1991-05-16

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the pleasure to present to the House, in both official languages, the first report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


CANADA-EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION OF REPORT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association attending the visit to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, March 14 to March 26.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to add, on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons who were on that visit, the recommendation that the Canadian government urge the use of United Nations mediation facilities in Yugoslavia, through the good offices of the Secretary General, should the need arise.
We see this as a vital element in ensuring a peaceful, democratic future for all of Yugoslavia, whatever political choices are made.
The opportunities are great for Canada in terms of assisting both Bulgaria and Yugoslavia with their economic and democratic plights. We urge the opening of an embassy in Bulgaria, with a strong trade presence immediately, to press on as partners in the western industrialized nations the need to focus on the plight of the Bulgarian economy as it struggles to restructure. We urge to direct our trade and other officials to give a high priority to assistance, especially in the agricultural sector, to Bulgaria.
We want to alert our trade officials here in Canada to tell Canadian companies that Yugoslavia is virtually a free market and that there are tremendous opportunities for Canadians in hydro engineering and telecommunications.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act.


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

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act respecting the acquisition, administration and disposition of real property by the Government of Canada.


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

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, an act respecting a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women.

May 16, 1991
Routine Proceedings
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this Private Members' bill. This bill is a way to mark in a meaningful and respectful way the massacre on December 6, 1989, of 14 young women in Montreal.
This day could also be a day of action around the issue of violence against women, although every day should be a day of action against violence against women. This could be a special day in order to ensure that this terrible plight in our society is eradicated.


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

Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code (terminally ill persons).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is about life, about the quality of life. Life in a free nation is about choices made first in birth and in youth largely by our mothers, hopefully our fathers, and perhaps our communities. As we become mature adults, the choices become more and more our own individual choices, made in conjunction with our own conscience and our God.
I respect the informed and subjective decision of doctors and the state but the decision relating to the quality of my life and to the nature of my death are important enough that I would prefer that my own will, the will of my designate or my family and my God, have legal standing and precedence over and above the decisions of doctors and the state.
That is what this bill is about and I look forward to debating it in the House.


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

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Transcona, I ask for consent of the House to introduce the bill to amend the Atomic Energy Control
Act. The Clerks at the table worked veiy hard to be able to expedite the introduction of this bill, and my colleague has been inadvertently delayed. I ask for consent of the House that I introduce it in his absence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.


Lynn Hunter: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, an act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill and it is an important day to introduce this bill. Sixty-one years ago today the mine that provided the nuclear material for the bombings that occurred in Nagasaki, Japan, was discovered. It is an important day and it is an important subject. I know that my colleague will be speaking extensively and urging all members of this House to support this bill.


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

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I will be moving two motions today, one relating to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare and the other to the commonly referred to Beaudoin-Edwards committee. The President of the Treasury Board will then be making a motion regarding the reference of the estimates to the various committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The parliamentary secretary needs unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No consent. Point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that you heard a no because there were discussions on these matters at the House leaders' meetings and there was an

The Address
agreement to proceed on these issues. Perhaps you could ask the question again. I cannot believe there was a no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no unanimous consent.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and indeed a privilege to present a petition on behalf of constituents from all the communities in the North Thompson Valley of British Columbia, including Blue River, Clear Water, Barrie and Little Fort as well as Logan Lake, Chase, Westwold, Monte Creek, Monte Lake, Red Lake, Pritchard, Savona and the great city of Kamloops.
These constituents are concerned that the government has cut back on funding for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police resulting in a major loss to the province of British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that the consequences of these cuts have been the reduction and erosion of police service, effectiveness and protection. They also say that the results of these cuts have been the reduction of training, patrols and travelling expenses for the RCMP serving our communities.
The petitioners point out that the federal government is uncompromising in its negotiations with its provincial counterparts by maintaining that their share of funding will be reduced as of March 31, 1991, resulting in taxpayers having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in most communities in British Columbia, to say nothing of the reduction in police protection.
The petitioners are urging the Government of Canada to consider restoring proper funding to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so that it can fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for communities across B.C. and so that it may remain a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table in the House a petition signed by residents of Haut-Sheila, Pont-Lafrance and Leech who continue to protest the injustice caused by the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax.
Mr. Speaker, these people feel that the financial burden resulting from the GST continues to increase unemployment in the region, and they ask the government to reconsider this entirely unjustified tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pronovost for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and of the amendment thereto of Mr. Chretien (p. 24).
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, like other colleagues I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today on the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne which took place at the opening of the Third Session of the thirty-fourth Parliament.
I am not one who speaks often in the House, being convinced and persuaded that repeating what has already been said many times before is perhaps a waste of time.

May 16, 1991
The Address
I feel that in this Speech from the Throne there is a particular paragraph in which I think has not been duly recognized by many people, certainly not by the media. I would like to participate largely for that reason.
I would like to congratulate my two colleagues, one from St. Maurice and the other from Regina-Wascana, who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Each did this in a most eloquent fashion and should be commended.
We should also note that one is a francophone from Quebec and the other an anglophone from Saskatchewan. I think we should not overlook the fact that it is possible in this country for people who have goodwill and who are willing to look at the issues in an objective way to come together and talk and act for the benefit of this country as a whole.
That was the main raison d'etre or the main issue raised in this Speech from the Throne; the one we are debating at the present time.
There were three main headings or general topics that constituted the Speech from the Throne on this particular occasion.
The first was the issue and subject of Canadian unity. The second was that of "Participating in Prosperity" and the third was "Changing the Way in which Ottawa Works". I would like to address all three of those to a greater or lesser degree, but from the somewhat unique position as a member and chairman of the previous Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. As you know, the committees have all been dissolved with the prorogation of Parliament earlier this week, and we now await these committees being re-established. But I would like to speak from the perspective of having served on that committee and more recently as chairman for a number of years.
In the course of doing this, I want to look at the Speech from the Throne and view it in a number of ways, but particularly in how it addresses a large segment of the people of Canada, namely those who are disabled. I should inform colleagues in the House that that represents about 13 per cent of Canadians. There are many of us, of course, who feel fine and are fit at the present time. But most of us, sooner or later, are going to be subjected to being included in that group of 13 per cent
that are disabled. I think we should, for that reason, give this further consideration and perhaps more than it has had over the course of the years.
I am pleased to see that my colleague and former chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, speaking earlier in this debate, made reference to a very important paragraph in the Speech from the Throne that I want to deal with as well. That interesting paragraph comes under the heading of "Participating in Prosperity". When one takes a cursory look at the Speech from the Throne, one might wonder indeed how a few of the three or four social issues that are mentioned, would come under that rubric or under that heading of "Participating in Prosperity", but in fact they do.
I would like at this point to quote from the Speech from the Throne the particular paragraph that I am referring to, because as I said earlier not much mention has been made of this in the last several days. I am quoting now.
My government will lay before you proposals for programs and policies to remove the barriers still faced by disabled Canadians to full participation in Canada's political life and economic prosperity. The government plans to implement a five-year strategy that will resolve issues such as access to employment, training, housing and transportation, public sensitivity and community integration.
As I mentioned earlier, I do regret the fact that there has been relatively little attention paid to this in some newspaper stories, other than where they list a series of headings from the Speech from the Throne. We do see mention of this reference to disabled people, but it is not picked up as a news item or as a story or something that somebody in the journalistic field wants to talk about or elaborate on. Virtually the same is true here in the House of Commons. I would suggest we will hear very little about this. We will hear a lot about the national unity issue and the economic problems that we are having, the need for prosperity, but perhaps not very much about this subject of the disabled and how they relate to the over-all picture.
I am not sure why that situation prevails. I might suggest that possibly the subject of disabled people is not sufficiently controversial although if you are a disabled person you might not quite agree with that. It may be that the people who are looking and writing about the
May 16, 1991

Speech from the Throne do not really realize the significance of this particular paragraph.
It is obvious to everyone that the speech does address the two main issues that I have alluded to, namely the national unity issue and the issue of the economy or the future prosperity of this country. It does this in an interesting way. It links the two issues together and shows how the one is essential for the success of the other. I think we are seeing a lot written about that now, and that is indeed appropriate.
I think that while disability might be considered a social issue by most people, as I have indicated earlier, a little thought about the subject would suggest to one that it has its own significance regarding the headings of unity and prosperity.
There is a connotation in this paragraph that the issue of the problems faced by disabled people relates to the subject of unity and also relates to the over-all picture of the economy and prosperity in this country. I will want to elaborate on that before I finish.
Before doing that, I also want to quote another short paragraph from the Speech from the Throne. It appears in the first introductory page of the speech, before we launch into the specifics of unity. There are a number of words in it I want to touch on as being particularly significant in several ways. The paragraph reads as follows:
This session will be a turning point in Canadian history.
It is going to be a turning point, but it is a turning point for those who are disabled as well. For the first time, we find a confirmation and a commitment by the government that it is now going to have a five year strategy to deal with the needs, the problems of access and so on of disabled people.
While it may be a turning point in general for Canadians and for Canada, it is also a turning point, I would submit, for disabled people. The paragraph continues:
Let no one doubt the seriousness of the challenges we face as a
country.
If any group in this country faces a challenge it is the disabled community. They have been recognized as being disabled. They have, in the past, been set aside and overlooked. We are now seeing an attempt made by government and by the committee of this House to
The Address
address those challenges that they are facing and try to help them to overcome them.
The paragraph goes on to say:
You will have the responsibility and the opportunity to forge an
historic accommodation that embraces all Canadians,-
We do, indeed, have a responsibility. I would submit we also have an opportunity now, through this Speech from the Throne, to do exactly that, to make this historic accommodation.
The word "accommodation" brings to mind a couple of points. First of all, if we are going to have national unity in this country, various groups have to learn to better accommodate one another. I would also submit that it raises in the minds of those of us involved with disabled people the fact that they are looking and seeking for the term which is referred to as "reasonable accommodation", added to the Canadian Human Rights Act. At the present time, there is no requirement for employers, for example, to supply reasonable accommodation for disabled people. I was pleased to see this very word used in the Speech from the Throne and, of course, as it says here, it has to embrace all Canadians. For a change, we can assume then that among all these Canadians will be those who are disabled.
The throne speech goes on to say:
-overcomes division and discord and charts a course for
prosperity for generations to come.
Indeed, we are looking at prosperity not only for those of us who are able-bodied Canadians, but also prosperity for those who are disabled because they form part of the over-all picture of all Canadians.
I am pleased that we can see that kind of wording in the Speech from the Throne and we should compliment the government for taking that position.
The Speech from the Throne serves to focus, as I have suggested previously, on the bonds and the ties between the subject areas of unity and prosperity and how one is necessary for the other. That makes a great deal of sense and I am sure much has and will be said about that in the course of this debate.
The speech goes on, under the heading of "Participating in Prosperity", to address the need to consider, in addition to disabled people, other social issues as well. I just want to acknowledge the fact that it does indicate the need to address the issue of education, the role and needs of aboriginal peoples in this country and the issue of children. This arises, to some extent, from the

May 16, 1991
The Address
considerable involvement that Canada had, through the Prime Minister playing a leading role at the UN conference on children last fall.
There are other social issues, but I want to, by and large, confine my remarks to the one dealing with the disabled people. Like the issue of disabled people, these areas that I have alluded to relate closely to economic prosperity and unity issues. They also transcend the traditional controversial and divisive issues of language, culture and so on.
At this point it would be appropriate to indicate that the work of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons is the type of work that transcends some of the divisive areas we have in this country. For example, discussions are taking place whereby the committee will plan to visit Quebec and look at the problems disabled people have there. That is helping to bridge a gap between the two language issues within this country.
We also have in mind, after having done it 10 years ago, a visit to the native peoples of Canada and try to understand better their needs vis-a-vis disabled persons, but by doing so we are also bridging gaps that lie between the aboriginal people at the present time and the rest of us in this country.
The history of the standing committee that I alluded to is interesting. I would like just to comment a little bit on that committee and the work that it has done in the past. Before I do that, I want also to acknowledge the fact that the third item that we are dealing with in the Speech from the Throne, namely the changing of the way Ottawa works, is also well exhibited in what the standing committee has been able to do over the last 10 years and even prior to when it became actually a standing committee.
It shows how this issue of unity can be seen to work on Parliament Hill among political parties, and a brief resume of some of the work of the committee will illustrate that.
Those hon. members who have been around for a while will recall that the late Hon. Walter Dinsdale was probably the first and the main champion of disabled people in this country. He proposed for a number of years that there should be a study made of the needs of
disabled people. Finally, in 1979, during the Clark government, agreement was reached to have such a committee established, but that government fell before the committee could be set up. The defeat led to a change in government, but not a change in the desire to have this committee move ahead. Under the Trudeau government at that time, the Special Committee on Disabled and Handicapped People was struck, chaired by David Smith, at that time an MP from Toronto.
Mr. Smith fashioned a very excellent, non-partisan committee. The style of functioning was essentially non-partisan which led to the committee being able to come up with the unanimous report entitled "Obstacles". It was so well that received it went through three printings because of the demand for it.
I cannot help but mention, again alluding to the issue of unity, the fact that the only surviving member of the House now of that original committee is the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine. I want to acknowledge the fact that he has been a prime example of how we can work together as members of a committee in a non-partisan fashion for the good of the people of Canada, in this particular case, for the good of those who are disabled.
I just want to acknowledge that fact because I think altogether too often we find partisanship prevailing. In my view, the people of Canada are becoming a little tired of that, but there are examples in this House where that does not have to happen.
The committee went on after having presented its report on "Obstacles" to go through many other changes and has presented many other reports over the years. I want to allude to the fact that in 1985 it became a subcommittee and was under the chairmanship of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. That committee made several reports.
One of the interesting things that happened in 1987 was the acceptance by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who decided it was appropriate to establish a task force on disabled and handicapped on Parliament Hill. He came up with a very voluminous report indicating the changes that needed to take place on the Hill and set an example for government departments and agencies to do more themselves on behalf of the people of
May 16, 1991

Canada. I am proud to think that our Speaker was able to take the lead in that regard.
Following that, in 1988, the committee assumed the full status of a standing committee and since then is known as the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. It is interesting to look at the terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. They are unique terms of references. No other committee has precisely these terms. I say this in reference to the changing patterns of work here on the Hill.
Reading from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons of May 1991, page 75, Item 108(3)(b)(ii), the terms of reference state:
(ii) the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons in all sectors of Canadian society;
We have that unique opportunity of proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing. I want to suggest that it has given the committee an opportunity which has not always existed in the past and it does suggest a move to make the standing committees and the ordinary members of Parliament much more effective.
The other thing that has happened because of the ability of the committee to propose and to monitor and to be advocates on behalf of disabled people, is the fact that we shall be entering the fourth National Access Awareness Week two weeks from this week. I would like to pay tribute to the fact that this has been something that has been accomplished over the last four years by a collaborative effort by a number of groups in this country including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that have combined with others to produce the Five Star Community Awards that are presented during National Access Awareness Week. These include about ten of the leading companies in Canada. I will not read them all because of the shortage of time.
I see my time is running out. I want to remind members that two weeks from yesterday, this fourth National Access Awareness Week is going to be held here in Canada and we are going to recognize that on the Hill when the standing committee is going to co-host,
The Address
along with the Speaker of the House of Commons, a reception in the Railway Committee Room, to which I hope all will attend. At that particular reception we will be bringing to the attention of members Independence '92, which is going to be taking place in Vancouver next year and will represent the culmination of the UN Decade of the Disabled.
I would like to say a lot more about this subject. I know my time is up and I will reserve further comments until a later date.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentarian and a Quebecer, I was very disappointed by the Speech from the Throne.
Instead of a global vision of our country, I heard only words devoid of logic, rhetoric devoid of substance. Instead of finding substance, especially in the kind of action to be taken by the government, I heard only promises. Not promises for today, Mr. Speaker, not promises for tomorrow, but promises for the year 2000.1 find that incredible.
Instead of showing sensitivity in the Speech from the Throne- we must understand that what Canadians are looking for in this Speech is whether the government is aware of the problems of the unemployed, of women who want daycare, of consumers who are seeking better protection, and workers who are seeking better protection as well. These people want a government that is sensitive to their problems, and instead, all the government does is urge us to be more competitive.
To be competitive, however, means that as a worker you are well paid. It means that as a trucker-like our truckers outside-you are competing on a level playing field. But that is not the case.
The government wants all Canadians and Quebecers to be more competitive. Exactly what does that mean? I think it means the government wants us to take a cut in pay and work more.
I wonder, however, how cutting people's pay and making them work longer hours is going to make us more competitive. I know that the people in my riding, don't agree. In my riding, people say that the work they do is not a problem, because in Quebec people have always been productive. That is not the problem.

May 16, 1991
The Address
The reason we are not competitive enough-and I quote the Wall Street Journal, which is probably the Tory government's bible-is the way we manage the Canadian economy. In fact, the former Minister of Finance-I haven't heard any more about this but it's true-was called the worst Minister of Finance of any of the world's developed countries. And that is saying a lot! The worst in the world, and this from the Wall Street Journal! In Canada, we know how to do things. We know how to distinguish ourselves. Just look at the former Minister of Finance who was called the world's worst Finance minister!
When we talk about-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Edmonston: I see members on the other side are wide awake. They aren't late this morning. They are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. That's good.
When we talk about the hypocrisy and lack of truthfulness of this government, I have yet to hear the government say: Sure, we made mistakes; sure, we lied to you about the GST; we misled you about tax reform. I have not heard them say anything of the kind. Instead of admitting his mistakes, the Prime Minister used the Speech from the Throne to brag: I did not make any mistakes, and I made some difficult decisions. Good grief, they were not difficult decisions, they were the wrong decisions! That is why he got this slap in the face from the Wall Street Journal, because the government has been making the wrong decisions about the economy for the past six years.
I realize my conservative colleagues are upset because I am blaming them. I agree they cannot be expected to take all the blame, because in 1984 they inherited an incredible deficit which was the result of the incompetence and arrogance of the former Liberal government. I remember. I realize that is how it all started. But as angered as I was by what happened under the previous government, it is totally unrelated to what is happening now under this government. The Liberal arrogance and incompetence has been replaced by a corporate agenda calling for the Conservatives to do certain things to please our friends the banks and big businesses. That is what we got for trying to boost our economy somewhat when we were deep into a "made in Canada" recession. Again, Canada has the know how. This government surely knows how to plunge us deep into a recession.
There is more, Mr. Speaker. After plunging us into a deep and severe recession, the government has the gall to blame us Canadians for contributing to this recession. How is that?


An hon. member:: That is the Tory way!


Philip Edmonston: True. That is the Toiy way of doing things. They blamed us for this recession. They said that we do not work enough, that we are greedy and spoiled. Quite frankly, it takes a lot of gall to say something like that!
Now, we are facing three national problems requiring direct and immediate action. These are, unemployment, unfair taxation and national unity.

This government's corporate agenda of high interest rates, high taxes and a high Canadian dollar has put millions of Canadians out of work. Free trade and unemployment insurance cuts together ensure that these jobs will never return and that the government's safety net for the jobless has wider gaps than ever.
If you do not believe there are gaps, come to my riding of Chambly and listen to people who have had to sell their homes because they lost their jobs, who had to move out of their community, who have to shop across the border. The government is making us nomadic shoppers, driving us away from our own country with its own taxation policies. Go to your ridings and listen to the people.
Montreal, Quebec, my own home town, has 12.5 per cent unemployment, the highest unemployment in Canada. That is my town and this is my country. I do not believe that the one-third of the caucus who are from Quebec can say they defend Quebec's interests while allowing 12.5 per cent unemployment to continue. That is not defending Quebec's interests.
Allow me to speak on the second national crisis we are facing. I call that unfair taxation. That is right, unfair taxation. You heard me.
Tbday the average, middle-class Canadian family is being taxed out of existence. When more than 50 cents out of every dollar is grabbed by the government what incentive is there to build for the future? What incentive is there to save? What incentive do we have to believe in Canada?
May 16, 1991

A fair Canada? Not with unfair taxation.
We have heard the lies and the hypocrisy about taxation in this country for years. I am not telling Canadians anything new when I recall that the former finance minister said: "Hey, the GST is great, it is going to be a visible tax". Ha, ha. Wrong.
A visible tax. Did you see it? I didn't see it. Most places say: "Our fee, our price, includes GST". That is not very visible.
Also, we heard another-I have to watch my language here because I know I must not be unparliamentary-error from Mr. Wilson, another error from the former Minister of Finance. He said: "the GST will be revenue neutral". We do not hear that any more. Revenue neutral, my eye. It is a cash cow and he knows it.


Mr. Heap:: And he got out of the job.


Philip Edmonston: Yes, Mr. Wilson did get out of the job. I want to recall what he said, though. Mr. Wilson, the former finance minister, said that we, the middle-class taxpayers, would probably have to pay about $300 more because of the GST. He said: "If you want to help this deficit, bring it down, that is what is necessary".
Well, I'll be darned. The latest figures show that it is closer to $600. That is double.


Lynn Hunter: The gouge and screw tax.


Philip Edmonston: Double what they promised us. I mean, how wrong can you be?
The government says it has been cutting costs to bring down taxes but we still have close to 40 ministries, about double what we had two decades ago. Government workers had their wages cut, but senior government officials, the so-called mandarins-I never used the word mandarin before I came to Ottawa- and the workers for the Bank of Canada, had a real sweetheart deal. They received their increases a couple of days before the wage freezes and the wage cuts.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


Philip Edmonston: Canadians see that. Good old John Crow and his Bank of Canada slipped themselves a nice bundle of extra cash just before the wage freeze.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: They knew what was coming.
The Address


Lynn Hunter: They looked after themselves.


Philip Edmonston: Sure, they knew. I spoke earlier about this government making Canadians nomadic shoppers across the border. This is what is happening. There is an increase of about 22 per cent. That is incredible. We want to support our communities, we want to support the businesses in our communities, but the government is making it impossible for us. It knows it.
The problem is that the parliamentarians on the other side will probably not be here after the next election. Unfortunately, because I believe that most of the people believe that they owe them an explanation. The government has never given them an explanation for all of these problems-and it is not in the throne speech.
This wasn't always a problem, this high unfair taxation. Canada was not always like that. In the fifties, according to Statistics Canada, for every revenue dollar the federal government collected about 49 cents was from the average taxpayer and about 51 cents from corporations. Do you know what it is now, do you know? I don't hear my colleagues from the other side. I will tell you what it is. We, the consumer, the aggrieved taxpayer, are being charged right now for every Revenue Canada dollar-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has three minutes left and then there will be questions and comments.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the questions and comment. I would just like to make the point that at one time every tax dollar average Canadians paid represented about 50 per cent of revenue and corporations represented about 50 per cent whereas today the average taxpayer contributes 85 cents of every tax dollar received by Revenue Canada. Corporations pay about 15 per cent. Check the figures. Fifteen per cent. The corporations' contribution to the average tax dollar received by Ottawa is almost the same as the Conservatives are right now in the Gallup poll.
That is scandalous.
Besides talking about unfair taxation, I would like to talk a little about Canadian unity. This government, with help from Liberal flip-flops, has been the major cause of disunity in our country.

The Address
Take a look at the Reform Party and at the Bloc Quebecois and tell me if you do not see orphans from the Conservatives and from the Liberals who can no longer deal with their own parties.
They chased them out. They would not allow them to speak their own mind. What they are doing is kicking the whole system down. They are saying: "We do not want anything to do with you."
I know we have the Bloc Quebecois in back of us, but I will tell you something: I would rather see separatists who are separatists and who say they are than people who are but say they are not and belong to a major party. I would rather see people who are not more hypocritical than the hypocrites I see on the other side. I know it hurts them to hear that, but that is the point I would like to make.
I think I should apologize a bit for being over-exhuber-ant. This throne speech did make me mad because I promised the people in my riding that they would see something that would give them some hope. Instead, I see nothing in this throne speech but despair.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech outlines a plan and we will see detailed legislation.
Recently, in the province of Ontario, we had the first NDP socialist budget, supported by the NDP federal party. There are some interesting numbers in it because they talk about, for example, taxation of corporations.
The Ontario budget in 1989 projected that $4.7 billion would be collected from corporations. In 1991-92, the NDP government is anticipating collecting $3.1 billion, that is $1.6 billion less from corporations.
You talk about taxing corporations more and yet the first NDP socialist government seems to recognize that corporations do make a contribution. Maybe, you would be curious and explain that.
The premier of Ontario defends the budget. He is saying: "Although we are going to have a deficit of $38 billion over the next four years, it now only costs 11 cents of each Ontario tax dollar to pay for that debt".
In 1968, when the federal Liberals moved from balanced budgets to running deficits, it was 12 cents on the
dollar. By the end of the reign in 1984, the federal taxpayer was paying 32 cents on the dollar.
When you get on that slippery slope of deficits, it is just deferred taxation. The province of Ontario, with an 8 per cent retail sales tax, collects $8 billion. When it presented the budget it said: "We are going to have an $8 billion deficit."
It did not tell the Ontario taxpayer to pay for these programs. It really should be a 16 per cent provincial sales tax if we want to balance the budget.
Would the hon. member please explain to me how a budget like that helps to create an economy and get it growing.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, allow me at least to explain briefly what I think happened in Ontario.
Ontario inherited a deficit. When the provincial Liberals were defeated and the New Democrats came to power, the Ontario Liberals were less than candid in saying that there was a $200 million surplus. Do you remember that? I find such a lie unacceptable.
Finally, the New Democrat government decided to invest in the people in spite of the recession. Of course, there will be a deficit. But I think it is much too early to say that the Ontario deficit will hurt the people. I suggest it is an investment in people.
The Tories have their way of doing things but, if I remember correctly, there were deficits too in the days of the famous former Premier of Ontario, Mr. Bill Davis, were there not?


An hon. member:: A very small one!


Philip Edmonston: A very small one, granted! In any case, let me tell you about what we are doing in Quebec. We too have a deficit. I would not be surprised at all if every province in this country has a deficit to some extent because they do not want the public pay for the problems caused by the recession. Now, you can argue about the size of the deficit but I believe-in the Toronto Star I saw an article by Bill Walker defending the latest Ontario budget-saying that Mr. Rae had no choice but to help the people of Ontario.
May 16, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Crowfoot and then the hon. member for Calgary Southeast has a question, so govern yourself accordingly.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I presume it was for convenience that the hon. member decided not to answer the previous question as to why it is corporations are being taxed less.
The Ontario government has increased expenditures in Ontario in the last provincial budget by 13 per cent. It has not just increased the deficit, it has tripled the deficit. That government tripled the deficit in a single fell swoop.
I want to ask the hon. member if the Ontario government ever intends to pay it back. If it does, then how is it going to do it except through taxes? Today he basically talked about taxes as if somehow it were something that was imposed by this government at this time. He ought to know that the only reason for taxes there is because of the history of how they came to be in the first place. His party is exactly on the same route of upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates. Because it governs the largest population province in Canada, the Ontario government bears a burden to all other parts of the country because Ontario affects the national economy far more significantly than any other province. It has a duty to Canadians elsewhere who are trying to manage the economy of the country more prudently.


Philip Edmonston: I do not think Conservatives who have been chased out of Ontario need to give me any lessons about a prudent economy.


An hon. member:: Right on.


Philip Edmonston: I do not have any lessons to learn from a party that has fallen to third in the polls in its own province. I think the province of Ontario told the Conservatives what it thought about their so-called "prudent" management of the economy.
Let me talk about their corporation taxes. I think that is important. I do not think Canadians want to gouge big business any more than they want to be gouged themselves. The key word here and a word the Conservative Party keeps having trouble with is "fairness". It is called being fair and Canadians want that fairness.
The Address
Look at the figures from Statistics Canada regarding the dollar that the average Canadian spends and that Revenue Canada collects. Eighty-five cents of every dollar of taxes comes from the average Canadian and only 15 cents comes from corporations. I am talking on a federal level here, primarily.


An hon. member:: Is that fair?


