1991-04-12

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, when the House adjourns on the day of adoption of this motion, it stand adjourned until a time and a day to be set by the call of the Chair,
That, during such adjournment, the provisions of Standing Order 28(3) respecting recall of the House shall continue to apply; and That, at any time during such adjournment, the Speaker may recall the House for the sole purpose of granting Royal Assent to any bill or bills, after which the House shall stand adjourned in accordance with this Order.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate, a debate which I think many members of the House have been looking forward to for some time.
I say that because this particular session has been a long one. It has been one of tremendous interest. Some of the issues we have discussed have probably been some of the most important issues that parliamentarians have had the opportunity to discuss and debate in many a year. In the last couple of years I have seen issues that have been very difficult, very divisive, and have created tremendous interest and debate across the country.
Yet, having said that, we have come now to this adjournment debate with good spirit in the House of
Commons. I am thinking of the debate that has occurred this last week. I would like to refer particularly to a column, in The Ottawa Sun today, by Douglas Fisher, where he talks about the debates that have occurred in this House over the past few days on the rule changes of Parliament.
He writes that this was not a debate for the so-called stars, this was a debate for the backbenchers. It was the backbenchers who very much led the way on this debate. It has been the backbenchers who expressed, often very eloquently, their dreams and aspirations for this institution, their concerns about how we as parliamentarians and this institution are viewed across the country.
Some of the interventions during this debate of the last few days have probably been some of the most interesting and thoughtful debates that I have seen in some time.
I want to come back to that in a few moments, but first I would like to give a thumbnail sketch of some of the bills that we have discussed in this particular Parliament.
Over the last couple of years, if my calculations are right, we have dealt with some 77 pieces of legislation from first and second reading, committee stage, report to third reading. We have dealt with a number of really important issues. It has been a very exciting parliamentary session.
I think back to the question of abortion, Bill C-43. It was an issue of great struggle for the members in this House. It was an issue of conscience which people on both sides of the issue have very strong feelings about. We saw the House struggle with that. We saw the issue passed in the House by a very close vote and then defeated in the Senate.
It is that kind of issue that, in many ways, has personified the type of Parliament and session that we all have had the "privilege" to participate in. It is that kind of issue that has forced us not to see ourselves purely as

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
partisans or as "participants in a sausage factory", a term that was used in the last few days debate.
We have been called, as parliamentarians, to look at some very difficult issues and determine where we individually stand, with the kind of perception and ideals we want to bring to our country. We have seen it in other debates. The question of Meech Lake was an issue this last couple of years.
Madam Speaker, you and I have very interesting perspectives, with you are a member from Quebec and I, a member from Alberta: one from the west and one from central Canada. We are faced with an issue that gets to the very core of our thoughts, ideas and dreams that we have for our country.
We saw the tremendous interest, the tension and the fascination that centred on that debate. Like you, Madam Speaker, I watched some of the meetings that were held on that issue. We can remember in particular the conference with the Prime Minister and the first ministers. We saw the dynamics that were alive there, and of course, saw its ultimate failure which has, once again, brought our country to a very important crossroads.
Maybe the last couple of years and some of the issues that we faced, discussed, thought about and struggled with have been a preparation for the debates that are going to occur in the near future.
The next issue we look at, as everyone knows, is going to be the whole question of the unity of our country, and the type of country that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. We heard the quip making the rounds: We now have new fathers and mothers of Confederation.
I think the last two years, as we have struggled with so many different issues, as we have tried to grasp such fundamental questions, have possibly prepared us for what is to come. There have been so many bills that we dealt with that pushed us, prodded us, and made us very conscious of our roles. I know that this preparation has been good for me personally. It forced me to think about my role as a parliamentarian, not as someone who is here to occasionally intervene in a debate or to rise from time to time and vote with my party, but, rather, I have been forced to examine my ideals, my dreams, my thoughts on so many different issues that have been before the House and before the country.
As a result of that I have been able examine myself as a parliamentarian and to prepare myself for what is coming over the next little while.
For me, one of the highlights of this whole Parliament is the one that I started talking about in the early part of my remarks, the rules package that we put before this House of Commons. I was a member of the McGrath task force, and before that the Lefebvre committee which dealt with the early stages of reform and I think set the stage or the groundwork for the McGrath task force.
I have had a particular interest in reform, and as Doug Fisher wrote in his column, I am one of those who have dreams and aspirations. I like the way he put it, and I hope I can find it in his column. He refers to members arriving in the House, and soon after developing an interest in the institution, developing some very strong attitudes about the kind of reforms that should be put in place. I was no exception to that. I was very fortunate to have been on the Lefebvre committee and then the McGrath committee. In both of those cases, we had an opportunity to look at this institution, to suggest often radical and very imaginative changes, and not only to suggest them, but to have an opportunity to spend time analyzing in detail the implications of those changes.
It was particularly interesting to go through that process, to see the McGrath task force complete its work in what is probably one of the best examples of members setting aside their partisan differences to work on a report they hoped would be adopted by the House of Commons.
In this debate on the largest reform package since McGrath, there were two speeches in particular that I want to refer to. I want to refer to the comments of the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley- which used to be Surrey-White Rock-Delta, and the speech given by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transco-na, which was originally Winnipeg-Birds Hill. I refer to those two particular members because they did something I could identify with, and that was very simple, they served with me on the McGrath task force.
They carried into this debate some of the same perspectives and concerns that I did and so I listened closely to them. I said to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona after his remarks that when listening to him I
April 12, 1991

had a flash of what I had hoped Parliament could become.
I saw an opportunity for us to have some real excitement. What I envisioned at that point was that we could enter into a dialogue, not where he might give a 20-minute speech and I might give a 20-minute speech and another member might give a 20-minute speech, but that we could actually stand here in this Chamber and discuss back and forth, point for point, our concerns, hopes and aspirations for a particular Standing Order and the implications it might have for this Chamber.
The closest we can come to that would be in committee of the whole. That is about as close as we can come in this institution to a really dynamic, one-on-one debate, that is short, not wrapped up in speech but in dialogue.
I saw that in his debate. I felt it could well have turned into a dialogue that I know the country would have liked to watch. The country would have been impressed to see that parliamentarians on opposite sides of the House with very different philosophical roots and very strong partisan differences could suddenly set aside those differences, philosophical or partisan, and say: "This is what I want for this institution".
The particular interest that the member for Winnipeg Transcona and I have is the whole area of committees because both of us very much supported that part of the McGrath task force and I think both of us believe that committees can be the real driving force of this institution.
We wanted to see and we still want to see committees having a strong influence on legislation, and also on policy. We dream of the day when committees will actually play a part in the drafting of legislation, by way of pre-study. The member for Winnipeg Transcona, I think, came to the House in 1979, a year before I was, and I know he has the same confidence that I have in members of Parliament.
We believe that if members of Parliament are given an opportunity to look at an issue, to talk to their constituents and to other Canadians, we are going to see some top quality laws and policy directions or guidelines for our country.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona in his remarks looked very carefully at this particular package
Government Orders
that was before us as it related to committees. He quite rightly went through it with a very critical eye.
I told him after his remarks, or in fact I think it was before them, that when I sat down and did some of the initial drafting of committee reform, I had imagined him looking over my shoulder. If there was going to be one person who was going to be critical of that area, it would be the honourable member for Winnipeg Transcona. I knew he would look very carefully at the committees because he had a lot of confidence in what the McGrath task force had suggested. He had some concerns, but he did not want to in any way destroy the spirit of what had been established by that task force.
It was for me a fascinating experience to listen to his remarks. It renewed for me something that I needed to have renewed and that is a confidence in the people in this House and a confidence in this institution.
Now, at the end of the day, if we were to sit down and say: "Here are the issues, what do you agree on?", there may not be an awful lot. In some ways that is not as important as the fact that two members with such different approaches and positions can come together and look at an issue that is so important to us.
The other element that Doug Fisher mentioned in his column is in the headline: "It was a candid, sad debate". The sadness he refers to, and I have talked about the candidness he makes reference to being the quality of the speeches that were given on all sides of the House.
The sadness that Doug Fisher expresses is that the debate itself received so little media attention. This is understandable. The nature of the debate is technical and its scope narrow. It concerns, theoretically, only this House. But in fact, that is not the case. The rules under which we operate and the tone we set and establish in this place very much impact on the country, directly through legislation, but even more so indirectly, in terms of the flavour and tone of our debates and the perception that we send to the nation, whether it be through television or through reports of what goes on in this institution.
I agree with Doug Fisher. What we were faced with was a situation that really should have had the press gallery full. We should have had the people who cover this institution sitting up there, watching the heartfelt debate that was going on. If there is one thing that Canadians need to see, it is MPs at their best. Unfortunately, they so often see us at our worst, because 99 per

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
cent of what is covered in this institution is Question Period.
All members know that 90 per cent of Question Period or maybe more is show. It is the theatre. It is the place where we get up and take shots at each other, but few expect anything constructive to really come out of that hour. Yet, it is the entire focus of the Canadian public. The entire focus is on those 45 minutes of this House of Commons.
There is very little coverage of the work in committees. There is very little coverage of debates. There is precious little coverage of bills that pass through this place unanimously.
I have a regular experience in my riding when I go back and talk to my constituents and I, like other members, am criticized for our behaviour in the House. They may say to me: "Albert, we do not mean you, but the others". Well, the truth is that they mean me too. I am just as guilty as anybody else of tirades in the House, my hurled insults across the aisle. I am no saint. I am like everybody else.
People look at that and say: "Why do you not ever agree on anything". And I tell them that we do, regularly. There is probably not a week that goes by that we as a House do not agree unanimously on something. It may be to pass a bill at a particular stage or a motion. It may be to take an issue and refer it to a committee of this House for study. There are any number of things that we do unanimously. But of course because we do them unanimously, there is no tension, no confrontation. Therefore, there is no news.
I think it is really unfortunate, at a time when this country says to all of us: "We are looking for leadership".
I do not think by that they strictly mean the leaders of the parties. They want leadership from the hon. member for Edmonton, from me for Peace River, from Vancouver. They want leadership from individual MPs. They want us to be an example.
My point is that there is leadership in this House. It is not leadership restricted to a particular side of the aisle. There is leadership on all sides of this House. We saw that demonstrated in the debates of the last few days. We
saw members expressing themselves eloquently, passionately, and thoughtfully.
I think if Canadians are given an opportunity to see that, then their confidence in Parliament will increase. The confidence of Canadians in their individual members will rise and then we will be in a position to go into the all-important debate of the coming few months with some of the credibility that all of us need.
When Doug Fisher wrote his column, he wrote it as a person who watches Parliament, an individual who served in this House for a number of years, and since then has dedicated his life to watching and reporting it. His perspective as such I think has always been a little unique because he is someone who has been here. He knows the turmoils, the tensions, and the greatness of the institution. That is why his particular column reflects so well the reality that we are facing today.
We have come as parliamentarians through a couple of years of tremendous issues, tremendous tension, tremendous soul-searching and yet I think we end on a high note. We end on a note that is serious, thoughtful and demonstrates the kind of leadership that Canadians want to see.
I want to look in particular at a couple of the reforms in this package that did not get discussed a great deal. I want to look for a moment at the question of pairing. In the British House there has always been a system of pairing. In the Canadian House we had a system of pairing. It was informal but it was practised for years and years and years.
Then, I think it was shortly before I arrived in 1980, pairing broke down in the House of Commons. Those pairing relationships were destroyed. As a result, I think the House lost something very important. It was not so much that individual members can be paired, but it was an acknowledgement of the value and the importance of individual members.
How do you get that from pairing? I think it is this way. Let us take an issue or bill that I am particularly interested in, a bill that I may have worked on for years, that I may have been pushing through with all of the influence I have to make it a reality. Then, through some accident, through some quirk, I am unable to attend the
April 12, 1991

vote. I could be sick. I could be caught by a snow storm in my riding 4,000 miles from here. There are any number of reasons that I may not be able to be in this institution at the time of the vote.
If there is a system of pairing, an hon. member on the other side of the House would agree to cover for me. He or she would rise in the House and say: "The hon. member for Peace River was not here and I agreed to pair with him".
Therefore, I have an opportunity, even in my absence, to express my position on the bill. The hon. member in rising will say I would have voted with my party but, because I paired with the hon. member who would have voted for it. We would have put it back to where it would have been had we both been here.
The importance of that is that it gives credibility to members. It is a recognition that what we are doing in here has partisan implications, is often partisan driven, but nevertheless it is an acknowledgement that I, in my absence, am still important.
In this particular package we agreed to a new pairing process. I do not know how much it is going to be used. I have no idea if it is going to be used regularly or very infrequently. That is unimportant. What is important is that we once again acknowledge that individual members' votes are important. They have a right to have those expressions placed on the record. Even if they are prevented, for reasons of health or weather or whatever we face in this huge country that we live in, those expressions are still there.
I think what it does do is express a relationship. It is an expression of equality. It is an expression that we, on both sides of this House, attach a value to one another's participation, one another's voting, and one another's importance in the institution.
There was an article in the Ottawa Citizen on March 8, 1991, and it refers to the whole question that I have been talking about this morning, the question of credibility of the institution and of individual members.
The headline said: "Reforms may aid credibility." I just want to quote three paragraphs from this particular article, and this is not a personal reference:
In short, our elected leaders are making Parliament irrelevant.
Thus, it is difficult to understand all the opposition politicians'
Government Orders
complaints and moans about the common rules changes recently introduced by government House leader Harvie Andre. These reforms would do more to restore some credibility to the House and its occupants, than another roving committee of so-called great Canadians could.
In other words, this article is saying that the rules by which we govern ourselves are important. They do have an impact on how Canadians see us. We, as parliamentarians have been making Parliament irrelevant. I think it is unfortunate that is the kind of article that is written. Yet in fact, I think we would have to agree that it accurately reflects the feeling and attitude of a lot of our constituents.
We have to approach motions like these rule changes with sincerity and with honesty. We need to work together to make those reforms affect the House and the institution and our behaviour in a way that I think will help us re-establish our credibility.
We saw at the beginning of the debate some very strong statements about the rule changes. We saw very strong descriptive words being used, and yet in the end, after six days of debate, we saw a change in tone. Last night when we voted, and even before we voted, there were two things that happened which are significant.
Early yesterday afternoon, this House unanimously approved a House order that would allow us as a Parliament to adjourn today at 2 p.m.
We all agreed to that House order. It was passed through this House and as a result today we have a debate on the adjournment motion but we know at two o'clock that on division it is going to be passed.
I think that demonstrates what we as parliamentarians are trying to do together.
Second, there was a lot of controversy about what was going to happen to the votes. Yet if we look at what happened in the votes last night we find that parts of the package, particularly the Private Members' Business part, passed unanimously. I did not see that in any headlines this morning. It did not make a story. But in the midst of a fascinating debate and a fair amount of controversy we passed unanimously a part of the package, and we went further. We managed to work out among ourselves a voting pattern that would allow members to go home at about 1:15 in the morning.

