1991-06-04

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved:: That this House condemns the government for having abandoned the population of Montreal through its obvious lack of political will to provide jobs and economic opportunities to the people of this region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the motion before the House today, we are condemning the government for having abandoned the population of Montreal through its obvious lack of political will to provide jobs and economic opportunities to the people of this region.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in Montreal has now reached 13.1 percent, the highest municipal rate in Canada. Moreover, 22 percent of Montrealers are living in such poverty that the municipal rate in that regard is also the highest in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this motion may sound severe but it is not an exaggeration. Let me say this at the beginning: I do not want this debate to be a contest of rhetoric or a contest of partisan political verbiage. I am trying to make an honest attempt to examine a serious situation, to analyze its causes and to find solutions. I note that the first ones to laugh and make jokes about the resolution were members on the govemement side and I must say I am here today to let the facts speak for themselves.
If the government can put forward sound solutions, I would be the first to withdraw my motion of condemnation.
As I said at the beginning, Montreal has the highest urban unemployment rate in Canada. It has the highest urban poverty rate in Canada. Liberals did not create those facts or that situation. I am simply bringing it to the attention of the House as something that has to be dealt with.
There have been massive layoffs in Montreal, closures of factories and businesses, a high rate of bankruptcies. In Montreal at the present time there are over 188,000 individuals unemployed. Food banks are at their highest number and at their greatest demand. Last night I was at a meeting in my own constituency in Montreal, a district of Montreal that by some is considered a more prosperous area-which is not correct-but a report that I listened to last night with respect to the N.D.G. Food Depot showed that from 1990 to 1991 the increase in demand for persons served in that food bank went up by 218 per cent. In 1990 that food bank in N.D.G. served 7,600 persons and this year so far, 16,500 persons.
It has been estimated that in Montreal, there are
15,000	homeless people, people that are either sleeping on the street or sleeping in shelters, that have no home of their own.
I would like this debate to be a serious attempt to deal with a very sad and difficult situation. I want the facts to speak for themselves. Let me list the layoffs in Montreal which took place in 1990 and 1991.
I will only list those for the House that are over 100 persons: Valmet-Dominion in Lachine laid off 200; Black and Decker laid off 150; Marconi laid off 150; Bristol Myers Squibb in Candiac laid off 124; CBC laid off 160; Thibault in Pierreville laid off 150; General

June 4, 1991
Supply
Motors in Broisbriand laid off 1,700; Steinberg's laid off 150; Clairol in Knowlton, Quebec laid off 228; CN laid off 2,000 in the Montreal area; Miracle Food Mart, 350; Canadian Marconi, 13; Goodyear at Valleyfield, 890-


An hon. member:: Is that in Montreal?


William Warren Allmand: Yes. The hon. member says: Is that Montreal, too? It is in the region of Montreal. Mr. Speaker, here we have a minister of the Crown and a member of the government side making light of the fact that over 800 people are laid off at Valleyfield, which is in the Montreal region. As a matter of fact, not only is it in the Montreal region from a demographic point of view, but it is served by offices of this government from the Montreal area.
Rolland Inc., 293 laid off. That is in 1990. In 1991: Eaton's, 190 laid off; Noranda, 125; Culinar, 256; Circo Craft, 211; Pratt & Whitney, 1,200; Air Canada, 2,900 across the country but the head office is in Montreal and a large number of those will be in the Montreal area; Primo Foods, 194; Tele-Metropole, 200; Goodyear, 145; and of course one of the largest layoffs of all, Pascal's hardware, a company that was in business in Montreal for 87 years, just in the last month closed 21 stores and laid off 1,600; and today it was announced in the Montreal newspapers that Pratt & Whitney have announced a lay-off of another 200 by June 21, making the total lay-offs at Pratt & Whitney of 1,000.
There have been many reports on this situation in Montreal and again I emphasize to the government these reports speak for themselves. It is not the Liberals speaking. It is not the New Democrats speaking. These are reports commissioned by the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal, and other social agencies in Montreal which state the facts with respect to the city.
There is a report by /'Office de planification et de developpement du Quebec from March 1991, indicating
188,000	Montrealers out of work by the end of 1990 and a report of May 1990 by Centraide de Montreal which shows deepening poverty and an expanding underclass of Montrealers without jobs, with substandard housing, and with poor health.
This report was completed by a 14-member committee headed by Paul Lacoste, former rector of the Universite de Montreal. Its recommendations included protection for low-income individuals, equitable taxation, home nursing and care for the aged and handicapped, subsidized housing, massive training and literacy programs and incentives for employment. That is a report, I would like the government to note, not by Liberals or by opposition members but by a very responsible committee in Montreal.
The 1989 report by federal economist, Mr. Jules Leger, stated that the large number of low income families puts Montreal in the forefront in terms of poor compared to other areas of Canada. Montreal, he said, has 192,000 more poor people than all of the four Atlantic provinces.
In April 1990, le Regroupement des departements de sante communautaire du Montreal Metropolitan stated that one in four Montreal residents live below the poverty line. In May 1990, a report by the Ministere des Affaires sociales du Quebec warned that Montreal is becoming impoverished faster than the rest of the province. The Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Institute expects the free trade agreement to kill fully one-third of 40,000 jobs in the Montreal region by the year 2000.
Finally, we have the Picard report from a commission which was appointed by this Conservative government to put forward a plan of action for Montreal to reinvigorate the city's economy and to create jobs. I will deal more with that report in a few minutes but that report made 84 recommendations, hardly any of which have been taken up by the government.
I would like to refer to a few of the clippings that have been put forward describing the situation in Montreal.
Bankruptcy jumped by 50 per cent in Quebec. Of course, a great majority of the businesses in Quebec are in Montreal.
Another clipping from April 1990 reads: "City Facing Unemployment Crisis, the Trade Unions Say in Montreal". Michel Bruillet, spokesman for Comite Regional de Syndicat de Montreal told reporters that there were
188,000	people without work in the Montreal employment pool.
He said action must be taken to deal with this very serious problem.
An article from the Southam newspapers of February 16, 1991: "Quebec Manufacturers Among the Hardest Hit Victims of the Free Trade Agreement."
An article from La Presse, December 1990: [Translation]
"The level of activity in the manufacturing sector will decline unless there is a radical change in attitude". This is from the Montreal Board of Trade.

"Economic Outlook Worsens: A Report by the Conseil de Patrons du Quebec."
It goes on and on.
Another report was by Secor, an agency which was commissioned by the provincial government to study the
June 4, 1991

situation in Montreal. It reported on March 28, 1991. La Presse of Montreal said the following:

"Poverty is spreading in the Montreal area. There are
615,000	people living in low-income households, half of them in Montreal proper".

There are other reports which show that, despite the fact that in Montreal many people gained economically during the period of 1985 to 1990, many people were big losers. That was principally the conclusion of the Cen-traide report, which I referred to already, under Paul Lacoste.
It said that Quebec went from having the fourth highest level of low-income households for families and individuals in 1979 to the highest rate in Canada for individuals, and the second highest after Newfoundland for families.
I spoke about food banks and the great proliferation of food banks in the Montreal area. Again, there is a report in this morning's paper with respect to the Sun Youth food bank in Montreal centre.
It said in the headline of The Gazette this morning: "Two Women Collapse, Two Men Fight in Food Lineup."
The Old Brewery Mission is another agency which provides food and shelter to homeless men.


An hon. member:: It is known well by the Prime Minister.


William Warren Allmand: It is known well, as my colleague says, by the Prime Minister. Reverend McCarthy, who is an outstanding individual, has been helping these men for years.
After 28 years of running the Old Brewery Mission, Reverend McCarthy is "disturbed by the dramatic increase in numbers of men showing up, and especially in the number under 25 who used to be comparatively rare among the mission's clientele and now account for around 60 per cent."
With respect to welfare, it says that the Government of Quebec is anticipating that costs for welfare will rise this year by $200 million.
A report from Quebec City by the minister Andre Bourbeau says: "The recession has caused at least 15,000 households to join Quebec's welfare roles since early fall. The total number of Quebec households on welfare now stands at 355,000."
Supply
That is the situation. It does not make me happy to recount those figures to the House of Commons. I was born in Montreal. I love Montreal. It is my city. It was once the metropolis of Canada. It was the economic engine for the entire province of Quebec, and I think we must look at that situation seriously to try to determine the causes.
What are the causes of this deplorable situation? If we look at the Picard report, the Secor report and some of the other reports, they say part of it is historical and part of it is recent.
Historically, according to some of these experts, Montreal had too many old-line industrial plants with skills geared to the old technology. Of course, as the old technology became outdated, for one reason or another Montreal did not adapt quickly enough and did not receive support to adapt quickly enough. I am not only speaking of the machinery and technology, but also the manpower, the trained workers.
Recently, however, I think we have to say to the government that some of its policies have also impacted on the situation and made it considerably worse. The free trade agreement has no doubt encouraged several businesses to go to the United States. On the radio this morning I heard a report-it was not with respect to Montreal but with respect to Toronto-about an agency which stated that it worked with 86 industrial firms which have moved from Toronto to the Buffalo area. We have not heard a similar report with respect to Montreal, but we know that certain companies, consolidating under the free trade agreement, moved their subsidiaries to the United States. One example is the Gillette plant, which was a subsidiary of the American company. It closed the plant in Montreal and consolidated its operations in Boston.
The free trade agreement has had an impact on this situation, which has to be looked at seriously. So has the goods and services tax. Everyone said, even those who agreed with the goods and services tax, expert after expert said that it was the wrong time to bring in the goods and services tax. It increased prices at a time when people were being laid off, when jobs were going scarce and people had a hard time coping with their economic situation.
I would submit that the free trade agreement, combined with the goods and services tax, has certainly contributed to the massive increase in cross-border shopping because it has increased the difference in prices between retail goods in Canada and retail goods in the United States.
Not only the GST, but other taxes have contributed to this recession and made the situation even worse in

June 4, 1991
Supply
Montreal. There was the report yesterday by the Ottawa-based firm, Global Economics, which pointed out that since 1984 all taxes have increased by $1,530 a year for middle-class taxpayers with a family of two.
Other things which might have been the cause and which require examination are the government's policies of deregulation and privatization, or one might say the dismantling of the infrastructure of Canada. Just a week or so ago we had the protest on Parliament Hill by the truckers. From time to time we have had other similar industries which have submitted that they have been extremely hurt by the policies of deregulation by the government. As for privatization, companies such as Air Canada and Petro-Canada also suffered from an employment point of view after privatization took place.
Put together all these policies, the policy for free trade with the United States, deregulation and privatization, and we see that we have had a dismantling of the Canadian economic infrastructure. I would submit that once we dismantle the Canadian economy and take away those things which made it a Canadian economy, sooner or later the political structure will disappear as well.
I could also refer to the high interest rates, which not only affect businesses in Montreal and employment in Montreal, but affect the situation right across the country.
One of the most important causes of this situation is the philosophy or policy of this government. If we look at the budgets of the government since 1984, we will see that it has adopted a series of policies which are more or less a doctrinaire commitment to a free market economy, a philosophy which says: "Let things be as they are, let the market operate as it will and everything will take care of itself". Government members continually rise in their places and condemn suggestions to spend money to stimulate the economy.
They describe that as throwing money at the problem. I think that where a country spends its money shows where its priorities are. There is no doubt that money has to be spent on certain items if we are going to reinvigorate the Montreal economy.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I only have a minute left. I have enough material here to go on for a quite considerable length of time.
I am sure that in its response the government will refer to certain things it has done. It will refer to a contract to Canadair. It will refer to some things it did for the
pharmaceutical industry. It will refer to the new agency that will be set up under the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It will refer to the program for older workers adjustment.
These things, while good in themselves, are isolated ad hoc policies which have not dealt with the problem that needs to be dealt with. If they had been successful, we would not have the situation I have described. These policies are not enough. Montreal needs much, much more.
I have a report here which says that the POWA program is a cruel lottery for the "laid off". It is underfunded, it does not have enough money.
My final remarks are that we need political will, political commitment to create jobs in the Montreal area. It can be done. It has been done in other countries. Liberals did it in the past. Between 1965 and 1980, there was a 5.6 per cent unemployment rate in Canada. That is because we believed in a mixed economy.
I encourage the government to look at the situation in Montreal once again and come forward with some positive policies. If it does so during the debate today, I will withdraw my motion and give it credit for doing so.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague had to say, especially about some programs the Conservative government implemented to protect workers living in the province of Quebec, and particularly in Montreal. I would like my colleague to give us more details about two programs that have had a negative impact on POWA a program for workers affected by changes in the industries and plant closings due to economic upheavals, or as some would say, due to the free trade deal. There is also the other program the hon. member has mentioned. I would like more information on that one, because as an member, I have received a lot of complaints from people who wanted to benefit from POWA and other programs put in place by the federal government to help workers when they lose their jobs. I do not think these programs are working at all. Like my colleague has just said, they have become more like a lottery for the laid off.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, for POWA, I do not have figures for the province of Quebec, but I do have overall statistics for Canada showing that the amount of money available is inadequate. For example, I have here an article published in the Winnipeg Free Press, on May 23, 1991, where it says:
June 4, 1991

[English \
Only $73 million of the promised $150 million was used in those first two years for the program for older worker adjustment, providing benefits to 2,244 ex-workers. That is for the entire country, 2,244 ex-workers. I already put on the record, and these were not my statistics, that in the Montreal region there are 188,000 workers who have been laid off in the last two years and are now out of work.
The article goes on to say that, despite the steady stream of plant closings and business bankruptcies, only a tiny fraction have been declared by POWA's joint federal-provincial labour department committee to meet the major layoff test, and therefore qualify for designation under the program.
In Ontario, only 39 qualified. I do not have the figures for Quebec. In answer to the hon. member, while the government has some programs which in theory look good on paper, they are drastically underfunded and do not meet the seriousness of the problem.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Montreal for bringing to the attention of the rest of the country the problems of Montreal.
I would like to refer him to the Question Period last week when different members were pursuing the question of the economic health of Montreal. The minister stood up and said that they were trying to develop a plan because of Montreal's poor health. When another member got up and asked him about the future of Winnipeg, the Minister of Finance stood up and said: "You do not need a plan because you have good macro policies".
I wanted to bring this to the attention of the member and ask a question. I think in previous governments, particularly in the Liberal government in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a good mix between federal activity and provincial and municipal activity in support of regional base plans. There was the Montreal base region, the Winnipeg base region and other parts of the country. In the absence of having coherent plans for these cities, you end up with the extreme opposite. You end up with people competing against each other and running the
Supply
risk of having plans which are contrary to the interests of the country.
For example, there is the story both in Winnipeg and Montreal of the competition over the CF-18 plane. That was a debate which should not have taken place in this country, pitting one region against the other.
I would ask the member if he could perhaps elaborate on the need for city base plans, not only in Montreal but across the country. The federal government should show leadership financially, morally and with the expertise in the Public Service so that people appreciate the government's understanding of their needs in terms of unemployment, poverty, training and getting the proper businesses set up. This is a holistic approach which deserves the interest of the federal government. In fact, one of the big surprises that we have is the total absence of planning on the part of this government.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. Liberal governments over the years believed in a mixed economy. We believed in the market system but we believed that in a country such as Canada where we have 25 million people dispersed over a large area, right up against the giant economy of the United States, it was necessary for us to have certain government support programs and certain government economic intervention. Over the years that approach worked. We had the greatest eras of prosperity in this country under Liberal governments in the fifties, sixties and seventies.
I pointed out that from 1965 to 1980 the average rate of employment was 5.6 per cent. The government always refers to the two years of 1981-82. We had a recession but it was no worse than the recession which is going on right now.
We believed in doing things to deal with recessions. We did not have this doctrinaire belief, this 19th century belief that the marketplace would take care of itself and all situations and that there would be a trickling down effect which would help small businesses and the economy generally.
In response to the member's question with respect to municipalities and planning, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has for years recommended a joint federal, provincial and municipal program to reconstruct municipal infrastructure; roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, anti-pollution systems, ports, airports, transpor-

Supply
lation systems and power systems. The government has continually rejected the recommendations of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.
Not only would that program provide employment, it would also provide the necessary infrastructure for business to invest in those municipalities and invest in an environment which would be more conducive to profit making, creation of jobs and economic growth.
This government has its philosophy. I must say that previous Conservative governments did not have that same philosophy. The government of Mr. Diefenbaker did not have this doctrinaire belief in the free market economy. It also believed in a mixed economy. The government of Mr. Clark did not have this doctrinaire approach.
It seems with the coming to power of the Conservatives in 1984 under the present Prime Minister they were wed to the policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, which are a disaster for this country and are not really in the tradition of political parties of all stripes in this country.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the member could explain how he rationalizes the attitude of the province of Quebec. It is clear that the province is responsible for cities and municipalities within the province. How can he rationalize that view with his present view, apparently, of the Constitution that the Government of Canada should directly interfere with municipal financing and municipal activity?
Is it the policy of the Liberal Party that we should go right over the head of the province of Quebec and deal directly with the municipality so that the municipality would not have to worry about Quebec City? Should the federal government handle roads and subsidies for roads and direct where traffic ought to go?
Is it his view and that of his party that because there is unemployment in Montreal-there is in other cities in other parts of the country-and because of the incompetence of the Quebec government we ought to go at that problem and deal with that problem? Is that the view of the Liberal Party?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, not at all. That is not our view. When we were in power we had a department of housing and urban renewal which worked closely with the provinces and the municipalities but always recognized the principal jurisdiction of the provinces.
Right now there are several departments in the federal government: the Department of Transport which deals with railways, airports, ports, canals; the Department of the Environment; and the new agency being set up under the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The only complaint I have about that is that they did not consult close enough with Quebec. I am not suggesting that the federal government run roughshod over provincial jurisdiction. I am suggesting that they sit down with the province of Quebec in this case and the city of Montreal and develop a plan whereby those things which are under federal jurisdiction, such as transportation and certain types of housing, can be done in conjunction with the city. They have been done that way in the past in a very positive, effective way, and they can be done that way again.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, Montrealers who were watching the first speaker this morning, the mover of the motion before the House today, must have noticed how good the opposition is at blaming the government and how little they have to offer in the way of solutions. Not a word, and I would be embarrassed if I were them, Mr. Speaker, not a word about their failure to deal with the situation in Montreal during the many years they were in power here in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Montreal and the economy of this major Canadian city, a number of factors should be put into perspective. Today, unfortunately, Montreal is faced with a number of economic problems. With 207,000 unemployed in April 1991, the Montreal metropolitan area has an unemployment rate of 13.1 per cent, which is unacceptable.
However, this situation did not arise in a matter of months or a few years, I think it is correct to say that Montreal's economy started to falter in the middle of the 1960s, and for the next ten years, it steadily declined.
June 4, 1991

As far as job creation is concerned, Montreal's performance has been lacklustre for the past 30 years. It ranks below Halifax, Mr. Speaker. It created one-third of the jobs created by Calgary. Toronto had about the same number of jobs in 1961. Today, Toronto has half a million more jobs than Montreal. The situation worsened at the beginning of the 80s. During the past ten years, Mr. Speaker, Montreal has ranked twenty-first among Canada's 25 metropolitan regions, on job creation.
What is the underlying cause of the economic malaise that has affected Montreal's economy for so many years? The cause is structural because, as was said earlier by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, historically, Montreal has specialized in producing consumer goods- mostly for the Canadian market-including food, beverages, tobacco, textiles, clothing, leather items and furniture. As international competition strengthened in these sectors, many jobs in Montreal were lost.
When our government was elected in 1984, it immediately addressed the task of turning the situation around. The point I want to make today, Mr. Speaker, is that our government is the first one since many years that did not remain indifferent to Montreal's problems. In fact, a lot has been done since this government came to power. However, we did not go in without a plan. No, Mr. Speaker, we wanted that every initiative bore fruit. So our interventions followed an approach favouring the development of Montreal based on its many strengths in areas such as high technology, for example, tourism and cultural activities, design, finance, commerce and international activities.
For we should not forget that Montreal does not only have problems. It has, for example, a modern manufacturing sector which, as a whole, made considerable progress during the last decades, whether it be in plastics, electronic products or transport equipment.
Montreal has many assets, and that is why we decided to rely on these strengths to revitalize its economy. That does not mean we should not do something for some less advantaged areas on its territory. In this regard, let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in February 1988, this government set up a $35 million special program for the economic recovery of eastern Montreal. In May 1990, it
Supply
was the turn of south western Montreal businesses to avail themselves of a similar program with a $15 million envelope.
To complement its action, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology announced that it would make available a $6.5 million funding for the implementation of special projects by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Later on today, we will be able to provide you with more details on those various initiatives that we can rightly be proud of.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, this government has been very active in Montreal since 1984. Our action took place in sectors considered a priority for the development of Montreal.
In the area of research and development, I want to remind honourable members that our government tried to pass as fast as it could Bill C-22 amending the Patents Act. This bill gave back to Montreal the level of research and development activity it lacked for so long and it encouraged several important drug companies to implement research and development programs totalling tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, this government has invested more than 2.5 billion dollars in new money to support initiatives in science and technology. Through the Networks of Centres of Excellence Program, the Canadian government has been able to give real support to at least two Montreal networks. For example, the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems will bring together the best Canadian scientists in research on expert systems and intelligent robots.
Through the same program, this government granted a 12.3 million dollars contribution for the respiratory diseases network which is based in Montreal, in order to find better treatment and better means of prevention. The work of both networks dovetails with that of other institutions and will contribute to the reputation and economic renewal of Montreal.
If there is another area where our government did not spare his efforts for Montreal, it is that of high technology. For example, it supported the creation of the Techno-parc Montreal Metropolitan, which will facilitate the emergence of new businesses, the intensification, transfer and diffusion of high technology.

June 4, 1991
Supply
Mr. Speaker, our government has also not forgotten the aeronautical and aerospace industries. The aeronautical industry in Montreal creates jobs for more than
40.000	people, which makes it, by far, the single most important high technology sector in the area. Bombardier-Canadair, with which our government has cooperated on several occasions in recent years, particularly with a contribution of $43 million for the development of its regional transport jet, the famous stretched aircraft, should expand noticeably in the next few years.
The future of CAE Electronics, the world's number one builder of flight simulators for commercial aircraft, looks also very good, since the demand for this product should continue to grow in the years to come.
Mr. Speaker, as regards the aerospace industry, allow me to mention again that our government has established the Canadian Space Agency in the Montreal region. This initiative will have a positive effect in promoting space related activities in Quebec. Already, a great number of firms, under the umbrella of Spar Aerospace Limited, with whom our government signed, in 1986, a memorandum of understanding for $300 million, take an active part in the development of this important industry.
In Quebec, some 60 companies employing close to
7.000	workers build equipment or components used for transmitting and receiving voice, image and data communications. It is expected that the international market for telecommunication material will increase at an annual rate of 8 per cent between now and the year 2000. Mr. Speaker, when one considers that the companies of the telecommunication sector are almost all located in the Montreal area, it is easy to understand that their possibilities for growth are particularly good.
Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the important role that the tourism and cultural industries can play in the development of Montreal. For that reason, those industries have benefited from important federal contributions in recent years.
Major facilities have been built and have helped Montreal become a world-class destination for tourists. Soon, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts will have more
than doubled its capacity for exhibits. The Montreal Botanical Garden, with its Japanese garden and its insectarium, has become one of Montreal's most important tourist attractions.
The old port area, where the Canadian government will have invested a total of $65 million by the end of 1992, will also become a major tourist attraction in North America.
The Lachine Canal, that will be opened to boaters after restoration work is completed, will be reconstructed according to the original course. The priming of the locks is scheduled for October 1991. In the east, Mr. Speaker, important developments are planned, including a basin, the Bonsecours basin, and a large multi-purpose area on the Jacques-Cartier pier. That area will be used to accommodate large crowds and to hold special events.
The Department of Industry, Science and Technology has also spent more than $2 million on various feasibility studies for the establishment of the Museum of Science and Technology.
Again near the St. Lawrence, the government is committed to spending more than $10 million to create a centre for archaeology and history at Pointe-a-Calliere, to illustrate Montreal's evolution as a commercial city.
Just across the old port area, Mr. Speaker, our government has recently confirmed its commitment to invest nearly $40 million on ile Sainte-Helene for the development of the "pare des ties", which will become the biggest park in Montreal. In the biosphere will be the water and environment interpretation centre, and development costs will be paid by our government.
The "pare des lies" will be inaugurated in 1992, the year in which Montreal will celebrate the 350th anniversary of its foundation. Moreover, in order to show how important that anniversary is to our government, we are committed to spending $10 million for the organization of major activities related to the 1992 celebrations.
In addition to museum equipments, large amounts of money have been invested, Mr. Speaker, in the renovation of theatres and music halls in Montreal, and financial assistance to major cultural events has helped maintain their attractiveness for Montreal's tourists.
June 4, 1991

Our government, Mr. Speaker, has strived to reaffirm Montreal's vocation as an international city. Even if one of my colleagues will speak on that aspect of our mandate later on today, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that the federal government supported the Societe du centre de conferences interna-tionalcs de Montreal in order to conduct a feasibility study to create an international centre in Montreal and to promote concrete initiatives for the development of international activities in this city.
It is also with a $10 million grant that a United Nations organisation, the Multilateral Fund for the Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Layer, chose our city as the site of its permanent office.
Mr. Speaker, all these initiatives of our government show very well the development potential of Montreal. Moreover, different projects which are under way all over the city are an indication that the situation is changing in Montreal. These projects are also an eloquent proof of the interest that the government of Canada has taken in Montreal since 1984, and of the support it intends to bring in the coming years.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that the government has introduced several programs for the Montreal region, but the situation has not improved. In Montreal, the economy is still in shambles. The minister said, for example, that the government has introduced a program for East Montreal. But what is the result? How many jobs were created with this program?
If this program was good for East Montreal why is it that we still find in this area an unemployment rate of 20 per cent and that 25 per cent of the population is on welfare? How can we explain this situation if the programs are so good and efficient?
The minister mentioned Canadair. We are very happy for Canadair and in this case, it is a success, but it is not enough for the Montreal region. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why this government has chosen to ignore the Picard Report, a commission it created.
\ English]
The things mentioned by the minister in his speech are truly an ad hoc band-aid approach. They remind me of
Supply
the doctor, after his patient is dead, telling the family that he had given aspirin, Alka-Seltzer and such minor medications to the patient before he died.
This patient, the city of Montreal, requires something more than aspirin and band-aids. I ask the minister: When will the government finally announce a substantial, comprehensive response to the Picard commission, a commission that made 84 recommendations?
The government set up the commission and yet we have not had any response to the 84 recommendations.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace shoots from the hip-that is how he began his speech this morning-by quoting newspaper articles when we would have expected him, as the mover of today's motion, to give us examples of what his party would have done in previous years and what positive measures it would propose now to help Montreal.
It seems that he did not read the Picard Report, Mr. Speaker, that he is not giving any consideration to what we are achieving right now because the great majority of the programs I mentioned in my speech are directly derived from individual recommendations contained in the Picard Report.
In fact, that report recommended government intervention in areas of its jurisdiction and never proposed that the federal government should take responsibility for the economic recoveiy of the entire island of Montreal because it would have been totally ridiculous to propose such a thing. Essentially it would have been like saying that the federal government should submit itself to all provincial and municipal governments in Canada and carry out the responsibilities of all levels of government.
Because we are always in contact with the municipal authorities of Montreal and the suburbs and with the provincial government, I know that nobody wants the federal government to forcibly impose its way of doing things. The elected people at all levels expect the federal government to be a facilitator in the implementation of the programs and projects they propose. That is what we have been doing since 1984, Mr. Speaker, in the most complete harmony with the other levels of government.

