do the job and, as soon as they get here, they find out that they play by the rules of the John A. Macdonald era of one flag, one party, one leader, and vote accordingly. We have all been through it.
That begins the scepticism of a member as to what he is doing here, let alone through the technology of television is given the boil of cynicism in the public domain as to what goes on here as we politically posture, do not really debate the issues, and often divide on the issues because it all has to be the party line. That is something that is fundamental in this institution and inherent in its defect.
I seriously suggest that at this particular time in this Parliament and with the polls-and I think they will continue to show it-no party is certain of victory with a majority in another election. That is the time when everyone may think they are in charge. That is what we used the last time to have another attempt to reform the rules of this Parliament to try to get it into the 20th century before we get into the 21st century.
Privilege
I do not want to trespass too long in the House, but I have come to this decision over a period of time, with regret. Other than what I have mentioned in terms of the inherent defect in Parliament, where we have to play the game according to rules from 126 years ago, we have the rhetorical cancer of double-speak. When in opposition, and I spent a lot of time in opposition, we say one thing. Then we get in government and we just say the opposite.
In the days of parchment when few people could read-I know you couldn't see it-you could get away with that, but with television it shows the falseness of this place. Unfortunately the present government is reflecting that in the polls in effect when in opposition, for example, we champion the cause of the Auditor General.
I have been here 25 years. I am not going to take one minute for each of the 25 years, but I am going to try to take a few minutes on something that I think is very serious. I am going to recite a few things because I think it is necessary, along with all the other rhetorical garbage that we have in this House from time to time.
The mandate of trust and change started to erode when the government took office in 1984. We had championed the cause of the Auditor General in the Petro-Canada takeover of Petrofina. As soon as we got in government we took them to court the same as the Grits did. That is the type of double-speak I am talking about. One can go right down the list.
Our opposition critic, who is now the Minister of Finance, said things about the high interest rates in opposition. Then he-


Mr. Speaker:: My difficulty is this. I have allowed the hon. member to rise on a point of personal privilege. This is done as a matter of courtesy of the House. As I said in a more jocular tone a few minutes ago, it is not part of the rules and it is not part of the precedents, but it is done as a matter of courtesy.
I would ask the hon. member to come to the point that he wishes to make. It is an unusual indulgence given by the courtesy of the House. It is not given to any member just to give a speech about many things which may be of great importance but which should be properly the

November 21, 1990
Privilege
subject of debate, and not given to one member to make without the opportunity of other members to respond.
I would ask the hon. member to come to the point of his point of personal privilege. I think I know what it is. His reasons for wanting to make that point are of interest to all of us, but it is not appropriate for me to allow the hon. member to engage in a unilateral exposition of his own views, unless of course other members were allowed to join in. Then we would be in a debate which is completely outside the rules, and I would be much at fault for allowing that to happen. I would ask the hon. member to come to his point.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, you of all people are a person I respect as not only an equal among equals but as a Speaker that really has lent dignity to this Chamber. I will follow your admonition and therefore not say some of the things I wanted to say. Perhaps there will be other opportunities to say them. I was just trying to illustrate by example so that we could perhaps be educated by it, with respect and after being 25 years in this place, so that we would try to correct ourselves and/or perhaps members would not get into the dilemma.
I will come to my point of privilege. Quite frankly I have been placed in the seats of the independents. I guess I am the dean of the independents since the row seems to start here and goes to my left. I have been treated as an independent. I guess in many ways I am an independent, as my colleagues know, from time to time. I might as well face facts. If it is a rose, a rose is a rose or whatever else you call it. I want to be known officially because the records have had trouble with it and other people have had trouble with it, in this state of suspension and hibernation in which I place myself.
I want to be known, with misgivings but also perhaps with the joy of freedom, to be an independent Conservative and sit in this House as an independent Conservative. I am speaking out and taking the position because I fundamentally believe in it.
I cannot end without reflection on one item, which I know some members of the press will reflect on it, because they have already reflected on it, in terms of my roots. I know in people's minds-and especially the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia who served with him-they most likely are wondering in an understandable way: "What would his father have done?" Who
knows? Times are different, and he was a loyal party man.
I think there comes a time, if a member honestly believes that loyalty to leader is always fundamental, when there are some topics of some situations where loyalty to leader is transcended by loyalty to a party. I have left the government caucus. I have now officially declared that I am an independent Conservative. I have been a Conservative longer than three-quarters of my caucus and I intend to be.
I am standing here in the open forum of this the highest court of the land to have perhaps by example other Canadians, let alone Conservatives, speak out. I do honestly believe, unless there is a change in direction, that the party to which I belong is going to be in very serious straits. With a change in direction this could be corrected, but as far as today is concerned I want to be known as an independent Conservative and have me so registered in the records. I really do not know if you have to change my seat or not since I am already over here.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on a personal point of privilege. I am going to close off any further debate on that and call for Tabling of Documents.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like a little clarification. In the back of the Wednesday edition of Hansard we have the alphabetical list of members of the House of Commons for the second session of the 34th Parliament.
There was a point of personal privilege, and I believe our precedents would indicate that members are listed by affiliation related to the Canada Elections Act or as independents with no other possibilities in terms of that listing. I make the point that I believe all Conservatives have an independent bent of mind and certainly inside our caucus on many occasions we have very spirited debates. However, in terms of the listing for official purposes in terms of the House of Commons, I think it would be appropriate if the member was listed as an independent and that the matter ended there.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member for Calgary West and of course I have heard the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I will consider this. I think that it is a matter that has already been raised before the Chair. It is a matter which is being discussed between some other members in the House

and the other parties, and I hope that it can be satisfactorily resolved.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I had the honour to table the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-72. It has been necessary to table the report again because an amendment which had been defeated in committee was inadvertently included in the report.
Therefore, at this time, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the revised report of the legislative committee on Bill C-72, an Act to establish the Canadian Polar Commission and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to compliment members on all sides who participated in the deliberations of that committee and thank them for their consideration and their expeditious handling of the deliberations of the legislative committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday the House at the stage of tabling reports from committees was given a report from the special committee on Bill C-79, which studied the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. Those amendments were in seriatim form. They were not in the bill and the bill has only been available to members since noon today. I have a copy in my hands right now.
We all know that according to our Standing Orders, if the government called this bill tomorrow, we only have until about six o'clock tonight to table amendments. I wonder if we could get unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker,
Routine Proceedings
to extend Standing Order 76(2) to 72 hours instead of 48 hours to give all members a chance to read this bill and to possibly bring amendments before the government calls the bill.


Harvie Andre: Certainly I agree with that suggestion and would be willing to give the opposition House leader my commitment. I will not call it until there is agreement of all three party House leaders.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say I appreciate those comments by the government House leader. I think it is important that we negotiate a satisfactory conclusion of that legislation. I think the proposal put forward by my hon. friend is a good one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair takes note of the consensus among the three House leaders.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again have an opportunity to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, Clearwater, Barriere, Logan Lake and Chase in British Columbia who are concerned that the government is going to tax literature. I know most of us are distressed at this fact. It will make Canada the only country in the world to place a special tax on reading material. The petitioners feel that this is regressive and I suspect we feel that as well. They ask the government to reconsider taxing literature.
On another topic, Mr. Speaker, and on behalf of a number of constituents from the city of Kamloops who are almost at the point of depression that the government, in spite of 80 per cent of Canadians indicating opposition to the goods and services tax, is continuing to ram this brutal, cruel, mean-spirited tax through. They are asking the government to come to its senses, back off, listen to the people of Canada and introduce real, thorough, fair tax reform instead.

November 21, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present four petitions signed by residents from various parts of the country, including the province of British Columbia.
The petitioners are adamantly opposed to the imposition of the goods and services tax. They believe it is very punitive in that it will affect low and middle income Canadians. It will affect a variety of the goods which they consume and will cause great difficulty to small and medium sized business. They call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw immediately the provisions of the goods and services tax.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have the good fortune to present a petition from many citizens in Ottawa indicating their feelings towards NHL expansion and the fact that Canada should be very much part of this expansion. The teams from Ottawa and Hamilton very much have to be considered. Canada has to stay on the front page of the foremost league in North America.
These citizens have brought this petition forward. The deadline is December 7. That is when the world will know whether Canada is going to be part of the future of the National Hockey League. Indeed, we cannot afford to lose our market share. Canada has to be part of it. I urge all members to take these petitions home to let Canadians show their support for Canada's greatest game.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, the petitions do keep coming in because of this dastardly GST.
Once again I have a petition to present from the people of Toronto and from my riding in St. Catharines who are very much opposed to the imposition of this tax. I have yet to have anyone in my riding approach me to say that this tax is acceptable to them. Once again I bring this before the government and ask them to reconsider the imposition of this tax on people who can least afford to pay.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today under Standing Order 36 and present a petition, which speaks for itself. It states: "We the undersigned respectfully request the federal government to negotiate in good faith and in the spirit of justice with the people of Oka to resolve the present crisis. We expect that the Government of Canada will immediately act upon its authority and responsibility and deal in a just manner with the struggle of all aboriginal peoples in Canada to have their land claims and rights properly addressed. Inaction on the part of the federal authorities will only continue to antagonize race relations in Canada and provoke dangerous and ignorant acts of racism".


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from the people of Oliver, Osoyoos, Okanagan Falls and Penticton in their effort to block the goods and services tax. These people are opposed to this tax and have asked the government to stop the proposal and bring in real tax reform that is fair to all Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the duty to table today a petition signed by Canadians who are vigorously opposed to a tax on reading, books and all printed materials.
These petitioners, who are very angry at the proposal put forth by the Conservative government, state that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy, culture and education. They argue that a literate and productive society can only be negatively affected by such a plan to tax books. Mr. Speaker, these people, like me, strongly believe that to tax books is to promote illiteracy.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by a number of Canadians from the Brantford area, as well as from Nova Scotia, who are concerned about the recent death this year of a young girl, due to a food allergy.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact appropriate legislation and regulations that would require

proper labelling of prepared foods as well as the availability in restaurants of lists of ingredients of foods that are prepared to be served there.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by citizens of Freetown, Prince Edward Island. They are concerned about the future of their rural post office.
The petition states that Canada Post Corporation has a mandate to improve services to Canadians. Whereas Canada Post has made $149 million in profit in the year 1989 to 1990, and whereas 180 families are served by the Freetown post office, and whereas the post office is the only federal institution in our community, the petitioners ask Parliament to instruct Canada Post to maintain and improve the post office in their community.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, one of which is signed by a large number of people from Saskatchewan communities like Laird, Waldheim, Saskatoon and Regina. It is also signed by people from Courtenay, Comox, Abbotsford and Vancouver, British Columbia, as well as Winnipeg and many other places in Canada.
The petitioners call on Parliament to support the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit of Labrador's call for an end to low-level flight training in Canada. They are asking Canada to redirect its NATO-NORAD funding towards enabling Canada's aboriginal people to regain control of their lands and livelihood as well as promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Raymond John Funk: The
second petition I have is signed by the residents from La Ronge and Pine House in the northern part of my own constituency.
The petitioners call on Parliament to reinstate the northern tax benefit. It is vitally needed to compensate people in northern communities for the very high cost of living, which will be made even higher by the imposition of the goods and services tax.
Routine Proceedings FOODS AND DRUGS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by people of the lower mainland of B.C. on behalf of those people in our society who are suffering from life-threatening allergies.
They ask Parliament to introduce legislation that would empower or require food manufacturers and packagers to label their products in such a way that those suffering from life-threatening allergies would be forewarned and prevent sickness or possible death.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to table a petition from residents of south-shore cities located in the ridings of members of this government. The petitioners, considering that thousands of students and teachers in heritage language schools depend on government support and that the heritage language training program is the best way to foster national harmony and to provide language abilities and communication, ask me to humbly pray the government to maintain the heritage language training programs.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have five other petitions coming from all parts of Canada which state that the Government of Canada has seen fit since Confederation and without hiatus to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers, and now proposes to include them in the GST.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present this petition. The petitioners who have signed it are from Scarborough, Pickering, and Oshawa in the

Routine Proceedings
province of Ontario, as well as from Halifax and Dartmouth in the province of Nova Scotia.
Earlier this year, a 15-year-old girl from Scarborough, Robyn Allen, passed away as a result of a very severe allergic reaction. The petitioners join with the Allergy Information Association in support of this petition. They call upon the Government of Canada to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations, in order to require manufacturers to list specific ingredients and additives used in pre-packaged foods so that people who use restaurants will know what is in the foods that they are eating.
I am very pleased to present this petition today. [Translation]


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition concerning the GST, signed by residents of Quebec and Ontario. Your petitioners object to taxing books and magazines.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of people in the Edmonton area, including some who live in my riding of Elk Island.
Whereas one of the most significant aspects of Canadian culture is amateur sports and the Vanier Cup, named in honour of a former Governor General, is one of the truly national championship sporting events in the country; whereas Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio has annually broadcast most Vanier Cup football games since the first game in November of 1965; and whereas the CBC has decided that play-by-play coverage of the 1990 Vanier Cup will not be broadcast; the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio to reconsider its decision regarding its traditional live broadcast of the Vanier Cup from Toronto on November 24, 1990 and fulfil the mandate of the corporation to serve, maintain, and augment Canadian culture from sea to sea.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of electors in the great city of Toronto.