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
Those are examples of co-operation that I think reflect well on the institution.
I say all that because we have been, in the last two years, through one of the most dramatic sessions of Parliament that we have seen in a long time. When we return on or about May 13, we are going to be into another very dynamic session of Parliament, but the dynamics of the next session are going to be even more important than the one we finished because in many ways what we will face will not be issues of great partisan import, but ones that will strike the very roots of our country.
When we enter into that debate, to a large extent all of us are going to be forced to examine the kind of country we want, the kind of co-operation that we can develop with people from other parts of the country than where we may live. We are going to be faced with an issue that will force us to examine our partisan differences very carefully. We are going to be forced to decide whether or not we as individual members are going to behave in a partisan way and score points off one another, or we are going to set aside those differences and try to build a consensus that will make Albertans feel comfortable in this country, make Quebecers feel comfortable in this country, or make maritimers feel comfortable in this country.
It will be a tremendous challenge for us because so often by habit or practice, we come into this House and immediately put on our partisan cloaks, get the fists up, and get ready to go at it. We are going to be forced to stop this because, if we do not stop, the price that the Canadian electorate is going to ask us to pay is more than our seats in the next election, whether or not we can survive that election. It is going to be much more than that. It is going to be Canadians saying to us, "why didn't you put the country ahead of your own personal ambitions?"
We are going to face a very difficult decision because, as we have been trained for years, we have by instinct trained and committed ourselves to behaviour that says we look first at the partisan opportunity and then, second, at the issue. Now I do not think that would be the case today. I think we are going to see that the issue we are going to face is an issue that we cannot afford to be deal with in such a way.
There are all sorts of rumours floating around as to what is going to happen in the next stage. I saw a report
on Canada AM this morning suggesting that Parliament will play a major role in this next constitutional stage of our country. I hope that report is true. I do not know that. I do not have any inside information that allows me to say that. I hope it is true, because I cannot think of one single institution or vehicle that we could use in the entire country of Canada that better provides the opportunity to bring all the perspectives of the nation together in one place, to participate in discussions about the country than this one.
I can remember when I was first elected in 1980, sitting back just on the other side of the Chamber in the seat over there in the back row, one of my first impressions was sitting there and, for the first time in my life, being surrounded by people who represented every part of Canada. People from the Northwest Territories, people from southern British Columbia, people from the mari-times, from Quebec, from Ontario and from all over the country. People who had perspectives that were so different from my own, who had experiences that shaped their thoughts and their approaches to Parliament and laws, and were so different from my own. This was not so much because of partisan differences, it was because their part of the country was very different from the part of the country that I lived in.
If that television report this morning was true, if we, as parliamentarians, have an opportunity to enter into debates on the constitutional future of our country, we are going to face one of the most exciting opportunities we have ever had, at least in my 11 years in Parliament. We can take almost any issue that might reflect on this country and bring to it a perspective that is unique, that expresses very clearly the distinctions that exist between different people and between different regions. We, as an institution, as a collective group, have probably the best opportunity to search out alternatives, to search out a consensus that we can offer up to the rest of the country.
I must say that is what I thought I was elected to do. When I had this dream as a young boy of becoming a member of Parliament, this is what I thought would happen. I was going to come to Parliament. I was going to think about the great issues of the day. I was going to struggle with them. I was going to do some real hard soul searching. I was going to be part of the process that drafted the laws that directed the land.
April 12, 1991

I received a big shock when I arrived at Parliament. I discovered, while I was sitting over there, that I had very little to do with legislation. Even as I talked to members who were on the other side of the House, at that time members of the government, they would say to me the same things that I felt.
They, too, felt that they were not part of the legislative process. That is why the McGrath task force was a turning point; that is why the question of committees is so important.
As we have gone through the three stages of reform we have had in the last 11 years-the Lefebvre committee, the McGrath task force, this set of rules that we have just put into the House of Commons, and the next one that is yet to come-


Mr. Blaikie:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wonder if the hon. member could explain how someone who has just moved to impose 10-minute speeches on everybody else, for all time, sees fit to go on for some 50 minutes now while others are waiting for an opportunity to speak. It seems a bit inconsistent.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It must be Friday and the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona obviously heard all the nice things the hon. member for Peace River had to say about him a while ago. But with the rules that do prevail today, the hon. member is allowed unlimited time.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I apologize to my friend for being so long but it is an opportunity I have not had in a long time-


An hon. member:: Make it your swan song, Albert.


Albert Glen Cooper: -to express, with unlimited time, some of the thoughts that I have developed over my 11 years as a member of Parliament.
My friend says I am one of the people who has restricted other members to debate for 10 minutes. Now, he knows that is not true; he knows that, in fact, what we did in this rules change was to simply change the eight-hour rule to a five-hour rule, so that we have gone from 20 to 10. He will also know that in the McGrath task force it was the first time in my memory that we had suggested that speeches be shortened.
Government Orders
There is a consistency, and that is to give more members an opportunity to participate in the debate.
What I wanted to do this morning was take the few minutes that I have to lay out the type of session that we have just gone through. I wanted to talk about the rule changes and the way they impact on the institution. I wanted to tie that to the issues we are going to face in the next few weeks. The importance of the issues that we are going to face cannot be overestimated.
I think all of us know that we are going to have other issues, we are going to have other bills to debate in this Parliament. But the really important issue that we are all going to face is the question of national unity. I hope, and I want to express it even stronger than that, it is more than a hope, it is a strong desire, that Parliament be the focal point of that discussion.
I would like to be able to get up in the morning knowing that I am going to participate in a debate that is going to impact on the nature of this country, and more than to participate, to know that I am going to have an influence on it.
From what I can hear happening, that is what is going to happen. That is what is going to be the case, that we as members, are going to be able to participate in that debate in this House and we are going to have a chance to influence it.
I know, in terms of committees, that whatever this House addresses, whatever bill or motion we discuss, will probably at some point be referred to a committee of the House. Again, another opportunity for us as members to participate and to be part of the process.
I obviously have lots of papers in front of me and I could easily go on for another several minutes.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Oh, please do. Please do.


Albert Glen Cooper: I do not want to monopolize the time. That is not my intention. I did want to lay out these thoughts this morning, and to express to the House some of the concerns, attitudes and ideals that I would like to see us, as a House, express and live up to in the next little while.
I want to thank the hon. members for the opportunity to participate. Madam Speaker, I thank you for that chance. I want to say to all of the members that I hope they have a good rest over the recess. Most of us will be working in our ridings, but I hope we take the time to rest a little bit, because we are going to need to take the

April 12, 1991
time for solitude to think and to reflect. I hope all members do that.
I wish everybody a good recess, and I look forward to the debates and the excitement that is going to happen when we come back on May 13.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his grade 5 essay.
One should be a bit more generous and say grade 6 essay, and congratulate and give him high marks for his knowledge of geography, with high marks also for his self-congratulatory skills and in looking deeply and closely at a few trees. He saw a few trees. I do not know if he saw the forest.
One should give him high marks for delivering a 45-minute speech in the pursuit of bubbles, rumours and fantasies and for revealing the depth of the intellectual capacity of his government on whose behalf he has obviously spoken. Certainly, he deserves high marks for a masterful, political analysis of the situation today in Canada.
If that is what the cabinet of the Government of Canada can produce on the Adjournment Debate, then everybody understands why we are in trouble.
In reply, I would say that rarely in the history of Parliament has the government asked for an adjournment of Parliament immediately after returning from an Easter recess. I could hardly believe my ears when the parliamentary secretary wished us a happy recess and a good rest.
We have just come back from a recess. What is he talking about? Does he realize that we just had Easter and that we just got back from a recess?
Why are we having an adjournment? If there is a good reason, we would like to hear it. Canadians are entitled to hear it, but we did not hear it in the 50-minute speech of the parliamentary secretary.
To be quite fair in this debate, as we always try to be, I would add that Canadians would find nothing wrong with the government deciding to adjourn today and resume next week with a brand new session and a speech from the throne. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
At the same time, the country is in trouble because of high unemployment, dissatisfaction in Quebec and in the
west, understandable unrest amongst native people in Oka, James Bay, Alberta and British Columbia because of the lack of a federal role when it comes to proposed major construction of river dams in three provinces, and the dissatisfaction of the public with the way we manage our forests. We are in deep trouble because civil servants are overworked and understaffed-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member who of course will have the floor after Question Period.

It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Members' Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, if we are going to address all of Canadians' constitutional concerns, we will have to take a look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well.
Many Canadians feel that the Charter is fine the way it is. But there are some who want to add to it the right to private property, or the right to medicare or the right to shelter. Others believe that the Charter should spell out our responsibilities and our obligations as well as our rights and freedoms. Still others want to eliminate the "notwithstanding clause". There are those who believe that Charter rights should apply only to Canadian citizens and not to refugee claimants or fugitives from foreign justice and others who want to delete references to official bilingualism or multiculturalism.
Whatever we do, we are bound to be unhappy at times when the Charter protects a right that some of us would rather it did not.


GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on the government to introduce legislation to support the use of ethanol and to ban MMT in Canadian automotive fuels.
April 12, 1991

We have heard this government on many occasions promise time and time again that it would set up a special program to encourage the use of grain alcohol as an octane booster for gasoline.
It took us six years to ban lead, and despite the government's so-called commitment to ethanol and the environmental impact, it allowed MMT, an insidious neurotoxic substance to replace lead in Canadian gasoline.
I am aware of several people who have worked in garages, car dealerships, muffler shops and gasoline bars, and one teacher who taught auto mechanics in a high school in Saskatchewan, who have serious neurological health problems. Two of these people have gone public. Some of our Canadian scientists have been calling and warning of these health effects for several years.
I have documents dated 1990 from medical schools and universities, as well as other institutions outlining in detail the truly horrible effects that allowing the continued use of this neurotoxin can have on the Canadian people.
This insidious substance accumulates in the bodies and the effects may not appear for several years. Because our children-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Delta.


CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind members of the House and all Canadians that April is Cancer Month.
In Canada we estimate that over 100,000 new cancer cases will be diagnosed this year and that approximately
50,000	people will die of this disease.
The government is taking steps to change this. In collaboration with the provinces and the Canadian Cancer Society, the Department of National Health and Welfare is working to improve cervical and breast cancer screening programs in Canada. The department is also helping to fund the work of the Cancer 2000 task force "Strategies for Cancer Control in Canada".
I would like to applaud all those involved in the fight against cancer and their efforts toward reducing the burden of this disease on Canadians. I particularly pay tribute to the Canadian Cancer Society and the work it is doing.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, it is another GST moment. Strange but true, case number two, the youth "tax credit caper".
If you are under 19 years of age and earn under $30,000, you do not qualify for a GST tax credit, even if you are a non-dependent. The only way the Conservative government will let you have the credit is if you have a child.
Today non-dependent Canadians under 19 can receive unemployment insurance; they can receive welfare; they can vote. But they do not get the same break under this regressive tax as other people do. It is a clear case of discrimination.
The Conservative government's hand is out for a large chunk of taxes from the often small pay cheques of youth, and will gladly accept GST to boot. But a tax credit? Forget it.
Stay tuned, the saga does continue. Coming up, the GST insurance.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Candlelighters Childhood Cancer Foundation of Canada is a national organization which represents 31 parent support groups from across Canada whose families have children with cancer. The difficulties these families face are enormous, given the emotional, psychological, financial and logistic problems that arise when a child suffers from cancer.
In providing the family support needed as treatments occur for their children, parents must often quit their jobs or take extensive leaves of absence. As presently regulated, these parents are not eligible for unemployment insurance unless they are diagnosed as suffering from extreme emotional distress. This approach has proven itself to be inadequate and potentially detrimental to an employee's career status.

April 12, 1991
As a result of this situation, Candlelighters has proposed a federal caretakers allowance through the unemployment insurance program which would provide benefits in the same manner as individuals receive benefits for maternity and quarantine leave. Many other nations already have such a program in place and a Canadian initiative in this regard would be a worthwhile, progressive step that would make the lives of many distressed Canadians slightly more bearable.
I have written to ministers on this and the answer I get is that it would set a-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


REFUGEES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that every member in this Chamber wishes that she or he could personally do something, anything, to help the Kurdish refugees before they die on the muddy mountainsides of Iraq and Turkey. Even hardened news reporters can be heard dissolving at scenes like the sight of a three-year old girl, barefoot, ankle deep in mud, wearing a thin little dress and shivering in the steady drizzle. Days, even hours, count with these children.
Canada must urge the involvement of the United Nations at the highest level, and fast. We must break the bureaucratic and political logjam, and cut through the complexities of agencies like the World Food Program, UNICEF and others. I am urging that a special representative of the Secretary-General or some United Nations emergency contingent oversee relief efforts immediately-
If only for the sake of these kids, we have to get the United Nations effectively and quickly involved. Above all, we have to get rid of that monstrous mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, to permit the relocation of the Kurdish people in their own homeland.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my frustration
and dismay with the Government of Canada regarding the recent unemployment statistics which have been released for the Island of Cape Breton, part of which is my constituency.
The figures released by employment and immigration state there is 22.2 per cent unemployment, which is the official record, whereas in some of the communities it ranges between 40 and 50 per cent.
I have called upon the Government of Canada, and in particular the Minister of Employment and Immigration, as well as the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, to put in place programs which will address the very serious situation on the Island of Cape Breton.
I believe there is an obligation, both legal and moral on the part of the Government of Canada to attempt to do everything humanly possible to alleviate the fear, the frustration and the anguish of a people who have been singled out by the Government of Canada for such bad economic policy.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, National Volunteer week is from April 21 to 27. During that week, communities in all regions of the country will pay tribute to their volunteers and use the opportunity to celebrate caring for others and compassion, which hold a fundamental place in the life of Canadians. With their generosity and dedication, volunteers contribute to the betterment of their fellow citizens and strengthen the whole fabric of society.
Despite that, the great importance of what they do is not yet recognized by all. To better understand the real contribution of volunteers, let us consider it in economic terms. If a monetary value were assigned to all the hours freely given by members of Canadian volunteer organizations, it would amount to approximately $13.2 billion a year. That is impressive to say the least.
Three cheers for Canada's volunteers!
April 12, 1991


FORESTRY
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, Canada's cut and run logging of the past will become the exploit and sell out industry of the future unless action is taken immediately.
Canada's forest lands are being alienated, subdivided, sold off and urbanized by major forestry companies.
MacMillan Bloedel, the company which spends millions to lobby for clearcutting 3,000 hectares in both the Carmanah and Tsitika valleys, is now marketing 3,000 hectares of its Managed Forest Lands on Galiano Island in the Gulf Islands as an "investment in paradise".
This is profiteering and real estate speculation of forest lands on which they have received preferential tax assessment, paid no royalties or stumpage fees.
Forest lands must be managed for the public. Economic self-interest by multinationals cannot be allowed to destroy communities, jobs and the environment.
If Canada is indeed serious about protecting its forests and its international reputation, the respect for communities, for jobs and for the environment must be part of the business plan.
It is the responsibility of governments to ensure that message is delivered.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to National Volunteer Week which is being held this year from April 21 to April 27.
This week, communities across the nation are paying tribute to those many Canadians who donate their time and energy to ensure the well-being of fellow citizens and to support the causes in which they believe.
Thirteen million Canadians, men and women of all ages, from all walks of life and from every cultural
background make volunteering an integral part of their lives.
Whether working on their own or through organized groups, they play a strong and vital role in ensuring that our society is more open and compassionate. Through their dedication and commitment, they help shape and strengthen our communities and are one of the most valuable natural resources this country has.
Volunteering fosters community spirit and promotes a sense of belonging. It connects individuals with their neighbours, with others sharing common interests or concerns and with Canadians nation-wide.
The strength of the volunteer spirit in Canada is a remarkable achievement. This nation truly owes a debt of gratitude to its many volunteers.


