1991-05-21

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to several petitions.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present the following petition which deals with the massive reductions in education by the government, a little less than $500 million during the last budget.
These Canadians point out that these reductions, these cuts, are a contradiction of not only what was said in the throne speech, but also of the government's agenda with respect to increased productivity. How can you have increased productivity by taking those kinds of actions?


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have circulated a proposal for national education standards across the country as part of a private members' initiative. The response has been phenomenal.
I have with me a petition signed by people from Alma, Gatineau, Hull, Quebec, Saskatchewan and from my own riding of Ottawa Centre. All of these petitioners would like to see the House of Commons press the government to set national education standards in consultation and co-operation with the provincial governments, the territories and professionals in the education
field, as well as with the unions, parents, youth, non-governmental agencies and normal citizens. I submit this petition in accordance with Standing Order 36.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the government the hypocrisy of its statements with respect to illiteracy and obliterating it in the near future.
Along with the increase in the role it wishes to play in education, it continues to tax books, which imposes ignorance on our population. Taxing books is a terrible mortgage on our future. It is hard enough to read and not watch television. We must make every effort to make reading accessible and therefore the petitioners call on the government to withdraw the tax on reading, the tax on books.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed that all the questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pronovost for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and of the amendment thereto of Mr. Chretien (p. 24) and amendment to the amendment of Mr. Lapierre (p. 209).
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to continue in the throne speech debate where I left off on Thursday. I

May 21, 1991
The Address
want to reiterate that I see the challenge that we face in this session of Parliament as being threefold.
First, we must recognize the real limits of the capacity of Canada and Canadians to deal with change.
Second, we must pursue policies that will work to expand these limits.
Third, we must pursue these policies in a more open and more democratic way.
What does this mean in practical terms? Let me talk about one of the most pressing and tragic issues facing Canada today, one that concerns me greatly. At least one in ten women in Canada is battered by her male partner. A million women in Canada are battered weekly. Elalf of all women murdered each year die at the hands of their partners.
The prevalence of such violence in Canada is nothing less than shocking. Some say this violence is increasing as the advances made by women in society triggers a backlash, while others claim that the abuse women suffer at the hands of men is simply part of the uneven distribution of power in society. The challenge for everyone involved in this issue is to find a way of preventing the violence from occurring in the first place by changing deep-seated attitudes. We in this House can change laws in a matter of months, but attitudes, values and behaviour can take far longer to change. Recently our government announced a four-year, $136 million family violence action plan. The plan supports projects and programs that will increase public awareness and preventive action. Funding will be provided to women's groups and to other community organizations to raise awareness of family violence and to mobilize community action. We want to change attitudes that cause this violence, call the abusers to account and help the innocent victims.
I was pleased to see announced in the throne speech the appointment of a panel to inquire further into this serious problem of violence against women in our society. Government alone cannot ensure behavioural change, but it can certainly provide support to the important community work that is carried on every day; the work of community organizations and professional associations, schools and universities, the business community, and labour unions.
In other words, we are recognizing that real progress will take time and that the federal government does not have a magic solution. We are taking concrete steps to change peoples' attitudes, and we are involving a wide range of actors in the action plan: all levels of government, the voluntary and educational sectors, business and labour.
Another issue of concern, especially in these difficult economic times, is immigration. Like every member of Parliament, I see first hand in my constituency the human costs of an over-burdened system, separated families, and weeks, months and years for refugee status to be determined. Like every member of Parliament, I talk to constituents who ask why we are accepting so many immigrants when unemployment is so high. This is not such an easy question to answer sometimes. The arguments about future growth, the aging population, the need for certain skills and entrepreneurial talents and our duty toward the oppressed and the less fortunate are not always convincing for someone afraid of losing their job or afraid of different languages or cultures.
It is fair to say the stresses and strains placed on society by immigration policies are real. The impact of the refugee determination system on the health and welfare costs faced by provinces and municipalities is certainly real. The rise in public incidents of racism is certainly real. Perhaps we should take these as warning signs that the capacity of society to accept change is being tested and that we must find ways to review our ability to successfully bring new Canadians into the main stream.
The Speech from the Throne spoke of the importance of lifelong learning and of working to develop a learning culture in Canada. These are an important part of our economy and make us prosperous and more competitive. They can do this by increasing our capacity to adapt to change, to make the imperatives of the world economy a force for growth and for development.
If all the actors in the play-the provinces, business, employees, educators and students-can work together we can reach the goals that were set out: cutting illiteracy in half; doubling the number of university graduates in maths and sciences; quadrupling the amount of training in the workplace. It is important to stress once again that we do not want to turn the world upside down to revolutionize our economy or our system of government. After all they are only tools, tools that