Philip Edmonston: I find that unfair. You can tell me about Ontario. You can tell me about Quebec. The figures speak for themselves and that is why, presently, the government is moving toward a single digit in the polls. People do not trust it and they are tired of unfairness.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly. It is not like me to comment on any NDP economic statement, because its credibility is questionable in the light of economics.
Look at the experience of NDP governments: the devastation caused to B.C. by that hiccup of history, the Barrett government, and the Ontario government. I could not say it any better than the Calgary Chamber of Commerce when it issued a release in which Tom Cumming, its president, said:
The Calgary Chamber of Commerce is concerned and disappointed with the recently announced budget of the Ontario government which projects a deficit of $9.7 billion in the fiscal year 1991-92".
While the Calgary Chamber of Commerce normally does not comment on budgets in other provinces, it has elected to break tradition because the projected deficit is so huge and because of its implications for Canada in general. "Ontario is a major player in the Canadian economy. There is a strong likelihood -that this exploding expenditure in the Ontario government will have negative impacts upon interest rates, inflation and the value of the Canadian dollar at a time when Canada is struggling to be competitive."
These people understand the economy of Canada and understand the devastation caused by the Ontario NDP government, the kind of policies proposed by the member who has just spoken. We have an idea of the credibility of NDP economic performance and policies.
Even greater cause for concern is the Ontario government's projection of a continued deficit of over $8 billion per year for the next succeeding years which will take that province's debt from its current $42 billion to $77 billion. What this will do to the Canadian economy is preposterous just when we have turned it around to lower inflation and interest rates in this country; one

May 16, 1991
The Address
irresponsible government can go against 10 responsible governments and turn the whole mess around to the previous state, as NDP governments have in the past.
The Calgaiy Chamber of Commerce and other chambers across the country have been campaigning long and hard for fiscal responsibility on the part of all governments in light of the burgeoning direct debt load which now exceeds $550 billion. When many provincial governments and the federal government have been making progress in bringing their expenditures under the semblance of control in recognition of the growing fiscal crisis in Canada, it is especially disappointing to see one province so massively ignoring this problem.
It is also disappointing to hear the NDP continue these tired old lines about old ways of how to destroy an economy.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I have just a final comment on the comments of my colleague who just spoke. I am really surprised. I think there are some statistics in what I had said. I tried to give some common sense facts and I tried to show the government where it could really regain the confidence of Canadians.
I know that sometimes the government side can be extremely sensitive to what I call common sense facts. Anyone who talks to the truckers, any consumer or anyone who deals with the every day world would agree with my presentation that this government is running this country straight into the ground.
I have one last comment. I hear these little snide remarks from the government side and sometimes from the Liberal side about which country are we talking about. I chose this country of Canada. I chose it as many of the other people chose this country. I do not really accept that kind of off the cuff remark about "which country are you talking about".
Finally, I just want to mention one thing. I wish that both the Liberals and the Conservatives in this House would not mistake Quebec nationalism for separatism. There is a big difference.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to address my fellow citizens today in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Last Monday, the Governor General gave Canadians a clear message, one based on national unity, on the prosperity of the Canadian economy and on governmental efficiency.
Canada cannot continue to grow, prosper and develop without these three elements as part of a coherent whole. Mr. Speaker, Canada's unity involves the very existence of this great country, which was bequeathed to us by our fathers and mothers and is now lent to us by our children.

Canada cannot exist without retaining the integrity of its territory. This land has to stretch from the waters of the Atlantic Ocean to the waters of the Pacific Ocean and to the waters and icefields of the Arctic.
Canada has to include the rocky shores of Newfoundland, the rugged but grandiose expanses of Labrador, the beauty of the maritimes, the uniqueness of Quebec, the industrial structure of Ontario, the Great Lakes, the vast prairies, the mountains and beautiful coast of British Columbia. This country has to include the Yukon and its natural resources, the Northwest Territories and the Arctic. Without any one of these geographical areas, Canada is not a country.
Canada is also a country of diversified people. [Translation]
The first native inhabitants, the first immigrants from continental Europe and the British Isles and all those who followed them have worked together to populate Canada. Take one of these people away and Canada is no longer a country.
Mr. Speaker, today we must look at the situation head on. Can we afford to take actions with unimaginable consequences? No, Mr. Speaker. We all have the responsibility to weigh carefully the significance and impact of the action we take. Breaking up the country and ending arrangements that have served the interests of Canadians and Quebecers well is too risky. Is it not wiser to continue our efforts to strengthen the country! Is it
May 16, 1991

not more logical to take new approaches that will lead to constitutional arrangements that are acceptable and profitable for all citizens of Canada? The answer to this question is yes.
Let us look together for arrangements that will let Canada continue on the road to greater prosperity. Our government's initiatives are a step in the right direction. The Citizens' Forum under Keith Spicer has done good work and continues to do so. This unique unprecedented initiative has enabled very many citizens to talk about their vision of Canada.


Mr. Lapierre:: It was a farce!


Charles A. Langlois: I hear the hon. member for Shefford, Mr. Speaker, say that the Citizens' Forum was a farce. I would simply remind the member for Shefford that the chairman of the Citizens' Forum is a great Canadian who has worked under several governments, including the former government of which the member for Shefford was a part.
The Citizens' Forum gave them a chance to talk about their vision of Canada for today and tomorrow.

The Beaudoin-Edwards commission has completed its consultation on the amending formula and will table its recommendation in a few weeks. The Speech from the Throne outlines the future steps that our government expects to take starting in the fall.
This round of constitutional initiative is for Canada. [Translation]
The success of this series of initiatives by our government will lead Canadians and Quebecers to realize the importance of keeping the country together. The prosperity of the Canadian economy will also help ensure Canada's unity.
The Speech from the Throne presents Canadians with a progressive vision for the direction of the country's economy. Prosperity depends on competitiveness, the dynamism of Canadian businesses and the skill of Canadian workers. Since 1984, our government has implemented a whole series of measures to make Canadian businesses more competitive.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of this House and Canadians, let me mention some of them: The thorough full overhaul of the tax system; the free trade treaty with
The Address
the United States; the revision of the Financial Institutions Act; the privatization of many Crown corporations including Air Canada and Petro-Canada; the sale to the private sector of government-controlled businesses; and the implementation of regional development programs in many parts of the country. That, Mr. Speaker, is a whole series of initiatives to strengthen the country's economy.
[English)
The Speech from the Throne proposes new and bold initiatives aimed at reinforcing our economic structure. I would like to quote the following from the Speech from the Throne:
-my government will work with provincial governments to ensure that Canada becomes a single, integrated market from coast to coast to coast.
This proposed initiative will cause major changes in the Canadian way of doing business internally. It will mean the elimination of policies preventing provincial agencies from buying at lower cost in other provinces. It will mean the elimination of regulations that force Canadian suppliers to sell their products abroad instead of selling them in neighbouring provinces.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative will also eliminate employment practices that hurt Canadian workers.
That is an important courageous initiative that will also contribute to the country's prosperity.
Manpower training will also receive special attention. Our workers must adjust to technological change, new work methods and new concepts of management and production.
Bill C-21 now makes available funds so that we can considerably increase our efforts to improve the skill of our labour force.
Our small and medium sized businesses in Quebec face huge manpower problems. It is most urgent that our government and the Government of Quebec conclude agreements on labour force training.
This is not the time for discord and jurisdictional quarrels. Employers and workers need immediate strong actions and the federal government has an extremely important role to play in this field, even if the hon. member for Shefford does not agree, although when he

May 16, 1991
The Address
was on the government side, he could have influenced these decisions, but I must say that he did not do so.
The Speech from the Throne also announces our government's firm intention to increase its efforts in education. Together with all my colleagues from Quebec, I applaud this initiative. We members of Parliament from Quebec in Ottawa call on our provincial colleagues to react positively to this intention.
Together, let us tell the ministers responsible, both in Quebec and in Ottawa, to leave rhetoric aside and to think of the young people who drop out of high school. That is the problem, which must be attacked resolutely.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne reveals some horrifying figures: Three high school students in ten drop out before graduation-and in some regions of the country, it is four out of ten,-and four adults in ten neither read nor do arithmetic to function properly. These data justify immediate action that must not cease until the goals set are reached.
These goals are clearly set out in the Speech from the Throne: Cutting illiteracy rates in half; ensuring that ninety percent of Canadians attain high school diplomas; doubling the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, science and engineering; quadrupling the training provided by employers to their employees.
Let us join forces at every level of government to achieve these goals. The prosperity of our country depends on it. The need to improve the efficiency of the machinery of government is stated in the Speech from the Throne. That part of the Speech contains a list of proposed changes.
Now, it is up to the Parliamentarians, elected representatives and government officials to set up the appropriate mechanisms.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that the people from remote areas, who live far away from the governmental major decision-making centres are frustrated by what they perceive to be indifference on the part of civil servants in dealing with their problems. I must admit that, while this frustration is sometimes legitimate, most civil servants try to provide the best service possible to their clients.
The problem, in my opinion, is that the decision-making process is too concentrated at the upper echelons located far from the major centres.
Regional services do exist but, more often than not, decisions are made at the head office.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the efficiency of the machinery of government calls for a genuine decentralization of the administrative decision-making process. Departments must grant a greater autonomy to their regional managers.
Those are some of my comments on the Speech from the Throne opening the third session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament of Canada.
If we work together toward achieving the goals set by the government, we will be gratified, by the end of this mandate, to see we have helped maintain and strenghten the integrity, unity and prosperity of Canada.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. member for Manicouagan, and I noticed more specifically his reference to regional development programs, which according to him-I don't want to put words into his mouth-but according to him, in any case, these programs had improved since the Progressive Conservative Party came to power.
Perhaps I may describe the following situation for the hon. member and then ask him to comment on the impact of regional development programs since his government came to power, and more specifically in the part of the country I represent, in Eastern Ontario, where the unemployment rate today is almost as high as in certain areas in Newfoundland. For instance, in Hawkesbuiy, which is in my riding, the unemployment rate is up to 15 or 16 per cent. In Cornwall the unemployment rate is even higher. Pembroke, Renfrew and other regions, with the exception of the National Capital region, also have very high unemployment.
Before 1984, the CIRB program, which was designed to find new industries for regions dependent on the textile industry, was abolished by the present government.
May 16, 1991

We also had the IRDP, the Industrial and Regional Development Program, which was active in my region and many others as well, which was also abolished by the government opposite.
There was a federal provincial agreement between Canada and Ontario, the subsidiary agreement for Eastern Ontario, to help regions like mine.
Does the hon. member still think regional development programs have improved since the Tories came to power?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I found the comments by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell most interesting. I would like to point out to the hon. member that in the part of Quebec I represent, regional development agreements signed by our government with the government of Quebec focus on industrial development tourism and developing the region's own resources.
I wish I were able to comment on the situation in Eastern Ontario and the riding he represents. However, at one time, because the business I worked for had made a number of acquisitions in his riding, I was in that particular area to do business. We found that business people in the area were very dynamic and that in addition to being very dynamic, they, and small businesses in this part of Ontario were technologically very advanced.
If the hon. member feels that further efforts should be made by the federal government in his riding, I would ask him to make the requisite submissions to the minister. As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, I should be delighted to be of assistance, if necessary. However, I can say that in the part of Quebec I represent, these regional development programs are working very well. They have made it possible to attract new investment and create new jobs, and they have helped the fisheries and tourism industry to make considerable progress. I would therefore urge the hon. member to look at these results and see whether it would be possible to implement the same measures in his own riding in Ontario.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Manicouagan a few questions, particularly as he is a conservative mem-
The Address
ber for Quebec who for all practical purposes, does not care about Quebec.
I would like to ask him whether he agrees, as his speech seems to indicate, with the fact that the federal government is intruding directly in the field of education and vocational training?
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of the signing of the Constitution of 1867, the Fathers of Confederation had left education to the provinces, which were given exclusive power in that field.
Despite the present constitutional upheaval, the federal government, in its Speech from the Throne that we are currently analyzing, plans to intrude directly in that field.
I would like to know whether the hon. member for Manicouagan agrees with such an intrusion. Would he say it as categorically?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, does he agree with the fact that the Speech from the Throne is now talking about a "unique" society rather than "distinct" as it was in the Meech Lake Accord and as was agreed by the eleven Prime Ministers. Is the member for Manicouagan in agreement with the Speech from the Throne which describes Quebec as a unique society?
My third point, Mr. Speaker, deals with the fact that the Speech from the Throne is proposing a legislation allowing for a consultation of Canadian citizens on the Constitution, through a referendum or a constituent assembly. Is the hon. member for Manicouagan in agreement with the leader of the opposition who says that a referendum should be held, throughout Canada, before the referendum in Quebec, that is before June 1992 or October 1992?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to answer the questions asked by the hon. member who just spoke-


Gilles Rocheleau: for Hull-Aylmer.


Charles A. Langlois: For Hull-Aylmer, thank you. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to remember where the hon. member is from, since he has sat in various places in this House, it is a bit tricky. So, please, forgive me.
Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's third question, the Throne Speech does say that Canadian men and women will be invited to take part in the debate, and that will happen through extensive consultations, which have already begun with the Citizens' Forum and the Beau-

May 16, 1991
The Address
doin-Edwards Commission and will continue this autumn with the creation of the committee, as announced in the Throne Speech.
Mr. Speaker, there was no mention of a referendum in the Throne Speech, nor is it included in the government's proposals, and I think it would be wise and well-advised to realize that a whole series of consultations will have to take place before we decide exactly what mechanisms will be used to amend the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite content with the expression "unique society" used in the Throne Speech, since it acknowledges the fact that Quebec is in a unique and very particular situation, as one of the founding nations, with its own characteristics, its own language, its own legal institutions, and its own education system. That is the way, Mr. Speaker, that the unique character of Quebec society should be recognized.
Thirdly, the Throne Speech specifies that the federal government intends to interfere, with provincial consent and cooperation, in education and job training.
My honourable colleague should reread the Throne Speech very carefully. He would see, Mr. Speaker, right there in the Throne Speech, that the federal government is ready to get involved in these areas "with provincial endorsement and cooperation".


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this very important occasion in the life of this Parliament, which is to debate the new blueprint put forward by the government.
This is one of the signal hallmark events in the life of any parliamentary session. It should establish for all Canadians the opportunity to know where we are going, to begin to put together the kind of plan and formulation of goals that are going to be essential to deal with the kind of world we live in.
As I read and listened to the throne speech and to the debate, I wondered if we were really engaged in a serious exercise. I thought really the whole object of the government was to build up a tourist industry in Canada by convincing Canadians they do not have to go to Florida to go to Disneyland or Fantasyland. They only have to come to Ottawa and look at the performance of this government. They do not have to go down to Orlando,
Florida to see Dumbo and Goofy, they can look at the front benches of the government in the last few days to understand what kind of fantasy world is being built here in Ottawa.
The government talks about a prosperous Canada, and it talks about it sort of based on the free trade agreement and all the new economic initiatives. The reality of Canada is 100 metres in front of this building where truckers are protesting, as they are across Canada, because they are losing their jobs and they are fighting for their economic survival. TTie government says: "We will study the problem."
What can be more of a fairy tale than that enormous gap between the reality that every one sees as we walk in this building in the last days, and when we listen to members on the opposite side or the ministers who say: "We are going to build a prosperous Canada."
The government talks about caring for our children. Our children are our most important asset. The reality is, as I see in my riding, that 40 or 50 per cent of the food banks are occupied by children and their families because they cannot get enough to eat at home. Their welfare payments or their income is not enough to buy them the basic staples of our society.
Is there anything in the throne speech-although I hear a comment from the minister that yes, we are. We are going to have another study. We are going to have another committee. The government is turning Canada into one big university symposium. The only people who are going to get jobs out of this are the researchers and the appointees to new royal commissions, new committees and new study teams.
What goes on in the reality of Canada as it now exists is that we have the shame and tragedy of close to half a million children starving in this country. I have not heard any real commitment to action based upon that harsh, difficult and incredibly insensitive reality.
As a critic for external affairs, I looked again at the throne speech and have listened with some anticipation to what the government said about the world we live in. It says Canada will once again defend its interests in this world of a global economy. The harsh reality, again, is seen on the hills of Ttirkey and Iran where there are still over one million Kurdish refugees. It is seen in the depleted, tragic wastelands of Bangladesh, Sudan, Soma-
May 16, 1991

lia and Ethiopia. That is the harsh reality of the world we live in.
What does our government have to say about it? What initiatives are we going to take? What roles are we going to perform? If you listen to the throne speech, we are going to do what we have been doing up to now, which is nothing.
We fought a war just a few months ago in the gulf where we were prepared to spend close to $1 billion. We said it was a great fight for democracy and for the rule of law. It was a great opportunity to show that there will be now a new sense of international responsibility and collective security. A billion dollars to fight a war.
We had war cabinets meeting every day, and the cameras were whirling. We had the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs coming out and declaring the important initiatives. Canada was going to fight for a reduction in the arms trade. Canada was going to propose economic development. Canada was going to take the leadership in reforming the United Nations.
Is there anything in the throne speech about that? Did you read anything about what we are doing now? The arms trade is going on in the Middle East. They have just negotiated a sale of $25 billion. I did not hear anybody from the Canadian government objecting to that initiative. I did not hear anybody in the Canadian government in this new world order saying to our allies in Europe, the United States or others: "Hey, stop selling arms". That is what the Prime Minister said we were going to do during the war. But somehow we have forgotten about that obligation.
I see the tragedy taking place in the aftermath of the war; the consequences of the war, the total destruction in the countries, the refugees hanging out in the hills. Where is the incredible mobilization of Canada that we saw during the war? Where is the peace cabinet that should be mobilized to bring the resources of this country together to help these people? Is that not equally important?
I do not see any commitment in the throne speech. I do not see any initiative by the Canadian government. I
The Address
do not see any action being promised. It is a total absence and omission.
Instead, it fired some 300 people from the Department of External Affairs, people who were working on proposals to deal with the spread of arms; people who were working on UN reform. These people who were working on these very initiatives no longer have jobs.
Of course, the new minister of external affairs has set an incredibly new launch in her tenure as a minister by totally denying her responsibility for the action of the department and is trying to lay the blame on civil servants. What kind of performance is this government going to expect from its prime public servants when it has trespassed upon the fundamental, essential, value of ministerial accountability. It is a great way to start the new world order from a Canadian point of view by telling your department it can hang out to dry. That is an awfully good way for this government to start leading its new interventions in the world with a minister, who in a cowardly way, refuses to take responsibility for what that department does. That is a great way to get started.
Once again we are back in the world of fantasy land. We are back living in a world that really does not exist. The government side is weaving and spinning in a world of make believe, of magic. Unfortunately, the only people who believe it are the members of the government, because nobody else out there does. Nobody else believes there is a real commitment to action. No one else believes there really is a plan in mind.
The harsh reality is that when it comes to dealing with the problems of Canada and the problems of the world, this government is bankrupt of ideas. It has nothing to offer except more study, more examination, more review, more inquiries, nothing that would give any sense that it knows where it is going. There is no blueprint here. All we have is a prescription for navel gazing, hoping somehow that there will be some magical turn of events because it does not know how to control matters any longer.
What is sad about it is that it has not learned from its mistakes. It has not learned that there are serious fundamental problems in this whole trade arrangement with the United States that is leading to enormous losses of jobs in steel, automobiles, food processing and agricul-

May 16, 1991
The Address
ture. Jobs are being lost every day because we did not negotiate the right deal.
However, the government does not say: "Well, okay, we have had a couple of years to see how it is going. Here is how we can change it. Here is how we can renegotiate it. Here is how we can improve upon it. Here is what we should do about it". It says; "Hey, it is wonderful".
Tell the unemployed workers in the steel mills or the food processing plants how wonderful it is and they will tell you that once again you are living a great lie.
The harsh reality again is that there is no sense of realism about what it is doing. Instead it promises that it is now going to renegotiate a deal with Mexico, for North American free trade, but without knowing why, without knowing where it wants to go, without knowing what kind of conditions.
President Bush at least had the good sense to set certain objectives, dealing with social, environmental and labour problems. We have not had a word, a whisper. There is nothing in the throne speech to show that we have learned any lessons about how to deal with the difficult world of international trade.
Again, dealing with the incredibly important problem of national unity, we have a promise for another committee to study the works of other committees, who were studying the works of other committees. We are sort of beginning to chase our tail on this issue. The Prime Minister says one thing and then another. We may have a referendum, we may not have a referendum, we may have this, we may have that. We have no sense of where we are going.
As a westerner I am surprised and extremely disappointed, that when discussing changing how Ottawa works, the whole fundamental question of Senate reform was totally ignored.
I would like to read into the record a statement by Gordon Robertson, one of the most senior and respected public servants in this country for many long years. I quote from his book A House Divided where he wrote: "Agreement on the Senate was the key to Confederation in 1867. Agreement on its reform could be the key to the impasse that today threatens the renewal of our federalism for the future."
One of the most important and admired public servants who has studied the Constitution says the key to
the impasse of trying to find reconciliation between east and west, of giving the regions the feeling that they belong in a full sense, is Senate reform.
I looked closely at the throne speech, I used a microscope, I changed my glasses, I examined it, perused it. There is not one word about our willingness, our preparation to change the Senate. It is totally ignored. Yet I know that last month during the parliamentary break when I travelled throughout western Canada as chairman of a committee of our own caucus on constitutional matters it came up in every single meeting. It has the same symbolic importance in western Canada as the issue of a distinct or unique society has in Quebec. The same feeling of providing a recognition of belonging.
Yet, a throne speech which tries to set out the new blueprint for federalism completely misses the point.
There has to be Senate reform. It is a way of righting the imbalances, inequities and inequalities that have existed in federalism since its inception. There is not one federal state in the world that does not have a second chamber which works effectively to represent regional interests.
Through quirks of history ours does not. It is not an elected body, it does not have the credibility or the legitimacy of being democratically elected by the people. Therefore, its ability to provide a check and balance upon the role of the executive, which is dictated to by the majority of members from the heavily populated provinces, is constantly undermined. We see it repeated time and time again in many decisions, I don't have to place in the record of the House that history. It is seen and felt in a palpable way.
There are all kinds of proposals around. Mr. Robertson, in his book, discusses all of them and comes up with what I think is a pretty fair proposal, an elected Senate that has effective powers to provide checks and balances, that can say yes or no to appointments to Crown agencies, to Crown boards, to various appointments. It could provide protection for language and culture at the national level, rather than relying simply on provincial powers.
There could be an election based upon proportional representation to ensure that minorities are reflected in that body. The elections could be staggered every two years in a six-year term to create a kind of mini-election
May 16, 1991

to test the government so it would have to be conscious of changes in the mood of the public and their concerns.
There are some good ideas around, ideas that we have promoted. The 1986 resolution, passed at our own policy convention, set out a very clear statement of our commitment to that reform. There is nothing from the government on that crucial issue.
I say to the new Minister of Constitutional Affairs, who is from western Canada, that no one should know better than he how important it is that Senate reform become part of the package. I am not saying this in a partisan sense. I am simply saying there will be no agreement on any new constitutional package until we have a commitment and agreement that we will pursue Senate reform based upon a democratic election, upon effective powers, and making it more equal.
That has to be the hallmark of any new proposal. It is something that is important because in western Canada we recognize the importance of reorganizing and restructuring our own arrangements.
A week or so ago I put out a proposal saying that the prairie provinces have to come together in some form of union. They have to begin merging and integrating many of the economic activities of the prairie region, such as telecommunications, training, and transportation. We are small and do not have the same kind of critical mass, resources, and people and as a result we have to begin combining our resources and combining our energies to make it work. There are similar proposals in the Atlantic provinces for the same thing.
We are prepared to restructure this country. It is important. We recognize the crucial challenges in the global economy. It is not going to happen until there is a willingness at the federal level to make changes. That means not just dealing with Senate reform but reforming many of the regulatory bodies of the federal government to make them work at a regional level, and ensuring that transportation is tailored and blueprinted to the concerns of that region.
It means using some of the regional development funds, instead of using them as slush funds for individual businesses, to start rebuilding the infrastructure, the
The Address
training facilities, and the schools of those regions so they can get up to par, so they can begin to improve those areas.
There is an awful lot more reform and remodelling that has to be done than simply having another committee go to work on it. On the crucial question of constitutional amendment, we could use the Victoria formula. A prairie union could provide its own veto for that part of the world and ensure that westerners do not feel they are being left out, like they are second class citizens in their own country.
Those are the kinds of proposals I would have expected in a throne speech that said we are at a crossroads, a turning point. I would have expected a clear, unmistakable agenda of action, proposing how to deal with problems of the world, how to deal with our own economic problems, and how to deal with regional problems.
That was not in it. Instead, we have a brochure from Disneyland outlining how to pretend what is going on as opposed to getting down to work, getting down to action.
I know my time is about through-I would love to be able to spend more hours with you, and I know that you would love that as well. The message we are really trying to give is that we all recognize the importance of breaking out of conventional ways of putting our heads to work, of coming up with ideas that Canadians can really understand and that indicate the political system is working well. Credibility and belief in the political system will not be achieved by tinkering with a little bit of machinery. It is going to come about by clearly demonstrating that the people they elect know where they are going, can provide some leadership, have a sense of purpose, and know what the blueprint should be. If that is the criteria for leadership then the throne speech is an abysmal failure.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. friend on such a compassionate speech. I am sure that all Canadians share in the disillusionment that he expressed with the lack of depth and commitment this government has shown in this throne speech. The most accurate reading I could make of his interpretation of the speech was that there was a total lack of commitment on the part of the government. It was a promise that they will continue to

May 16, 1991
The Address
offer Canadians what they have been offering them for the past several years.
In other words, Canadians, the government is saying: "You had better like what we have been doing to you for the past several years because that is our commitment to you for the future. That is what we are going to be doing to you for years to come." The time period, of course, will probably be limited to about two years.
I wonder if the hon. member would just react to that rather simplistic view, perhaps, of the throne speech. Do you think it is an accurate one? Do you think this government was really saying to Canadians: "We hope you like what we have been giving you because that is what we are going to continue to give you and continue to do to you?"