Like the electors of Kamloops, whose member spoke for them a moment ago, they are opposed to the goods and services tax and particularly this new tax to be imposed on books and magazines in Canada.
The petitioners wish, as do I, that the hon. member for Kamloops would take a place in the Senate, since he has spoken against the goods and services tax, and help the Liberal senators in that body who are fighting so valiantly against this tax. I know that he has charts and tables that would be of assistance to the hon. senators and I am sure his electors would be delighted to see him in the Senate doing good works there. Perhaps his usefulness on this particular tax would be a little greater than in this House, where the government's apparent inability to hear the pleas of the thousands of Canadians who have signed these petitions, is notorious. Indeed, our pleas in this case seem to be falling on deaf ears.
I urge the government to listen to the millions of Canadians who have signed these petitions and withdraw this iniquitous tax, at once.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 340 will be answered today.


Mr. Bellemare: Further to the Federal Court of Canada decision relating to section 32(l)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, has the government established any guidelines regarding the political rights of public servants and, if so (a) can public servants (i) contribute financially to a party (ii) be a member of a party (iii) participate in a federal leadership campaign (iv) work for a party or candidate during an election (v) be a

scrutineer (vi) work in an election office (vii) display a lawn sign (viii)
canvass (b) are there specific activities in which a public servant is
prohibited from participating in?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: 
Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 366 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 366 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ms. Callbeck: For each of Marine Atlantic's car ferries from Borden, PE.I. to Cape Tbrmentine, N.B. (a) what is the present monthly capacity utilization (b) what was the capacity 5 years ago (c) what is the forecast for capacity (i) in 1 year (ii) in 5 years?
Return tabled.


Michel Champagne: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion P-30 for the production of papers, in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands?
That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House copies of the report to be submitted by the Attorney General of Quebec to the Secretary of State of Canada, pursuant to Section 281 of the National Defence Act, which sets out the circumstances that occasioned the calling out of the Canadian Forces at Oka, Quebec.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion for the production of papers is acceptable to the government, and the papers are being tabled immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all notices of motions stand?

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for agreeing to Motion No. 30.
Motion No. 31 asks for details of costs of the deployment of the Canadian forces at Oka.
I noticed that in Hansard in my absence earlier this week, an answer appeared-I believe it was this weekdetailing the costs for a certain period of time already. In other words, the government has got those figures for part of the time, if not all of it.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would speak with his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, to see if that additional information could not be provided. It has already been given in a response. I am simply asking that it be produced in the House in documentary form via by Motion No. 31.


Michel Champagne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is of course aware that we are working on it, and as soon as we are able to, we will be glad to answer his question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-THE PRIME MINISTER Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved:
That this House express its loss of confidence in the Prime Minister and call upon him to resign and immediately call an election.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I want to say simply that there have been discussions between the parties and there is an understanding that if the members wish to split their usual 20 minutes and 10-minute question and comment period, that is their decision to make. The individual should comment on that at the beginning of their presentation so it is perfectly clear for the person in the chair.
I want to say at the outset that I plan to split my 20 and 10 would be with the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
lb begin, I say that it was not an easy day for the New Democratic Party caucus to look about the state of the nation on this second anniversary of the election of the Conservative government and notice the way the entire country has deteriorated. Because of what almost appears to be a government inspired scorched-earth policy which has resulted in unbelievable levels of human carnage and suffering, we have had to bring forward this motion on behalf of the people of Canada which states that this House expresses its loss of confidence in the Prime Minister and calls upon him to resign and immediately call an election.
This is a very serious motion. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the people of Canada and the ability of the Prime Minister and his government to govern no longer exists.
I want to refer to some of the headlines in the papers that I noticed in the Reading Room today. One of the headlines stated: "Polls say the Tories could do with a better leader". Another stated: "Nine-tenths believe that there should be an immediate review of the new tax, with most people wanting to abolish the tax." Another headline stated: "If the Prime Minister remains, most say the economy will get worse."
Another headline stated that under this Prime Minister the economy has been transformed and so too has our reputation abroad. Another headline stated that this Prime Minister has sharply cut back both at the environmental department spending and at defence spending. Another one stated that this Prime Minister is not fit to rule. Another one stated that the country is effectively leaderless. Another one stated that the lack of leadership affects the foreign exchange market.
All of these headlines were referring to Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and the fact that the situation there has similarly deteriorated. These headlines simply represent the contempt in which the people of the United Kingdom now hold their Prime Minister. It is a sad day for our country to say that the same now has occurred in Canada.
In the United Kingdom, many of her own back-benchers and members of her cabinet are calling on her to resign. In a few hours from now, the British House of Commons will be holding a similar debate to this one, challenging the Prime Minister's right to continue at a time when the country appears leaderless and at a time when the entire economy is being threatened. The people of the United Kingdom have indicated clearly how they feel about their Prime Minister. I suggest that
[Stage Direction]

the people of Canada have indicated that we have similarly lost faith in our Prime Minister and the government of the Prime Minister.
Let us continue for a moment and simply reflect from today's newspaper. A massive poll conducted by Angus-Reid and Southam News points out that our Prime Minister is the most unpopular Prime Minister in Canadian history. As a matter of fact, in the last number of hours, at the major meetings in Europe, we have noticed that no one wanted to meet with the Prime Minister. He had asked to meet with many heads of state and virtually no one wanted to meet with him. Most cancelled any plans that had been set up. Even overseas, he appears to have lost the confidence of world leadership.
The polls also tell us that this is the most unpopular government in Canadian history. No government has been so low in public esteem in the entire history of our land. According to today's poll results, seven out of ten Canadians could not think of a single thing that this government has done since the last federal elections, not a single positive thing.
Mr. Fulton:: Can you think of anything?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My colleague from Skeena asks if I can think of anything. Unfortunately, I say with a heavy heart, that I cannot. I cannot think of a single, positive thing that this government has done to help the people of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Tories say that the free trade deal was a great accomplishment. When the people of Canada were asked if they agreed, 92 per cent disagreed with that comment. Only 8 per cent of Canadians felt that the free trade agreement was good for the country and 92 per cent disagreed.
The Conservatives sometimes say that tax reform was a good idea. Ninety-five per cent of Canadians disagreed with that position. Only 5 per cent of Canadians think that tax reform has been a positive gesture.
Government Orders
In terms of deficit reduction, our Prime Minister goes on at some length about the great successes in reducing the deficit. Ninety-five per cent of Canadians disagree with him. They say that the debt of the country has never been greater and that deficit simply does not come down in any significant real way.
Then there is the environment. All of a sudden the entire cabinet is turning green before us. They are saying we are going to take major steps in terms of environmental issues. Ninety-eight per cent of Canadians disagree. Only 2 per cent of Canadians feel that the government is serious in terms of the environmental issues confronting the country.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. Oh, how we remember that slogan in the last federal campaign. How many Canadians feel that the government has actually performed in creating real jobs? T\vo per cent. Ninety-eight per cent of Canadians feel that the government's record is abysmal and that it is woefully inadequate. It has, if you like, ignored the reality. Even the free trade agreement has resulted in 165,000 jobs being abandoned in this country on a permanent basis.
Then there is leadership, and that is what it is all about. The Prime Minister of Canada is attempting to present leadership to our country at a difficult time. When one looks at how people feel about the leadership that this Prime Minister provides, when one looks to see what the vision is of this particular Prime Minister, and when one considers the people's trust and confidence in this Prime Minister, I am afraid to say that the poll results this morning state that 99 per cent of Canadians have lost faith in this Prime Minister. Only 1 per cent of Canadians had the courage to say that they thought the Prime Minister was doing a good job when it came to leadership. That 1 per cent is probably a statistical error. I would suspect, in reality, that 100 per cent would say that this Prime Minister has no vision of the future and, as a result, he has been conducting a process of dismantling our country.
We have heard the Prime Minister say as he travels about the country in an attempt to carry on a propaganda message that, indeed, he is trying to make good, tough decisions. He claims that his government has made tough and hard decisions. Tough and hard decisions do

Government Orders
not necessarily mean good decisions. They are wrongheaded decisions. As a result, winds of despair, disillusionment, and discontent are blowing across the land.
I believe that if we ask Canadians how they really feel, they would feel that our Prime Minister is destroying our country. He certainly is discrediting our country in terms of the traditional international reputation we have had as peacekeepers, certainly dismantling those critical institutions that made Canada different. We have seen it as a result of the privatization rampage, the deregulation paranoia that the Prime Minister and his government has imposed upon the people of Canada in an effort to dismantle what makes Canada great.
I want to simply say that those pessimistic about the future which now the newspapers tell us on a daily basis include investors, industrialists, large and small business people, consumers, right across the country. It does not matter where you look now-east and west, north and south, men and women, young people, old people-they all have lost confidence in this government.
In closing, I want to say that we could go on with a long, long list, unfortunately, pointing out how the Prime Minister and this government have failed Canada at this very critical point in our history.
I will leave that to others because it is so woefully evident. It is so obvious. It is so well known. I simply want to say that I think that it is appropriate now that the Conservative backbenchers particularly listen to their constituents, do what their constituents want them to do and ask the Prime Minister to resign, call an election and go to the people.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect upon some comments that my colleague and my friend from Kamloops has made. He has made some very good points in terms of the loss of faith and a loss of trust that Canadians across this land from Victoria to St. John's have demonstrated in this government.
I want to tell you a little bit of a story because when my colleague for Kamloops and I were busy way back just prior to two years ago today, during the heat of the election campaign, we were working together during part of that campaign. We tried as candidates at that time to raise the issue with our constituents in the Okanagan- Shuswap and throughout Kamloops that this government was intending to bring down one of the most massive tax grabs in the history of this country. We spent quite a bit of time trying to raise this as a major issue in that election.
When the government replied to those accusations, it said: "What tax? I don't see a tax. Do you see a tax?" Lea and behold after the election was done and over with, and after the free trade debacle was finished, along comes the GST.
My colleague for Kamloops has reiterated the point precisely. It is this duplicity that this government has with respect to its hidden agenda and the duplicitous nature with which it treats Canadians. No wonder he Prime Minister's popularity is lower than that of Mr. Ceaucescu's, and look at what happened to him.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: The comment has often been made in this House that there are no alternatives to the goods and services tax. I want to ask my colleague for Kamloops, with his knowledge of finance and matters financial, whether or not there have been alternatives proposed to this government over the past year with respect to alternatives to the goods and services tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to thank my parliamentary colleague for his thoughtful question and simply say that I do remember during the election campaign asking my Conservative colleague in that election, Russ Cundari, in meeting after meeting if he wanted to say anything about the government's plan to introduce a consumption tax. Don Blenkam, the chairman of the finance committee, at least had the courage in Toronto to say that that was what the government's plans were. Immediately the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance jumped on him and said that he did not know what he was talking about and that that was wrong.
I do not remember this being a major issue during the campaign. That is why when the government says it has a mandate from the people of Canada to impose this mean, cruel, brutal tax, that is absolutely false.
Let me, however, respond to the question. The question was: Are there alternatives? I think to be fair, that is where we differ from our friends in the Liberal Party. They are going to set up a committee to examine alternatives to the goods and services tax and to various aspects of tax reform. I think that is their position. We do have an alternative. We have presented it publicly. We