are supposed to work for us, instead of us working for them.
It is the end result that matters; the happiness, the prosperity, the security of Canadians. Too radical change threatens this security.
Likewise, the inevitable changes that we will see in the next few years must be made to further our collective happiness, increase- our collective prosperity and enhance our collective security. We must all work together to pursue policies that will expand our capacity to compete internationally, to reduce and eliminate violence against women, and to develop efficient and responsive government institutions. We must pursue these goals in an open, fair and democratic way.
This means listening to Canadians, appreciating their dreams and aspirations, and recognizing the warning signs when change goes too far, too fast. This means that we, as members of Parliament, must act as the eyes and the ears and the voices of our constituents. It also means that all Canadians have a responsibility to actively join in the search for solutions and to become personally more productive, more tolerant and more involved in our community and society.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: I am very pleased to speak in this debate today on the government throne speech opening the third session of the 34th Parliament.
The throne speech contains three themes: unity, prosperity and government responsiveness. I would like to speak to each of these themes as an aboriginal person and as a northerner.
As an aboriginal person and a northerner, I am disappointed with the throne speech. It is basically a rehash of previous government commitments and a review of long-standing and on-going government activities. We have heard the promises about national unity, job creation and economic prosperity before. We have heard the promises about government responsiveness before. We we have seen them unfilled.
Aboriginal people and the north were mentioned in the 1989 throne speech, and I said then that I was worried about the extent of the government's commitment to northern and aboriginal aspirations. The govem-
The Address
ment's action in cutting programs for aboriginal people and northerners since 1989 has borne out my concerns.
This session of Parliament will be a critical session in Canadian history. The north and the aboriginal people are looking for more than just honourable mention in this government's agenda. We want to see concrete specific steps taken to include us as participants and not as mere observers or onlookers in Canada's constitutional renewal.
This government has several constitutional activities ongoing. The Spicer commission is to report July 1 and so is the special joint committee on the process for amending the constitution.
Aboriginal people and northerners have participated, albeit with some hesitation and concerns, in both these endeavours. Our reluctance to participate comes from a deep suspicion about where all this effort is leading and whether northern and aboriginal concerns are really going to be listened to and acted upon this time.
Where in the government's constitutional plans do aboriginal people fit in? We do not know yet, but aboriginal people must play a part, a pro-active part.
The new minister of constitutional affairs recently went to to both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and I commend him for travelling north so soon after his appointment. The minister met with only a few people and he is vague about the specific role he sees for aboriginal people and northerners. We still do not know how institutions will be reformed to better reflect northern and aboriginal concerns. We do not know whether northern and aboriginal people will have a participatory seat at the constitutional table. We do not know if the government is committed to completing the outstanding constitutional agenda of 1983 which is so important to northerners and aboriginal people. We still do not know if the government is committed to recognizing aboriginal self-government in the constitution.
I am pleased that the minister agrees that the north and aboriginal people have to be involved in the next round of constitutional talks. I want to urge the minister and the government to ensure that northerners and aboriginal people are involved in their own right and not as adjuncts of the federal government.