TRIBUTE TO LOUIS LABERGE
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, Louis Laberge's leaving the presidency of the Quebec Federation of Labour will be a dramatic occasion for all those who, during his 27 years at the helm of this dynamic union, got to know him and love him with his faults and good qualities.
But we already have the assurance that he will remain on the scene as full-time president of the Quebec Workers' Solidarity Fund, which he was so instrumental in creating in 1983 and has more than 100,000 shareholders and $350 million in assets. This fund is his pet project and he will certainly put his whole heart into running it well.
Nicknamed the grey eminence, but more affectionately known as our national "Ti-Louis", Mr. Laberge is an old friend. I was fortunate to know this bubbly, colourful personality in the 1950s when, with my father whom he called Dr. Hector, he sat on Montreal City Council. I was able to appreciate his energy, his fighting spirit and his dedication to all the causes he believes in.
Elected president of the QFL in 1964, the same year I was elected member of Parliament for Saint-Denis, Ti-Louis has become the likable but rough 67-year-old lion who will still make his presence felt in the labour

April 12, 1991
federation as president emeritus, although he says that he will leave the reins of power entirely to his successor and friend, Fernand D'Aoust, who opposed him for the presidency in 1964. I also have high regard for Mr. D'Aoust and I wish him an equally successful career at the head of an organization that is full of vitality.
I am pleased to wish Mr. Laberge and his wife, who has always supported him so well, all the best.
I am even more pleased that the new QFL headquarters will be in my riding of Saint-Denis, at the comer of Saint-Denis and Cremazie. This will bring me even closer to him. Long live Ti-Louis Laberge!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Edmonton East has the floor.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, Dr. James Plambeck of the University of Alberta's Chemistry Department has estimated that Mitsubishi's giant Al-Pac pulp mill on the Athabasca River will produce about 60,500 cubic metres of effluent every day.
Scores of thousands of people downstream from the mill draw their drinking water from that river. Who will guarantee all those thousands that they will suffer no ill effects from swallowing what has been estimated to be an average of a tablespoon of straight mill effluent every day?
As for the Minister of Environment, he will know that the scientific review panel report of the company's revised proposal has been thoroughly discredited as bad science.
Therefore, I call on the minister to exercise his undisputed authority to halt the mill's progress, at least until baseline studies are done on the Athabasca River system and other crucial conditions set in the original federal-provincial review have been met and completed unless he, too, is willing to drink a tablespoon of mill effluent every day.


QUEBEC GAMES
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Madam Speaker, the 26th Quebec Games finals will go down in history for the exceptional involvement of the entire population of the localities of Shawinigan, Grand-Mere and Shawi-nigan-Sud.
Under the skilfull direction of Mr. Michel Beliveau, president of the organizing committee of the 1991 Quebec Winter Games, at least 4,100 volunteers from the heart of the Saint-Maurice valley worked for 10 days to make this major sporting event a success.
I want to thank in particular the government of Canada, and the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration, for its outstanding financial support.
My congratulations to all the people of the central part of the Saint-Maurice valley for this great success.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, today, as a matter of fact this afternoon, the government will be closing down this Parliament while 1.4 million Canadian men and women are out of work and 500,000 Canadians depend on food banks for their daily meals.
In Quebec, Madam Speaker, 5,000 businesses had to file for bankruptcy in 1990, and 14,000 cases of personal bankruptcy were reported. In Montreal, 223,000 people are jobless and the unemployment rate, which rose to 14 per cent, is the highest in the country.
In Quebec City, there are 24,000 people out of work; in Trois-Rivieres, 9,000, or 16 per cent of the population; in Sherbrooke, 8,000; in the Chicoutimi-Jonquiere area,
8,000	also. In the province, 335,000 people are on welfare and 3,000 others join them every month.
Major job losses are reported, Madam Speaker, at Air Canada, VTA Rail and CP and plant closures were decided by General Motors, Pratt and Whitney and Canadair just to name of few. Fourty-one thousand jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector in 1990. That is a disaster!
April 12, 1991


Madam Speaker:: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. This government insists on closing down Parliament because it says it needs more time, more than a month, to write a new throne speech. This is a desperate attempt to put a fresh face on its tired and failed old policies.
Surely the government does not need another month to know that it has a very serious and crucial economic problem, and it is that there are more than 1.4 million people looking for work in this country.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give us a commitment today that the new throne speech will contain an immediate program of full employment so that there will be at least a glimmer of hope for the more than 1.4 million Canadians who are out of work due to the discredited economic policies of this failed and tired old government.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the context of the hon. member's question. It was my understanding that in the negotiations among House leaders, there was a genuine desire, after the passage of the resolution that would incorporate new rules in the House, there would be a period of time when we could get ready for the new session of Parliament.
It is quite normal to have more than one session in any Parliament. It has been the decision of the government to come forward with a Speech from the Throne which will reflect some of the concerns that affect the nation with regard to national unity, economic opportunities and the continuation of the good policies that have built a stronger Canada.
The hon. member will recognize that the figures this month indicate that for the first time in five months, there has been a net increase in total jobs created in this country. I think that is a positive sign.
Oral Questions
There should be no surprise about the fact that we were going to go through this bit of a downturn. It was clearly indicated in the budget speech presented by the Minister of Finance. We expect a turnaround to occur in the second half as the Minister of Finance predicted. In his seven years as Minister of Finance, his predictions have always come true to form.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister talks of a bit of a downturn. Why does he not admit, as the Minister of Finance was finally forced to admit, that we are in a desperate and serious recession caused by this government's economic policies.

Madam Speaker, the tragic situation workers find themselves in nation-wide does not seem to be taking a turn for the better.
In Trois-Rivieres, the unemployment rate is 16 per cent. That means 9,000 people out of work.
In Sherbrooke, there are 8,000 jobless people, and another 8,000 in the Chicoutimi area.
So, I would like to ask the acting Prime Minister this: Can he reassure the Canadian people and promise them today that the throne speech will contain full employment policies which will have an immediate impact?
Why does he not give a little hope to the Canadian people who are unemployed because of old and tired policies? Can he give us a positive answer today for the benefit of the jobless?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the old and tired policies are the policies that are advocated by the hon. member. They are policies which are throw-backs to the past which simply did not work when he was in government. We are not going to go back to that type of policy.
I remind him of the fact that under his policies back in the early 1980s, we had 14 per cent unemployment, we had 22 per cent interest rates and we had a disastrous recession in 1981-82.
What we have now is a set of policies that are designed to get us out of the recession that we are in today. They are designed to get interest rates down. We are seeing some signs of recovery in that. I need only remind the hon. member of what has happened in the housing

April 12, 1991
Oral Questions
market. We are seeing a substantial increase in housing sales from a level of about 2,500 to a level of close to
6,000	from January to February.
I quote from Mr. John Winter, who is a leading retail analyst in Toronto. He says: "I think March will be better than February and, quite frankly, I think we have seen the bottom of this slump." This is consistent with what we have been saying as a government. It is consistent with what the Royal Bank and what the Conference Board have been saying.
If the hon. member would quit walking around with a little cloud over his head, only talking doom and gloom, he might be able to see that as well.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not know why this minister is revelling in the problems caused for millions of Canadians due to the policies of his own government for which he was taking credit.
Why is the minister continuing to rely on the same policies to get us out of the recession that he admits got us into the recession? If the minister will not give us a commitment today for new policies of full employment, I ask him to tell us what his government is doing right now for the more than 1.4 million Canadians who are standing in the unemployment lines all across this country. Give us an answer right now. Give Canadians some hope.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is thinking about when he says I am revelling in the difficulties that Canadians are having. I am not revelling at all. I do not like it at all. What I do know is that the policy prescriptions that we are following are the right ones to get us out of the recession that we are in today.
We saw, from 1984 right through to the spring of 1990, where those policies brought us record growth, that Canada was number two, only after Japan, of the major industrialized countries. There were 1.6 million jobs created in that period of time. So these policies are working.
I say to the hon. member, if he has any ideas, if he has any alternative policies, let us know and let us have them, but I have yet, in the six and a half years that I
have been Minister of Finance, heard anything from the Liberal Opposition as to what alternative policies it has. Canadians are looking for more than just straight negative opposition, what they are looking for is a positive policy approach.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TYinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In Atlantic Canada, unemployment insurance recipients are experiencing extraordinary delays in having their UI claims processed; in many cases, from 10 days to 2 weeks. This is devastating in an area where unemployment is running over 20 per cent. For those people whose only source of livelihood is their UIC cheque, it is totally unacceptable, even tragic.
I would ask the minister to explain why this is happening and what is being done to rectify it.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I sympathize with the hon. member's question and its intent because we have had some processing problems in some of our offices. What we have been trying to do as a result is do more through the mail and more on the telephone, and we have improved our claims processing. We are putting more people in our offices to ensure that we can speed up the processes for getting cheques to people as rapidly as possible.
Sometimes it comes as well from people coming in to us with incorrect information which delays the process and takes up some of our personnel time. But we are doing the best we can to ensure that the backlogs come down, and they are being reduced very quickly.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, whatever the reason for this delay, there is hope that we are witnessing a temporary interruption and that this greatly reduced level of service is not something that can be expected on a long-term basis. That is the concern. So I would ask the minister to undertake to assure this House that her department will not accept a degradation of service for UI claimants as a regular occurrence.
April 12, 1991


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, far from it being a regular occurrence, the service throughout our department has improved quite considerably over the last two or three years. I answered the first question dealing with the difficulties that the hon. member pointed out and I am quite prepared to accept that, but over time we have improved the service. Not only that, the programs we have put in place are programs that enable people to get back to work faster and to get trained for other jobs. Even in the Atlantic region which the hon. member represents, where I recognize there are particular difficulties, there is a mismatch between the training that people have and the jobs that are available because there are some jobs available. I would point out that in the month of March across Canada, there were 2,000 more jobs than there were the month before. There was an increase in the unemployment rate because of more people coming into the labour force.
To reinforce what my colleague said about the economy turning around, we are seeing more jobs being created and there were more created last month.


DE HAVILLAND
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Aerospatiale, which is part of the consortium that is going to purchase de Havilland, already had its president as its official lobbyist in Canada. On April 5 Fred Doucet became an official registered lobbyist for Aerospatiale.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what possible advantage Aerospatiale could expect to gain by having a former fundraiser for the Prime Minister, a former chief of staff, and in fact a man who got married at 24 Sussex Drive, as its official lobbyist?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that question would be more appropriately addressed to Aerospatiale. He can certainly phone them up and ask them. I think that would give him the best answer.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, we are in a nation where there is a great deal of distrust and questioning about the political process. The
Oral Questions
whole country is, and the Deputy Prime Minister knows that.
I think they would be wondering whether there is more concern about producing jobs for the Prime Minister's cronies than the 26,000 people who are going to be affected by this purchase.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member has a direct question to pose to one of the ministers.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Yes, Madam Speaker. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of whether or not this close friend of the Prime Minister has in fact approached the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, or the Prime Minister, to discuss with him how they are going to preserve those 26,000 jobs that are likely to be affected by the de Havilland purchase, or is it in fact more important to see that the former Conservative cronies get jobs?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I really cannot add any more to the obvious answer provided by the Deputy Prime Minister, and that is to phone those who signed the contract, but I say to the hon. member that when the Prime Minister came into office he said he would bring in a lobbyist registration act. That has come into effect and is in force. It is that information that is now public and I would suggest that the hon. member work on the basis of that type of knowledge rather than the kind of innuendo which he is so capable of throwing around here.


BANKRUPTCY ACT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
It has been seven years now that this government has promised improvements to the Bankruptcy Act of Canada. God knows, we have waited for decades of successive Liberal governments to bring in appropriate changes to the Bankruptcy Act of this country that would give a measure of justice to those workers who have lost their jobs and to those suppliers who have not been paid as a result of bankruptcies.
Yesterday, after six months in office-

April 12, 1991
Oral Questions


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Normally, the first questions asked by the New Democratic Party would have the possibility of one question and two supplementaries.
I am really trying very hard to see the connection between the first question asked and the one being asked by the member now. Maybe he would want to rephrase his question and put it now.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Windsor-St. Clair pointed out that there is a danger of
26,000	jobs being lost in de Havilland.
My question deals with job losses.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Then the hon. member will put his question now.


John R. Rodriguez: I understand why they are so sensitive about this on both sides.
Can this government tell the people of Canada in what month, in what year and in what decade can we expect to get the changes to the Bankruptcy Act that will provide justice to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of bankruptcies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the government does share the concern expressed by the hon. member.
I can assure him that it is a matter that is under very active consideration. I hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to respond to the very valid point that the hon. member made. I just ask him to be patient a little longer.


JUSTICE
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Justice.
Recently, there was a very significant court case in British Columbia. The Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en people, we understand, are going to take this to appeal. Eventually, it will end up in the Supreme Court.
There is a large number of people in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada who feel that it would save a lot of time and money if this appeal was directly referred to the Supreme Court.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question now.


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Madam Speaker, my question is to the justice minister.
Can this case not be referred directly to the Supreme Court, rather than going through the various appeal processes which will involve a lot of funding and a lot of time, which is unnecessary at this time?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, technically and theoretically it is possible to refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We have not had a formal request to do so. We are undergoing discussions with parties to the case. We are no longer party to the case since the claim against us was dismissed.
I would point out, though, that it is unusual to refer a matter as factually complex as this to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think all the parties would want to consider what was the best way to clarify the issues. It is a case of very complex fact in law.
Our disposition is to be as co-operative as possible. We are having informal discussions, but as yet have had no formal request from any of the parties.


DE HAVILLAND
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister, and it is with regard to the proposed sale of de Havilland.
It has been confirmed this morning in writing by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Fred Doucet, the former chief of staff and friend of the Prime Minister, has been hired as the chief lobbyist to lobby both the government and Investment Canada on behalf of the consortium of Aerospatiale and Alenia.
Given that the government thus far has failed to stand up for the Canadian aerospace industry or provide any details whatsoever of the proposed deal, how can Canadians now have any assurance whatsoever that the interest of the workers at de Havilland, our aerospace industry and research and development will take precedence over the interest of a former chief of staff and long time personal friend of the Prime Minister?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: The people of Canada can have trust and confidence that this will bring net benefit to Canada because the previous arrangement brought tremendous net benefit to Canada. They have moved from 2,800 jobs
April 12, 1991

in 1974 to a level way beyond that. They have developed a strong order book. They have got a good distribution network. This was all done when Boeing took over.
As we move to a different purchaser, we will ensure that net benefit to Canada is there again.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, the question is, as the minister put it, a question of trust.
I return to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him very simply, will the allegiance of the government lie with the workers of de Havilland and the aerospace industry, or will the allegiance of the government lie with a former chief of staff and long time personal friend of the Prime Minister? Whose side will the government be on? Let us have some confidence and trust for a change on behalf of Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister may want to answer, but it is very difficult for the Chair to accept that this is a question regarding the administration of government. The decision was made by a private company and not by the government. I do not see how it is a question regarding the administration of the government.
The hon. minister may want to answer. If not, I cannot allow the question.
I have heard the comment made by the hon. member for York West and I do not think he meant to imply any impropriety from the Speaker. I am sure that he will want to rise right away and withdraw the comment.


Sergio Marchi: I concur with your sentiments and I think you are absolutely right.


TELESAT CANADA
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister.
It concerns Telesat Canada. In 1985, the Prime Minister laid down the law: No government-owned corporation could hire lobbyists to lobby cabinet. Now we hear that Telesat Canada, the government-owned satellite company, is paying the Prime Minister's former assistant, Bill Fox, and a recent Conservative Party president, Bill Jarvis, to lobby cabinet and to overrule a CRTC decision.
Oral Questions
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now stand in his place and respect the rules laid down by the Prime Minister and put an end to this abusive process?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, the government does not own the company. We are a shareholder, we have an interest in the company, but it is a private company.
Whatever they do is their business. It is Telesat's business. The government will act in its own best interest and in the interest of the nation.