have it as a public document. We have laid out a whole set of elements.
Let me indicate simply one of the critical ones. That is we have tom a page out of President Reagan's book when he introduced in the United States a minimum corporate tax. He noticed, as we do in Canada, that thousands-as a matter of fact the last count in Canada was 69,000 probable corporations-do not pay a single cent in income tax. The American administration said that this was wrong. We are saying this is wrong, and we are saying that we should introduce a minimum corporate tax in this country so that those 69,000 profitable companies pay their fair share.
I think it is wrong, as do all Canadians, when the teller in the Royal Bank pays more income tax in some years than the entire Royal Bank of Canada. We say that is a wrong tax system.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Just a few words to explain exactly what is going on. The NDP leader asked that the 20-minute period be shared by two speakers, and I was under the impression that the period of questions and comments would follow the two speeches. I apologize, for I should have recognized a member on the other side, but I will make up for it after the next speech. The hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby now has the floor for ten minutes.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, today it is two years since I was first elected, and it is the second anniversary of the re-election of this government on the other side. The motion that we have before us today only confirms what the Canadian people are saying: that it is time that this government stepped down. It is time that this Prime Minister stepped down and that we had an election in this country. That is what Canadians from coast to coast are asking.
On the second anniversary of the re-election of this government, I would like to take a look at its record for women in this country. This government has been an absolute disaster for the women of Canada. After making countless promises during the last election campaign on where it stood on equality for women in
Government Orders
Canada, it has done nothing. It has done worse than nothing, Mr. Speaker. It has taken the women of Canada backward.
This government has been an absolute disaster for the women of Canada. Never mind the fact that, as the House leader for the New Democrats said, it cares nothing about public opinion; as evidenced by its introduction of a criminal abortion law which violates the values of the majority of the Canadian people.
After three years with no criminal law on abortion, this government puts it back in the Criminal Code. After three years in which there has been no evidence of an increase in the number of abortions in this country; after three years in which Canadian women have proven themselves to be people of integrity and have proven themselves to be people who can be trusted, this government puts abortion back in the Criminal Code.
Never mind the big promises of the Prime Minister, one of which I will quote from the election campaign. The Prime Minister said that a "Conservative government will not be inhibited by dollar amounts" when it comes to supporting equality-seeking endeavours. This government has not only broken that promise, Mr. Speaker, it shattered the "sacred trust"-words of the Prime Minister-of 52 per cent of the Canadian electorate: the women of Canada.
In the last budget alone, the finance minister proclaimed cuts to women's programs and to women's groups, a $1.6 million cut from the Secretary of State Women's Program; cuts to child care, a $1.75 million cut from Health and Welfare's Child Care Initiative Fund.
By the way, where is that national child care program we keep hearing about? Where is that national child care program we heard about in the 1984 election campaign, the national child care program which we heard about again in the 1988 election campaign? Where is that for the children of this country? Where is the $6.4 billion that was promised over and over again?
Not only that money has disappeared, so has the Prime Minister's credibility disappeared. Salt is being rubbed into the wounds of women through additional cuts to the Canada Assistance Program in Ontario, in Alberta, and in my province of British Columbia. It is important to understand that the Canada Assistance Plan is the current federal-provincial funding mechanism for shelters for battered women. It is also the current funding formula for child care spaces in our country, and this

Government Orders
government has pulled back on that funding in those three provinces. I want to say that children in B.C., Ontario, and Alberta need child care just as much as any child in this country, and that the women in those provinces who are battered and abused need shelters just as badly as the women in other parts of this country.
Then there are cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, and cuts to health and education, all of which spell disaster for women since they are more likely to be poor and in need of services like health care. To make matters worse, the majority of health care workers are women. They are the first to be laid off. They are the most vulnerable salary cutbacks.
We can't forget either-as if we could forget-the misnamed goods and services tax and its impact on women. It is a tax that is no good and does no service for the women of this country. The GST will work against women, who earn on average 64 per cent of what men in this country earn. Women will spend more of their disposable income on the GST than will men because they have a lower disposable income and because the GST is regressive, taxing consumption rather than income.
A single mom with two kids will consequently fork over the same amount of money at the cash register when she buys shoes for her child as the Prime Minister or any of the ministers on that side of the House will. What more could this government do, I wonder, to continue trying to keep women in their place? Well, how about letting unemployment among women jump dramatically in the last month. With one wave of the Tory wand, we have seen 41,000 full-time jobs once held by women vanish into thin air. But the cabinet magicians have been crying since last spring that Canadian women understand the cuts when put "in the context of government-wide expenditure restraints". Why does this government feel that it can impose cutbacks on the people in Canada who are least able to take them? Why are they always on the backs of the poor and of the women of this country?
Canadian women want to know why this restraint, this cost-cutting magic, was not evident in the $17 million loan to strip clubs in Canada, in the $33 million increase in the budget of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service, in the $1.5 million spent on Senate committee room renovations, in the $14 million squandered to advertise a tax that no one in this country wants, in the $2 million thrown into Canada Day romp and pomp festivities, or in the uncalculated amount of money now being spent to prepare Canadians for war and death in the Persian Gulf.
On top of all that, I have been receiving angry calls and letters detailing the government's ignorance and incompetence when it comes to dealing with women. Individual women from Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver, and groups from Nova Scotia and Winnipeg, have taken great pains to outline the inherent contradictions in eligibility requirements for programs, services and grants.
All of these women and organizations have reached the same conclusion, that this government takes credit for changes which serve only to improve its public profile, and that this government has avoided fulfilling promises by making its proposals too expensive for its principles. This is a sad thing, since its principles for women were never worth much to begin with. Clearly, the women of Canada have lost confidence in this Prime Minister's rag-tag team. Those members of the House with female constituents should therefore support the motion and withdraw their confidence in this government and Prime Minister.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am veiy proud this afternoon to speak about the leadership of our government and, particularly, of our Prime Minister.
I wanted to comment particularly and then ask a question of the hon. member from New Westminster on her comments about Canadian women, which are clearly and totally NDP philosophically based and have no resemblance to any reality whatsoever.
Since this government came to office we have made considerable progress on behalf of the women of this country. Our Prime Minister would be the first to say that there is a lot more left to do, because he is so
November 21, 1990

committed to the future of women in Canada. Let me just point, first of all, to the number of women that he has put into leadership positions all across Canada and in every aspect, including in this House, including in this cabinet, including on the bench, including in diplomatic posts.
Let me talk about the $40 million commitment that this government has made to family violence, at the instigation of of the government but particularly under the leadership of the Prime Minister. Let me speak briefly about the commitment to that child care initiative that she was talking about, which was initiated by this government, women who are in minorities, aboriginal women, people who do not fit the moulds, because we have a sensitivity to that.
Let me talk about the Settlement Language Training Program, the first time that a government has come forward to help immigrant women, who are isolated in the home, learn the language and orient themselves to their new country. Let me talk about job training for social assistance recipients, many of whom are women. It was initiated by this government under the Canadian Jobs Strategy and did not exist before. Let me talk about the expansion of job training under the new labour force development strategy, something that never happened for women before in this country.
I think the hon. member should be ashamed of herself when she is talking about the kinds of things that are so important to all Canadian women. Let me point out to her as well that this government would not be doing Canadian women any favours if we allowed the deficit to go through the roof yet again, the way the former government did. Who got hurt first during the recession the last time when interest rates were well up into the 20 per cent range? It was women who got hurt. It is this government and this Prime Minister who have taken leadership in trying to ensure that we do not get into that kind of fiasco in this country again.
It is this government that has ensured, in trying to correct the manufacturers' sales tax the silent killer of jobs in the manufacturing sector that the NDP declares as its constituency that the new system will be sensitive to the poor in this country, who will have the tax, rebated to them.
Government Orders
The hon. member talks on and on. She talks up a good storm, but she does not pay any attention to the facts. I am very proud-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby has one minute.


Dawn Black: I am disappointed that the minister was not able to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. She went on to talk about how the Prime Minister has appointed women to positions. It is true that he has appointed more women to high positions in Canada, but let us talk about the promises that have been made, the hollow promises. What about violence against women? Women are still being abused.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Forty million dollars, is that a joke?


Dawn Black: What about the promises to bring in gun control legislation that this government is now dithering about? Women have gone backward under this government. The wage gap has actually broadened in the last year. Promises on employment equity are unfulfilled; promises on child care are unfulfilled. The promises on tax reform have resulted in tax deform for the women of this country.
The Prime Minister and this government have failed the women of Canada. They have failed them miserably. The minister knows that full well. In her own ministry, there is still discrimination in language training for immigrant women. There have been countless jobs for women lost because of this government's free trade agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the parliamentary leader that he can do like most of his colleagues who are not in the House-go for a walk.
Mr. Speaker, what I just heard was rather pathetic. Can you imagine, an opposition party whose leader claims to be the most popular leader in Canada. Twenty-four Sussex is not very far, here comes Audrey! And here they are with this kind of motion when Canadians have so many problems and poor people are really feeling the pinch. But the socialists-what with their nice ties, beautiful dresses and pretty necklaces-choose to intro-

Government Orders
duce a motion to the effect that the Prime Minister, having lost the confidence of the House, should resign and immediately call an election.

The cry among political jackals of course is for an election. I see this motion as a tribute to the Prime Minister because these people behave sometimes as if they do not have much in there; they are not that stupid.


Mr. Gustafson:: Don't give them too much credit.


Bernard Valcourt: We must give them credit because today, they have been out in the country terrorizing people, lying to people again like they did during the free trade debate, to which the hon. member for Kamloops referred. They did that on the GST. The people out there are frightened. They think, the socialistes en cravates, the NDPers, that this time, with this perceived misfortune of the Prime Minister, maybe they can bank on it and maybe the people will vote against him this time.
Today is the second anniversary of the election of this government. Those socialistes en cravates, the NDPers who are so fond of the taxpayer's money which we have to save, want to call an election. Do you know why? Because if we have it right now, the perceived unpopularity of the Prime Minister would maybe give them a chance.
I have news for them. They count on the ignorance of people. They exploit the ignorance of people. They go out and lie to the people. They do that day after day after day, and they never learn. There is something about Canadians that these people do not seem to realize. It is that there is a profound wisdom in Canada. Canadians have a profound wisdom. It is a wisdom that always seems-


Mr. Samson:: Call an election. You will find out how smart they are.