June 4, 1991
Supply


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was involved in the House when we had a massive debate, to a large extent led by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, on Bill C-22 involving the removal of patent protection. The minister alluded to the increase in employment as a result of that measure which was opposed by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
I was also in the House when the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace led the opposition against the sale of Canadair to Bombardier. That sale enabled Bombardier to become a leading manufacturer of aircraft. I was wondering if the minister could outline the exact numbers of additional people who are now working in Montreal in the high-tech aircraft industry as a result of that measure. In other words, outline the measures that this government has used, opposed by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, that have enabled more employment in Montreal.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the example just cited by my hon. colleague about Bombardier and Canadair is a perfect example of the proper application of privatization by this government.
Canadair was going nowhere when Bombardier took over its operations from the Government of Canada. Because of the knowledge and competence of the private sector which took over this company, it is now a viable business. At the time of the takeover, Canadair was reducing the number of its employees. On the day of the takeover, the employment at Canadair was less than
5.000	people. At the present time there are 7,500 people employed at Canadair. On the day of the launching of the new regional jet, the president of Canadair told me that within the next few months they expect to have over
10.000	people working at Canadair.
These are high-paying, high-tech jobs and are the type of jobs that this government wants to generate to really reinforce the economy of Montreal.
When this government took power in 1984, we decided that never again would we repeat the errors of the previous government who spent and indebted this country for generations to come by creating make-shift jobs
that were very good for electoral purposes, but did absolutely nothing for the economy of Montreal.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport complained that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was quoting from newspapers. I would like to quote to him from the throne speech where in the conclusion the Prime Minister says:
My government will work with Canadians to achieve its goals of unity, prosperity and responsive government so that all Canadians feel themselves a part of this country, so that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to share in its bounty, so that all can see themselves reflected in its constitution and so that all will find the fulfilment of their aspirations in its future.
I want to ask the minister, do the words in the throne speech "equal opportunity to share in its bounty" mean sharing this bounty by lining up at food banks where the lines are getting longer and longer? Does sharing this bounty mean that the Montreal school boards have to give free breakfasts to children before they can teach them? Is this what the throne speech means by sharing the bounty, the wealth, the prosperity of this country?
Very specifically, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister what concrete plans does his government have to reduce and finally eliminate the food banks in Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, and almost every major city in this country? What concrete plans does this government have so that the boards of education will not have to subsidize breakfasts and free milk to children before they can be taught in schools.
I asked the minister and this government following the last throne speech and I got no answer. I am giving this minister an opportunity on behalf of his government to give us some concrete plans and programs for eliminating food banks and subsidizing children's food.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I believe the members on the opposite side think that Montrealers have forgotten what their government has imposed on them over the years when they were in power.
They are the party that fought the adoption of Bill C-22 which was such a sweeping tool for the pharmaceutical industry to create more jobs. It is that government that fought the working and the action of la Caisse de depots in Montreal that was such a wonderful tool for helping the local industries.
It was that party that fought for two years, with the help of their Liberal friends in the Senate, to prevent the
June 4. 1991

adoption of Bill C-21 which is now providing the necessary tools for people to move from low technology, low paying jobs, through training necessary to apply for the better paying jobs in high technology fields. They are the ones that are at fault for doing these things that have been such a detriment to the economy of the Montreal area.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, in the spirit of this lack of partisanship, I think we have started off on a very bad foot this morning. It seems to me that this debate is going absolutely nowhere.
We have members on the government side saying it is not their fault that Montreal has a 25 per cent welfare roll, UIC roll; it is not their fault that unemployment is about 14 per cent in the city of Montreal.
On the other side we have our Liberal colleagues saying it is not their fault either, the deterioration of the city of Montreal has occurred under the present government.
I suppose for people who are listening and watching us on television it is hard to understand exactly where this debate is going. I think we should go back to the sense of the motion of my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace and look at it as an opportunity for the government not to wash its hands of this affair and say look, it is your fault, you Liberals, because of C-22. It is your fault because of your so-called opposition to the elargissement ties pouvoirs de la Caisse de depot du Quebec.
We have right now, this morning, an excellent opportunity for the government side to say that they have made a few mistakes and there are some things they can do. "Yes, Mr. Deputy from Notre-Dame-de-Grace, you have some good points, but we do not accept all of them. We are all somewhat responsible for the mess we find ourselves in". That is what I would like to have heard listening for the past hour or so, but I have not heard it.
I am a Montrealer and I would like to give you first of all, some of what I have seen as a Montrealer. I live in downtown Montreal, and I also represent a number of cities on the south shore of Montreal, all of them having been affected by this downturn in the economy, this recession. First let me give you some statistics on the Montreal area.
Supply
First of all, 25 per cent of Montrealers receive unemployment insurance or welfare benefits. Let me talk about these people, because we have a strong tendency here in the House to quote figures, but 25 per cent of the people depend on unemployment insurance or welfare. That means that 175 persons per day must apply for unemployment insurance or welfare benefits, 175 persons per day.
As you know, much has been said about Argentina's foreign policy and disparecidos, those people who disappear. One day they are present, but the next, they are gone.
Well, that also happens in Canada, that happens in Montreal. We call them economic disparecidos, those who disappear from the economic picture. These people disappear when they lose their jobs. Losing your job sometimes means losing your house, your family, and finally, you end up losing hope. We have nearly reached that point, Mr. Speaker. People have practically no hope anymore. I do not mean-and I hope that the government will understand-that the government has done nothing. In fact, the government has tried to correct the situation, but the question asked by my hon. friend for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is excellent, because he recognized that the government has made some efforts, but he wanted to know the results. Where is the beef? Where is the result? What are the results of your efforts in Montreal?
I think one must understand that Montrealers blame the federal government, among others, for not delivering results. It is obvious. The government cannot claim that it did everything it could.
Much was said about Laurent Picard's report. I read it and I found it excellent. It contained many recommendations, not 84, but 86, and those were good ones. But in an analysis of this government's behaviour, the editorial writer of The Gazette was saying in late February 1991: "The federal government ignored almost all of these 86 recommendations." This is not a New Democratic member or a Liberal member, but a non partisan editorial writer who said that the Picard report, sponsored by the government, was almost totally ignored by this government.

June 4, 1991
Supply
Mr. Speaker, there are things we can do and I want to take this opportunity today not to criticize this government-some have done it and others will-but to suggest some alternatives, to make some suggestions that the government can use and that are not new. I do not think these are new to the government, because it already heard several of the suggestions that I will make. But I think it is nevertheless an excellent opportunity to remind this government which actions it should take to specifically deal with this unemployment problem, with the deterioration of the social and local infrastructure in Montreal.
I saw very recently the request of the CSN in Montreal, and they gave me a number of actions that they thought were necessary to boost the economy in Montreal.
In going over their suggestions, I find they are quite sensible. Let me tell you what the CSN in Montreal is suggesting. In order to boost the economy in Montreal, we must deal with the issue of the interest rates, which are still too high. I know that the rates are down, and it is a good sign, but the problem with the interest rates in Canada is that they had remained high for so long because of this government's policies that now that they are down a little, companies which could normally invest money and help revive the economy are almost running out of it. We do not have what we call a big pool of risk capital, it is dry. The government needs to continue to intervene to lower interest rates, although up to now it did not do much to lower them. They have gone down despite government programs. A lowering of interest rates is vital, there is no doubt about it, because there won't be any economic recovery without it.
Now, I would like to talk about the POW. It was referred to briefly a short while ago, but I should say it is extremely important for Quebec and Montreal. Have you ever heard about the POW? This is a program which was established shortly before the signing of the free trade agreement. The government had said: "We know that people working in the clothing industry, for example, will be adversely affected by the FTA and that is why we will be setting up a program to help and retrain these people so they can find another job. Mr. Speaker, if there is an area about which I receive a lot of complaints, it is certainly the POW. This program is not working well. To be eligible, people must have worked a certain
number of years in a soft sector of the industry. But what is a soft sector in Montreal? Most industries in that city are in a soft sector. So, how do we define a soft sector? People who believed the government when it was saying that the POW would protect workers affected by the free trade accord are in deep trouble.
I could mention a number of people I met who were working in the women's clothing industry. I remember very well Mrs. Lorraine Vaillancourt, a member of the FTQ. She is really concern about these workers, because they have very little protection, and that is why the POW needs to be improved. I hope the minister, when he comes back, will explain to us what he intends to do about this program.
When we talk about economic recovery in Montreal, we must also talk about taxes. Taxes are killing the middle class. Tkxes are killing industries. And what about the GST? Frankly, that tax which was supposed to be visible, to be revenue neutral, is none of that. We know that it is a milking cow which is going to produce not the $18 billion forecasted, but up to $30 billion per year for the government, if my information is correct. That money comes from the taxpayer's pocket and that is the reason why people are going shopping elsewhere. Quebecers, and especially Montrealers, have to do their shopping outside Canada, in Plattsburg and Burlington, precisely to escape the clutches of this federal government which has taxed almost every product and service. Quebecers are trying to avoid this tax. They have become nomads, shoppers who have to seek out good deals wherever they are, even if it means shopping outside Canada.
Consequently, I think that GST must be abolished. It must go. It is an unfair tax, a tax which creates a lot more problems than it has solved and a tax which, even now, forces Quebecers to turn their backs on their own country. The real tragedy in this is that we are forced to turn our backs on our own workers in Montreal, on the lady who makes clothing in a Montreal plant because we can get them cheaper in States.
It is a fact. I think that this government can take some steps towards solving these problems, but I must add that as long as the GST remains, these problems will persist.
June 4, 1991

Another issue was raised by CNTU, that is tax reform in general. My colleague from Mississauga South, whose speech was excellent, wanted to know how we could settle Quebec's problems if we cannot deal directly with the municipalities, or if we must always work with the provincial level.
When we're talking about tax reform, nothing is more normal than to cooperate with the provinces. I am not aware of any circumstances when Quebec has refused to accept initiatives undertaken by the federal government. The question is about cooperation, not about forcing a measure nor presenting an ultimatum. It is all about cooperation. And herein lies one of this government's problems. We have seen an example of it when the minister wanted to create a department of regional development for Quebec. I think it's the fortieth federal department encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction.
This is not what we would like to see the federal government do. We want the federal government to work with us, we don't want it to tell us what to do. I think there is enough room for manoeuvre. Quebec is always intelligent enough, I think, to accept a federal presence as long as the provincial jurisdiction is respected.
So, we are talking about tax reform. I was here, yesterday, when the leader of the official opposition and the leader of our party, the New Democratic Party, asked questions about tax reform and how Quebecers were taxed. The Prime Minister was laughing throughout those questions. He thought it was hilarious, and he was laughing in our faces. It's true. That is the picture that we get on the screen. Consumers can now see what the government is doing and how arrogant it is. I have seen such arrogant behavior on both sides of the House. I also remember how arrogant the previous government was.
But now the middle class is an endangered species because it is taxed too heavily. The minister recognized it yesterday, the one who is staring at me in amazement. He said people are taxed, overtaxed even, and he is right. Somebody has to pay taxes. But he was quoted in the press. Maybe he now wants to withdraw his words but he did say that someone had to pay taxes. He then admitted that the middle class was paying more and that as a member of that class he was also paying more and that it was necessary. I say that is not necessary for there are other ways of collecting taxes. Corporations can be
Supply
taxed. I know that the U.S. have a minimum tax on corporations. I think it is 20 per cent. I believe business is working as well in the U.S. as it is in Canada, if not better. When we talk of boosting Montreal's economy, we cannot refuse to consider a major tax reform to create an environment that would allow such a recovery.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you why the CNTU has formulated a number of suggestions. I can also tell you that in my region, the UPA, Union des producteurs agricoles, has endorsed suggestions quite similar to that of the CNTU. This union and this group of farmers made these suggestions because they believe that there is still time for the govemement to act. They believe they have solutions to propose. They believe that, with a minimum of good will, we can find solutions together, we can improve Montreal's economy as well as that of Quebec and of Canada as a whole.
So, even if we admit that the government has done a couple of things to offset the problems of Montreal and elsewhere, I repeat that what we saw is clearly too little and, unfortunately, too late. It is not what this government had promised us before signing the free trade agreement and certainly not what it had promised before being re-elected in 1988.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member was putting words in my mouth I felt I should stand up and correct the impression that he left with the public. He was referring to a report that came out by Patrick Grady of a company here in Ottawa called Global Economics Ltd. which very correctly pointed out that the income tax level in Canada is higher than in other countries of the world. In the same report he also pointed out that we pay less than half the taxes for our social policy fields. We pay less sales tax than other countries and our corporate taxes are comparable to other countries.
Today we are talking about the economy in Montreal but the hon. member failed to mention this. Mr. Grady praises reform of the corporate taxation system saying, "changes have boosted investment in economic growth and in job creation". He also generally approves of the 7 per cent goods and services tax introduced in January: "The corporate tax changes are improving the economic efficiency by reducing the degree of tax induced distor-

June 4, 1991
Supply
tion in investment, decision-making across industries, and acid types," he says in the report. "This leads to a pattern of investment and economic activity that is more productive and conducive to economic growth and employment criticism". Grady said: "The Tories have eliminated some tax incentives that had prompted companies to make the wrong investment decisions as well an over-all lowering of corporate tax rates has kept Canadian companies from moving operations to the United States".
The report that is quoted widely by both the opposition parties is not complete in its quotation by the opposition parties. I want to ask the hon. member whose party, the New Democratic Party, the socialist party of Canada, wants to increase taxes on corporations which in doing so would place them in an uncompetitive position with their neighbours, our competitors, not only to the south but internationally. If the hon. member looks at this report, and studies it carefully, he will see that our corporate tax rate is right in line with most other countries of the world. I think the only other country that taxes a much wider spread is Japan. I think Japan is the only one, and Japan has a lower income tax rate as well, but far greater productivity than we have here. It all has to be weighed.
When the hon. member is making his selective reports, why does he not come out and give the government credit where the report gave the government credit, that in fact tax reform has done a good job in making the tax system fairer for corporations? We are realizing $1 billion more in income from corporations. We have cut out a lot of the cute little deals that the Liberals put in the tax act, that you could write off. We have taken those out of there to make the tax system much fairer. Why does the hon. member not stand up and congratulate the government for those moves?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I started off this debate saying that there were things that this government has done. I would not stand here today and say that it was all white or all black. There have been some things, but I will be darned if I will be accused here in this House of saying that I have not given the government credit for some things. I have said that the government has done some things, but not enough.
When the minister talks to me about how the government has reined in the corporations as far as tax liability
is concerned. I do not believe him. Canadians do not believe him. It is not fair for him to stand up here day in and day out to continually say: "These people are wrong and they are only right when they agree with us". That is wrong.
The point I am trying to make in this report is this: "PM laughs off attack on taxes". I was here and I saw it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just mention to you, in the same report that we are talking about, we are talking about corporate taxes.


John Horton McDermid: That is nonsense.


Philip Edmonston: You raised the subject, as far as corporate taxes are concerned. Let me speak to the Chair because I am just learning and I do not want to be direct to the minister.


John Horton McDermid: You've been here three years. What do you mean you're learning?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, this man says I have been here three years. I thank him for his compliment. I have been here exactly a year and three months.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that he brought up corporate taxes, I did not. I would like to refer to the same article. It says, and it is not difficult to understand.


John Horton McDermid: Are you quoting from the Sun?


Philip Edmonston: I am quoting from the Ottawa Sun, Robert Fife, Parliamentary Bureau. As for corporate taxes, the tax load of corporate taxes, the tax load declined to 2.6 per cent of GDP in 1989, compared with 3.4 in 1984.


John Horton McDermid: But we took a lot of the write-offs out.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, whenever you bring up a point-and here you go- that the government does not agree with, it says: "Yes, but", or it will shoot the messenger, or it will say that was the other government, or it will say that minister is no longer here.
This is absolutely unreal. Canadians demand more of us than this. Mr. Speaker, let me ask you if I can do this. I have had my say. I am going to sit down. There is a little bit of time left. I am going to ask this of the people on the other side. We have talked about whose responsibility it is. We all realize that Montreal is in trouble. We all realize that there are some things to do. I am going to sit
June 4. 1991

down right now. The government can have the rest of my time and it can tell me what it is going to do.


John Horton McDermid: I certainly cannot pass up an opportunity like that because we have done a tremendous amount of work, not only for Montreal but for everyone across this country.
Tax reform and the free trade agreement, which the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party have opposed all along, are going to bring benefits to this country for years and years to come. There is no question about it.
As a matter of fact, we have seen examples already where our exports are up in many areas of the economy. This helps the entire area. Montreal has had a tremendously difficult time, and nobody talks about it. Nobody stands up and talks about it.
I think the political atmosphere has had something to do with people making investment decisions in this country. If there is anything we can do in this country, it is to bring our country together in a unified, caring way for one another across this country. I think that will reap benefits for Montreal and the province of Quebec and all regions of this country.
For far too long we have tended in this country to point fingers instead of hold hands. We have been more apt to say goodbye instead of say hello to one another. I think one of the problems that the province of Quebec is experiencing is this political uncertainty.


Philip Edmonston: It is our fault.


John Horton McDermid: No, it is not. It is all our faults. It is the fault of all Canadians. It is the problem of all Canadians. I do not think we know one another well enough. I think that is probably one of the biggest problems we have in this country. We do not know one another well enough. We in Ontario do not know the westerners well enough; the westerners do not know the Quebecers well enough. It can go right across, from coast to coast. This is a huge country. It is 5,000 miles wide. We have a small population. We do not have the same opportunities that smaller countries have to get to know one another. That is our problem. We have to get to know one another in this country.
I am going to tell you that part of the problem in Montreal is just the political uncertainty. I do not think there is any question about that. I think people making
Supply
investment decisions and deciding to expand or establish businesses look at those things. I am sure they do. They look for political certainty.
There is a story this morning in The Financial Post of concern in Ontario now about investment decisions. A group has made a statement. I do not know if it is true or not, but its experience has been that people are taking a very close look at what the government in Ontario is doing now for investment decisions because of its political situation. So that comes into it. Nobody talks about that and I cannot understand why.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before recognizing an Official Opposition member, I would like to know if the next speaker wants to use his full 20 minutes, or only 10 minutes.


An hon. member:: It will be 10 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard has the floor for 10 minutes.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deal with an issue which is very dear to all of us, and certainly to us Liberals, namely Montreal's economical situation. I particularly want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, supported by the hon. member for Saint-Denis, for attempting to force this recalcitrant government to recognize the slump my city of Montreal is in.
Our city, Mr. Speaker, is not about to regain its former status of Canadian metropolis, as Brian Mulroney had promised it would in 1984. A close look at its situation brings about this sudden realization. Let me mention a few data: in April 1991, unemployment stood at 13.6 per cent; no other major city in Canada shows such a pitiful record. There were 17.6 per cent unemployed among youths between the age of 20 and 24. Youths are our future. In southwestern Montreal which I represent with my colleague, the unemployment rate stands at 16.2 per cent; 17 per cent of young people drop out of high-school before graduating. The true unemployment figure is close to 30 per cent, 10 000 people, Mr. Speaker, have been victims of mass lay offs as in the case of Coleco, Simmons, Sidbec and VIA Rail. Come to my riding in the southwest of Montreal and you will see all the plants which have closed down. You will be in a position to understand the situation. For each plant which has

June 4, 1991
Supply
closed down, there are thousands of employees who have lost their jobs and this puts stress on their families.
Montreal slump, Mr. Speaker, is a national disgrace for which this government must accept a large part of responsibility. It is under his administration that Montreal's economic erosion started.
The causes are obvious: devastating economic policies on the part of the Conservatives; the high level of our dollar, which closed at 87 cents yesterday. That is ridiculous, absolutely absurd and it is killing us! High interest rates. How could we develop industries in Montreal when we are crushed by interest rates 3 percent higher than in the United States? There were no adjustments made after the Free Trade Agreement was signed. This government and this minister had promised adjustment measures to help our industries and our workers who are the big loosers in this deal. What did we get? Absolutely nothing. Training and retraining? What for? It is ineffective, unproductive and redundant. Research and development? Shame on this government for slashing funding to nothing!
Mr. Speaker, this government simply lacks vision for Montreal. It is incapable of delivering the goods. The federal government is running a one man show. There is no coordination, no consultation with the people involved, no agreement with Quebec, no agreement with the city of Montreal. You have just heard the announcement made by the Health Minister concerning the regional development of Quebec. No consultations with the people involved and no intention of harmonizing their involvement. The government has no agenda, no vision and no political will to act. Here is the Conservative track record for you!
Mr. Speaker, Montreal is the driving force of the Quebec economy. Left unattended, the whole province stands to suffer. Fortunately, the slump Montreal is in is not irreversible. It can get out of it. Solutions do exist. The key is an expression of political will on the part of the federal government to work in concert with the city and the province. Unfortunately, the Tories are showing no such will. Brian Mulroney and his government never
showed the will to do anything concrete and reasonable. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Tories do not understand what Montreal needs. It is absolutely appalling that no Cabinet member from Quebec is taking part in this debate. They let a minister from Toronto defend Montreal. That goes to show how unreasonable the Tories are.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, it is traditional in this House that we do not talk about the presence or the absence of a minister. Second, the minister was in the House and delivered his speech. He had to leave on government business. He will be coming back. I think it is very unfair of the hon. member to take that kind of a shot at him. He asked to be excused and he will be back. I trust the hon. member will take that as advice.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate a minister from Toronto who spoke out for Montreal.

I am quite sure when it comes time to talk about Toronto, the ministers from Montreal will be in this House and will defend Toronto. I am also sure that when we look at what this government does, the Montreal ministers must defend Toronto a great, great deal.

Mr. Speaker, what is the Conservative philosophy? Retire as soon as possible. Act only for political reasons. Forget sustained intervention. Forget consultation, in other words, laissez-faire.
Mr. Speaker, that won't work. So what will? I have a few suggestions. First, we must clearly identify the basic components of new industrial and scientific policies that will help us achieve our objectives. Second, we must provide leadership and the political will to achieve those objectives. How?
First, create an economic co-ordination and development board for the Montreal region: get all economic sectors together; define common objectives.
June 4, 1991

Second, create a cabinet committee responsible for the economic recovery of Montreal and the region.
Third, encourage the creation in Montreal of a consortium of big and small businesses; pools of risk capital; study and technical services; super-incubators.
Fourth, invest selectively but substantially, with research and development as the local point; develop high-tech niches; strengthen the aeronautics sector; scientific research parks; centres of excellence.
Fifth, ensure that Quebec and Montreal receive their fair share of funding for research and development, not the 13 per cent we are getting now.
Sixth, design manpower training and adjustment programs that consider Montreal's objectives for economic diversity. No more one-man shows by this government, Mr. Speaker!
And finally, leadership and political will are the basic prerequisites of this recovery.
I painted a gloomy picture of the current situation. Unfortunately, it is also an accurate picture. The situation in Montreal is as I described it, but I also want to show there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I just offered the House six proposals, six steps for recovery. The government must act now, it must act quickly and it must act on several levels at once. However, to be effective, the types of action taken must be complementary and not compete with each other. The federal government must demonstrate, through a variety of concrete achievements-we have had enough studies-its political will to give Montreal new hope for the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Five minutes for questions and comments.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech, primarily because he is the first who spoke today to come out with some positive suggestions. Everybody else got up and complained and moaned and groaned.
I am concerned about some of his suggestions, not all of them, and to this end I would like him to comment on them.
He is asking the federal government in many ways here to get extremely involved in one city, to have a
Supply
cabinet committee, I think one of his suggestions was, for one city in this country. First, if the hon. member really means this, is he saying then that the federal government should become more directly involved in individual communities throughout this country?
Second, should we take a city and designate it the research centre for Canada or the specific area for certain whatever it may be?
How does that coincide with diversifying the economy of the west, for example, or diversifying the economy of the maritimes, and so on?
Is he suggesting that we have a cabinet committee on Halifax, St. John's and so on so that we could get involved in economic development in those cities? I understand his whole theme but I am not sure why he wants to involve the federal government so directly in the goings on of one city.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his interest and I thank him quite honestly as a representative of a city other than Montreal for the interest that he is showing in my city.
As you look at economic development you realize very quickly that it flows from major motors. There are locomotives. This is true in most of our major cities in terms of the hinterland and the periphery that is around.
Montreal is undoubtedly the major economic locomotive for the province of Quebec. As Montreal goes, so goes the province. There is no doubt about that. That is clear in terms of the development of almost any great city in relationship to the surrounding area anywhere in the world.
The sheer absolute number of unemployed in Montreal is greater than in a great number of the other regions of Canada which really do have a specific economic focus.
What I would say to the minister in response to his question is that if what you want to do is develop economic growth, you have to have regional development, you have to focus on the country as a whole and you cannot neglect your major motors.
The multiplier effect from those major motors is such that it is worthy of having a cabinet committee look at it, specifically at Montreal because of its importance in eastern Canada and in the province of Quebec.

June 4, 1991
Supply


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my compliments to that expressed by the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization.
The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, as always, does come out with very concrete suggestions. You can agree with them or not, but at least he does have something to offer.
I would like to ask the minister about the plant closings that he mentioned in his debate, displacing thousands of workers. We have the same thing happening in Toronto and in other parts of Ontario.
The difference between the plant closings today and the plant closings 10 years ago is that the ones which closed then were somehow revived or opened under another industry. Today in Ontario when they close they close permanently.
I would like to ask the member: What is the trend in Montreal and in Quebec? What solutions would he recommend for that?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the comments of my colleague from Parkdale-High Park are very well taken.
Exactly the difference in the plant closings today and the plant closings of 10 years ago is that we are not looking at temporary but permanent job loss.
These companies are either shutting down completely because of the economic policies of the government or they are moving away and going to what they feel are attractive climates.
This is why it is so important and why I put such emphasis in my speech on research and development and on the ability to reinvent our economy. We need this so that when companies close down on Monday there are new companies building their market share, ready to take their place.
What we must do is essentially reinvent the Canadian economy. Montreal and so many other areas are motors because they can be the locus of research and development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to rise in this House to explain the economic situation in Montreal.
I am particularly concerned with the clothing industry in Montreal, simply because our family business, which is apparel retailing, is closely linked to that industry in Montreal. We have been involved in that business since 1912. It has been a while. Throughout the years, we have met clothing manufacturers from Montreal, but these last few years, we noticed that the industiy, once a major industry in Montreal, is going downhill. That is a serious cause of concern for people whose livelihood depends on the clothing industry.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to give you a short history of that industry. At one point, a few years back, Montreal's clothing industry was booming. As the main clothing manufacturer in North America, Montreal was second only to New York City. It was a major industry in this country, and it was flourishing. I remember when Montreal's clothing industry was extremely busy in the mid-50s.
When we think that all across Canada, about 120,000 people used to earn a living working in the clothing industry and 57 per cent of those jobs were in Montreal. And that, Mr. Speaker, does not include another 20,000 people or so who were working at home. There were also some plants in the Beauce area, outside the Quebec region and there was another group in the eastern part of Quebec. So, it meant 90,000 jobs all across Quebec that were directly associated with the clothing industry.
Of course, one of the things that hurt us was the imports. If we take a look at the numbers-and they tend to increase-about 30 per cent of the clothing is imported and, sadly, that percentage is still increasing.
The federal government certainly failed in that area by not protecting the clothing industry, as it failed in many other areas. You know that much has been said about research and development. But what is still more important than that? It is the development of the existing technology and the implementation of the development. Research in that area is not as necessary as in the past.
June 4, 1991

Another factor that weakens the clothing industry in Montreal is the interest rates. In Montreal, the manufacturers needed to have access to capital, lots of it, in order to maintain their competitiveness. With high interest rates-I am aware of that, because I have been in contact with several organizations, the unions, the Guilds, as we call them, the Dress and Sportwear Manufacturers' Guild-so, they were explaining to me that it was extremely difficult for them to upgrade their equipment because of high interest rates. This is a suggestion that we could make to the federal government, that is to try, with a special program, to help the clothing industry, which is so important to the city of Montreal. If not, we could do as a number of organizations did, like the Canadian Manufacturers's Association, and reduce the interest rates.
However, if it is impossible to do so, we will have to set up a program for the clothing industry because of its importance. In the last year, and in the last months in particular, I was able to note the difficulties faced by the manufacturers in Montreal. Because of the 7 per cent GST they must add to the 8 per cent provincial tax, the clothing retailers whose products were not taxable before must now add 15.5 per cent to the bills they give to their customers. You can see how that has affected the retail sales of clothing in Quebec stores. Consumers found this price increase too hard to absorb and effectively there was a 25 to 30 per cent drop in sales.
Considering all these factors, it is no wonder that the clothing industry had such an important decline. We all know that it used to be a very flourishing industry in Quebec, but we are letting it slip right through our fingers. It is almost criminal to see that we cannot find solutions to the problems encountered by the manufacturers. Yet, they have stated time and time again that they want to meet with the federal and provincial authorities to find a solution for their industry. One must not forget that a great many women were employed in the clothing industry. I must say that, over the years, the average wage in this industry had a fairly normal growth and is now over 9 dollars. It is not much, but there has been over the years a fairly substantial increase.
Supply
Another element that concerned the manufacturing sector in Montreal is free trade. From the outset, they were against the free trade agreement, because they saw the difficulties it could bring to their industry. Now, they raise a cry of alarm. When they see that the central government wants to negotiate a free trade agreement with Mexico, knowing that the hourly wage in Mexico is far lower than ours, even ten times lower. In Montreal, they say: "We hardly had time to adjust.'' It has been very hard for them to adjust to free trade with United States and now we want to plunge them in a free trade with Mexico where the hourly wage is much lower.
So, you can imagine the anxiety prevailing in this sector. What are we asking of the central government? We implore you, this industry is very important to Quebec and to Montreal. You cannot leave this sector, this industry which means a lot to Montreal, at the mercy of free trade with the United States and Mexico. Moreover, interest rates are too high. You must realize that this industry used to be the pillar of the Montreal economy. But if you let it continue to be bloodied by free trade with the United States and Mexico, you will see that we will lose completely an industry that was and still is so important and that can be saved.
So, to wind up, I say to the government: The manufacturing sector in Montreal wants to speak to you, to have the opportunity to express its great concern and to propose alternatives, solutions to save this industry. They speak not only on their behalf but also on behalf of the 90,000 persons who earn their living from an industry which they see disappearing.
So, it cannot be stated more clearly. They want to have the opportunity to speak out and to express their concern.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly interested in the comments of the hon. member for Lasalle-Emard who suggested that Montreal be a high-tech area following along in the aerospace type work that has been done by the takeover by Bombardier of Canadair and the work done on Bill C-22 where we changed the patent law and allowed research and development in pharmaceuticals.