Don Boudria: The majority shareholder in this corporation is the Government of Canada, and therefore it is a government corporation.
I want to ask a supplementary. First of all, cabinet itself could be in a very difficult position. By overruling the CRTC it increases the value of Telesat. Then it will privatize it. At the same time, of course, Tory friends will be rewarded by doing the lobbying.
I want to know this time whose side the Prime Minister is going to be on. Is it the side of the Tory lobbyists or on the side of the people of Canada, for a change?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, Telesat hired communications consultants to help them prepare their case. I know they did hire them because they happen to be good.
Now, they will do what they feel is appropriate and the government will do what we have to do in the best interests of the nation.


WOLVERINE COPPER TUBING
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Another Canadian manufacturer has just been deep-sixed by free trade. Wolverine Copper Tubing of Annacis Island, British Columbia, has suddenly and in the middle of contract negotiations closed its doors and is moving production south of the border, throwing 180 British Columbians out on the street. Wolverine is an Alabama

April 12, 1991
Oral Questions
based, U.S. company that is, I might add, the sole manufacturer of copper tubing in Canada.
What actions, if any, has the government taken to forestall this closure and to protect the Canadian jobs that are at stake? If the minister has not taken any actions, what actions is he prepared to take?
Finally, why was Investment Canada allowed to sell out our Canadian manufacturing industry to foreign interests, when this is the obvious result?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should know that there is a similar Wolverine operation in my home riding of London, Ontario, and it makes the same products. I do not know what he is talking about when he says that the sole supplier has disappeared.


Mr. Merrithew:: Get your facts right.


Thomas Hockin: More important is the effect of the free trade agreement. If the hon. member will look at the increase in manufacturing jobs in British Columbia in 1988, 1989 and 1990 in anticipation of the trade agreement, the net benefit is on a huge positive side, not a negative side.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, Wolverine owns three plants. I say there is one down and two to go.
John Quarles, President and CEO of Wolverine in Alabama, has cited economic reasons for the closure. In a recent telephone conversation he said: "We are fighting those high Canadian interest rates and the GST, and we just can't make a go of it".
Will the minister not admit that this government's tragic monetary policy, its high interest policy and its over-valued Canadian dollar, combined with the GST, are killing our manufacturing industry and mothballing our economy?
Will he also not admit that the impact of these measures, when we combine them with the free trade agreement, is encouraging a virtual exodus of manufacturers out of Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I certainly will not admit such a thing. As a matter of fact the exact opposite is the case.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Right on.


Thomas Hockin: The old manufacturers' sales tax which built in a cost of operation 4 per cent or 5 per cent more than Canadian operations should ever have to carry has been totally removed. What has happened is that the Canadian manufacturing establishment has benefited to the tune of 3, 4 or 5 per cent with the removal of the old federal sales tax.
In terms of the free trade agreement, we have put in place accelerated tariff reductions in a number of areas to benefit industries similar to that and a number of manufacturing industries in British Columbia, all to show that the manufacturing sector in many cases wants an acceleration of this agreement and nothing other than that.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
The minister will know, if he has examined the figures, that one-day shopping trips to the U.S. over the past two or three weekends show that the volume has reached alarming proportions. I would like to ask the minister about the new policy, which I understand is currently being drafted by cabinet to address these concerns.
What is the thrust of this new policy likely to be? When is the new policy likely to be announced?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touches on a very serious problem that affects not only the federal government but, more important, the provincial and municipal governments, the private sector and labour itself.
From a Customs standpoint, the hon. member will know that we have moved ahead in accelerating the use of technology, adjusting work forces to conform to demands and putting in a pilot project to make a more efficient and effective way of collecting taxes and duties. That is on the Customs side.
April 12, 1991

On a broader side, the government is working toward creating and taking the leadership in creating a program that will bring in the private sector, that will bring in labour, that will bring in the provinces and that will bring in the municipalities so that we can deal with this on a society-wide basis and make sure that we come up with a resolution that will resolve this matter sooner, rather than later.


Jim Jordan: With reference to the reply I got, Madam Speaker, I want to remind the minister that facilitating the entry of Americans into Canada at border points is a good idea. We agree with that, but that is only one issue.
Addressing the attraction to shop in the U.S. on a regular basis by Canadians is a very different issue.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. With an estimated annual $1 billion in lost retail sales in Ontario alone for the current year, not to mention the thousands of lost jobs in the retail industry, can the minister tell me what concrete and immediate plans he has to address this tendency for more and more Canadians to do their regular weekly shopping in the United States?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I touched on that question in my first response but, to be more specific about it, as far as the customs operations are concerned I repeat that we are accelerating the use of technology through automated cash registers to make way for a more efficient and effective way of collecting duties and taxes.
We have put in recently in British Columbia a pilot project which is going to relieve the congestion at the border, revitalize the tourist industry in British Columbia, and allow for expanded commercial traffic in that province. We are going to be monitoring that and hopefully be expanding it to other parts of the country.
I have finished meeting on a bilateral basis with mayors from border communities this last week. We look forward to continuing to meet with them to come up with a marketing program that will allow Canadians to realize that by going south of the border to shop they in fact are hurting themselves, Canadian retailers and the Canadian economy as a whole.
Oral Questions


ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism and Citizenship. It concerns the aboriginal representative organizations program.
Over the past few years funding for this program has been cut and the program actually expired two weeks ago, on March 31. The minister of state has not yet made a decision on whether to extend or renew this program.
Will the minister tell the House today whether and when he intends to renew this program?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to indicate that yes, the program has made a very important contribution to the vitality and to the sustenance of the community.
We are currently in the process of reviewing very carefully what was in place. With my colleagues in caucus and cabinet, we are now examining where we go from here, but I am not in a position yet to reveal the details this morning.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, let me quote from the Main Estimates about the program:
This program provides program funding to Inuit, Metis and
non-status Indian and status Indian representative organizations
which work to enable aboriginal people to participate in the political,
social and economic life of Canada.
I have a supplementary question. The 32 aboriginal groups who use this program need to assure their clients and their banks that their funding is forthcoming and they cannot afford to wait for the minister to make up his mind.
Will the minister agree to release the funds available for this program today so these aboriginal organizations can get on with their important work?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, we are very understanding of the situation that the groups find themselves in today. They have been very important and supportive of our desire to

April 12, 1991
Oral Questions
create a society where equality is the call word, where equality is the cornerstone of our citizenship.
There are at the moment very important considerations on certain elements that were in the budget. We are now very carefully reviewing those elements. We have been as forthcoming as we can and have indicated to all of our client groups, not just the aboriginal representative organizations program that we have been very supportive of, whatever continuing support that we have been able to make in the interim pending a further decision of the caucus and the cabinet.


WILDLIFE RESERVES
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry. We can read in La Presse of Thursday, April 4, 1991: "For lack of an agreement with Quebec on a conservation strategy, the Algonquins of Lac Barriere are threatening to set up barricades on Highway 117 and again block logging roads in La Verendrye Park Wildlife Reserve to prevent any wood cutting." My question is this: Can the minister tell us today whether it is in his jurisdiction to implement a forestry regime in this wildlife reserve in Quebec?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague that while we do have active programs in place to assist native people with the development of their resources on the reserves, if native people aspire to use resources that are on public lands under provincial jurisdiction it is the province of Quebec that would be the principal authority to deal with the native people on this particular issue.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Farmers in western Canada have a deadline that is rapidly approaching. They must decide whether to sign
up for GRIP, for revenue insurance, for crop insurance, or in fact for nothing at all. An important part of that decision is whether or not deficiency payments will be tied to any or all of these programs.
Will the minister tell Canadian producers today whether or not they must sign up for any of these programs in order to be eligible for deficiency payments?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows-and I would appreciate if he would convey this to his producers-we did establish a set of principles that were agreed to by the provinces which would govern us in the development of a third line of defence package.
Largely, the principles reflect the multifaceted nature of the problem and the fact that it would be in everyone's best interest to get as many people as possible into the long-term safety net process. That is important from the standpoint of the producers, as well as the provinces, and particularly those who have yet to commit fully to the Net Income Stabilization Account, which is very key and vital to the long-term stability of the agricultural community.
One of the principles is that to the extent possible any transitional assistance should be tied to the long-term safety net program and delivered to that program if possible. It is within the spirit of those principles that we are attempting to develop that plan.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, the government says that GRIP is voluntary. If it is voluntary then deficiency payments should not be tied to it. If the payments are tied to GRIP then the government should have the decency at least to let producers know that.
I ask the minister again, very simply, are deficiency payments tied to GRIP or are they not tied to GRIP? Farmers have a right to know so that they can make a proper decision based on market matters as opposed to what this government is doing with respect to programs.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern. We will hopefully be in a position to indicate
April 12, 1991

the kind of a program that will meet the criteria, the principles that were developed.
He may very well be overstating the case when he suggests that there is an element of compulsion. Certainly there will be some incentives. I think that is what the hon. member would want because, in spite of some of the reservations he had about our approach in principle, his party and he himself supported the over-all principle of a long-term safety net which was largely developed by the producers themselves.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week the minister for federal-provincial relations, in an interview with a major Canadian newspaper, said that Ottawa might give the provinces more control over official languages.
Considering the poor record of most provinces with respect to minority language rights and the critical and sensitive nature of this issue with respect to national unity, would the Acting Prime Minister say whether such a proposal is actually being considered and, if so, would he give the assurance that his government will not propose or entertain any measure that would weaken the language rights of official language minorities in this country: the francophones outside Quebec and the anglophones in Quebec? Would he give the House that assurance?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, there certainly has been no decision made on that particular issue.
The issue of the Official Languages Act and languages indeed has become part of the whole national unity debate. There are many commissions, inquiries and committees that are studying all aspects ancillary to national unity. Certainly the Official Languages Act has been one that has been discussed.
As the Prime Minister has said in the House and outside the House on many occasions, we hope to receive the recommendations and the data that is being collected, through the Spicer commission and indeed our own joint parliamentary commission, plus the many
Oral Questions
examinations that are being undertaken by the provinces. We will deal with this information and hopefully come up with a package that will in effect reflect the attitudes and the views of Canadians.
This is an open and transparent process, and it would be in everyone's interest to ensure that the views of the public being collected right now will be looked at, studied, and honoured in some respects.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, these public musings or thinking are not really assuring the language minorities in this country, and the Acting Prime Minister has not given me the assurance I was asking for.
The minister for federal-provincial relations also said that the national consensus on official languages has eroded. Under the Official Languages Act, 1988, which was supported by all parties, Part 7 provides that the government should promote both official languages and enhance the vitality of the minority language communities in this country.
When will the government take steps to implement that part of the Official Languages Act and turn back the erosion referred to by the minister for federal-provincial relations? When will this government take strong measures to support official bilingualism?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the government's record is very clear in that regard.
The hon. member and his party cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, insist on an open and transparent process and then, on the other hand, reject and condemn any views and opinions that come thereto.
Really what we are doing at the present time is collecting the views and opinions across the country. The position of the federal government has been made very clear. We brought in amendments to the Official Languages Act that would conform to the constitutional requirements. That is the position of the government.
However, to deny people the freedom of expression of thought on any or all aspects devoted to national unity I think would not serve the best interest of democracy. I am sure the hon. member would be the first person in this House to condemn that.

April 12, 1991
Oral Questions HEALTH


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. I have repeatedly asked her colleague, the minister of health, to remove the Meme breast implant from the market until proven safe.
The minister continues to hide behind mysterious studies which his department supposedly has. Yet, there is ample evidence that links the Meme implant with cancer. This is cancer month, I might add.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not act, what steps will the Minister responsible for the Status of Women take to protect Canadian women from this dangerous product?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has responded to this question over the past two days. He has indicated that he has recently had one of his officials looking at the results of the most recent federal drug administration studies on this issue. He has also indicated that if there is any information that would factually lead to any link between the Meme breast implant and an increased incidence of cancer of course he will take the appropriate action.
I have asked the minister personally to ensure that I am kept informed, that the review is thorough and that it will take into consideration all possibilities, and I will be monitoring the situation very closely.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I guess I am somewhat disappointed, but I would have hoped that more concrete action would be taken.
The government is clearly hiding behind the questionable Kerrigan report. Why is this government relying on a study authorized by Dr. Kerrigan, a doctor who has used the Meme implant in her own medical practice and was therefore clearly involved in an obvious conflict of interest?
How can the Minister responsible for the Status of Women allow this placing at risk of Canadian women in this country today? I ask the minister please to respond. Why?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there has been a number of different studies undertaken both in Canada and in the United States.
From the health and welfare perspective, there is no factual link from the evidence they have received at this point.
If factual evidence should come forward that would show that link, of course we would take any appropriate action that is required.


LABOUR CANADA
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Earlier today I gave him a background briefing on a matter regarding a verbal decision by Labour Canada that a Canadian Airlines flight attendant had no reason to invoke her right to refuse to work in an unsafe condition.
Given that the city the flight attendant was scheduled to fly into and stay in for 13 hours was not only suffering a cholera epidemic, but saw terrorist bombings of 30 buildings, including the Canadian embassy on the very day that she was scheduled to be there and that 10 of her colleagues actually stayed there, in spite of Labour Canada saying it was safe, I want to ask the Minister if he will do what Labour Canada has refused to do and ensure that flight attendants are able to invoke then-right to refuse, especially in foreign countries where they continue to be employees under the control, pay and direction of their employer.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for providing me with the information. I have requested that my officials look into this matter on an urgent basis and as soon as I have some answers I will get back to my friend.
I appreciate that this is not a very good situation. We have a task force studying the flight crew duty time and we will take this into account too.
April 12, 1991



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
10TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and in doing so, I would like to make the following remarks.
The tenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which I have the honour to table today deals with the problems encountered by the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of the Transport in the modernization of a large ice-breaker, the Louis St. Laurent.
The modernization project has gone through a rapid cost escalation, including a major cost overrun, from a planned expenditure of $51 million to a projected $139
Routine Proceedings
million and is some 20 months behind schedule. The project was not let out to tender at Cabinet request. The committee has tried to put these problems in perspective and examine the larger questions of improved planning and reporting of major capital projects in Transport Canada and in other government departments.
For example, Transport Canada has agreed that a more thorough assessment process is required prior to all future ship modernizations or major repairs and the committee has made a recommendation to this effect.
With respect to non-tendering, the committee repeated an important recommendation made in several earlier reports to the House, namely that maximum use be made of competitive tendering for contracts.
The committee has asked Transport Canada to respond to the recommendations by June 28,1991 and has requested a government response to two of the recommendations at an earlier date pursuant to Standing Order 109.
62ND REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 62nd report of the Striking Committee. This report deals with the membership of a legislative committee.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), upon such presentation, such reports are deemed adopted.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have with me today two requests by committees to travel, but I am advised that on one of them there have not been the proper consultations between the members of the committee and the leadership of the Liberal Party.
By drawing the attention of the House to that, I would hope that the people who are involved will have those consultations so we can proceed with that motion before the House rises at two o'clock.