Bernard Valcourt: Shut up and let me talk.

There is a profound wisdom, as I was saying, about Canadians. It seems they always settle down when the time comes to choose their leader. Canadians do that.
The NDPers have nothing better to do than to ask for an election and for the Prime Minister to resign. The Prime Minister will not resign, I am sure, because he is not a weakling socialist. He is a man with a vision for Canada. He is a man with courage, and he is a man who believes in Canadians. The Prime Minister believes in Canada. The Prime Minister believes in Canadian people, contrary to those people.

Mr. Speaker, those people have absolutely no confidence in Canadians.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: That's your government they don't trust.


Bernard Valcourt: They are the same people who, during the election campaign of 1988 on free trade, were travelling around Canada trying to convince people that our poor senior citizens would lose their pensions because of free trade.


An hon. member:: That's terrible!


Bernard Valcourt: They went all around Canada saying that and today, they use the same kind of strategy on the Goods and Services Thx, the GST.

Isn't that terrible? I think we made a mistake, and I will admit to it. We should have done it the Liberal and the NDP way. We should have gone out and told Canadians to listen. For Canadians to understand the GST, we should have first gone out and told the people that Allan MacEachen was wrong when he was the Minister of Finance. They would say: "What? Mr. MacEachen was wrong? It is impossible, Senator MacEachen being wrong." After all, this is the Minister of Finance who came into this House and said that Canada would have a deficit of $11 billion. Some 12 months later that deficit was at $23 billion. At that time Allan MacEachen was standing in the House and commenting on the manufacturers' sales tax. He said it was awful, that it was bad, that it was bad for Canadian industry. Mr. MacEachen said it. I did not. We would say to people that Allan was wrong. "The manufacturers' sales tax is great", say those socialistes en cravate, those socialists in neckties. Do you know what they are protecting? It is the manufacturers' sales tax. Canadians must know this. Do you know what they are defending? It is a tax regime that has and is killing many jobs in this country.
November 21, 1990


Shirley Maheu: Spit it out, Bemie.


Bernard Valcourt: Whenever the lady who is yelling over there buys a tube of lipstick, if she wears lipstick, there is no federal sales tax on it. Is there? Is there a federal sales tax on lipstick? Ifell me. I don't wear any. I am going to tell her one thing, that when she and all ladies of Canada buy lipstick they pay 22 cents for the hidden manufacturers' sales tax. It goes right to the federal government to pay great members of Parliament on both sides of the House and to finance Canada. This tax is hidden.
There are 22,000 exceptions to this tax. This tax is confusing and stupid. Do you know what members of the Liberal Party are protecting? It is protecting des bananes vertes. Under that system a green banana is not taxable, but if it turns yellow it is. That is what they are protecting, and they laugh. It is not funny. It is the truth. That is why we want to change the tax system we have today:

Green bananas, yellow bananas.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think these people will be able to go on assuming Canadians are as stupid as they would like them to be and believe them to be, because these people are not stupid. You know, Prime Minister Mulro-ney is someone, and I said this before, who had a vision of this country. He had firm convictions. And today-


An hon. member:: He has guts.


Bernard Valcourt: Yes, he has guts, and many Canadians are like him, because you see, I don't think Canada was built thanks to 20 years under their government. They talk about polls. They like talking about polls. The Liberals and the tie-wearing socialists keep mentioning the polls. If we wanted to govern by polls, we would probably be very high in the ratings, up there next to Audrey, but the country would be bankrupt, because for 20 years, we were governed- I am not that old, but I belong to a generation of Canadians who learned something from the previous Liberal government. It doesn't matter what you earn during your life. It doesn't matter what you earn in a week. What matters is that you can go and borrow money and don't have to worry about paying it back. Your children will do that for you.
Government Orders


An hon. member:: That's true.


Bernard Valcourt: It was demonstrated by our Liberal predecessors.

Tbday the hon. member for Kamloops rose on this motion, and I made a few notes on what he said. It was horrible, but he said those things. He talked about the most unpopular. He talked about losing faith. He talked about free trade. He talked about debt and deficits.
This new breed of politicians, those socialistes en cravate, the great NDPers, those sanctimonious about everything, how can they stand in this House and talk to Canadians as did the member for Kamloops who blamed the government for not cutting the deficit? Then the member from Westminster stood and told Canadians that it was awful we had cut transfer payments to provinces, we had cut Canadians plans and that we had cut this and that. What the hell do they take Canadians for? Stupid? I do not think they are. That is why they would like an election tomorrow morning because-

-they spread a climate of fear in this country. [English]
But again they miss it. Canadians are not stupid and they will see it when the election comes.
I remember two years ago to this very day the socialistes en cravate and the Grits had been out for two months telling all sorts of lies to Canadians. They said that the hospitals were going to close, the kids were going to be drafted by the U.S. Army, it was going to be terrible. Nothing like that happened because it was straight lies.
In the next election, the one that you will wish today that you never called for, you will get it. And when you get it, the people, Canadians, men and women, working people, will look at the record. They will look at the GST. They talk about the GST as if it was to harm Canadians. They want Canadians from coast to coast to believe that.
My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my caucus colleagues and the cabinet, sit for hours every day trying to find out how we can harm Canadians. According to these people, that is the goal of the government. How can we harm Canadians? This is what we want, obviously, according to them. But I do not

Government Orders
think that Canadians believe that. They have seen tough times.
I have learned something in my short years in politics and in Parliament, Mr. Speaker. There is a fundamental rule in government. If the solution is easy, usually it is the wrong one. If it is a difficult decision, then you need courage, and that is probably the right one. Most of the time it works. These people on the other side, they like the easy stuff.


An hon. member:: No courage.


Bernard Valcourt: Of course, because they do not have any courage. We have just experienced 20 years of that. They took a country without a debt and in 15 years drove the debt to $200 billion. Now, they have the gall-and the NDP too, the member from Kamloops-to say that we have not reduced the deficit since 1984. What they do not tell Canadians, however, is that 80 per cent of the increase in the debt was money we had to borrow to pay the interest on the debt that we inherited from Allan MacEachen and company.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Bernard Valcourt: That is the exact truth. They talk about the deficit. They have the gall to stand up in this House and talk about not reducing the deficit. Canadians would want to understand this. People pay too much tax. I agree with that. We all pay too much tax. But, then, that money that we receive-


Mr. Fisher:: Stop treating them like that.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am sure they will have a chance. But that is part of the Liberal strategy too. They do not want the people to know. So when you speak in the House they try to interrupt you. Is that not terrible? Well, if what I am saying is not true, then let me speak, let me have my few minutes and then take your time when you have a chance.
Now, what was I saying about the deficit? Yes, the revenue. The taxes the people send here. All the taxes that Canadians pay, and they pay a lot, that money comes here. Before we came here all the money that Canadians paid would come in and then the government, the great Liberal government, would spend all that money of Canadian men and women, of working people, and they would borrow $16 billion more to do all the things that these people, the socialistes en cravate forced them to do. You see, to be popular, you have to throw money at all
the problems. Tb be popular, you have to do what the Liberals did for 16 years. You have a problem. I have no solution. But, I will throw money at it. That is how they governed Canada.
It took us six years to take that $16 billion deficit in our ordinary account and turn it into a $9 billion surplus. That is a $25 billion turnaround. That is not in the polls to which the member for Kamloops referred. The polls and the media in their grandeur would not report these facts. These are real facts. Canadians have saved money in terms of the way it is being administered.
Now it is fair for those people to say, "Well, you say now, Valcourt, that you have a $9 billion surplus in the ordinary account, a $9 billion surplus, and you cut the poor, the women's programs. You cut this and you cut that". What they do not say to Canadians, the men and women who work and their children who are coming behind, is that we need $30 billion a year just to pay the interest on the debt that we have, the debt that the great Allan MacEachen gave us.


An hon. member:: Jean Chretien.


Bernard Valcourt: The Jean Chretien's of this world-you know the guy who is running in Beausejour? The leader of the Liberal Party.

The little guy from Shawinigan is running in New Brunswick, in Acadian country.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: He isn't here yet!


Bernard Valcourt: No, he isn't. But he is on his way. We want him here. He should be here.


An hon. member:: Maybe.


Bernard Valcourt: And that is what people are complaining about.
I remember, when Prime Minister Mulroney won the last election, I don't think he-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He bought that election.


Bernard Valcourt: They say he bought it. Listen to that, Canadians! That is what the Liberal Party thinks Canadians are like-and I want that to be on the record-Canadians are people whose votes can be bought! Well I don't think so, because I believe that Canadians are intelligent people. When faced with an easy solution,

taunted by the tie-wearing socialists and the Liberals, they may be inclined- but when they really think about it, they will always come down on the side of common sense.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am really optimistic about the future of this government.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Bernard Valcourt: And I am optimistic about the future of this country.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Bernard Valcourt: The member who referred to the Prime Minister of Canada in terms of being a Ceausescu, that was a new high at being low.


An hon. member:: That was the member for Okana-gan-Shuswap.


Bernard Valcourt: But that is the kind of politicians they are, les socialities en cravate.
The Prime Minister is the man determined to make Canada a great country. He is determined to provide the youth of Canada with a bright future. With the support of Canadians from coast to coast, and with members here today who will vote down that motion of the socialities en cravate-

- we are going to win and we will give Canadians the kind of country they need!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments, for 10 minutes. The hon. member for Ottawa South.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the fisheries minister.

He is obviously quite a supporter of the goods and services tax. I would like him, if he could just imagine with me, the scene that will ensue after this tax is implemented. He has noted that Canadians are intelligent enough to have pointed out that there are some real problems with the implementation of this proposed tax.
Government Orders
He can imagine this scene with me. He can choose any province in Canada but Alberta where there is no existing retail sales tax at the provincial level. We will go into a little comer store, maybe it is a 7-Eleven or a Mac's Milk or something, and we will choose some items off the shelves. We will take them to the checkout counter. You know what those stores are like. In my constituency, the check-out person is usually about 16 years old, first job, could be male or female, having a tough time with mathematics in high school. This is the job.
An hon. member. Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: That is a put-down.


John Paul Manley: Here is the test. This person brings in this product and says to the check-out person, "Here is what I want to buy." The check-out clerk has to figure out which of four categories this item is in. Is it taxable under the GST and taxable under the retail sales tax? Or is it exempt under the GST or zero rated but taxable under the retail sales tax? Or is it taxable under both the GST and the retail sales tax? Or is it exempt under both the GST and the retail sales tax? Which of those four categories does this item fit in?
That being figured out, the next job is to calculate the total price to be paid for the item. One takes the price, adds 7 per cent GST, then adds the retail sales tax, which in Ontario, for example, is 8 per cent, in order to come up with the total price. But the customer happens to have in his pocket a discount coupon that he collected out of his local newspaper. Now he has a problem. In some of the provinces the retail sales tax is calculated before the discount is taken off. In others it is calculated after the discount is taken off. With the GST it is after the discount is taken off. The clerk now has to calculate the price, minus the discount, plus the GST, then add the discount back because then the retail sales tax has to be calculated. Then the discount is taken off again at the end.
With our 16-year old high school student clerk in the store doing his or her first job, I would like to know what the minister advises that person to do. Does he advise the clerk to get a different job, perhaps in a bank? While he is answering that, perhaps he could explain why, if the manufacturers' sales tax is so bad, the government wanted to bring in this complicated system of tax. Why did the government raise the manufacturer's sales tax from 9 per cent, which it was when the government came

Government Orders
into office, to 13.5 per cent? Was it that it really was not that bad after all?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member something.
First, it is abundantly clear to me why this member would not be in business earning a living. If he pictures the real world as he just did, I could answer with the same rhetoric. If I thought that Canadians were as stupid as he does-
Mr. Gauthier You're too stupid. You can't answer the question.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: That is the Liberal way. Shut them up. Don't let them speak. It is the Liberal way.
I could answer back. The member says the first step is which category, one, two, three or four? Today it is much harder because one has to figure out at the cash counter which of the 22,000 exemptions may be applicable.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's nonsense.