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it only shows how many prescient people there are in this country that they would be able to provide such a highly accurate appraisal.
There is another comment that came to mind as the member for Leeds-Grenville was speaking. It reminded me back when I was a graduate student and one of my professors commented upon a certain political statement and said: "the poor gentleman is lecturing on navigation while the ship is going down". I think that is a pretty accurate description of what this throne speech is about.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask a question that comes from the Canada West Foundation. The member in his speech talked about the free trade agreement. The foundation said that Canada's merchandise trade with the U.S. jumped to $17.4 billion last year, up from $14.2 billion in 1988. More impressively, direct investment in Canada exceeded Canadian direct investment in other countries by $4.3 billion in 1990, the first time in a decade that there has been a net inflow of funds. In 1988, just before free trade, there was an outflow of $2.5 billion.
Looking at only the flow of direct investment between Canada and the United States, there was a similar reversal. In 1990 Canada attracted $800 million more in direct U.S. investment than the U.S. did in Canada, and in 1988 the U.S. had attracted $3.8 billion more. This suggests that overseas investors see Canada as an increasingly attractive place.
This information comes from the Canada West Foundation. I remind the member for Winnipeg South Centre that this was put together by a business consultant based in Winnipeg who concluded in his report: "Despite the bad economic news of 1990, including confirmation of a recession, export sales to the U.S. have been a shining star. Export growth has been driven by high-tech sectors while traditional main exports, such as autos, metal, forestry have slowed. The bottom line is that Canadian trade with the U.S. has been basically business as usual".
This comes from western Canada, part of the country that he represents. It seems to differ with the partisan comments that he has suggested. I would like him to comment on these particular numbers.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I was not conscious that my remarks were particularly partisan, but I am very pleased to respond to the question. It was totally non-partisan and objective as we well know, as has been my tradition in this House over the past 12 or 13 years.
The member points out figures provided by the Canada West Foundation. I think he might more accurately look at some of the figures provided by agents of Statistics Canada. They point out that we have the highest current account deficit in the history of this country, close to $20 billion. The net outflow of funds on dividends, profits, and intercorporate transfers is at its highest level ever. What is really happening in this country is that we are haemorrhaging in terms of flow of dollars outward.
Also, let us take a look at direct investment figures. If we break them down in their particulars, we find that a large proportion of direct investment is going into takeovers and acquisitions. I think the last figure provided by Statistics Canada was close to 95 per cent. It is not going into new investments or new businesses. It is going into taking over Canadian companies which are not able to survive.
It is also important to point out in terms of those figures that one of the reasons there is an inflow is that we have a God-awful, unacceptable, high rate of interest and high dollar. They have to be kept propped up in order to bring in money to replace that which is flowing out. In order to replace what is being haemorrhaged, we
May 16, 1991

have to provide an unnatural pool of money for blood transfusions. That is the real problem.
It is only, as our leader said in his opening speech, when we have a more realistic economic policy that we can begin to get our economic house in order. Then we will not have to rely upon all that direct investment, simply short-term Treasury bill investments, to prop up the economy. We know we are in a vicious circle caused by much of the openings that took place under that trade agreement.
Third, I ask the hon. gentleman-and I know he is a serious member of Parliament-to step across the lawn and talk to the truckers today and see how they feel about the economic policies of this government. He should go down to the food processing plants that have been closed in Portage la Prairie, the steel plants in southwestern Ontario or auto parts plants.
There is one basic fallacy in the comments the member made, and I am sure he made it mistakenly. He said: "We may be selling a little bit more high-tech but, after all, things like agriculture, fish, auto parts-all these other things-are not doing so well any more". I will tell you why they are not doing so well. It is because of that trade agreement. We lost control of our resources, and those other industries that he mentioned happened to be the backbone of the industry of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Has the honorable member for Shefford a question or a comment?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Of course I would like to direct a question to the honorable member who has just resumed his seat. He talked about Senate reform as being a crucial issue whithout which no constitutional reform could be acceptable, for him and his party, I guess.
I believe, I heard him mention the traditional triple "E", but I would like for him to elaborate on equal representation in the Senate. He said: We want it to be more equal. His leader, every time, avoid stating his party's position about the question of equality in the Senate. Would every province have the same number of senators? I would like to know the honorable member's opinion on the matter.
The Address
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would especially like to know what he thinks of the federal government's role in the field of education and vocational training. I know he is an expert in this area and I would like to hear what he has to say on these two issues.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very happy that the honorable member acknowledges the importance of a Senate reform.
In my opinion, it is crucial to find a formula which would provide for a more equal representation, by region and by province. I think it would be a worthwile subject to be considered by this House because we have received several proposals for a report from Mr. Robertson, the Senate and the House of Commons over the last three or four years.
Several proposals have been put forward for consideration but I think it is the government's responsibility to come up with a formula to be looked at by the other members of Parliament.
But is its importance symbolic? You, your group that is, has said that it was important to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. It is important for your region, but the same applies to the western regions. It is absolutely essential. I think it is a proposal which should be incorporated in a formula concerning the role of Canada, as my leader has said when he spoke with debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
As for the formula, I am prepared to consider several options, several proposals, but the principle of equality is what matters.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am always impressed by the position taken by that member on the issue of the free trade agreement. Tragically I am now under the impression, since he has been removed as the trade critic, that the position espoused by the former leader of the Liberal Party on the free trade and the Mexico connection has been changed by the Liberal Party.
Will your party or will it not abrogate the existing free trade agreement? What is your position on Canada participating with Mexico in those new talks?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased at the opportunity of helping my hon. friend from British Columbia to clarify his thoughts.

May 16, 1991
The Address
It is one of the more difficult tasks one faces in the House of Commons, but I am certainly prepared to undertake it at any opportunity.
It is clear-and I think our leader has said it in his response to the Speech from the Throne and on other occasions-that the trade agreement is not working for Canada and it must be renegotiated.


David Barrett: Renegotiated, that is absurd.


Lloyd Axworthy: How else do you do it? The member says it is absurd, but the fact of the matter is that there is an agreement in place. It means in order to change it, to abrogate it, you have to work under that agreement. It is an international document and therefore you have to make your proposals. That is clearly what I have said.
Second, on the question of the Mexico round, unfortunately the round has started. Our own party in this House of Commons, with our trade critic and others, again put the proposition very clearly to government members that they should not enter into any of these kinds of discussions until they meet certain conditions.
The government has not met any of them and it should not be there. What I would suggest to the hon. member is that what is really crucial at this time is for us to recognize what is going on. The trade patterns in the world are really being dominated by the hub and spoke strategy that the Americans are following. It is really incumbent upon the next Government of Canada, which we will be, to provide an alternative to that strategy, to open up trade-particularly in the western hemisphere-to get a new set of trade relationships-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my congratulations to the member for Saint-Maurice and the member for Regina-Wascana for the excellent way in which they began this debate.
This session of Parliament will be more important than most, perhaps more important than any before it. During this time, our country will either agree to go ahead or decide to close down. That determines our obligations today. As all the leaders in this House have said, this is
not about the preferences of a party or the agenda of a government. The only agenda is Canada. That has never been a partisan purpose before and it will not be now.
Those of us sitting here are far from perfect, as individuals or as a Parliament. Whatever our past failings, we are determined that we shall not fail Canada. I understand fully that the non-partisan approach requires the government to involve all of Parliament in basic decisions. That is why the Prime Minister stated explicitly yesterday our willingness to accept sensible proposals from any party or parliamentarian. That is why I began my new responsibilities by reaching out deliberately to Canadians who had felt excluded in the past- native leaders, northerners, western Canadians. We have an obligation to listen, to learn and to lead, and I know we must do all three if we are to succeed.
No individual, party or government is going to compel Canada to continue. Canadians must decide whether we wish to keep our country. That is a decision for all of us.
Elected members of this House have an extra obligation. We have to ensure that the issues are clear, that the stakes are understood, and that Canadians have the chance to consider every reasonable proposal to renew and to save this country. We will need a lot of help in that work. We cannot lock ourselves into old ways which Canadians no longer respect or trust.
Neither should we lightly put aside our parliamentary process which has earned its legitimacy through 124 years of Canadian experience. Parliament needs to be reformed, not abandoned, and on behalf of the government I am prepared to consider any serious proposal any member might make as to how we involve Canadians who are not elected.
Involving them does not mean that we should step aside from our most basic responsibilities. None of us would deny that this country is in crisis. This crisis can also be an opportunity, a new beginning, a journey of liberation from the worst of our past and a freedom to build upon the best within all of us. I believe that Canadians across this country are beginning to see it that way too.
They are beyond simple despair at how things have gone wrong, and are wondering how to help set things right. This is a time for this country to reflect on our past and get to know it, to reflect on our present and decide
May 16, 1991

how to improve it, and to look ahead to our future to determine how best to achieve it together.

Mr. Speaker, our plan consists of four separate phases. Phase one is nearing its conclusion. By July 1, we will have received the reports of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future and the Special Joint Committee on the Process for Amending the Constitution of Canada. Both have done a good job, and the government will examine their conclusions with all the attention and care the views of Canadians deserve.
The next step will be the tabling of a set of proposals on how to reform the country. These proposals will be detailed, they will be specific and they will be published. They will not remain in the private domain, known only to a chosen few. All Canadians will know our vision of the future.
These proposals will not be final. However, during the third phase, Canadians will have a chance to tell us what they think. A joint committee of Parliament will meet Canadians across the country to hear their views. The committee will hold public hearings, not to discuss the country's future in genenral but to discuss specific changes.
The committee's mission and purpose will be clearcut. It will be asked to consider concrete proposals for constitutional change. It will seek comments from Canadians and make recommendations to the government. The committee will have discussions with committees or similar groups of members of the various provincial and territorial legislatures, on how they will proceed and the witnesses they wish to invite. This will be more than just a matter of joint hearings. It will be a full-fledged association. The resulting dialogue can then be used to build a national consensus.

A major priority will be an intensive dialogue with the aboriginal community whose constitutional concerns must be addressed in this committee while simultaneously its economic and social concerns are the subject of a royal commission inquiry.
The Address
In the final step, we expect Parliament will propose reforms that will set this country on a sound and sure course for the next century. In order to leave open as many options as possible, this House will be asked to pass legislation which would enable the people of Canada to express themselves directly in a referendum.
It is not our preference nor is it our intention to seek to resolve complex, constitutional questions by way of referendum but we believe it is prudent for the federal government to have the full authority to conduct a Canadian referendum-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: -should that become the best way to achieve consensus on defining our future together.
We are prepared to consider other methods of consulting Canadians, including any proposals that might come from the mixed committee, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee.
I do not believe there has ever been a more open process put in place for the people of Canada to decide themselves the destiny of our country. I wish to turn to some of the tasks which I believe are in front of us in the months ahead.
First, this time constitutional change must address several issues simultaneously. This cannot be a Quebec round, an aboriginal round or a Senate round. We have to make progress on many fronts together. This must be a Canada round.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Second, we must be guided by a sense of both pragmatism and history. We want a country that works well and works together in one of the most challenging periods in world history.
The only way for our reforms to succeed is to respect the special nature of this country, including the objective reality that Quebec is a distinct society.
Third, the country must get to know itself better. The stories which suffuse our history are extraordinary. They are stories of achievement, of strength in the face of adversity, of a unity built on diversity. We do not tell those stories so we do not know them. Let us tell them again. Nostalgia will not hold this country together, but knowledge can.

May 16, 1991
The Address
We need to know our history, but we also need to get to know each other better. In Yellowknife last week, Mayor Pat McMahon brought a few people together to talk to me about Canada. One woman observed of Canada, and I quote her: "Everybody feels misunderstood". That says two things. First, misunderstanding is widespread but, second, for most of us the priority is to have others understand us. It is not a one way street.
If we want to keep and build this country, citizens everywhere must work at understanding why other Canadians have priorities different from their own. Quebecers must try to understand why western Canadians feel that institutions like the Senate must be changed fundamentally. Western Canadians must try to understand why recognition of a distinct society is so important to Quebec.
Those of us whose ancestors came to Canada from somewhere else must try to understand that aboriginal claims are about respect as much as they are about money.
Fourth, there is a real desire in this country for information. Canadians want to base their decisions on evidence and not on ideology. They are ready to move beyond accusation to deliberation. They want to know what unity gives them. They want to know what taking away unity would leave.
Sometimes I think we talk too much about our differences and too little about our common Canadian citizenship. I celebrate the diversity of this country, but the real strength of Canada is that we have made these different parts work together. That has required a basic respect for others that is not at all common in the world. We Canadians use our gifts of wealth and freedom to advance our neighbours' interests, not just our own. That sense of duty to a larger community is evident everywhere in Canada. We have to make more of that common Canadian citizenship.

According to any standard, we, as Canadians, have accomplished a great deal. We are free, we are prosperous, we are tolerant and we are educated. Taken individually, these qualities are exceptional. Together, they
have made Canada a country that is both unafraid to tread uncharted paths and that cares for its people.
Mr. Speaker, it cannot be repeated often enough that the integrity of Canadian values is part and parcel to the integrity of this country. Canadians did not choose the path of mutual respect because they felt like it but because our diversity implies the mutual respect of our component parts, so that our relations can be peaceful and productive.
Canadians did not choose the path of tolerance because it was fashionable but because different cultures must work together if they are to survive.
Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have other, more pressing concerns and priorities than changing the Constitution. They have to look after the education of then-children, maintain their prosperity and keep their neighbourhoods safe and clean. However, they must also keep pace with the rest of the world.

People can unplug their phones, countries cannot. While we are deciding whether Canada should continue, other countries are moving forward without us. What price are we paying for quarrelling at home while others are focusing on the future? What price are we paying while others are preoccupied with innovating, educating, changing and competing? Unlike Peter Sellers' last movie, countries do not succeed by just being there.
I am not saying that Canada should stay together just because some accountant or economist might say it makes sense. Canada is not a corporate merger but being poor is no foundation for doing anything. I do not know of one economic argument which says that being smaller means being better.
If there were such an argument, Europe would not be uniting. If there were such an argument, Asia would not be trading. If there were such an argument, Confederation would never have happened. Our ancestors would have seen a better life apart than they found together.
If that was the decision in the middle of the 19th century, when the global economy had barely begun, how on earth can it be different now when the global village is at our doorstep, and at our doorstep forever.
May 16, 1991

Whatever the options in the past, whatever the differences Canadians have had, our advantage in the future is to be together as one strong, large, effective country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: I believe we have time. In 1864, Confederation was constructed in four short months between the conference in Quebec City and the conference in Charlottetown. Although our problems may be more complex, surely we can begin to save a country in the time it took to build one.
In 1865, George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation made a statement. He had not been a fan of Confederation, but he came to be a convert. He said, and I quote:
We are endeavouring to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged other countries into all the horrors of civil war. We are striving to settle forever issues hardly less momentous than those that have rent the United States of America, and are now exposing it to all the horrors of civil war. Have we not then great cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles than that which has entailed in other countries, such deplorable results.
Canada is still the better way. The world knows it. Our ancestors knew it when they chose to come here from around the globe. Canadians know it today. It is our obligation to build that better way, not to discard it, knowing the value of our achievement and knowing that we can make it better still.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the minister had a very effective speech. As he put the four stages of the process before us, it certainly cleared up some of the concerns I have and I am sure other people have.
Having been on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee and knowing that everybody who came before us said that public participation was critical to the process, I had hoped the minister would come up with proposals that the public would have had a chance to discuss. I will ask about that again in my second question. But from that discussion, a new set of proposals, some reinforced or some discarded, and then more public participation after it had been looked at again.
I am wondering if there is to be a two-stage public participation in the process.
Second, I cannot believe that we have to wait until September to get the proposals. I think everybody in Canada knows that the Senate and Parliament have to be reformed. The Supreme Court could easily be, by bring-
The Address
ing together the provinces to look at it. The distribution of powers does not need unanimity. There was not one expert who said it was the Constitution that was to blame. They said it was the process that was used around Meech. There was not one expert who did not point out that we had two amendments since the new Constitution was in place that passed, and only one failed.
I just cannot believe, with the government having a majority here and in the Senate, that we cannot get together and reform the institutions within our own jurisdiction this summer. I do not know any Canadians, since I crossed Canada, who felt that we were giving them leadership, from this place down to the people, in the areas that we have control over.
The other thing is the power of spending. That is something that the government can talk about and talk about immediately. I do not believe that you can roll the dice, come February, to the Allaire or the Belanger-Campeau committees and not have time next fall to undo it. I know the feelings out there and I am sure the minister is well aware of the feelings right across Canada. There is a hope that we can come together in Canada and redefine ourselves but I do think there is a lot that could be done immediately to make that process a lot easier.
I am wondering if the minister would tell me why the proposals cannot be done, and some of the things done immediately.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no question about two realities concerning public opinion: One is that there is a profound cynicism about existing institutions, and each of us will attribute that to different origins, but there is no question about the reality of it. There is also no question about the fact that that, if we simply succumb to it, it is corrosive, that could be destructive of this country. What we have to do is not succumb to criticisms of our institutions but to prove that by reforming them we can make them work better. That cynicism is there and we have to take account of it.
The second reality, flowing from the first, is that Canadians very much want to take part. Individual Canadians do, but so do some particular Canadian groups. The hon. member has been engaged in this process more intensively over the last few months than I have been but since my appointment to this portfolio I have, for example, made a point of meeting with native leaders, going to the north and speaking to people who see their interests not simply in terms of their own

May 16, 1991
The Address
particular interest, but also in terms of the regions they represent or the groups from which they come.
Speaking of public participation, we have two processes that end the July 1. The hon. member is part of the joint committee and we have the Spicer committee. There was a lot of scepticism about the Spicer committee but I think that process has engendered a great deal of participation and a lot of originality across the country.
Public consultation cannot stop. We all have obligations to carry it forward, and I have to find ways in which some of the work that was started by Spicer can be carried on. It is important that the next phase of public consultation not be about issues in general, but about specific proposals that can put things in a general context of reform. We are not talking here simply about changing institutions within the federal jurisdiction; we are talking about basic changes in Canada, including changes in the way we see ourselves and changes in attitude. There needs to be some over-all context within which we act and we are trying, hoping and expecting to have it ready for the fall. We expect to be able to put before this House in the fall an over-all position as to how these changes which we must pursue together can be put together to advance the country.
Then the discussion, the next phase of public participation, will be a phase which will allow individual Canadians to focus specifically upon particular proposals placed in a Canadian context that have been put forward by the government.
We will welcome amendments, changes and improvements in that process. We think that is the best way to take account of what is being done now and to ensure that Canadians have a constructive opportunity to help define the future of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. I would like to recognize the hon. member for Parkdale and also the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Shef-ford, but I only have six minutes.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the minister on his appointment to this portfolio and to wish
him well. I hope that the esteem in which he is held in this country will bring a resolution.
Having said that, he knows what is coming next. The remarks in his speech were well-suited. He talked about reaching out to those who felt excluded, and as a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, that was the over-riding theme. I caution and urge him and all of us to have the political courage as politicians to step back from this issue, look at it and take the condemnation of the Canadian people sincerely.
We deserve it. This is a wonderful country we have, and we are at the risk of losing it. As you, Sir, know better than most-people, we have a wonderful country. People outside of this country are wondering what we are on about here when they are talking about issues of survival and here we are navel gazing.
That criticism is real. It is very sincere. Please do not dismiss a constituent assembly made up of politicians and those who have felt excluded. Please do not exclude that option, because that is something that I think is a balance. Please do not exclude that.
My second point is with respect to your reference to a Canadian referendum. Referenda have been divisive tools in Canada's history. My question is: What do you think would constitute a majority? Would Quebec need to have its referendum on the same issue? The west? The north? The aboriginal people? This is the complexity.
As one of the witnesses at the Beaudoin-Edwards committee hearings pointed out to the committee, any parliamentary reform is like a Rubik's cube. You change one thing and the whole thing changes. We in this place have to have the wisdom to be able to see what those changes will bring.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, on a referendum.
I have said publicly that in our view a referendum cannot be used to force any group of Canadians to do something that it does not want to do. We are in a situation in which the Government of Canada does not have the legal authority that we require for the kind of
May 16, 1991

consultation that might become necessary as we seek to achieve the broadest possible consensus in the country. We are not introducing it because we intend to use it; we are introducing it because we think we may have need for it and we think it would be prudent to have that in place.
With respect to the other question, I agree with the hon. member's comment about the force of Canadian opinion. I do not intend to reject in advance anything that might be proposed by the Beaudoin-Edwards committee.
Here is the challenge that I think we all have to look at in the next little while. We have a parliamentary system. It is heavily criticized, but it has served the country well for over a century. Churchill once called it the worst system of government in the world except for all the others, and that reality continues.
We have that base. How do we add to that base in this committee process to make all Canadians, particularly people who have felt excluded, feel more a part of the process? I have some ideas. Some of the proposals put in the throne speech are regarding working with legislators from the territories and from the provinces. That has never been done before. That is an innovation that may be helpful. There are others we are prepared to consider, and I say very sincerely that I would very much welcome practical proposals from any member of the House as to means in which we can combine the fundamental nature of a parliamentary committee with the necessity to involve people who felt excluded before.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the minister on his appointment and his new role and wish him well and success. He will be missed in the external affairs portfolio where we had a very close working relationship.
He is looking for proposals and I would like to toss this proposal to his committee. I was bom and raised in Saskatchewan. I went to a one-room rural school. In Grade 1, the teacher made up her own rules. She had the entire school stand up-the entire school being 30 students-and salute the Canadian flag, which was a little different than the one beside you now.
We all had to salute the flag and we had to recite "I pledge allegiance to this flag and to the country for
The Address
which it stands." I realized later that she had adopted a modified version of the American pledge to the flag.
In all the committee hearings that have been going on across the country, the one thing we are not hearing is: What does it mean to be a Canadian citizen?
As a Canadian citizen what are my obligations, what are my duties, to this country? Every group says: "What is in this for me? When you modify the Constitution, what would it give me". It is high time we turned this around and asked: "What can I do for my country?"
I would like to see that in the preamble to the Canadian Constitution where we talk about goals in education. Every student going through the school system, regardless of province or territory, should memorize such a pledge. I think the next generations would be proud to keep their various cultural backgrounds, but the one thing every Canadian would have in common is growing up saying: "I pledge allegiance to this flag and to the country for which it stands".


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Grade 1 classes in Saskatchewan were larger than they were in Alberta.
We do not want to instruct people to salute our flag but create conditions where Canadians everywhere choose to celebrate our flag. We will need a great deal of help in this. I take it as part of the responsibilities that are now mine to try to evoke in Canada a much stronger and truer sense of Canadian citizenship, of common Canadian citizenship.
I agree with the member that it is essential, but it is something that we have to draw from the people rather than try to impose upon them. In this unusual time of real anguish in the country, when Canadians are genuinely concerned about the future of the country, we have a better prospect of doing that than we ever had before. We have to know more about our country. I am appalled at how little Canadians know about the history of this extraordinary country. I am appalled that anyone could think that a country like this is dull. The other day I was in Iqaluit. In the bright light of night Canadians were going out to the edge of the ice floes to hunt seals. At the same time in southern Canada, some of the best scientists any country anywhere in the world could develop were working on ways to move into the future of high technology.

May 16, 1991
The Address
We are a country that has everything. We do not know ourselves well enough and that is part of the reason we are in the difficulty we face now. I look forward to help from the House and from other Canadians to try to create a much more striking sense of a common Canadian citizenship.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I know there is not much time and I want to respond to some of the comments made by the minister.
I quoted in my own speech the comment made by Gordon Robertson who, he knows, is a highly respected commentator on constitutional affairs. He said: "Agreement on the Senate was the key to Confederation in 1867. Agreement on its reform could be the key to the impasse that today threatens renewal of our federalism for the future."
In the throne speech there was no mention of Senate reform. The minister in the past has been slightly negative about the proposal and has rejected it. I want to know if the minister is prepared to say today that he will support an initiative to reform the Senate, to make it an elected body, a more equal body, and one that has effective powers. This would allow us to have a true federalism with a second chamber that could provide the balance that our country needs.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have never rejected Senate reform. It is important in this debate that we all read one another's statements carefully. I will read his carefully.
Not only will I support Senate reform, I will be proposing Senate reform as part of the proposals we bring forward. I would add to the observation that the hon. member made. Yes, I think there should be institutional reform, probably not just the Senate, because I think Canadians from our part of the country want more than just the Senate changed. In fact, there may be institutions more important than the Senate. The Senate has a great symbolic importance but there are also other urgent issues. We cannot this time, for example, ignore the concerns of Canadian aboriginal people. Those concerns too must be given the highest possible priority and we intend to do that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his speech, but throughout his
statement, he somewhat trivialized the Quebec issue by saying: Listen, fundamentally, what Quebec wants is an emphasis on the distinct society, period. You know that is totally untrue and that Quebec's demands, even the traditional ones, go far beyond the concept of a distinct society.
What amazed me in the Throne Speech, since we are talking about that framework, is that how the minister, who should be sensitive to the Quebec symbol, namely in the area of education-and I don't need to remind him of the words of Maurice Duplessis and others-could allow his government to intrude in the area of education, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, particularly of Quebec? The minister is aware that, for example, on the issue of vocational training, in Quebec there is not a consensus but unanimity on the full repatriation of the whole issue of vocational training.
How can the minister explain to me today that his government, which wants to hold out its hand to Quebecers once again, is raising its fist instead?


Charles Joseph Clark: will give two short answers, Mr. Speaker.
First, on the subject of education, it is clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne that we will fully and completely respect the provincial jurisdiction in that matter. But it is also true that the federal government already spends billions of dollars every year on education and that we are going through an education crisis in this country. This is an issue that will require greater cooperation between the various levels of government and, in fact, between all sectors of our society.
Second, in response to the allegation that I trivialized the Quebec issue, I want to tell the hon. member that I have been a member of this House for eighteen years. I came from Alberta and was unilignual. I learned French by myself and I can speak it. I am not a member of the French Academy, but I can speak the language rather efficiently. I am not the only one. There are several members-the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is one, and so is the President, Mr. Fraser, to name a couple-who come from various parts of the country geographically remote from Quebec and who, since they were elected, have displayed a willingness to respect the uniqueness and distinctiveness of that province, not only
May 16, 1991

in words but by their actions. I have been active myself on national issues, in Quebec and elsewhere defending Quebec, throughout my career in this place.
I am not the one trivializing Quebec today, neither do I intend to trivialize its future. I want to secure a strong future for the people of Quebec and the way to achieve that is to be part of a large country, not a small one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time alloted to questions and comments has elapsed. On debate. The hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to intervene in this debate following the comments of the right hon. Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
I could not help but smile when I heard many of the remarks made by the minister. I heard him say that the federal government would put forward a proposal for constitutional change by September and that the government would not be tied to these changes, that it would welcome changes and improvements to the proposal.
I could not help but feel that we have come a long way from the seamless web, the ill-fated proposal that was debated in this House a year or two ago, which could not be changed, not one word, comma or period.
Yes, the minister has listened to his critics. Time will tell whether a leopard can truly change its spots. We will see whether this government will, indeed, speak for the national interest, not in the speeches that we are hearing today in this House but through the proposals it will table and its actions in the months ahead.

It is with interest that I listened yesterday to the Prime Minister's speech on the Constitution. I was glad to hear him finally admit that what matters is Canada and Canada above all.
After seven years, he admits that we now have to talk in favour of the national interest. He said, and I quote: "That the next round will be a Canadian round." Moreover, he talked about the need to create a national market for securities, and to exempt trust companies
The Address
from the overregulation of eleven governments. His speech, like the one made by the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, made me smile.
The Prime Minister finally listened to his critics. It was said a few years ago that he did not respect the national interest. Today, he is telling us that the national interest must be paramount. It was said that his role had been limited to that of an arbiter. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he must not act as an arbiter, that he must fight for the national interest.
The question, Mr. Speaker, is to know whether we can trust this new talk by the Prime Minister. Can we really trust him to keep his word? Will he really fight for the national interest this time? Time will tell. We will see in the coming months when the government will put forward its proposals on Constitutional reform and we will see it by its deeds, not by the words pronounced in this debate on the Speech from the Throne.
The Prime Minister also talked about economy and education. He listed a few problems that you are no doubt familiar with. Thirty per cent of high school students drop out before graduation. Forty per cent of adults cannot read nor count well enough to perform day-to-day tasks. The Canadian industry devotes to the training of workers only one half of what is devoted to it by the U.S. industry, one fifth by the Japanese industry and one eighth by the German industry.
The government now wants to set up national standards with regard to education. In the coming weeks, the government will table a discussion paper as a guide for the public debate, which should lead us to some solutions.
Today, seven years after being elected, the government is proposing a debate. What has the government done for seven years? Didn't it have the responsibility to take action in those areas, to give an example, to show leadership in the areas that it would now like to draw to the attention of Canadians through a debate?
The debate proposed by the government is an admission of failure. It is the admission, that we have lost seven years during which the government should have taken action to ensure that Canadians have access to quality education and that businesses in our country do enough research and development. On the contrary,

May 16, 1991
The Address
Mr. Speaker, we saw several measures that went against those objectives.