April 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
I understand there is consent for the second motion, on which there have been consultations. I move:
That the two researchers from the Library of Parliament assigned to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Sonja Dackers and Len Christie, be authorized to travel to Winnipeg for the period May 5,6 and 7, 1991 for the purpose of attending a workshop on sustainable agriculture on behalf of the committee.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, with regard to that particular motion, I believe you would find unanimous consent on this side.
With regard to the remarks made earlier by the parliamentary secretary, there has been no consultation with myself, the chief opposition Whip, the industry trade critic or his office with regard to the motion which he was going to raise.
I just alert him to that because if it can be arranged before 2 p.m., we can have another look at it. We give consent to this particular motion.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my gigantic caucus, I too would like to indicate our consent to the motion with regard to travel by the two researchers.
I note once again that this is an act of good faith on the part of the NDP caucus.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections presented to the House on Wednesday, March 20,1991 be concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, I just want to summarize the report.
The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections received a request from the hon. member for Perth- Wellington-Waterloo to amend the Standing Orders to permit joint sittings of standing committees so that two
or more committees could meet together, have a joint meeting, hear witnesses and prepare a transcript of the proceedings.
The purpose of the amendment to the Standing Order that the committee has recommended in the 26th report is to do exactly that. It simply adds the words necessary to effect the change requested by the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
The committee is of the opinion that this will enhance the ability of committees of this House to function effectively.
I am moving this today in light of the fact that we are in the midst of changes to the Standing Orders. This could be printed with the reprinting that will take place as a result of the division last evening.
I note that the report was agreed to by all members representing all parties on the standing committee.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I just note that our caucus too is in full agreement with the motion of concurrence.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections must truly be on a role.
It had the 21st report which was part of the reform package that was adopted unanimously last night. Because of our interest and encouragement of the committee system in this Parliament, we on the government side are happy to give our support and endorsement to this particular amendment. We urge the adoption of this amendment unanimously.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I rise in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a petition duly certified by the clerk. It is from from 65 of my constituents in the Deep Bight Southwest Arm area, which represents nine communities.
April 12, 1991

The petitioners are concerned that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has historically been a key element in the government's commitment to cultural integrity and national unity. They are calling on Parliament to ensure that CBC programming remains intact and that local programming in Atlantic Canada is maintained, particularly, a program which is near and dear to our hearts in Atlantic Canada, called Land and Sea, which has consistently over 20 years celebrated the special nature of the Atlantic region.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, I have three groups of petitions to submit today. The first one is from a number of residents in my constituency of Okanagan-Shuswap and the communities of Lumby, Enderby, Falkland and Vernon in particular.
These petitioners are very concerned about the recent reductions in RCMP services, not only in our community, but essentially in all communities in British Columbia and, in fact, right across Canada.
They are urging the government to consider restoring proper funding to the RCMP so that it can fulfil its mandate and role and provide a visible police force for communities across British Columbia and to re-examine the decision to force the provinces to either increase funding for the RCMP, which is in many cases much more than the communities can afford, or face the decrease in services and the closing of detachments as has already occurred.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the second group of petitions is from residents, I might add, right from one end of British Columbia to the other. This group of petitioners, about 709 names, are urging the Minister of Communications and this government to consult with all affected parties, specifically those citizens living outside of Canada's urban areas, who will be impacted severely by the possible deregulation of long distance telephone services.
They are urging the Minister of Communications to hold local hearings in the smaller communities through-
Routine Proceedings
out the province before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.
That is on behalf of residents throughout the province of British Columbia in regard to the UNlT EL application for long distance services.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, the last petition is from a number of citizens also throughout the province of British Columbia who are protesting the recent cutbacks in CBC services, the recent reduction of $108 million in funding to the CBC and the loss of 1,100 jobs, and the reduction or closure of regional television stations.
They are asking the government to reconsider its priorities in terms of this decreased funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I have a series of petitions signed principally by residents of the city of Edmonton, but as well by residents of other centres in Alberta, duly authorized by the clerk, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners note that over 200 Air Canada employees at the Edmonton International Airport and Edmonton reservation office will be losing their jobs because of cutbacks by Air Canada in its expenditures on employment.
They note that the affected employees provide services that are essential to Air Canada passengers in Alberta and, therefore, call upon Parliament to express its profound opposition to the further centralization and retrenchment of its regional services by Air Canada, our former national air carrier, as they note, and urges the Parliament and the federal government to request Air Canada to revoke the proposed lay-offs.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 448, 472 and 481.

April 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Arseneault: 1.	Did the government award a contract for breakwater construction at the Kuskanook Small Craft Harbour in Kootenay Lake, B.C., and, if so, (a) from which department were the funds allocated (b) from what specific budgets were the funds obtained (c) what are the overall amounts of the budgets (d) how much money is left in the budgets (e) what was the procedure for determining allocation?
2.	What is the (a) estimated number of boats which use these facilities (b) breakdown (pleasure, fishing, etc.) of activities held at these facilities?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Public Works as follows:
1.	(a) The Department of Public Works, on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, contracted the breakwater construction project in two stages as follows:
Amount	Contractor
$798,593	L.J. Construction
$913,359	Currier Contracting Limited
The public tendering process was used to award both contracts.
(b), (c) The project was funded from two sources; the Small Craft Harbours' Harbour Revitalization Program ($225.3 million over 4 years, expiring March 31,1991) and the Small Craft Harbours Regular Program ($67.4 million for 1990/91).
(d)	The funds allocated to those two programs are totally depleted.
(e)	All funding for both programs has been allocated based on regional project priorities.
2.	(a), (b) Once the infrastructure is completed, the harbour will be able to accomodate approximately 175 vessels, most of them recreational.


Mr. Kilgour: With respect to Canadian Security Intelligence employee Ryszard Paskowski, (a) did CSIS inform him of the nature of his mission in Rome in 1986, and if not, for what reason (b) did CSIS attempt to
persuade him to tell Roman police authorities that he was on a private visit, and if so, for what reason?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Ryszard Paskowski was never an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). After his first arrival in Canada in December 1984, and before his departure for Rome in 1986, he did provide information to the Service about the alleged activities in Canada of a foreign intelligence service. This information could not be verified and as stated in the House by the Honourable James Kelleher, when Solicitor General, on January 22, 1988, CSIS ended its relationship with Mr. Paskowski before he left Canada voluntarily for Italy in August 1986.
The relationship between the Service and Mr. Paskowski has been thoroughly examined by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) and no wrong doing of any kind by the Service in relation to Mr. Paskowski was found.


Mr. Robinson: Did the Canadian government send an RCMP Officer and a staff member of the Canadian embassy in Costa Rica to conduct a technical review of the Salvadoran police investigation into the assassination of the six Jesuits and two women at the University of Central America at some time in the last two years and, if so, what was the content of any reports submitted to the Canadian government from this delegation?


Right Hon. Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In a statement at the OAS November 30, 1989, the Canadian Permanent Observer stated that Canada would consider any request from the authorities of El Salvador for help in the investigation of the assassination of the six Jesuit priests and their employees. At the request of the Salvadoran government, the Canadian Ambassador, accompanied by the RCMP Liaison Officer and another officer of the Embassy in San Jose accredited to El Salvador, visited San Salvador from January 4-6, 1990 for meetings with the government, the Church and the University of Central America. The Embassy officers later met British, Spanish and American officials, as well as the Salvadoran Special Investigative Unit and two criminal investigators from Scotland Yard. They concluded with the assessment that the investigation, to that point, was proceeding in a serious and professional manner. The Salvadoran government made no specific request for assistance, and,
April 12, 1991

since the investigation soon moved from the forensic to the judicial phase, it did not lend itself to Canadian technical intervention. No recommendation for further action was submitted to the RCMP.

I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. [Translation]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the other questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, do the questions that are held now, if we do in fact prorogue today or at least at some point before we next sit and consider this matter simply disappear or do they cany over to the next session?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No, the questions would have to be resubmitted if we begin a new session of Parliament.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 19433).
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, there was one specific passage in the parliamentary secretary's speech with which I agreed. That was when he referred briefly to the necessity of being prepared for what is coming. That is the way he put it in his speech.
It seems to me that he has a point because he and his colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party should be prepared for what is coming, particularly in the province of Alberta where there is a surprise in store for the Progressive Conservative Party.
Government Orders
It is no great political secret that should an election take place today the government party would be really lucky if it were to be able even to form the Official Opposition. The parliamentary secretary is quite right in urging in his speech to prepare for what is coming.
As to what we may charitably call the analysis he made, he seemed to be reporting from another planet. It was a report of a situation that from this side of the House we see in completely different terms. Let me explain. If we had not just returned from an Easter recess one would understand, perhaps, the necessity of calling an adjournment. We have just come back from one and I suppose Canadians will be wondering why all of a sudden another recess is necessary.
I do not think Canadians would object and we certainly support the idea of adjourning today and starting a new session next week with a Speech from the Throne because the public business and interest requires that this Parliament be active, be present, be alert and extract during Question Period from the government the information that the public eventually learns from the media the following day.
We are adjourning at a time when the country is in deep trouble because of high unemployment, 1.4 million people are unemployed. There is dissatisfaction in Quebec and in the west. There is understandable unrest among native people in Oka, the James Bay region, Alberta and British Columbia. There is rampant dissatisfaction among civil servants who are overworked, understaffed, and economically straitjacketed by this government, with an increasingly frustrated public facing ever-shrinking government services.
We are in trouble with workers in industrial Canada living in anxiety about the uncertainty of the future. We are in trouble because of growing cynicism with a political party whose record is a long, long list of unkept promises. That fact also has an impact on the credibility of the entire political institution no matter the party to which you belong.
We are in trouble because of foreign competition. We are in trouble because our productivity does not seem to be keeping up with that of other nations. We are in trouble because of poor leadership. We are in trouble because of this government's privatization of publicly-owned assets. I must remind you of the situation of de

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
Havilland in Toronto, in particular, a real failure of the privatization policies of this government as carried out recently.
We are in trouble because of a government that is unable to win the support of Canadians at large and that has hit rock-bottom levels in popularity. We are in trouble because the Prime Minister is seen as the greatest disaster ever to hit this great nation. We are in trouble because the party in power, having lost the confidence of the people for good, can, from a constitutional point of view, carry on and govern until November of 1993. We are in trouble because of a mutilated VIA Rail, a demoralized postal service, and a frustrated CBC.
We are in some pain and difficulty, to put it mildly, about the uncertainties that surround the free trade agreement that is being discussed with Mexico. We are in trouble because of a continuous crisis in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada. We are in trouble in urban Canada because tens of thousands of refugees are waiting endlessly to learn about their fate in this country.
It is against this background then that, at a time when Canada is obviously facing these difficulties, the government decides to close down Parliament from mid-April to an unspecified date sometime in mid-May perhaps. Are we going to close down for repairs or are we going to close down for restoration? It seems to me that it is more likely we are closing down for sale, judging from the propensity of this government for dismantling public institutions that it has shown over the last six years or its propensity to retreat from governance and to give away federal responsibilities at a drop of the hat, as we have seen through the Meech Lake accord experience.
An adjournment debate should actually have a clear purpose: to the government to justify and explain to Canadians the reasons for adjourning. I ask you to examine the speech by the parliamentary secretaiy, who was obviously speaking on behalf of the Crown, the ministers, and Cabinet, to judge for yourselves the substance of the speech he gave, and, at the same time, to let Canadians decide on the merits and reasons for adjourning.
You may recall that this session of Parliament started on April 3, 1989, almost two years ago, actually. At that time, the Governor General read his Speech from the
Throne. That speech is an important document for parliamentarians and Canadians because it sets out the agenda, so to speak, for the lifetime of the following session. Therefore, that Speech from the Throne contains a number of promises.
The government might have had a good reason for adjourning if the business it set out to conduct had been completed. Unfortunately, though, that is not the case. There is a great deal in the Speech from the Throne of unkept promises, unfinished business, proposals lost by the way-side, so to speak.
Let me illustrate that by going over some of these unkept promises. To begin with, you will find in the Speech from the Throne a statement that says: "Legislation will also be introduced to ensure an appropriate environmental assessment review process." Here, condensed in a very few words, is a very important concept. It is a promise to give Canadians a law that would protect the environment by way of measuring the impact a project or a policy could have on the environment before
It is a very important initiative, which saw the light of day in the form of Bill C-78. It is so important that, even in Hansard of October 16, 1990, the Minister of the Environment said, and I quote: "We have to get Bill C-78 through the House".
Mr. Speaker, that bill has not even come back from committee and has not been examined in committee since Christmas. That bill is going to die, as they say, on the Order paper.
Let me give you another example, to do with water. In the same Speech from the Throne is the following commitment, and I quote:
These initiatives are part of a new environmental agenda, which
will also include the commitment to improve the quality of our water
through new legislation.
This promise in the Speech from the Throne resurfaced recently in the Green Plan.
So, what do we actually have? We have a report by the Pierce commission, initiated by the Liberal government in 1984 and completed in 1985. We had, in 1987, a booklet entitled The Federal Water Policy in which a policy is outlined. Then, in the Speech from the Throne of April 3, 1989, we have a commitment to improve the quality of our water and a commitment in the Green Paper.
April 12, 1991

Mr. Speaker, after six years of Progressive Conservative government, that is where we are, with a repetition of commitments on water and these commitments have not been carried out.
In the same Speech from the Throne is a very important statement, which reads as follows:
The government remains committed to a national child care
program.
That commitment has not seen any political expression, in the form of programs, policies, or budget, you name it. Commitment is on paper; it is gone.
Mr. Speaker, it is a zero result from a statement in which many of us who appreciate-and I am sure that many within the government members also appreciate the social importance of a national child care program, which has now been allowed to disappear into the landscape.
There is a reference to refugees in the Speech from the Throne. Unfortunately, the refugee question is, as I mentioned earlier, still a crisis.
In the same Speech from the Throne there is a commitment to revitalize the Citizenship Act. Action on that commitment has unfortunately been zero.
There is a commitment with respect to native people in the Speech from the Throne and, despite the promise of funds, there have instead been cuts to communications and core funding of native organizations.
There is a commitment to a new copyright legislation. The delivery on that commitment has also been zero.
Therefore, we must analyze the situation of unfinished, unkept promises.
One also has to go beyond the Speech from the Throne and beyond what has not happened in the field of an environmental assessment review act, so that today, as we speak, instead of the promised law, we have an Order in Council, which was passed by the Liberal government in 1984 and attempts to regulate that particular environmental situation.
On gun control, there is, again, unfinished business. There is a proposed law in the pipeline from which the government seems to have backed out.
Government Orders
On the question of estimates, because of this open-ended adjournment, there will be three, four, five, six or more weeks ahead of us in which the scrutiny of government expenditures on the part of committees will not take place. That scrutiny is probably the essence of parliamentary activity. It is the essence of the role of elected representatives who are, instead, asked to go back to their ridings. I must stress, in this connection, that the timeframe and the window of opportunity to examine expenditures of budgets of any government department closes at the end of May.
This is the crucial time, because the estimates are produced in March. So you can see that April and May are, for interested parliamentarians, the key months in which to carry out that kind of job on behalf of the Canadian public. That kind of opportunity is almost wiped out.
Might I add, Mr. Speaker, and bring to your attention that the budget debate is incomplete. The House has not approved the budget of the Minister of Finance, so we are adjourning with a budget that has not been voted on. We are asked to adjourn with important unfinished business, called approval of the budget.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you more, and bring to your attention what is left unattended to. While we are being asked to adjourn, the important issue of the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States is on the move. It is in the news and in the works, so to speak.
While President Bush negotiates and discusses with Congress the well-being of American workers, with an eye on their future jobs, social security, and protection of the environment, this government is told to go on vacation.
Does it make sense? While the American political and governmental system is fully absorbed by the question of the proposed trade agreement on the North American continent and the voters' collective attention to ensuring that it is the best possible agreement for the interest of the American workers, we are not paying attention to the collective interest of the Canadian workers, the environment, and the long-term social consequences of this agreement, because it is felt that Parliament ought to close down and that members of all parties ought to go home.