May 21, 1991
The Address
I have said before and I say again, this federal government cannot claim to speak for northerners and aboriginal people in constitutional negotiations. The failure of the last constitutional round proved this. The new constitutional relationship that aboriginal people and northerners are seeking must involve them as participants in their own right.
The government's constitutional proposal when it is unveiled, must reflect this necessity. If it does not, I predict more failure. Process, as the government should know by now, can be as important as substance. The process has to be fully inclusive, not exclusive.
In contrast to the views of the leader of the New Democratic Party, I believe politicians have a role to play in constitutional renewal. I see it, however, as politicians working with the people and not in isolation from them. It was the isolation of certain politicians from the people that caused the Meech Lake Accord to fail. This kind of isolation and ivory tower Constitution making must not, and I believe will not, happen again in Canada.
On economic matters, the government has asked Canadians, and I quote from the throne speech: "to participate in fashioning a new agenda for prosperity."
But how are northerners to contribute? Where is the assurance that the north will share in this prosperity?
The north is not mentioned in the government's economic discussion. It speaks of reducing interest rates and creating new investment, but where is the economic plan for the north?
The government is not offering to assist in creating a better climate for investment in the north. Where are the initiatives to help northern businesses reduce the cost of doing business?
Unlike the throne speech of 1989, this throne speech makes no reference to regional development. There is no discussion of the economic and employment needs of the regions in Canada, or of the impact of the current recession.
As a northerner, I cannot help but notice the emphasis on southern Canada. I do not see anything in this throne speech which would assist the struggling and developing economies of northern Canada. I do not see any initiatives which would address the serious employment needs of northern and aboriginal youth.
What we have seen in the past few years is the government's deficit reduction efforts being carried out on the backs of northerners. The goods and services tax is a prime example. Northerners are paying more than their fair share of the GST because the government refused to recognize the unique higher costs in the north.
This past February, the Liberal task force on the economy and the recession visited both northern territories. Our task force heard time and time again about the need for a substantial and revised federal commitment to the north.
The north's unique needs must be recognized by the federal government. Our people, our economic problems and potential are different from mainstream Canada. Federal economic policies must reflect and accommodate our differences.
This means making bold policy and program innovations based on the knowledge and experience of northerners. It means rejecting the old ways of twisting and turning northern realities to try to fit them into a southern Canadian framework.
These contortions do not work. Training, education and employment policies must be developed by northerners for northerners, not by southerners for northerners. I urge this government to adopt this approach as it ventures deeper into the field of education.
With respect to education, the problem is not so much one of money, as attitude. The throne speech talks about reaching a national consensus on performance, goals, partnerships and priorities for learning. The government should speak to the Ontario government.
The government suggests a goal of cutting illiteracy rates in half, but what is the definition of literacy? Is it the inability to read and write, or is it the inability to read and write English and French?
The government wants to double the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, science and engineering. Why then has the government been cutting research and development, science and technology funds since it was elected?
May 21, 1991

The leader of my party pointed out in his speech last week that despite the promise the Prime Minister made in 1984 to double research and development funding, R and D spending has declined from 1.42 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product in 1984 to 1.28 per cent today, a decline of more than 10 per cent.
We agree that Canada must position itself to participate fully in the global economy. There are opportunities we can seize, but these opportunities are not all in southern Canada. There are northern and circumpolar opportunities in science and technology and research and development which should be pursued.
I urge the government to include the north in its global strategic planning. It should not continue to let the Canadian north fall behind.
Northerners are somewhat sceptical about the proposed North American free trade deal. The Canada-U.S. deal did nothing for us. The government could have sought amendments to the Marine Mammals Act, but it did not.
I want to raise a concern as well about the effects on northern preference of the government's intention to eliminate hiring policies that give preference to provincial residents over those from other provinces. I hope that the government recognizes the large and special problem we have in the north of fly-in, fly-out workers and the pressing need to develop our own local trained labour force.
With respect to the environment, we have seen some backtracking by this government. The recent federal budget stretched green plan funding over six years instead of the five years promised initially. The Arctic environmental strategy, so important to northern Canada and to the world, is a step forward but a very small one. The funding, while welcome, is a drop in the bucket. The plan, for example, proposes cleaning up only 13 contaminated sites out of the 800 identified across the north, and there is much more the plan does not deal with.
The government's commitment to consult with aboriginal people on the terms of reference and membership of the proposed royal commission on aboriginal affairs is a positive one. The terms of reference as announced by
The Address
the Prime Minister in British Columbia, however, were too narrow. Aboriginal issues are not just social, cultural and economic issues. Aboriginal issues are political issues involving the fundamental relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples and governments. The royal commission's mandate must reflect this.
But why did the government need to get such a high-profile person, namely the Right Hon. Brian Dickson, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, to serve as a special representative of the Prime Minister? This would seem to be an admission by the government that it does not have the credibility to do the job itself.
In addition, it appears the government did not consult aboriginal people on the selection of this special representative. The president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada issued a press release about this matter which reads:
Chief Justice Dickson's track record speaks for itself, but the fact that the Prime Minister appointed him without consulting us speaks volumes about the new respect for aboriginal people he claims to have developed recently.
The Prime Minister made a promise to consult aboriginal people about the royal commission, so he should have consulted us about the person he is delegating that work to.
The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada has every confidence in Chief Justice Dickson but is reserving final judgment, as I do, until it sees whether its recommendations to him are reflected in his recommendations to the government and whether the government implements those recommendations.
I want to comment here about the government's land claims policy. The government speaks of a reformed policy, but Canadians should know that the government has not reformed the basis of its land claim's policy.
If the government is serious about improving relations with aboriginal people, it must amend its claims policy. No amount of rhetoric about accelerating claims settlements will lead to the agreements the government says it wants, as long as the basis of the policy remains unchanged. There are fundamental problems with the current policy, foremost among them the continued insistence of the government that aboriginal people must extinguish their rights in claims settlements. The government must remove this offensive requirement immediately if it really wants to see progress made.