Bernard Valcourt: It is as much nonsense as the nonsense that he is spouting today. Why would the chambers of commerce-are these people-

Mr. Speaker, they remind me -


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would appreciate the co-operation of both sides of the House, and I would ask the minister to finish answering the question. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, some people just don't understand, and that's a fact. Some people don't and won't understand. It's easy to try and fool people. The Liberals are past masters at that, and you are going to pay for it, because the kind of rhetoric Canadians are hearing today is the same as they heard in 1988, before the election campaign. During the campaign on free trade, they said this was going to be a terrible thing and that the sun would no longer rise! All I can say is that on January 1, people will realize that the poor-people with an income of less than $30,000-will go to the store and have a little more money in their pockets to pay for their groceries. It won't cost them as much. That is the answer to his question, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I had not imagined that our motion would precipitate such evident panic and hysteria.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: But there you have it. In panic he flees the room, the hon. minister of fisheries.
I just want to say this. Nobody on this side ever accused Canadians of being stupid or assumed that they were, not even the 15 per cent who support the government.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, you will recognize me as one of those tie-wearing New Democrats. We do not take the same position as leather-jacket-wearing motor cycle macho Conservatives who would drive over Canadians no matter what they may want.
I think the minister suffers a crude and uncomprehending understanding of the nature of this country. The Canadian people are angry. The Prime Minister said, and I come close to quoting him, that Canadians no longer trust politicians. He said the people believe that politicians no longer listen. It is clear that the politician about whom he was talking was himself. That was the politician who has refused to listen to the people.
My question to the minister of fisheries-which I suspect he will not answer because I do not see him there to answer the question-is why is it not possible for the government party to listen to Canadians and to make no assumptions about who is stupid and who is not. Even those whom he thinks are really stupid nevertheless have particular aspirations and wishes for their country and for themselves. I think that the thing that the government can do, and I would ask why his government does not do it, is to resign and allow the people of Canada, none of them stupid, to have a voice in their future. If that happens, I suspect that future will be in the hands of those of us on this side of the House who wear ties.


James Ross Fulton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to hear from you, Mr. Speaker, about the propriety of a minister who stood in the House and dished out filthy insults for 30 minutes and then left during the designated period for questions and answers.
November 21, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Once more, this is a matter of opinion and not a point of order.
Before recognizing the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond East, I would appreciate it if he would tell me whether his party has opted for one 20-minute speech or two 10-minute speeches.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find unanimous consent by all members of Parliament that I would be given the privilege of speaking perhaps for 60 minutes, as opposed to 20. I know the ministers opposite would like to hear my remarks.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking for the full allotment of 20 minutes and will then entertain questions thereafter.
I know the point of order raised by my colleague from the New Democratic Party was an opinion that was voiced by him singly, but I can assure him that members on this side of the House share the pith and substance of that comment as it relates to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has now departed the Chamber.
The 1990s and the century beyond are taking shape and Canada is falling behind. Today, more than ever, Canadians need a vision of what their country can become. Today Canadians expect of their political leaders, not only policies and programs, but an enabling vision that places issues and interest in a greater scheme of things and binds together the lives of individual citizens. They are demanding honest, ethical and law abiding leadership. To that end, the Prime Minister and his Conservative government have failed.
This government has broken faith with the Canadian people and it has gambled recklessly with the country's fate and its future.
Government Orders
The policies and practices of this government are policies that punish provinces and working people, deny education, destroy jobs, and diminish opportunities.
It is a government that presides over people who live on the edge of economic fear or who are experiencing the full and painful realization of those fears. Homeless families with young children are pulling heart strings in every town and city across this land. Men and women who have good jobs today are not sure they will be working tomorrow. Young couples are losing hope that they will ever have a home of their own in the foreseeable future.
The unemployed parent, the hungry child, the native Canadian living in poverty, a closed factory, the local food bank-these are all symbols of the cold heart of conservatism.
Rarely has a government in Canada been given such an historic opportunity to demonstrate vision and rarely has the government failed so badly.
Canadians are being penalized by high interest rates and punished by higher and higher taxes. The Prime Minister of this country and his government are Canada's worst dream come true.
Two years ago we debated at great length the contents of a free trade agreement. My colleagues on this side of the House, as well as Canadians across the country, have shared with one another the facts of the consummation of that agreement.
It was said in that agreement that free trade will help to improve Canada's trade performance. The evidence is contrary. Canada's merchandise trade deficit in October 1989 was the first since 1976. In 1989 Canada posted record deficits in trade, services, and investment income in the current account.
Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs? While 250,000 jobs were created in 1989, this is 100,000 jobs fewer than what was created in 1988.
It was said the free trade agreement will secure access for Canadian exports to the U.S. market. U.S. harassment of Canadian exports continues with various actions taken against Canadian exports of pork, fish, lobster, softwood lumber, yoghurt and ice cream, wheat, poultry, steel, sugar, limousines, raspberries, and heavy equipment.

Government Orders
The free trade agreement will allow, they said, the maintenance and enhancement of social programs and regional development programs for Canada and for Canadians. The evidence is the following.
Deep spending cuts were inflicted on the following budgets: the unemployment insurance program, $1.9 billion; regional development offices, a 25 per cent cut; child care, a promised $5.4 billion program was dropped; transfers to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education were further deindexed, $3 billion over five years; the clawback of old age pensions and family allowances began, a $500 million tax increase annually; and VIA Rail was gutted, $500 million over five years. It goes on.
The government, it said, in the free trade agreement will provide massive adjustment programs for Canadians who lose their jobs due to the free trade agreement. That was one of its corner-stones. Here is the evidence. Despite the de Grandpre Commission report which called for the government to commit another $200 million to training through the UI program, an additional $300 million to the skills shortage training program, and a special $3 billion retraining tax on business to fund job training, the Government of Canada cut its UI contribution by $1.9 billion, cut unemployment benefits for the unemployed, raised UI premiums for employees and employers, and no adjustment programs have been established to deal with the thousands of lay-offs occurring due to plant closures. That was the free trade agreement and that is the clear unequivocal evidence.
The Prime Minister, when it came to children in poverty, said the following in 1983 in his book. I think it should be on the record. The Prime Minister stated:
And then there is what I call the dimension of tenderness. It is that vital responsibility of government to demonstrate compassion for the needy and assistance for the disadvantaged, the equalization of opportunity for all, and elevated sense of social responsibility that must continue to find favour with every thoughtful Canadian. Of all the challenges of government, no cause is more noble, no obligation more sacred."
That was in 1983. We saw that statement again and again in subsequent throne speeches and in subsequent budgets of the Minister of Finance, but what of the evidence? The evidence is clear, unequivocal and accepted by all except members opposite. More than 1
million Canadian children live in poverty, up 120,000 since 1980, and over 60 per cent of children in single parent families are poor. The relative poverty rate of children in Canada is about 13.4 per cent. That is nearly twice as high as the 7.1 per cent rate in the United Kingdom and more than four times that in Sweden and west Germany.
Just the other day, there was an article in The Toronto Star about the poverty in the city of Montreal. It stated:
Statistics Canada calculates that one in four people on the Island of Montreal is living in poverty. In Metro Tbronto, by comparison, the figures is about one in eight. The face of poverty is not hard to find. It's virtually impossible to walk downtown without being asked repeatedly for money from panhandlers.
It is a very reputable report, Mr. Speaker, and it goes on:
An estimated 15,000 people are homeless, 4,000 of whom sleep on the street each night while the rest find temporary shelter with friends or relatives.
Yes, we heard, we saw, and we listened to the commitment in terms of the Prime Minister and children on poverty. The evidence is clear. There is no national child care program.
What has it done with regard to old age security in terms of the clawback, the cutting of VIA Rail, and of course the unemployment rate which has ravished high in many regions of the country, including my own constituency.
Perhaps the most telling example of the hypocrisy and the lack of actions by the government opposite comes from a lady who wrote a book called Women and Children Last. I want to quote it for you, Mr. Speaker:
A social worker at the Izaak Walton Killam Children's Hospital has seen single mothers bringing their babies into the emergency room with diarrhea and vomiting. They tell the doctors who examine their babies they they have been feeding them diluted whole milk or Similac diluted at twice the normal amount. Their welfare cheques were insufficient to permit them to buy Similac, which is much more costly than milk, or to buy enough of it. A month's supply of Similac costs around $60. These mothers are not aware that their efforts to stretch an inadequate income have led to their babies' illnesses. "They just blanch at the thought of having to give the proper amount of Similac because of the cost."
Is there any clear evidence that the foregoing words opposite mean absolutely nothing to millions of Canadians across the country when the evidence is before us all, documented and known by the agencies that service these people?
November 21, 1990

What better evidence do we have today than the Canadian economy? Interest rates at an alarming rate are causing havoc among small and medium-sized businesses. The dollar is very high, affecting our exports to countries abroad. Inflation is creeping up at a quickened pace and, yes, there is high unemployment in the poorer regions of the country.
This is only to find that a government committed to an agenda of the Prime Minister will turn around and attempt to implement the provisions of the GST, the goods and services tax.
After two years since the last election and the four before that for a total of six, there is much to be said, but the unity of our country is in real danger. There are reasons for that, clear unequivocal reasons. The Prime Minister, in his macho way, has driven Canadians to the brink. I refer to the free trade debate. We were told one thing and now the opposite has occurred. We saw clear evidence where big business in co-operation with government of the day bought the election in 1988. There is clear evidence of that.
We had Meech Lake. I am not commenting on the substance of Meech Lake, but I am commenting on the process. Canadians were disgusted with the Prime Minister who rolled the dice, and Canada as a sovereign nation has felt the effects of that blow ever since.


An hon. member:: We're the losers.


David Charles Dingwall: What about the Oka situation, when a Prime Minister of this country neglects, because of lack of caring, sends in the army without having a full and complete debate on the floor of the House of Commons?
Of course, another example which was so vivid for many of us was the Persian Gulf situation. On November 11, I had a rare opportunity to visit with one of the Legions in my constituency. The guest speaker was a gentleman who lost two brothers in the Second World War and another in the Korean War. He said: "I was only a child when that occurred and I could not understand or appreciate the anguish of my parents. But as of August this year, I now know what that anguish was all about, because my eldest son has now gone to the Persian Gulf". We were denied by the Prime Minister and the Conservative majority opposite of debating that decision on the floor of the House of Commons.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Shame.