June 4, 1991
Supply
Is it the view of the Liberal Party that we should also be a country of high tariffs where we keep out the manufactured products of other countries, particularly clothing and footwear; that we should be a country where the import of those articles that can clearly be purchased in other countries cheaper be denied our citizens so that they pay higher prices for those articles; and that we allow no trade so our high technology cannot be sold in those other countries?
I was wondering if he could square the economic philosophy of the Liberal Party.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is making reference to the fact that we import 30 per cent, I never suggested that we should have additional tariffs. All I am saying is that the clothing manufacturing industry in Montreal was extremely important and there is no reason why we have to leave this industry open to the wind and allow it to disappear on us because of either free trade or high interest rates.
Montreal, with regard to the high tech and pharmaceuticals industries-obviously everybody promotes high tech in Montreal or elsewhere, but it does not mean we have to sacrifice a domain where we were once the champions.
All we are saying is if we had decent interest rates, if there was a reasonable amount of dialogue with these people to find alternatives so that they could modernize, we could compete with these imports. However, we seem to have shackled them with high interest rates and all kinds of disadvantages so they are having difficulty competing with the imports. These are artificial difficulties that the government has put on their backs.
We are not trying to trade off high tech for the clothing industry. It was a viable industry, we had the expertise and it was very labour-intensive, especially for women. Why should we sacrifice it when we do not have to? All they need is a little bit of dialogue and understanding and we can balance both of them easily.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, briefly.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the free trade debate. Throughout that debate, I sat on the parliamentary committee studying the agreement. Each and every association representing the clothing and textile industries which came forward said they
were against the free trade deal. They also said if the agreement was deemed necessary, we had to have adjustment programs. Now then, the prime minister promised adjustment programs for those grand industries, as recommended by the de Grandpre Commission, the Macdonald Commission and the Economic Council of Canada.
Since the hon. member knows the textile and clothing industries pretty well, can he tell us what adjustment programs have been planned for those industries affected by the Free Trade Agreement. I am not as familiar with those industries as the hon. member is.


Mark Joseph Assad: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I could quote the president of the Quebec division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Mr. Raymond LeHir, with whom I had a number of conversations, as well as with Mr. Dubuc, the president of the Parity Committee, and with all the people connected with the garment industry. They were very surprised to see there were no support programs, no retraining programs, no programs at all to help the garment industry in Montreal. They told me these programs were non-existent. What is going on here? The Prime Minister and some of his ministers announced a number of programs, but unfortunately, there are none and that is what has us puzzled. Who is telling the truth here?


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back briefly to some comments that were made by the hon. member for LaSalle- Emard, when he mentioned that Montreal was the industrial centre of Quebec, and that if Montreal was doing well, industrially speaking, if there was industrial development in Montreal, it was the whole province which was benefitting, and that if Montreal was not developing, it was the province that was hurting.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments as a way of explanation in order to tell him that I do not agree entirely with that. I would like that the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard recognize that when there is development in the Quebec regions, whether in the field of natural resources or the development of primary industries, for example, the major aluminum projects in Becancour, Deschambault, Baie Comeau or Sept lies, my hon. colleague should recognize that the engineering firms in Montreal are doing work on those sites. Lavallin and SNC are there. There are also manufacturing
June 4, 1991

industries from the Montreal region which build industrial equipment that go into these new plants. If the forest industry is doing well in Abitibi, in Lac Saint Jean and on the North Shore, again, Mr. Speaker, it is the parts manufacturers, the equipment manufacturers of the Montreal region that benefit from it.
So I would like my colleagues from Montreal to admit that when the federal government takes part in the economic diversification of Quebec regions, Montreal also benefits from it. We should not think that because some Montreal areas are in trouble, the situation is catastrophic in the rest of the province.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline that, in his speech, my friend the minister responsible for Montreal Island has described fully the federal government's initiatives in the Montreal region. We could conclude from his comments that this great metropolis is evolving, like other urban centers all over the world, and is about to take a new direction which will allow it to live a new age of prosperity. In fact, we intended pursuing the actions already undertaken to that end, particularly in matters of industrial development.
Historically, industrial development has always been the cornerstone of Montreal's economic prosperity. We just have to remember the many big companies located near Montreal's docks or the other main cross roads of the time. With the evolving means of communication, Montreal's industrial base has had to adapt and we saw the rise of new industries, with a bigger technological content.
While more efficient companies were created in new industrial areas, the more traditional industry also needed attention, in order to cope with international competition.
These are indicative of the two main thrusts of the federal government action to support and revitalize the industry in Montreal: first, rely heavily on the strengths of the Montreal economy and, second, help more traditional businesses still providing many jobs, to update and reinforce the expertise acquired over the past few decades.
When I am through, hon. members of this House will realize that the opposition motion disregards an entire set of measures that have been implemented by the
Supply
government I have the honour to be a member of. As you all know, the Montreal economy is remarkably complex. Nonetheless, this government has managed to sucessfully implement a plan of action in which industrial development plays a major part.
The federal government's strategy is, first, to develop high technology sectors in Montreal, particularly in the following three industries: aeronautics/aerospace, elec-tronics/telecommunications and pharmaceutical industry.
One of the main projects the federal government has carried out in these sectors in years is certainly the establishment of the Canadian Space Agency in the Montreal area. This decision unanimously added a major change in direction to strengthen and give a new start to this industry destined for a great future. Through its activities, the Space Agency has helped strenghen industries in related sectors and, above all, create new businesses attracted by the Space Agency. Furthermore, thanks to its research programs, the Space Agency has helped develop new industries in advanced sectors such as composite materials.
In fact, all parties with a stake in Montreal's economic future agree that the aeronautics industry is one of the city's major strengths. The federal government, through targeted support, has helped to ensure a bright future for this outstanding member of Montreal's industry.
The decision to privatize Canadair gave the internationally known company a second lease on life, as reflected in the recent success of the Challenger. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that not long ago, the Prime Minister helped launch the regional jet, which has caught the interest of a number of airlines, despite an economic climate that is not very conducive to investment.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has provided significant support for research and development by all large companies in the Montreal region. Federal assistance has on untold occasions been instrumental in developing new products by companies that include Pratt & Whitney, Canadair, Spar Aerospace and Heroux. Thanks to federal support, these companies have been able to compete on world markets. The recent launching

June 4, 1991
Supply
by Spar of a communications satellite is an eloquent case in point.
In electronics and telecommunications, many large companies have received federal support to develop new products and thus acquire a substantial share of the North American market. You will recall that Paramax in Montreal won the contract for all the electronics for the frigates, thus generating a significant subcontracting potential for a number of firms located in the Montreal region.

Moreover, it is important to stress the importance of the decision to privatize Teleglobe Canada for the development of a new leadership by the private sector in the field of satellite communications.

I would now like to talk about a sector that our government, by way of a courageous decision, has helped revitalize. All the members will remember that the pharmaceutical industry was once a major industry in the Montreal area. Indeed, one only had to drive along the TransCanada highway, between the Decarie expressway and Vaudreuil, to see the numerous pharmaceutical companies along this important stretch of highway.
The members of the House have often heard debates and speeches emphasizing the importance of putting a stop to the stagnation of that industry, a process which has started in the early 80's. The pharmaceutical companies had drastically reduced their investments in research and development because the results of their basic research were no longer protected.
The changes that we made to the Patent Act enabled us to completely reverse the situation. Indeed, without government aid of any kind, several big companies decided to invest in R&D, as well as to expand their research centers in Montreal, among others Merck Frosst, and Nordic laboratories.
Even though the Montreal region experiences problems that essentially arise out of certain economic conditions, that city possesses nevertheless many of the characteristics of a winner. The cities that attract businesses and companies all have something in common. In
each of them the political and business leaders have cooperated to create a favourable environment for development. The leadership shown by the private sector is also particularly noticeable in those cities. By the way, the federal government supported a private sector initiative by helping with the establishment of a high technology park in the Montreal region. The interested firms will thus be able to concentrate their resources in an environment conducive to this high level activity.
The technology park will, in fact, act as a catalyst to improve liaison between universities, government research centres and business. This linkage between universities and business will have top priority in industrial sectors that the world over are the foundation of a flourishing industry: aeronautics, biotechnology, microelectronics and informatics.
Although federal support has tended to concentrate on the most advanced and most promising sectors, we have also included other industries that have always played an important role in to Montreal. For instance, the transportation equipment industry registered major investments in recent years that would have been impossible without direct government intervention. A recent announcement that Dowty would invest $90 million to manufacture landing gears has further consolidated Montreal's position as a major centre for aeronautics. In the automobile industry, Montupet has now located in the Montreal region to manufacture automobile parts, while 3,000 jobs were saved at Ste-Therese thanks to federal intervention. Without our support, the GM plant at Ste-Therese would now probably be a thing of the past.
I would now like consider another aspect of our integrated program for supporting industrial development in Montreal. As I said earlier, the Montreal area has always had a very diversified industrial structure, whose sectors have had their ups and downs, owing to various factors. With increased international competition has come the need to adjust to a new game plan. The free trade agreement has made it very important to help businesses update their plant, to be able to face the competition.
June 4, 1991

Bearing this in mind, our government designed a program that was tailored to meet the new challenge of a global market. The Manufacturing Productivity Improvement Program, which was an instant success, has now been in place for two and a half years. To be eligible for this program, businesses must meet very strict criteria. Nevertheless, the results have been most impressive. The program has received 250 applications for assistance, and sixty businesses have been able to benefit from government assistance, thanks to contributions totalling $14 million.
Similarly, it seemed important to us to get small businesses into new product lines. Just a few months ago, the minister responsible for Economic and Regional Development announced the creation of an innovation assistance program with a $3 million enveloppe. This program is only six months old, but over 30 requests have already been received and over half a million dollars in contributions. It is indeed off to a good start.
I would like, in closing, to mention two initiatives we are particularly proud of, which were very well received by the communities concerned. Over the years, some industries congregated in specific areas of Montreal had been deteriorating gradually. This was particularly true of eastern and southwestern Montreal. To overcome that situation, the Canadian government agreed to implement two programs suited to the needs of these disadvantaged areas.
In February 1988, minister Robert de Cotret announced the implementation of the Industrial Recovery Program for East Montreal (IRPEM). With a $35 million budget, this program resulted from the Picard report and the work of the Committee for the Economic Recovery and Revitalization of Employment in East-End Montreal. The IRPEM is designed to strenghten the local industrial structure, encourage the industrial diversification of that area and foster the establishment and development of new businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses. The latest statistics show that the minister responsible for implementing this program had received 326 requests and that over $28 million had been spent to support recovery in this area of Montreal.
In May 1990, my colleague, minister Benoit Bouchard, announced a similar program for the south-western part of Montreal, the IRPSWM.
This program is intended to provide assistance for the design and construction of new facilities as well as for the extension and modernization of existing facilities.
Supply
This all new program has already resulted in investments of almost $9 million.
A close look at federal government actions reveal that due to its flexibility our strategy fits the various capabilities offered by greater Montreal that were identified in the Picard report. This flexibility is particularly obvious in the case of industrial development, where we have put in place programs on a needs basis. In fact, that is the strategy we intend to follow in the months to come because we are convinced it is the best way to develop Montreal's potential while allowing the private sector to participate fully.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that regional development is crucial for the province of Quebec and for Canada. There is no doubt either that the entrepreneurial skills of Quebecers have their roots in the Beauce area, in Lac Saint-Jean, in the Eastern townships and in the Abitibi. That is why I absolutely cannot understand the fact that this government is abandoning the Gaspe and the Northshore regions. I cannot understand, for instance, his reluctance to push for flow-through shares, which are so important for the mining industry.
That being said, one must recognize that when the unemployment rate exceeds 15 per cent, as is the case in Montreal, you have a number of unemployed workers that far exceeds that of many regions of Canada. Montreal is the heart of the economy in Quebec. My question is this: Does the hon. member, the parliamentary secretary, think that Quebec, as a province, can possibly win if Montreal loses?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to answer the question asked by my honourable colleague from LaSalle-Emard. It is obvious that if the industrial structure of Montreal becomes more diversified, if the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government work together to attract new industries in Montreal, namely high technology industries which create new jobs, and if development and support programs can help reinforce existing industries, it is obvious that the economy of Montreal will contribute, and I think we agree on that, to the economy of Quebec as a province. But I want the hon. member to know that I find it very difficult to let someone claim that Montreal is the only place that counts in Quebec. The hon. member should look at the reality. The regions contribute to the development of Montreal in the same

June 4, 1991
Supply
way that Montreal can provide expertise and specialized services for the development of the regions.
My honourable colleague claims that the federal government, that is the Progressive Conservative Party, has abandoned the Northshore and Gaspe regions in Quebec, but I would like to remind him that, since 1984, there have been more industrial investments on the Northshore, from Tadoussac to Havre-Saint-Pierre, then in the 25 years previous to that. Indeed, Reynolds, Quebec and Ontario Paper in Baie-Comeau, as well as Alouette in Sept-Iles, have all benefited from federal investments. Moreover, other investments in the private sector will also be announced shortly, thanks to the direct intervention of the federal government, through his regional development programs.
As regard the Gaspesie, some of our colleagues were in Gaspe last week to announce three important initiatives that will enable the Gaspe peninsula to benefit from industrial development as well as economic diversification based on initiatives taken by local people and entrepreneurs. Mr. Speaker, that is what we call a sound intervention in the field of regional development, and our government has been acting in that fashion since 1984, in Montreal as well as in the regions of Quebec.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure to sit with my hon. friend on The Province of Quebec Chamber of Commerce. At the time, it seemed to me that the performance of a governement could be judged by its results. Well, the results that we can see in Quebec now are not very glorious for the party in office. In Montreal, the unemployment rate is 15 per cent. In Quebec remote areas, it can go up to 20 per cent, not taking into account the people who outlast their unemployment benefit period and are now on welfare.
I remember, a few years back, when I was working pretty hard to get the Space Agency on the South Shore. We got the Space Agency, we were proud and boastful, and we kept repeating: "Now, we have the Space Agency.'' Time has gone by, but the Space Agency is not yet built. There might be a hundred employees in Montreal. At the same time, we launched the centres of
excellence, and the University of Calgary obtained the contract for space research, while the Prime Minister said that aerospace research and development would take place in Montreal. We realize today that Pratt and Whitney has put nearly 1000 employees on unemployment.
Imagine, we boasted because we got the Space Agency, and I was so proud at the time. But there was no serious basis to all that. This plan to develop aerospace in the Montreal area, it was old rubbish. We realize today that approximatly 800 aerospace jobs have disappeared in the Montreal region, and that is counting only those at Pratt and Whitney, and the Space Agency.
The hon. member who has just delivered his speech is boasting about the help that the federal government has given Quebec. The fact is the federal government simply helps us pay for welfare and unemployment. It certainly is of no assistance to us in terms of economic development.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a question from the hon. member from the South Shore of Montreal, with whom, of course, as he pointed out, I had the pleasure to be involved for some years in the activities of the Chambre de Commerce du Quebec. It is obviously with great pleasure that I met him again in this House in 1988. I must say that the circumstances have changed and I am a little sorry to see him on the other side of the House. I think that the hon. member was doing an excellent job for his region and his riding when he was a member of the Conservative caucus, when he was on this side of the House. He decided to join the other side, sadly, to the detriment of his riding.
I should tell him, Mr. Speaker, and I think the facts speak for themselves, that the numbers I quoted earlier in my speech and the ministers, Mr. Corbeil and Mr. Bouchard quoted in theirs, show that the Conservative government is concerned with the development, not only of the Quebec regions, but also of the metropolitan area of Montreal. I would like to assure my colleague from the South Shore riding of Montreal that the Quebec caucus follows very closely the actions taken by the
June 4. 1991

government for the economic development of Montreal, and we will continue to do so.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Manicouagan who praised the government for what it has done in the last few years, and who quoted several figures. However, there are figures he forgot to mention. In this regard, I would like to point out to him that this debate, today, is about the unemployed in Montreal. I congratulate him for talking about all the jobs created outside of Montreal, but this is not today's subject. The question I would like to put to him is this: Given the fact that he seems to be provided with a lot of figures, could the hon. member for Manicouagan tell us what the figures are for the unemployed in Montreal and in the rest of the province of Quebec? Also, what is the number of welfare recipients in Montreal and in the remaining of Quebec, as these people are certainly unemployed?


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that those figures are public. Unfortunately, since I do not have them on hand today, it is impossible for me to be specific.
But, I can tell him that, for years, people from all regions of Quebec, in particular from the Gaspe Peninsula and the lower St. Lawrence region, came to Montreal because their was work to be found in the city. Is it so difficult to now leave Montreal for those Quebec regions where there is work to be found? I think that Quebecers, both men and women, are mobile and are able to adapt to changing situations. The fact of the matter is that there is development, there is construction with new jobs on the North Shore, in the Abitibi, in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean and in the Center of Quebec, and that those jobs are available to all citizens, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, I encourage Montrealers who are in search of a new job, to take advantage of the training programs offered by the Department of Employment and Immigration to gain access to these new job opportunities.
So. Mr. Speaker, the economic development in Quebec will encompass the whole province. Some regions may have problems. The North Shore, which I represent,
Supply
had tremendous difficulties at the end of the seventies and into the eighties. People had to leave their homes to find work somewhere else, but now, they are coming back, and I am very happy about it.
Mr. Speaker, that is the story on workforce mobility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague for Manicouagan to what jobs he is referring?
I rise today to spotlight the poor state of the Montreal region. This sad situation is due in good part to initiatives like the GST, as well as to a lack of initiatives like job creation, which was promised by the Conservative Government.
In Quebec, nearly 5,000 companies and 14,000 individuals have been forced into bankruptcy in 1990. Most of these cases were in Montreal. The level of unemployment is more than 14 per cent in Montreal and rises to 25 per cent east of Montreal; there are also those on welfare. The unemployment rate does not seem to be getting any lower. All those jobs could be lost forever.
Plants closings, commercial and personal bankruptcies, relocations do not bode well for the future. All these Quebecers who suddenly lose their jobs and are without hope of getting them back must rely on the unemployment insurance for their rent. How many of them will be forced to go on welfare?
According to action unemployed, the cuts and changes made to the unemployment insurance program have really hurt. In Quebec city, the situation is all the more serious since it is a region where employment is seasonal. Many peoples have to had to go on the dole, following the changes introduced by Bill C-21.
And what about immigrants? When a company must cut jobs, the first to go are very often the last ones hired, and most of the time, they are immigrants. Some welcome!
Mr. Speaker, Montreal has enormous potential but this government and its irresponsible department seem determined to check its development.

June 4, 1991
Supply
The GST is but one initiative affecting everyone and reducing consumer spending. When sales are down, so is spending and employees must be laid off. As a result, unemployment is sky high and welfare offices are sending an increasing number of cheques.
Montreal already has 14 per cent of its population who depend on welfare to survive and there seems to be no economic recovery in sight.
Food banks find it more and more difficult to help soup kitchens. Demand is rising instead of diminishing, it seems. It is not healthy to start the day on an empty stomach.
As for children, they cannot be expected to learn and retain what they are taught in school if they do not eat properly. That is not how they can be able to develop their potential and be alert.
I would like to cite a few facts on welfare and UIC in Montreal to give a better perspective to this problem.
Between March 1990 and March 1991, 65,400 jobs were lost, of which 17,500 were in the clothing industry, and 14,300 were in hotels and restaurant service industries.
The maximum amount of benefits a person could receive from UI was $480 a week. The welfare benefit being paid to a single person willing to participate in special government make-work programs is $587 per month and $486 per month if they are not willing to participate in these programs.
With this type of revenue, it is a miracle that anyone can survive in our society.

Mr. Speaker, a society which cannot meet the basic needs of its citizens, making them completely dependent on the State, not by choice but out of necessity, is a society doomed to face a depression.
It is difficult to be optimistic, to create attainable dreams, to give growing children a vision of a better future when, as parents, the daily worries are as real as the rent payment which often takes more than 50 per cent of their meager income. How is it possible to give children nourishing meals and proper clothing when work becomes more and more scarce and is often limited to short periods?
Mr. Speaker, Montreal was, not so long ago, a major city where life was good. Today it holds the national record for bank robberies. It has a waiting list of 22,000
families who want low rental housing and 40 per cent of its people would need this type of housing.

When the federal government, which through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was the main builder of subsidized housing in Canada, dropped its rental renovation program two years ago and in its recent budget announced cuts to social housing, it did nothing to remedy the situation.
The country is in crisis and Montreal seems to be going downhill at a very rapid rate. Without basic security like housing and food, how can people be expected to be in top shape, ready to learn new skills, on minimum revenues given by UIC, that could be out of date by the time the courses are finished.

Mr. Speaker, this is the early 90s and the future does look kind of gloomy for the Montreal residents. Crime and violence are on the rise, the cost of living is becoming more and more prohibitive for too many families, low-cost housing is rare and jobs are obsolete.
Since coming into office, this government has done nothing but overtax people, and they still do not understand why people cannot make ends meet!
Mr. Speaker, this government has no consideration whatsoever for the wellfare of Canadian men and women, who will take the opportunity, at the next election, to remind them of their existence.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the House that when I put questions to the minister responsible for the Montreal area, he answers by wondering how I can be so bold as to mention these issues That is on record, it is published in Hansard. As far as I am concerned, that is unacceptable, and a government which is so bold as to keep a minister who gives little hope to the Montreal residents and does not care about them, does not deserve to govern this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. Five minutes.


Nic Leblanc: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, the Progressive Conservative Party says they play a major role, but what the hon. member was mentioning a few moments ago are just a few projects he was blowing up out of proportion to show the people of Quebec that he was dealing with regional economic development, that he was dealing with the economy of Quebec. About two years ago, when I was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, it was the party that was the most critical of the interest rates increase, and I recall very well-and that is on the record-that when
June 4, 1991

Mr. Crow, appearing before the Committee of Finance, told us that it was absolutely necessary to increase interest rates to curb inflation, I replied to him that he was doing everything to create a recession. I was right to tell Mr. Crow that he was creating one. I was also right to tell Mr. Wilson, who was then the Minister of Finance, that he too was creating a recession, and that he was doing everything to create one.
You know, I have been in business for more than 15 years. I know how difficult it is, particularly in Quebec, for small businesses, for men and women who have worked hard for five, ten, fifteen years, and for ten, twelve or fifteen hours a day, at building a business, to see the government decide out of capriciousness to increase interest rates and thus slow down the economic growth, which has been badly managed for the last decade. Bankruptcies are thus in fact created. I do not have the exact figure in mind, but we know there are bankruptcies in numbers large enough to realize how bad the situation is now, particularly in Montreal. The blame lies with this government which does not know how to manage economic growth. It is not by giving money, from time to time to this or that businesss, to show that you are doing something, that you control the economic system while having a stable economic system, a reasonable growth. That is not what has been done during the last few years. So, it is a shame to see these people who worked so hard be penniless again and without a job. These are entrepreneurs who had built firms and are now jobless. It's not only them, but all their employees who find themselves unemployed.
You know, with regard to the social problem the hon. member for Saint-Laurent spoke about a moment ago, it's a shame to see this large number of unemployed, these people who lose their jobs. When these people end up without a job, the spouse often says: "You're no good, you can't find a job, what's wrong with you?" Then the two start arguing and end up getting divorced. Then there is a problem with the children, with the families. It's a terrible social problem and we must be aware of it. It seems that this government is not aware of it. It is breaking up families and destroying the whole society and it will take 10 to 15 years to correct. That is where
Supply
the misfortune of Montreal lies presently, there is a lot of unemployment and many people on social welfare.
The hon. member for Saint-Laurent is right when she says that crimes are rising in Montreal and that there is a terrible social disorder emerging. Yet, they want us to believe that they have helped Montreal economically. I was just telling the Conservative member: One judges businesses, and actually one talks about government; businesses are judged on results, not on what is perceived as being right or wrong; they are judged on results. Yet, results are that in Montreal the level of unemployment reaches 15 per cent and there are almost as many people on social welfare; in areas such as Lac-Saint-Jean and Gaspesie, unemployment reaches 17 per cent and even 20 per cent. It's appalling!


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this opposition day debate on the motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I would like to read the motion before commenting on it, because what it says is important.
That this House condemns the government for having abandoned the population of Montreal through its obvious lack of political will to provide jobs and economic opportunities to the people of this region.
Mr. Speaker, we have all accepted voluntarily to take ten minutes to speak to this question because we believe, as liberal members representing the region of fyfontreal, that it is very important. I have three points to make. When I say we have to give the opportunity to the people of Montreal to create jobs, to find jobs, I am not saying that the government should intervene everywhere. But, as politicians, we have the duty to create opportunities. As for the monetary policy, everybody agrees, in Quebec particularly, that this government's monetary policy is an incredible economic disaster. We cannot have a free-trade agreement with the United States and let our dollar go up while we implement this agreement. Because we automatically lose all the advantages that we had. Canada gave itself a social structure and priorized it and the human values going with it compared to the american economy having a totally different structure. By letting our dollar go up, we lose the little competitive edge that we had.

June 4, 1991
Supply
What is worse is that we have seen this government, through the Governor of the Bank of Canada, increase each week the interest rates and make the situation unbearable. We have then a high dollar and high interest rates. Mr. Speaker, we know that every company has a line of credit today. If interest rates go up, interest charges take up a larger portion of the operating budget.
Those are major policies which were disastrous for the economy, and that was a choice, Mr. Speaker. It was not due to international circumstances. The recession we are presently going through in Canada is a Canadian-made recession, triggered by the economic policies of this government. That is what we want to say in our motion today. The words are very clear. They relate specifically to the political will to provide jobs and economic opportunities for the people of that region. And then, how many times did the Quebec government, the Cornell du patronat, all the social and economic interest groups of the Montreal region and the whole province of Quebec say: "We call on the Conservative government in Ottawa to stop its high interest rates and high Canadian dollar policies because they are disastrous for our economy. We are not competitive on the American market"? During the electoral campaign in 1988, the Conservatives led everyone to believe that their policy would aim for a stable economic situation. We must admit that Quebec subscribed to that theory. It is the province of Quebec, especially Montreal, that pays the price for this same free trade policy, a policy that was not followed by an adequate monetary policy aimed at responding to the impact of the Free Trade Agreement.
When we say that this government has no policy, the evidence is there. One does not need to be a genius or some expert in economic or international affairs to see it. A dollar too high, plus high interest rates-


An hon. member:: The high interest rates of 1982.


Alfonso Gagliano: The hon. member mentioned the interest rates in 1982, and he is right, but we should compare to the situation in the United States and in Europe. At that time it was an international situation, while in 1990 and 1991 the high interest rates were made in Ottawa, the situation was created by the government. So, we have to compare with the rest of the world.
When interest rates are high in Canada, but high also in the United States, we are competitive, as problems are the same on both sides of the border. However, when we create our own problems- Here, Mr. Speaker, I just woke up the Conservatives. That's it, I woke them up.


An hon. member:: They are shocked by the truth.


Alfonso Gagliano: No doubt about it. What I was saying when my friend interrupted is that we had high interest rates, a high dollar and, on top of that, Mr. Speaker, the famous GST. This government said that it had to slow down the economy, that Canadians were spending too much and that was creating inflation. To that end it raised the interest rates, to prevent Canadians from spending. Then there was the new tax on goods and services applied to everything.
When we talk about inflation, we should not forget the taxes. Everything we pay to governments are taxes, whether they are federal taxes, provincial taxes, municipal taxes, school taxes, building permits, licence plates, etc. If we add all these taxes-and they keep increasing-we see what is responsible for the rise in inflation.
On the one hand, the government tried to control inflation with the interest rates, but on the other, it imposed the GST. Now we see the result. The inflation rate rose from 4 to 6 per cent. So, this government does not know exactly what it is doing. On the one hand, it says that it wants to reduce inflation, but on the other, it increases taxes.
Mr. Speaker, these words are not mine. The government members will deny it. This morning, I heard the minister responsible for the Montreal area say that the Liberals were to blame, after seven years of conservative rule.
But Mr. Speaker, these words are not mine. Let me quote from an article I read:

"One in four Montrealers lives in poverty, starving. City population getting older and poorer, Health department finds. Montreal's population is growing older and poorer and one in four of the city's residents is below the poverty line." It is not new, says The Gazette on April 18, 1990.
June 4, 1991

[ Translation]
Poverty is gaining ground in the Montreal region:
615.000	people live in poor families, and 50 per cent of these are in Montreal, in the metropolitan area. As for the recession in Quebec: the situation will be worse than expected. It's Quebec and Montreal again, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, we heard about an important study on
taxes.