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
I ask you, does it make sense to you, Mr. Speaker? It certainly does not make sense to us on this side of the House, because this proposed agreement is such a vital issue that yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs tabled a special paper dealing with the question of issues that relate to the impact on workers on the part of this proposed agreement.
Mr. Speaker, evidently there is a lot we do not know, a lot at stake, and a lot, therefore, that ought to be discussed in public, with the public interest in mind.
You can see, therefore, that I am concluding, in this analysis, that I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is actually the height of irresponsibility to adjourn now. It is the wrong time for closing down the Parliament of Canada at this juncture, for the variety of reasons I have given you in the course of my presentation.
What we can see here is a decision to govern by decree by a government that is giving signs of profound tiredness, that is running out of ideas, and that is, in a sense, conveying the wrong message to the public, something the government should never do no matter what its political stripe. The government is conveying the notion that it is letting the public interest down because it does not want Parliament to sit.
Therefore, this is a sad day for parliamentary democracy at a very difficult time and a very difficult moment in Canadian history.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand up in the House and wind up this session of Parliament and to speak for my party, the New Democratic Party, hopefully expressing some of the wishes, the visions, the frustrations, and the hopes of many Canadians.
Before I came into the House today, someone asked me what I could say about this government that is positive. I said I was sure that, if I thought deeply enough and for a little while, I would be able to think of something positive. I can think of a lot of positive things about Canada. I am very positive about Canada and about Canadians.
I must say that, if you examine what the Throne Speech said a couple of years ago and the blueprint it drew for this government and for Canada, and if you look at where we are now, I think the government has failed miserably in the economic area and in the constitutional area. I want to highlight that point in my speech.
I think we have seen economic and constitutional mismanagement on a grand scale, to the point where our very country is in danger. This is very serious indeed. We need an alternate vision in this country, a public policy, in both the constitutional area and in the economic area. In a sense, they are both intertwined and I want to speak about them in my speech.
I have said this before, during the Meech Lake debate, and hope to say so again this summer and especially next year, when the constitutional debate will heat up. We need an activist federal government to keep this country together. We need a federal government that will show the greatness that is there for Canada, both in English and in French, and to provide for the blossoming and exploding native culture and reality in this country, which is a good thing, and the new multicultural element of the new peoples who are of neither English nor French background and have come to this country.
This country is on the move, but this government is not. This government is mired in an ideological past.
I want to say one thing before I get into some concrete examples such as the free trade deal with Mexico, which we have discussed in this House during the last couple of weeks, or the aerospace deal, involving the loss of a major company, which we discussed in the House of Commons today in Question Period, or indeed one of the events that occurred this week in the House, namely, the re-ratting, if you like, of a Bloc Quebecois member back to the government ranks, and I want to say something about that.
I actually see the Minister of Justice in the House, so perhaps I could take a bit of crack there.


A. Kim Campbell: Don't let me cramp your style.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Then I want to finish by talking a little about what we members have to do for our constituents in the months that lie ahead while Parliament is not sitting.
First of all, I want to say something about the changes to the rules of Parliament. I know we have had a long debate on this issue, and the issue has been settled. But I warn the government and I say to my fellow Canadians that it keeps restricting the rights of Parliament and keeps cutting it back. We all suffer in the long run because Parliament is still the one institution in this
April 12, 1991

country where the ordinary Canadian can go to their MP and can obtain some justice for a cause. That MP can get up and put a question right to the Minister of Justice or to the Prime Minister in full view of the national press. I am afraid we are restricting the rights of parliamentarians more and more.
As I have said, we have had that debate and I regret what the government has done with the rules of Parliament.
Let me say something about the failure of what I said was the economic policy of this government. We are about to get into a free trade deal with Mexico, but Mr. Speaker, I say to you, should we not examine the results of the first free trade deal that we got into with the United States before jumping into an expansion of that deal? We in the NDP do not accept, unlike the Liberal Party, it now seems to me, the premise that a North American free trade deal is inevitable.
Looking at the past deal with the Americans, it seems to me that we have lost 226,000 jobs, investment is down, there is no adjustment program for the workers and, worse still, we have not received secure access to the American market. The Prime Minister himself was complaining about that just last week with regard to the pork dispute, on which we were overruled by the Americans. We must define more clearly the dispute settlement mechanisms in the existing free trade deal before entering a new one.
The Free Trade Agreement is not working. The Americans say that they can just use the extraordinary measures clause, which was included in the agreement only in extraordinary circumstances, like such as corruption or something like that, and now the Americans seem to be using this clause. This is a very serious situation indeed. Let us not jump into a new trade deal without looking into the old one.
We are also concerned about what the real motives of this trade deal are. I want to quote the Leader of the Official Opposition in Mexico, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, who was, in my view, robbed of an election victory by the present President of Mexico in a corrupt election. Here is what Mr. Cardenas said in a recent speech in Vancouver, British Columbia: "Their free trade agenda is simple and narrow. Mexico will sell its cheap labour to attract foreign capital, which, in turn, will guarantee the survival
Government Orders
of one of the last remaining authoritarian political systems in Latin America".
Mr. Speaker, do you think that it is as the Prime Minister told us, that they are going into the free trade deal to raise the standard of Mexican workers? Not on your life. The Americans want to go into that free trade deal with Mexico for cheap labour. The workers receive about 4 per cent of our wages. They exploit women in these factories on the Mexican-American border. The environmental standards are atrocious. The health and safety standards are atrocious.
We have already seen evidence of companies like General Motors in Canada and General Electric in Canada moving jobs out of Canada as a result of our deal with the Americans, into the Maquiladora free trade zone on the Mexican border. This action is a forerunner of things to come and this is why we should not get into that deal.
One does not have to be a brilliant economist to figure this out. Here is the agenda: the PR, the Mexican governing party, stays in power with its corrupt administration and top-down redistribution of wealth. All the wealth is at the top. The Americans get a low-wage place in which to invest and use American capital and Canada gives its cheap, raw resources. That is why we are seeing the deindustrialization of Canada. So let us not get into this kind of deal. This is going to be a major item on the agenda during the next few months.
I also mentioned another area of economic mismanagement, where the French and Italian companies, backed by the Italian and French governments are about to buy de Havilland. There are 3,000 jobs at stake. Not only that, the continual development of the Dash-7 aircraft, which Canada does so well, and the continual development of high-tech in the aerospace industry, which is one of the high-tech industries that we have and one of the top high-tech industries in the world.
We in the NDP want to see a viable aerospace industry. We have to be realistic and I acknowledge that. We do not want to pour millions of dollars down a hole, but it seems to me that, if there is a takeover by the French companies, backed by their governments, the Canadian government should at least have a share in the new company. It should have what is called "the golden share" so that they can make sure the research and development stays in Canada and can make sure these European companies will not just buy the Toronto

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
company, de Havilland, in order to close down one of their competitors.
This take-over is crucial for Canadian jobs and this government will not get involved because they believe in the pure free-market economy. Well, if they keep going they will turn Ontario into a province with the economic level of industry that New Brunswick has. This could be a real tragedy.
They tell us to look at Investment Canada and ask can Investment Canada not protect us. Well, under this government, Investment Canada has a score of 914 to zero. I counted it up and there are 914 approvals and zero rejections.
I say that high-tech, investment, and aerospace are the kind of industries Canada has to stay in; we cannot give them away. I am worried about what is happening with de Havilland, with the trade deal, and with the loss of jobs. I think there has been economic mismanagement of this economy on a large scale by this government.
Before I close, let me say something about the constitutional matters. I am afraid we have a Prime Minister who is a deal-maker, who is not speaking for Canada.
I was pleased this week, as we all were, that one of the Bloc Quebecois, the Separatist group from Quebec went back to the government. We would have liked him to perhaps go somewhere else, but he did reject separatism. I see this country in great danger, but I see a beginning of an opening through which we can once again reconcile French and English in this country.
The Prime Minister has a reputation as a deal-maker, as someone more interested in making a deal than in what the deal says. He is not a nation-builder, like previous Prime Ministers have been. The premiers, in their own way, have to speak for the provinces. Mr. Mulroney does not speak for Canada. We need leaders in this country who will speak for Canada. There is no price, in terms of federal powers and national social programs, that he will not pay in order to get a deal.
The Prime Minister has blamed the failure of the Meech Lake accord on everyone else but himself: it is
Mr. Wells' fault; it is Elijah Harper's fault; or it is the NDP's fault. Well, I suggest that he look to himself for the fault.
I would like to quote what the distinguished Canadian, Tom Berger, has said on this matter:
English Canadians had a greater commitment to the idea of Canada than our leaders did. That is why Meech failed; not because of cranky opposition by the people of English Canada to the distinct society clause. They sensed, even if they did not understand the details, that Meech Lake was another chapter in the Mulroney government's dismantling of Canada's federal system. Traditional Canadian deference to our political establishment was missing in the Meech Lake debate.
Let me wind-up by saying this. In the months ahead we will have to change our economic policy, stop the deindustrialization of Canada, and protect Canadian jobs. We must have an economic vision of this country that does not have us just throwing our resources into cheap labour in Mexico.
We have to develop high tech here in Canada. We have to emphasize the environment. We have to emphasize education. We have to emphasize national institutions. We need a national government, not just a Quebec government or a B.C. government or a government in Ontario. We need a national government that can tie all this together. We cannot decentralize all the programs to the provinces. We need national social institutions like medicare programs and day care. That is what makes Canada a civilized society. We need that and our people want that and they are demanding leadership.
The Prime Minister should call an election. Do not just adjourn this Parliament, call an election and face the Canadian electorate and they will have a message for him. They will get rid of these scoundrels very quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have received written notice today from the hon. member for Scarborough East that he is unable to move second reading of his bill during Private Members' Hour today.
Therefore, the order for second reading of Bill C-329 will be moved to the bottom of the priority list for Private Members' Business.
April 12, 1991



Since there will be no business before the House between two and three o'clock p.m., the House may then wish to adjourn.
Questions and comments. Debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out, today we are debating a motion to adjourn Parliament for four weeks. This is a sad commentary on the preparedness, the competency and the commitment of the government that it wishes to adjourn Parliament at a time when the country and the world are faced with so many serious problems.
This country is in a serious recession, with very high unemployment, the unity of the country is under attack in many of the provinces, instability in the Middle East and eastern Europe, and starvation in Africa, all of which affect world peace and security. We have many unresolved aboriginal issues, issues that came to the forefront last year in Kanesetake and Kahnawake and other places in the country and were to be dealt with. But, here we are, almost a year later, and not much has been done.
It appears that the government does not have any agenda, any program or any policy to deal with these issues and, therefore, it adjourns for four weeks.
To begin with, let us look at the economy. We have the worst recession since 1982. The recent unemployment figures indicate that 10.5 per cent of Canadians are unemployed. This amounts to approximately 1.4 million Canadians out of work. Retail sales have taken tremendous drops. Housing starts are way down and bankruptcies are way up.
One could argue that perhaps this recession, this situation that I have just referred to, is a result of the usual business cycle, but there are many, many experts who would argue that even with the business cycle things would not be as bad as they are if the government had not deliberately adopted certain policies which made the situation much worse.
We can, first of all, refer to the goods and services tax which, whether you agree with it or not, nearly everybody, nearly every expert unanimously said this was the wrong time to bring in a tax like that at a time when the
Government Orders
country was going into a recession. We have people out of work, people with their salaries frozen and they are faced with additional taxes. What do they do? Of course, they cut back on their retail buying and their investing. This only hurts the economy further and drives it into a still deeper recession.
Another matter that no doubt has affected the lay-offs and unemployment is the free trade agreement. It was contemplated by the government and by the Economic Council of Canada that the free trade agreement would very seriously hurt many of our industries and there were recommendations that adjustment programs be put in place to compensate for those adjustments that would take place. That has not been done, with the result that we have many industries, and I will refer to some of them very specifically in a few minutes, that have closed down and moved their operations to the United States. This has particularly hurt the industrial areas of this country: southern Ontario, Montreal and parts of the larger cities in the west.
When employment was increasing in 1984, 1985 and
1986,	the Prime Minister claimed responsibility. I can recall very well when the unemployment figures came out in those days, he got up and boasted that the jobs being created were due to his policies and his programs. He said that he created those jobs. It was not the private sector, it was not the result of international markets, it was not the result of worker productivity, but it was the Prime Minister who was responsible, according to his statements of those days. If you look in Hansard you will see them.
The upward trend in creating jobs started in 1983 and not in 1984 or 1985. It accelerated in those years, but it started in 1983. Nevertheless, let me make this point. If the Prime Minister had the answers in 1984 and if he was really responsible for the creation of those jobs in 1984, 1985 and 1986, where are the answers now? If he had the answers then, if he had the policies, if he had the solutions that led to the creation of jobs, surely now is the time when he should put those solutions to work.
It is obvious that he did not have the solutions and that he was not responsible for that job creation from 1984 to
1987.	He was simply riding the trend. He was simply riding the surge of the business cycle which, at the time, was an upward trend.

April 12, 1991
>[DOT]
Government Orders
If he had the answers, if he had been responsible, if he knew how to create jobs, if he knew how to cut back on unemployment, today is the time that he would do it and we are not seeing it being done.
We have had several budgets. We had a budget last year from the Minister of Finance in which he predicted that unemployment was going to increase, and he introduced certain measures without any effect. The rate continued to rise. He has now come forward with another budget with no real solutions. His solution, the solution of this Conservative government is very similar to the solution of other Conservative governments in the world, the governments of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain, which is a hands-off, laissez-faire approach to the economy, that everything will right itself and that if you leave it alone it will take care of itself. Well, that has never been the case in this particular country.
In Canada we have always had a mixed economy, a good balance between the public sector and the private sector. The private sector thrived under those circumstances. The public sector contributed to education, to training, to public infrastructures such as transportation, ports, railways, communications and other things that are necessary, helped the private sector do its job. The greatest eras of prosperity that we had in this country were during those periods of Liberal government when there was a mixed economy.
It is true that we had problems from time to time, but when we had those problems we did not take a hands-off attitude or a hands-off approach, we intervened.
respect to trained workers and trained professionals able to produce the wealth that is required to give us a prosperous economy.
It is very shortsighted for governments to cut back on training and education, and it is very short sighted to do that during a period of recession. By doing that the government simply sabotages our capacity to produce more down the line in the years to come. That is a silly approach to dealing with the deficit, it makes the deficit worse rather than better.
Up until now I have spoken generally about the recession that is now with us. I would like to talk about Montreal, the city I come from, which has been hit particularly hard by the recession.
Montreal now has the highest unemployment rate of any municipal area in Canada. That is a new record for Montreal. The unemployment rate in Montreal is now higher than any of the great cities in the Atlantic provinces, which always in these kinds of times had higher unemployment rates. Montreal has the highest unemployment rate of any city in Canada and it has the highest poverty rate of any city of Canada.
Recent studies have indicated that one out of four individuals in Montreal live below the poverty line and that there are 290,000 more individuals in Montreal living below the poverty line than in all four Atlantic provinces. That is a serious, serious situation and should be dealt with.
While this recession is taking place, what does the government do in the budget? It cuts the training program by $100 million, it cuts transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education, it makes cuts in health care, VIA Rail, and so on. These are the very things you do not cut during a recession.
This week I put a question to the Minister of Finance, asking if he would bring in a joint development program with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec to do something about this disastrous situation. He said they were already doing things. Well, the things they are already doing are peripheral, marginal, and they are not really attacking the core of the problem.
The government argues that because we have a huge deficit in this country, there must be cuts if we are going to prevent an additional burden on our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. There are some things that cutting will only contribute to the deficit because you cut back on your capacity to produce. Cutting back on training and education short-changes the future with
What I would like to see for Montreal is a type of development program that we have for Atlantic Canada, ACOA, or that the government has for northern Ontario or for western Canada with the Western Diversification Program. Montreal needs a special institutionalized program at this time to turn around the situation in that city because major industries have closed.