David Charles Dingwall: Parliament was not recalled. If that is not Rambo, macho tactics by a Conservative government, I do not know what is. The answers to the unity questions of this country, and I say this sincerely, I regret to say will now not be found in the appointment of a bumbling, eccentric bureaucrat and his citizens' forum. It will not be. We have clear evidence which would lead any reasonable individual to concur with my conclusion.
When historians come to look at the tail end of the century that Laurier said would belong to Canada, they are likely to be struck by the extent of the damage done to the social fabric and political institutions of the country by this government.
The Prime Minister has broken faith with the Canadian people and Canadians have lost hope and faith in themselves. It is a government that fudged the truth about free trade, trains, taxes, family allowances and old age pensions. It is a government that rolled the dice; a government that gambled recklessly on the country's political future.
My leader, the Hon. Jean Chretien, and the Liberal Party are committed to a better government with a vision of a fair, just and a compassionate nation.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: Our goals include the breaking of the poverty barrier for one million Canadian families; putting a decent child care system in place; providing every young Canadian with adequate training for a job; developing a fairer immigration policy; ensuring our farmers and our fishermen stay in business; building new homes for medium and low income families; transforming our industries to make them competitive in the new age of technology; guaranteeing our growing senior citizens population decent, healthful lives; and keeping Canada and Canadians together.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that Canadians are not stupid. I concur with that. Canadians are not stupid. That is why, today, they are at 15 per cent in the polls in some regions of this country and that is why in some regions of the country, they are much lower because they know that when it comes to children and poverty, free trade, the Canadian economy and the unity of this country, they may mouth the rhetorical expressions of individuals who believe in a strong and united Canada, but their actions are completely opposite. They

November 21, 1990
Government Orders
have failed the Canadian people. They have failed this institution. They lack the moral authority to govern.
I concur on behalf of my party and its members with the motion put forward by the House leader of the New Democratic Party today in this Chamber. We would invite at the first possible opportunity an election in this country to debate the record of this government. If they are so confident of their case, allow them to take their case to the highest court in the land, and the highest court in the land is the people of this country.
I say to this Prime Minister and to those Conservative members opposite, put your money where your mouth is, let's go to the polls and let the people decide.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke talked about hypocrisy and lack of action. Frankly, I have rarely heard such a speech that was laden with so much of it.
I would like to ask him a question and I would like to focus this way, because he is suggesting there should be an election. I would say to him that at a proper time there will be and perhaps at that time his party would be willing to unveil just what their alternative would be if they were so fortunate as to win the election, which I doubt will happen.
In 1937 the Liberals appointed a royal commission, the Rowell-Sirois commission. It reported in 1940, criticizing the pyramiding resulting from the imposition of the existing manufacturers' sales tax and called for change.
In 1955, the Liberal government of the day appointed a sales tax committee to study the commodity taxes. In 1956, again it appointed another committee. A later government in 1962 appointed a royal commission to inquire into and report upon the incidents and effects of taxation and to recommend improvements. In 1966, it reported, and said that there should be an alternative to the existing federal sales tax. I quote from Hansard of 1974 as follows:
Also, the reduction of sales tax on building materials should remind us that when the legislation covering reform of the personal and corporate income tax became law two years ago, it was stated that the next stage of tax reform would deal with federal sales and
excise taxes. Nothing has been heard about the status of that review since then, and I suggest it is time we had a report on what is happening with it. The fact is, however, that a major change was made on what is essentially an ad hoc basis, in our sales tax system in the current budget. This is a strong argument for the completion of this review and the publication by the government of proposals for public discussion.
That was the hon. member for Windsor West in 1974. Finally, in 1975, as part of the federal budget, the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Timer at the time, introduced a discussion paper. That discussion paper had a good deal to say about value added taxes. I will not read it all here now. It talked about value added taxes and what should be done with the existing federal sales tax.
In June 1977 the federal government directed that further study was in order. It appointed the commodity tax review group, an assortment of selected bureaucrats in the Departments of National Revenue and Finance.
The Liberals have paid for royal commissions, bureaucratic reports and public study into the flaws of the tax for 50 years. These studies repeatedly recommended changes, but no action. Finally, in 1982, the government was going to do something. Price-Waterhouse excitedly reported that the long awaited changes to the federal tax system as well as some changes in excise taxes were announced by then Finance Minister Allan MacEachen in his budget. Then Finance Minister MacEachen, of course, we know where he is now.
My question to the member is when will he and his party tell us just what exactly they would suggest if there was an election?


An hon. member:: Gas at 18 cents a gallon. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Standing Orders provide for 10 minutes of questions and comments. Today, I noticed that the Conservative members in particular are taking up the entire 10-minute period, so there is no time to answer questions. Could we ask the hon. member what his question is so that we can answer it?

15549 '


An hon. member:: Exactly!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question was just asked. The Opposition Whip.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to respond to that tirade of information as put forward by the hon. member, but no amount of rhetorical comments or references to documentations about previous committees, standing committees, or previous governments which may have looked at tax reform will be able to convince members on this side of the House, but more important, Canadians, that the GST is a good tax. We believe it is a bad tax and we should not proceed with it. That is why the Liberal Party of Canada in the Senate and in the House of Commons is opposed to the goods and services tax.
Specifically with regard to the hon. member's question, it was he and the Prime Minister who talked about the great reconciliation of federal and provincial governments. They cannot even get their Tory cousins to support the GST, Mr. Speaker. What nonsense, what hypocrisy by the hon. member opposite. He should know better than to stand in his place and ask such a ridiculous, ill-founded, illogical, stupid question.


Marlene Catterall: Hear, hear.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very simple short question.
I wonder if the hon. member would also include in his comment the former Liberal finance committee critic. Would he also consider him a bumbling eccentric?
Also, would the hon. member advise the House if, in his view and in his own words, Mr. Keith Spicer was in fact a bumbling, eccentric bureaucrat when the Liberal government appointed him language commissioner?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last question which was raised by the hon. member I think the answer, I regret to say, will now not be found in the appointment of a bumbling eccentric bureaucrat in his citizens' forum. I stand by that, Mr. Speaker.
We have had all sorts of evidence. We do not know where the citizens' forum is going. We hear one day they are not going to go into Quebec, then they may go into Quebec. We may have northerners. We may not have
Government Orders
northerners. We do not know the terms of reference, the terms of reference are changed. That is what I have said, Mr. Speaker, and I stand by that statement.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my friend's comments. I would ask him to comment on the problems facing a community like mine in Surrey where in the last several weeks the unemployment rate has gone up so that we have a thousand new claimants a week, where the number of people using the food bank has gone up by 200 families a month since August. There are now 5,000 families in Surrey dependent on the food bank-2,000 children dependent on the food bank-where the school board is being forced to look at feeding hungry children. People came to me over the weekend and said: "I have been laid off. I have worked at the same wood industry company for 15 years and I am going to lose my home".


Mr. MacDougall:: That's the environmentalists, my friend.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Why say environmentalists? You can depend on this: It is your free trade deal, your high interest rates, and your high dollar that is driving the lumber industry out of business in British Columbia. The lumber industry is being driven out of business because of the Tory economic policies.
Mothers came and said to me: "My rent has gone from $600 a month to $900 a month and I do not have enough money left to feed my children". Their only comment was: "What are we going to do? How are we going to survive this Tory recession?"
It feels the same as the recession brought on by the Liberals in 1981-1982.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the former part of the hon. member's question. I thought he was going to go on and talk about the various job losses which have resulted from the free trade agreement. For his information and that of members of the House, I thought he was going to talk about Gillette in Montreal which closed and there were 590 jobs lost. There was Germain, in Lachine, Quebec, where 50 jobs were lost; Pittsburgh Paint in Toronto, 139 jobs were lost; Weston Foods in Longueuil, Quebec, 360 jobs were lost; and Northern Telecom, in Aylmer, Quebec, 680 jobs were lost.

Government Orders
I am sure the hon. member has not checked with his colleague from the province of Quebec. We do not know where he stands on any of the issues. Let the hon. member be very clear in his own mind that the free trade agreement has not only caused great problems for the people of British Columbia, but it has caused great problems for all Canadians, including parts of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, as well as the province of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. It is now the New Democratic Party's turn. Its members have agreed to split their 20 minutes in two 10-minute speeches.

I recognize the hon. member for Skeena for 10 minutes.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate. The non-confidence motion in the Prime Minister and the government says:
That this House express its loss of confidence in the Prime
Minister-
It is quite clear from what we heard in terms of the lead speech on the government side by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, if he is the heaviest hitter out of the largest cabinet in Canadian history and if that was the speech that Canadians are to read and listen to as to why that Prime Minister and that party should be supported and stay in government, it is just not possible. The buffoonery and the insults that were tossed around this House by the minister of fisheries indicates that even in cabinet there is no longer any confidence in the Prime Minister. I am sure that when the Prime Minister reads that speech he will be somewhat less than amused to see that is what the cabinet decided to do and to put up in terms of support for him.
This is the same Prime Minister whose entire legacy from his years in the private sector, particularly with Iron Ore, was to leave Schefferville a ghost town. That seems to be the growing legacy that my colleagues have touched on here today: growing unemployment, growing bankruptcies, growing losses in the manufacturing sector, and growing losses in the fisheries sector. A thousand farmers who lost their farms in the first six months of this year in Saskatchewan alone. Whether it is the free trade agreement, how he and his cabinet have handled GATT matters, the high dollar, the rising interest rates or the real concerns of the people of this country, the Prime Minister is pursuing a pathetic policy and vision.
I would like to spend sometime on the environment. This is a government, clearly from its record, that puts economic considerations ahead of the environment. It puts political considerations ahead of the environment and always puts profit considerations ahead of the environment. This is leading to the accelerated destruction of Canada's nature and well-being and the hope and vision of young people about this marvellous part of the globe.
Despite the Prime Minister's endorsation of the Brundtland report at the United Nations itself and his own back-patting and back-patting of his colleagues under the pretence of implementing sustainable development, I think one will find from my remarks that I can put all of that to a lie, to use the minister of fisheries, language.
The Prime Minister and the Tory party have proven to be true believers in the philosophy that the environment is free and that resource exploitation is unlimited. They have failed to understand that it is no longer the limits to growth; it is now the growth of limits world-wide. Tragically Canada's environment has been substantially damaged by decisions which pay only lip service to the true cost accounting of projects large and small.
In the Atlantic part of Canada the fisheries resource has been overexploited, not by the inshore fishermen, not by those from Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, or even those few from Prince Edward Island and the province of Quebec. What has happened is that irresponsible political and management decisions have tossed thousands of fishermen and shore workers out of work.
On the B.C. coast-it is too bad the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans chose to leave before Question Period was over-there have been forced closures in terms of prawn, shrimp, crab, abalone, clams, and now several species of not only ground fish but anadromous species due to both pollution and mismanagement.
November 21, 1990