"Tax up SI,530 a year during Tory rule."

Because of this government's policies since 1984, a family today pays $1,530 more in taxes than it did in 1984.
In 1984, the Conservatives were in power, not the Liberals. So if they want to blame someone, they should start with themselves, especially considering that from month to month, they have remained steady at 14 per cent in the polls because people have finally understood.
More news: a 70 per cent increase in bankruptcies in April; in Quebec, 2,097 bankruptcies were filed in April 1991, 72 per cent more than April last year.
Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary talking about government policies, and he said that everything was fine. If everything is fine, why does Montreal have an unemployment rate of 15 per cent and up? Why are there so many bankruptcies? Why is one Montrealer out of four living under the poverty line? Look at the economic policies the leader of the Tory government, Brian Mulroney, announced at Place Ville-Marie in 1984-happiness for everyone-and look at where we are now.
I see you are signalling that my time is up. Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The time allowed the hon. member for Saint-Leonard has now expired.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
The House took recess at 1.00 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
1991 CENSUS
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, today is census day in Canada, the day for all Canadians to stand up and be counted by 38,000 census representatives whom the federal government has hired and equipped at a cost of $9.24 per Canadian.
Canadian census representatives will be counting us with 38,000 freshly sharpened pencils taken from their
38.000	census satchels adorned with the Canadian census logo.
That is right, the Canadian government is spending $253 million to conduct the census, while equipping the census takers with pencils manufactured in Turkey and satchels manufactured in China.
Surely, if the government is going to count Canadians at a cost of $23.98 per household, it could do it with
38.000	pencils that were made in Canada and 38,000 satchels that were made in Canada, providing jobs for Canadians.
The Canadian census is made in Canada, so should the equipment.


NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, this is our twentieth National Environment Week. Environment Canada's Green Plan has a budget of $3 billion and urges Canadians to play a role, both individually and as a group, in cleaning up and protecting their environment. Some of the Green Plan's initiatives have already started across this country. The Canadian government has announced programs to clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. Canadians are working on action plans for cleaning up eleven critical areas in ports and coastal areas on the Atlantic.

June 4, 1991
Furthermore, an unprecedented air quality agreement was signed with the United States to deal with the problem of acid rain and other types of trans-border air pollution.
Mr. Speaker, this summer, new programs for the environment, backed by funding of over $1 billion, will be introduced in Canada.


FORESTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on March 31, the federal-provincial forest agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal government expired. Both governments have been dragging their feet and have not yet renewed the agreement. Done properly, these agreements can be used to develop forest management initiatives involving forest research and wood lot management.
The forest minister told the forestry committee on March 25 that he had the funds identified for a "generous and ambitious" agreement.
Concerns have also been expressed that a new agreement must be signed for longer than the previous two-year bridging period. The government should get on with it and sign an agreement immediately.


LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea - Gore - Malton):: Mr. Speaker, in last week's debate over Bill C-5, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to amend an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, discussion about Lester B. Pearson International Airport and the effects on surrounding communities was once again front and centre.
My constituents and I appreciate the co-operation that is being shown by all sides of the House in encouraging the speedy passage of this legislation.
However, my constituents and I wish to make clear certain misconceptions that were presented by the opposition.
Residents who live in the communities surrounding the airport are being presented as airport haters unable to tolerate disturbance of any kind. At best this is an
oversimplification of the position my constituents have about Pearson. At worst the proliferation of this misconception means we jeopardize our ability to work toward a rewarding partnership between the airport and its surrounding communities.
My constituents wish it to be known that they appreciate the benefits the airport can provide and that, as long as the airport plays fair and accepts its responsibility toward the community, they will work with the airport to foster a productive and equally beneficial relationship.


JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, last week a very sad incident occurred in Winnipeg. We watched on national news as a young Indian man asked for justice and understanding from the Canadian people and their governments on Winnipeg's radio airwaves.
Mr. Cameron Kerley Antoine was sent out of the province of Manitoba as a young child to the United States where he was adopted by a non-Indian bachelor. He was beaten and sexually abused by his adoptive father for years until he killed him. Originally sentenced to 15 years to life, this sentence was reduced in 1986 to 20 years on compassionate grounds by the Governor of Kansas.
Now serving his sentence in Canada, Mr. Kerley Antoine deserves compassion from the Canadian government.
I urge the government to review his incarceration in light of his own victimization, in light of some previous acquittals of victims of spousal violence who killed their spouses, and in light of the years he has already served in prison.


TAXATION
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, this House, and the media were filled yesterday with charges that the Conservative government had increased middle-class taxes dramatically.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is essentially right, but as the author of the report stated on The Journal last night, if the Conservatives had not inherited a huge debt, right now the government would have a multi-billion dollar surplus.
June 4, 1991

However, while high taxes may be understandable, governments at all levels could be doing a better job in treating taxpayers. There ought to be more co-operation between various levels of governments so overlap and duplication are eliminated, so we can work toward the integration of local, provincial and federal taxes, so tax forms can be simplified, so taxpayers can see exactly how much taxes they pay and so that we can put an end to hidden taxes.
I hope the Economic Council of Canada can explore these areas as it conducts the Prime Minister's study on competitiveness. I hope we can achieve what is really needed, a total reform of the tax system.


HEALTH CARE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, as the dust from this government's budget of last February begins to settle, the ramifications of the government's lack of commitment to education and health are beginning to be felt by Canadians from coast to coast.
According to the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Lavoie, Canada's medicare system will be in ruins within the next 10 years if this government continues its present policies.
In my province of Prince Edward Island, the $2.3 billion cut in provincial transfer payments is now affecting the ability of the province and the hospitals themselves to maintain their health care services.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital will be closing 25 per cent of its beds for the month of July and 22 beds for the rest of the year. Our other main hospital, Prince County, will be closing almost 10 per cent of its beds for the rest of the year.
The other hospitals in my province are being affected as well.
I urge the federal government to recognize how the policies arc hurting Canadians and to rectify the damage it has done to our health care system.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, how are we going to resolve the fundamental conflict that haunts our country, a conflict between two very different visions of Canada: the equality of all versus the distinct society?
In 1867 we found the answer by adopting a federal rather than a unitary system of government. In 1991 we may find the answer by giving every province exclusive jurisdiction over language, culture and communications. Language rights would be attached to places and not to people. This would give Quebec full control over matters it considers essential for its survival. It would also give the nine other provinces the right to have unilingual traffic tickets or cereal boxes if they wished. That could substantially reduce the support for Quebec independence and allow other differences to be settled by common sense rather than by emotion.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Amnesty International's detailed report today begins: "Nearly two years after the suppression of peaceful pro-democracy protests, which resulted in the massacre of hundreds of civilians in Beijing on June 4, 1989, human rights violations continue to be widespread in China".
China refuses to answer inquiries by Amnesty or by members of this Parliament, arguing that human rights are internal matters only.
Nevertheless, since China shares international trade and credit and responsibility for the U.S. led UN invasion of Iraq, China cannot ignore the UN declaration of human rights. Although it upholds the right to work and fair pay, to health care and to education, it must also uphold the rights to life, liberty and security of person, to freedom of peaceful assembly, and to being presumed innocent until proved guilty in a lawful public trial.

June 4, 1991


NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, as we begin Environment Week in Canada, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the most important anniversary we will be celebrating this time next year, namely the 20th anniversary of the Stockhom Conference on the Environment. At that time, heads of stale will have gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the June 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the spirit of consultation Canada has displayed on the international scene. We recognize the need for Canada and the other industrialized nations to help developing countries meet their needs for sustainable growth.
All Canadians will benefit from Canada achieving its goals and contributing to setting a new course worldwide. So, they can start by setting an example at home. During Environment Week, I encourage everyone to make a special effort to preserve and clean up the environment. Let us all be active partners in this nation-wide endeavour. The future of Canada depends on it!


CANADA POST
[Stage Direction]
Hun. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the people of Scoudouc, in my riding of Beauscjour, have just sustained a loss they would rather have been spared. The fact is that Canada Post has decided to dose their post office. This decision came as a surprise to everyone.
In the letter announcing the closure, Canada Post refers to communications between municipal authorities. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that had the corporation been in touch with the president of the local service district of Scoudouc and myself, there would still be a post office in Scoudouc.
The post office played a major role in the economy of this community. All the businesses established in the industrial park as well as the people of Scoudouc use this local service and they want to keep on using it. So, I urge Canada Post to reconsider and to keep the very busy post office of Scoudouc open.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the volunteer members of the community transitional board for Amherst Aerospace who are working diligently and tirelessly in the interests of securing a lasting future for this major employer in Cumberland county.
This board is made up of volunteer professionals from the area working closely with members of the staff and the union in an effort to protect one of the area's largest employers. The board was formed when it became clear that the owners and financiers of the business had lost interest in the business at a time when in fact it needed the total attention of all concerned.
The board has worked seven days a week since its inception and has been successful in identifying future prospective owners and determining the actions required to make the business viable.
Part of the goal has been to secure community ownership interest, and the board has already been successful in raising a substantial amount of money. The problems are not solved yet. However, this board and its actions are examples of how a community can pull together when given a challenge, and they are to be commended for it.


CITATION FOR CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadian men and women are committed to promoting, through their actions, the fundamental values of our society.
Yesterday, 21 individuals and 4 organizations were honoured during a special ceremony in recognition of their remarkable contribution to communities across the country and received the Citation for Citizenship which is awarded every year.
All over the country, Canadian men and women are working behind the scenes towards a better and fairer future. I think that the energy, determination and
June 4, 1991

dedication of these individuals are what make changes happen. To recognize their work and their contribution to the Canadian society is truly an honour and a pleasure for a government.
Liberty, justice, equality and respect for diversity will continue to prevail in this country as long as we believe in these values and all work for them.
Let us applaud the winners of the Citation for Citizenship who have demonstrated an examplary commitment in promoting the values that Canadian citizenship stands for.


QUEBEC SELF-GOVERNMENT
Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years, Quebecers have been demanding the political autonomy they need to grow.
The Meech Lake Accord was the latest attempt to negotiate a new agreement. It failed. Since then, the people of Quebec have started demanding self-government again in order to grow as a mature and distinct society.
So, what does the federal government do? It infringes upon Quebec jurisdictions: education, economic and regional development and health. The federal government has become an "agent provocateur".
That worries me, Mr. Speaker. We Quebecers want to have a cordial relationship with Canada, but that cannot be done in a climate of provocation.


1991 CENSUS


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to and take issue with the 1991 census form. I agree with my many constituents who have called to label the long version as sexist and racist.
Females arc asked whether they have had children while men, married or single, arc not. Housework is considered a non-occupation. Questions of this nature merely peqictuate the stereotypes we are trying to eradicate.
To add insult to injury, never in the history of our census has "Canadian" been accepted as a valid ethnic
Oral Questions
origin. This is a disgrace. Are we trying to entrench hyphenated Canadianism in our national psyche?
This can only foster continued divisiveness. The hyphen must be laid to rest. Canadians want the right to be addressed as Canadians. We may not all have come over on the same ship, but we are all in the same boat now.
On census day, count me Canadian.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, a new study revealed that since this government came to power, our tax system has become more complex and less equitable. Today, we hear that 70 per cent of Canadian businesses made mistakes in their GST returns, this after the government had promised and guaranteed the tax would be easy to administer.
Our question to the Prime Minister is this: How can he claim the GST is easy to administer when 70 per cent of our businesses don't seem to be able to manage?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, even the hon. Leader of the Opposition will admit that the changeover from the old flawed manufacturers' sales tax to the GST went far more smoothly than anyone had anticipated.
Even the Leader of the Opposition-I see him nodding his head-agrees with that.
It is true that in the quarterly filers, which represent small businesses, there were an estimated 50 or 60 per cent of returns that had some slight errors.
Let me point out to the Leader of the Opposition and to the House that 90 per cent of those errors were fixed and taken care of by the systems that this government put in place in consultation with the private sector prior to the implementation of the GST. All of those teething problems, in fact 90 per cent of them, have been able to be corrected as a result of the systems that were put in place in consultation with the private sector.

June 4, 1991
Oral Questions
I believe that as we move into the second quarter, the situation will improve even more considerably.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: After the way that the minister was shot down by the Minister of Finance last week following his statement about taxes in Canada, instead of trying to lecture us, he should lecture his own minister and tell him what he should do.
Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the Prime Minister. The government keeps trying to say that the GST has not hurt the economy. But Manpower Temporary Services, a major forecaster of the job market, called 1991 the "slowest employment year in memory". It said today that the net hiring strength is now only one-third of what it was a year ago.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: When will we see policies that will give some hope to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want to work now, not next
year?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have seen interest rates drop over 5 per cent in the last year, which is helping businesses recover from a recessionary period that we are going through.
We are on target. We expect recovery to start in earnest later this year and we will be back to a very sizeable growth rate next year. We are on target on that. We have confidence in that and we know the Canadian people will respond.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is at this moment, for this summer that students all the across the country are finding it almost impossible to find jobs.
Talk with students from New Brunswick, Quebec, southern Ontario or western Canada and you will find that they are all desperate.
The recession created by this government is not only denying them their jobs, it is denying them their future.
Does the Prime Minister not realize the desperate situation that is facing students who need summer jobs? Will the government commit additional resources to put Canada's young people back to work? They need jobs this summer. They want to go back to school come September.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are going through a recessionary period. There is no question about that.
We are coming out of it now. The latest report from businesses say that they expect the growth to start mid-summer and it will grow. We are confident that that is going to happen. We are confident that young people will be able to find opportunities for work this summer, maybe not as plentiful as in the past because we are coming out of a tough economic period.
There will be jobs available for them. If they look hard for them, they will find them.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue who the other day admitted that this government has been clobbering Canadian taxpayers.
Yesterday, Global Economics, a private firm, underscored that admission and statistics from his own Department of National Revenue pointed out that personal income taxes have risen by 66 per cent since 1984 for a total of $25.5 billion.
During the same period, corporate taxes have been allowed to be reduced by 34 per cent. How can this minister justify his government's assault on individual Canadian taxpayers?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the hon. member's question was answered earlier as well as yesterday by my colleague, the Minister of State.
The beginning of the hon. member's question suggested that I was quoted as saying that Canadians are over-taxed.
Let me take this opportunity to make it very clear that at no time did I ever use the word "over-tax"-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
June 4. 1991


Otto John Jelinek: I am not backtracking.
When I said that governments have gone about as far as they can go in taxation, I was referring to certain commodities, specifically gasoline as it relates to crossborder shopping.
I went on to say it is true that taxes on tobacco, booze and gasoline are the major culprit on those products and these are going to have to be dealt with by all levels of government.
That is what I said and that is what I stand by.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, what Canadians took from the statement is that in fact they are over-taxed.
The Global Economics Review pointed out that fairness in taxation is equated with simplicity. Corporate taxes have become more simple. They have been reduced. Personal income taxes have increased. They have gone up.
Since the minister acknowledged that his government has moved too far in the area of taxation, and given the fundamental disagreement expressed by his cabinet colleagues, will he tell this House which taxes he is reviewing? What proposals are his cabinet colleagues putting forward that will make taxation more fair for Canadians?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, any transcripts of my comments in Winnipeg last week will prove that there was no word such as "over-taxed" used by myself.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: What I did say that the government is reviewing are the over-all problems of cross-border shopping. I went on to say that taxation by all levels is just one very small problem in a very complex situation, which includes a variety of problems, including a lack of aggressive marketing, higher labour costs and distribution costs, and higher transportation costs.
As I have travelled across the country, I have had the majority of provinces support the leadership that this government has taken in trying to deal with-


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
At a time when we are looking for a consensus on what it means to be a Canadian, what it is this country offers to Canadians, we really need look no further than the medicare system that so many Canadians are proud of.
However, this week two different organizations made absolutely scathing attacks on this government's policies on health services. The first one was from the National Council of Welfare which said that if the current trend continues in funding for medical services, medicare will effectively be dead as a national health insurance system. The president of the Canadian Medical Association says that under the present formula, health care system in this country is "doomed" as a national system.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Will he show real commitment to Canadian medicare by doing two things: first, restore federal funding for the health care system across this country to provinces and territories, and second, ensure that during the constitutional talks the government also discusses and makes sure there is a Canadian discussion on those values, such as medicare, which are a part of the character of this country.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, instead of cash payments to provinces for shared cost responsibilities, there have been tax points given to provinces.
In the February budget the Minister of Finance made a commitment that he would review all transfer programs to provinces, in co-operation with the provinces. That commitment is being kept. We are looking at that to ensure that the very good medicare system that we have in this country is sustained. That is one of the reasons for this, but we are looking at all transfer payments, including post-secondary education and social services, to ensure that we have the best system in this country, to maintain it and to make it even better.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to ensure that we have the best system, restore the federal funding and we will have the best system.
I would suggest that the Prime Minister ask the people of Newfoundland, where they have had 20 per cent of their acute care beds cut back in health care, where 300 nurses have been laid off; in Nova Scotia, where funding for nursing homes is being cut, and in New Brunswick, where funding is being rolled back. That is where health care really counts, right there in the communities.

June 4, 1991
Oral Questions
My question to the Prime Minister is this: The principle of universally accessible, publicly funded health care is a basic principle of Canadian character and living in this country. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether in the constitutional talks he will take the suggestions of my party for a social charter where we can ensure that future generations of Canadians will have the kind of health care that we have been able to have.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked whether the discussions on the Constitution would deal with Canadian values. I think all of us recognize that in a country like ours, at a time like this, one cannot consider a constitution without dealing with the basic values of this country.
I personally think that would be a very useful dimension to the discussions which we have to undertake. She has made specific reference to a social charter and, naturally, we are prepared to consider her proposals for a social charter and, indeed, consider other constructive proposals by others in this House and in the country.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, while we have a duty which we intend to carry out to put forward specific proposals and clear options for constitutional change, we certainly anticipate that there will be amendments in the process because we do not want to have a situation which has either a closed process or results in closed minds on basic questions that the country has to deal with.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the government is considering a social charter. I think it is a very important part of what will form the foundation of our country. At the same time it is necessary to have funding for the essential services.
Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Prime Minister. The government's cutbacks in medicare have led to user fees and deterrent fees.
Last April, the minister responsible for National Health and Welfare at the time stated that user fees were a concept that deserved consideration. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Does he endorse user fees? And if not, how does he intend to stop this trend?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the user fee issue was raised, if I am not mistaken, by the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare responded several days or several weeks later.
In fact, we are all in favour of having the most advanced, most modem and most generous medicare plan in the world. However, we have to pay for it. We will have to find the money, and that money comes from Canadian taxpayers. The NDP is asking us to lower taxes, but on the other hand, it is also asking us to upgrade services. You can't have both. The two will have to be reconciled at the national level and in the hon. member's mind as well.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Canada-Mexico treaty.
On May 22, the Minister of the Environment said that the government would not make an environmental assessment until after an agreement was signed. Mr. Speaker, it will be far too late. The environment and the economy must be integrated from the very beginning.
My question is this: Can the Prime Minister give us the assurance that non-governmental environmental experts will be included on the negotiating committee, from the very beginning?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this issue, which is fundamentally a trade discussion, is going to include other issues and of course some environmentalists will be there and consultation will take place.
June 4, 1991

The hon. member asks for what I would argue is a structure which would be totally unwieldly for us to conduct these negotiations.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. If that structure is unwieldly then somebody better tell George Bush.
What is this government afraid of? The Americans have committed to appointing environmental activists to six trade policy committees. Furthermore they have detailed the exact agenda and the exact process by which environmental concerns are going to be set out. The Canadian public on the other hand has been given no such details. We have not even been given the terms of reference of the environmental impact assessment.
Why is this government not prepared to provide Canadians with the same set of standards of public disclosure and involvement as the American government is prepared to provide the American citizenry? This government may be a lame duck, but the Canadian people are not.


Martin Brian Mulroney: From one old duck to another let me try and answer that, Mr. Speaker.
My hon. friend can be given the assurance that all of the required standards will be observed for the President to achieve the requirement of fast-tracking from the Congress. Certain commitments were required and the President made those to various Congressmen and Senators to be assured of their support in regard to the fast-tracking. In respect of Mexico, the United States has in the Texas panhandle some specific problems that have given rise to requirements that are more demanding of the United States in that area than they are of Canada. That being said, Canada will provide when the negotiations begin all of the safeguards in every jurisdiction to be undertaken for scrutiny, all of the safeguards.


An hon. member:: Give us the same thing as the
Americans.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "Give us the same thing as the Americans". We are different from the
Oral Questions
Americans. We are going to give Canadians a Canadian solution.


GREAT LAKES
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the government's failure to reach an agreement with the United States to stop polluting the Great Lakes.
After months of delays and stalling by Canada, the Americans finally gave up on this government and announced their own action plan to stop poisoning the Great Lakes.
Why did the government back out of an agreement with the States to finally do something about cleaning up the Great Lakes?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as I think most hon. members in this House know, the Canadian government has been working very closely with the American government and with the appropriate provincial and municipal governments, going back as far as 1972, to ensure that good progress is being made with respect to the clean up of the Great Lakes.
The problem, of course, is an immense one. It is a type of problem which has been accumulating in Canada and the Great Lakes as a result of economic activity for decades and decades. Anyone in this House or anyone in the country who thinks that the messes of the past can be cleaned up overnight is wrong.
I think we have made good progress. Most recently, as you know, Mr. Speaker, because you follow these issues very closely, we announced the establishment not so long ago of a $25 million Great Lakes Action Program. I think it is well under way to determining a pollution centre to be established.
We on this side of the House understand that there are no quick fixes to problems which have been building for decades and decades, but we as a government are very committed to ensuring that we proceed thoroughly and in an efficient manner to make sure that the problem is addressed now and in the future.

June 4, 1991
Oral Questions


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want water they can drink, swim in, fish and eat without getting sick, not pious pronouncements, promises and procrastination.
In the United States national leadership has got five states and private industry together on an action plan for the Great Lakes, while this government cannot even get together with one province.
Why did the government let its own instrument on the Great Lakes, its agreement with Ontario, lapse in March? Why has it done absolutely nothing to get a new agreement and get some action going again?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that in fact it is not accurate to say that this government is not proceeding in its consultations with the province of Ontario. It has been and continues to be so.
In the meantime, the announcement to which I have already referred, which was made in the presence of the minister from Ontario and which was the precursor to very intensive negotiations with the province of Ontario, will indeed lead to the kind of action the hon. member is seeking.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On May 15, the Prime Minister told the House, in response to questions concerning the admission of former Iraqi Ambassador Al-Mashat to Canada, that the Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier, speaking for the Privy Council Office said, and I quote the Prime Minister who said: "Do not admit him". Notwithstanding that, he was admitted.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this: In view of the fact that documents made available to the committee studying this question last night now reveal that there is absolute-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I indicated yesterday that there is a very difficult line to be drawn in questions arising out of a committee. There are comments, of course, in Beauchesne's that the proceedings of the committee ought not to be referred to.
There is other procedural law, especially from Great Britain, that may be able to assist this House. However, it seems to me that what the hon. member is asking is something which is immediately, right now, before the committee and that it is not appropriate to pursue the same subject here in Question Period.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can put the question directly to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement of May 15 that Paul Tellier, Clerk of the Privy Council, instructed that Al-Mashat not be admitted to Canada? Does he stand by that statement?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the dilemmas-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put a question relating to a statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister, not in front of committee, but some time ago in the House.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could resolve the dilemma by telling my hon. friend that what I indicated in the House will, if he waits 15 or 20 minutes and goes to the committee that he has been attending, Mr. Tellier will be there this afternoon. I am sure all of the information will be provided and validated to his satisfaction.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, indeed we will be putting that question to Mr. Tellier this afternoon.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps under the circumstances the hon. member could put his question and I will listen very carefully to it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is responsible for the appointment of ministerial chiefs of staff. I want to ask the Prime Minister-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Svend Johannes Robinson: This is a question relating directly to the responsibility of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the chief of staff to the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, David Daubney, has indicated that a memo was brought before him in which reference was made to the admission of ambassador-
June 4. 1991


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may or may not have a question relating to the appointment of chiefs of staff, but I have to ask the hon. member to keep in mind that under the present circumstances, with all of these proceedings taking place last night, this morning, again as I am told this afternoon, it seems to me that it is bringing into the Chamber the very things that are being dealt with on the floor of the committee.
If the hon. member has a question for the right hon. Prime Minister as to chiefs of staff, in general or in particular, I would like to hear it. But at least for the moment I do not want references to what is taking place in front of the committee being used as the preamble to or part of the question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, without in any way referring to what took place in committee yesterday, is the Prime Minister prepared to demand the resignation of the chief of staff to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, David Daubney, given the incredible incompetence he displayed yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has just chosen another way to do exactly what I asked him to refrain from doing.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The National Council on Welfare reported today that federal cash payments for medicare and university education will soon end. The council asks for a new deal with the provinces before it is too late. As the Prime Minister knows, an attack on these transfer payments is in reality an attack on Canada's poor. The cry is genuine, the cry for help is real.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it not time that this government renewed its national responsibility and helped in the fight against poverty throughout all of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I guess one of
Oral Questions
the first things we can do to help the poor of this country is to get the deficit down and be able to lower taxes once we get the debts of the past paid. I think there is no question about that.
I answered this question a little earlier in Question Period in a question by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I said that the Minister of Finance in his February budget said he would be consulting, would be meeting and examining all transfer programs with the provinces, with a view to maintaining and in fact enhancing the program so that we can assure the people of Canada the best of health care and the best of social services and the best of post-secondary education.
That commitment was made in the budget in February and we are going to carry it out.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The National Council of Welfare projects that federal cash payments to Quebec will end by 1995-96, less than five years from now.
Given our attempt on new constitutional arrangements, is this the right signal to be sending Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that statement is inaccurate and my hon. friend will see that the numbers mentioned today are not at all justified by government projections.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
On March 19, this government exposed its true intentions when its members unanimously voted against a renewed commitment to medicare. True to form, the proportion of total health care costs paid by this government has declined by more than 6 per cent since 1987.
I would like very much to give the Prime Minister a second chance to answer a question he ignored.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Thanks.


Albina Guarnieri: Your welcome. Is the Prime Minister courageous enough to abandon his government's tax point camouflaged cutbacks and restore federal health care contributions to traditional and necessary levels?