May 21, 1991
The Address
I urge the government to work with aboriginal people to develop a mechanism which would achieve certainty and clarity in claims settlements without extinguishment.
Aboriginal justice is another area touched on in the throne speech. The government says it will consult aboriginal people on changes in the system of administering justice. Given the government's track record on consultations, how serious is the government? Can aboriginal people believe the government is willing to make meaningful reforms?
The problems between aboriginal people and the justice system have increasingly come to the attention of the general public. We have had the Marshall inquiry in Nova Scotia. It said that the justice system failed Donald Marshall at every turn. Two recent reports have documented similar failures in Alberta.
Manitoba's massive aboriginal justice inquiry will report this summer and it will likely make the same condemnations of the current system.
Saskatchewan is beginning its own review. A meeting will be held in the north, in September, of provincial and territorial justice ministers and aboriginal leaders.
I would like to comment on another issue in terms of aboriginal justice that happened recently in British Columbia and Iqaluit. Kitty Nowdluk, who was a victim in a rape assault case, declined to testify in Iqaluit last year. Because of that refusal she had to undergo a very embarrassing experience when she was arrested in British Columbia. She was taken to Iqaluit through Edmonton and Yellowknife, back to Edmonton, over to Ottawa, and finally back to Iqaluit. She spent time in jail at every stop because she did not want to go to Iqaluit to testify in the rape case in which she was the victim.
She was made a victim of the circumstances and was treated as a criminal. How fair is the justice system when it arrests the victim instead of putting the criminal in jail? I wanted to comment on that while we were talking about the aboriginal justice system.
I want to conclude by making reference to the royal commission on electoral reform. This commission may recommend a process for aboriginal electoral districts as a means of securing more equitable representation for aboriginal people in the Parliament of Canada.
I would like to elaborate further on that electoral reform. I am a member of a committee that will be making recommendations on aboriginal electoral reform. The aboriginal people are going to be recommending that there be some means of ensuring more aboriginal participation in this House. The way to do that, we believe, is to ensure that there be some way of creating constituencies that reflect a large number of aboriginal people across this country. It does not mean, and I must stress this, that we want guarantees to ensure that aboriginal people get elected. What it means is that we want to ensure the process is there by which aboriginal people can get represented down here. We presently do not have that same problem in the Northwest Territories because the aboriginal people are the majority there. I urge this House to react favourably to the Electoral Reform Commission when it comes up with its recommendations.
I urge this Parliament to give this idea the thoughtful consideration it deserves as one means of changing the way Ottawa works for all Canadians and all aboriginal people.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with intrigue to the hon. member's remarks dealing with the throne speech. I have had the very distinct pleasure of being able to visit Cambridge Bay, which is about 2,000 miles straight north of the city I live in. I was absolutely amazed at all things I found in Cambridge Bay. I am not sure how close Cambridge Bay is to the hon. member's home.
Just to give some idea of how impressed I was, when you arrive in the community you find absolutely no roads, no fences, no power lines. It is a self-contained community. One immediately becomes very much aware of how difficult life must be, particularly given the harsh climate and the fact that the ability to produce things from the soil is not available to the community.
I noticed that the hon. member made reference to the fact that the throne speech did not make specific reference to assisting opportunities to become involved or to make jobs or work easier for employers. I note that is perhaps a much easier statement to make than it is one to put bricks and mortar to. For example, I met an individual who was the taxi operator, the day operator, a mortician, he dug graves, he was a general contractor
May 21, 1991