Hibernia has been approved without any serious environmental assessment, a project that poses a severe risk to the existing Atlantic fishery, a project with $2.7 billion in federal support to subsidize the delivery of oil not to Canadians but solely to the United States. Not a drop of that oil will go to Newfoundland. Not a drop of that oil will ever see the inside of a consumer's home or vehicle in this country.
The forests of every maritime province and in fact of every province in this country are in crisis from overcutting, inadequate replanting, and inadequate protection. The government and the Minister of State for Forestry produced the document that they love to hand around in British Columbia, across the prairies, throughout Ontario and in maritime Canada called Green Ghetto, attacking the Liberals for spending less than 10 cents out of every dollar in revenue from Canada's largest industry and largest employer and putting it back into the forests. The Minister of State for Forestry should be ashamed. They are now spending less than the Liberals did. They are spending less than 10 cents out of every dollar raised.
This is the government that is now spending more capital on forest projects outside Canada than inside Canada. That is an interesting form of largesse for the largest wood exporter in the world, the country that has 10 per cent of the world's forests. It is an interesting figure to keep in mind.
In the province of Quebec with only 1 per cent protected lands, the lowest percentage of protected lands of any zone, region, province, or territory in Canada, this government is indirectly supporting the James Bay II project without a full environmental assessment, a $24 billion project. They have waited for two years while an assessment could have been going on, bickering back and forth with the province of Quebec about terms of reference for environmental assessment. Now we see there is only going to be an initial environmental evaluation of the infrastructure, of the roads and the airports.
As I said in the House yesterday, these could be roads which go nowhere or they could be airports in the wrong place. Any intelligent government would have an environmental assessment of the dams, the reservoirs, the areas to be flooded and the impact on the Cree, the Inuit, wild fowl, marine mammals, fish, as well as the atmospheric impacts of this project which will divert and dam five river systems.
Government Orders
The government hopes to claim balance of convenience in the courts somewhere down the road, have $600 million or $700 million spent on roads, airports, and infrastructure, and then say: "Like in the Rafferty-Ala-meda case by the Court of Queen's Bench economic considerations have to come ahead of the environment". This is completely contrary to Brundtland and completely contrary to the personal promises of the Prime Minister.
This massive project, the largest industrial project ever conceived in the history of North America, will proceed without Canadians knowing what kinds of incredibly horrific impacts there will be, not only on the wildlife populations, not only on the fish, not only on the aboriginal people who have lived there for 10,000 years or more, but on the atmosphere and on the climate of all of eastern North America, and this without even looking at the alternatives.
As Dr. Lovins pointed out to the committee that I sit on, simply by going to energy efficiency and conservation on the island of Montreal alone we could save more power than is produced by James Bay I.
Who is kidding whom about who the worshipees of these megaprojects are? They are the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec. It is not the people of Quebec. It is not Canadians who will benefit from this kind of megaproject. No one will benefit from not having a proper environmental assessment of a project of this magnitude. It is a not so cunning approach.
Let us spend a moment on the Rafferty-Alameda. This was a colossal bungle. Three ministers in a row sold out of the environment: Tom McMillan, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and now the present minister. They plead before the courts in swom affidavits that there will be irreparable harm to the environment and then they do nothing about it. On the Oldman, in Alberta, it is almost exactly the same thing: once again a deal cut with a few Tory friends, exclude the public from any serious process, and never carry out the minister's own statutory responsibilities. The same thing happened with Rafferty.
There are $13 billion worth of pulp mill proposals on the drawing boards, proposals to cut one-third of the entire land mass of the province of Alberta. Where is the government showing leadership in its clear constitutional sector of responsibility for water and the atmosphere?

Government Orders
Where are the cumulative impact studies for Alberta, for British Columbia, and for the other provinces? With 40 per cent of the marine pollution in Canada coming from that one sector, and the government continues to promise clean-up, continues to promise all kinds of things, but never bothers to talk about the fact that there is already a closed loop technology for the pulping industry. Where is some leadership on that, some kind of support for those who have to draw their water from those areas?
In British Columbia the Kemano II project was exempted by Order in Council. Five ministers of fisheries in a row, including the present Speaker, promised that there would be a full public inquiry and a complete environmental assessment and review. In writing the present Prime Minister promised the people of British Columbia there would be a full public inquiry and environmental assessment.
Was there one? No. This government's word, this Prime Minister's word is not worth the paper that it is written on. It is not worth the amount of time it takes for Canadians to listen to the promises made by this Conservative Party and this Prime Minister.
I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the member has talked about job loss in British Columbia. His riding is one that has a lot of rain forest in it. I think all members knows that. The Western Canada Wilderness Committee has said that its stated goal is to stop all logging activity in the rain forest.
Does the member support that goal of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case with that particular member, he misstates not only the positions of other groups and other parties; he quite often misstates his own position.


Benno Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, first of all that statement is out of order and, second, I quoted accurately the statement of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is worth taking a look at the forest sector in British Columbia, because here is a member on the government side who condemned previous federal governments for spending less than 10 cents out of a dollar taken in revenue from the workers and the industry and putting it back into replanting. This is the government that is offering only $100 million for a five-year forest renewal agreement, when the provincial government wanted to go for a $1 billion five-year agreement and then a $700 million agreement.
By cutting back on the amount of funds available to a province such as British Columbia, where about half of the forest related activity in this country takes place, means that there is going to have to be reduction in the cut in the province of British Columbia. Even people like Dr. Pearce from the University of British Columbia now admit that to be the case.
What has happened is that as the cutting of the old growth forest in British Columbia has gone from 50 million cubic metres a year to more than 100 million cubic metres a year and the profits of the large integrated forest companies have almost doubled, we have seen a reduction of almost a third of the organized labour working in that sector.
It is quite clear, if the member would like to read the vote that was taken in his own majority Conservative forestry committee of this Parliament, it endorses the setting aside of 12 per cent of all of the forests and all of the watersheds on Vancouver Island and throughout this country. He might want to read his own government supported policy on forestry as it relates to British Columbia.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, during his presentation the hon. member for Skeena said: "Who is kidding whom". I would like to ask the hon. member for Skeena about who is kidding whom.
You talk a very good story You talk about many things, but you do not talk about this country. You like to blame the premier. Mind you, I agree they have almost destroyed this country but, for your sake and from your side, what about members of your party who are also working for the destruction of Canada and the separation of a province that I represent?


November 21, 1990

Government Orders
Let us hear the NDP philosophy on that. Let us not only talk about environment. Let us talk about this country.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question is that the hon. member has put. What I will say is that the history of this party, of the leaders and the members of this party, is a long and honourable one in attempting to keep this country as one united country.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, from the tone of the member's remarks that somehow or other this party is in some way encouraging the break-up of this country. That is quite far from the truth. Anyone who wants to read what this party has had to say both in this House and across this nation about steps we should be taking to try to encourage the province of Quebec to feel it has a real, long-term, unifying part to play in this marvellous nation of ours has not listened to what members on this side and in this party have had to say.
I have not heard anything particularly productive or useful said by the recent leaders of the Liberal Party in relation to the problems that Quebec faces, problems that we have seen while the majority of that party have found their support from the province of Quebec. The present government also finds the majority of its seats to stay in power in the province of Quebec. To try and blame the problems of this country and problems that Quebec is having with the nation as a whole on the NDP is a wee bit hypocritical.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would ask consent of the House to allow us to continue with some questions to our hon. friend. I am sure that those of us who come from regions of the country that rely heavily on the resource sector would love to be able to find out really what is the policy of the NDP member concerning whether he wants a resource to be there, or whether he does not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for continuing questions and comments?


An hon. member:: No.
An hon. member A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, when we listened to the hon. member-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I understand that we were running a rotation and that the New Democrats were splitting up their section, so my hon. colleague would be next, Sir.


Mr. Butland:: On debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no consent. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has 10 minutes for his speech.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague. I am sure he is going to make an excellent minister of the environment after the next election.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Steve Butland: Having said that, I want to get to the resolution:
That this House express its loss of confidence in the Prime
Minister and call upon him to resign and immediately call an
election.
It does not take an election. If we had a vote in this country right now, overwhelmingly, 85 per cent at least, would say, "Resign, get out." We don't need an election to get that result. What is the greatest accomplishment of this government? Seventy-one per cent could not cite anything, according to a poll in the paper today. They could not cite any kind of accomplishment, let alone a great accomplishment.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about leadership. I went to a book and tried to find a quotation that fits this Prime Minister. It was impossible, but I would like to cite a few. "A leader is a dealer in hope". Napoleon Bonaparte said that. Certainly this leader does not deal in hope. He has dealt in despair.


An hon. member:: Yeah, ruined the country.


Steve Butland: 
Some hon. members:: Agreed.

November 21, 1990
Government Orders
The next best quotation: The people honour and praise. Of course we know that that is not true. We are going down the list. Next: The people fear. And then, the people hate. I am not happy to say that the people in my community not only say that the Prime Minister is not a good leader, but they dislike him. Some people say, "We hate him". I think that is a sad statement for anybody to make, even an opposition member.
The former leader of the Liberal Party took us in the wrong direction, but at least he would give the country direction. It was the wrong direction but the country respected that person as a leader. This country is wandering without any direction.
When the best leader's work is done, the people say: "We did it ourselves. We did it." With the operations of this government, there is no "we". It is a royal "we" or
A chief is a man who assumes responsibility. He says: "I was beaten." He does not say: "My men and women were beaten." I think the Prime Minister should say: "I am a beaten person, but the rest of you do not have to come down with me. It is not necessary."
This is the second anniversary, and all MPs are happy about that I am sure. An anniversary is a happy event. We as MPs get to go to many anniversaries and celebrate with people on special occasions, on 50th and 60th anniversaries, as I did last week, and it makes us happy. This anniversary does not make Canadian people happy. They despair. It is a dirge. There is a pall over the country. There is gloom and doom everywhere. It is a sad state of affairs.


An hon. member:: Only in your riding.


Steve Butland: Only in my riding, and I will get to that. Only in my riding, caused by this government's policies. That is why there is a pall in my community. The government shut down the steel industry. It is impossible to sell any steel in the United States. It is impossible because of high interest rates and the free trade agreement, which this government said: "Without free trade, these shipments could be subject to quotas, increased tariffs, embargoes or freezes."
Where will the extra production go? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it will not go anywhere because the United States has precluded us from selling any kind of steel in the U.S. market.
I know the hon. member for Burlington is a very sincere man. He is an expert in steel, but surely he must agree that this free trade agreement has been an abomination for the steel industry in this country.
Going along with high interest rates and the inflated Canadian dollar is a good reason for the dirge and pall in my community, as the minister has cited. It is at their doorstep that 6,000 people were out of work for 15 weeks. As of today, there will be 600 or 800 people called back. This situation is most unfortunate.
The sad part of it is the labour dispute may not be deemed to have ended. I hesitate to say this, Mr. Speaker, but the workers may not receive unemployment insurance unless there is an immediate change of policy, some compassion shown by the minister and the department so that these people will have some hope of at least a reasonable Christmas.
Don't say that it is only my constituency where there is a pall. It can cite any number of constituencies, including those of government members which must be suffering as well. It is a litany of lost jobs and closures right across this country.
The policies play no favourites. It is not only Sault Ste. Marie. It is right across the country. I am sure constituents are telling government members this each and every day that they go into their constituencies. If I were on the government side, I certainly would not want to go into my constituency. It is a government without a leader and I think the crew is ready to mutiny.
I understand that it is difficult to get members to go to committee.


Don Boudria: What committees?


David Charles Dingwall: "What committees?", they say. When they do go, I understand they are very silent because if they speak, that will give away everything. They do not want to be there to defend any of the government policies.


An hon. member:: Indefensible policies.


Steve Butland: They are indefensible policies. Oka, the Persian Gulf, PetroCan, Open Skies policies, the GST, the clawback and the free trade agreement, are impossible to defend. I would not go to committee either. I would not want to go to committee.


Lee Richardson: You've got the heavyweights out today.


Steve Butland: Indeed. Well said.
I want to get back to the steel industry that this government has truly decimated. When our own people who work in trade suggest that we are fair traders, why do the Americans not treat us fairly? Why do they not?
Even our own Canadian Trade Tribunal has removed dumping tariffs against 11, 12 or 13 other countries. We say: "Let their steel come in. There is no evidence that they might dump. There is no evidence." Yet the Americans harass us on a regular basis and the dispute panel mechanism has been a total flop.
Even the Algoma Steel Corporation has suggested we have lost faith. I do not blame them because we cannot win. I have read the rulings. I am not a lawyer, but the language tells a layperson that we cannot win a ruling. It is impossible. So what has this bought? What does the government say? Well, our people say we are fair traders and why are we treated this way? The Americans jump all over us and we do not even say ouch. We do not say anything. We are silent.
I think it is time that this government played a little bit of hard ball with the Americans. I know the hon. member for Burlington would agree with me, that we have not been aggressive enough. We have been too quiet. We are silent. I have written letters but obviously that does not mean anything. Someone says we have the heavyweights out today. Well, maybe that is it. They do not pay attention to anybody. They would never pay attention to an MP from lowly Sault Ste. Marie. Well it is time they listened.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Steve Butland: The Canadian people will demand that the government listens. I think the people in Sault Ste. Marie will demand that it listens.
The Prime Minister should do the honourable thing, not only for everybody here in the House, but for the good of the Canadian people, even for his own members. I think he should do them a favour. Get a new leader and we might get some new direction. We look upon that favourably.
Government Orders


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, earlier, as you know, I tried to extend the question period of the hon. member for Skeena, but knowing the manner in which the NDP like to hit and run, I felt that probably I could not get that.