June 4, 1991
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member should understand that provinces will be receiving more money this year than they did last year for health care costs. They have not increased at the rate the provinces would like to see them increase, but they are getting an increase in funding. Provinces will be receiving more money this year for health care than last.
Let us set the record straight. I will repeat to her exactly what I said earlier in answer to questions from her colleague and from the leader of the New Democratic Party. A commitment was made by this government in the February budget, which we plan to carry out, to have a complete study of transfer payments to the provinces. That will be carried out by the ministers of finance of the provinces and the Government of Canada.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, as the American Congress looks north to improve its medicare system, this government is looking south for ways to destroy ours.
My supplementary is for the Prime Minister. The president of the Canadian Medical Association does not agree with his minister's viewpoint. The president tells us that if this government does not change its course, our medicare system will be in ruins within 10 years.
I ask the Prime Minister if his government will recognize that Canadians want the Tory fiscal knife out of the operating rooms of this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I read with interest today the headline: "United States urged to adopt Canada's health system". It must think we have a pretty good health system if it wants to adopt it.
I will repeat to the hon. member again, because I know I have to say things two or three times to sink into the Liberals, we are studying the transfer payments in co-operation with the provinces to assure the maintenance and the improvement of our services we provide to the people of Canada. That is a commitment and we are going to keep it.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
I would like to ask the minister if he would confirm that for the first time ever Canada has formally agreed to allow the regular transit of Trident nuclear submarines through internal sovereign Canadian waters at Dixon Entrance northwest of Prince Rupert?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not entirely accurate in his statement about the Dixon Entrance and the submarines. What the Americans want to set up on their territory is a base for testing submarine communication/ detection, not a submarine base as such.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I confirmed it this morning with people in the Department of External Affairs. I assume people working in the departments are working under government minister's supervision, but I confirmed that External Affairs and other departmental officials are working on the final wording for the agreement for the first time in Canadian history, to allow Trident nuclear submarines to come through internal sovereign Canadian waters. I would like the minister to understand that the Canadians I know are very much opposed to this. The Americans have claimed up until now that they have an all-American route to get to Back Island base, so would the minister confirm that this agreement has been agreed to by he and other ministers and by cabinet?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first, when the agreements already negotiated or now in negotiation with the Americans are implemented, the hon. member will realize that his fears are unfounded. At that time, I will be glad to discuss those agreements thoroughly with him.
June 4. 1991


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This is the second anniversary of China's Tiananmen massacre. The Prime Minister will recall the words of his former Secretary of State for External Affairs when he said with outrage in June of 1989: "Tiananmen Square and the subsequent campaign of repression has changed the relationship between Canada and China. The Chinese authorities have called for business as usual. This cannot be accepted".
Does the Prime Minister still stand by that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not only do we stand by that commitment but we have conveyed the views of the Government of Canada in the strongest terms.
The South China Post in an editorial by Anthony Polski, who was the former New York Times correspondent and editor at Far East Economic Review, made the following comment that I think will interest my hon. friend on May 26: "-referred to speeches of unique historical and contemporary importance for the future of Hong Kong as related to Beijing. The speeches unequivocally affirmed the importance of human rights and a variety of other economic freedoms in Hong Kong, linked these freedoms inextricably with the economic prosperity of the territory and future healthy growth and sent a clear message to Beijing of its guarantees and responsibilities to affirm and preserve Hong Kong's unique system after the territory reverts in 1997.
The Prime Minister of Canada became one of the few heads of government or heads of state to visit Hong Kong as a principal destination. His visit was intended to affirm Canadian support for Hong Kong's autonomy as promised in the joint declaration of '84 and the visit reiterated Canada's strong historical commitments to Hong Kong".
In the process of doing that, I used the occasion of that visit and that series of speeches to respond in particular to the question raised by my hon. friend, and to convey very strongly the dismay of the Government of Canada in regard to developments in Beijing and to insist on the
Oral Questions
respect of human rights at all times as a fundamental of Canadian foreign policy.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago to a previous questioner, we heard the former Secretary of State for External Affairs refer to basic Canadian values that we value so much in this country. Yet the numbers speak louder than words.
Canada's imports with China increased by 17.7 per cent from 1989 to 1990 and our exports jumped by 44.4 per cent for the same period.
Will the Prime Minister not agree that Canada's substantial growth in trade with China last year is inconsistent with its claim that China must redress its abysmal record on human rights? Will he set specific human rights conditions for China to meet before continuing business as usual? Could we have that commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises very specifically the question of the tie-in of human rights to the attitude of the Government of Canada. In a lead editorial in the South China Morning Post entitled "A friend in time of need", the editorialist said: "The Prime Minister did not need to mention Beijing by name when he said that any country which tried to achieve economic progress without recognizing human rights was doomed to mediocrity".
I find it passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals raise an important question and then some of the members are disinclined to listen to the answer to the very important question raised by the hon. member.
We are seeking not only to enforce the linkage between human rights and economic association, but also to state directly to the Government of Beijing that that has been and will be the policy of the Government of Canada.
We have stipulated it very carefully and have conveyed it to the Government of Beijing. When I was as dose to Chinese territory as one can come without being on the mainland last week, I conveyed unequivocally in a way that I think my hon. friend would approve, the indispensable relationship that Canadians make to democratic rights and freedoms, in the evolution of the PRC, the respect for those and economic co-operation for Canada.

June 4, 1991
Oral Questions TRADE


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
Before he went away on his trip to the Orient, he said that one of the goals of the trip was to press for the elimination or reduction of the Japanese 8 per cent tariff on Canadian pine, spruce and fir.
This tariff continues to hurt the producers in my riding in the province of British Columbia. It appears that the Japanese have not agreed to the elimination or reduction of the tariff.
Can the Prime Minister tell us today whether there was any progress made at all on this important issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is a most important question in British Columbia.
I pressed the Japanese government for the complete elimination of the 8 per cent tariff on certain Canadian wood products. The Prime Minister gave me the assurance of movement, which the Government of Canada did not accept at that time, but which we have moved to the MTN with a view to seeking the complete removal of what we view as a fundamentally discriminatory tax against Canadian producers.
Similar products from the United States enter Japan without this 8 per cent surcharge, and we want it eliminated for Canadian products.


QUEBEC'S REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker. my question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister of National Health and Welfare took advantage of the absence of the Prime Minister to proceed to an in-house cabinet shuffle and give himself a new department that he called the Quebec regional development department. However, yesterday, in Quebec City, the minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs said that there would be no new department but only a new title for the minister. So I ask the Prime Minister who should arbitrate differences of opinions between ministers and
which minister tells the truth? Is it only a new title or is there a new department?


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no need for an arbitrator, Mr. Speaker, because the positions of my friend and colleague and myself are the same.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refused yesterday by his silence to denounce and condemn this unacceptable action taken in his absence by the Minister of Health, which was to intrude brutally upon Quebec's jurisdiction. Can the Prime Minister tell us that he will denounce and condemn this action?


Charles Joseph Clark: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was not the least shocked when federal funds were spent in his riding.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, the World University Service of Canada is an important partner in international development. Since last December, this non-governmental organization has serious financial problems. We know the Canadian International Development Agency is presently studying a proposal aimed at putting it back on track. My question is for the minister for External Relations. Could she tell us the situation in this regard and if she intends taking steps to clarify it?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question which is certainly of interest for many members of this House, since WUSC has been for years an international development agency contributing to our excellent reputation and has been working in close collaboration with the CIDA. Since WUSC was placed under receivership last December, CIDA spared no effort to find a solution with its board of directors. I am pleased to announce today that I signed this morning an agreement for a redeemable contribution of $1.8 million that will allow WUSC to reclaim its position.
June 4, 1991


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Universality of health care is a stated government policy and promise' but what does it mean to natives and immigrants? For native youth it means the suicide rate is five to six times higher than for non-natives' and climbing. Suicide counselling is virtually nonexistent.
Yesterday the Canadian Ethnocultural Council reminded MPs of the need for mental health programs for immigrants and refugees. Native leaders have asked for an inquiry on the issue of suicide among their people.
Can the minister explain why his government has omitted our first peoples and our newcomers from badly needed mental health programs, or is it merely a government oversight? Shall we see more deaths before the government acts?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Health, is away today on government business. In view of the seriousness of the question I will transmit the question to my hon. colleague who, I am sure, will get back to the hon. member as quickly as possible.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Lariy Chalmers, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, province of British Columbia.


POINT OF ORDER
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make my standard point of order about private members on this side not having a fair opportunity to ask questions.
All members are not created equal. Canadians are asking us to speak up on behalf of our constituents and
Point of Order
we need the opportunity to do so. I just wanted to express that.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the intervention by my hon. friend, I once again want to offer to the government House leader a willingness on behalf of the New Democratic Party to add half an hour to Question Period each day to allow more members to participate in questioning the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is not the first time that this issue is raised. The Chair has taken note of the concerns expressed by both sides of the House and will continue to closely follow and study the issue and the situation.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, during our discussions last year, I had offered an extra 15 minutes a day. The opposition turned it down.
More significantly, the fundamental question that has to be asked is: are members of Parliament equal in this House or are some more equal than others? The member of Parliament who raised the point of order said he felt like he should have an equal opportunity to question the government as any other ordinary member. That is the practice in the Mother of Parliaments. It is a practice I think we should look into. It can be achieved by having shorter questions, shorter answers, going back and forth from one side to the other as they do in the United Kingdom, and through other procedures.
The question is not whether there is enough time for Question Period, the question is: is there a fairness in the way questions are distributed between the two sides and in the way they are asked?


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader is somewhat selective in his memory in terms of bringing facts to the floor of the House of Commons with regard to Question Period.
My colleague to the left has made two proposals on two separate days to extend the length of Question Period. I wish the record to show, on the Point of Order, that we would be more than willing to extend the hours of Question Period today in order to accommodate all members of Parliament on all sides of the House.

June 4, 1991
Point of Order
The hon. member opposite keeps referring to other Parliaments which have various question periods and procedures on question periods. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member opposite the words of a former very distinguished Speaker of this House, the Hon. James Jerome, where he said on April 14, 1975, with regard to Question Period:
The question period is a unique feature of the Canadian House of Commons where the ministry is required to be accountable to the House on a daily basis without advance notice. It is an excellent feature of our parliament, and while we have much to learn from other governmental systems, the question period is one area in which we are in the forefront of the responsible government, and every effort must be made to preserve the excellence of this practice.
I remind the hon. member opposite that he ought not to try to intimidate members of Parliament, particularly members who sit in the Chair. That is unacceptable conduct for the government House leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! since the hon. members seems to be willing to discuss this question, I am ready to show some tolerance. I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops and then the Government House leader.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend the Official Opposition House leader has indicated, the government House leader's memory is somewhat selective. On no occasion did he singularly offer to extend Question Period. If he had, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we would have enthusiastically responded favourably. Once again I want to make it very clear that I think almost all of the opposition parties represented in the House have indicated a willingness to extend Question Period for half an hour every day to allow more members to participate.
I think we also have to recognize that backbenchers on the government side have an opportunity every week during caucus meetings to question cabinet ministers directly. We do not have that opportunity. We do not sit in the government's caucus. On a weekly basis they have
an opportunity to raise questions, enter into discussions and so on. When we talk about equality of opportunity let us recognize that government backbenchers have an advantage that members of the opposition simply do not have.


Harvie Andre: I just want to respond very quickly. The hon. House leader of the Liberal Party read from Mr. James Jerome's description of Question Period. I was disappointed that he stopped before he read the rest of the declaration, because Mr. Jerome said: "It is inappropriate for questions to contain accusations or to be shouted. It is inappropriate to yell in the House. It is appropriate to ask questions seeking information and not to make representations or accusations".
Quoting Mr. Jerome is appropriate. I wish he would have quoted him completely and I wish we would return to that practice.
If Question Period were just the seeking of information, there might be some validity to the suggestion that backbenchers in the government have other opportunities. Question Period is the opportunity for making representations on behalf of constituents. The hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party will recognize that caucus is an inappropriate mechanism and is unfair in terms of backbenchers.
Again, the issue is not how long Question Period is, the issue is how fair Question Period is.
It has been suggested in the past by the House leader of the Liberal Party and by the House leader of the New Democratic Party that perhaps we need changes. I would welcome their active participation in the House committee on management so that we can incorporate the rules that Mr. Justice Jerome talked about, quite properly, and maybe we can make them the practice in this House as they have been in the past. We could have more than enough time for members on our side as well as for members on that side to have a fair and even chance. Perhaps we can do it in a way that is free of some of the excessive partisanship, the shouting, the screaming, the accusations and so on which bring this whole institution in disrepute to those who are watching.
June 4, 1991


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Government House leader has made his statement and is leaving right away. For the information of those who are listening to us, I think it is important to mention that a committee was commissioned by this Parliament to study parliamentary reform. I'he McGrath Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, has made specific recommendations about the possibility for government backbenchers to speak in the House. And it was recommended at that time to allow shorter speeches in the first 15 minutes devoted to members' statements where precisely government members are recognized more often than opposition members. It is then that government backbenchers have the opportunity to express their points of view. The McGrath Committee has fully acknowledged that question per-iode is traditionnally reserved for opposition members. It is the only lime when opposition members can just question to ministers.
Over time the Chair has shown a certain tolerance in exceptionally recognizing a few governement backbenchers. Now until the Tories came into office, this prerogative was always left to the sole discretion of Speaker who, would occasionnally recognize some governement backbenchers. Now, what has happened over time? Since the Conservatives came into office, all that was changed. Nowadays, the government whip or his delegate hand to the Speaker a list of government backbenchers who must be recognized during question period, or even during the 15-minute period for statements pursuant to S.O. 21.
With all due respect, I submit that this practice originated under this government, in an effort to control question period. It is a complete departure from our previous parliamentary practice, where question period was for opposition members who used that opportunity to question ministers. If the government whip decides that, from now on, this or that hon. member will be allowed to put questions to the ministers, obviously we will not have a question period anymore, but a big show half-orchestrated by the government. We think this already infringes upon the rights of opposition members. It limits in some ways the 45-minute question period available to us for questioning the government.
Supply
So, I respectfully submit that, every time the Speaker recognizes a government backbencher, he goes against this long-established parliamentary tradition, according to which question period is for opposition members only.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this as a government private member. My constituents would like to see me ask and be able to ask questions in this House. According to Beauchesne's we may have one short sentence prior to the question and during a supplementary there will be no preamble. Adding another half hour to the time for Question Period is not going to address the rules and procedures that are in Beauchesne's. If we kept to those rules we would all have an opportunity to speak in this House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I ask for the
cooperation of both sides of the House. The management committee would seem to be a more appropriate forum to further discuss opinions that have been expressed this afternoon and that the Chair will take into account, obviously.
You know that the Speaker is the servant of the House and tries to accommodate the wishes and suggestions of all members regardless of who they are and which titles they have in this House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand (p. 1111).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When our proceedings were suspended at one o'clock, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard had just completed his remarks and we were about to start questions and comments.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis.

June 4, 1991
Supply


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of listening to this debate on a very important question since it started this morning. I listened to the remarks of the hon. member who, as usual, was able to describe in a few minutes the problems we encounter.
In the four minutes left to him, could the hon. member be kind enough to explain what difficulties people in Montreal had with two programs that are often mentioned but may not be as interesting as they are said to be, namely POWA and RRAP. I would like him to explain clearly for our listeners what those two acronyms mean.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will begin with the RRAP, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. That program was designed to help owners renovate houses without rent increases, so we could have more rental units for low-income people.
That program was funded by all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. The federal government, under the previous Minister of Finance, cut funding under that program, and the provincial government followed suit. So, what is left of Montreal's municipal program is not enough, of course, and there is a serious housing problem in that city, specially with regard to low-cost housing.
Montreal was affected by the elimination of the RRAP because it was the only city which participated financially in that program. It is also a city where there were a lot of old apartments in need of repairs, particularly in the south-centre area and the east area.
So, if there is one city that was penalized when the Minister of Finance decided to eliminate that program, it is Montreal.
The POWA is another program that was cancelled. It was designed to help older workers who were losing their jobs because of plant closures in the shoe and clothing industry. That program was reintroduced in a different form, and that is where the problem comes from, Mr. Speaker.
The Program for Older Worker Adjusment must help older workers. In this particular case, namely the Montreal region-and I am pleased that the Minister of Transport, who implemented this program, is with us today-there is a rule according to which there must generally be more than 100 employees in a region of
500,000	people. It goes without saying that Montreal has
a population in the millions, but the problem has to do with the fact that the majority of businesses that shut down employ less than 100 people, and that is where the problem lies for the majority of workers over 55 years of age who have worked in the industry for a number of years. Those people are therefore penalized. They receive no benefit through the POWA program. I do not want to make this a partisan issue, but I am confronted with this problem in my riding of Saint-Leonard and I am convinced that the hon. member for Saint-Denis also faces the same problem. Every day, there are constituents that urge us to change the regulations. I have submitted petitions to the House, among which 5,000 signatures from my riding alone, to have that section modified, because here in Canada, there are large as well as small businesses. When we talk about a minimum of 100 jobs, that means that only a few factories would qualified under that program.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today.
Some might wonder why a member from the mari-times would wish to participate in a debate on Montreal. The problems that are raised by my hon. friends opposite are not dissimilar to the ones we have in Atlantic Canada.
I want to compliment the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for bringing forward this issue with respect to the economic problems and unemployment in Montreal. However, I must confess that-notwithstanding the fact that he has devoted many, many years of service to the people of NDG and, indeed, to the city of Montreal-I really believe his motion, in which he suggested the government had abandoned the population through the obvious lack of political will to provide jobs and economic opportunities, et cetera, is quite misguided.
What he really means is that he regrets the government has not been sufficiently irresponsible as to spend endless amounts of money to create make-work jobs in the city of Montreal or anywhere else. What the motion says to me is that there is really a philosophical difference between this government and the government of which the hon. member was a very distinguished minis-
June 4, 1991

ter. This government is governing fiscally more responsibly than that which preceded it.
This government believes that the secret to prosperity is through economic strength. Indeed, what we have realized is the fact that the world is changing. Canada could bury its head in the sand and pretend that the world is not out there, or we can get with it. We can attempt to get on board with the economic changes that are happening, the changes in the global world and the economic interdependence of the various countries of the world. Canada is either going to be a part of that or is going to hide its head in the sand and miss out on the opportunities for true long-term prosperity, which includes long-term employment.
Look at what is happening with the unification of Germany and how quickly it has happened. Look at what is happening in Europe as we move, not only to 1992, but indeed to the years beyond. I do not believe that Canada can hide from that. I do not believe the solution to that problem is to do what the previous government did and say: "Spend, spend, spend, get everyone back on a payroll. It does not matter if there is a level of productivity associated with that, it does not matter if we have economic growth and change to meet the new demands of the world, but rather that we simply keep everybody on the payroll and we will not worry about who is going to pay the bills".
Unfortunately, we are now the inheritors of the bills left from years and years of that kind of approach.
We built a high standard of living in this country by doing three things. We artificially propped up our economy through tariffs and subsidies, subsidies that we are now paying for, through the interest on the debt. Second, we were able, for many, many years to benefit from our rich natural resources and the exploitation of those resources without necessarily learning to make the most effective use of those resources in terms of value-added activity. Third, as I have implied, we suffer from years of irresponsible governments which simply tried to keep the cycle moving by spending, whether or not we had the money to pay the bills. That has left us with an extraordinary deficit situation from which we are now burdened with a tremendous national debt.
We have to try to get things in line. We have to look to government to show true leadership in assessing our future strengths through accessing markets. That is why
Supply
this government has shown such tremendous leaderships in terms of trade policy. It has recognized that if we can have access to the larger markets of the world, it will provide an opportunity for our manufacturing sectors to develop those markets which in turn will create more jobs for Canadians which will be substantive in the long term.
That does not come easy. We get access to the markets but then we also have to improve our own productivity. There is a job to be done at all levels, both in terms of management and indeed of the workers. Productivity is a key and it is critically important.
Perhaps one of the things we need to do is go back to some of the old values, values that I do not hear talked about a great deal in this House. However, they are values basic to life in Atlantic Canada. They are basic to the part of Atlantic Canada that I have the honour to represent in this House. I am talking about values like the belief that a person has to give a day's work if they want a day's pay. I am talking about values like self-reliance. Whatever happened to the day when people felt that if they had a problem it was their problem and they ought to do something? Every time a plant closes in this country people say: "Oh, what is the government going to do about it?" Or they say: "I don't have a job, why doesn't the government find me a job?"
Government has the responsibility to create a climate to assist in times of difficulty, and so on and so forth, but goodness gracious, at what point do we become the masters of our own destiny? At what point do we say that there is an incumbency upon us to be the ones who are prepared to do what we need to do for ourselves, to show initiative, to show energy, to show entrepreneurialism? On the other side that seems to be a dirty word, but on this side it is a very important one.
There is a role for government in achieving this competitiveness, which is the key to economic prosperity for the future. Obviously, as I have mentioned, the government has to provide access to markets through trade agreements. That is what we are doing. We have done that with the free trade agreement. It is not going to yield its effects in 24 hours or 36 hours, but rather is something that gives us the opportunity, which means that the doors are open. Obviously there are going to have to be adjustments in our manufacturing sector because, whether we like it or not, in some aspects we

June 4, 1991
Supply
simply are not competitive. Therefore, we have to move in the directions where we can be competitive.
Wc have to improve our research and development, our science and our technology capabilities, one of the areas where we have fallen down. Government has done its share in many respects, but the private sector has not. The government has to show leadership in encouraging the private sector to do its share with respect to research and development.
Third, we have to develop a highly skilled labour force. This has to be a focus. I was very encouraged by the remarks in the Speech from the Throne and their thrust on literacy and the relationship between skill levels in individuals and their ability to seek and achieve satisfactory employment. That is where this government, in my judgment, has shown excellent leadership.
I recall that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace was a member of the C-21 committee. He had some reservations about the fact that the thrust of Bill C-21 was that there is a relationship between unemployment and returning fully and properly to the work force so that workers have the skills that enable them to do more than simply get a job that will tide them through to the next unemployment period, so they can find longterm opportunities, opportunities that will come as a result of the competitiveness approach of this government.
Of course, government has to create a good climate for business. It has to have a climate that makes it attractive for investment and, generally speaking, it has to give businesses the impression that they are welcome and that they are wanted and that the kind of long-term stability that comes from solid blue chip industries is something that makes our country an attractive one. This is one of the things that causes me great nervousness about the recent budget in Ontario, which is the height of irresponsibility, in my opinion. It seems to have been observed in that regard, indeed right around the globe one might say. So 1 think there is a role for government.
Finally, government has a responsibility to see that the infrastructure is there to make it possible for companies to do business coast to coast in this country. I am talking
about communications and transportation infrastructure. I find it intriguing to see members from Montreal expressing some concerns in this regard because, quite frankly, in Atlantic Canada we have a lot of reservations about the quality of the infrastructure and the transportation infrastructure that exists for our benefit vis-a-vis the apparent national interest in ensuring the viability of the port of Montreal and the transportation systems that serve Montreal. I find it intriguing that people from Montreal would have reservations about that when we in Atlantic Canada have probably been stifled more by this single fact than anything else throughout history since Confederation.
However, the debate today is not on Atlantic Canada, it is on Montreal. Montreal, in my judgment, has excellent prospects. Now, there is one big cloud on the horizon. Let us face it, nothing will discourage investment-and it is investment that leads to jobs, not just government spending-like a sense of political instability. That is the cloud in my judgment that is hanging over the head not only of Montreal, not only of Quebec, but indeed the whole of Canada.
I think all members of this House have to stand together in recognizing that the key to our future prosperity in Montreal, Quebec, Atlantic Canada- throughout Canada-lies in having a government that shows sound financial management and the courage and economic vision to lead this country into the 21st century. Also it should have the ability and the courage to reunify our country as we work toward a renewed confederation that will be caring and will value self-reliance among its citizens, a confederation that will show respect for the people of all regions, all linguistic groups, all races of this country. It must be a system of government that will show regional balance, will not pit one region against the other and will give all equal opportunity to participate: quite simply a Canada that has room for all Canadians.
That kind of Canada under the leadership this government has provided will not only lead to economic prosperity for that great city of Montreal, but indeed for all parts of Canada.
June 4. 1991


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not present when I gave my speech this morning. It was obvious from his remarks that at no time did I suggest in support of the motion that the answer to the problems of Montreal were to spend, spend, spend, and that my only interest was in spending.
The hon. member himself says that he is against the spend, spend, spend solution and that he and his government are interested in bringing about an economic climate that will attract investment. That is interesting because that is exactly what I said in the House.
If he thinks that the economic climate is so important, why did he support his government in bringing in the GST, one of the greatest tax grabs in Canadian history, at a time when the country was going into a serious recession? If there is anything that has to do with economic climate, that is it.
Every economist in the country who had any sense condemned that move at that time, and so did I this morning in my speech. If he is interested in climate, how does he explain bringing in the GST at a time when the country was moving into a serious recession and we had over one million unemployed? The rate of unemployment was over 10 per cent and in Montreal it was near 15 per cent. That is one thing.
Then he says he is interested in creating infrastructures. So did I in my speech this morning. Year after year the Canadian Federation of Municipalities proposed a program to reinvigorate urban infrastructure, municipal infrastructure, with a tripartite federal-provincial-municipal program to rebuild sewers, roads, bridges and transportation facilities which we supported but that government over there turned down. It turned it down over and over again. So much for supporting infrastructure.
Finally, I want to ask the hon. member this. He condemns us for suggesting that jobs should be created, but in the Speech from the Throne given a few weeks ago his government promises 2.5 million jobs by the year 2000. It is interested in creating jobs too. The only odd thing about the Speech from the Throne is that it has a plan for the year 2000 and nothing for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995 when the recession is on now and people are interested in solutions now.
Supply
There are three questions I would like the hon. member to deal with.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend from NDG has left me enough time to deal with these issues. Needless to say, they are ones that I would be delighted to comment on. I will try to be brief, although I am not sure how much time is available.
First of all on the subject of GST and the recession, I find it extraordinary that my hon. friend along with his colleagues remain mired in this concept of a value added tax-something that exists in virtually every industrialized country of the world except the United States-as a basis for international competitiveness. They are still standing against that. They are opposing it.
I wonder, I wonder. We will never find out. They will not be on these benches in the near future.
It would be interesting to know if they would still stand by what they said during the debate, that they would abolish it. With respect to the concept that it was introduced at a time of recession, this is absolute nonsense.
This concept was introduced two or three years ago. The legislation came forth some time long before the recession began. I am sure my hon. friend opposite is not so naive as to think that you could put in place a massive tax reform and then, with the snap of your fingers, stop it.
On the idea of infrastructure, I was talking about the infrastructure of our national transportation system.
I have to tell you that I have 12 municipalities in my constituency and I would like nothing better than to have access to massive federal funds to assist them with their roads and sewers. But, guess what? The cupboard is bare. Why are the cupboards bare? Because from 1974 to 1984 we had a government that increased spending annually by 13.8 per cent. You cannot spend what you have not got.
My hon. friend ought to take a little lesson in history. He would find out that when this government gets things back under control, together with its sound economic planning, we are going to have jobs, 2.5 million of them as the Speech from the Throne said by the year 2000. It will be there. You wait for it.

June 4, 1991
Supply


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore is a great preacher. He speaks loud and clear. He thinks people understand him well. As for me, I would like to ask him a question: What does he think of his government's economic policies? Because we must look at the results. And the results of his government's policies, my friend, are that in Montreal the unemployment rate is at 15 per cent; in the Mari-times, it is between 15 to 20 per cent; in the Gaspe Peninsula, it is close to 20 per cent, and in the Lac Saint-Jean area, it is 17 per cent. Is that what you call good economic policies? That is what I would like to know. How can you boast of your economic policies when the unemployment rate has never been so high in the last five years?
[English ]


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I know the time is short, but I must say the economic policies of this government ' were good enough to get my hon. friend from Longueuil re-elected in 1988, something he seems to have forgotten.
Nevertheless, I am sure he recalls in the early 1980s when the Liberals were in power. The world goes through cycles of recession and boom. When the recession hit and they tried to spend their way out of it, we had interest rates of 20 per cent, an extraordinary inflation rate and a very high unemployment rate.
It is interesting to note two things about this recession. First, it has lasted a shorter time than the one did then. Second, we were not crushed with the interest rates and the inflation rates that were delivered to us by the approach taken by my friends opposite in 1982.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the member for South Shore said that are philosophical differences between his party and our party. There sure are.
Our philosophy is that we help those Canadians who need help the most. His party's philosophy is if someone is down and out, you kick him further in the gutter. That is his party's philosophy.
He talks about German unification, that it is not going as smoothly as he said in this House, and this is just from speaking to members of Parliament from Germany a week ago. I do not know what German unification has to do with the starving and hungry people in Montreal who we are debating here today.
The honeymoon is over. After seven years in government, after seven budgets and countless throne speeches, that party can no longer blame previous governments for the people who are hungry, the unemployed, et cetera. We do not buy that any more and Canadians are not buying that.
He knows, and I remind him again, that when his party took over the coffers had $177 billion in public debt. Today it is close to $400 billion. That was not created by the Liberals. That was created by his party.
I would like to ask him about the food banks. I just talked to Gerard Kennedy this morning, director of the Daily Bread food bank in my riding. He is also the national spokesperson of the Canadian Association of Food Banks.
I will share this. On a national basis, in 1990 the Canadian Association of Food Banks statistics reveal that 496,000 people per month were using food banks; half a million people per month. In 1989 this figure was only 378,000. Can he blame that on the Liberals? He cannot blame that on the Liberals. That is happening on an annual basis while his party is in power. He should analyse his government's programs. Why are they not working? I wanted him to answer that but he shouted, he ranted, he raved and then he left the House. That is how the Tories do business. That is how the Tories care for the hungry in Montreal, in Vancouver, in Toronto and across this land.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is sad to have to face a debate like this in Canada in
1991.	We have in this country tremendous resources. We have tremendous skills and tremendous capacity. We have people throughout our countiy who want to make a contribution to Canada and yet in many of our major cities and small towns we see people at the start of this decade facing poverty, experiencing unemployment and who consequently have a tremendous sense of despair and anger in many cases. I hope people have not entirely given up hope for their future and for the future of their countiy.
It is very easy as we look at the city of Montreal to see why people at this time might be losing hope. In our party we have had an economic recovery group which has been touring the country and visiting various parts of Canada, various communities across the countiy. The most recent place we visited was Montreal. I know Montreal as a place of joy, happiness and excitement because it is a place from which my wife comes. It is a
June 4, 1991

place I know personally. It is a place with a joie de vivre that one cannot help but be impressed by.
I found that day of listening to social groups and popular groups in Montreal to be one of the saddest in our cross country tour because despite the magnificent buildings and the proud history of that city there is a devastating reality which many people in Montreal are feeling today.
It is a reality which they should not have to feel. It is a reality which should not be acceptable to us in this House of Commons. It should not be acceptable to government ministers or to members of the governing party who come from the city of Montreal. There should be a sense of crisis, a sense of response and a sense of caring. It is very, very difficult to feel.