and on an on. It is tough to eke out a living in the north. There is certainly no question about that.
The hon. member went on to say that he is somewhat concerned with the elimination of borders, to bring in people to assist employers to provide work on the most cost-effective basis. I understand his concern with local employment, but on the other hand if business is to do business and be competitive, then I think they need to have all opportunities open to them.
He made some mention with respect to the Right Hon. Brian Dickson and his role and the system he has been put in charge of with respect to making certain things happen. He expressed some concern that, perhaps, this process did not proceed in a way he found favour with.
Therefore, my question to him is: If he were the Prime Minister and were to begin this process, how would he like this process to begin? How would he like to see this process evolve? Also, if he has time, what conclusions would he like to see?


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I probably will not have the pleasure of being the Prime Minister in my lifetime, so it is a rhetorical question.
I just want to make a couple of comments. I am sorry that I missed part of the question with regard to the Right Hon. Brian Dickson. In terms of freeing the interprovincial barriers, one must realize that in the north today a majority of the construction companies or other companies that operate in the north started out from down here and have somewhat continued, although we are making great strides to get northern owned companies operating in the north.
When a majority of the companies are from down here, the thing that happens is that it is easier, cheaper for them to bring in their own people. In this case, I am talking about construction companies which are in the process of building houses and other construction. When construction workers come north, they leave home. They want to get back home as soon as possible, so they are prepared to work 16 hour days, long days, seven days a week.
The construction companies prefer them because they can finish the job faster and, therefore, the companies can make more money in the process.
The Address
As a result, the local people do not get as much of a chance to work for those construction firms as they would like because they have their own lives to live, they have their homes, and they have their families in that community. They have other commitments, whether it is in regional or municipal politics, and so have to do other work. They have outside interests other than the present construction that is going on.
I just wanted to make that point to show that the money that is spent is taken back out again because the construction firm and the construction labourers are not from that community. The money is used to build a house or whatever and is taken right back out again. Therefore, the money does not create the economic opportunities that it should.
I must make a further comment about the Right Hon. Brian Dickson. I never disagreed with his appointment, I just question the fact that the appointment was made without consultation with the aboriginal people.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the member referred to economic matters during his speech and noted the absence of an economic plan for the north in the throne speech. He also spoke of the need to reduce the cost of doing business for northern businesses.
The member is a diligent, hard-working member of the committee of the House on industry, science and technology. I know that he has lots of ideas about what can be done to promote the northern economy. I wonder whether he would care to expand on this briefly.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this government announced last week, on Friday I think, in all its generosity, was that it had decided to maintain what is called a postal rate subsidy for food in the north. After the government cut it from $19 million, it will now be maintained at $15 million.
When we told the government that it should maintain the subsidy, it was adamant about eliminating it in the next 15 years. Keeping it is one way of ensuring that Canadians have a fair chance of being able to buy their produce and other food stuffs in the north in order to operate cheaper and better.