In the throne speech the government also says that it wants to develop "a learning culture". I am apprehensive about the use of the phrase "learning culture". For some time students of Canada's science and technology policy have taken to attributing our deficiencies in science and technology to our failure to develop a science culture or a research culture.
What is meant by that is a culture which values knowledge and education and which would place top priority on developing Canada's human resources. The very use of the word "culture" is an indication of the difficulty in changing directions. A cultural change, with all it implies, is seen as the necessary condition for building public support for policy changes and for ensuring that there is a real priority for these changes in the federal and provincial halls of power.
By definition, a cultural change is something that will take a long time. The idea that we need to develop a learning culture or a science culture has become an explanation for failure. When the government uses this phrase you have to ask yourself whether the need for a cultural change is not being used as an excuse for further inaction. This is the caution which I want to draw to the attention of Canadians.
Let us take a closer look at the proposal to establish Canada-wide goals in education. The government says it would like to see "Canada-wide goals established for the year 2000". Reading this literally, this appears to mean that the government would like to see these goals established by the year 2000. It is not saying that it will reach these goals by then, but that it will establish them by then. The government appears to be suggesting, in other words, that it will take nine more years to establish goals relating to education.
Is this what the government means? Is the government suggesting that it will take nine years to establish these goals? I cannot believe this is what the government is proposing.
I would hope that this statement will be clarified and that the Prime Minister will tell us that this is not what is intended but rather that these goals will be established shortly. I recognize it may take a year or two. The
negotiations or the understanding that we have to arrive at about these goals should be part and parcel of the redefinition of the country that we are currently engaged in. Certainly these goals should be arrived at in the next year or two and we should start to take action aimed at reaching them.
Even with such a clarification, Canadians should understand that the throne speech is ambiguous. Many may think that the government is suggesting that we could reach those targets by the year 2000, that we could double the number of graduates in science and engineering and that we could reduce illiteracy substantially within a period of nine years. If that is what the government is suggesting, it is unrealistic. It is impossible to double the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, the sciences and engineering in such a short time, as has been amply demonstrated in study after study produced by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister gave us a big lecture on the need for fiscal discipline. We in our party share the view of many Canadians that the federal fiscal deficit is a serious economic and political problem. Our leader notably did not make a single spending commitment in the leadership campaign. We agree that the federal fiscal deficit is a serious problem. We also agree that achieving low levels of inflation is an important objective. There is no disagreement with these objectives.
But we have to ask ourselves what is the government's record with respect to these objectives. The inflation rate today is about 7 per cent compared with 3.8 per cent inflation when the Conservatives first took office. The deficit is forecast to be $30.5 billion, which is $2 billion higher than the forecast in the budget a year ago. Contrast that with the statement of the former Minister of Finance in his first budget in 1985 that he would reduce the deficit by the end of the decade to $18 billion.
Before I go on, I just want to remind you again, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance missed the mark by the small sum of some $12.5 billion. He was predicting in his first budget that he would get the deficit down to $18 billion by the end of the decade. It is now $30.5 billion. He missed the mark by some $12.5 billion.
I find it quite outrageous to hear the Prime Minister giving us lectures about fiscal discipline and about the need to keep a budget when his government does not know the first thing about it.
May 16, 1991

It is precisely because of the government's failure to achieve the objectives it set for itself that many Canadians are having increasing doubts about the Conservatives' ability to manage the economy, to put it mildly.
While I agree that the federal fiscal deficit is a serious economic problem, it is not the source of our problems. The Canadian disease, if I may put it that way, relates to our inability to keep pace with global economic and technological change. After seven years this government must bear some responsibility for not leading the way.
I would like to read from an article published about a month and a half ago by the current chairman of the Science Council of Canada. She recited many of the sorry statistics that we have become so familiar with. She said: "We have lost a great deal of international competitive advantage we held some 30 or 40 years ago. Our standard of living has slipped accordingly and we have simply failed to anticipate environmental reality". She went on to say: "There is no use searching for a Canadian policy to cope with this crisis. We don't have a national policy".
The chairman of the Science Council of Canada is no slouch. When she says we do not have a national policy and there is no use searching for a Canadian policy, I think that Canadians by and large stand up and take notice. This is a statement that was not made eight or nine years ago. This was a statement made on March 31 of this year, seven years after this government took office, seven and eight years after the Prime Minister in the run-up to the 1984 election promised to correct the very ills which he is again talking about in this throne speech.
Canadians can no longer afford ambiguity in action and absence of national leadership. We cannot wait for changing attitudes. We cannot wait a generation. Difficult choices have to be made now. These choices say a lot about our country and its priorities.
For example, should we be investing in Hibernia or James Bay II or would we be better off investing the same kinds of resources in research and development?
The Address
Canadians again should not have to wait a generation for answers to these questions.
We have a very practical example in the last day or two. The French company, Aerospatiale, wants to buy de Havilland. It is prepared to invest $1 billion in research and development, but it wants the government to pay for a substantial part of that investment. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade has said that funding will have to come out of existing programs. The head of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada has said that the existing budget is already spread too thin, and it has been reduced by some 25 per cent in the past three or four years.
Where will the money come from? The minister of industry has said that there are no additional funds. It is clear that without additional government investment, we will not have research and development in Canada.
A 1986 study by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association demonstrated that when it comes to non-tax support for research and development, Canada is not in the same league as many of our competitors. It is not a question of ownership.
Pratt & Whitney in Montreal is a foreign-owned company and yet it is one of the most research intensive companies in Canada. We will find that it has entered into a number of memoranda of understanding with the government in which the government funds a good portion of its R and D. This is the same as every other country, whether we are talking about the United States, Japan, Germany, the Scandinavian countries or France.
I will call it one o'clock and I guess resume after three o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You will have three minutes left, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.

May 16, 1991


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. On Thesday, the Minister of Agriculture led this House to believe that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was in support of opening the Canadian border to U.S. wheat. This is not true. The CFA actually opposes opening the border. CFA president, Ralph Jespersen, said in a letter to the Prime Minister: "We have the opportunity to show one of the perpetrators of this devastating trade war, the United States, that the violations of trading rules cannot continue-.We ask that the provision requiring import licences be retained".
In other words, the CFA is opposed to opening the border to U.S. wheat. That is the truth. The government should know better and not twist the facts.


EXTRADITION
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, during the parliamentary break the American network ABC aired a 20/20 program that dealt with the case of one Charles Ng who is wanted in California to face charges in connection with a series of brutal slayings five years ago.
Mr. Ng is currently appealing his extradition to the U.S. from Canada.
The program was called "Refuge for Murderers" and that, unfortunately, is the way many Americans have come to view our country. It is embarrassing, frustrating and downright frightening the number of times that America's most wanted are shown on television and then subsequently found in Canada.
We cannot allow Canada to become a refuge for criminals. We need changes to our extradition act and we need them now.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the Achilles heel of Canadian competitiveness is R and D. When the World Competitiveness Report looked at Canada, it saw that we spend a mere 1.3 per cent of GNP on science and ranked us sixteenth among our competitors.
When 400 elite policy-makers, many of them federal bureaucrats, were surveyed, they said our lack of R and D, the high dollar and high interest rates were self-inflicted wounds. They know that R and D is the key to the new products and processes that create jobs.
But the Prime Minister consistently ignores his own advisory board on science and technology when it asks him to live up to his 1984 promise to double Canadian R and D. So when the throne speech cites targets for education and training, but omits any mention whatsoever of research and development, it is dramatically significant and tragically clear. After seven years of jawboning, we will have no public policy to achieve targets for Canadian research and development. The implied policy of the Department of Finance has now become the explicit policy of the Department of Industry, Science, Technology and International Trade.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Garth Thrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, those who want Canada to survive in its present form are searching for those things we have in common. Those who think they will profit from the failure of Canada are underlining what divides us into regions and along the lines of language and culture, but there is one group of Canadians who have made the ultimate gesture in support of this great thing we call Canada. It is a group of men and women who actually fought in the name of this country in world wars, Korean conflicts, and the gulf conflict as well.
I rise today to salute them and the Royal Canadian Legion, which has mounted a public campaign in the name of national unity. The Legion realizes well that this goes beyond the bounds of partisan politics, and is taking the initiative in reminding us all of what is at stake.
May 16, 1991

The Legion has been a supporter of a strong central government in the past. But the Legion also knows that changing times demand changing attitudes. When the question is put whether Canada can change or must fragment, the Legion's answer is clear: we must change.
I would ask all those Canadians who are busy building walls in this country, walls to keep their own intolerance strong, to look toward the Legion. There is the real vision of Canada.


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the plight of former Route Canada employees continues five years after the government sold this trucking company to a man who could not even get a credit card.
Two thousand workers were left without jobs. Creditors lost $60 million. Many former employees lives were shattered when they lost their homes, their livelihoods and their dignity.
Still the government refuses to launch an investigation into this dirty deal. The RCMP has been investigating the case for almost three years. Surely it has some answers by now.
Canadian taxpayers and former employees have a right to know what the RCMP has discovered.
Right now there are hundreds more truckers outside our door who understand what former Route Canada employees have been living through. They feel betrayed and sacrificed by this government to the interests of big business.
I call on the government today to show some compassion for compensating these former employees of Route Canada, to launch an investigation into its sale and to bring forward the RCMP investigation.


LIBERTE COMPANY
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, following an exclusive agreement between Liberte and Vnikmi (the USSR milk products national research
institute) and the Licensintorg firm in Moscow, kefir, a product originally from the Caucasus Mountains, is now available on the Canadian market.
Kefir is the most popular milk product in the USSR, and for centuries, mythical properties have been attributed to it. According to legend, people from the Caucasus Mountains, who drink kefir from their early childhood, are amongst the longest living human being in the world.
Japanese researchers confirmed that kefir acts on the immune system. The Liberte company is considering supporting medical research on kefir.
Liberte, which has been established for many years in Brossard, in my constituency, is proud to be one of the first small enterprises in North America to establish economic ties with a Soviet Union company, and to offer to North American consumers a popular product that is so distinctively Russian, as much so as vodka and caviar.
Congratulations to that successful enterprise, and to its president, Abe Gomel. I say to all Canadians, bon appetit and enjoy!

[English)


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, each year the gradual undermining of the age old practice of breast feeding by bottle feeding with processed cow's milk causes many cases of illness, malnutrition, allergies and at least one million infant deaths.
Breast fed babies absorb antibodies against major diseases from their mother's milk, suffer fewer allergies, enjoy better jaw and teeth development and are more contented.
The World Health Organization concerned with the constant undermining of breast feeding by companies in the manufacture of breast milk substitutes, and which constantly inundate hospitals, doctors, mothers, and others with free samples of their products, has instituted the international code of marketing regarding breast milk substitutes.
The code calls upon all hospitals, doctors and medical personnel and others to stop the distribution of baby formulae as well as to stop the distribution of literature advertising breast milk substitutes.

May 16, 1991
Therefore, I call on the government to support the World Health Organization in its endeavours to enhance and encourage breast feeding which would result in better health and protection to all babies in our country.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to the entire class of Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables, who graduated this week at the RCMP recruit training detachment in Regina. All of them are proud to wear the uniform of a great police force, with a tradition of honour and service almost as old as Canada. Among them was Constable Baltej Dhillon, the first Canadian of Sikh faith to wear the regulation turban, which itself has a long and proud tradition associated with service to the Crown within the Commonwealth.
I also congratulate the RCMP which polices ours, the third largest country in the world, for uniform adaptations to accommodate religious and native Canadian sensitivities. To all of the graduates and to Constable Dhillon, I extend best wishes for successful careers in the RCMP.


RADIO WEATHER SERVICE
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for months, the farmers of Abitibi-Temiscamingue have been asking the Conservative government to set up a 24-hour-a-day radio weather service.
Today I am proud to tell them that indeed the federal Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Jean Charest, will soon announce that our great region will be served by a high-frequency radio weather service, using Communication Quebec's sites in Chibougamau, Mont Video Barraute, Ville-Marie and Aiguebelle Park, not far from Rouyn-Noranda.
That is the excellent work of Environment Canada officials in Montreal and Val-d'Or.
The 24-hour-a-day radio weather service will be monitored in Val-d'Or by the Environment Canada regional office.
Mr. Speaker, within a few weeks, the farmers, fishermen, hunters, aviators and all the people of Abitibi- Temiscamingue can tune in to the weather service.


INUK VIDEO
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, on Tbesday evening here on Parliament Hill I had the pleasure of attending the premiere of the first Inuk music video. I would like to thank the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his department for their sponsorship and support.
I want to pay special tribute to the talent of a young Inuk singer-songwriter, Susan Aglukark, who is from the small community of Arviat in the Northwest Territories.
In her video entitled Searching, Susan shows and sings of the anguish young Inuit people face in trying to come to terms with both their traditional culture and heritage and the fast-paced urban life found in southern Canadian cities.
Her message is a powerful and moving one. Despite the difficulties that may be experienced, never lose sight of who you are and where you are from. With this inner knowledge, strength and courage, all obstacles can be overcome.
Canadians may see Susan's video on MuchMusic.
Congratulations, Susan.


WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to speak on behalf of weekly newspaper publishers in Brandon-Souris and their more distant subscribers and to ask both the newly appointed Minister of Communications and Culture and the Minister responsible for Canada Post to reconsider the decision to terminate certain federal government subsidies to weekly newspapers as of June 1.
Weekly newspapers are an integral part of rural Canada. In fact, they personify in a very real sense the communities in which they are located as they publish
May 16, 1991

the sort of local news which the dailies would never deign to do.
Moreover, they are an important link with their former residents who have often moved to our cities and, as such, they constitute a bridge between rural and urban Canada.
In the name of rural Canada, therefore, I ask both ministers, as well as the newly appointed Minister of Agriculture, who I hope will emerge in a very real sense as the minister responsible for rural Canada to re-examine this issue prior June 1.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, municipalities throughout British Columbia have been without a contract for RCMP services since March 31, when the federal government refused to renew previous agreements.
The former Solicitor General has attempted to coerce B.C. to sign a new agreement which would see the federal contribution reduced at the expense of the province and its municipalities.
The over-all cost increase would translate into over $12 million a year for municipalities and $27 million a year for British Columbia as a whole.
As a result, B.C. municipalities will see their policing costs soar from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. These are costs B.C. taxpayers simply cannot afford.
The situation cannot persist.
My B.C. colleagues and I urge the government to resume negotiations and immediately enter into an interim agreement with the province. In western Canada, the RCMP is a visible symbol of Canadianism. Its contribution to national unity goes far beyond dollars and cents.


INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers
is a goal of this government. Why? Trade barriers within Canada make us less competitive, thus costing Canadians jobs and opportunities.
For example, in the field of agriculture, there are 167 regulations. The European Community, with 12 nations, is more open in terms of agricultural trade than we are within a single country.
The existing system rewards inefficiencies.
According to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers would put $5 billion into the pockets of Canadians.
I believe that the creation of a single Canadian market goes hand-in-hand with national unity because it is by working together that we build a stronger more prosperous Canada.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce to all members a new commentary in the House of Commons entitled the Cross-Border Report.
The Cross-Border Report will not be convoluted or multi-topical. Rather, it will focus on one issue; crossborder shopping. Yet, I know that all members will find the report of interest. It is at the front line of our efforts to be competitive.
Cross-border shopping is a multi-faceted phenomenon dealing essentially with why the Canadian consumer finds an incentive to shop in the United States.
The exodus is fostered by a number of motivational factors, including the strength of the Canadian dollar, differences in distribution channels and mark-ups between our countries, the non-collection of provincial sales tax and the applicable duty and taxes at the border. There is aggressive U.S. marketing and advertising, as well as a free trade mentality luring the Canadian consumer. The means to address these factors lies not with one but a number of players, including all three levels of government, business and labour.
Stay tuned for the next edition in a series of many of the Cross-Border Report.

May 16, 1991
Oral Questions FISHERIES


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Today some
8,000	fishermen along the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador lose their unemployment insurance benefits. However, they cannot start their fishing season because the ice conditions are so severe that they cannot get to their fishing grounds. They cannot even set up their gear. Because of this, 8,000 fishing families have no source of income as of today.
The matter was brought to the federal government's attention some 10 days ago, and fishermen are still waiting for action. The thousands of Newfoundlanders affected desperately need help. They do not need foot-dragging or a royal commission to solve their problem. What these people need is a short-term solution for a short-term problem.
I am calling on the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to sit down immediately with the representatives of the fishermen and work out an emergency program.


STELCO INC.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Revenue Canada has just reimbursed Stelco Inc. $7.4 million in duties paid to the government because the department granted relief from customs duties a few years ago on importations of continuous casting system to three of its competitors.
The reason, and I quote:
-is because no one at Revenue Canada checked to see if the imported goods were actually eligible for the break on customs duties; in fact, they were not. That error is costing Canadian taxpayers some $30 million.
Aside from focusing on the level of qualifications and, in fact, competence of the revenue officials responsible, it is important to remember that the minister is ultimately responsible and accountable for the operations of his department. Taxpayers footing the bill for the errors of his department have a right to explanations that the minister should make available to this House. Specifically:
1.	What competitive disadvantage earned Stelco the $7.4 million?
2.	What tests for verification of suffering did the cabinet apply in its decision?
3.	Are there other companies on the list for more moneys?
4.	Finally, what specific structural and operational guarantees are being put in place to ensure that costly errors will not happen again?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We are very pleased that the Minister of Transport has finally agreed to meet with the truckers to discuss the serious problems affecting them, but I want to ask the Prime Minister this: Does he intend to allow his minister to act quickly, because the truckers and their families are in a desperate situation, the industry is completely collapsing and thousands of jobs are being lost every week?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport did not wait until today to meet with the people involved in transportation. On Monday, I met some representatives of the Coalition of Independent Owners. On Tuesday, I met a representative of the Truckers' Association. In the coming days, I will also meet other representatives. The Department of Transport, through the previous minister last year, was very actively involved with this problem which, it must never be forgotten, is under both federal and provincial jurisdiction, I think, and we will do everything necessary. With the agreement of all concerned, Mr. Speaker, we have set up the studies required to find solutions and once we have completely identified the problems to the satisfaction of all concerned, we will take the action required to deal with the situation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the problem of truckers-and we saw that yesterday-the Prime Minister likes to blame the government of Ontario and the premier of Ontario likes to blame the federal government. While
May 16, 1991

the two stand there and blame each other, the lives of thousands of truckers are going down the drain.
I want to ask the Prime Minister when he will stop passing the buck, take his responsibility and solve this very serious problem.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Leader of the Opposition that we will not follow his favourite manner of resolving problems, going back and forth. We accepted the fact last year that this was a problem of dual jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government. We are prepared to accept our share and we are looking at ways to resolve the problems.
No one should forget the fact that the provincial government of Ontario, through the Liberal administration as well as the NDP administration, decided over the past 12 years to increase the tax on diesel fuel by 10 cents and only 7.1 cents on regular fuels. I do not think that it is really helping the trucking industry.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the truckers have shown good faith today. Traffic is moving again on the 401. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to show that he has faith in the trucking industry of Canada.
Will the Prime Minister, himself a former trucker, agree to meet the truckers today-he should not be afraid of them, he knows them well-and do something to cure this problem and make sure that the trucking industry can compete with the American trucking industry?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, this government over the years has taken measures not only to help the truckers but the over-all industry in Canada by trying to recuperate from the very poor financial administration of the previous government over the last 16 years.
We have indicated to the owner-operators that we are sympathetic to their cause. Yesterday afternoon, I met with the wives of the truckers and this morning for one hour and a half I met with representatives of the truckers. We have discussed the problem at length. We have identified the major problems. We will continue to
Oral Questions
work in conjunction with them to try to arrive at a proper solution.
We are not looking, as did the previous administration, to a quick-fix solution.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the report that she and her colleague had released speaks for itself and tells everything we are supposed to know about the Al-Mashat affair. However, within 24 hours we know just how misleading, incomplete and inaccurate this report really is.
The former Canadian ambassador, Mr. Gotlieb, in an interview presented last night indicated clearly that the matter was under consideration several weeks before Mr. Chretien, the Associate Under-Secretary, was informed of the matter as contained in the report.
It is also not explained why the orders given by Mr. Tellier, the Clerk of the Privy Council, were ignored and whose orders from higher up countermanded those particular instructions. In other words, this report does not deal with the truth.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, rather than scapegoating public officials, will he not recognize that the only decent and credible thing to do, to give some veracity to this affair which is disturbing many Canadians, is to hold a public inquiry where all those concerned will appear and can be properly examined?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to present this again yet today, since the hon. member is having some difficulty understanding what is actually before his very eyes. Number one, all of the information regarding this situation is out and was made public. The second point is that ministers took the responsibility to ensure that the information went public and that that information to date has not been contradicted.
The third point I would like to make is that this minister and members of this government are quite prepared to appear before a parliamentary committee.

May 16, 1991
Oral Questions
Parliamentary committees have the right to examine facts, and I would welcome an investigation like that by a parliamentary committee. I am quite prepared to appear before it with my officials. I stand by everything that these ministers have done and continue to do.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we will welcome and certainly accept the offer of the minister to appear before a committee as soon as that committee is established.
There is also a missing link. We know, for example, that in a statement in the report, it is clearly said that the chief of staff of the former minister of external affairs had a copy of the memorandum. His minister was in town, and somehow he did not receive it.
We also find it incredible to believe that on the intervention of a former deputy minister and Canadian ambassador, the former secretary of state would not have known about that serious intervention.
We also find it it difficult to note that the Under-Secretary of External Affairs would not know. My question is this. Considering the missing links, can we get a commitment from the Prime Minister that he will instruct the former Secretary of State for External Affairs to appear before the committee to be examined and to answer those questions so we can find out what really went on?


Hon. Barbara  MlcDougall@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, first of all let us be clear on another point, that is that ministers did not know before the fact. That remains clear and has not been contradicted.
Second, I have already said that ministers will be available to appear before the committee. I will be there with officials. The committee has the right to ask anyone it wants to come and appear before that committee.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
It is clear that the deregulation of the transportation industry policy has been a disaster for truckers and for Canadian families and small businesses.
I want to point out to the Prime Minister and to this House that this was a policy in 1984-we have had lots of promises about what deregulation will do for truckers and for the transportation industry-when the former Liberal transport minister, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, promised that deregulation of the trucking industry would bring jobs. He also said that management will have to improve "but the good trucking companies will do very well".
The then opposition critic from Vegreville agreed with this. Now that minister, the Minister of Finance, said that deregulation would bring innovation and efficiency.
I say to the now Minister of Finance, tell that to the truckers outside this House. Neither the Liberals nor the Tbiy government listened to the truckers because the Canadian Trucking Association said it would create chaos. It has.
I ask the Prime Minister what he is prepared to do to enhance Canadian jobs in the trucking industry now.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is true to herself in blaming all the problems of this world on free trade, deregulation and all these other fantasies.
Deregulation, free trade and the GST are all measures courageously taken by this government to improve the lot of all Canadians. The trucking industry, as other industries, is going through at the present time through a difficult situation. We understand it. We sympathize with the people, and we are in fact doing everything we can to help them out of this situation.
We started that last year by getting all the state orders together to try to analyse what the exact problems were and not to deal with perceptions but with realities, and to examine the problems as they are, to find proper solutions, not on a quick-fix basis but on a long-term basis to ensure that they will have proper jobs for many years to come.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The minister should get out of Ottawa. Go and talk to Canadians who are losing jobs every day. He will see that deregulation has brought the trucking industry misery, the trade deal has simply brought Canadians despair and he should be talking to Canadians about that.
May 16, 1991

It is clear to Canadians that truckers are losing their jobs from coast to coast to coast, as are many Canadians in the manufacturing sector and in the farming industry.
Will the minister immediately bring in new regulations that will put the Canadian trucking industry on a level playing field with their U.S. counterparts, do it now, and do it today?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I will repeat today, it is precisely to make it possible to have a level playing field that last year we instituted the task force to examine the situation so that we can talk about realities, facts, and not perceptions.
We are living up to this commitment. As I said before, I met yesterday with the wives of the truckers. I met this morning for an hour and a half with the truckers themselves. We have explored avenues, but there is no quick fix in this situation just as there are no quick fixes in other situations.
This government is taking the courageous way of improving the economy of this country so that our citizens and their children will have a viable country to live in.
Perhaps the leader of the NDP would like to speak to her counterparts in the Ontario government. According to The Toronto Star the NDP will not drop new taxes on diesel fuel, which are crippling the transportation industry in this country.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, when this government revises deregulation, gets rid of it, brings in some new regulations, brings in some real tax reform, takes care of the GST, what I will do is talk to my counterparts and your counterparts in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have the same problems.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: We were talking to a trucker this morning and he told us that, once all his bills are paid this year, he will have earned only $917.
Mr. Speaker, we have truckers demonstrating today, but many more Canadians are having a hard time providing for their families. And not only are this government's road transport policies to blame, but so is
Oral Questions
all the rest: free trade, the GST and the interest rates that are still way too high.
When is the government finally going to do something for the Canadian workers across the country?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the leader of the NDP that instead of trying to score easy political points on a difficult situation, she should try to work with the independent truckers and the government to find appropriate solutions to the problem.
It does not help at all to repeat unthruths as she did earlier in her speech on free trade, since trucking is not affected at all by free trade. And the GST is not to blame either. On the contrary, the GST brought a 2.5 cents per litre reduction on gas, thereby cutting operating costs in the trucking industry.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that ministerial responsibility is of paramount importance in the kind of government we have in this country.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the former minister of external affairs was fully aware of the goings-on with respect to Al-Mashat on February 27, 1991. It was also clear that the former minister's chief of staff, an experienced lawyer and an experienced parliamentarian had all of the information contained in the document on or about March 14, 1991. Will the Prime Minister instruct the former minister of external affairs to appear before the parliamentary committee, as the minister of external affairs has now agreed to do. Will the Prime Minister give that undertaking?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the former minister of external affairs does not have to take any lessons in integrity from the member opposite.
The former minister of external affairs is one of the leading parliamentarians in the House of Commons. I know he will, as the minister has already indicated, respond to any request from the House or a committee of the House of Commons. He has always acted accord-

May 16, 1991
Oral Questions
ing to the traditions of the House of Commons and will continue to do so.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister has yet to provide all of the memorada requested on the floor of this House of Commons. It is clear to date that the former minister of external affairs has not given a detailed account of his involvement in this particular case.
The facts are unbelievable to Canadians and the Canadian people are suspicious of the integrity of the government's information.
I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he will give us a clear undertaking that the former minister of external affairs, all other ministers, chiefs of staff and the appropriate officials will appear before the parliamentary committee? Will the Prime Minister give us the undertaking today?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member clearly is not listening to the responses. Both the Prime Minister and I have said that we are prepared for full disclosure within a parliamentary committee, based on the traditions of parliamentary practice. That is the place to look at this issue. Ministers were the ones who accepted the responsibility by asking for a report and making the information public.
The hon. member can read this just as anybody else can. The committee can ask officials. We will encourage officials to go. We have spoken together to say that we will be frank within the context of a parliamentary committee, just as we have been in asking for an inquiry. It was ministers of this government who asked for an inquiry and we will continue to do so.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
For 124 years the Public Service of Canada has worked side by side with governments, carrying out the will of Parliament. Now the Prime Minister is destroying the Public Service, blaming public servants for the mistakes
of the government in the Al-Mashat case and dragging them into the political arena with no voice to defend themselves.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the criticism, for instance, of Gordon Robertson and will he apologize to the Public Service for the terrible damage he has done, or will he go on dismantling the nation by dismantling the Public Service?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that question is unworthy of an answer, inasmuch as the hon. member, by asking it, has impugned the integrity of the Public Service of Canada.
Let me just say that by asking such a malicious and misleading question, the hon. member has impugned the integrity of the Public Service of Canada. Let me say that this government has worked effectively and well, at all times consistent with parliamentary traditions, with the Public Service of Canada and will continue to do so for many, many more years.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. In case the Prime Minister does not know, the Public Service certainly knows who is impugning their integrity.
The very foundation of a non-partisan Public Service is being ripped away when ministers and the Prime Minister refuse to take responsibility for their actions. In this case, that is what they are doing. Great public service leaders of the past, the Gordon Robertsons-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must remind hon. members that preambles are not a place to make a speech. Would the hon. member please put her question.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, given that the people who have made the Public Service great would not have put up with this attack on the Public Service, why is the Prime Minister hiding, and allowing ministers to hide behind public servants who have no opportunity to defend themselves? Why is he politicizing the Public Service?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, clearly this government is not impugning the Public Service. As I pointed out yesterday, the circumstances in this case were extraordi-

May 16, 1991
nary in that ministers were not informed. Ministers accept-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions are being asked. Ministers of course are being asked to give their answers and I know that all hon. members would want to hear the minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Having taken full responsibility for this case, which the Minister of Employment and Immigration did when he and I together asked for an inquiry, we committed ourselves to produce a report, which we did.
The two officials involved could have been identified by their title. There are precedents for this. There have been names of public servants released before under situations that were equally extraordinary. We promised a full report. We gave a full report. The full report included the two names.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the government promised a full report but Canadians were deeply concerned to learn that two influential lobbyists, John Godfrey and Allan Gotlieb, apparently made representations on behalf of former Iraqi ambassador Al-Mashat on February 27.
In view of the fact that both Godfrey and Gotlieb stated that they were told that an inquiry was already under way before February 27, does the minister stand by her statement that there was no action at all in this before February 27. How does the minister explain the statement in her full report that it was on March 4 that "telephone calls were made by two Canadian acquaintances of Al-Mashat". Who made those calls on March 4 when the two calls by Godfrey and Gotlieb were on February 27? What other representations were made on behalf of ambassador Al-Mashat?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the point is that representations were made on behalf of Mr. Al-Mashat to officials within the Department of External Affairs. That is public knowledge. We made that knowledge public.
Oral Questions
The fact that calls were made to officials does not negate the fact that ministers were not informed before the fact. We produced a full report. We are suggesting that a parliamentary inquiry can answer other questions.
I do not see why the hon. member is so exercised when he can ask these questions in committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister of course missed the point of the difference between the 27th of February and the 4th of March. Read the report.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. In view of the fact that sometime earlier she and her colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs had turned down another application for an Iraqi diplomat, why was it that this minister on the 16th of April, when she found out that Al-Mashat had been allowed into Canada, did not say one word to the then Secretary of State for External Affairs? Why did she order no inquiry whatsoever? Why did she say nothing to her successor? Why is this minister stonewalling, blaming public servants? Why will she not come clean with Canadians?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, when I found out about the situation well after the fact, I did send a note to my department, as it then was, saying that I disagreed with the process and the substance. Any department that I have ever worked in has always taken any note from me seriously and produced a report. I asked for a report and that report was in the process of being generated.
When that report was generated it would have been shared with any relevant person.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, after she "scraped herself off the ceiling", as she is quoted as saying, I wonder if she left her tongue up there. Because the former minister of immigration knew all about the Al-Mashat affair on April 5, yet the Prime Minister was not told until April 30-25 days later.
Does the Prime Minister truly believe it proper that the former minister of immigration, upon learning of the Al-Mashat affair, decided not to tell either the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or even her successor to the Ministry of Immigration about this entire matter?