There is in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, an organization called Sun Youth. Its role is to provide some $50 worth of food per month to seniors. Every Monday morning, more than 1,000 men and women stand in line to receive a meagre food surplus. For them it is enormous.
Two classes of seniors benefit from the help of Sun Youth. First, the over 65 who receive the income supplement given by the federal government. To get this supplement, they must be single and their income must be less than $10,000 a year. If they are married, the combined income should not exceed $13,500 a year. The Conservative government is really generous.
The other class of people helped by Sun Youth is the 60-65 who are on welfare. They are often poorer than the other ones. For them, there is no federal income supplement.
Yesterday, says The Gazette, some people fought and others fainted when standing in line. Sun Youth rents 200 chairs to sit people. Others must wait outside, standing. These are old and often sick men and women.
In the province of Quebec, 360,000 people receive a guaranteed income supplement. The vast majority of them live in Montreal.
Moreover, in some areas, like South Center, for example. South West, the Mont-Royal Plateau, Saint-
Supply
Michel and Villeray, unemployment reaches more than 20 per cent. Some Montrealers describe the situation as similar in many ways to the economy of developing countries. It is not rosy.
Montreal has 374 food help organizations.
Less than half of these organizations existed 20 years ago. Their number has increased steadily. Before, they were limited to Montreal, but gradually they are moving to the suburbs, Laval in particular.
Unemployment in Montreal has increased by five points since last year. The manufacturing sector has been especially hard hit.
The Conservative government is telling us that it is generous in its assistance to Quebec and that it is looking after Montreal properly. The province of Quebec has a quarter of the Canadian population, yet it has also 32 per cent of its poor people!
The Quebec government was saying in its last budget that the cuts in established programs financing made by the Conservative government will cost the province $1.7 billion. The same is true for Ontario. Next year, it will be $2 billion more for Quebec. Cuts bring cuts. Provincial subsidies to municipal government must be reduced.
The debt of the City of Montreal has increased substantially this year, partly because of the recession. The main contributors to that debt are the subway extension and the building of water treatment facilities. The budget for green spaces has also been increased. All that is the bread and butter of Quebecers. The madness of the Conservative government is threatening such essential spending.
Meanwhile, the City of Montreal and its people are working as hard as they can to revitalize their economy and to find solutions to their problems. Several neighbourhoods that are quite affected by the economic downslide have created committees striving for economic recovery. Budgets are used to the maximum. Advertizing campaigns praise the very real assets of Montreal. But those incredible efforts will have been in vain if the federal government keeps on frustrating them and

June 4, 1991
Supply
making believe, as it did recently in the Gaspe Peninsula, that it is helping the disadvantaged areas.
I have recently gone to Montreal with the NDP tour for economic recovery. I have met many individuals and groups. The CNTU handed me an analytical document explaining the solutions to the problems resulting from the recession. In that document, the CNTU states that the government and I quote: "has no real political will to build on the dynamism of the regions" in spite of the local initiatives undertaken.
Clearly the conservative government is not listening to the people. Otherwise, it would understand that real solutions exist. Montreal will soon celebrate its 350th anniversary. It will take a lot more than fine words like those expressed in the Speech from the Throne to help Montreal men and women in their efforts to boost their economy.

One has to take steps that are concrete. One has to do more than talk. One has to recognize the reality of the problems that face the city of Montreal. These problems were pointed out by Andre McNicholl, the Superintendent of Welfare Services for the city of Montreal last month, when he indicated that no less than 13.2 per cent of all Montreal residents now depend on welfare assistance. That means at least one-quarter of the city's residents are either living on welfare or unemployment insurance.
That is shameful in Canada in 1991. And yet the reality is, as we can see from the figures which deal with investment for Montreal, that its investment has fallen significantly in the aftermath of the free trade deal.
The Minister of Finance likes to get up and talk about how foreign investment has increased in 1990. What he does not indicate is that in Canada, in Quebec and specifically in Montreal, over-all investment has decreased. In the greater Montreal area, for instance, construction investment has decreased from approximately $3.4 billion in 1989 to $2.75 billion in 1990. That is the reality; decreases in investment and increases in unemployment. The only expanding sectors in the city of Montreal are food banks. That is where the expansion is taking place.
This is a sad commentary, not just on the failure of this government, but on the unfairness which this government and previous governments have built into the structure of our society, that the largest city in the province of Quebec should be suffering this double dilemma of increased poverty and increased unemployment. This is what is likely to condemn our country in the future to constitutional crisis after crisis because these crises do not just come about because of constitutional concerns, they have their roots in the fact that 25 per cent of Montrealers are either on welfare or unemployment insurance.
The only way that we will put this country right, put this country back together again, is to address these problems, to act concretely, to listen to the local solutions which the many popular groups are putting forward, to provide funding for those solutions at the national level and by showing that we in all of Canada care about Montreal and its reality. We must be able to demonstrate to all Quebecers that our country is going to be a united and fair country in the future.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the member on his fine speech. As a Montrealer I want to say that I appreciate his comments with respect to our city.
I want to ask him this. For several years the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has suggested a tripartite program, a fund which would be contributed to by the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities to renew decaying urban infrastructure. I think they started to recommend such a program as far back as 1985.
The purpose of the recommendation was to renew decaying urban infrastructure, such things as roads, sewage systems, water treatment systems, anti-pollution systems, garbage treatment programs in cities, ports, airports, public transportations systems and so on, but also to create a lot of jobs.
When I raised this today in the debate one of the Conservative members who spoke accused me of simply putting forward suggestions that involve spend, spend, spend, throwing money at problems. It seems to me that when you spend money in this way you are renewing the infrastructure of a city which in turn provides a climate for investment and for economic growth.
June 4, 1991

I served with the hon. member on the committee looking at the free trade agreement and other committees that deal with economic matters, and he has a reputation on economic matters. What is his view? It seems to me that such a program would be extremely helpful to Montreal.
Montreal is a city with many decaying aspects in its infrastructure. It just cannot afford to go ahead without the help of the provincial and federal governments. Not only would we create a lot of jobs, but we would help Montreal renew itself and provide an environment and a climate for further investment.
By the way, the government has rejected that program time and time again. However, I do not think it is fair to simply describe it as another suggestion of throwing money at a problem. I would like to have the hon. member's assessment and the assessment of his party with respect to such a program to help our cities in this country.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this suggestion of infrastructure renewal is something which we took very seriously when it was first put forward by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It was something which we endorsed as part of our platform during the last election campaign.
At this stage, with over 10 per cent unemployment, it makes tremendous sense to undertake that kind of investment in our future economic growth. That is the key point. What we are talking about here is not expenditure in the sense of money which goes out and leaves nothing behind. Instead, we are talking about expenditure which is really an investment in future economic growth.
When a large company makes such an investment, for instance, in a new factory, or a new port facility or something like that, new transportation items which it is going to utilize, we do not say to that company: "You're being wasteful. You're spending". We say to that company: "Well, of course, that makes sense. If you are going to get an economic benefit out of that, this makes sense". And this is what will come.
One of the most noted economists in the United Stales, Robert Reich, has recently written in The Atlantic an answer to the question: "How do you become competitive in the future global economy?" You do it by
Supply
investing in things that will help your future growth, such as investment in infrastructure.
This is what the New Democratic Party government in Ontario has been doing with its new policy of investment in infrastructure to fight the recession. I think it will benefit Ontario. It could certainly benefit Montreal as well.


Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier- Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. I think he understands well the situation of Montreal. I would like to know what he thinks of what the mayor of that city suggested in his submission, on behalf of the city of Montreal, during the hearings of the Belanger-Campeau Commission. The mayor proposed "a way to the future for all of Quebec and also for Montreal, in which certain tools should be totally and exclusively in the hands of the state of Quebec". The tools and the skills that the mayor of Montreal favours are the following: education, manpower, professional training, immigration, language, culture, health, social services, environment and urban development.
These requests were made by the mayor of Montreal after extensive consultation with public interest groups, groups from Montreal and, I believe, active at the local level, and which have examined all of these issues. Therefore, I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of the proposal made by the mayor which has, of course, been approved by the city council, and also by the main interest groups in Montreal.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think that those areas underlined by the mayor are doubtless important to the future of a city like Montreal. I think it must also be recognized that Mr. Dore made a real effort to consult public interest groups, community groups and local organizations.
I think this may be the problem with this government, the fact that it does not listen to public groups, to local organizations, and to community organizations because those groups that we met in Montreal two weeks ago have talked to us about education, training and environmental projects, as well as projects aimed at improving the infrastructure of the city of Montreal. Those are projects which can create jobs for Montrealers, and which represent an investment in the future of Montreal.

June 4, 1991
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The honourable Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, first, I must say that I am very happy to take part in this debate, today. As a former businessman, I know Montreal, even if I come from a rural area, Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues described to you the strategies adopted by the government to develop the economic potential of the Montreal area. As for me, I would like to draw your attention on the measures taken by the government to develop international activities in Montreal.
The government believes that the development of international activities in Montreal is an excellent way to revitalize the regional economy. According to this logic, the government has decided to establish in Montreal the headquarters of the Canadian Space Agency to increase the stimulation of the existing potential, both in the related industrial activities and in the presence of Montreal in international networks.
Already, in 1986, the Picard Report had stressed that Montreal had the required qualifications to become an international city, including its bilingual and bicultural character. Montreal was at that time home for two prestigious international organizations, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Since then, it welcomed the International Society of Aeronautical Telecommunications (ISAT). Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Picard Report mentioned a positive factor for Montreal, and that is Canada's membership in organizations such as the Commonwealth and La Francophonie, which has helped several companies reach out to the world.
Mr. Speaker, the Picard Report recommended that all levels of government recognize the importance of international organizations and facilitate their establishment in Montreal. The Canadian government recognized this objective and committed itself to making Montreal an important world centre which would have branches of governmental and non-governmental organizations dealing with international affairs, as well as to developing and promoting other international activities in Montreal. To this end, the government worked on devising incentives which would attract such organisations and facilitate their operations.
As a first step, the government, jointly with the Quebec government and the City of Montreal, is helping the Societe du centre de conferences internationales, a non-profit organization, to conduct studies on the feasibility of creating an international city and to make concrete proposals for the development of international activities in Montreal. The international city would bring together, under one roof, the ICAO headquarters, an international conference centre and other international activities or organizations.
Mr. Speaker, the government is waiting for a report on these studies before announcing a final decision about this project. The ICAO will decide on a possible move at its next plenary session in September 1992.
I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the government signed last year an agreement with the ICAO in which we committed ourselves to providing better working conditions to this organization and its employees.
The federal government has recently contributed to the installation of three international organizations in Montreal. Last year, it created the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which it put in Montreal and provided with a $15 million budget over 5 years. Under the direction of Mr. Ed Broadbent, whom hon. members know well, this organisation will contribute to the strengthening of democratic institutions and programs in the world by promoting research, sponsoring conferences and bringing technical assistance and financial help to local initiatives in the Third World.
It has also contributed $10 million to the establishment in Montreal of the permanent secretary of the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Layer. This is the second United Nations organization, after the ICAO, to establish in Canada. It is an office composed of approximately twenty persons; its task is to administer an international fund which could grow to $240 millions in the next three years.
It also contributed financially to the establishment in Montreal of the head office of the International Centre of Films for Children and Young People (ICFCYP). This is an international association created under the United Nations auspices. It produces and distributes films which can promote a better understanding among nations.
June 4, 1991

As in the case of projects developed jointly by the private sector and the federal and other governments, the government supports a joint initiative of the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce and the EDI Council of Canada. This initiative concerns the establishment of an office in Montreal for the realization of a program for the promotion and training on EDI and the management of activities pertaining to the creation of an EDI international agency. EDI is a process of electronic data exchange which helps firms to save a lot of money and to be more efficient and faster in their exchanges. In this matter, like England and the Netherlands, the government supports the development of these kinds of activities in Montreal. It helped establish a non-profit corporation, under a board of directors whose members are prominent in the trade and transportation sector in Montreal, including the Port of Montreal and shipping, railway and trucking companies, for the purpose of introducing an EDI system that will meet the needs of the transportation industry and related sectors. The results of this initiative will be an important part of the process of setting up the EDI Institute.
Although the list of federal initiatives in the international field in Montreal is a long one, there are four more measures I must mention:
First, support for establishing an institute for creativity and design research will promote, stimulate and enhance the development of skills Canadian and excellence of international calibre in various design disciplines.
Second, support for institutions specializing training such as the Telecommunications Executive Management Institute of Canada (TEMIC), established in Montreal in 1986. The institute has attracted over 200 managers from 70 countries who acquired telecommunications skills, thanks to co-operation between the private sector, including Bell Canada, Teleglobe, Northern Telecom, and the government.
Third, support for the International Aviation Management Training Institute (IAMTI) which after four years has 1,200 graduates in 120 countries.
Supply
Fourth, the patent legislation (Bill C-22) passed by Parliament to promote research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. As a result of this legislation, many pharmaceutical companies located in Montreal have started to expand their facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that these examples have demonstrated the Canadian government's commitment to implementing a concrete policy for developing and promoting international activities in Montreal. In fact, the government is very much aware of the need to include both business, educational institutions, and international governmental and non-governmental organizations in these activities. Only by fostering joint action by both the private and public sectors, Mr. Speaker, can the government contribute to the long-term economic development in the Montreal area.
Today, Mr. Speaker, Montreal should be able to develop adequately its high-technology sector and to strengthen its traditional industry. The most frequent issues preventing Montreal from reaching these objectives without the govcrncment intervention arc, among others, the shortage of a highly skilled work force, the lack of investment in research and development, the absence of risk capital to start up small high-technology businesses and a weak partnership from universities, industries, financial institutions in particular. Various governments have already recognized the weaknesses of Montreal, particularly in the east and the south-west of the city, where special programs have been implemented. It is the reason why, in concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues of the official opposition and the others members of this Parliament that, on my suggestion, the Quebec Conservative caucus will be held in Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, in the beautiful city of Riviere-du-Loup, in August. I asked the executive of the Quebec caucus to put on the agenda a discussion of Montreal and its regions, not only by the members from Montreal and the surrounding areas, but also by all the members from the province of Quebec. With my background as a businessman, I consider Montreal to be the heart and the engine of the economy of the province of Quebec.

June 4, 1991
Supply
Starting from there, Mr. Speaker, if we are able to find solutions that will help Montreal create jobs, then we will also get into the context of the rural world symposium that was held in Montreal in the beginning of February. We will then keep our youth from leaving for Montreal. We will be able to keep them in the regions.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the hon. member's comments. I know his intentions are good, and I have no doubts about the Ministers' intents and that of the Government, but unfortunately the programs under way are not working. That is why Montreal has the highest unemployment rate of all Canadian cities. That is why the number of Montrealers living in poverty is also the highest in Canada. So there are good programs. The minister mentioned Canadair. It is working very well, but in East-Montreal, as well as in the southwestern part, the unemployment rate is up to 25 per cent. We have to try something else.
Even in the Speech from the Throne, the government promised to create jobs for of the year 2000.1 suggest the development of a program creating jobs for 1991 and 1992, and I wish the government will be able to do it, to move forward on the program mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I ask the member to tell me this: Does he not agree that we should try something else, new things, for Montreal, because the situation is very bad. Morale is very bad right now in Montreal and we ought to use our imaginations to develop programs which will really change the situation.


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-grace. I know he too believe in the economic development of Montreal and I know he knows that if the city's economic development is successful the province as a whole will benefit from it. But I would also like to remind him of this last week, the Minister of Health, who is also responsible for economic development in Quebec, was accused of creating a department for Economic Development in Quebec. That is when this House became a proper madhouse. The federal governe-ment was occured of trying to interfere in Quebec's affairs.
And I know that my honourable colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grace knows full well that in June of 1988,
the Quebec Premier, Robert Bourassa, and the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, signed in the City of Montreal an economic development agreement 850 million dollars over five years, not to mention programs from other departments as well, Mr. Speaker. It was strictly for economic development. As an ex-Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, I can tell you that the federal funds are but not those of Quebec as yet.
So we want something new. Yes, something different will have to be done. We do not want the federal government to interfere anymore in the affairs of the Quebec government, whether it is education, industry, immigration or what have you. I have nothing against the Constitution, but I am fed up with hearing about it, Mr. Speaker.
When I decided to campaign in 1984,1 wanted to be a member of the House of Commons in order to talk about the construction sector. That is what I told my constituents. We are now in 1991, and we are still discussing the Constitution. I keep on saying to the people in my riding that other members are there for that job and that I personally talk about construction. And for as long as I will be here, that is what I will do. If, in the fall of 1992, the province of Quebec decides to part from Canada and opts for sovereignty, by way of a referendum or another process, or if Quebec decides to accept the offers that the federal government or the other provinces will have made to it and if it is decided that responsibility for economic development must remain in Quebec, then, Mr. Speaker, I will respect that decision.
But right now, in 1991, on June 4 to be more precise, I would like to have the support of the official opposition to say that, as far as Quebec's economic development is concerned, the money available must be spent as soon as possible.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup for his excellent speech. My friend-at least, he used to be and I still consider him as such-dealing mainly with international trade, of course he praised the federal government efforts in obtaining international recognition for Montreal. But, as we know, what we find the most in Montreal are service industries which do not generate many jobs. Manufacturing companies, on the other hand, provide a lot of employment. That is where we are up against serious problems.
June 4, 1991

A typical example of this can be found in my riding, with Pratt & Whitney. It has laid off about 1,000 workers so far. While the federal government is boasting and saying that it wants to develop the aeronautical and aerospace industry in Montreal, it appears that the Industrial Development Fund for Western Canada is negotiating arrangements with the federal government and Pratt & Whitney to relocate Montreal plants in Western Canada.
So, when they try and make us believe that they are serious about wanting Montreal to become a development is centre in the field of aeronautics and aerospace technology, believe me, it is a load of rubbish. In fact, it is quite a different story. All that kind of work is being shipped out of the greater Montreal area. That is what is really happening! Check it out for yourselves.
Another big problem is lack of consultation. Here is another striking example. When the former Minister of Transport decided to apply the axe to VIA Rail-and I was not against that-many jobs were lost in the Montreal region due to the way it was done. The Quebec government and the city of Montreal should have been consulted first to find out what they thought of VTA Rail. I might have been interested to involve some commuter trains. The Quebec government also should have been involved because when you unilaterally decide to close down a business of that significance for the transport industry while ignoring Quebec and the municipality, well, you may well destroy what could have been built. Everybody could have been involved in this decision, which would have probably saved billions of dollars and also jobs in the Montreal region.
Now, what the government is doing basically is to act on its own, as the NDP member was saying earlier. And every time the federal government is taking some action there is no consultation process. Therefore, because of this lack of consultation Montreal has now a 15 per cent level of unemployment.
A little money now and then for the sake of showing that things are being done for regional development does not mean that real action is being taken. It is by consulting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but in all fairness, I have to interrupt the hon. member in order to allow his colleague to answer.
Supply


André Plourde: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil, talks a lot about consultation and seems to be very familiar with that matter. I have just made an announcement in this House regarding the Quebec summer caucus meeting of the Conservative Party, to be held in Riviere-du-Loup, August 23, 24 and 25 and I have invited all opposition members to present us with some suggestions. That is what consultation is all about.
If he wants to help Montreal and the surrounding area, well, he should let us know what needs to be done. We have ideas of our own, but we would also welcome theirs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mount Royal has ten minutes.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member read Hansard. He will find some wonderful ideas for his caucus meeting.
I am really quite pleased to speak to a very important proceeding put forward by my colleague from NDG. I thank him most sincerely for having brought to light a serious situation in Canada, in particular in the capital of unemployment in this country, Montreal. I would suggest that people read the enlightened debate that he has made. It is fulsome and carries much important information in that regard.
It is a sad time as well for me because I would like to have had the time to address both the failure of this government's general economic thrust and its national outlook, as well as the situation in the riding of Mount Royal to give the local picture. While these situations may be seen as separate, the experience directly translates from one level to the other.
I do welcome, however, the opportunity to reflect the concerns and the anxieties being felt by my constituents in Mount Royal about the sad state of the country, about the sad state of the economy, about how it is affecting them wherever they live, whatever their businesses are, no matter what their background, the economic status, the level of education, their mother tongue, their country of origin, no matter what they look like, no matter where they live in their homes, in their apartment buildings, and in the worst case, in the street.

June 4, 1991
Supply
They are seeing reality every day on the streets of Mount Royal riding, in community centres and in the food banks. They are seeing images of hunger, of tremendous social needs going unmet. I would like to present some very interesting, yet disturbing statistics in a few moments.
Meanwhile, this very insensitive government, concerned only with the bottom line of its economic budget, moves uncaringly along and says: "We can do no more. Our hands are tied. The deficit is too important. We just can't afford it". I say the question now has become: "We just can't afford not to help".
National problems are also local problems. The people of Mount Royal riding, like the people of all of Canada, know that this government has an economic performance record that is very sad. They know that old saying: "Tory times are tough times".
If we look at what the headlines have been in the last
few days-

-they say that "Ottawa has taken out of the pockets of families $1,530 more since 1980". The Conservative government got that money from the pockets of the average Canadian family through new taxes since 1984, which represents a more rapid increase than in any other large developed country, according to the data from a new study.
Since 1984, the growth of the net share of federal taxes has represented a draw of $1,530 for an average family of 2.3 persons. This growth is due to the increase in income taxes, the surtaxes, the sales and excise taxes, to the rise of premiums for the Unemployment Insurance and the Pension Plans, and to the lowering of family allowances and old age pensions. These numbers take into account the federal sales tax refunds and the individual child tax credits. And I point out that even Otto Jelinek, the Minister of National Revenue, has suggested that high taxes are one of the reasons Canadians go shopping in the United States, whereas Mr. Mazankowski, the Minister of Finance, denied that Canadians are overtaxed and warned taxpayers that they better not expect ary tax decreases as long as the government do not succeed in
curbing the deficit. But thqy had much time to curb that deficit during the good years, from 1984 to 1990.

The worst recession in the industrial world is taking place and it has been a made-in-Canada recession. The national debt has been doubled and, of course, it is our fault. The middle class is suffering from higher taxes, including the GST, while the government somehow claims that the GST has saved them money. Well, I know what it saves them. Headlines and research have shown us that it saves them on paper clips and mascara- not exactly bread and butter. What the government did at the time it did it was absolutely unconscionable. That is what brought on an increased recession.
As I have said, we are living in a made-in-Canada recession with high interest rates and a high dollar causing more plants to close or to move south. All the plant closures leave even more people inadequately trained for new jobs with no government plans for retraining. Unemployment is inordinately high, particularly among the youth. More families are being turned into the streets every day because they cannot make mortgage payments or even rent their own apartments. Food for many families is becoming a luxury. Food banks are busier than they should ever be, I spoke to the issue of the food banks in my own riding.
Official unemployment is over 14 per cent in Montreal in 1991, up from 10.4 per cent in 1990. This comes from the CSN findings taken in May 1991. With respect to people looking for work, the unemployed have increased from 346,000 in March 1990 to 486,000 people in Quebec in March 1991, and 250,000 in the city of Montreal alone.
It is an absolutely unconscionable critique of this government which is well founded and well documented.
Tens of thousands are on social welfare in the city of Montreal and in my own riding. Yet there has been no talk from this government of job creation, of an industrial strategy, of child care, of regional development, of any new partnership, or of any programs that would renew the municipal infrastructure and make Montreal more liveable in many ways and create more jobs.
June 4, 1991

The members opposite continue to support this government which calls itself a successful financial manager. It is certainly not a very successful human manager, if it cares to target itself in any way.
The situation in my own riding is very desperate. This is a valuable opportunity to let people know some of the realities being faced every day in the Mount Royal riding in our province of Quebec which the conference board says has been the hardest hit of any province in this recession. Headlines have proclaimed Montreal the unemployment capital of Canada.
Let me first highlight some of the characteristics of my riding which, by no means, fits the image many people have, and certainly does not fit the Quebec or Canadian averages in terms of population make-up, or its socioeconomic structure. I am talking about a population of close to 100,000 which includes a significant immigration population from the world over: southeast Asia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, seniors, single parent families, two parent families, employed and unemployed.
It is very interesting. We have a very skewed riding population.

The group of 65 and more represents 17.4 per cent in Colc-des-Neiges, 18.4 per cent in Snowdon, 24 percent in Cote-Saint-Luc-Hampstead, and 10 per cent in the whole province of Quebec. That should be taken into consideration.
Single parent families headed by a woman represent 18 per cent in Cote-des-Neiges, 19 per cent in Snowdon, 11 per cent in Cote-Saint-Luc-Hampstead, 16 per cent in Mount Royal and 14,4 per cent in the province of Quebec.