April 12, 1991

I want to refer, just to show how dramatic it is, to the situation in Montreal and the plants that have closed there during the last two years.
During the last two years, Gattuso has lost 88 jobs in St. Laurent; Valmet-Dominion Company, 200 jobs; Black and Decker, 150 jobs; Marconi, 380 jobs; Pascal's, 180 jobs; Bristol Myers Squibb in Candiac, 124 jobs; CBC in Montreal, 160 jobs; Eaton's, 60 jobs; General Motors, last year it was 1,700 but that was temporary. They have been called back, but now notice has been given they will be laid-off again; Catelli, 63 jobs; Steinberg's, 150; Clairol Canada, 228; CNR, 2,000 jobs; Miracle Foodmart in Montreal, 350; Canadian Marconi in Montreal, 130; Goodyear in Valleyfield, not far from Montreal, 800 jobs; Dominion Textiles, 20; Twincraft in St. Laurent, 60; Rolland Papers, 293; Nationair 25; Canadair, 300; Noran-da Mines, 125; Culinar, 256; Circo Craft, 211; Domtar, 1,300 jobs; Pratt and Whitney, 1,200 and Air Canada, 2,900 jobs eliminated across the country with a large number in Montreal.
I put that on record because if you just mention figures in general, people lose the impact. The individuals who work for those companies I just referred to know how serious it is, because now they are on unemployment insurance or on welfare or on the bread line. That is not the way this country should operate. Government should respond to those situations and try to do something about it. Unfortunately, it is not being done.
In recent days, the opposition has brought to the attention of the House and Canadian people the critical situation faced by aerospace workers in Toronto as a result of the sale of de Havilland by Boeing. As you will recall, Boeing bought de Havilland a few years ago with the consent of this government and are now selling it to a French and Italian firm which has an aircraft in competition with the Dash-8 aircraft being produced by de Havilland in Toronto.
I raise this issue because it is very important for Toronto where there are 3,000 jobs-approximately 3,000 jobs with de Havilland- threatened by the sale of de Havilland by Boeing to the French and Italian firm, but in addition to those jobs in Toronto there are people who supply de Havilland with materials and with other supplies they need for the production of the Dash-8. Of those materials that are provided by other Canadian firms to de Havilland, 48.7 per cent come from Quebec, amounting to $82.5 million.
Government Orders
In other words, the greatest amount of subcontracting and sub-purchasing towards the production of the Dash-8 aircraft comes from Quebec and, in particular, the Montreal area.
So it is not just Toronto that is affected by this sale. It will now go to Investment Canada for approval or disapproval. That sale not only threatens the jobs of many aerospace workers in Toronto, but also throughout the country and, in particular, in Quebec where 48.7 per cent of the supplies for the Dash-8 come from.
Quebec's large portion of the supply business with de Havilland is attributable to the engine manufacture of Pratt and Whitney Canada in Longueuil. The Dash-8 Pratt and Whitney's PW-100 series engines represents 16 per cent of the aircraft's selling price. I just put that on the record to show how important this is.
I have referred to the critical situation of the economy in this country while this government goes on recess for four weeks and how that recession is impacting on Montreal.
I also want to refer to the constitutional crisis. As I said, we are faced with movements in Quebec and in other provinces, the Reform Party in the west, which would divide this country and turn it into a country unlike the one we have known for well over a hundred years. The government is adjourning at a time when we should be taking action, when leadership should be shown to deal with this threat to our national unity, with this threat to our way of life.
It is troubling that leadership is not being shown by the Prime Minister and by the government in dealing with this matter.
This morning I put to the government certain musings that were stated last week by the Minister for Federal-Provincial Relations, who is a Senator, who in an interview with the Montreal Gazette said that it may be necessary to transfer responsibility for official languages to the provinces.
We know that the provinces have a very poor record in dealing with the language minorities. We not only have the situation of Bill-178 and Bill 101 with respect to the anglophone minority in Quebec, but we have historically the policies of the Ontario government cutting back the rights of francophone minority, measures taken by the government of Manitoba in past years to crush the rights of francophones in that province and so on and so on.

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
Provinces have not had very good records with respect to their language minority.
The initiatives to protect those language minorities have come from the federal government following the royal commission on bilingualism a few years ago, and so far the movement has been progressive with respect to the protection of language minorities by the federal government. We would hope that the federal government, in order to get a new constitutional deal, will not sell out the language minorities in this country.
A very important issue to me, which has been left on the table as Parliament adjourns today, is the question of gun control. About a week or so ago, I tabled in this House a petition with over a half a million names, asking the government to put on the restricted list paramilitary semi-automatic rifles, the same kind of rifle that was used by Marc Lepine to shoot down 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in December of 1989. That semiautomatic is a type that is used by many police forces, by many assault groups. It can fire up to 30 bullets. It has no place for sale over the counter as a hunting rifle.
The government tabled Bill C-80, which we thought was an improvement with respect to gun control. That bill was then set aside and it looks like it is going to die because the session will be prorogued. A parliamentary committee has come up with proposals, some of which are good, some of which are not so good, but here we are adjourning this session, more than a year and a half after the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique, and still we have got nothing on gun control.
Mr. Speaker, you indicated to me that my time is coming to an end. I simply wanted to put on record that the government is adjourning at a time when there are many critical issues to deal with in this country. This government has lost the support of the Canadian people. It is at the lowest rate in the polls that any government has ever been in Canadian history. The Prime Minister has lost the support of the Canadian people. This motion to adjourn today for four weeks demonstrates again why they have lost that support. The country is faced with
serious problems, but the government does not know how to deal with them so it decides to adjourn. What a sad day for Canada.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn prematurely, I would like to congratulate our colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who is extremely concerned about the state of the economy in Montreal. He talks about it often and I know that he is very interested in it.
My colleague, Mr. Allmand, knows the situation of the textile industry and clothing manufacturers in Montreal-and I know something about it because I visited some manufacturers in Montreal. This industry is in a steep decline. Forecasts are that in five or six years-and these are not my figures, Mr. Speaker; they come from various associations of clothing manufacturers in Montreal-the industry will literally be wiped out in Montreal. You know that in the past, Montreal was one of the great centres in North America.
I would like our colleague to tell us what remedy he thinks this government could give the textile industry and at the same time whether he thinks this premature adjournment should not be considered an admission of failure.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. The textile industry was always very important in Montreal. It has given employment to thousands of people in Montreal.
But you know that during the free trade debate in the 1988 election, the industry itself said many times that this agreement with the United States would threaten their industry and many jobs in it.
The warnings that were given to us during the free trade debate are now coming to pass. Industry after industry, in the clothing business and in the textile business in Montreal are shutting down or moving to other countries. Workers who found jobs there for years and years are left without any work at all. My good friend



April 12, 1991

has approached me. He has been in touch with many of those industries in Montreal. We intend to meet with them as soon as possible to get their views on how we can turn the situation around. I think this is very important. Our party leader has agreed as well that something has to be done and has approved of our meeting with them.
I would not want to start making recommendations at this point before we meet with the industry, but we have agreed to meet with them at the earliest possible date. We will be making suggestions in this House to the government to save a very important industry, the clothing industry.
There are some very basic necessities that every individual needs to live. We need food, we need housing, we need education but we need clothing. We all need clothing. We need shoes and clothing. Why should that clothing not be produced in our own country? Why should we have to go abroad for most of our clothing? It is ridiculous. This is a principal industry and one that should be helped to expand, modernize and compete in the world.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I would have one comment to make following the excellent speech from our colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who showed to what extent this government has abandonned the Montreal workers, failing to implement the recommendations of the committee headed by Mr. Laurent Picard, which had suggested a series of specific measures to pave the way to Montreal's economic recover. Unfortunately, years later, this report still has not been acted on. It could have helped bring economic renewal to Montreal, but it was not taken seriously. It has not even been given fair consideration by the Canadian government.
We are now faced with a truly alarming situation in Montreal. A recent study by the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau has shown that at the present time there are some 188,000 jobless people on the island of
Government Orders
Montreal. Such a situation is absolutely unbearable! We all know to what extent Montreal is the engine of the Quebec economy. If the economy of Montreal were to collapse, the whole province could be affected.
So, I commend our colleague for his speech and I would like to ask him to tell why, in his opinion some of the main recommendations of the Picard report have not yet been implemented?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. In 1986, the Conservative government appointed Mr. Picard to chair a commission on the economic situation in Montreal. The commission studied the problem for several months and published a report containing 86 recommendations. It suggested creating high technology industries in Montreal and focussing on international trade.
But, Mr. Speaker, four years later, most of these 86 recommendations have been ignored, totally ignored by the government which itself created this commission chaired by Mr. Picard.
But other commissions have also made recommendations. There was the commission with Paul Lacoste, former rector of the University of Montreal, for the United Way in Montreal in 1990, which made similar recommendations, which recognized that the unemployment rate in Montreal was a disaster. These recommendations were also ignored by the federal government for what was under federal jurisdiction.
I could go on. There were other reports as well. There was a 1989 report by federal economist Jules Leger which referred to the growing number of unemployed and the poverty in Montreal. It made certain recommendations. Nothing has been done about that either.
It is not just a tragedy for Montreal, but it is a tragedy for all of Quebec and for all of Canada.

April 12, 1991
Government Orders



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the exchange but, as you know, during Routine Proceedings today under Motions, I had indicated that there were two travel motions, one of which we had to complete consultations on.
I want to advise the House that those consultations are now completed. It is my understanding that there would be unanimous consent for the following travel motion:
That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development, be authorized to travel to Toronto from Wednesday, April 24 to Friday, April 26, 1991 in order to attend the conference Reaching for Success: Business and Education Working Ibgether; and
That the necessary staff accompany the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 19433).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a very short comment or question.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, what we heard from the hon. member from Montreal are the same woes that we hear in Toronto city.
The unemployment list is getting longer. The food banks are getting longer. Bankruptcies are growing. The refugee backlog is getting worse. The self-exiled class are not given work permits, et cetera.
Just 45 minutes ago, we met with the building industry from Toronto. It made a comparison of the recession of 1981-82 and the present recession. In 1982, the second year of the recession, there were 14,122 units sold as compared to 1990 when only 8,180 were sold.
I would like to ask the member whether he feels, according to what is happening around Montreal, which recession had a greater negative impact on the people, especially the poor and the unemployed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out when we were in government and faced with the recession of 1981-82, we were an activist government and believed in government intervention to help the situation.
We did not believe in the laissez-faire approach to the economy. I can recall very well that we put more money into the construction of housing. We set up funds so that first-time home buyers could buy homes. This was a program which was cancelled by the Conservatives when they came to power.
If they really want to do something, and housing is one area that stimulates the economy and gives people one of the basic needs that they have, shelter, they could at least recognize that fact and come forward with a new budget or a new Speech from the Throne and put money into housing. I understand the housing construction people who were here today recommended that CMHC lower its downpayment requirement from 15 per cent to 5 per cent.
There are things like that which would help the housing industry and the economy to get back on its feet. It would help people to get housing at the same time.
We have to believe in a mixed economy and not in a hands off, laissez-faire approach.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, today, more precisely in a few minutes, Parliament will adjourn for quite a while without even dealing with one of the most important problems for my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
April 12, 1991

Mr. Speaker, on July 13, 1990,1 informed the government opposite in a press release about unemployment in our riding and the whole eastern Ontario region and I then appealed to the government opposite to look into this issue which I thought would get worse.
So with my colleagues, the members for Stormont- Dundas and Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, we showed at that time that eastern Ontario had lost nearly 3,000 jobs.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that at that time we certainly did not expect the situation to become as serious as it is today, although it was already serious then.
In 1990, the summer of 1990, my colleagues and I showed the government that, for example, in Hawkesbu-ry, 85 jobs had been lost with the closing of Canadelle Inc. or Wonderbra if you prefer; 78 with the closing of Laser International; 23 laid off at Mercedes Textile; 38 at Sun Wheel; 20 at Rail Car in Alexandria; 75 at Tradition Windows; 100 lost their jobs in the shoe industry and 30 at Alexandria Molding. The same thing happened in the Cornwall region, so well represented by my colleague from Stormont-Dundas. They lost over 1,000 jobs. The Renfrew region, represented by the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, lost some 1,600 jobs.
All in all, then, we could find and identify 3,127 jobs that had been lost for the people in our region. But, Mr. Speaker, it went from bad to worse. At that time, we asked the government to intervene. We asked the government to help the people of Eastern Ontario who needed work.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we saw then that the government did not care about it, so much so that the Minister of Supply and Services, who is the political representative for Eastern Ontario, ridiculed our complaining about the lack of employment in our region. Even the constituents of the minister responsible for Eastern Ontario were angry about what he did.

I have here an article from The Ottawa Citizen of July 19, 1989, in which a municipal councillor from the constituency of Lanark-Carleton, which is represented in this House by the Minister of Supply and Services, was
Government Orders
indicating to us that the problems being raised by the opposition members were indeed serious.
I would like to read from the article:
Dick's statements raised the concern of Coun. Dennis Staples who said council should contact the MP for a meeting and show him the "very real" concerns of the town.
"The economic situation in Smiths Falls is not exactly rosy," said Staples.
Faced with the inaction of the government in this area, my colleagues and I tried a second initiative to convince the government of how much we needed help. We asked the municipalities whether or not they agreed with us that the economy of eastern Ontario needed help. This is what they said. The Township of Pakenham adopted a motion asking the federal government for help. The Township of Lavant, Dalhousie & North Sherbrooke, the Township of Grattan, the Townships of Head, Clara and Maria, the Corporation of the Village of Chalk River, the Tbwn of Gananoque, the Village of Merrickville, the Town of Prescott, the City of Brockville, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the Village of Chesterville, the Township of Roxborough, the City of Cornwall, le comite de developpement economique des comtes de Prescott-Russell, la ville d'Alexandria, le canton de Hawkesbury-Est, la corporation du village d'Alfred, the Corporation of the Township of Lancaster, the Corporation of the Township of Kenyon, the Village of Maxville, the Village of Lancaster, la corporation de la ville de Hawkesbury, le canton de Plantagenet Sod, le canton de Longueuil,
Mr. Speaker, I could list some more for several minutes. All those municipalities asked the government opposite to assist the economy of Eastern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, my riding is only a few kilometers away from Parliament and I sometimes get the feeling that the Peace tower is casting a shadow over the problems facing my riding, however hard I try to disperse the cloud or shadow obscuring the issue.
The fact is, at the moment 50 kilometers from here, in Hawkesbury, in my riding, the unemployment rate stands at 16.6 per cent.

April 12, 1991
Government Orders

The Minister of State for Youth is in the Chamber as we speak, and I know that he knows my constituency. His own is all things proportional, not that far away, some distance, but nevertheless not as far as many Members of Parliament's constituencies. I have an article here from the Hawkesbury Express in my riding. It says:
Sixteen per cent record high. Jobless rate could get worse.
Here is what it says:
There are now 1,946 people receiving unemployment insurance
benefits in the county. That translates into an unemployment rate of
16.6 per cent, says Fernand St. Jacques, manager of the local Canada
Employment Centre.
Those are not statistics that I am inventing, Mr. Speaker. That is the hard economic reality of the riding that I have the honour and pleasure to represent in this House of Commons.