May 16, 1991
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is accusing us of confusing dates. The hon. member has just used the wrong date himself. I found out on April 16. I initiated an inquiry within my department. That is what responsible ministers do and that is what I did.
An inquiry was instituted later. That is what responsible ministers do; they try and ascertain the facts. That is what they try and do and that is what I did, and that is what other ministers did when they found out.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: April 5 or April 16. She adds fuel to her own fire. It even took longer. She didn't even bother telling the Prime Minister in the additional two or three weeks.
So we have to come back to the original question: the minister knew. The minister knew for weeks, and after she peeled herself off the ceiling, why did she not tell the Prime Minister? She did not tell the Prime Minister during that whole time.
Mr. Prime Minister, do you find it right that your now external affairs minister-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that questions have to be put through the chair. I know that may seem very archaic in some respects, but it probably helps the general decorum of the House.
Does the hon. minister want to respond? Well, the hon. member for Hamilton West has a question. I am sure the hon. member will put it very briefly.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The question is, did the Prime Minister believe it proper that the former minister of immigration, upon learning of the Al-Mashat affair decided not to tell either the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or even her successor at immigration about this entire matter?


Barbara Jean McDougall: When the minister of immigration, as she then was, found out about this affair, she instituted an inquiry within the Department of Immigration in order to have some facts on which to proceed.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put a question to the minister and I am sure that hon. members would want to give the hon. minister the courtesy of listening to her reply.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have responded. I have told the House that when I found out I instituted action within my department. I think that is what responsible ministers do. The minister of immigration is the one who is responsible for people coming into the country. I instituted an inquiry within my department. I stand by that and I think that is what responsible ministers do do; they ascertain the facts before they start spreading rumours around.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, responsible ministers know what is going on in their departments. Canadians find it unbelievable that three ministers of the Crown were kept in the dark for months before they were told that the Iraqi ambassador to Washington was seeking permission to enter Canada as a landed immigrant.
We are pleased that an inquiry will take place, and we accept the undertaking of the Prime Minister that the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the former Minister of Employment and Immigration and the former Solicitor General will be appearing before the committee to give evidence.
I would also like the Prime Minister to give his undertaking that Mr. Raymond Chretien, Mr. David Daubney, Mr. Paul Tellier and Mr. Reid Morden will also appear before the committee to defend themselves. If the government is truly interested in getting to the truth of this matter then it will have all relevant witnesses appear before the committee.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member would have known by now what is the responsibility of committees of this House and their chairmen. It is up to the committee to invite whomever it wants to have appear before the committee.
I have made a commitment that those of us who are involved will appear before this committee. That is a committee matter.


John V. Nunziata: The committee can invite the Queen, but that does not mean she is going to appear. I would like an undertaking from the Prime Minister to have the civil servants who were directly involved in this matter to appear before the committee.
If the Prime Minister refuses, the only conclusion we can draw is that the government really is not interested in getting to the truth of the matter. Have these officials appear so they can defend themselves against the accusations made by their political bosses.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's problem is that he has nowhere to go now that we have said that people will appear before a committee.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court of Canada, trial division, today ruled that the cabinet broke the law on October 12, 1990 in exempting Alcan's Kemano 2 project from the public environmental assessment process. The court also struck down the September 14,1987 backroom deal between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Alcan, which is the basis upon which construction of this immense project is now proceeding.
I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment to assure this House that a panel will be set up immediately and that he will assure all Canadians that all major projects from this point on will undergo an environmental assessment before they proceed, not after construction begins?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the ruling that my friend from Skeena refers to came out this morning. I think it would only be a normal course of action for us to look at it and then act accordingly.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think most people would have had time to read it by now. It is the first ruling in the history of Canada of the Federal Court finding that the cabinet had broken the law in exempting a major project.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he could assure this House that all major projects from this point on will undergo an assessment first and will he immediately set up a panel to look into Alcan's Kemano 2 project?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member deals with these matters. I know that on this side of the House, as far as we are concerned, the ruling came out today. We will take a reasonable period of time to make ourselves familiar with it.
By listening to the member, I am not sure, but he seems to want to indicate that we have not read it. We want to take time to read it. I am not sure from listening to him today whether he has read the ruling either.


EDUCATION
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Science and it pertains to the educational initiatives outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
In the throne speech, we heard that our government is committed to increasing the number of high school graduates, cutting the illiteracy rate, increasing the amount of employee training, as well as increasing post-secondary graduates in math, science and engineering.
Can the minister apprise this House what our government is doing to increase the number of graduates in the fields of math, science and engineering?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, one of the cornerstones of our efforts to increase the number of students in math, science and engineering is, of course, the Canada Scholarship Program which was announced by the Prime Minister in
1988.	Under that program, 9,000 scholarships have been issued to students from high school into first year in these particular subjects.
As well, we have a number of programs. The latest one, announced by the Council of Science and Technology Ministers of Canada just last week was "Innovators in the School". We expect by August of this year to have every part of this country involved in sending scientists and engineers into all of the public and high schools to talk about careers in those particular subjects.

May 16, 1991
Business of the House
I would hope that by the time this program is finished we will have some 25,000 people, qualified scientists and engineers, moving into the schools to talk about that particular issue.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
One of my constituents, Mr. Sadhu Singh, died 18 days ago. His sister, now in India, wishes to attend the funeral but was denied a visitor's visa, apparently for fear she would not return, even though her husband and two children are not joining her at the funeral.
My repeated representations to the minister's office and the minister himself have failed to move them.
Could the minister explain to this House how Mo-hamed Al-Mashat, spokesman for a murderer, can be hastily ushered into Canada as a landed immigrant, while this grieving woman is refused a visitor's visa to see her brother one last time?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's preoccupation with his constituent. It is true that the hon. member has made representations. An official of this government, posted in the country in question, has refused a visitor's visa for this women. Upon receiving the representation of the hon. member, I placed an immediate inquiry to the post overseas in order that I be informed as to why this has happened. Surely, I cannot overrule an official in the Public Service-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: That is outrageous.


Bernard Valcourt: May I can complete my answer, Mr. Speaker.
The reason is that I cannot interfere with the decision of the public officials unless and until I know why he was refused. The minute I receive this information-and we have conveyed that to the hon. member-and know why he was refused, I can exercise my discretion and authorize that person to come to Canada for the funeral in question.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, it has been more than a week since I made my representation to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: That may very well have been, but I would ask the hon. member, given the time, to put the question directly to the minister, please.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the body of Mr. Singh cannot wait for three more weeks in a Winnipeg funeral home. Neither his sister nor the Singh family can wait and grieve indefinitely.
Where is the heart of this minister? I ask him to act now. Issue a permit, Mr. Minister.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is all right to stand up here and say those great things.
He was not even able to give me the name, the date of birth, or address of the person we want.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Bernard Valcourt: As soon as I receive the information, I will be able to make a decision. I will do it at that time, and not before.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention, the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Luis Alberto Lacalle Herrara, President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I direct my regular question to the government House leader regarding the proposed activities for tomorrow and next week.
While he is on his feet, perhaps the government House leader can indicate to the House when the parliamentary committee, which has been given an undertaking by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will meet. Can he give us the date of that particular hearing?
Are there undertakings that the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the former Solicitor General, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, the
May 16, 1991

present Solicitor General, all officials from the relevant departments including David Daubney, Mr. Chretien as well as Paul Tellier, and all other officials will appear before that parliamentary committee?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of business, there will be the continuation of the throne speech today.
Tomorrow is an allotted day. Monday is a holiday. There will be the continuation of the throne speech on Tuesday and Wednesday. I will talk about other business after that.
As the hon. member knows, the management committee, which is also the striking committee, is looking at the membership of these committees.
I can assure you that we are very anxious to have that committee meet as early as possible. We are very anxious to have ministers and officials appear and very anxious to show how outrageous the charges of the Opposition are, and to get the truth out. We are anxious to do it.
I would ask the hon. member to get his Whip to meet right now to strike that committee so we can put an end to this outrageous nonsense we see in the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. government House leader for his undertaking that the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the former Solicitor General, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Solicitor General, all of their relevant officials as deemed by the committee, the former chief of staff, Mr. Tellier as well as all other officials will be involved.
I want to assure the government House leader that we will be able to move very quickly on this matter, within a matter of minutes upon departing the Chamber here. I thank the government House leader.


Harvie Andre: I would like to compliment the House leader of the Liberal Party on his cute lawyer tricks. I would suggest to him that he could show a little more respect for commitments given many times today. Several times, the questions kept coming back again and again and again with pejorative and out of order preambles.
I am anxious to put an end to those. That is why we are anxious for this committee to meet.
Business of the House


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I have listened to this discussion with great interest. The government House leader is calling into question whether or not questions put by members opposite were properly in order, and in doing so is questioning the role of the Chair and whether the Chair is performing in a proper fashion during Question Period.
That cannot be allowed to stand if there is to be proper order in this place.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as we know from the rules that were adopted some time ago, it is no longer appropriate during Question Period to raise points of order.
I listened to what the hon. member had to say. I wonder if the hon. member would have the courtesy to listen to what I have to say.


Mr. Speaker:: Some weeks ago we had a discussion that I think resembled the discussion that is about to take place. Surely to goodness it is appropriate that we have that discussion with a certain calm and respect for each other.
The hon. minister has the floor and I am sure we all want to hear what he has to say.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me for just a minute. One of the constant complaints in this place is that sometimes a member on either side goes beyond what is appropriate. I hope hon. members will recognize that if, when an hon. member is recognized to speak, other members shout at him or shout at her, they are going to get a response equal to the kind of epithet that is thrown at them.
I would ask hon. members that if we are going to have a discussion about the conduct of this place, which I think the public frankly wants us to have, let us try to have it in a civilized way.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating, citation 359 of Beauchesne, fifth edition, lays out the strictures on oral questions. There are numerous examples here, but let me give-


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

May 16, 1991
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton East, but surely she rises on a point of order. I want to facilitate the functions of the House and the minister hardly got started. However, I will hear the hon. member for Hamilton East for a moment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking some guidance from the Chair. At the beginning of this discussion after Question Period, the question revolved around the composition of the parliamentary committee and who would appear.
The House leader on the government side, by attempting to edit in a rather particular fashion the activities and questions that were posed during Question Period, is in fact calling into question the judgment of the Chair.
Question period is over and we are now on House business. The specific business of the House right now is to determine whether the terms of reference of the parliamentary committee that has been agreed to will include the civil servant, Mr. Raymond Chretien, and also the chief of staff, who were fingered by the government. That question has not been answered. That is the issue of the order of business of the House, not an attempt by the House leader on the government side to browbeat the Chair. We will not put up with the browbeating of'the Chair.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have to say veiy quietly and as gently as I can that I certainly have not had the sense that I am being browbeaten.
The hon. minister may continue his response.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in response to earlier questions about whether questions are out of order, I make the point that Section 359 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, which lays out what questions should be or should not be says:
(2)	The question must be brief. A preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence.
(3)	The question ought to seek information and, therefore, cannot be based on a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations.
I quite understand the difficulty in enforcing these strictures in Beauchesne, in that after they are made cannot be retracted. In the age of television and so on, they are out. Therefore, it is fair and appropriate that the ministry reply to the accusations, innuendo and so on that are contained in the preambles.
The point I would make is in response to a suggestion in the last session by the House leader of the Liberal Party, that Question Period be examined in terms of the length of preambles, the length of answers and the method. It is a very valid one and I am hoping that the new management committee will take this under advisement.


Mr. Speaker:: All of what the hon. minister has said is of great interest to this Chamber. But there is an appropriate way, after discussion, to bring these matters to a committee, to bring these matters to the Chair and if necessary to bring these matters into the Chamber. Surely what we are dealing with here-and I want to try to get back to what we really are dealing with-is a question put by the hon. House leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on the question of what is the business which is forthcoming.
I think we should come back to that and I think we should get that resolved.


Harvie Andre: I completed my remarks when I was shouted down by the other side again.


An hon. member:: If he wants a debate, he will have it. Keep acting like this. We are not easily bullied, I can tell you that.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a fundamental tradition in this place that your Speaker, and I am your servant, has to maintain order. There is a reason for that. If we do not maintain reasonable order, we cannot have free speech.
I would ask hon. members to let us get through the next few minutes without making comments from wherever hon. members may be sitting and, in the absence of being recognized, to make a contribution.
Let us try to get back to the business which was quite legitimately raised, and hear the hon. minister.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, said on several occasions in response to questions during Question Period that she welcomes, looks forward to and anticipates appearing before the committee with-and please listen carefull-y-all relevant officials or past ministers or ministers in
May 16, 1991

order to assure everybody concerned that there is no substance whatsoever to the suggestions of impropriety about the ministry that have been laid today. We are anxious to do that. There is no need to repeat the list. As answered in Question Period several times, all relevant officials will be before committee.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for giving us the assurance that the parliamentary committee that will look into this matter will hear the ministers who were in any way connected with this case.
However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, perhaps inadvertently, made it seem less than certain when, during Question Period, she said the committee was master of its procedure. The minister knows perfectly well that the majority of the committee's membership will consist of government members. To ensure that all the proper procedures are followed-and I appreciate the reply the minister just gave, because I think he has given us the assurance the ministers will appear before the committee, and I think that is quite satisfactory-according to members on this side of the House, there are two people, who should be heard if they wish to be heard. The committee should at least hear the two senior officials whose judgment was impugned by some ministers, namely, Mr. Daubney and Mr. Chretien.
If these two officials are willing to appear before the committee, we want to have the assurance that the government majority will not prevent them from appearing and answering questions. Do we have that assurance?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, again motives are being impugned, suggesting that somehow there will be an attempt to avoid implementing what I have just said the government is anxious to implement: that all relevant officials will be allowed to appear.
I also said earlier, perhaps the hon. member did not hear me, that we are not just willing but also anxious to get this matter before committee. It is unfortunate that the hon. member would have to impugn or suggest that somehow we are going to use the Conservative majority to try and avoid this. We would all be better off if we
Business of the House
would stop making these accusations of cover-up and so on and let the facts speak for themselves.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think I can add something that would end this discussion to everyone's satisfaction.
The Government House leader indicated that he is anxious to see this matter go to committee. We all are. We have all agreed that an existing matter before the health committee ought to continue. We have agreed to expeditiously reconstitute the existing health committee to deal with that issue and then we will move on to dealing with the committees later.
I suggest, in that same mode of communication and co-operation, that to facilitate this committee hearing we should agree that the existing committee simply be extended to deal with this matter and we can do that later today.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there is one slight inaccuracy in what the House leader of the New Democratic Party said and it is that we had agreed to reconstitute that committee. There was an attempt by my parliamentary secretary, the member of Parliament for Peace River, to get agreement. Unanimous agreement was denied by the Liberal Party among others.
We have not had that agreement. As I indicated, he should not get anxious and he should not make accusations of tardiness. We are anxious to proceed with this committee. The whips can meet and agree to the membership. As soon as they are available that committee can meet at an earlier date. I can assure you that the officials in question will not escape to Brazil and be unavailable for consultations if it happens-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton on a short point I hope.


David Charles Dingwall: A lot has been said and a lot of motives have been imputed by the hon. member opposite. I, for one, respect the rulings of the chair and the decisions of the chair, whatever that may be.
However, some things have to be attended to. The hon. government House leader has said, I think unfairly, that we in this party somehow denied unanimous consent for the health committee and the Beaudoin-Edwards committee to continue.

May 16, 1991
Business of the House
I want to make it perfectly clear that we give our full consent. However, I was informed by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that tomorrow we would have a discussion, because he wanted to link certain other items to that. That was my understanding.
Now, that may be incorrect. All of a sudden the government comes with a motion today, not informing the opposition House leader. We deny that liability. To show good faith, I state clearly on behalf of my party that we give unanimous consent to the reinstating of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, of the health and welfare committee, and we would also give unanimous consent, now, on the floor of the House of Commons, to reinstate forthwith the Standing Committee on External Affairs.
I do not see anything wrong with that. I just wanted to clarify that for the members of the House.
Finally, the government House leader, in response to my question, raised-


An hon. member:: Oh, he is walking out of the House now, he is walking out of the House. How insulting!


David Charles Dingwall: -a question about the tone and the content of Question Period. You, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is rising on a point of order. I, of course, will hear him. I am listening to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, but I will hear the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting here for 20 minutes to put a simple question on House business. The hon. members can surely shorten their comments into one or two sentences. This debate that is going on is absurd.
Now the government House leader has left the House.
I ask them to wind up their discussion and do it sensibly, and let the rest of us put our questions.


David Charles Dingwall: I am sorry that the hon. member is offended, and perhaps quite rightly so, by the time it is taking in terms of regular House business questions. However, I want to inform the hon. member that a lot of
information is being put on the table which is totally inaccurate and it has to be corrected now and forthwith.
In response to my question, the government House leader made interventions with regard to the tone and content of Question Period. Members on this side of the House quite rightly believed from what he had said that he was attacking the Chair. The Chair responded and said it did not believe that was the case. We will accept the ruling of the Chair. I wish to give notice to the Chair that on many occasions, the government House leader has availed himself of the opportunity to run off at the mouth, and to refer to certain provisions in Beauchesne to show that we are doing something wrong.
I want to make it perfectly clear that if we are in breach of the rules this should be brought to the attention of the House and the Speaker should deal with it forthwith. You have not, Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, ruled any of our questions out of order or improper at any time.
We have made the offer to discuss with opposition parties, as well as the government, the timing of Question Period, and more importantly, the timing of the responses of government ministers. That is what we gave to the government House leader.
Let us not have a repeat of the government House leader rising in his place to castigate members on this side of the House who legitimately ask questions regarding House business, or coming forward during Question Period on the undertakings of the Prime Minister and the minister of external affairs on very, very important matters that involve the state.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, for your affirmation that we on this side of the House have conducted ourselves within the boundaries of Beauchesne, within the boundaries of the Standing Orders. The matter should rest there.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I think that he has probably resolved the matter, at least for this afternoon, on a very sensible basis. Hon. members should always try, as he insists that his own colleagues have done, to contain the enthusiasm, sometimes the very great passion, that is brought to this place within the bounds of the rules, as set out in the various editions of Beauchesne.
May 16, 1991

The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam rises again and I will of course hear my hon. friend.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I know you have to be polite to those two members, so I will put it a different way. I have a question-


Mr. Speaker:: No, no. I want to make something very clear, I have to be polite to all hon. members, including the hon. member who is rising now. I would hope that the hon. member who is rising now will be polite to all hon. members in this Chamber.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on House business, a somewhat easier question perhaps. Since the minister has left the House I will put it to his parliamentary secretary, if I might.
I want to know if the government is bringing forward a bill on gun control, and when it will be bringing it forward.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, from comments made publicly by the Minister of Justice, that she intends to bring forward a bill. However, I cannot say, specifically, when.
I will take the hon. member's intervention as a representation and try to find that out for him.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford and then the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we are now talking about the business of the House. However, during the four days we have debated on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, not a single independent member has been given the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I thought we had an understanding that an independent could be given the floor after every group of 13 speakers. This week, we were entitled to only one question in the House, and since I want to do my work as a member as well as any other member in this House, I wish the House would give me a chance to do so.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise this matter with you, since I have some comments on the Speech from the Throne, and I would like to have a
Business of the House
chance to take part in the debate like any other member. Being in the back near the curtains doesn't mean we don't have the same rights and privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments. However, after every speech by any member in this House, he has a chance to ask questions or make comments during a ten-minute period.
If there is a problem about an independent or a member of the Bloc taking part in debate, of course I will consider your remarks, and I hope we will be able to settle this in the appropriate way.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to go on about this, but my contribution is more than just a short question at the end of a speech. What it boils down to is that we are allowed these short questions for charity's sake. What we want is to be able to make a substantial contribution to this debate, and it takes time to make a full-length speech.
Bearing that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we want the same rights and privileges as any other member.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand quite clearly the concerns of the hon. member and his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. There is a problem because in the House we have three major parties but we also have independents, including our colleague from Alberta who is now in his seat.
I can assure the hon. member that after this afternoon's comments, I intend to look at all the options, and I hope the results will be satisfactory to the hon. member.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to give notice that the member for Winnipeg North, who asked a question during Question Period regarding a constituent who was trying to bring the family together for a funeral, was answered by the minister of immigration, who suggested that not all facts that should have been provided were provided by the member.
The member, who had an urgent meeting immediately after Question Period and who has now come back into the House, wanted to give notice at the first opportunity of a question of privilege, and I was trying to reserve on

May 16, 1991
The Address
behalf of my colleague-but I can see he came in while I was speaking.
Perhaps the member would raise a question tomorrow and give notice today.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege and if it arises out of the recent proceedings, I will hear the hon. member.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have to review the actual Hansard myself. I have not seen his reply.
He suggested I could not even give the name of the person. Well-


Mr. Speaker:: One moment. If the hon. member needs the assistance of the transcript or more study then the Speaker accepts that. It is not necessary to argue it now. The hon. parliamentary secretary though is on his feet and I will hear the hon. parliamentary secretary, but I want to make it very clear to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I accept what the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte has said. I have notice of the question of privilege and the question of privilege is reserved.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if it is reserved that is satisfactory with me. I wanted to make sure that the minister was present.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pronovost for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and amendment thereto of Mr. Chretien (P- 24).
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that by September the government will table its proposals for constitutional reform. The throne speech addresses the questions of unity and prosperity and I would like to quote from the throne speech:
Our unity is strengthened by a strong economy. And prosperity is enhanced by a united country.
Those are propositions that I am sure we all agree with. Does the government understand that constitutional arrangements must support our economic objectives?
Our leader, Mr. Chretien, has said that in making changes to the division of powers the essential focus must be an arrangement which best serves the needs of people, not governments or bureaucrats or politicians. Any new arrangements must provide the flexibility to meet the changing demands and challenges of the future. To my knowledge, the government has yet to make a similar statement. Quite frankly, I am concerned about recent proposals to hive off various aspects of economic and social policy, such as training of workers, to the provinces. Divorcing such training from income security policies and tax policies will make it impossible to adequately address the needs of individual Canadians.
We have to be careful about placing limits on the federal spending power. Overlapping jurisdictions are inevitable in a modem and complex world. For Canada to adapt to global realities, a comprehensive and integrated plan of action will be required, one in which training, education and social assistance policies are updated and research and technology strategies are defined on a national level.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of national unity more particularly. I know that we in Quebec feel some disappointment following the events of recent years. The failure of the Meech Lake Accord was interpreted wrongly, I think, as a rejection of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to go beyond emotions and to analyse more objectively. Personally, I believe that we live in one of the best countries in the world.
When I get up every morning, I thank God for keeping me alive and for the privilege of living in this country.
We do not need an exhaustive analysis to understand and realize Canada's incredible advantages and assets. I am sure that everyone can give a short personal experience. I could talk about it for a long time, but I will confine myself to a small example.
I remember visiting a refugee camp on the border of Cambodia and Thailand in 1980. In that misery, Mr. Speaker, were Canadian doctors and nurses who, in
May 16, 1991

The Address
addition to their work, acted as interpreters between some Swedes, who spoke only English besides their mother tongue, and French people. That is Canada's true vocation, Mr. Speaker. With our two languages and our different cultures that make up Canada, we can indeed play an important international role.
Should we not rather take on the challenges of the world?


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by my colleague, the Liberal member from the Montreal area. In his talk, he said that he was staying with us in Quebec. This statement was challenged by the member for Shefford who seemed not to believe that the member was a Quebecer, even if he is English speaking, and this kind of statement is quite deplorable and should not be parliamentary.
However-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the hon. member would direct his question to the hon. member's speech. I do not wish to hear anything about anybody else's question in the House.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to agree with some parts of the speech by my colleague on national unity. However, he said that his party was prepared to show flexibility. I have trouble grasping that part of his speech, since the leader of the Liberal Party recently said that for him, there was no question of any present federal power being transferred to the provinces.
If that is flexibility, I would like the hon. member to tell me exactly what his party's position is, because if we want changes, both the federal government and the provinces must be prepared to call some things into question. My question for the hon. member is along those lines and I would like him to tell us the position which his leader seems to have great difficulty putting before us here in this House.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He totally misunderstood the speech of my leader.
For several months now, since his appearance at the Belanger-Campeau commission, my leader has actually said that he is ready to review the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces. He often said that nothing was sacred in the present division of responsibilities.
In my speech, I stressed another aspect of Mr. Chretien's speech in this regard. He said that we must, in every change, allocate a responsibility to the government which is best able to assume it, while looking for arrangements which would best serve the interests of citizens instead of governments, bureaucrats or politicians.
Therefore, our leader has demonstrated many times his flexibility and his openmindness on this question. I would invite the member to read more carefully the recent speech and proposals my leader made on April 21, in Montreal. I could send him a copy.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am of course very pleased to speak today in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is at the crossroads, not only as a political entity, but also as an economic power in North America and in the world. More than ever, we have the duty, as individuals, to decide what kind of country we want to live in and what place it should occupy on this continent as well as in the world.
Of course, national unity plays now a pivotal part in the choices facing us. It would be a mistake, Mr. Speaker, for us collectively to refuse to face up to reality at a time when it is vital to be careful to avoid delusions. All aspects of our daily life are tied to the survival of this country which, in turn, is dependant upon unity as a link between several communities and cultures.
Because of these differences and thanks to these differences, this country is probably the best equiped to ensure the prosperity and quality of life that all the people of Canada are looking for. It is the very existence of Canada as an international power that is at stake. So, I urge you to stop and think of the implications for a moment.
I urge Canadians to consider reality, their reality, setting aside the symbols, the misunderstandings and the conflicts, between the French-speaking and English-

The Address
speaking communities, between the east and the west, between native people and non-native people or between new immigrants and not so new immigrants, and answer this question: do we still want this country?
I am talking about a country with a 125-year history as a federation, whose various communities, against all odds, share the common values of peace, justice, tolerance and liberty. These values, embodied in our lifestyle and in our institutions, are what make Canada the envy of most countries in the world.
Since I came to Ottawa in 1984, I have often been confronted, as have my colleagues from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, by the problem of the two solitudes, as we call it. I also had the opportunity to discover a richer yet more complex reality. Confronted to this reality, I realized that ordinary Canadians across the country have more of less the same needs and the same aspirations.
On major issues such as the environment, economic prosperity, the family and health, people all share the ideal of a better life, whether they live in Roberval, Quebec, or in Vegreville, Alberta. We could probably build a lot on these sound aspirations that we all share, provided we are careful, we listen and reach out.