I go on and these are the findings of DSC, Departement de same communautaire de I'Hopital Sainte-Justine which have just been deposited in April of this year.
Supply

-ethnic origin other than French and British, it is 44,3 per cent in Cote-des-Neiges, 61.7 per cent in Snowdon, 70.7 per cent in Cote-Saint-Luc-Hampstead, 31.6 per cent in Outremont-Mount Royal and 10.5 per cent in Quebec. Does that tell you something?
The proportion of immigrant population born outside Montreal and outside Quebec, is 41 per cent in Cote-des Neiges, 53 per cent in Snowdon, 37 per cent in Cote-Saint-Luc-Hampstead and 25 per cent in Mount Royal. It is 8.2 per cent for the province of Quebec.
The distribution of people who did not complete their ninth year as follows: 14 per cent in Cote-des Neiges, 19.4 per cent in Snowdon, 14 per cent in Cote-Saint-Luc-Hampstead and 8 per cent in Mount Royal. It is 23 per cent for the province of Quebec.
Unemployment figures are really incredible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! I have to remind the hon. member that she has had the floor for ten minutes. Unless her party indicates to me that she has twenty minutes, I will have to interrupt her at this point.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Lon-gueuil has the floor.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I started earlier to talk about consultation. You know, the lack of consultation is the biggest problem that businesses have in Quebec.
At the provincial level, we have the Department of Industry and Trade, the CRIQ and the QIDC. At the federal level, we have the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, the Federal Business Development Bank and numerous other programs. Provincial programs do not apply the same criteria as federal programs. From a federal point of view, the regions are Quebec, Ontario, Western Canada and the Maritimes. From a provincial point of view, the regions are Gaspesie, Lac Saint-Jean, etc.
Because of that, business people looking for help encounter serious difficulties, to a point where they finally get discouraged. This is one of the main reasons why Montreal cannot develop itself. It is one of the reasons why small and medium firms in Montreal eventually give up, in the first place-
If you look at:

June 4, 1991
Supply


Jean Corbeil: We need to discuss,-


Nic Leblanc: Yes, as the Minister of Transport just said, we need to discuss, but he was among those who refused-it is a well known fact-when I was a member of the Conservative Party, to organize in Metropolitan Montreal a caucus which task would have been to hold consultations on the city's development. He refused to do that. Why? Because he wanted to be the only one able to make gifts to firms. That is what happened then.
It is today's Minister of Transport who is responsible for the area, and it is the same minister who refused that Conservatives meet together in a caucus in Montreal to work with the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce and others. This is why I had to ask a question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. I certainly want to be tolerant but I must remind the hon. members that when they have the floor in a questions and comments period, they must ask questions to the previous speaker or make comments on his or her speech. Please keep that rule in mind. Pm sorry but I must add that it is not the time to make a speech. It is a period for questions or comments. You have taken two minutes, almost three, out of a period of five. If you want an answer, please ask the question.
Does the hon. member for Mount Royal have any comment in reply to the hon. member for Longueuil?
[English ]


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I find that the inappropriate intervention of this member also indicates his inappropriate understanding of the city of Montreal, of the ethnic origin of many of our people and of the problems that we live with on a daily basis. He is only concerned about the state of the nation, not the state of the people.
I would like to point out to him that I have 10,156 beneficiaries on social welfare in my area. The level of poverty of children is one out of five. They are hungry. We have food banks that feed them. The unemployment level for the young people is inordinately high, at 25 per cent. With respect to the age spectrum in my riding, with the large number of children who are a part of the social welfare and benefit package and the number of elderly in my province, the housing policy that this government has put into place is totally disgraceful. Only 17 per cent of
the people in the Montreal area can afford to buy a home on their own.
Fifty per cent has been cut by this government to the co-op program; 40 per cent has been cut to social housing for the elderly; 40 per cent has been cut for single parents and for families. There have been cuts to the CMHC that are totally unconscionable. CHIP is gone, COSP is gone and rental rehabilitation housing programs are gone. In my area we had to close down four huge apartment buildings because they were full of cockroaches and rats and the toilet bowls were broken. We have crack shops where the young people are now being exposed to drugs. Juvenile crime is up.
Why is it? It is because you have not put money into infrastructure or into rebuilding the housing in the area and we have a huge immigrant population still flowing in:
35,000	Vietnamese now live in this area and more and more are coming. Do you think they want to live in such a dangerous environment?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled, because, from what I hear from government members, the situation is very cheerful. So, tell me, if things go so well, why is everything so bad?
Last Friday, May 24,1 think, members from my caucus and myself had an excellent meeting in Montreal with our friends-and I call them my friends-, from the Conseil central de Montreal of the Confederation des syndicats nationaux. We enjoyed a warm welcome. Regardless of our political ideas about the future of the Confederation and other matters, we met with reprenta-tives from a dozen unions. They pointed very clearly to us that they were planning a meeting with members of the provincial Parti Quebecois, with members of the Quebec Liberal Party and, give the devil his due, with a few friends from the Bloc, but they were still waiting for an answer from the Quebec Conservative caucus.
Because I like accuracy I just double-checked with our same friends of the Conseil central de Montreal, who told us-I will be courteous, I will not give the names of the hon. members, but I think you take my word, these were a few names-"Yes, yes, plan it for next fall, we will see what we can do at that time." These are the people who set up a very important organization called L'offensive
June 4, 1991

contrc la recession, to fight against poverty in same areas of Montreal.
I look at the minister responsible for the Montreal area and I will never forget the very wise words uttered, when I was a young parliamentarian, by Jean Marchand, a great trade unionist who had a thorough understanding of Quebec, who was not from Montreal and who kept saying all the time: "Montreal is the engine of Quebec." Some parts of Montreal are even worse off than the City as a whole. They are the parts we should think about in particular.
In keeping with the high level of the debate I would like to see, if my colleagues allow, I must say that I had the impression of hearing the same thing from the previous speaker. He is not from Quebec City, he is from Riviere-du-Loup-Kamouraska. Here is a man, a Conservative member, who is going to organize a caucus meeting of Conservative members from Quebec, where you will be, Mr. Speaker, in Riviere-du-Loup-an area which I invite people to visit-and who says he thought it would be a good thing to have a special workshop on Montreal, in fact he demanded it. This is unbelievable, it takes someone from Riviere-du-Loup-Kamouraska to make up members from Montreal. He understood that when Montreal is not doing well, the whole of Quebec isn't either.
It somewhat reminds me of a very popular folksong that we used to sing in Quebec when I was young: "Tout va Ires bien, mailame la marquise, tout va tres bien, tout va ties bien." Don't worry, everything is fine, except that I should tell you that there is 13.1 per cent unemployment in Montreal, the highest unemployment rate in all the Canadian cities. Everything is fine, seems to be saying the minister responsible. Everything is fine, Madam, don't worry. Except that there is another small fire: 22 per cent of the people live in poverty in some part of Montreal. But, don't worry, Madam, everything is fine!
Well, it is not what the people of the Consell central des syndicats nutionuux de Montreal told us. It is not what they experience every day. It is not, Mr. Minister-in-charge, what I see in my riding. In the municipality of Saint-Jean-de-la-Croix, people are now saying: "We live in Saint-Jean-de-la-Misere." I say: "Listen, we have had enough of this depression, this discouragement." But it is not easy to go and tell that to people who are losing their jobs and who are saying: "I heard the minister say:
Supply
'Don't worry, we have great big plans for high technology projects, jobs that will pay well." But how do you help these people, who cannot even apply for the POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, and who are probably undergoing a painful experience because they are too old and uneducated. So it is very difficult to put them back in the workforce, when they were looking for assistance programs, for ways to help the company they were working for.
And people are asking: What do you want from us with those high interest rates? Those are not my words, they are the words of our friends from the CNTU and the Conseil central des syndicats nationaux de Montreal, which are complaining bout high interest rates, unemployment, POWA, unemployment insurance reform and tax reform. They are saying that even if they would like to believe in what the Canada-United States agreement brought or could bring, the only thing they have noticed, despite their competent statisticians and researchers, was that thousands of jobs have been directly lost because of the Free Trade Agreement. The agreement has not yet been absorbed, and already it is evident that they are trying to put at risk the manufacturing industry, which is to be found in the poorer areas of Montreal. They are not the most lucrative jobs, but try telling that to the people of Saint-Edouard, Sainte-Cecile, Parc Extension, in Montreal. Try telling that to the new immigrants who work from early in the morning through late at night in small plants just because they want to work-I say that for those who form the majority in Quebec-and they now see these plants closing one after the other.
I can see the other Minister, the Minister of Multicul-turalism. I know he is sensitive to these matters, to the needs of these new immigrants who do not hold the better jobs and who have no education. It is not enough to say: "Not to worry, everything is fine, because some high technology jobs have been created." We clearly need these jobs, but what of all those who are discouraged and who, day by day, are moving nearer to family separation?
The minister should come and visit Montreal because some parts of the city have no idea of what is going on elsewhere in Montreal. The Petite patrie is not Vdle d'Anjou. It is not, with all due respect to some of my colleagues, the district of Saint-Leonard, that of my

June 4, 1991
Supply
collegue, the Chief Opposition Whip, the member for Saint-Leonard.
In some neighbourhoods, even if you announce big new and important programs, it is so sad! The minister should go there to really feel the pulse.
But first of all, to be more down-to-earth, you should force your Montreal and provincial caucus to meet our friends from the CNTU. The last caucus did not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must interrupt the hon. member for Saint-Denis unless there is unanimous consent of the House.
Questions and comments for a period of five minutes. The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. I recall back in the late 1960s when the hon. member was the parliamentary secretary to the then federal minister of regional economic expansion, or I think perhaps it was the department of economic expansion for Canada, the Hon. Don Jamieson. I am wondering what advice the hon. member would have for the Government of Canada, or for anyone who is trying to tackle this incredibly big problem experienced in his riding and in the city of Montreal.


Marcel Prud'homme: I thank my colleague first, for his good memory and second, for his question.
As we say, critics are easy when they are not followed by positive suggestions. Now, I will give you a brief example. Then I will leave it for the minister to reflect upon. It is a bit in answer to your question.
In my constituency, we have tried something that exists nowhere else. It fulfills a dream I always had. I realized that after all, federal, provincial as well as municipal representatives are all elected by the same people. So, we created what is called a consultation committee. Its the in thing nowadays. Two of our members are provincial ministers, two are federal MPs, three are municipal councillors-those are the only ones I will name, that is Mr. Bielo, Mrs. Blanc, Mr. Berthelet, who is President of the Montreal Municipal Council, Minister Sirros, Minister Trepanier, my colleague Andre Ouellet and
myself. We get together and we talk of what happened to RRAP projects.
So we do work here and we try to ask questions. It is up to the local government first to show that the various levels of government can work together. It was in a way Don Jamieson's approach. He never undertook anything before making sure first and foremost that he had the full, total and complete cooperation of the members opposite. When there were some problems, Don would say: we are going to try to do something by phone. I wonder how often people are on the phone. They must not be on the phone often, since I am told that now in Quebec city everybody is tearing up its clothes at the national assembly since Mr. Benoit Bouchard has announced the establishment of a new department. This is a rather unexpected statement, probably to tell people from Gaspe: I am going to pay you a visit but, please do not throw rocks at me, I have great news for you. Then instead of some concrete announcement, they get a new minister! Well it was not the way Don Jamieson used to do things, nor was it Otto Lang's way although he was a tough and disciplined man. But it was probably what I call-

-the golden age of what Canada knows. I must recognize that it is more difficult today.

But there is one thing I have to acknowledge: there has not been, first and foremost, that kind of consultation- I see people smiling on the other side. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. You first have to be able to recognize that there is a problem, you cannot spend all your time saying: There is no problem, just a few poor people here and there, but look at what the future holds for us, with all that high technology, et cetera. Yes, that is true. We do need well-paid jobs for our young people. But what do we do in the meantime? You simply refuse to admit that there is a problem out there.
The minister keeps talking about when the Liberals were in office. I challenge anyone of those who will speak after me to stop using that phrase. Let me tell you what I hear in my riding, and I will conclude with these words. Each time you use that argument, if I could rise, I would prove to you that sincerity still does pay in politics. Stop saying: "In the days of the Liberals!" I see my leader who will take part in the debate. Well, he too can show humility when people keep telling him: "Yes, but in the days of the Liberals." We have been judged in 1984
June 4. 1991

Supply
by a team saying that they could do better. It is a difficult admission to make for a politician, is it not?
And we have been judged again in 1988. So, stop using this argument that is not a valid one, that makes yourself ridiculous when you say-


An hon. member:: You are a former serviceman!


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, I am a former serviceman. I am a man of discipline. But then, you were supposed- Here comes the minister with his tired old refrain- He is not able to recognize that there is a problem, so he will keep singing: "Don't worry, be happy. The situation is disastrous in Montreal, but don't worry, except for that everything is fine, I keep an eye open for problems with the new minister" who is not really a minister, who appointed himself but will get demoted-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine -Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate to discuss the economic development challenge in Montreal, and to join the other speakers who have recorded the concerns we all have for a full and equal share on the part of Montrealais in this economic recovery program.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace asks this government to create jobs in Montreal. Here is our response. Mr. Speaker, this government spent more than $32 million during the last year to do precisely that. Did my colleague mention it in his motion? I do not think so.
It bears repeating that between April 1, 1990 and March 31, 1991, this government spent more than $32 million, $32,076,850 to be specific, in order to create jobs in the city of Montreal, and 7,925 people benefitted from this help. Part of this money was used to protect jobs, which is more or less like creating new ones. If a job is at risk and the government steps in to protect it, it is like job creation.
[English ]
Work sharing is a godsend for a company that is staring disaster in the face and will have to lay off and thus lose valued skilled workers in order to survive. The work sharing program, by shortening the work week by one to three days, lets workers keep their jobs, thereby keeping up their skills.
I can speak from personal experience in the riding of Lachine that the work sharing program is working. With the aid of the Government of Canada two of our major corporations, Jenkins Incorporated and one other, have applied for and received the support they needed to keep those jobs alive.
Job creation, as any employer knows, always happens when there are workers around with the right skills or people with the ability to learn the job quickly and then relearn it when some new technology or method comes along that radically changes the nature of the job, rendering the old skills obsolete.

I am talking about people who can adjust, Mr. Speaker, people who can read, count and understand a manual or remember complex instructions, people who are part of today's culture and who can learn the required skills when they are needed. Those are the people who would really create jobs, people who can adjust. The 8,000 Montrealers or so who got help from the government last year all have skills or had to learn some in order to play an active role in the work force.
Those who had practically no useful skills were registered in a government job training program. Now, thanks to training funded by our government, those Montrealers are on their way to self-sufficiency again.

The training costs for about 100 unemployed, unskilled people anywhere in the country can run close to $1 million, or on a per capita basis roughly $8,500 to $10,000 per individual trainee. I mention this to point out how much it costs to properly train an unskilled, unemployed person for work. In fact, re-employment training is so expensive that it requires the involvement of many partners to make it viable.

June 4, 1991
Supply
The government funds skills training programs for the unemployed.
The government also wants to encourage employers to fund training and retraining for their workers who may be at risk or falling behind in productivity.
This morning in Lachine, I learned that there was a meeting of some 80 employers, industrial and commercial companies, with the school authority, together with the support of the Government of Canada, for the very purpose of organizing these very courses to bring those basic skills into the work place.
I am proud that there is this initiative, and I am sure it is being repeated and will be repeated right across the country. The government wants to encourage employers to fund training and retraining for their workers who may be at risk of falling behind in productivity.
That is why in the Speech from the Throne the government vowed to begin the effort now to quadruple the training provided by employers to their employees.
[ Translation ]
Our training programs help the unemployed to acquire basic and vocational skills which they need to find a job. Employers can also help their staff to keep their skills up to date and prevent them from loosing their job.

Survival skills include communication, mathematics and job search techniques, basic skills that you and I acquired long ago and now take for granted. Deprived of these basic skills, one is bound to lose his or her self-esteem. We have a particular example of this among the management and executive professional class in the west of Montreal.
There is a self-help program, Executives Available, which has put together the self-assistance and encouragement that allows those people who have been without work and losing confidence to come back into the work force with a new sense of confidence.
As all of us know, the loss of self-esteem usually cancels or depreciates one's ability and desire to compete in today's fast changing job market.
Basic training skills therefore start the unemployed person back on the road to recovery. That is why this training is so vital to our re-employment strategy. That is why re-employment training can cost $10,000 per trainee.
The re-learning of basic survival skills is often slow and time consuming, eating up training dollars before the occupational training takes place. It is why we made the unemployment insurance system more flexible and why we are using UI moneys to help claimants require skills through training and get back to work faster.
Our reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21, so actively resisted by opposition members has become an integral part of our effort to create jobs through training. That is what Canadians say they want, work and not welfare.

Bill C-21 was generally perceived as a measure intended to change the rules governing benefits. That is only half the truth. The bill really contained provisions to eliminate certain factors likely to deter the unemployed to go back to work. It did justice to families whose parents are working, to older workers and others, by giving them access to unemployment benefits.

Equally important are measures that brought the UI program into line with the labour market of the 1990s, a labour market which is very different from the one that existed when UI was first set up.
The nature of and causes of unemployment today are very different from those of 10, 20 and 30 years ago. At one time, temporary passive income support made sense for someone out of work because unemployment was something they could simply wait out.
Today, that passive approach can easily be a ticket to permanent unemployment.
Today people are out of work even when jobs are available because their skills just do not match the demands of the marketplace. No amount of waiting will change that.
If UI is to continue to function effectively as a safety net, people need to be able to use it more constructively as a tool for re-employment through training and counselling that will help them re-enter a changing workplace.
June 4. 1991

The Labour Force Development Strategy announced in 1989 is a strategy that places a major emphasis on skills development, counselling and employment training. It designates some $550 million a year for 60,000 UI recipients who previously were not eligible for job training.
The LFDS is an internationally proven formula for strengthening a country's labour force and contains measures geared specifically to help communities such as the one the hon. member represents. These measures include strengthening the Community Futures Program and the Industrial Adjustment Service.
Both programs are receiving additional funding under LFDS. Community Futures Program will see its 1991 budget increased from $50 million to $198 million, while Industrial Adjustment Service's allocation is being doubled from $15 million to $30 million.
These programs cost a lot of money but in human terms, skills training for the unemployed appears on the credit side of any social ledger, yielding benefits not in dollars, but in human achievement.

If it were possible to represent the well-being using a balance sheet, the lack of retraining would surely appear under the liabilities, because it results in prolonged unemployment, in lost productivity, in increasing dissatisfaction, and in the wasting of human resources.
That is a terrible perspective for our fragile economy, which is already undermined by the shortages of manpower and by the very limited training possibilities offered by the private sector.

We must improve the climate of the labour market by building a stronger learning culture and providing more training opportunities for those who need it most. The training of workers helps Canada's economy by easing skills shortages. Training the unemployed offsets the costly side effects of unemployment, such as crime, disease, substance abuse and family and mental breakdown.
With respect to training workers, Canada needs a training compact between workers and employers. The private sector knows better than government where and how training should be provided and yet formal training is currently offered by only one quarter of Canada's businesses.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we have devoted more money to vocational training and development than any other
Supply
Canadian government before us. We did so when we became aware of the difficult economic climate in the world.

I am confident that the training and adjustment programs this government is delivering in Montreal and across the country will be of long-term benefit to Montrealers and Canadians.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to the hon. member, especially since he was a minister in 1986, when the Conservative government set up a committee to study the economic development of Montreal.
I have here an article from The Gazette of Montreal, dated November 25, 1986. A group, known as the Consultative Committee on the Development of the Montreal Region, made up of members of the city, business, labour, art and the administrative circle selected by the Progressive Conservative government, were told to prepare a strategic blueprint for development of the regional economy. It came up with 86 recommendations for the ten cabinet ministerial mandate to come up with solutions to Montreal's economic woes.
Obviously, those ten ministers that were supposed to be in charge of the economic development of Montreal did not do their job since Montrealers are poorer and poorer everyday. You only have to take a look at press clippings from newspapers like La Presse, The Gazette and Le Journal de Montreal that talk about 188 000 unemployed in Montreal, that talk about 615 000 people linving in poor households, that talk about an economic slump in the Montreal area, and especially in the city of Montreal.
I ask the hon. member: Why didn't this government implement the recommandations contained in the Picard Report? Secondly, why did the Conservative government put an end to the cooperative housing assistance program? If there is one area where it is important to help the poor people, the low income families, the senior citizens looking for an affordable housing, it is certainly in East Montreal. But the Conservative government completely gave up the social housing construction, completely gave up the co-operative housing program. Why this lack of concern from the Conservative government?

June 4, 1991
Supply


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises the question of the ministerial committee that was formed by our government to look at the problems which developed in Montreal when the recovery economically in the Montreal region did not match what was happening in other provinces across the country. It was quite readily recognized that Montreal was losing its lead role in a number of sectors.
I was proud to be part of that ministerial committee. I know that the council we asked for advice, under Mr. Picard, performed a very special service to the city of Montreal with its many recommendations. Its primary theme was that we had at least four or five pillars on which we should continue to build Montreal's vocation, the international role of Montreal being the first. Montreal, including the nearby communities, should be recognized as an access to the international world with the many international institutions which exist there already. We should be recognized without question.
Second, I represent a community that is very much a part of the transportation activities which centre in Canada. Whether it be by air, by rail or by road, Montreal is and will continue to be the centre and the source of leadership in this field.
Third, the communications sector. Major telephone, radio and other activities centre in Montreal. Fourth, the biotechnological field. Montreal was recognized as having a basic force in all of these sectors and our government has reinforced this with many initiatives.
In a review in which I participated in Montreal some months ago, many if not almost all of the recommendations of the Picard commission had been put into effect. As to the suggestion made by my colleague in his second question that Montreal is not responding to the needs in housing to the limit that a government in association with the provincial governments and the municipal government should, this government has worked to assure the development of all kinds of housing accommodations. It is never as much as a society needs but it is a long step in that direction.


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun -Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, just a comment on what the hon. member for Lachine-Lac Saint-Louis said. You know, people say that you cannot always blame the Liberal Party for its past wrongdoings and that is why people changed governments. But that fellow who was there in the 1970, with all the programs that he set up for Montreal and the Quebec region, did nothing more than put plasters on wounds, because he said: "It is good for elections. Once we win seats in Montreal, all will be forgotten.
Suddenly, we realize, in Montreal, that people lack training and need special programs for economic development-
Now, I hear the hon. member for Saint-Denis. He is like his friend, the president of the CNTU. He had better sit with his friends of the Bloc quebecois, with the extremists, because, you know, there is a hot line between the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie and the CNTU. So, the member for Saint-Denis, instead of shouting and getting elected on promises that will never be kept, could perhaps sit with them and have a hot line and find himself a job for the future.
But you know, Mr. Speaker, what we want to do is to train people and help them to pull through by themselves. It is not the government, we cannot perform miracles. I look at the Liberal Party members in front of us who just applauded their leader. They believe that spending millions of dollars will solve the problem. The hon. member from Lachine could tell us that, as a government, what we are doing is using money for training, and we can make it available to the regions, Montreal as well as the others, and that is what we are going to do.
It is so easy to say: "It's Mulroney's fault, it's all his fault". But for once there is a prime minister who has the guts to stand up. In the hardest of times, he dared stand up and show the people in Quebec, especially the Montreal area, that the government was ready to help, but first of all they had to help themselves. This is what we have been doing for seven years, and what we will continue to do in the years to come.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from
June 4, 1991

Montreal and those from the Quebec caucus who have taken the initiative in this debate, which I consider to be very important at this point in time.
The economic situation in Quebec, particularly in Montreal, is utterly disastrous, since Montreal is the engine of economic development in Quebec. And the situation there is getting worse and worse. Presently, the unemployment rate in Montreal is quite unacceptable. It's no joke to realize that there are proportionally more unemployed in Montreal than in any other town in Quebec. And, relatively speaking, there are more unemployed persons in Montreal, than there are in St. John's, Halifax, Moncton or in Saint John. There is more unemployment in Montreal than in any other Canadian city which has a relatively big population.
Unemployment is not the only concern in Montreal. For many years, the social climate has been deteriorating at a tremendous speed. In Montreal only, more that
615,000	persons are living under the poverty line, 200,000 more than in the Atlantic provinces. But nothing is done about it.
This afternoon, the member for Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel was talking about a committee chaired by Mr. Picard a couple of years ago. There was a lot said about it. No decision was ever taken to really try to find a solution to the problem. Montreal, which was about the most interesting city in Canada just under a generation ago is losing ground every day. It is disastrous for the country as a whole because if Montreal becomes a disaster zone, what will happen with the rest of the province? When there is unemployment elsewhere, one goes to Montreal to find a job. That is the last hope of the unemployed. When Montreal has nothing to offer, especially for French-speaking people, they are forced to go elsewhere in the country. And the proportion of francophones in Quebec could be lowered.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to speak on the subject today because we must get very serious about this problem. There is an extremely important problem with Montreal's infrastructures. We must solve them now, at least partly. All the old part and the east side of Montreal should still benefit from home renovation programs. These investments are made by simple people, people who are quite modest. If the government is there to help them, they buy materials, they hire plumbers and carpenters and they restore a house that may be
Supply
50 or 75 years old. They put it back in shape while preserving Montreal's very special character.
The present government has completely suspended these programs, giving as an excuse that it must save money. Community-based housing programs have been dropped altogether. And we forget that these are decisions which, in the short term, are appalling and which will also have impacts in the long term. Because it will no longer exist, that which is the heart of Montreal will disappear and only the suburbs will remain. The special character of Montreal will also disappear, and the only thing left will be the suburbs. The city that Canadians looked at enviously will exist no more.
Today, what was Canada's metropolis has become it's unemployment metropolis. Consequently, my party thinks that we must shake up the government. The situation has never been as bad and it has never aroused so little interest.
The federal Liberals are always blamed, even if the Conservative government came into office seven years ago. When we formed the government, there were programs to ensure that Montreal had its place in Canada.


An hon. member:: Go tell that to the Montrealers!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I certainly will tell them, and with pleasure. Members rise today to talk about Canadair! How many of them were on this side, on the opposition side, when we decided to get Canadair back? How many of them then said that we would be destroying the private sector if we nationalized Canadair? What have we done for Canadair? Yes, we acquired Canadair when it had only 1,500 employees left. The government bought it because the private sector was getting out of the Canadian aeronautics in Canada. We not only had to buy Canadair but also De Havilland in Toronto because the private sector was getting out. That cost us enormous amounts of money.
At Canadair, we spent one billion on research and development for the sole development of the Challenger. Now, the Conservatives are taking the credit because-


Marcel Prud'homme: They are boasting!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, they are boasting about it, as the hon. member for Saint-Denis instead of said, recognizing that if the Liberal governement had not saved

June 4, 1991
Supply
Canadair a few years back, they would have nothing to announce.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The high technology industry as well as the whole aeronautical industry would have disappeared from Montreal and all of Canada.
We are happy today that Canadair is still around but we must plan ahead. Back then, those same hon. members who were in the opposition were saying that communists were taking over because we were interfering in the economy to try to save for Canadians and especially a high technology industry for Montreal. That has allowed us to preserve all those industries in Montreal-West that today win contracts all over the world because we have kept an aeronautical industry in Canada. And those were decisions for Canada and especially for Montreal.
It has been the same thing for Canadair. Today we would like the government to take an interest in another project as we have. The transport industry has always been the key to Montreal's development. Today, efforts are being made to bring into Canada and into America a new technology to link cities with high-speed trains but, the government is not lifting a finger to try and help what could become a high-tech industry in America.
I call up on the government to deal with this problem seriously and without delay because if Bombardier could become- the one to introduce in America this intercity high speed fast transportation system. It could be the kind of development the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal should have. Of course it might cost money, but if we are unable to choose high-tech sectors and to promote them for the benefit of the Canadian, Quebec and Montreal economies then things will go down hill in Montreal. And that is why today we decided to intervene and attract the government's attention. Who do they have on the other side to speak for Montreal? They have a minister from Montreal who keeps saying there is no problem at all. As the hon. member for Saint-Denis said earlier: Don't worry, be happy.
Unemployment like we never saw before. Poverty- those government members do not look very comfortable, and they have every reason to feel that way.
Take last weekend. Quebec members met people from the CNTU and other unions. They aren't afraid of
meeting people who are not necessarily our political friends. I don't think Gerard Larose is one of my political friends. However, when it's time to think about the workers and to think about dealing with poverty, we must get together with the people who want to change things in Montreal.
Today, people realize that this government's policies have been absolutely devastating for Montreal and the province of Quebec. High interest rates and a high dollar.


An hon. member:: Remember 1982!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member has 1982 on the brain.
In 1982, Montreal was not Canada's unemployment capital. In 1982, we had members and ministers who were strong and worthy representatives of Montreal. Not the silent types they have now on the other side.

In 1982, here in this House when there was a problem for Montreal, it was not the trained seals that were getting up. It was competent members and ministers who had at heart the best interests of Montreal. They were under Trudeau.
The people are leaving Montreal because this government has absolutely no policy for Montreal.
Now, what we see in Canada-Montreal used to be a proud city-

A city with pride-that was Montreal. Today, there is-

-there is more unemployment in St. John's, Newfoundland, Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Moncton, Winnipeg and in every city of Canada. It is not the time for us to get up and speak about that problem.
It is not the time to tell this government it is going down. It says it is nice to Quebecers, and so on. Where is the beef?

Premier Bourassa himself said at the last economic conference he attended that since the Conservatives came to power, Quebec's percentage of economic development funding had dropped. They make good speeches in which they tell Quebec: We love you. When are the
June 4. 1991

Tory members and ministers going to put their money where their mouth is? When?
Today, in Montreal, 20,000 school children go to school every morning without breakfast. When will the government deal with this problem and try to find a solution? The minister has breakfast every' morning. That is pretty obvious.
There are students who won't have jobs this summer, and our members say this will be disastrous. We know what a summer job means to a student. If he doesn't have one, he will join the ranks of the unemployed, not just for the summer but for years, maybe. If he can't find a job this summer in Montreal or somewhere else, what will happen? He won't go back to university in the fall. And what will happen to us when we have to deal with the increasing problems of the twenty-first century, if we don't have a population that is well educated and prepared to compete?
I want the government to realize there are thousands of opportunities in Montreal for investment by the public sector. In government we have to be able to take the long view, not just consider short-term gain. Why not create the kind of programs municipalities have been asking for? One-third federal, one-third provincial and one-third municipal. This is investment, and investment creates jobs.
There are in Montreal areas that need to be developed. Why should w'e give up these home renovation programs or senior citizen's housing programs.
An lion, member: The cooperation with the provincial government!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The provincial government is ready to participate in these programs. Everybody but the Conservative government wants to do his part.
Mr. Speaker, the situation in Montreal is disastrous. There will not be a lot of members of your party coming back here after the next election, because you didn't do your homework as you should have. You made a lot of empty promises, but you forgot about the most important thing for the people of the City of Montreal and the region: the bread and butter.
That is why, we are here Mr. Speaker, and why with this motion we are voicing the disastrous policies of the
Supply
Conservatives who have created this situation in Montreal.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the eloquent speech made by the leader of the opposition who has given us his point of view concerning the economic development of Montreal. Yet, if past deeds foretell what is to come, he could perhaps try to explain to the people of Montreal his own record as hon. member for Saint-Maurice.
In 1963, the present leader of the opposition was elected as hon. member for Saint-Maurice. At that time, Shawinigan, which is the heart of the county, was one of the most prosperous towns in Canada. It was a rich city with several multinationals and many jobs.
In 1986, Mr. Speaker, 23 years later, when the leader of the opposition resigned as hon. member for Saint-Maurice, Shawinigan had become one of the poorest towns in Quebec and in Canada. How can he justify his work as member for Saint-Maurice and come here today lecture us on the art of solving the economic problems of Montreal? Mr. Speaker, I believe that the citizens of Canada have the right to know that the member for Saint-Maurice, during all those years from 1963 to 1986, brought the economy of Shawinigan crashing down, and the town has never recovered since. How can he tell us today that he will solve the problems of Montreal, when he not only was unable to solve those of Shawinigan, but also left the economic fabric of that town in tatters?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First of all the first thing we have to fix is the fiddle of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice; we'll do that at the next election.
Second, he talks about Schefferville which the Prime Minister has completely shut down, but he doesn't talk about Shawinigan.
Third, I must admit that the population of Shawinigan has diminished because people have moved to the outskirts, though the population of the riding has continued to rise. But if the hon. member has one ounce of-, he will know there are economic difficulties in that area, because petrochemicals have replaced electrochemistry, and that causes a problem. But let us not forget the jobs that were created in Shawinigan and Shawinigan South with the establishment of the Taxation Data Centre, where 1,500 people work today. If the federal govern-

June 4, 1991
Supply
ment had not been there to step in, there would be no Centre, no national parks, none of the other programs which were established when the hon. member, who was one of my organizers at the time, used to travel round the riding praising the good work of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis has 30 seconds left.