The situation there is very serious Mr. Speaker. I have been asking this government, for quite some time now, for an economic development plan for our area. I have to say, that we received a bit of good news recently. Apparently, under the auspices of the Community Futures Committee, we will have, in Hawkesbury, a program intented to improve the infrastructure, hoping to encourage Cite Collegiale to open a satellite institution in Hawkesbury. Now, I have something to tell the New Democrats, and I am sure they are all listening to me with interest from the other end of the room, Mr. Speaker. I can see how interested they are in this issue. I hope they will put a word in for us to their kissing cousins at Queen's Park, because they are the ones responsible for bringing Cite Collegiale to Hawkesbury.
I had the opportunity, recently, to discuss this matter with the Minister of State for Small Businesses who was telling me that the key is to improve education opportunities for our young people, and I agree with him. As he said so well, Mr. Speaker, we must make post-secondary institutions available to improve the schooling of our young people and enable them to find jobs. However, the ball is now in the court of the Ontario New Democrats, and they should know that all the people of Eastern Ontario are expecting them to act on this issue.
Some ministers on the other side have offered their help to convince the Ontario New Democrats. I wish to
thank right now those who will. There is no time to loose. We must act now and with all our might.

Aside from this community college initiative that I have just been describing, we are still losing more and more jobs.
A few weeks ago, in consultation with Employment and Immigration Canada, we managed to find funds to retrain people under the Job Re-entry Program. I was really proud that day. I was really happy. I drafted a press release, announcing all these new initiatives that were going to be established and the different high schools in the riding that would be participating in training these people who were unemployed-all of them women, by the way-to reintegrate them into the workforce. Was I ever pleased with this initiative. I phoned the local press to tell them about these grants we were getting that would give jobs, at least temporarily, to 125 women who would be retrained.
The reporter said he guessed I had not heard the news. Then he told me that that afternoon, Ivaco Steel laid off 140 workers.
After the effort was over, there was a net loss of 15 jobs instead of any gain. I was not exactly pleased. As a matter of fact, I was very discouraged.

A few days later, Canadian Pacific Forest Products announced it was closing its forest research lab in Hawkesbury.

CIP Research and Canadian Pacific Forest Products have had a research lab in Hawkesbury for 88 years. They have now announced that they are shutting it down. I regret that very much. Up until now, I have been trying to work in co-operation with the employees of that institution. It is not closed yet because there are still a few days left. Not very many, might I add.
I have been trying to convince Canadian Pacific Forest Products to delay the closing for a while, only a few months, because this is important.
Second, I want Canadian Pacific Forest Products to let the employees of that plant have the factory either at a reduced rate or no rent at all for a period of time in exchange for future considerations, preferred shares and so on, in the company that the employees are trying to
April 12, 1991

Government Orders
establish to keep this research lab alive in our community-
I am still awaiting an answer from Mr. Paul Gagnier, the President of Canadian Pacific Forest Products. If by any chance anyone in Canadian Pacific Forest Products happens to be watching the television right now, perhaps they can tell Mr. Gagnier that I am waiting for his answer.
What we are hoping to get here is funding from the federal government for a market study-and that is available because there are programs under the Workers' Adjustment Program-in order to determine whether or not the employees could successfully run that plant themselves under the conditions I described a few moments ago.
I succeeded in reaching a few people. One of them is a University of Ottawa professor who is giving his time to the employees of this plant. His name is Dr. Walter Baker, and I should probably take this occasion to thank him publicly for what he is doing. Dr. Baker is voluntarily helping the employees get themselves together to make a pledge to invest their severance pay, and everything else that they can muster, into a corporation. That would then be utilized as a further show of good will to convince everyone that they are trying their best to keep their jobs alive at Canadian Pacific Forest Products.
What we need, then, to keep at least that particular institution open is, of course, the funding from the government in order to do the needs study for the jobs. I understand that is moving along. But we also need the co-operation of Canadian Pacific Forest Products. They have not said no yet, and they have not been overly critical, but I will say right now on this Friday, April 12, 1991 that there is only a week left before the plant closes. We need answers from them in terms of keeping the plant open for a little while so that then we can get the federal government involved to try to preserve the jobs.
I should also congratulate the employees for their initiative under the leadership of Mr. Ron Dynes of Canadian Pacific Forest Products, who is trying to get his colleagues at the research centre in Hawkesbury to keep this factory open.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me add just a few words about youth unemployment in my constituency. I just told you the unemployment rate is about 16 per cent in my riding, 16.6 per cent to be exact, and according to the manager of the Employment Centre, there is a distinct possibility that the unemployment rate might rise again before the end of this recession. I too hope that this recession will end soon. However, I think, and the Conference Board agrees with this, that we will have to wait a few more months before we see the end of it.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we could at least encourage our young people who will have to face some very tough times this summer. The Challenge '91 program the government offers is a good one. I have received in my office a lot of grant requests. With this money, farmers and small business people, as well as public and para-public agencies, will be able to hire young people this summer. Mr. Speaker, I have for about half a million dollars of requests on my desk.
But from what we have heard at this point, only $77,000 was put aside for my constituency; that is not much money. I talked to the Minister of State for Youth and want to thank him. Without going into details, I hope we will be able to encourage these young people in difficulty. And if at all possible, Mr. Speaker, since the youths need our help so badly, maybe we could find funds to at least encourage a greater number of them.
Finally, I see that the Minister of Transport is sitting in this Chamber at the moment and I have said this to him before, but I simply want to alert him to the blow that the area is recently seeing approach, regarding one of the largest transport companies in the country, which is based in my riding and known as GTL or the Glengarry Transport Group.
Most Canadians will recognize that the name Glengarry has been made famous through two ways. Glengarry is the home of the Glengarry Highlanders and is the name of that very large transport company in Canada. Well, I am not breaking any secrets by saying that Glengarry Transport is in very big financial difficulty. It was in the newspapers today, yesterday, and a few days ago.

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
Between Glengarry Transport and the affiliated companies, namely Intercan Leasing, the subsidiary company of Glengarry, -and I believe that is the name-there are approximately 7,000 trucks in this country. I hope we do not lose that industry or any part of that company. It is based in Alexandria and has offices in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Kingston, so a number of Members or their constituents would be affected if we lost that industry. I hope and pray that we do not. We do not need any more bad news than we have received already.
So, in closing, I only want to repeat [Translation]
-that the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and eastern Ontario need hBelp and they need it now; a 16.6 per cent unemployment rate in Canada is unacceptable and when it happens 50 miles from Parliament, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace.
I dare hope that the government, in the course of the next weeks and months, will listen not to the complaints voiced by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, but by the voters, the Canadian men and women who suffer and need help.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. I recognize the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague from Russell- Glengarry-Prescott on an excellent presentation.
By way of comment, realizing that we would be having this debate today, but not realizing that it would be so short, I did take an opportunity to go over the Speech from the Throne for the 34th Parliament, Second Session. There are four small comments that I would like to make.
First of all, I noticed that we talked about-and I will quote from the speech: "Canadians who fish for a living find their catches reduced by predatory overfishing outside the 200-mile limit. My government will intensify its international efforts to put an end to these practices." That statement was written on April 3, 1989. The community that was being referred to, the European community, had a quota that was set at 13,000 tonnes
and they set a quota of 160,000 tonnes, which is 12 times greater and their catch was equivalent. I do not have the figures for 1990 but I think they are roughly the same. So, I am aware that the government is trying but they will have to try harder to achieve some success in this regard.
The second point I would like to make note of is that there is talk about improving the government's record on unemployment insurance. Two years ago, I and my constituents from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception had great faith that something great was going to be achieved.
Well, let me just give you the record. At that particular point in time, as this was written, U.I. worked this way: the employer paid 43 per cent, the employee paid 31 per cent, and the government paid 26 per cent. In 1989 the government contributed $3 billion out of $13 billion.
In less than two years, to cover the cost of the government's withdrawal, which has happened in the two years, for every $100 of employable earnings from an employee the premium rate rose from $1.95, when this was written, on April 3, 1989, up to a total of $2.80 now. That is an increase of 85 cents or 45 per cent.
An employer's contribution rose from $2.73 to $3.92. That is another increase of 45 per cent to make up this $6 billion we expect to lose because of the government's contributions. Well, I have not been impressed with the achievement in that regard.
The third point: There is talk, and I quote;
It will be replaced with a fairer sales tax that will ensure the
Canadian economy is fully competitive and that will maintain a
stable source of revenue to finance essential programs.
I am sure reference has been made to the goods and services tax here and I am not going to waste your time and the House's time in the precious few moments that remain by saying what Canadians believe the goods and services tax has done over this period of time. It has caused great divisions in the country and I am sure has largely been responsible for leading to the "made in Canada" recession we are now suffering.
My final point, Mr. Speaker, is this: In preparing Canada's future, talk about education and health. I want to end on this very sombre note and I am referring to the province of Newfoundland and to the five-year freeze in
April 12, 1991

the transfer payments to the provinces. In total, the freeze will be worth about $30 billion.
In 1990 there was an announcement that there would be a two-year freeze of federal transfer payments and that freeze cost Newfoundland $19 million in 1990 and 1991 and $34 million in 1991-92. In the last federal budget, as you would recall, Mr. Speaker, this freeze was extended for a further three years.
This freeze, then, plus the other federal restraints to transfer payments in the past six years since this government has been in power will have cost Newfoundland about $500 million by the end of 1992 and, in 1991-92 alone-this coming fiscal year-about $140 million.
When these financial burdens are transferred to the province they can be absorbed by richer provinces like Ontario and perhaps Quebec, but Newfoundland is not a wealthy province and we cannot absorb it.
So, Mr. Speaker, on those four promises that were made two years ago, I am disappointed, constituents from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception are disappointed, and all Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians are disappointed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I was most disappointed by the comments of my honorable colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who concluded his speech by reminding us of the difficult financial situation of one of the most important transport companies in Canada: The Glengarry Transport. I was disappointed because I was also reminded that we had had here in Parliament a debate on that very subject a few years ago when the Conservative government, contrary to advice by all those concemd in the transportation sector, insisted on proceeding with its deregulation.
We, in the Liberal Party of Canada, were opposed to this government policy and we warned it that deregulating transportation would be detrimental to several Canadian carriers, that Canadian trucking companies could not compete sucessfully with their American counterparts and that we were placing them in an excessively difficult situation because, as we pointed out at that
Government Orders
time, both industries could not compete under the same set of rules since regulations in the United States were different from those in Canada and that in the long and the short term, deregulation would result in a considerable amount of job losses in the transportation industry in Canada and that several Canadian firms would have to close down their operations.
Now, we know what happened at CN Transport, a company that the government sold off in a fire sale.


M. Boudria:: It was a giveaway!


André Ouellet: My collegue, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, says it was given away for nothing. That is practically the case! It is one of the most surprising transactions I have ever seen, to say the least. In fact, some people questioned this transaction, which favored totally insolvent investors. These people became owners of a Crown corporation only to sell it off a few months late. They laid off thousands of CN truck workers. These lost jobs clearly that the government's Crown corporations privatisation program was a complete failure.
Today, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell spoke of another transport company established in his constituency suffering the same disadvantages of deregulation. I can only feel very disappointed by this situation.
I would like, in the few minutes that I have left, to come back to the unemployment problem in Montreal. I made a little while ago some comments on certain remarks made by my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I cannot help but share his views to the effect that the Tory government did not fullfil its obligations following the release of the Picard report's. Clearly, this government do not have the political will to maintain Montreal as one of the main industrial centers in Canada and the federal government has totally given up its responsibility toward the Montreal naval shipyards as well as the train engines that were made for years and years in the East of Montreal and the transportation area since the Dorval-Mirabel issue, which was a priority in the Picard Report, has still not been resolved four years and a half later.

April 12, 1991
Government Orders
The great promises of the conservative government have not been achieved and the whole Montreal transportation industry is paying the price.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to continue what I was saying in my comments to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
In the few moments that are left to me I want to reiterate the importance of the main resource, that is the fishing industry, to Newfoundland and, indeed, to my riding; its impact and how it relates to the transfer payments. Life has been difficult for us because of the federal government's fiscal freeze.
Historically Newfoundland and Labrador have been subject to economic forces that unfortunately have been beyond our control. Our traditional dependence on the resource-based export industries means that external forces have a tremendous impact on the province and our economy.
If I put it another way, Newfoundland has become excessively dependent on fiscal transfers from the Government of Canada because of the limited development and the lack of diversification that is possible in the economy. An increase or decrease, depending on the over-all economic performance of the Canadian economy and indeed the philosophical approach the federal government shows with respect to regional disparity, has a driving and an overriding effect on Newfoundlanders and their economic way of life.
Relevant to our discussion this morning and this afternoon, in the past few years and coincident with the declining economic performance in Canada, the future of the fishery, which is the economic backbone of our province and indeed, of most of Atlantic Canada, has been seriously eroded.
Anyone who sat in this House over the last two and a half years would not be surprised to hear that. I want to give some indication of how much.
Over the past few years there has been progressively greater quota reductions, and the result is that the groundfish landings have declined by over 60,000 tonnes in the past few years. That is a tremendous decrease. A
major contributor to the decline of our groundfish continues to be foreign overfishing inside and outside the 200-mile economic zone. The government of the day, whether it is Liberal, whether it is Conservative, whatever it is, that government has to become aware of the necessity to take some Draconian measures to restore the fishing industry to a reasonable level, like it was before.
I could go on for a long time, but I want to make the point that we must be the only country in the world that allows foreigners to harvest the very national resource on which the living of our region and that of the country depends.
I have to refer to the days eights years ago when people talked about a 400,000 tonne total allowable catch. That is the measure of what we do in Newfoundland. TAC it is called, 400,000. We are looking at less than 200,000 today. This is a very simple point. It can be confused with all kinds of caveats and all kinds of perturbations and all kinds of arguments. The fact remains that the foreign overfishing that has taken place inside the 200-mile limit, which is condoned and indeed encouraged by the Government of Canada, is the same level of foreign fishing that took place when the total allowable catch was twice what it is now.
You do not need a Ph.D. in fishing resource industry to understand that there is something dramatically wrong with that. There will be a price to pay. If we cut down the foreign fishing inside the 200-mile limit we may suffer some loss of trade. That trade-off has to be made and it has to be made soon. That is probably the most important thing that we can achieve in my mind, as far as the fishing industry is concerned, in the next couple of years until this Parliament completes.
The second problem is foreign overfishing outside the 200-mile limit. I am personally, and I know a lot of my colleagues are and I believe some members on the other side, in favour of extending Canadian jurisdiction to the nose and the tail of the bank, which is outside the 200-mile limit, but it gives Canada control of a resource that we own. How does a fish know if it is inside or outside the 200-mile limit? Can it be done? They said that we could not increase the three-mile limit to twelve miles. It was done. They said that we could not increase the 12-mile limit to a 200-mile limit. It was done.

April 12, 1991

They are telling me that I cannot increase the 200-mile limit to the nose and the tail of the bank. It can be done and I am sure someday it will be done.
I thank you for your indulgence. I think it is a great privilege to have the opportunity to finish off the last session of this Parliament as the last speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock, pursuant to the order made Thursday, April 11,
Government Orders
1991, the motion actually in front of the House is deemed to have been put and adopted, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall I call it three o'clock p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned to the call of the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 8,1991