Canada is facing formidable challenges at this time. The identity crisis our country is going through at this time raises certain basic questions which involve each and every one of us. We can blame the government but this crisis needs to be seen as the culmination of a long series of missed opportunities and broken down communications.
Often we fail to ask the real question for fear of getting real answers, the real truth.
Are we perhaps afraid of finding out what we have really become? Any identity crisis, and ours is complicated by also being a unity crisis, is a mirror into which it takes courage to look. The crisis we are experiencing contains the seeds for major change, potential rebirth of our entire country. I want to see this country have the audacity, the daring to question every aspect of this issue, to believe in its own ability to find the right answers.
I have spoken of change and rebirth. What will this consist of? It is not solely up to the government or governments to decide. All Canadians must take part in defining their country, regardless of what that definition may turn out to be. Canadians are the ones who built this country, who made it a country, and they are the ones responsible for its prosperity.
Today's men and women receive this country as an heritage from those who have gone before them. They are therefore the ones who need to be asked what future they want to see for this country.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. There is no cut and dried solution to the present crisis in this country. Our government has taken and will continue to take initiatives to advance the cause of national unity, but without the participation of the Canadian people and the co-operation of all major groups in Canadian society, the process is doomed to failure.
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about another government project. We are talking about the future and the unity of this country. Elow could we agree on a plan for the future to renew our unity, without calling on the partnership of all Canada's dynamic forces? Without this kind of participation, we will never be receptive to the problems of others. Since there seems to be a consensus in this country on changing the status quo, perhaps it is time to get down to basics and talk about foundations for a new union.
Canada will deserve to be called a country if it has a minimum of consensus. Only broad participation by Canadians can guarantee that a consensus will be reached. We are embarking on an exercise in reflection that will not be complete until Canadians have stated what they want the future of this country to be.
During the months to come, Canadians will have to think about this country's future. We will have to start by thinking about what we are and the kind of society we have built over the years.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I can testify to major achievements by Canadian men and women, and I also want to do so as an individual who is concerned about the quality of life of his fellow citizens and who welcomes this responsibility.
In the field of health and welfare, Canada, during the past 50 years, has adopted policies and programs that are the envy of practically everyone. In the heat of the
May 16, 1991

debate on free trade and again today, when we are discussing the pressures of international competition, Canada has vigorously renewed its commitments. Despite frequently expressed concerns about the intentions of our government, we have not only maintained our commitments, we have improved on them.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's health care system is recognized as one of the best in the world. Wherever they are in this country, Canadians can be assured of receiving high quality services. They can depend on a national system whose excellence owes a great deal to cooperation among the provinces and to provincial initiatives to improve that system. Because of needs and expectations, the health care sector has expanded enormously over the years. Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial governments spend $40 billion of their revenue on health care, out of a total of 60 billion.
This year, the federal government transfered $14 billion to the provinces in the form of transfer payments and tax points.

It is more important than ever that the main principles that have served and continue to serve as the foundation of our health system be reaffirmed. I can state without hesitation that features that make our system unique- universality and accessibility-will not be challenged in any way. The risk that those people who are most vulnerable might have to bear the consequences of any change of that kind has convinced me of the need to reaffirm that our national standards will remain intact.
In a time of limited financial resources and increasing pressures on our provincial health services, the federal government is prepared to intensify its co-operation with the provinces. We must find ways of helping our health systems respond more effectively to pressures resulting from such factors as demographic change, technological development and public expectations.
It is also the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that our native people have the greatest possible accessibility to health and social services. This responsibility which the federal government has assumed on behalf of the people of Canada for nearly 125 years
The Address
has contributed to the establishment of an extensive system of facilities and services for the native and Inuit population extending from the Yukon to the maritime provinces, a system which today consists of some 488 health service facilities including nine hospitals in eight large regions.
Through this system we are able to help the various communities in their efforts to decrease alcohol and drug consumption on reserves, thereby helping to reduce family violence.

Mr. Speaker, this fact demonstrates the importance of having a national vision of health and welfare that covers the needs of all communities in this country.
The protection of public health is another area whose impact is impressive. Every day, the lives of every one of us are in some way affected by action taken by the Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada: monitoring the processing and manufacturing of food and drugs, monitoring medical products compliance, taking part in investigations of epidemics, analysing drug samples as part of the Canadian drugs strategy, and so forth. The expectations of Canadians in this area are very high. It is a difficult task that requires many resources and action on a national scale.

Another area in which the activities of the federal government influence the day-to-day reality of Canadians is the area of social programs. It is important to know that Canadians are proud of their image as a caring nation. As our country has matured, social programs have grown and changed to better meet our evolving needs. Although we hold different ideas about the best way to help needy Canadians, the shared value of caring for each other unifies us across the country, and in all regions we expect governments to have a social face.
It is in keeping with these values that we must take stock of the future. Our achievements are considerable but there are challenges which remain. No government program can or should replace the family. However, where governments can assist is by helping the family respond to changing needs and by creating a healthy environment in which Canadian children can live, learn and grow.

The Address
More than ever Canadian women are joining the labour force. Sometimes this is a choice, but more often than not it is an economic necessity. At the same time as holding down jobs, many parents must take care of children and elderly parents. Lone parents face a unique challenge in working while trying to provide the best care for their children. The many roles that family members must play create a tremendous strain. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am pleased that the throne speech promises a review of policies in relation to the family. I want to ensure that our policies best meet the present and future needs of families.
Our most precious resource is our children. By their very nature, children belong to society's most vulnerable group. Modem society, for all its technological achievements and advances, has not done well enough with the children. In our country, children have a problem which we cannot ignore; as well as assisting families, we must continually help children out of poverty. While we have seen some improvement in child poverty rates, we must continue to seek the fuller understanding of the root causes of poverty, and work with other governments and voluntary organizations to find effective ways to keep children out of the welfare trap.
The Children's Bureau will help me to develop recommendations to cabinet to fulfil the commitments made at the summit. I envision Canada's National Action Plan as addressing a broad range of issues which affect children, including enforcement of child support orders and action against child pornography.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I have to mention the government effort to fight AIDS. We developed a national strategy, which has the support of community groups, non-government agencies and all levels of government, a remarkable achievement in terms of consultation and partnership.
Let me assure you that I will cany the work initiated by my predecessor in that field. Therefore I undertake to step up all joint efforts which will help us beat this horrible virus.
Mr. Speaker, we are facing other great challenges. Canadian men and women expect their government to
use extreme caution, and it is vital that we live up to then-expectations. Canada has a good name, thanks to its vision based on such values as fairness, compassion, tolerance and generosity. As a nation, we now need to re-affirm our unanimity cohesion in the values and the assets we share. Health and social programs are some of our vital assets.
That is what I want achieve both as a minister and a member of this government. I came to Ottawa hoping I could contribute to Canada's growth, bearing in mind the values, principles and differences which make our country. I hope we can soon find the path to unity, so that we cany on with this humna-scale undertaking.
I invite everyone to take an active part in the preservation of our heritage, since, in light of the challenge that lies ahead, we can hope for even better tomorrows.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a few remarks and also to direct a question to the minister of health.
Just this very day there was a very grim report put out by a journalist from the Edmonton Journal. Basically what that article says is that northerners lead the nation in most classes of illness. It says:
With the exception of heart disease, Canada's northern territories experience higher death and disease rates than the rest of the country. Birth and infant mortality rates are also higher.
It also quotes the minister of health from the Northwest Territories:
It is only recently that we have been able to supply a fairly decent level of water and sewage, says Nellie Coumoyea, the Territorial Health Minister.
It goes on to say that it is not unusual to have as many as 16 people living in a poorly ventilated, substandard home. The chronic housing shortage is a major obstacle to combating infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and respiratory infections. Coumoyea adds that an additional 2,000 housing units are needed to meet current demands, never mind the nightmare of an anticipated population explosion that could see the vast region's population double within 30 years.
May 16, 1991

Housing is the number one health priority in the Northwest Territories and the second priority is environmental health in the homes, says Dr. Paul Cappon of McGill University.
They go on to say, and this is very important, that a 1986 survey showed that 77 per cent of Inuit women and 65 per cent of Dene and Metis women smoke, giving women in the territories a cancer rate four times higher than the rest of Canada. More than half the residents of the Northwest Territories and 40 per cent of Yukoners smoke, compared to one third of the population nationally.
This is a very grim indictment and I would like to get some kind of an indication from the minister of health. I know he is new to his portfolio, but in what way can we as parliamentarians and elected officials, in a responsible and non-partisan manner, try to grapple with these very, very difficult health issues that affect the remote areas of Canada?
In 1991, should we expect to have diseases that were unheard of and that were rampant in the 1940s and 1950s, such as tuberculosis?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member. We know very well how dedicated she is to the problems dealing with aboriginal peoples.
In the analysis I have made of the Department of Health and Welfare, I drew the conclusions that I drew in the five other departments where I worked before, that the reality of native people in this country is very particular.
I have two bands in my riding and the highest rate of suicide in Lac-Saint-Jean is in Point Bleue, in the Montagnais band in my riding.
I hope that my colleague will agree with me that there are many factors dealing with the problems, particularly with these people. The problems are unemployment, family violence, drug abuse and alcohol abuse. I am not sure that as a country we have always given those people the chance to get out of those problems in the same efficient way we gave to it other people. That is why I have particularly asked the department to look at means that could be used to increase help given, particularly to northern bands.
The Address
I was in Winnipeg last Saturday. The first visit I made as the minister of health was to the office in Winnipeg, committing myself to return and to particularly meet with native people to see what we can do better. Already the drug strategy and family violence have been approached, as well as child intervention, and we will have more on that in the fall. I will keep that in mind. It is veiy sensitive.
It is not just a matter of saying we will, it is a matter of seeing the ways and means we have. Resources are more scarce than they were, but I committed myself to do my best to help those people the best we can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and then I will recognize the hon. member for New Westminister-Burnaby. Questions or comments.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Minister often mentioned the important benefits we have in this country. I would like to say that the other day, I was watching a television program. We know that in the United States, some universities have a chair or school of Canadian studies, where American students find out what is happening in our country, Canada. The dean of such an institution faculty was asked what American students ask him most often about Canada. First was our health system. Second was history and third, the Constitution.
I do not know whether the minister could tell us how it would be easier to make our fellow Canadians understand that this country has social programs like health insurance that are envied by other countries and even by our neighbours, the United States, which may be one of the world's richest countries, but which does not have the same quality of social services that we have here. People often complain in our country that taxes might be a little higher than elsewhere, than our southern neighbours have to pay, but in return, we have incomparable social programs that are envied by many other countries.


Benoît Bouchard: I appreciate the question from my colleague, Mr. Speaker, because indeed, not a week goes by without the department of health and welfare receiving delegations from the United States that want to find out exactly what makes our health plan and all our social programs so good, bearing in mind that Canada shares these costs among 26 million while our southern neighbours have a population of 250 million. In many fields

The Address
such as education, health, social programs, action on AIDS, they are considered among the best.
I must tell my colleague from Brome-Missisquoi that of course, if you have something for a long time, you forget how valuable it is and how to keep it. I think that the way the federal government handles such things as the resources at our disposal, transfers and so on is often discussed. We should never forget that with our precarious financial situation, the least economic mismanagement or moving away from our interest rate policies or the way we are managing, difficult though it may be, the economy and finances of Canada- What many provinces have done recently will probably make it possible for the system to continue. But again, we must always keep in mind that the slightest relaxation, the least temptation to correct the situation in a different way could endanger this system and then Canadians would realize that they do have one of the best systems in the world.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, through you I will extend my congratulations to the new minister of health on assuming his new portfolio. I think today is the first time he has spoken in the House as minister of health.
The minister is well aware of the controversy that has been surrounding breast implants in this country and in the United States. His department has issued just today a new bulletin called Implantable Medical Devices. It comes from the Health Protection Branch.
It says: "The scientific and medical communities have identified a number of confirmed and hypothetical health risks associated with breast implants."
This is after months and months of reassurances from the department and from the previous minister of health that there was in fact no problem with these devices.
The United States Food and Drug Administration has now revised its published estimate of cancer risk from breast implants. It now uses the one in 10,000 risk figure. Critics in Washington say the FDA is muzzling its own scientists.
We have asked the minister for a judicial inquiry on this whole matter and process of medical devices being
approved by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The confidence of Canadian women in the Health Protection Branch has been seriously eroded.
The minister must do something to reassure Canadian women. We have had the IUD scandal. We have had the thalidomide scandal. We have had the Depro Provera scandal. He must do something.
Will he assure Canadian women that there will be an inquiry into breast implants in this country, an inquiry in which Canadian women can ask the questions they feel they must ask?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I realize that the question is very important, but the time has expired.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this will not take long. I would like to have a chance to go further with that question, but first of all I want to reaffirm something of interest to me in terms of the health of Canadians, particularly women in this case. In all the reviews I have made about breast implants, and in particular the Meme implant, everything has been done by the department and the minister, my predecessor, in light of the information which was available at the time. Any contrary information has been duplicated and has been controlled at any time by the department.
Once again, what has been issued today refers to information that Canadians, particularly women, need at the present time. I believe that my colleague has to keep in mind what we have done and will continue to do. As an example, she is surely aware of the 1-800 line that we offered to women last week. Five hundred women have called so far. The department reported to me that answers given, by and large, satisfied the people who called.
We deal with 25,000 new medical devices every year and there are 500,000 on the market. The department is open at any time if my colleagues would like to come, get informed and look at the way we work. We have just formed a committee chaired by Dr. Heame which will determine a way to review the medical devices operation. If there are any problems they will report to me. Obviously I will change the process, but I believe what my colleague has in mind is important and that is not to worry women about the way it works.
May 16, 1991

I can confirm, with all the information that I have at the present time, that what is done is well done, controlled, recontrolled, reprocessed and redetermined. But once again decisions are made based on information available at the time. But science is science and if I have to change a decision in light of new information I will do so.
I can guarantee the women of Canada that in terms of breast implants at the present time everything has been done well and will continue to be done well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Honourable Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-Trucking Industry; the Honourable Member for York South-Weston-Disasters; the Honourable Member for Don Valley EastHousing; the Honourable Member for Scarborough West-Immigration.
The hon. member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for recognizing me at this time, in the midst of a debate which surely will count in the history of Canada and will probably become more acrimonious in the months to come. I have in mind in particular the speech from the minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs this morning in which he told us that they would be introducing a bill on the holding of referenda when we know that a similar measure has been introduced in the National Assembly in Quebec City and should become law before the end of June.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, we are in a pre-referendum period. Therefore, coming here to tell our Englishspeaking colleagues what we want and what the situation is, is fulfilling the role the Bloc Quebecois sets for itself, the role of being a link with English Canada at a time when the concept of sovereignty is more and more accepted and is becoming a political necessity.
In the next few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to convince you that sovereignty is also an economic necessity. Naturally, over the last twelve months we have seen a lot of water flow under the bridge. After the failure of
The Address
the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec had extensive studies done on its future.
I think that all members of this House will agree that the Belanger-Campeau commission was a model of democracy, a model of broadening political horizons, not only for the elected members of the National Assembly but also for the leaders of various communities and groups in Quebec. Besides, it was an unprecedented experience in Canada, where for the first time non-elected people were part of such a broad, wide-ranging, important process.
There was also the Allaire Report in the Quebec Liberal Party, which was adopted by a large majority. So to those who claim that sovereignty is advocated only by a minority or who think that only independence crusaders believe in it, I want to tell them that the consensus in Quebec is growing day by day and since the failure of Meech Lake, we have learned not to trust others but to decide on our collective future ourselves.
That is why when I see federal initiatives that may be intended to counter the initiatives of the Government of Quebec, I tell them that they are really pale imitations.
For example, we have seen the Spicer commission in recent months. I feel sorry for English Canada to have to go through this charade instead of discussing and really looking into the kind of country you want. Of course, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee has been concerned with the mechanics, but completely ignored the substance, the content. And God knows that in Canada now, the two confronting visions have nothing to do with process: they are realities in people's hearts and minds. And whatever process is adopted, do not think that you can reconcile the difference between a group that wants a strong central government-and I respect those in English Canada who want a strong central government; it is their right. For others, the only real government that counts is the one that controls the majority, the one in the National Assembly.
No travelling committee, not one, two, three or twelve committees will change the reality out there. The debate now going on in this country is not one of process, but of vision. Everything hinges on there being two visions but only one country. What is missing is a country. That is why we see more and more Quebecers who traditionally

May 16, 1991
The Address
rejected sovereignty come to realize that the differences are irreconcilable. We tried everything.
The Minister of Health asked us earlier what kind of country we wanted. Quebecers have unequivocally answered this question twice already and, each time, their cry from the heart was not heard. No wonder that a formation like the Bloc Quebecois was established. No wonder that a formation like the Reform Party is emerging today. This is happening because of the fundamental difference between the legal vision of Canada that you are proposing and what this country is really about. All the difference is there.
It is about the real country that we want to talk about in this House, Mr. Speaker. We know it offends the pure and innocent ears of some of our hon. colleagues. We know this is not the traditional argument heard in this House where efforts are made to disguise reality by pretending that the country depicted in the legislation corresponds to the real Canada. However, the reality that people see in their heads and in their hearts is totally different.
The reason why traditional parties are facing massive rejection throughout the country is very simple: they do not suit the real country and the aspirations of the people who live in this real country, outside of this ivory tower we live in, here, in Ottawa.
So, when I hear the Speech from the Throne challenge, call upon the Canadian people to participate, the first question that comes to mind, Mr. Speaker, is who is going to believe this government? It is the first one that comes to mind in response to this challenge. For then-part, Canadians would like to challenge this government to run again in an election. In that way, this Speech from the Throne is fraudulent. It was made by an illegitimate government, a fact corroborated by all public opinion polls. This government would do the country a big favour if the Prime Minister were to decide to put Canada's interest before that of his own party and to ask Canadians and Quebecers to pick true representative in these times of turmoil. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the make-up of this Parliament would reflect the actual make-up of this country and not that of some dream that this Speech from the Throne is trying to sell us.
We know what the reality is in fact. So, when our friends opposite claim they will take up these great challenges, we know that they lack the moral authority as well as the capacbility and the will to do so. We know they are the lowest ever in the polls: they have lost the trust of just about everybody in Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, rhetoric aside, in real life, there are realities to face. As we speak and as this government is trying to sell us his lines, 1.6 million of our fellow citizens are unemployed. Under this government, which is allegedly so generous and so perfect, as we speak and while the Prime Minister is praising the great virtues of federalism, 11,180 banckruptcies have been recorded in Canada over the past year. At a time when the economic policies of the government should be one fostering a strong economy, as promised in its last Speech from the Throne, interest rates are oscillating between 10 and 12 percent, while our dollar is at 87 cents.
So, we talk about sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, it is not strictly a matter of political necessity. Sovereignty is increasingly becoming an economic necessity, and that statement is not from me. Even the Quebec Chamber of Commerce tells us, in its brief, that it is time to act. They say the decision-making process should be put in place immediately. The same recommendation was made to the Quebec government by the Belanger-Campeau commission. That is what the legislation the Quebec government introduced yesterday is about, one more step toward a referendum in Quebec.
But, this afternoon, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs told us that the federal government will want to hold its own referendum. They will introduce their own referendum legislation in an attempt to weaken the resolve of Quebecers and create a diversion.
Mr. Speaker, we realize this is an attempt to create a diversion! So we invite all those who want to relive the torments of conscription to hold their federal referendum; we invite them to ask Quebecers the real question and they will get an answer they never hoped for.
Mr. Speaker, to those who thought they could, out of Ottawa, scare the Quebec people with their jackboots, I say: Go pay a visit to Quebecers in the next little while, you will see how low your credibility level is, how you will
May 16, 1991

not be able to convince anyone, because the onus of proof rests with you, and so far you have not delivered.
Mr. Speaker, for years, I advocated a renewed federalism. But one day, I came to realize that we could not deliver, that we had to find some other way, another political formula, one that would solve our real problems. When we talk about real problems, we talk about major national programs, and the generosity of the federal government, but we know, Mr. Speaker, that this government owes $388 billion, uses a third of our taxes to pay the interest, and increases the national debt by $30 billion each year, so how can they talk about sharing the wealth? In fact, all they have done this last few years is sharing the deficit. The fact is the government cannot afford its dreams any longer. That was obvious in the Throne Speech. Actually, Mr. Speaker, they now want to establish national standards in areas they have no business into, and then have the provinces foot the bill.
They even have the guts to refer to national standards in education, an exclusive provincial jurisdiction ever since 1867, especially in Quebec. I am convinced even Maurice Duplessis must be turning in his grave right now, at the throught of Ottawa interfering in education. That was part of the original agreement. The government does not want to abide by the rules in general matters or respect the necessary choices of the grey areas of the Constitution, and now they are even prepared to ride rough short over the most clearly-stated parts of the Canadian Constitution. All this from a government that said it had a favourable bias for Quebec. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker. I tell the members from Quebec on the other side that Quebec will never accept your meddling in education policy. We will never accept your meddling in our affairs in that field.
Even worse, this government wants to go even further in occupational training. In Quebec, there is not just consensus but unanimity on occupational training being the exclusive responsibility of the Province of Quebec.
The Address
manpower training programs be carried out by the government of Quebec. We know that about 40 per cent of the funds for such training are wasted. So when we say that sovereignty is necessary, we need only look at the attempts of this government to meddle in fields of provincial jurisdiction, to duplicate services, to waste our taxes, and God knows that we cannot afford it now.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about federal policies. We can talk about those where they have responsibility, in particular research and development. We read recently that the Space Agency, which was supposed to be the leader in research and development for Quebec, this famous space agency that we had to fight over and wrench away, and I will give you the figures, Mr. Speaker, for this space agency's research contracts: 50 per cent in the West, 35 per cent in Ontario and a meagre, shameful 9.5 per cent in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, that is from this government which says it has a favourable bias. I think that if we want to pursue our economic objectives, if we want to recognize the political, economic and commercial imperatives, 30 years of discussion, bickering, frustration and above all misunderstanding, as shown of this Speech from the Throne, of insensitivity, lead us to conclude that we would prefer to assume our responsibilities ourselves. That is why from the context in this Speech from the Throne and the debate on this amendment, I would like to move a subamendment, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member from Hull-Aylmer, which reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding, after the words "economic affairs of the nation", the following: "and in light of its interference in the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec in the fields of education and training".
Mr. Speaker, I think that this subamendment is acceptable and I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on it because I want to know where our colleagues stand. It is important to know how strong their convictions are and especially how much they respect the letter and the spirit of the present Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, even the Conseil du patronat, federalist to Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this the core, issued a press release recommending that all subamendment.

May 16, 1991
The Address


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Shefford, whom I think I know well.
I even remember visiting his place of birth, I believe in the Magdalen Islands.


An hon. member:: A Magdalenian.


Don Boudria: A Magdalenian, yes. That was the term that the hon. member for Shefford taught me when I paid him a visit. I must say that it was a most enjoyable visit.
I do not want to reveal before this House secrets that have to do with personal friendship, but suffice it to say that at that time, the hon. member believed-as I still believe-in a strong and united Canada. I am disappointed to hear his comments today. I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that the hon. member has confused two issues and I wonder if he sincerely believes what he says because, surely, he must understand that there is a difference between being a member of the Opposition to the government, where it is the role to make the government accountable, and being opposed to the very existence of one's country. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between these two issues.
It is my duty, as a member of the Opposition, to make the government accountable. I do not apologize for it: That is the reason why I was sent here by my constituents. The people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell have asked me to represent them; they have given me a mandate to represent them in this House. Because of circumstances, because of what has happened in the other 294 ridings in Canada, I sit on the Opposition side. It is not because of what happened in my own riding, indeed, if I had not been elected, I simply would not be here. I am on the Opposition side because of what has happened in the other ridings. You are either a member of the Opposition or a member of the government. As a member of the government, one tries, as best as possible, to conduct the affairs of the country, like any other government in the past. But as a member of the Opposition, one has to make the government accountable.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member says that the government lacks credibility, I can certainly share his
opinion; however, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean that Canada lacks credibility. It may be true that unemployment is high in Canada and that our monetary policy is not good, and it is an opinion that I share, but that does not mean that Canada is a bad country. Those are the fundamental differences on the basis of which we must separate our role as spokespersons in the House of Commons from our reactions toward those who govern and those who form the opposition. But this role does not allow us to say to Canadians that their country does not work because people have lost confidence in those who are in power.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point I want to make. The hon. member for Shefford talked about job training. As a matter of fact, I think he mentioned it in his resolution. He says that training-I think he used the terms job training and employment training in his speech-is strictly under provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he has ever signed a form under the Job Development Program. Under that program, grants can be obtained from the federal government, but the Member of Parliament has to give his approval. Has he ever signed a form under section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is about job training? I have signed quite a few, Mr. Speaker, and I must say that those forms are public documents available under the Access to Information Act. I hope that members in this House who have heard the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois today will look for those forms signed by each member of that party, Mr. Speaker. I hope that some hon. members opposite will do it.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that we must keep the system accountable. I do not share his feelings towards my country. I for one, Mr. Speaker, would like to offer my best wishes to the minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
It might not be fashionable for a member of the Opposition to formulate such wishes, but I think that in doing so, Mr. Speaker, I am not wishing that the government opposite run the economy the way they did in the past, but that the minister succeed in keeping our country together, because that principle is larger than I, larger than the members opposite and even larger, with all due respect, than the occupant of the Chair. And there lies the difference, Mr. Speaker. I take this opportunity to formulate this wish to the minister,
May 16, 1991

because I want our country to remain strong, united and prosperous in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am taking the hon. member's subamendment under advisement. As soon as I can make a ruling on it, I will.
I do not know whether there was a question there or not, but I will let the hon. member reply.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I understand why he wants to defend Canada as it is today. I understand because he was not rejected by Meech Lake. He supported the Meech Lake Accord throughout that debate, unlike his leader. Personally, I think that if anyone is to blame in this House, and I don't blame the government for the demise of Meech Lake, I am more inclined to put the blame on the Leader of the Liberal Party who forced us all, as individual members,to start wondering about the ability of this Parliament and this country to function as such. Mr. Speaker, I think, in fact I sincerely believe, that for the past 30 years our institutions have been unable to respond to the fundamental requirements and needs of Quebec. Consequently, I no longer believe that even with another round with committee after committee in fact, I am positive that 18 months from now, we will be holding a referendum on sovereignty, because English Canada will not have given the matter sufficient consideration and have been unable to make concrete proposals.
My comments are not meant to be anti-English Canada. They have every right to define the country as they want it to be, in their image and likeness, as we say. They have the right to make education a national issue. They have the right to let Ottawa run everything, if they want to. That kind of country does not have my loyalty. One thing is certain: This has been very difficult for me. It isn't easy to file in here, one after the other. It isn't my idea of fun. However, we believe that without a reaction from Quebecers the day after the demise of Meech Lake, it would have been business as usual, as the Leader of the Opposition hoped it would be, when he said: After June 23, it will be the 24th and the 25th, and just forget Quebec's demands. We want to remind people daily of the problems we had to face and the way we were humiliated. Consequently, I believe the institu-
The Address
tion has failed, but not necessarily its individual members. However, we must face the fact that if the division of powers is not changed, nothing will change in this country. That is why I think English Canada has the right to define the country it wants. We have done our duty. All we have to do now is make our decision.
As for the jobs strategy, I am sure the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell does not believe his stopgap projects are occupational training; mowing the grass- What I want is real jobs-


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Order, please. The amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shefford and seconded by the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer has been ruled in order.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing.


RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the consent of the House to the New Democratic Party's intention to split our speeches into two speeches of 10 minutes with five minutes of questions from now on. I do not think that should be any problem.
I would like to begin my comments on the Speech from the Throne with some general comments. The speech begins by talking about Canada's history as a history of builders and achievers and how Canadian men and women created a society that is as free and fair as any on earth. I want to make sure that the government was not intending to include itself in this category of builders and achievers and creators of a free and fair society. I assure the government that the people of Canada do not share the view that this government is in that category and sees the government as a destroyer and creator of something which is unfair, not something which is fair.
The speech goes on to talk about the need to rebuild Canadian unity and overcome the acrimony, apathy and incomprehension that exists. Of course we all agree with that, but the government must also take its responsibility as one of the main culprits in generating disunity,

May 16, 1991
The Address
acrimony, apathy and incomprehension about the importance of Canada and holding the country together.
The Speech from the Throne goes on to talk about putting Canada first and wanting all parliamentarians to put Canada first, to set partisan motives aside and work for a stronger country.
How can the government expect us to put all our partisan views aside? How can it expect us to buy into its view of Canada which has generated such unemployment, such misery and such poverty across this country? The government is not learning from its mistakes. The New Democratic Party cannot participate in working towards the sort of Canada that this government wants. We will, of course, work towards a Canada which is one and united, but a Canada which is fair, compassionate and cares about people rather than corporations.
Even in the Speech from the Throne, there is more of the same. There are more of the government's economic policies, which have tom the country apart, being proposed for the next session of Parliament. There is more privatization, more deregulation, and more economic policies which will tear the country apart. There are more references to cuts to transfer payments which will tear the country apart in terms of our social policies. This is a trend which has been going on for quite some time.
The Speech from the Throne talks about a Constitution that will unite a nation. Well, so it should, but so should a government unite a nation. It should seek compromise and consensus, not just at the time when a Constitution is being framed, not just when a Constitution is being negotiated. It should also unite a nation at times when we are dealing with social policies and economic policies.
We have seen the tragedy of this government's economic policies. Social programs have been cut at a time when they are needed most. We have seen this tragedy caused by the free trade agreement, by unfair taxation, by the high dollar, by high interest rates, by cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, by deregulation, by privatization and by cuts to national institutions like CBC and VIA Rail.
In spite of all the evidence this direction is continued in the throne speech. We have free trade for provinces
too. This means the end of manufacturing industries in Saskatchewan. It means the concentration of more manufacturing in central Canada and Ontario, away from the hinterland economies. It means more job losses, more pain, more poverty, more unemployment and more sickness in the regions. This is thoroughly unacceptable to the people of Saskatchewan, thoroughly unacceptable to the people of Atlantic Canada and all the regions of Canada who have not received a fair deal under this or, indeed, former governments.
There is much that could be said about the general thrust of the Speech from the Throne but I would like to concentrate on one issue which is not in the throne speech but which should have been. It deals with matters of poverty and, in particular, child poverty. We all remember that this House, this government committed itself to removing child poverty by the year 2000.
We need a plan and a timetable to ensure that child poverty is eliminated by the year 2000.
The government in the throne speech has committed itself to implement the commitments made. This would take a major change in attitude. Somebody must have been on the road to Damascus to see some revelation which would suggest that we have to do something different. Yet this government has been a government which has slashed education programs and slashed transfer payments to the provinces for social programs in B.C., Alberta, and Ontario. This has had major negative implications on children, yet now it wants to say that it is going to change for the better and that it will ensure that Canadian girls and boys will be better educated, better protected and better nurtured. If they are going to be better protected, it seems to me they had better be protected from the present Government of Canada which has caused them great harm over the last short while.
I would like to make two brief comments with regard to the children's summit which is mentioned in the throne speech. The government talks about following through on those commitments.
There are two commitments in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. One is to ensure that children enjoy the highest attainable standard of

health and facilities for treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health-the highest attainable standards.
Anybody in this country knows that we are far, far away from ensuring that children across this country, particularly those in rural and northern areas and poor children, receive the highest attainable standard of health. They do not, and it is time the government made some commitments in that regard.
In addition, with regard to education, there is a commitment to ensure that higher education be accessible to all on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means. Yet this government has slashed funding to higher education which has meant less and less successful education for low and middle income Canadians, higher tuition fees, and so on. We can see that all across the country in our own universities and our own communities where tuition fees are going through the roof.
What we need is not more rhetoric. We need to be caring about children. We need policy initiatives which actually resolve the problem.
We need aggressive action on pay equity. We need an end to tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy individuals and corporations in our society. We need to cut subsidies to the rich corporations instead of slashing social programs for those who need it most. We need a national child care strategy. This is the first Speech from the Throne for a long time with not even a mention of child care.
We need viable housing initiatives. We need increased social assistance levels to protect those who are weakest in our society. We need to reverse cutbacks to health and post-secondary education. We need to be paying attention to aboriginal and minority concerns so that the poverty gap between those groups and other Canadians can be bridged.
These things were not in the speech. There was no commitment to addressing the real concerns of Canadians or addressing the real concerns of those least affluent Canadians. That is what we needed. Instead, we received more of the same disastrous policies which we have seen over the last few years.
In closing, Canadians need and Canadians demand better policies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thank the hon. member for being so succinct.
The Address


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear my hon. colleague make the remarks that he did. I think it is incomprehensible to many of us that a government that is languishing at 15 per cent of the polls, with 85 per cent of Canadians opposed to the direction in which it is headed, can talk about unity and competitiveness and still forge ahead with no change in direction.
Surely in a situation where we are becoming less and less competitive and less and less united, and 85 per cent of the public is opposed to the government's policy, it would read the writing on the wall and make some changes. There have been no changes, and I think that is a real shame. I think Canadians are calling for change and they are not getting it.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague to reflect on some of his previous life experience as director of the co-operative centre at the University of Saskatchewan. Perhaps he could share with us some of the ideas he has developed about how the co-operative system could well play a major role in bringing this country together and making it a more competitive and compassionate place, for example by encouraging much more involvement in the co-op housing sector.
There have been reports indicating that the health care system would be much more efficient, cheaper, as well as more effective if we made greater use of co-op health as a mode of health delivery. He mentioned day care. A lot of the most positive development in this country in the field of day care has come through co-operatives, in spite of the lack of funding. It is a very important factor in protecting and diversifying primary production in many parts of the country. With the increasing number of lay-offs and plant closures due to free trade, very often the formation of worker co-ops to save jobs is the last line of defence in protecting jobs in communities.
I would ask the hon. member if he might comment from his extensive experience in this field.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it was a long time ago that I was so involved with co-operatives. It is clear this is an area which the government has essentially abandoned. It abandoned it probably because co-ops represent Canadian-owned, locally run institutions, some of which have been incredi-

May 16, 1991
The Address
bly successful in the province of Quebec and in my own province of Saskatchewan as well as across the country with some 11 million members, almost one-third of the Canadian population.
In particular, one matter which could have been addressed by the government is the application of the goods and services tax on membership fees of co-operatives. The government seems to be penalizing co-operatives by charging the GST on the membership fees, which Canadians have to spend in order to become members of co-operatives to participate in the organization. The government has received numerous applications to respond to the problem of Canadian-owned and Canadian-managed corporations and yet has refused to do so, leaving them at some disadvantage with regard to other corporations.
I commend co-operatives to this government as a Canadian-owned, Canadian-run democratic corporate entity which has served the needs of 11 million Canadians well.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, we listened to the throne speech earlier this week and looked to the government to provide the Canadian people with a plan for economic recovery, a plan for a statement on national unity and the Constitution and, sadly, we were all very disappointed. It seems to be again the same, tired old Tory agenda, an agenda that has brought us the free trade deal, an agenda that has cost Canadians thousands and thousands of jobs in every region of this country, an agenda that has increased taxes, increased the burden on to the backs of middle and lower income people and an agenda that has failed to this point on national unity.
National unity is much more than which spending powers are administered by which level of government. It is about a nation in which individuals are secure, employed and contribute to the good of all in our society. It is about a nation in which every Canadian is valued regardless of the region they come from, the colour of their skin, or their abilities.
Canadians do want a strong Canada, a diverse and a vibrant nation, one they can be proud of. I have spoken to my constituents, as many of the people in this House have spoken to their constituents, and have listened to their concerns on the future of this country and on the
pain and the worry they are feeling right now about the very future of our nation.
It is hard to be optimistic about Canada when you are under attack by your own government, a government that has brought us the GST, brought us the free trade deal, brought cutbacks, one that put capping on the Canada Assistance Plan to Ontario, to British Columbia, to Alberta, and one that implemented cutbacks to social programs and left Canadians feeling very disintegrated and worried about the future.
Many Canadians are feeling the impact of the trade deal, particularly in the province of Ontario. It is not just Ontario, however, that is losing manufacturing jobs. In my own riding of New Westminster, there is a plant which has been making steel tubing for 33 years under Canadian ownership, providing jobs in my community. It had been purchased by an American firm recently, and within three months that company, Wolverine, is moving south of the border, closing that plant in Canada. It seems that what the Americans got out of the trade deal is a market in Canada but no commitment to jobs in Canada. Our government gave away that commitment to jobs; 180 jobs were lost in a very small community. That is just one example of what is happening right across this country.
We have seen it with the truckers who are out here today and have been here all week demonstrating. They were demonstrating a year ago about deregulation and about the changes in their industry. They were warning the government in saying that the government's initiatives in deregulation were bad for them and bad for their industry.
The government does not listen. It continues along the same blind policies, policies that are really ruining our country and ruining the sense of people in the nation as Canadians. I wonder which jobs are next on the government's hit list.
I listened to the throne speech for any mention of the green plan that was unveiled by this government with a great deal of attention, hoopla and promises, but it was not mentioned. The commitments of the green plan are not being fulfilled at all. The Fraser River runs right through both parts of my riding-Burnaby and New Westminster. There was a commitment in the green plan for action on the Fraser River. That river is one of the
May 16, 1991

lifeblood rivers of the province of British Columbia, and where is the action to clean up that river?
What have the members of the government done with the green plan so far? They have spent $37,000 to test the reaction on a logo. They spent $12,000 on picture frames. They spent $150,000 on communications advice from private firms. They have spent almost $2 million on advertising. What has been done on the Fraser so far? They say it is coming; when is it coming? People are waiting in every region of British Columbia. People in their ridings are asking questions and people in my riding are asking questions. They say soon. People have been asking the questions for seven years of your government and have got no response on the issue of the Fraser River.
That river is important in British Columbia for tourism, fishing and for the lumber industry, and the member opposite knows that. It is of major importance in our province. We keep hearing that there is going to be an announcement but it never comes. I have constituents calling me weekly about when that announcement is coming. They get no answer from the Department of the Environment of this government.
I was pleased about the throne speech mentioning a blue ribbon panel on violence against women. I am also concerned that this new committee has precluded immediate action on gender sensitivity training for judges. I am concerned that the government is ignoring one simple and effective action on violence against women, and that is to remove the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, which funds shelters for battered women, child care and social assistance. Abused women must have the support they need. They need a sympathetic justice system and they need economic options.
Nobody knows what a blue ribbon panel is. It sounds like some kind of prize at an agricultural fair. We have had experience with this government's blue ribbon panel in the past: the De Grandpre blue ribbon panel. Most of us will remember what Canadians got from that blue ribbon panel.
I am concerned that the present panel may preclude a royal commission on violence against women, which, if it were implemented, like the 1970 royal commission on
The Address
the status of women, would have focused public attention on the issue, raised awareness, provided education and led to government and public action on this issue.
I hope that the panel will be made up of victims of violence, those who work in the front lines with victims of violence, and women-positive researchers. I hope that this panel hears from women and issues a definitive report which is taken seriously by this government and acted upon.
There is a promise of programs for disabled people in the throne speech. I support any program that makes our society more accessible to the disabled, but I also want to alert the government to the fact that disabled women are at a far greater risk of violence and attack.
I would like the government to keep the particular problems of disabled women in mind when it sets up these programs for the disabled and when it sets up the panel on violence against women.
Except for the panel and the programs for the disabled, which account for three sentences in the throne speech, the speech was a disappointment to Canadian women. There was no mention of child care. It was promised in 1984 and 1988. It was mentioned in every other throne speech, but not even mentioned this time.
As of March 1990, there were 433,000 children under the age of three with no parents at home to care for them. As of March 1990, there were 47,000 day care spaces, including family day care, for children of that age. That leaves almost 387,000 children under the age of three with informal, insecure arrangements which range widely in quality, or with no child care services at all.
There is no commitment to strengthen the employment equity legislation which comes up for renewal this year. There is no commitment to affordable housing. There is no commitment to remove the discrimination against immigrant women in federally employment-related language training programs.
There is no commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

May 16, 1991
The Address
There is no promise of fairness for women federal Public Service employees. In the 1986 throne speech they promised to correct inequitable wage rates in the public service. Now this government is blocking the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing into unfair wage rates for women in the Public Service.
The throne speech talks about literacy, education and yet, the government froze spending on education which amounts to a loss of millions of dollars in funding to education year after year.
The throne speech talks about Canada's economic strength and the most advanced social programs in the world. I do not know what world this government is talking about. Is it Mars? Here on planet earth, most western European countries have a much more advanced parental leave program and child care system than we do here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think you are signalling me that my time is up. I would like to make a comment about the government's request to set aside partisan comments in the House of Commons. I am happy to support the government when and if it brings in good policies for the Canadian people.
For example, I and my party did support a government Private Members' Bill to help women have access to their share of the Canada Pension Plan. This was a positive step and we all supported it.
However, do not expect me to support the GST. Do not ask me to support cuts to leave for adoptive parents. Do not ask me to support a bill that will harm the Canadian people. We want effective action from this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there will not be any questions or comments, I gave the hon. member an extra three or four minutes.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to comment on the throne speech delivered on Monday by the Right Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn, Governor General of Canada.
As the Prime Minister eloquently expressed yesterday, Canada is at a crossroads. Regardless of the final direction and outcome, Canada will never be the same. To those who take great pride in wallowing in defeatism and pessimism about Canada's future, let me say that no generation in Canada's history has ever passed without its share of doom and gloom forecast. Despite the
naysayers, Canada has endured, more vibrant and alive with each passing year. I have never been more optimistic about our future.
Yes, it was tragic that Meech Lake died. However, that accord was carrying excess baggage not related to the Constitution.
The failure of the Meech Lake Accord has caused worry about national unity, but it also made two things clear: we must find a better way to amend the Constitution, and Canadians want to have a say in the process.
Accordingly, in November 1990, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Spicer commission and, in December, the formation of the special joint committee on the constitutional amending formula. Frankly, it would be naive to expect a magic formula to come from the deliberations of these bodies to cure all the aches and pains of our nationhood. However, in both cases a genuine attempt is being made to develop a national consensus rather than a provincial, territorial or special interest group perspective of Canada.
The wounds of past grievances are deep, but if we are true to our hearts and intellects, we can heal them. The risks created by our current disagreements are wide, but together we can bridge them.
That is the philosophy of the Prime Minister, the government and myself, and that is the direction expressed in the throne speech. Many Canadians blame the current problems of the economy on the Prime Minister and the policies of our government when, in very real terms, we have championed reforms and changes necessary to produce and ensure prosperity for all Canadians for years to come.
There is no denying that there has been a 2.5 per cent drop in the economy's performance, and high interest rates have contributed. However, interest rates are coming down and we must not lose sight of the fact that the U.S. economy has been in recession as well, with the resulting dampening effect on our economy.
In the current recession there has been a loss of 6.5 per cent of manufacturing jobs. However, in the recession of 1981 and 1982, the loss of manufacturing jobs was 12 per cent. Present circumstances, although undesirable, testify to the resiliency of the economy under our government's leadership. In fact, although the unemployment rate stands at 10.2 per cent, 1.285 million jobs have been created in Canada since September 1984 when
May 16, 1991

we were first elected, and 470,000 of those jobs were in Ontario alone.
Of the jobs created by the Progressive Conservative government, 76.8 per cent have been full-time employment opportunities. As a government we are fully committed to further reductions in federal spending and deficit. As outlined in the latest budget and reaffirmed in the throne speech, the deficit will be brought down to under $25 billion in 1992-93 and $6.5 billion by 1994.
From 1992 through to 1995, program spending will be limited to an average of 3 per cent a year. We practise what we preach. The provincial governments have certainly been spending on a much more lavish scale, and the same applies to municipal governments.
The bottom line is simply that if competitiveness is the key economic issue of the 1990s, Canada is off to a very rocky start this decade. Our efforts to improve Canada's economic efficiency through the free trade deal, the GST, unemployment insurance reform, spending controls and deficit reduction, have all been bitterly opposed. Much of the opposition is based on the erroneous belief in Canada that the world has changed so little in recent decades that Canada need not change in order to keep up.
Many Canadians honestly believe that our current standard of living can be maintained without adjusting to the new global economy and by using the same economic and business strategies that have proved successful in the past.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If those delusions continue to distort discussion and action on national competitiveness, it will doom Canadians to unnecessary failure.
The course outlined in the throne speech attempts to steer Canadians clear of a head-in-the-sand approach to our economic well-being.
However, the throne speech did not only dwell on questions of the Constitution and the economy, it reaffirmed our commitment to the proposition that building a prosperous economy is fully compatible with maintaining a healthy environment.
The Address
In fact, since coming to power in 1984, our government has shown decisive leadership in placing an emphasis on the state of Canada's environment.
Briefly, I would like to review a few key highlights. In the current 1991-92 fiscal year, we have committed over $1 billion to environmental programs. The Acid Rain Abatement Program initiated in February 1985 committed the seven provinces east of Saskatchewan to reducing their annual emissions of sulphur dioxide, the principle cause of acid rain, by 50 per cent of 1980 levels by 1994.
To date, sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada have been reduced by 40 per cent.
We have shown leadership with several important initiatives intended to reduce the presence of industrial toxins in our fresh water.
In October 1989 we announced a $125 million five-year Great Lakes action plan to deal with health aspects of pollution, prevent toxic contamination and start a clean-up of areas in the Great Lakes basin.
In addition, in June 1988 we announced a five-year $110 million program to protect and restore the quality of the St. Lawrence River. We have introduced some of the toughest environmental legislation in the world, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the federal environmental assessment process.
However, nothing is more significant than the Canada-United States air quality accord signed by the President of the United States, George Bush, and our Prime Minister on March 13.
I have served for over 10 years on a special parliamentary committee on acid rain, and in this Parliament as a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment.
I can honestly say that this historic agreement will have a significant impact on acid rain depositions in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and elsewhere for years to come.
We have only touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of the environmental initiatives and programs our government has been responsible for since 1984. In the throne speech, we reaffirmed our commitment to using the comprehensive, six-year, $3 billion green plan as the principle vehicle by which Canadians will be helped to

May 16, 1991
The Address
clean up, protect and enhance the environment over the coming months and years.
I am confident that the green plan initiatives, combined with actions by the provinces and the private sector, will ensure that Canadians have the clean air, water and land essential for a quality standard of living.
Finally, I was very happy to see that the throne speech established the family as a major priority. The family is, after all, the basic unit of Canadian society. Its strengthening should be a major objective of government policy.
I am encouraged by the fact that our government recognizes that Canadian society is changing and considerable pressure has been placed on the family unit. In light of those changes and pressures, it is reassuring that the government has made a commitment to renewing its policies to ensure that they are well tailored to meet the current and future needs of Canadian families.
The government already provides substantial funding for child care, allocating close to $1 billion annually through a number of tax and expenditure programs. Recent changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act now makes available a total of $1 billion per year to assist mothers and fathers in caring for new bom children. However, I believe we are taking a significant step in the right direction with our commitment to a national action plan for children which will address a broad range of issues including child care, enforcement of child support orders, and action against child pornography.
In the course of reviewing existing policies, it is my hope that we examine closely the family tax and support system currently in place. As it stands now, the family tax and support system is cumbersome, inefficient, and unfair in its treatment of the family. Many aspects of the present system weaken rather than strengthen the national fibre.
In concluding, let me say that in many ways Canadians are a family. True, we have our differences and have gone through our fair share of growing pains. But like a family, I believe that when push comes to shove, the time comes to pull together. We have reached that point today in Canada.
The directions laid out in the throne speech do not provide all the answers or solutions to our present
ailments. We do not even suggest that we have a cure-all. What we are doing as a government and in the commitments outlined in the throne speech is reaching out as family members across the floor of the House of Commons and across this great land, saying let us work together to ensure that a great country becomes even greater.
As individuals, as a government, as a people, we are far from being perfect, but then who is. Yet, as a nation we are the envy of the world. Indeed, Canada is a living and international ideal worth preserving and nurturing for generations to come.
The distinguished Canadian historian, A.R.M. Lower, in his book Colony to Nation made a reference to Canada which to me is quite appropriate given our present circumstances, and I quote:
In every generation Canadians have had to rework the miracle of
their political experience. Canada has been created because there has
existed within the hearts of its people a determination to build for
themselves an enduring home. Canada is a supreme act of faith.
Canadians have not lost that faith, and I have not lost that faith. For the sake of future generations, I hope the majority of the members of this House have not lost that faith either.
Mr. Speaker, again it has been a privilege to comment on the Speech from the Throne.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the future plans of this government for national unity and economic prosperity, as laid out in Monday's throne speech.
In doing so, I must express my disappointment that at this time with so much concern over the state of the nation and the economy, and concern by all Canadians over the state of the nation and the economy, the speech shows no sense of direction or any evidence of the leadership that this country needs to survive and prosper as a country.
We needed action on the problem of keeping Canada together, but we have another joint committee. On the economy and competitiveness, we needed a sign from this government that it realized the disastrous effects its policies have had over the past eight years. They have not worked. Instead, we saw that it plans to stay on course.
May 16, 1991

My talk here tonight will be on these two items; the Constitution and national unity, and the lack of what I consider economic direction by this government in such a critical time of our country.
With respect to the Constitution and national unity, 11 months have passed since the Meech Lake Accord failed. In that time, our Prime Minister has appointed two commissions, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, otherwise known as the Spicer committee or commission, and the Special Joint Committee of the Elouse and the Senate on the Amending Process for the Canadian Constitution, otherwise known as the Beau-doin-Edwards committee of which I was a member. Both were set up to seek out the views of Canadians on what they want their country to look like in the future and how they want their Constitution changed to reflect their values, if it needs to be done.
As well, we have seen Quebec, who has had two studies, the Belanger-Campeau, a committee set up with politicians from all parties, as well as members from outside of government, interested Quebecers. We have also seen the Liberal report on Allaire. That is Quebec's combined position towards Canada and what it needs or where it wants to go within this framework of Canada.
I have to say that I regret that the provinces have not come across in the same way, but I am not sure they have been encouraged by our Prime Minister or by the Government of Canada to start looking at this very serious question.
I was a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. Since February 19,1991 this committee has held about 27 public sessions both here and outside of Ottawa. We dealt with a very distinct area in the Canadian picture or in the Canadian Constitution. We dealt with the question; was there something wrong with our Constitution, with the amending formula and was there a need for a referendum or a constituent assembly. I do not really want to pre-empt the report of that committee. We have been pre-empted already by the Prime Minister who set up another committee without waiting to hear what we had to say, but we did hear from experts on this item.
I think we heard from experts across the country on our present day Constitution. Unfortunately, I can say,
The Address
in contradiction to the member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka, who thinks we should be looking for a better way to amend our Constitution, that none of the experts said it was the Constitution itself, the present day Constitution, that was so bad in the Meech Lake process, they said it was the process itself in Meech Lake that did not allow public participation.
Actually, the current Constitution has worked twice out of three times; once in 1983 and again, I think, in
1987.	It did not work in 1988. But if one looks at the Meech Lake Accord, what was it? It was a new amending formula agreed to by 10 provincial premiers and the Prime Minister. It was not even in our Constitution. Everything in the Meech Lake package, except for one item, needed unanimity.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I made the mistake that probably most Canadians make, nothing in that package except one item needed unanimity. The rest could have been done by the seven and fifty rule in the Constitution.
I am sure most of it would have passed had there been flexibility on the part of our leaders, which I think was lacking, and public participation, so people would know exactly what our politicians were doing in the Meech Lake Accord. That was lacking. That was brought out at the Beaudoin-Edwards committee by the experts. It was not the Constitution. It was the lack of flexibility and the lack of public participation. As well, over and over again we were reminded that the Meech Lake package was presented as a fait accompli, take it or leave it, and that no changes would be permitted regardless of the level of public outcry.
I remind the House, it was a new amending formula that was used; unanimity or nothing, when they could have probably passed all of it, except for the Supreme Court, with the seven and fifty. Despite this clear message, and despite the weight of the evidence, the committee did not even have a chance to report before the Prime Minister decided to put his own approach to the public process.
We could have sat last week or this week and finished it. I do not think we can even sit next week unless we agree to sit as a committee to finish our work because the House has not agreed to let the committees resume. We saw that earlier today in the external affairs debate concerning what had happened in Question Period.