Marcel Prud'homme: Could the hon. leader of the Opposition repeat to the minister who claims to be the minister responsible for Montreal that the first prerequisite when you want to solve a problem is to recognize that there is a problem. Yet the minister insists that there is none. There is no solution because there is no problem. Would the hon. leader of the Opposition care to comment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I recognize the leader of the opposition so he can conclude briefly.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member for Saint-Denis is absolutely right, the biggest problem the city of Montreal seems to have right now in Ottawa is the minister himself. He does not even want to meet with people from Montreal-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith eveiy question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


AIRPORT TRANSFER (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Corbeil that Bill C-15, an act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relationships in connection with the transfer of certain airports, be read the third time and passed.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If you would seek it, I am sure you would find unanimous consent that the vote we just took be applied in reverse to the next vote.

I will repeat it in French, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that my idea is properly conveyed. If there is unanimous consent, the result of the vote which has taken place will be applied to the next one, but in the reverse order.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We won't give our consent because we intend to vote with the government on the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there is no unanimous consent, we will proceed with the vote.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur)
moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of sending a petition to Her Majesty the Queen for a grant of arms to amend the motto on the Coat of Arms of Canada to read: A Man usque act Mare usque ad Marc.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for letting me the first one to discuss the motion that I have moved.
Before starting my speech, I would like to bring to your attention a spelling mistake in the wording of the motion in the Order Paper, as well as in the Projected Order of Business. Indeed, in the new motto that I propose A Mari usque ad Mare usque ad Mare, the second and third "Mare" should be spelled M-A-R-E and not M-A-R-I.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the coat of arms of Canada bear the motto A Mari usque ad Mare, which symbolizes the vastness of our country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Since its adoption in 1921, this motto has been a reminder to all Canadians that the vastness of their country is truly remarkable and that even if our country is so large, it is united through a single and unique nation called Canada.
June 4. 1991
[Stage Direction]
However, if this motto was meant to establish a symbolic link between all Canadians, and if it was meant to be a reflection of our geography, it nevertheless as one serious flaw, in that it ignores the geography and the residents of the North.
[English\
What I want to do today is give some background information on the motto, my reasons for presenting this motion and a few other supporting points.
The first official use came in 1906 when the phrase was engraved on the head of the mace of the legislative assembly of the new province of Saskatchewan. At that time Under-Secretary of State Joseph Pope became familiar with the future motto and took a liking to it.
In 1919 Pope was named to a committee appointed by the federal government to recommend a new design for the arms of Canada. Although no motto was included on the old shield, one was to be included in the new arms. The coat of arms and the motto were approved by Order in Council on April 21, 1921, and by Royal proclamation on November 21, 1921.
The territorial evolution of Canada helps us to understand the origins of the motto and, let us hope, will provide a harbinger of a new motto. Obviously the present motto reflects an east-west bias which tends to ignore Canada's north. However, an overview of the territorial evolution of the north reveals that continual changes were made to boundaries before 1912 and may help explain why a more accurate motto was not devised sooner.
Given the state of flux of the boundaries and the area's relative state of isolation and sparse population, it probably was not politically expedient to adopt the motto which is truly reflective of our country's history and geography.
The coat of arms and the motto recognize Canada's evolution to a certain point. The shield of the coat of arms displays the arms of England, Scotland, Ireland and France and to symbolize the nation's founding races, underneath the four quarters on a white field is a sprig of three maple leafs to indicate the new nation of many peoples.
Private Members' Business
There is one very noticeable exception, the first nations. Neither the shield nor the motto directly refer to them. Why not accept the motion proposed as a sign of recognition of Canada's first nations.
You may say that sums up in a nutshell why we should accept this motion, but I want to explain why I presented the motion in particular. My background as a teacher of Canadian history in the secondary school system in the province of New Brunswick has given me an insight into some of the problems we face here in Canada.
I also have an aboriginal population in my riding and there are a number of native reserves throughout New Brunswick. I have had the occasion of meeting with those groups time and time again.
In my background as a history teacher I have come to the conclusion that, and in many discussions in class with students from my region, from the riding of Resti-gouche-Chaleur, it has also been pointed out, it seemed to be an oversight. We have a coat of arms, a Canadian motto that says from sea to sea only.
Basically, it was meetings in the classroom, meetings with native groups in New Brunswick, in my riding more specifically, that brought this to a point. As a history teacher I didn't expect to be a member of Parliament some day and be in a position to maybe influence the changing of this motto, but here I am. That is one of the promises that I made to myself. If ever I got into a position to be able to influence such a change, then I would bring it up. This is why I have decided to present this motion today.
With regard to the changing of the motto, since becoming a member of Parliament I have noticed that the Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. Brian Mulroney, has made a number of speeches in the House where he has, and rightly so, a number of times referred to the phrase: "from coast to coast to coast", again re-emphasizing the current use.
I have noticed the Leader of the Opposition has used it and the leader of the third party has used it. I have noticed that it has become common practice for ministers of the Crown to use it. What I am trying to do today is perhaps make it legal to a certain extent. In some respects it could be seen as a matter of housekeeping.
[Stage Direction]
June 4, 1991
Private Members' Business
I think it is more important than that. The implementation of this new motto would send a positive message to northern residents at little or no cost to the federal government, and would help foster national unity. When we look at the question of national unity, specifically the question of the aboriginals, the question of aboriginals in respect to last summer even, we know that they have many problems which have never been addressed properly. It would at least be a gesture of good faith to approve this change in the motto.
I believe that it would also be a psychological link, a symbol similar to some of the symbols we have had in the past, symbols such as John A. Macdonald's national policy. The Broadcast Act for a while talked about Canadian unity, so there was that linkage. There is the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These have all become very important symbolic and psychological links binding Canadians from all regions.
I would hope that acceptance of this motion would be considered as very important, would be considered as sending a message to the north that: "You are part of this great country". We want that fact to be legally recognized.
It has certainly become common practice for members in their speeches to use "from sea to sea to sea" or "from coast to coast to coast". I would hope that the members on the other side and the members of the third party would see fit to recognize that.
I would say, because of its common use and because of the influence of the north now, our great country, that it would certainly be unacceptable to keep the status quo. We should recognize the geographical reality of the north, as well as the members of our first nations and other northern residents. In fact, if we were not to recognize this fact it might send a negative message to them.
I think it is very important that we do recognize that a change in our motto is necessary.
[Stage Direction]
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the adoption of a new motto would obviously be perceived as
a recognition of the importance of the Canadian North and of the First Nations, as well as of all the residents of that region. I believe that the government should spare no efforts to give to Canadians a motto that is a true reflection of the country and of its regions.
At a time when Canada faces a serious identity crisis, this initiative could help in a significant way to preserve national unity. A Mari Usque Ad Mare Usque Ad Mare.
Jack Iyerak Anawak: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to speak to this motion put forward by my hon. colleague. I think it is something that needs to be recognized within this House of Commons and within this great country.
Very often the people today in this House, as my colleague stated earlier, have been saying "from coast to coast to coast"-whether it is the right hon. Prime Minister or other members of his government or our illustrious Leader of the Official Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party. So, I think it is incumbent upon all members of this House to use either "from sea to sea to sea" or "coast to coast to coast" because it has to be recognized that Canada is surrounded by three oceans-the Pacific Ocean, the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, of which the Arctic coast has the longest shoreline. Surely that alone should be enough to make people realize that there are three coasts to recognize.
Often when I am listening or watching CBC Radio or CBC Television I get bothered when the commentator says: "from coast to coast". I always want to phone and remind them that they have to mention the third coast. Now, it may very well be that they are talking about the Atlantic coast and the Arctic coast, or the Pacific coast and the Arctic coast, but I think it would be even better if they said: "coast to coast to coast".
When "from sea to sea" was first used it may have indeed been accurate, but it is no longer. In 1898 Yukon was carved out of the Northwest Territories. After the creation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905, the present boundaries of the Northwest Territo-
June 4, 1991

ries were finalized. So it was not until 1905 that we could start using "coast to coast to coast".
Canada's Arctic territory is second only in size to that of the U.S.S.R. Together, Yukon and the Northwest Territories comprise 40 per cent of the area of Canada. Almost half of the population of Canada's northern region are aboriginal people, and more in the Northwest Territories where roughly 50 per cent in the Western Arctic and about 85 per cent in the Eastern Arctic are aboriginal people, and fewer in the Yukon.
When my colleague was talking about the founding nations, the first nations, he was indeed right in saying that the area that is occupied by the majority of aboriginal people-in this case the Northwest Territories- should be recognized as a very real part of Canada. The north is unique and everybody has to recognize this. It is a unique and distinct region of Canada, politically, socially, culturally and economically.
It is always offensive to those of us who come from the north when we are forgotten in Canada's national symbols. In this case again it may have been accurate back in 1898 to say "coast to coast", but it is not the case any more. Therefore, we should be recognized as part of the great country of Canada.
As well as my colleague from the Western Arctic, I am constantly trying to remind members of this House of Commons and the rest of Canada about the existence of the north, of the Inuit, the Dene or other people who occupy the Northwest Territories as well as Yukon.
Canada's north has always occupied a strategic military position. Northerners and particularly aboriginal people, by virtue of their residency in the north, have proved and sustained Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. Recently the significance of Arctic and global environmental issues have been recognized.
Over the past few years scientific, social, cultural and political exchanges have multiplied between Canada's northern territories and other circumpolar nations. A circumpolar environmental protection agreement will be signed in Finland later this month.
The circumpolar dimension of Canada's foreign policy is becoming increasingly important. It is extremely important that Canada's symbols recognize all of Canada's
Private Members' Business
component parts and peoples. The northern territories and the Arctic Ocean are integral parts of Canada; the northern residents are a very real part of Canada and consider themselves very Canadian. We deserve to be acknowledged in this great country.
It is time to change our motto. It is appropriate at this important stage of Canadian constitutional renewal to embrace all parts of this country and all Canadians. Supporting the motion of my hon. colleague would be a significant national reconciliation initiative by this federal Parliament.
This is not a partisan issue. What is under discussion here is the recognition of a simple geographic and political fact as well as a symbolic one.
I ask hon. members on all sides to support this motion and to recognize the north and the Arctic Ocean, and I urge the House to acknowledge that Canada stretches from sea to sea to sea.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in this afternoon's debate on Motion No. 387, a motion by our hon. colleague for Restigouche which asks this House to affirm its intention to alter the motto of the Coat of Arms of Canada from A Mari usque ad Mare to A Mari usque ad Mare usque ad Mare.
First of all I want to thank the member for Restigouche for bringing to my attention the coat of arms, which perhaps I had not recognized as often as I should. Now that I have become involved with this, I see it on your chair, on our money, on our letterheads and almost everywhere we look here. I do compliment the member for that and thank him.
I view this debate as an opportunity, not only to discuss the merits of my hon. colleague's proposal, but also an opportunity for the House early in a new session of Parliament where the very future of Canada will be shaped to discuss the symbols of the country, the symbols which are common to all Canadians.
Let me turn specifically to the motion. Our colleague would wish to alter the motto of Canada. Our colleague would wish to alter that motto to reflect our geographic reality, the reality of which every member in this House is justifiably proud. This great land of ours runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the 49th parallel to the

June 4, 1991
Private Members' Business
North Pole, and the waters of three of the world's great oceans wash on our shores.
There are very few nations in the world, very few, that can claim the geographic bounty and beauty of Canada. There are very few nations that can claim the richness brought on by the very size of the land mass of our Canada. There are even fewer nations that can claim the richness of a population whose origins stem from virtually every corner of the globe.
Canada is truly a blessed land. Those who would say we are not, the nay sayers who say this country should be torn asunder fail to acknowledge the bounty, the richness, the prosperity and the promise that has been, that is and that will be our Canada.
Our hon. colleague from Restigouche asked us to change a motto which we have had formally since November 21, 1921. Those words in English, "from sea to sea", are inextricably linked.
Not only is the motto of Canada on our coat of arms, it is also linked to the vision of the Fathers of Confederation in the 1860s.
We take for granted many things about our country. That seems to be a characteristic of the way we see ourselves. We do have a motto. It is "from sea to sea", but do we know its roots? We must understand that it is not a statement of just geography but a statement of promise and hope.
The motto which we celebrate is not just a series of words. The motto "from sea to sea" is derived from the 72nd Psalm, A Song for Solomon.
Something else is derived from that 72nd Psalm, and is the very title of our country. We are the Dominion of Canada and when the Fathers of Confederation were grappling with what to call the very first British colonies to achieve true, responsible self-determination, there were many problems.
Some wished to call it the kingdom of Canada. Others did not know what we should be called, but clearly not "a republic" or "a kingdom".
In those days inspiration was found in Psalm 72. I will read from it: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."
The 72nd Psalm speaks about the righteousness of rulers and Divine Province's guidance of rulers. The
72nd Psalm speaks about the beauty of the earth, its majesty, its wealth and how it sustains us.
Let me quote from the third verse: "The mountains shall bring peace to the people, and the little hills, by righteousness." The 72nd Psalm speaks of hope of a people in other lands.
When my hon. colleague wishes to change our motto on the crest of our coat of arms by adding a third "sea" in order to express a geographic reality, he is proposing to not only alter words, but to alter the deep-seated thoughts and principles.
He proposes to alter the very idea of our name and of our title as a land.
There is a very clear relationship between our title, the Dominion of Canada, and the motto "from sea to sea". We should not alter it. I find it particularly apt that the Fathers of Confederation would have gone to the 72nd Psalm.
In 1867, we were a land of just one sea. We were a small country. We were made up of four, small, isolated colonies huddling on the North American land mass confronting a powerful neighbour, the United States of America in its most expansionist era.
Canada was made up of four small colonies without even a railroad linking them; four colonies which stopped at what is today Thunder Bay; four colonies which were 200 or 300 miles from the St. Lawrence watershed.
Yet the promise and hope of the Fathers of Confederation, Macdonald, Cartier and Tupper was the future of Canada. Those leaders, from the day of Confederation, strove without rest to shape what I proudly say is the world's greatest country.
Those leaders dared to think larger. Those leaders, within three years, dared to acquire responsibility for virtually all of what would become the land mass of Canada. From four isolated colonies our Fathers of Confederation dared to shape Canada.
I know that there are many in society today who think that history is bunk. I certainly do not believe that. I do not believe a people can know where they wish to go until they know where they have been.
I think we need to know more about the symbols of Canada. I think we need to know more about the things which tie us together. We should not think of them
June 4, 1991

merely as conveniences, as a trademark or as a commercial brand name that we can change from time to time.
Our coat of arms, our motto, is not a brand name. It is not a commercial logo. It is one of the proudest symbols of one of the world's proudest countries.
My hon. colleague from Restigouche feels that we must reflect the north of our country, and I respect that but we must reflect our diversity. We do not extend just from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Our country is larger than that, but our motto is not derived from a mere Latin Translation of a geography. It is derived from a biblical text which speaks about a people and their aspirations.
That is why I feel it is not a simple matter of changing a few words. I am not even going to discuss the costs in doing that, but there are obvious costs.
I do not feel comfortable in supporting the motion of my colleague from Restigouche. I think he has missed the mark about what this motto is about and what Canadian symbols are about.
These are difficult times in Canada. We need to look back and look forward at the same time, to benefit and build on what we do the best and to rectify that which may have kept us apart.
I think symbols like our flag, our motto, our coat of arms and our basic parliamentary system of government are things which are special to all Canadians and I do not think we should tinker with them on the spur of the moment. We should think very seriously about their origins and their meaning before we do anything to change our symbols. I know this proposal to change the motto has been made before. I have heard leaders from our north make similar statements and I really understand and appreciate their concerns. They think that too many Canadians only think in terms of that narrow band where most of us live, which runs east to west.
That may be so in some instances but there are so many other ways to recognize the importance of the north; to recognize the majesty, the grandeur of all of Canada, its riches and prosperity. Our motto is not a statement of geography alone. It is a statement of commitment and what our hon. friend from Restigouche proposes would mean changing for the wrong reason that statement of promising commitment.
Private Members' Business
It has been a great pleasure this afternoon to participate in this debate on an important symbol of Canada and I only hope that the spirit of co-operation and fair debate that we are seeing will transfer into our work this autumn on reshaping our Canadian federation for the next century.
I think we are like the Fathers of Confederation. We are our heirs Parents of Confederation. The challenge of the past is handed to us. It is now for us to take up the torch and to shape the Canada for our children and for our children's children.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of Multicul-turalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take part in the debate today on the motion of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur in which he asks the House to change the Canadian motto which is now "from sea to sea" to "from sea to sea to sea".
Mr. Speaker, I have here the Projected Order of Business for today and I read motion M-387. Being of Italian origin, I would like to correct a small error that has been bothering me and, unless I am mistaken, that would improve the Latin version. You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, as you are well informed in this matter, it is: ad Mare and not ad Mari. I would appreciate to see the correction. It should read: ad Mare ad Mare and not ad Mari, unless my colleague has made the correction, because it is difficult to pick up visually. Mare also comes both from Latin and Italian, it is the same. We all know it translates the word ocean.
So, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I find the whole thing perfectly acceptable if the member has made the correction, but I might have missed this part of his speech.
Mr. Speaker, it seems appropriate, at the beginning of this new session of Parliament, to have the opportunity to debate a motion concerning such a fundamental point in a country as its motto.
During the last few weeks, my colleague the right hon. member for Yellowhead, who was here a few minutes ago, has been criss-crossing the country to try to establish a consensus among its citizens and its leaders, a consensus on the need to build a new Canada, a Canada

June 4, 1991
Private Members' Business
of the 21th century, a Canada corresponding to the demands and aspirations of today's generation.
Mr. Speaker, 125 years ago, the Fathers of Confederation were almost in the same situation thus we are now. They were the leaders of four little colonies of British North America, four little colonies who banded together because they realized that this way, they could prosper, develop and build the society they were dreaming of. We are facing the same challenges today, Mr. Speaker. We must get together in order to shape our country for tomorrow. We must get together to shape a country united, strong and free. Mr. Speaker, what our hon. colleague for Restigouche-Chaleur wants is to change something that is fundamental to our country since we became the Dominion of Canada.
The motto of our country and its name come from the seventy-second psalm, the psalm of Salomon. They are taken from the eight verse that says: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth". Mr. Speaker, that verse is so full of promises and hope.
"Dominion", Mr. Speaker, is such a noble word. Through its roots, it brings us dignity and legitimacy. In that verse, we see all the great hopes the Fathers of Confederation shared. To them, the phrase "from sea to sea" was a metaphor for their dreams and their hopes, not only a geographic description.
They had settled along the Atlantic coast and on both sides of the St. Lawrence River. However, Mr. Speaker, the Fathers of Confederation dreamt of a country extending from coast to coast and lived in the land of the Great River. They wanted a country that stretched to the furthest shores.
Such was, Mr. Speaker, the challenge facing the Fathers of Confederation: to give shape to a huge country in the northern part of this continent.
I do not think that we should change our motto simply because this huge country of ours has three oceans off its shores instead of two. This is not the place to discuss such trivial issues, nor is this is the way to go about it.
What we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is the reason why we, in this House, would want to change the
motto of this great country, the reason why we would want to change our Coat of Arms.
This brings me to raise a very important question in the context of today's debate. Our motto is neither a brand name nor a slogan a cereal company tested on consumers. Our motto reflects the image we have of ourselves. Our Coat of Arms reflects who we are and where we come from. Let me tell you a few things about the Coat of Arms of Canada, Mr. Speaker. We do not have to go out of this Chamber to look at it. It is all around us. There is even one right above your head. It is everywhere in this room.
Some argue that our Coat of Arms is outdated, a survival from the past. I disagree. I think that our Coat of Arms is as current today as it was on that day, in November 1921, when the late King George V proclaimed the Coat of Arms of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, our Coat of Arms shows our main roots. There is the fleur-de-lis from France, the royal heart from Ireland, the unicorn from Scotland, the lion from England and, in a conspicuous place, three maples leaves on a white field. Only a few Canadians probably know that when our Coat of Arms was proclaimed in 1921, red and white were proclaimed to be the colours of Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me extremely accurate and appropriate that the flag of our great country, our Maple Leaf, be red and white. Those are our historical colours, the colours of Canada.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians understand the origin of our motto and what inspired it. I am not sure either that they understand the symbolic nature of our flag.
That is rather disturbing. When I go to the United States, I am immediately amazed at how Americans, young and old, readily understand the symbols of then-great republic. Almost everyone understand their motto E Pluribus Unum-Out of many, one. Most of them could tell you the story of Betsy Ross, and of the designing of their beautiful star-spangled banner.
Mr. Speaker, Americans do know about E pluribus unum. In Canada, it seems that we have been somewhat reluctant to instill in our children and citizens a deep understanding and appreciation of Canada and a sense of patriotism.
June 4. 1991

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should change our fundamental symbols without giving the matter proper consideration. Before we change them, we should first learn to know them.
Mr. Speaker, we did not get a truly Canadian flag until 1965. The quest for a Canadian flag started in 1925, 40 years before we finally got our Hag. In 1946, the hon. Paul Martin, was Secretary of State when the first bill on Canadian citizenship making us real Canadian citizens was presented. Mr. Martin, whose son sits in front of me, promised a Canadian flag and a national anthem. But we had to wait 20 more years to have a flag that would be really ours.
Mr. Speaker, we now have all of that, a flag, a national anthem, our Canadian citizenship, a Coat of Arms and a motto. All members of this House are proud of those symbols. I am not at all convinced that the time has come for us to change something as fundamental as our motto.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I have only one minute left. I will try to be brief. I know that many people have proposed a new motto, "from coast to coast to coast", to reflect Canada's geographic reality. Northerners think that our motto does not take into account their beautiful Arctic Ocean. There are many other ways, besides changing our proud motto on the Coat of Arms of Canada, to recognize the geographic majesty of this country of ours, to make Canadians better understand what we have in common, what keeps us together. We are all proud, Mr. Speaker, of our Coat of Arms and, above all, we are proud to be Canadians.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the private member's bill brought forward by my colleague from Restigouche to have the coat of arms changed.
I see this particular private member's bill as one being very useful and very valuable in bringing to the Canadian conscience the fact that there is a third sea and that sea is one that is actualized by the people that live there and the diversity that exists there. It is recognition that the north is a growing, viable, political, constitutional entity, that it is not just an extension of the federal government of Canada. It is not just an extension that could be considered a colony and a distant land in the years
Private Members' Business
leading to the year 2000; it is in fact an area of Canada that is to be admired for its very difficult climate at times, but also for its diversity and the people who live there.
In reference to my hon. colleague from Restigouche's private member's bill, the change would be stated as sea, to sea, to sea, or, as many others would put it, coast to coast to coast. If you include the third coast, you are doing what we want to do in Canada these days, which is to express equality and inclusiveness in our efforts to bring this country together.
We are not excluded. It is known that Her Majesty has been to that sea and visited the people in the early 1970s.
I am sure that when the petition is brought to Her Majesty, she will recognize the viability of this particular private member's bill and because she has been there and shaken hands and looked into the faces of these people, she will know that this is something that needs to be done.
This particular coat of arms has not been in existence since the beginning of Confederation but only since 1921. Had we not taken the steps to change the previous flag, we would still be in a rather static state of having the old flag. But we endured a tremendous amount of debate and friction and we now have the new maple leaf Canada flag, which is something of which we are very proud.
In fact, there is room for improvement, there is room for change and I do not see why not.
In 1974 I went as a young person to that particular sea. I went as a young person with three children. I went to teach in the community of Tuktoyaktut which is a predominantly Inuvialuit community. I thought I would never see the sun again. It was the longest winter of my life but I learned to love that land. Every day, that I taught in that school I looked out the window and what did I see? I saw the Arctic Ocean from my classroom. In the fall, what did I see? I saw the beluga whale when I was standing on top of a Bombardier with my three children. I could see the beluga whale swimming in that see.
What did I see in the early seventies? I saw the first ship pull into the Beaufort Sea for Dome Petroleum, which created a great amount of activity. What else did I see? I experienced in that community on the third sea the first Inuit circumpolar meeting in that area which was attended by many prominent Canadians, including Justice Berger. It was there in 1974 that, in my aboriginal

June 4, 1991
Private Members' Business
language, I made my presentation on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline hearings to Mr. Berger.
The third sea is a reality to me. It is not a distant land. It is not a foreign colony. It is not something that I just talk about or read about in purple prose. It has the leadership.
We also have the Inuvialuit who settled their land claims. The Inuvialuit land claims agreement has allowed those people a certain amount of autonomy. It has allowed them to build institutions for the future. It has allowed them the opportunities for investment. It has allowed them some degree of autonomy with regard to the land they operate on and the kind of activities they engage in.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at that land and see it every day, this motion is not just changing a particular motto. It is reflecting in the symbols of this country a reality. What are symbols for? Symbols are to reflect and represent something that is true, something that represents this country, like the Constitution.
I have said many times that the Constitution is like a mirror. If we look into it we should be able to see ourselves. If we look at the symbols of our country, including this particular motto, and see "sea to sea", we do not just see the word "sea" but the reality of those people who live there, the people who have stood on those shores, the traders and the whalers who came there decades ago, centuries ago and mixed with the aboriginal people who live there, who worked and lived with those people and traded with those people and knew that particular sea.
It is not just a word. It is in fact a reality. It is something more than just words on a piece of paper. The symbolism placed on things that represent Canada, our country, are important for all of its people.
We have to look at a renewal. We talk about restructuring federalism. If we can restructure federalism why can we not restructure the symbols of this country? This is one of them.
Have those who oppose changing this motto stood on the shores of that sea? Have they shaken the hands of those people as Her Majesty has done herself, as the governor generals of the past have also done? That
brings a completely different perspective to the whole thing.
I spent three years of my working life in that community on the shores of that sea with those people. I watched the beluga whales swimming in that particular place. I watched the harvesting of the beluga by the Inuvialuit people. I taught their children. I know their culture and I know their reality and the pride they have in belonging to this country.
What about Arctic sovereignty? We talk about it as if it is a concept. It was a reality for the high Arctic exiles. Those are the people that were relocated from Kuujjuaq up to Grise Fiord to maintain Arctic sovereignty. This is the debate that is much disputed on the shores of the seas. Think of the polar expedition and where it goes. It crosses that sea. That is the reality.
When you think about Canada, you perhaps think about the area below the 49th parallel.
Well, the reality for those of us who live in the north is that we recognize that sea, we recognize the reality of that sea. We who are from the north feel that we are off the national grid when it comes to transportation, when it comes to many forms of communications and when it comes to the constitutional grid. We have to beg for a place at the table, for constitutional consultation.
However, if we do take a conscious step, as my colleague has, to make the difference, to say that the symbols of Canada are inclusive, that they are not exclusive, they do not alienate, they do not isolate, they include people. The people of that third sea need that recognition. It is the recognition of the north and recognition of the people who are there.
If laws were made not to be changed we would not be here. This is part of what we do. That is the reality of our lot in life. We amend laws because with the changing of time we need to do that, with the changing of needs we need to do that. That is the reality of what we do.
I hope it would be to the benefit of all. We live in a shrinking world which has to express and accommodate the cultural diversity of different peoples. This is the reality of Canada. We have many peoples, we have a beautiful country that is worth preserving.

June 4, 1991

I have travelled almost every part of this country and when I go home, when I fly over the delta which is part of my constituency, it is an overwhelming feeling that I have for my people and for that land. It is the love of the land which is inextricably intertwined with who we are. That is the way the people on the third sea live and realize their goals and aspirations.
I pay tribute to those people. They have lived under the most adverse climate throughout the years. They have had aspirations like every other Canadian. However, it is more expensive to live in the north. If we can change one symbol to reflect a reality, a beautiful reality, then we will be doing something to unite this country.
Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me, I would like unanimous consent to have the question now put to this particular private member's bill.
Private Members' Business


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


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: There not being unanimous consent, and since there are no further members who wish to speak, the time set aside for private members' business has now expired. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 95(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 7.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 5, 1991