May 21, 1991
The Address
I believe there has to be more tax incentives introduced by the government, either this government or the territorial government, to ensure that northern companies operating in the north are better able to compete with the government, which is the largest employer in the north. We have a saying in the north that the private sector trains and the government hires. The private sector trains people to do certain jobs and then the government comes along, either the territorial government or federal government, plucks away those very people. That makes it extremely hard for the private sector to keep its employees and ensure that they have better productivity in the north.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House this morning to speak in this debate on the Speech from the Throne and to express my full support for the objectives set forth by the government in this historic document.
As was mentioned by the Governor General, His Excellency Ray Hnatyshyn, national unity, prosperity, the environment and education are among the genuine concerns of Canadian men and women.
When I took up my new duties a few weeks ago, I had to go back to school, as it were, and read a number of papers.
One of these described Transport Canada's mission as helping to maintain a safe national transportation system that respects the environment and is responsive to the needs of a competitive economy and to the goals this country has set itself.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the department for which I am responsible is the linchpin of our action in this country. If there is any area and that is also valued as a symbol of the unity of this country, transportation is certainly one of them.
If we were to cross Canada from Cape Spear, Newfoundland, to St. Elias, Yukon, that would be a total of 5,187 kilometres. If we crossed Canadian territory from Ellesmere Island to Middle Island in Lake Erie, that would be a total of 4,627 kilometres. About 14 million people live in the narrow strip, 1,000 kilometres long, between Quebec City and Windsor, which represents
only 2 per cent of our territory. About 48 per cent of our population lives in Canada's 10 largest urban centres.
Mr. Speaker, one can scarcely imagine how strong our sense of unity had to be to forge and maintain the ties that keep this country together. I believe that sense of unity is still very much alive in the hearts of every Canadian in this country.
Since the beginning of Confederation, it was transportation that linked Quebec to the Maritimes, British Columbia to the Prairies, and Ontario to the East and to the West.
Historically, transportation has been one of the factors that helped unite this country. The construction of the railways brought the West into Confederation, and when we think of Canadian history, we often tend to think of those who built the railways as nation-builders. In fact, the railways started to expand in Canada during the second half of the nineteenth century when it was perceived as an important tool for uniting and opening up the country. Companies and private citizens started to invest massively in railway construction. The network extended in many directions and finally culminated in the transcontinental line built by Canadian Pacific.
When the "Last Spike" was driven in 1885, the railways became a symbol of the determination of Canadians. Has that determination disappeared? I don't think so, although Canadians may be less aware of it. We must therefore renew that awareness of their values, their strengths and their determination to be united with in a prosperous country.

Transportation was not only fundamental to the creation of our nation, but also has been and continues to be a mainspring of our country's economic growth. We estimate that the transportation services sector currently employs 700,000 people and generates $41 billion annually in economic benefits.
Transportation is more than just another economic sector. Since the earliest days of Confederation, the industry has been the main agent of the physical and political cohesion of our country. A strong and competitive transportation system is as necessary today as it was in 1867 to promote the development of all of Canada's regions.
May 21, 1991

Distance makes a transportation policy essential to our national well-being and influences our transportation priorities. Further, because the greater part of our country is so sparsely populated, domestic transportation is particularly important to strengthen our national unity, encourage national and regional development and provide services to remote areas.
We all know that Canada's economic future depends on our ability to compete internationally.

We believe that the planning of a new national rail system for freight transport complements the study of the national rail network and will help us develop an integrated surface freight transportation strategy.
The railways' rate of return for freight transportation was rather low in the past and there is no prospect of improvement if the present trend continues.
But those are not the only problems: Canadian ports have expressed many concerns about the competitive advantages that American ports enjoy and the possible diversion of containers destined for Canada to ports and railways in the United States.
The continued viability of Canadian ports as an essential link in the surface transportation system cannot be assumed. The success of our main ports on the east and west coasts is closely tied to the ability of our railways and trucking companies to provide services and rates that are competitive with those offered by American ports, railroads and trucking companies.
The task force report on Canadian ports that will soon be made public should provide an interesting analysis of the above issues and other aspects of the overall problem. The many interrelationships of the surface transportation system suggest that we cannot successfully meet all the challenges of transportation unless we consider the system as a whole.
Transport Canada is working on the first step of this strategy, which involves predicting what our surface transport system could be like and how it will function in a few decades. This document should be released shortly for comment to the railways, trucking companies, port authorities and provincial governments, among others.
The Address
We believe that this strategy will encourage intermodal transportation and help all modes of transportation look forward to a prosperous future and increased competitiveness. Our ambitions should not be limited by the size of our domestic market. Canada is home to some of the largest paper companies in the world and they produce twice as much wood as the Canadian market needs.
Canada is also the headquarters of one of the world's largest textile companies which earns 68 per cent of its revenue abroad. Bombardier sells 90 per cent of its transportation products abroad. I could continue this list for a long time.
All these industries contribute directly to the welfare of all Canadians. The government can help stimulate some of these industries and keep our industries competitive, but cannot do it alone. All concerned must cooperate, both private enterprise and workers and their unions. All those who are in any way involved with the country's productivity must work in the same direction.