James Ross Fulton: You know the rules.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: What I would like to say is that for many years the NDP always had the feeling of the working people, that they were there to support them in the regions of the country. They were there to support the miners, the loggers, the individuals working in industries, the resources, the fishermen, the agricultural communities. The NDP was always there to stand up for and believe in the fact that this country was built from its resources.
I have been here nine years now and the last number of years it is unbelievable the way they have flip-flopped. The party that was built to form and strengthen Canada for the working people has thrown that out the window. They are too interested in supporting the interest groups, those that are willing to put our miners out of work, put our bush workers out of work, put our fishermen out of work because it is popular and because it is the urban centres of this country from which they get their votes. They have more interest in the power of being in power, which will never happen, rather than representing the regions of this country.
I ask this question of the hon. member from Sault Ste. Marie, someone who comes from northern Ontario. Someone should be standing up and fighting for northern Ontario rather than sitting back taking this gunk that is coming from the hon. member for Skeena.
I ask the hon. member, does he not think that Fednor, which was developed for northern Ontario, has benefited regions of northern Ontario? Does he not believe in the Sudbury neutrino centre? It is the only one in the world. Does he not support that? Does he not support the fact that the Nordic Games are coming to northern Ontario? Does he not support Community Futures?
These are policies that have been developed by the Prime Minister and this government. Northern Ontario is something that the previous government forgot about. I say to the hon. member, if he is really sincere about northern Ontario, if he is really sincere about what is happening, would he fight the hon. member for Skeena and fight for those people who live in the regions of this country?

Government Orders


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, that was a meandering question which I suppose is someway related to the environment. Since the government is polluting just about everything, there is some analogy there. I do not think our party needs to apologize to anyone, especially the people across the way.
They cite interest groups. We have no problem paying attention to interest groups. We have no problem at all. If somebody does not, then who makes up the interest groups? Who are in the interest groups? They are Canadian people. And what is the problem with that?
Where I thought it humorous was when the hon. member mentioned specific programs such as Community Futures which was initiated by my predecessor. I am sorry but that program does not work. The people in it are doing a great job, but their hands are tied, totally tied.
If an application is approved in my community, it will then go to Sudbury. If it is approved in Sudbury, it will then go to Toronto. If it is approved in Toronto, it will then go to Ottawa. If it is approved in Ottawa, it still may go to the minister's office and they say: "Oh, no, that is not a good application."
Do not tell me how wonderful these government programs are. The people do the best they can with the programs, but they are of no great benefit to northern Ontario. The money could be better spent.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon and I hope that the House will not be overly disturbed if I actually address the subject of the motion.
It is an extraordinary motion. It states:
That this House express its loss of confidence in the Prime
Minister and call upon him to resign and immediately call an
election.
What a preposterous comment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


A. Kim Campbell: There are the appropriate gestures from the trained seals on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and probably a similar quality of noise, but not much insight. It is a ridiculous comment.
Today is the second anniversary of the second electoral victory of our Prime Minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: The current Prime Minister has led the Government of Canada for approximately six years. I think the record of the Prime Minister speaks for itself, but I would like to have the pleasure of addressing it this afternoon because I think what we have seen is a great leader, not just of a government, but a great leader of a party and a great leader of a great nation.
I come from a part of the country that does not take its position in the House for granted because for many years people in my part of the country felt disenfranchised from what went on in Ottawa. For much of my adult life, the voice of British Columbia has been a voice crying in the wilderness. I seem to recall the Salmon Arm salute and other gestures of congeniality from governments of Canada and leaders of Canada toward my part of the country.
Since 1984, the voice of the west and the voice of British Columbia in particular has been heard more strongly in the Government of Canada than at any other time in my adult lifetime. In fact, in my whole life, with the exception of a vague memory I have of Mr. Diefen-baker's government back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, this is the only time I can remember truly feeling enfranchised in Ottawa on the government side of the House.
The party that forms the government is a party with truly national roots and the leader of this party is a leader who has been capable of creating a party with truly national roots. I would argue that that is in and of itself a sign of remarkable leadership.
When the Prime Minister of Canada sits at his cabinet table and looks at his ministers, he sees a profile of the country. That profile is only enhanced and enlarged when he sits in his national caucus, which he does faithfully every week, to listen to all his members, to listen to their concerns.
November 21, 1990


James Ross Fulton: He wasn't there today. Every week, my foot!


A. Kim Campbell: I did not realize that the hon. member from the NDP was visiting our national caucus. I regret he is not the one we would welcome most across the floor. We kind of like that cute blond-haired guy that sits in the front row, but if you are keen, I am sure we can work something out.
Given the diversity of regional outlooks in the country and given the extraordinary variety of concerns that preoccupy Canadians-because, notwithstanding that we are a small country of 26 million people, we inhabit the second largest land mass of a country in the world-it is a sign of the extraordinary leadership capability that the Prime Minister has forged a great national governing party that is able to do the work of governing Canada for all Canadians and where all Canadians know their voices are well heard.
The Prime Minister has the loyalty of those who serve him and serve with him. He has the loyalty because he returns that loyalty. One of the aspects of leadership that is very often ignored is one of the things that is most important and that is the ability to create a team. When that is missing, it is very obvious, but it is a strength that often goes unnoticed when it is present because it simply creates the foundation for effective action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I would ask all hon. members to be co-operative so that we will be able to hear what the next speaker has to say. I would appreciate the co-operation of both sides of the House.
The Minister of Justice.


A. Kim Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, out of this extraordinary national organization, a national political force led by an extraordinary national leader, we have an opportunity for the people of my part of the country to have their voices heard as they never have been heard before, or certainly not for much of this century.
The west has in a sense been re-enfranchised, thanks to this Prime Minister. There are 10 western ministers in the Government of Canada. They hold very important
Government Orders
portfolios, portfolios that are important to the people of the west: agriculture, grains and oilseeds, energy, defence, and many other portfolios. That western voice in the Government of Canada has been reflected in the policy of the Government of Canada where western interests have been responded to and the aspirations of western Canadians have finally had an opportunity to be realized.
That is not just because the Prime Minister believes that he is the Prime Minister for all Canadians. In addition to being a leader deeply committed to all the country, he is also a leader with the courage to take the difficult structural decisions that for so long were left untaken by governments in the country which resulted, not just in the economic disadvantage of the country, but in the strains between the regions of the country.
I will give you as a prime example the issue that brought me into federal politics, the free trade agreement. In 1975 the four western premiers met at an economic development conference. They published a manifesto in which they urged the Government of Canada to focus on opening up markets with the United States. For western Canada that was the natural base upon which they could develop their economies, diversify them and get them away from the terrible boom-and-bust dependence on resource economies.
For much of our country's history, it has seemed to those of us in the west that our economy was regarded as a source of raw materials for the industrialization of central Canada and we had a tariff policy that was designed to protect industries in central Canada, whether or not they were efficient.
Those were of great concern to leaders in western Canada. In 1975 the western premiers published a document calling on the Government of Canada to reduce tariffs with the United States and open up opportunities. It is interesting that the document was signed by four western premiers, only one of whom was a Conservative, Peter Lougheed from Alberta. The other three were members of the New Democratic Party-Ed Schreyer, Allan Blakeney, and Dave Barrett from British Columbia.
There is nothing partisan about the concern of western Canadians for the destructive effect of the traditional Canadian tariff policy on our economy.

Government Orders


Ron Fisher: That was 1972.


A. Kim Campbell: It was 1975 and in fact it was a very accurate outlook.
The Prime Minister, like many people in this part of the country, had originally taken the view that free trade would be a disaster. Like most people in central Canada, his first instinct was to protect the central Canadian economic base. But part of the greatness of the Prime Minister is reflected in his ability to rethink and re-evaluate his own views.
When the Macdonald Royal Commission came down with its report and strongly recommended that the Government of Canada negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States, the Prime Minister had the kind of integrity to re-examine his own views and to recognize that in fact his previous views of hostility toward a free trade agreement may in fact have been wrong. Perhaps there was a broader national interest that could better be served by liberalizing trade with the United States.
People who opposed the free trade agreement used to like to say: "Well, 80 per cent of our trade with the United States is already tariff-free." That is a very misleading statistic, because that was 80 per cent of existing trade. How much trade could there have been? How would the volume of trade be affected by reducing tariff barriers?
In my own province, the reason British Columbia governments of all partisan stripe have been opposed to the national tariff policy is because, as a country with resource industries, we found that we could sell our unprocessed raw materials into the United States without a problem, but, as soon as we began to add value to them, the tariff barriers went up.
It is very hard to carry, for example, a 19 per cent tariff barrier on processed zinc and still remain competitive. Therefore, there was no trade in processed zinc between the United States and British Columbia. Therefore, the potential of a trade in processed zinc never entered into the calculations when people talked said: "Well, 80 per cent of our trade is already tariff-free." That 20 per cent that was not contained within it has the potential for enormous growth and development.
It is very interesting that since the implementation of the free trade agreement and since this government has come to power, British Columbia is one of the economies that has taken off. With those barriers beginning to disappear, people want to invest in British Columbia and bring in value-added production. My part of the country owes a great deal of gratitude to the courage of Brian Mulroney.
Not only is it the free trade agreement, but it is the approach of this government to regional economic development. The western diversification program is one of the most effective programs for economic development that the country has ever seen. It is a program that suits the sense of fiscal conservatism in western Canada. We are very close to our pioneer roots in western Canada. We do not like a lot of waste in government spending and I will come back to this in a moment.
Grants from the Western Diversification Fund are almost all repayable. About 75 per cent of them will be repaid to the Government of Canada. The leverage of western diversification funding to private sector funding is one to fifteen. I challenge any government in the world to find that kind of productivity. That means that, for every dollar of public funds that goes into a project, $15 of private sector funding comes along with it.
The western diversification program is non-partisan and non-political. I meet many recipients of western diversification funding. They are enormously creative and able people who just need a leg-up in developing new markets and building prototypes to begin to get sales. They tell me that when they take a western diversification approval to a financial institution it is enough for the financial institution to grant them funding, so valued and so admired is the vetting process of western diversification.
It is a program designed to meet the specific needs of western Canada which, for so long, has struggled as hewers of wood and drawers of water, reapers of grain, and diggers of minerals, but without the opportunity to diversify that potential and without the ability to insure itself against the vagaries of the fluctuations in prices of international commodities. This is a luxury which people in central Canada have enjoyed for a very long time, but something which is not part of the western experience.


November 21, 1990

Perhaps westerners are closer to their roots. They have a real concern about fiscal responsibility. Perhaps they are closer to their prairie or pioneer roots-


Mr. Nault:: Us northerners are as close as you get.


A. Kim Campbell: Northerners may be even closer, but westerners are very close to their pioneer roots. They have a great concern for fiscal responsibility.
It is interesting that the finance minister in British Columbia, Mr. Mel Couvelier, has stated that Michael Wilson has done a better job than any finance minister in Canada in restraining government spending.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the business of Supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.13 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.13 p.m.