The Address
He wants the opinion of yet another committee. He wants a special joint committee that will travel, just like we have seen the Spicer committee do, just like the Beaudoin-Edwards committee has done. Yet there is no leadership in presenting concrete proposals as to what could be done to start the process.
He wants another nine months to pass before we get any specific proposal is brought forward. That is dangerously close to the deadlines Quebec has established in the referendum. More to the point, contrary to what we had heard on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, there is no specific commitment to involve Canadians directly in the process. Once again, they may end up as spectators.
I am sure I am not the only person in the House who senses some of the same back to the wall, roll of the dice tactics that we saw between 1987 and 1990.1 do not think we need another joint committee in the fall.
I was pleased this morning to hear the new minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs outline the four stages he saw the government taking. He said we would await the reports of Spicer and Beaudoin. Then proposals would be formed by the government, and a joint committee would travel across Canada on those proposals and then it would go to the legislators.
The main thing that was brought before us is that the public wants to know that there is flexibility at all stages and in particular, at that last stage once the proposals have come back from that joint committee and before they go to the premiers, they want to know if they have any public input on that proposal.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is where the government has failed. It is waiting until next February to say to the public: "You may have a couple of months and that is going to be it, because Quebec is going to make its mind up one way or another". Again our back is to the wall.
Why are we not starting it now? Why are we not discussing a specific proposal over the summer? What would I put in that proposal? It does not take imagination. Most Canadians know what is in there. My leader gave an outline the other day of what his proposal should be.
First and foremost we should define what Canada is supposed to be for all Canadians. Second, I think we could go to the fact that we probably have to have a
human rights code in our Constitution because there are some who do not feel that all people are equal before the law, so we have to define it. I am one of those who feels that we should be big enough to have all people equal before the law. But that is another thing.
Spending power is a grave concern to the provinces. Why are we not talking about it? We have not talked about it since Meech failed. Why are we not talking?
Some witnesses said: "start talking". Do two stages. Start talking about what we can present to Quebec and then bring Quebec back to the table. We heard that from Mr. Pennicott in the Yukon. We heard it from other witnesses.
We also need to look at the distribution of powers. The Prime Minister mentions in the Speech from the Throne educational standards across Canada. Is he opening the way to talk about division of powers? Well, if he is, why are we not talking about it now, publicly, to see if there is not a need for a uniform standard in nine provinces of Canada of an education system respecting at all times the rights of Quebecers to their education system.
What about the aboriginal people? I have been in and out of this Chamber, by election, a number of times. It is more than time to start recognizing that they have certain rights that are inherent by virtue of having been in Canada before we came here. It is time for us, as Canadians, as politicians to put it out. We have all summer to talk about it. We have all of June. I do not see why we have to go by deadlines, particularly when it is so important to Canada that we stay together.
I could talk about the Senate. They have a majority. They appointed a majority over there. Change the Senate with your majority. Let us get down to work.
This week I was pleased to hear the member for South Shore talk about the concerns of Nova Scotians. It was a first. I was pleased and I agreed with everything he said. I would hope that if it came to a vote that he would vote with me or I would vote with him. For once in my life in Parliament we would have the same concerns for an area. This Parliament is outdated and it is a waste of effort sometimes. No wonder we are not respected by an awful lot of Canadians for not being able to sit down and tackle it.
May 16, 1991

The last thing I want to say, because my time is going, is on the economy and the competitiveness that was talked about. It was with a mixture of anger and disbelief that I read the pat on the back the government gave itself on the economy and the competitiveness in the Speech from the Throne. I am sure that the 1.4 million Canadians who are currently out of work because of the government's made-in-Canada recession had a similar response.
This government has systematically wrecked our economy and undermined our competitiveness with every decision it has taken in the past three years.
The truckers in Ontario today are a prime example. We have no VIA Rail. We have no railroad and it is doing away with the trucks. We cannot be competitive because of what? The government has jacked up interest rates to a point where there is an unprecedented spread between Canadian rates and those of our chief trading partner, the United States. There is 4 percentage points. It is forcing our businesses to pay more for capital than their chief competitors south of the border and undermining our competitive position.
It has pegged the Canadian dollar at an artificially high level in American dollars. For the year to date, it has averaged 85.7 cents U.S. This is a break with our tradition of letting it float to whatever value is justified by the realities of the Canadian economy.
This has discouraged our exports into the American markets and undermined our competitiveness. I can speak for an area that has fish and because of our interest rates and our high Canadian dollar, it is expensive to send into the U.S.
In passing, I would like to say that if it ever should come out that there was an agreement between this government and the United States under the free trade agreement to prop up the Canadian dollar to make it that high, I would hope that there would not be a Canada, if there are any Canadians left by the time this government is through with Canada, who would ever vote for them again.
It has implemented an offensive new tax, the GST. That is devastating our border communities. Even before the tax was brought into effect this year, the government knew that the GST would raise the price of Canadian goods and services an average of 3.8 per cent over those being sold in the United States.
The Address
The government also knew that the cross-border shopping trips would increase by 2 million per year, solely as a result of the GST.
Remember that 80 per cent of the Canadian population lives within only 200 miles of the American border, easy driving distance. I simply cannot understand why the government went ahead with a tax that so severely undermines our competitiveness. On that only, we hear from them that we need to have production costs that are equal to the United States.
When this government puts our interest rates at the same level as the United States, when our dollar is not pegged as it should be today for our exports, and when our taxes, GST or our personal taxes are at the same level as the United States, then maybe the costs of production in Canada might be able to come down to the same level as in the United States, and we might stop blaming the Canadian labour people for what this government has achieved in one final swoop with its economic policies.
I tell you, it may be hurting somebody over there, but he will have a chance to ask a question if he wants.
I cannot put the blame on people for this government's free trade agreement, a free trade agreement that it now wants to expand to include Mexico, where there are even cheaper production costs when we cannot compete with the United States under it because of the economic policies of this minister.
I can only say that Canada is a great country. If the people over there are hurting a little bit, maybe they should start to influence their government. Maybe if they influenced their government and spoke up in their caucus, we would not have the high interests rates that we have had that created this recession. We would have our exports going fairly into the United States. We cannot even finish our fish because the policy of this government on fish has been three ministers in less than two-and-a-half years. How can you have any polity for fish when you have a new minister every nine months. Heavens, if they created anything in the nine months I would be happy, but they have not created anything. They had to be replaced.
I am looking forward to seeing this new minister, because he has, I am sure, long experience and has been a minister of fisheries in the past. They have resurrected

May 16, 1991
The Address
the minister and I hope that by his resurrection he will have a new policy.
I do think that unless there are backbenchers who in caucus will start to talk about their economic needs in their regions, we will not have anything left. Certainly the Canadian public, the polls, everybody is telling them to change their economic outlook in Canada and let us begin to prosper.
We do not need to see truckers having their jobs done away with across the country. We do not have any rail. We are not going to have any trucks in the east. I do not know what we are going to have at the end of it. I can certainly say that at the rate this government is going, we are not going to have much.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I do take exception to a number of things the member has stated, but there is one thing on which we do agree, and that is that we do have a great country.
Obviously, to maintain a great country, you have to respond to changes that the modem world is demanding. I know the hon. member takes exception to that because change is always difficult. The difficulty in our position is simply that we are a government that takes its responsibilities seriously and if to meet the demands of the world marketplace we have to change, we are going to change. It is never easy. The result of that is simply that we are low in the polls, because change is never easy.
Again, the hon. member is going through that old bag of Liberal philosophy, the one they have tagged and carried along with them since 1987-88.
Every sparrow that falls they blame on this government and our trade agreement. What she chooses to ignore is simply this. The last figures coming out of Canada-U.S. trade indicates that we are winning, that we have a $16 billion to $17 billion trade surplus. It means despite what the member states, we are doing a number of things right.
The hon. member wants to concentrate on the negative, and that is fine, but let us take a look at the big picture. In Canada, the trade agreement is working to our benefit. If you want to look at isolated statistics in relation to unemployment, unemployment in the United
States is 10 times higher than ours. Do they blame that on the trade agreement with Canada? Of course not.
There are other factors involved there, mainly a downturn in the western economy. We are part of that western economy. We cannot ignore that. We cannot bury our heads in the sand.
The hon. member also moved into an area of particular concern to me. It is the relation to cross-border shopping. No one ignores the fact that we have a problem in that regard. Again, in a province as small as the one that 1 represent, the province of New Brunswick, in the big picture we do very well.
The member again chooses to ignore that statistic. The province of New Brunswick has a $600 million trade surplus with the state of Maine despite all the crossborder shopping that takes place.
She chooses to ignore that very figure and takes a look at the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is simply a reflection of the strength of the Canadian economy. Any economist will tell you that.
It simply means that the other countries of the world have confidence in us as a nation. If they did not believe in us, we would have a 50 cent dollar. That is the difference between our philosophy and their philosophy. For years, they wanted to prop themselves up with a weak Canadian dollar.
In the long term, that is not the answer. The longterm answer is we have to be competitive. If we are competitive and we are doing the things that are necessary to maintain a strong and healthy Canadian economy, the result is you are going to have a strong Canadian dollar.
I, for one, if I was in the exporting business, would love to have a weak Canadian dollar, but there is a price that is paid for that, a price that you pay for a weak dollar. The hon. member lorows very well what it is, because she has an understanding of economics which is sometimes clouded by the political party that she represents.
We are doing very well in the international marketplace, and I do not want the member to distort the big picture. She is very effective at distorting the big picture when she chooses to do so, although on an individual basis she starts out very well.
May 16, 1991

I think she is reflecting her own sense of where she is and what is going on. When she gets into the big black cloud that sort of looms over her party, she falls into that same trap that they have entrapped themselves in, not going beyond that.
We, as a party, will go beyond that. We will make the tough decisions that are going to be good for all Canadians in the long haul.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know if there was a question, but if the hon. member would like to rebut.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the hon. member that I do not think I distort any facts.
We can all have our party policies, and whatever. What I was bringing out was that there are production costs that this government has control over and has had control over. One is the interest rate. One is the Canadian dollar and one is certainly the level of taxes.
The GST could not have come at a worse time. I think it was in The Financial Times or somebody in the paper the other day who said: "If the free trade agreement was good policy, it was the wrong time, and if the GST is supposed to be so good, why was it brought in at the wrong time as well?"
I can say that I am glad that the GST is going to pay off the deficit. I ask only: What has the government done with all the money that it has collected since January? It still has not introduced a bill since the budget came out in February showing that it is going to put on the deficit. Is it that strapped that it has to keep going with the GST to run the government? It could make some other decisions like believe the commissions that it has set up for millions of dollars, believe what people are saying to those commissions and start looking at the problem right now of keeping Canada together so we can get down to the basics of the economy.
The only other thing I would say is, yes, Canada is an exporter. I have known that all my life. Therefore, we need a low dollar right now in order to get our exports up and to get the economy going. If the member does not understand that, I do not know what else I can say.
The Address


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent speech, I think, in response to the Speech from the Throne from this 15 per cent government. I found it very interesting that the member dwelt on the question of the contradiction between the government's announced policies and its actions when it comes to making Canada and Canadians more competitive.
In my constituency, which encompasses the northern half of Saskatchewan, we are certainly in a situation where there are policy changes needed in order to make that constituency and those constituents more competitive.
What I am talking about is some of the investments that this government is prepared to make in people. Certainly the government member who spoke is correct in saying we have to be ready for changing times, new times, the technology of today and so forth.
However, what is the record of this government? It talks in the throne speech about creating a learning society, about support for education and so on, but what has it done? It has withdrawn completely from adult basic education. With regard to its literacy program, in many cases, the vast majority of funds are spent on receptions, television shows and so on. CJS funding has been cut. Funding for post-secondary education has been cut.
At the same time, there are literally thousands of parents in my constituency who are not able to take advantage of work opportunities or education opportunities because of the lack of child care. It is a very, veiy real need. People cannot participate in this economy. They cannot get ahead. They cannot make themselves more competitive or more productive because there is no proper child care system brought forward by this government in spite of numerous promises to do so.
I would like to ask the member to comment on how Canada and Canadians can become more productive when government policies keep them from becoming so.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the hon. member's question on that point because I had to leave that out in my text. One always has more to say, and most politicians do, than they can get on the record.

May 16, 1991
The Address
I would say that this government has cut secondary funding to the provinces consistently since I have been back. As you cut secondary funding, you are hurting the education system and the training necessary. I will go to the day care in a minute. I would just say that my figures show that illiteracy in Canada is around 20 per cent and going up. I would even go higher than that, but I do not have that particular statistic here.


An hon. member:: It is higher than that.


Coline M. Campbell: It is higher than that? Well, it is 20 per cent, at least in my area where I have a very active and very good illiteracy council. It has statistics. What scares me about that statistic and should scare the minister and should scare others in this House is that as our population becomes less educated and unable to read, it will be a real cost of production. I think it is scary that that number has grown and it has grown in this government's time. At the same time, it has cut educational programs and training.
I look at the developing countries and their percentages are far lower for illiteracy than ours because they put their priorities on education. If you have an educated work force, you will be able to produce.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her time has expired.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate today in the throne speech debate. This new session of Parliament signals a new beginning, a new determination by this government to take the steps necessary to help Canada and all Canadians to face the challenges of the future.
There are some disturbing realities that face us as a nation, and as citizens of the world, in this first year of the last decade of the last century of this millennium. The list is daunting; the future of Canada as a confederation, the state of the environment, the ability of the economy to continue to generate growth and jobs, the plight of children in poverty. And what makes many of these realities so disturbing is that they in themselves compromise our ability to deal with the challenges and the changes that are confronting us.
We are constantly assailed with mountains of news and information, and yet 40 per cent of Canadians cannot read a daily newspaper. We worry about our farmers
having too much product and not enough markets, while untold millions of people are facing starvation in places like Iraq, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Sudan. We worry about the quality of the education that our children are receiving, while the job market is changing so fast that some of the professions they are training for will have disappeared by the time they are out of school.
There is an old adage that the only constant in the world is change. It sounds trite, but its truth is all around for us to see. And it is also true that those who know how to deal with and adapt to change will ride the crest of the wave of history, and those who do not will be swept along by the tide against their wills. We have no choice but to adapt to change, but we do have a choice about whether we make it work for us.
What this means is that change should not be feared, it should be welcomed. If we can make it work for us instead of against us, we can make Canada a more prosperous, more progressive, and more unified country. It is not so much the changes that we make, but the way that we make them, that give us the opportunities to move ahead.
You will remember that one of the themes of the last federal election campaign was about managing change. Candidates of both the Progressive Conservative and the Liberal parties used the phrase. It was a favourite of the pollsters for quite a while. Personally, it always made me think of a child putting his or her quarters and dimes into a piggy bank. However ridiculous the phrase, there is an important concept behind it. People are quite rightly afraid of change, or at least the implications of change, but they are also realistic about the fact that it is inevitable and part of life.
They know that promises of some to stop change, or to turn the clock back to a simpler time, are just insulting to their intelligence. Tb quote Derek Burney, our Ambassador to the United States, "Stop the world, I want to get off", may be a comforting slogan for some, but it does not offer a very promising trip.
At the same time, we must recognize that our society has a finite capacity to accept radical change. Conservatism is a trait deeply ingrained in Canadians. We are suspicious about bold new policies that promise to solve all of our problems overnight. We are especially suspicious of bold new policies offered up by governments, and rightly so. We remember the National Energy Program and Allan MacEachen's 1982 budget. We know
May 16, 1991

that they are still paying for those mistakes, in lost economic opportunities and higher debt servicing costs.
The signs of too much change, too fast, can be disturbing. We see it in the rise in unemployment and plant closings, and in lost international markets for our products. We also see it in growing racial intolerance in our cities, and in the rising violence against women and children. It is reflected in questions about our immigration policies, about the size and effect of the national debt, about the ability of the Canadian confederation to cope with the aspirations of Quebec and the west.
Therefore, we must recognize the finite capacity of the Canadian economy and society to adapt to change. It is the duty of the government and of this Etouse to propose and consider the means to increase our capacity to adapt to change. In this way we can ensure that change becomes an accepted part of life, not something to be feared.
This means that all Canadians should become more aware of the challenges that we are all facing together, and more aware of our collective strengths and skills. This means that we must be more tolerant of each other, less afraid of each other, less violent toward each other. A change in peoples' attitudes toward other languages, other cultures and other races will not happen overnight, but there are important steps that can be taken soon, that will contribute to changed attitudes.
We can take steps toward making the workforce more skilled and flexible and therefore more secure and prosperous. We can take steps toward developing a literate and numerate population more receptive to new ideas. We can take steps toward making sure that our children are healthy, well nourished and well cared for and therefore ready to embrace the challenges that the next century holds in store for them.
Canadians want to make sure that they can individually and collectively adjust to the changes that they are facing. They want to be able to adjust, they want to be able to take advantage of new opportunities. In other words, they may be conservative, but they are also progressive.
The Address
What is even more important than the decisions we make as a government and as a Parliament is how we make them. People will no longer accept decisions made behind closed doors. They want to be part of the decision-making process. The process must be open, consultative and co-operative; it must rise above petty partisanship or narrow self-interest.
It must also be realistic and workable. It cannot be possible for the entire process to be derailed by a single individual or group with their own agenda. It is far easier to say no and to ignore the consequences than it is to participate in the process that finds the way to say yes.
The challenge we face is to find a way to get more people involved in the process, to make more people involved in the quest to find a solution acceptable to as broad a spectrum as possible, to make our democratic system work better.
Therefore, I see the challenge that we face in this session of Parliament as threefold. First, we must recognize the real limits of the capacity of Canada and Canadians to deal with change. Second, we must pursue policies that will work to expand these limits. Third, we must pursue these policies in a more open and more democratic way.
What does this mean in practical terms? Let me talk about one of the most pressing and tragic issues facing Canada today, one that concerns me greatly.
At least one in every ten women in Canada is battered by her male partner. A million women in Canada are battered weekly. Half of all women murdered each year die at the hands of their partners. The prevalence of such violence in Canada is nothing less than shocking. Some say that this violence is increasing as the advances made by women in society triggers a backlash, while others claim that the abuse women suffer at the hands of men is simply part of the uneven distribution of power in society.
The challenge for everyone involved in the issue is to find a way of preventing the violence from occurring in the first place, by changing deep-seated attitudes. We in this House can change laws in a matter of months but attitudes, values and behaviour can take far longer to change.

May 16, 1991
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, I have to interrupt the hon. member. She will have 10 minutes remaining in her speech, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.
Before I get into the late show, the Chair would like to remind hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 38 as amended, which came into effect at the beginning of the session, the time available for each matter raised during in the adjournment proceeding is now six minutes. The member raising the matter may speak for up to four minutes and the time available for reply is two minutes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in Canada, the trucking industry employs approximately 500,000 Canadians. It generates about 12 billion dollars annually, and is an important industry in our country.
Last Friday, I was very disappointed to learn that Glengarry Transport, better known as GTL in our region, went bankrupt. About 1,794 employees were left without a job. No more jobs in an industry and in a community that certainly needed good jobs like the ones GTL provided.
Mr. Speaker, the jobs at GTL were certainly good jobs for my constituents, but they were more than that. In my town, when we saw the name "Glengarry" or "GTL" painted in yellow on the trucks, all the residents of Glengarry were rightfully proud. GTL was founded in 1948 by Mr. Lefebvre and today, or at least until last Friday, the company was still operated by his sons. Until 1988, the company had never lost any money. Forty consecutive years of profit. All of a sudden, in 1988, there was deregulation and since then, losses.

It is more than a coincidence, 40 years of regulations, 40 years of profits; three years of deregulation, three years of huge losses at GTL.

If members opposite or others think this situation might be exclusive to GTL, that there might have been some mismanagement, they should look further. They should look, for example, at Kingsway Transport, a leading transport company in Canada, which is now for sale. The owners of Federal Industries want to get rid of the business because it is losing money.
If people think this situation is exclusive to these two large companies, they should go outside today and see the, independent truckers who, are also facing the same problems.
On April 29,1 wrote to the new Minister of Transport asking for his help not only for GTL, but also for all the workers in the Canadian transport industry.
Last week, on Thursday I had the honor of meeting with the Minister of State (Transport) and, accompanied by Mr. Gilles Lefebvre from GTL (Transport), I made representations to him. I told him why GTL was at its very end. At that time, I had no idea the company would go bankrupt 24 hours later.
So, Mr. Speaker, today we are in the House and the government must do whatever it can to help the transport industry in general, but particularly the GTL workers who have lost their jobs. At this very minute, I have just been told that all attempts to reorganize the company have failed. So, it is sure and final now, and early today, GTL had to shut down.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his notice of the question and the concern that he has so eloquently expressed on behalf of his constituents.
I think the member would like me to set the record straight. This government has been listening to the truckers. Last year the former Minister of Transport initiated dialogue with the truckers. There is not now nor has there ever been any disagreement about the fact that truckers are facing difficult times. The minister has been

most sympathetic about the difficulties the truckers are facing.
What we have had to say though is that there is no quick fix here. As the minister has said in the House and in the meetings he has held is that he is willing to work with the truckers.
The minister has shown his good faith. This morning he met for an hour and a half with the truckers who are parked on Wellington Street and who have been on Parliament Hill this week. The minister has arranged a further meeting today between the truckers and his officials. He met yesterday afternoon with the wives of the truckers. He met the day before with the coalition, and he is scheduled next week to meet with the Canadian Trucking Association.
There is another point that must be made here, which is to point out the very large provincial involvement in this issue. I am not pointing fingers, I am really stating facts. The provincial fuel tax question, particularly in Ontario, must be recognized.
Last, I want to make it clear that we have been working very hard for many weeks and months. We will continue to work hard with all the parties; the truckers, our provincial colleagues, the unions and shippers. I hope we made it clear that we are involved and will stay involved.


DISASTERS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up to my question to the Prime Minister on Tuesday concerning the Air-India disaster.
Last Friday, Inderjit Singh Reyat was convicted of manslaughter in the 1985 bombing which took place at Narita airport in Japan. That particular incident and the Air-India disaster took place 54 minutes apart.
In the Air-India disaster on June 23, 1985, 329 people were killed, 280 of whom were Canadians. There were 80 children on board. It was the biggest mass murder in Canadian history.
Over the course of the last six years I have pressed this government for a royal commission of inquiry into this particular disaster. The government has continued to come up with excuses one after another.
Adjournment Debate
One of the excuses it continued to use was that there were criminal proceedings ongoing into the related Narita bombing. Those criminal proceedings are now over. A conviction has been secured.
Another excuse this government has been giving is that there were civil proceedings ongoing. The families of the victims have sued Air-India, the Government of Canada and others. Those civil proceedings are all settled and the Government of Canada contributed to the settlement which would indicate some type of responsibility on its part.
The criminal investigation into the Air-India disaster has reached a dead end. The Government of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police know who did it, yet they do not have the evidence in order to convict the person or persons who committed this horrendous and hideous crime.
A royal commission of inquiry is absolutely essential in order to assist in the criminal investigation. It is also essential in order to determine the role that the Government of Canada played in this particular matter, the role of the security intelligence service and the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
There have been allegations that the Government of Canada received advance warning before the bomb went off on June 23, 1985. We know about erased tapes. We know about false affidavits. We know about CSIS bungling. We know about RCMP bungling. Yet the government refuses a royal commission of inquiry.
I suspect it is because of the embarrassment that a royal commission of inquiry will cause. I would like to remind the House in closing that when it came to the conduct of Sinclair Stevens-we all remember Sinclair Stevens, who was a former Conservative cabinet minister-the government was quick to call a royal commission of inquiry.
It cost the taxpayers of Canada $5 million in order to conduct that inquiry. The taxpayers of Canada paid Mr. Stevens' legal fees in the amount of $500,000. Now we are dealing with the biggest mass murder ever in history of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired.

May 16, 1991
Adjournment Debate


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question because it is one that has been of interest to me and to my constituents as well.
Mr. Speaker, together with all Canadians, I share the hon. member's desire to find satisfactory answers to the terrible tragedy which occurred off the coast of Ireland in the summer of 1985.
The continuation of the police investigation into this matter is the appropriate response and one which requires our full support. I can assure the member that the downing of the Air-India flight 182 on June 23, 1985 is still under active investigation by the RCMP and all investigative leads are being vigorously pursued.
I point, for example, to plans now being made to send four RCMP investigators, an RCMP laboratory expert and a Transportation Safety Board of Canada expert to the Air-India crash site in the North Atlantic, 110 miles off Cork, Ireland.
This significant undertaking will commence in early July and will take up to one month to complete. The purpose of this endeavour is to recover certain wreckage which will further the ongoing RCMP investigation.
In the summer of 1989, an RCMP expedition successfully raised pieces from the plane's debris from the ocean floor. This summer, the RCMP team will work at the crash site from a vessel fitted with a remote operated vehicle capable of working in 5,000 metres of water. The wreckage of the downed Air-India aircraft is located at a depth of about 2,000 metres.
Any items of wreckage recovered will be shipped back to Canada for detailed forensic examination and analysis. The recovery operation planned for this summer is but one step in a continuing RCMP investigation.
In my view, it is essential that the RCMP continue in an unimpeded fashion its exploration of all possible avenues of this most important investigation.


HOUSING
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, when my great grandparents came to Canada in 1884, they built their own home in Toronto on Broadview Avenue, across from Riverdale Park. They were homeowners. My grandparents after them were homeowners.
My parents were homeowners and when I was growing up, like you, Mr. Speaker, I just assumed that one day I too would be a homeowner.
Today, fortunately, my wife and I are homeowners. Home ownership is the cornerstone of this country. It is the dream of most Canadians. Fortunately, in Canada, we have one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world; some 62 per cent of Canadian households are home owners.
But today, young Canadians are asking themselves if they will ever having the opportunity to be homeowners. The Prime Minister alluded to that yesterday when he said that our children may be the first generation of Canadians to be worse off than their parents.
That is why we have to break down some of the barriers to home ownership. What are those barriers? We have barriers like high housing prices; we have zoning that discourages the construction of affordable housing; we have high interest rates for mortgages; we have a lack of confidence in our future employment, and we have high down payments.
A lot of those things we cannot do anything about, but we can do something about the high down payments, because presently, if you have a down payment of 25 per cent or more there is no problem. You can get a mortgage, no problem at all. If you have a down payment somewhere between 10 per cent and 25 per cent, then the mortgage lender requires mortgage insurance and that is the only way that you could get a mortgage. If you have a down payment of less than 10 per cent, no way, you cannot get mortgage insurance, you cannot get a mortgage at all.
The government housing agency, CMHC, has estimated however that if we dropped homeowner downpayments to 5 per cent, with a 95 per cent mortgage insurance, we could ensure that up to 200,000 additional households across this country could become home owners.
Why do we not do that? When interest rates were going up, I was told that would to stimulate demand and send the wrong message. But now, as you know, interest rates are going down. In fact, in addition to that we have double digit unemployment, 15.5 per cent more unemployment in the construction trades than we had a year ago, prices are down, and surely now it is an ideal time to
May 16, 1991

lower down payments and allow more people to be home owners.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have often asked the opposition for its ideas as to how to create jobs, but at the same time not increase the deficit and the national debt. Well, this will do it.
At the same time as increasing home ownership and increasing employment, however, it is also going to help young Canadians to realize their dream of home ownership.
My Progressive Conservative Party wants to encourage home ownership. What does your Progressive Conservative Party want to do, Mr. Minister?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank, on behalf of the Minister for Housing, my colleague Alan Redway for his suggestion about creating jobs in construction by lowering the down payment on a home to 5 per cent.

Canada is a nation of homeowners. In fact, Canadians enjoy one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world, about 62 per cent over all.

The best way to create jobs and help people become homeowners is to build a strong economy. To that end, we need low interest rates and moderate inflation. If we achieve that, business and consumers will regain confidence in the economy.
That is the approach this government has chosen. Interest rates have gone down five points in the last eleven months, and inflation is stable.

Business confidence is rising. There is good news for the residential construction industry and future home buyers. Yesterday, the Canadian Real Estate Association reported sales of existing housing across the country soared over 66 per cent since this time last year.
In my riding of Manicouagan, several millions of dollars in loans were insured by CMHC in 1990.
The opportunity to own a home is an important value in Canada. Home ownership encourages stable commu-
Adjoumment Debate
nities and helps individuals and families build equity for the future.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is presently considering various ways to help Canadians buy their own homes. One way would be a mortgage insurance for people who can only afford a down payment of 5 per cent. This insurance would be guaranteed by the government.

CMHC studies estimate that by reducing down payments to 5 per cent, it would allow up to 200,000 Canadian renters a reasonable opportunity for home ownership. Of these, there could some 10,000 potential first-time homeowners in the first year.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we want to help home buyers, and this is my answer to the hon. member.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, I asked a question of the Minister of Immigration and it bears repeating. It concerns the Al-Mashat case. I asked very simply:
Why did this former mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein get preferential treatment at the expense of ordinary people waiting patiently? Why was he allowed to jump the queue?
The minister did not answer.
Canadians know that there are rules and that for every rule, there is an exception. Canadians also know that ministers are the custodians of the public trust and they are expected to implement and respect the rules and to explain and justify the exceptions.
Let us look at this case. On Wednesday, February 27, External Affairs is advised that Mr. Al-Mashat wishes to defect. The next day, Thursday, the defector committee meets and rejects his application as a defector. The next day, Friday, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service conducts its first inquiries. Canadians are asked to believe that the defector committee did not think it important enough to advise the minister that Al-Mashat had been rejected.
May 16, 1991

Adjournment Debate
Canadians are asked to believe that CSIS found the former ambassador not to be a valuable source of intelligence. Canadians are asked to believe that no one at CSIS thought it important enough to advise the minister.
On Tuesday, March 5, the Al-Mashats are interviewed. Who interviewed them? Who suggested to them that they apply as retirees, a class that the minister of immigration had announced was being phased out and which, in fact, will disappear June 30.
Canadians are asked to believe that officials in Vienna did not think this man important enough to advise our ambassador in Vienna.
On Thursday, March 7, the Al-Mashats had their second interview and are given provisional acceptance, two days after their first interview.
On March 8, a memorandum is sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs explaining the situation. Canadians are asked to believe that the memo was not brought to the external affairs minister's attention. On March 11, senior immigration officials are so concerned that they call external affairs and Mr. Paul Tellier, Clerk of the Privy Council, to insist that the application not be fast-tracked. Canadians are asked to believe that these senior officials did not, despite their concern, alert their own minister.
March 28, landed immigrant status is granted to the Al-Mashats, 28 days from start to finish, including interviews, medical clearances and CSIS security checks for a man that CSIS found not to be a valued source of intelligence. That process for ordinary people takes, at best, 12 to 18 months and, more usually, two to three
years. But for him, 28 days and no minister knows about it.
I ask again: Why was this man given preferential treatment? Canadians have the right to know.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in response to this question, the reason why Dr. Al-Mashat's immigration application was processed quickly has already been addressed in a report by the Deputy Ministers of Employment and Immigration and External Affairs. This report, which was made public on May 14, 1991, is based on the findings of an extensive inquiry into the circumstances under which Dr. Al-Ma-shat was granted admission to Canada.
This afternoon, the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirmed on several occasions the willingness of ministers to appear before a parliamentary committee together with officials concerned to respond to questions on this matter. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has stated in the House that there is no need to table any document related to Dr. Al-Mashat's admission to Canada. The report by the Deputy Ministers of Employment and Immigration and External Affairs released on May 14, 1991, clearly outline the circumstances of Dr. Al-Mashat's case.
This government has acted openly and responsibly on this issue, and will continue to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 17, 1991