Today, Canadians are increasingly concerned about their ability to compete. These concerns range from broad economic issues such as inflation, interest rates and the exchange rate to problems with our productivity performance like the effectiveness of investments, the burden of government and the business climate.
Government's have a responsibility to create an environment that encourages the growth of competitive and successful enterprises. The 1991 budget announced actions to restore fiscal balance and move toward price stability. This will lead to a stable-wide economic environment, increase the confidence in the Canadian economy and will strengthen Canada's ability to compete in a tough, economic world.
Boosting productivity growth and prosperity is far more than a job just for government. The private sector must take full advantage of the opportunities created by the actions of governments. In order to maximize productivity growth, the quality of investments in infrastructure, machinery and equipment, training, education and research and technology must be scrutinized. As well, consideration must be given to private sector spending in the areas of training and research and to other areas, such as education, where by international standards Canada's level of spending compares well but its performance does not. Prosperity and competitiveness are

May 21, 1991
The Address
not only issues for business, labour and government. All Canadians can help to strengthen Canada's competitive ability by identifying and developing an awareness of the problem. Only then can they be a part of developing solutions.

I hope that all Canadians, business as well as labour, are thinking about innovative solutions that will streng-hen Canada's ability to grow and regain the prosperity that made it the envy of so many other countries for so long. We are prepared to help Canadians explore new ways and new opportunities for cooperation between the public and private sectors to create a more favorable environment with a view to improving our productivity performance.
Cooperation could take the form of a partnership, for instance. We believe that it would provide a sound basis for solving common problems and face the challenges in an efficient way. The government is reaching out and I would like to give an example of this.

We are currently involved in negotiations to transfer the management and operation of several airports to local airport authorities. We expect the transfers to be completed by the end of this year at Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and Montreal. Aviation services, including air traffic control, airport safety and security, will remain the responsibility of the federal government.
The whole point of this initiative is to allow airports to respond more directly and positively to local communities' needs and interests and to encourage the national airport network to operate in a more commercial and cost-efficient fashion. It offers communities the opportunity to share in their airports' business.
The airport transfer policy announced in 1987 has sparked interest across the country and local groups are working with Transport Canada on similar transfers in Moncton, Quebec City, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg and Kamloops.
The federal government earlier this year transferred 38 Arctic airports in the Northwest Territories to the territorial government. Last year, 10 other airports were transferred to the Yukon territorial government. Our objective is to establish a self-sustaining airport network that promotes increased local involvement while meeting the operational objectives of the national air transportation system.
I would like to address another matter, where partnership and co-operation between all parts of society is essential, and I mean government at all levels, industry and individuals, which is the environment. The government has already put in place a series of environmental partnerships involving individuals as well as special groups, the private sector, as well as municipal and provincial governments. Those partnerships extend to the international level. In the transport field, we must tiy to reduce the activities that are harmful to the environment. We must try to balance the demands for long-term development with environment consideration, such as noise, pollution and congestion. These factors will remain at the centre of our work and activities.
But there will be a price to pay. For example, last November the public review panel on tanker safety and marine spills response capability filed its report. It recommends, among other measures, the improvement of our capability to clean oil spills, the financing of research in the field of cleaning equipment and the assurance that in 10 years all tankers in use in Canada will be equipped with double hulls.
In a more general manner, my department will contribute to the environmental objectives of the federal government by proceeding with changes to regulation of the transportation of dangerous goods; responding to and implementing in conjunction with Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the recommendation of the public review panel on tanker safety and marine spills response capability; working with the international marine organization toward development of an international convention on oil spill response; implementing the green plan initiatives which impact upon Transport Canada, including the federal code of environmental stewardship; the sustainable management program for the Fraser River Basin, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence pollution prevention program, et cetera; contributing to the development of regulations pursuant to the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; reviewing departmental practices
May 21, 1991

and procedures to integrate environmental considerations into the decision-making process at all levels, in other words the airport group's environmental strategy; augmenting departmental work on environment protection through research and development like waste management, spills and leaks, long-term climate change and fuel efficiency; and finally by reviewing the regulation of vehicle emissions to phase in more stringent standards.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that these actions will all contribute to the national effort to protect the environment and to avoid repeating past mistakes.
However, there is no magic solution to this tremendous task as many seem to believe. The support and involvment of everyone, at all levels, will be required.
I would now like to talk briefly about education, which occupies a prominant place in the Speech from the Throne. My concern for education dates as far back as the days when I was Labour Minister and will certainly not fade, because education is the cornerstone of any modem society.
As Michelet, the XIX century French historian and author, wrote in his book titled "The People":"What comes first in politics? Education. Second? Education. And third? Education."
The statistics quoted in the Speech from the Throne are unbelievable, Mr. Speaker: 3 out of 10 young Canadians do not graduate from high school and 4 out of 10 adults are virtually illiterate.
Canadian industry spends half as much on its employees' training as its American counterpart, a fifth as much as the Japanese and an eight as much as the Germans. That is terrible, Mr. Speaker, is it not?
How can we ask illiterate people to make a choice when in fact they cannot understand what is being asked of them? How can we ask young people to feel useful and proud when they cannot find a job because of lack of training?
The Address
I am from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and I have never appreciated the federal meddling in education. It is clear that, to protect its language and culture, Quebec has to exercise an exclusive jurisdiction on education.
The federal government recognizes this and reaffirms its intent to respect provincial jurisdictions in that area.
It would be tragic, however, for the government of Canada to shirk its responsability to ponder over that whole question. Although statistics do not relate to one province in particular, they vary little from province to province.
In the context of a global economy, education and training needs know no boundaries. It seems perfectly logical to me to undertake a nation-wide discussion on the subject. Each province will then be able to choose among the proposed solutions the ones that fit their objectives.
Everyone's cooperation is urgently required, otherwise Canada will take a back seat to an increasing number of countries and will be incapable of taking up the challenges inherent to the pursuit of prosperity and quality of life all Canadians want.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I have to say a few words about Montreal, one of the most beautiful cities in Canada, and one of the most cosmopolitan as well. The ongoing development of the metropolitan area of Montreal is a main concern of mine and of this government.
What I has just said about education and training in the whole country also applies to Montreal, where the industrial structure is changing. Montreal youths have to be prepared to fill the high technology positions in the high-tech industries we have helped set up through our direct assistance. I am referring to research funding in the fields of pharmaceutical products, aeronautics and space tehcnology. It is imperative to prepare our youths to acquire expertise in these high-tech sectors.
In Montreal, multiculturalism is lived in great harmony. The social climate has always been one of tolerance and cooperation between its various elements. This is in line with the desire of Montreal to be recognized as a city of international status and to accomodate as many international organization's headquarters as possible. It has the full support of our government in achieving its goals.

May 21, 1991
The Address
Canada has always been a trading nation and a flourishing trade inevitably causes the movement of goods across Canada and a abroad. These operations cannot be carried out successfully without an efficient and competitive transportation system. A first-rate Canadian transportation system is one of the main components of a unified Canada. I undertake, as Minister of Transport, to do my best to promote this level of excellence.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question, since I have four children in the Quebec school system. I would like to know whether the minister is prepared to criticize the education system in his province. Is he willing to do so?
Another item: The minister mentioned the problem of inflation when the last Budget was brought down. I believe that a study published this morning by the Consumers' Association of Canada indicates that the GST has added enormously to inflation in this country and to rising prices. Is he prepared to comment on that? Finally, I also want to mention what his colleague the Prime Minister said in Alberta to Albertans, to convince them that the GST was a good thing. The Prime Minister was quoted this morning on the CBC. He said:

"The GST will not cost you a nickel. The GST will not cost you a nickel".

That is what the Prime Minister said. Is he willing to comment on these two items?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, as far as education is concerned, when the federal government announces an exercise in reflection on education in this country, it does not mean the Government of Canada or the present speaker is putting the blame on a particular jurisdiction. Statistics have shown that over 30 per cent of young Canadians do not finish high school, and there are some major reasons for this. This means we must be concerned about the situation across Canada, because we will live in an increasingly global economy, so that across Canada, people will have to start asking some very serious questions about the drop-out problem. We must start asking some very serious questions about what brings young people to
leave school when they are well into high school and, as a result, practically kill any chances they would have on the labour market in the years to come. Obviously, if they don't have the right education, if they don't at least finish high school or better than that, they will not be able to fill the high tech positions that the world of tomorrow is starting to create in increasing numbers.
It is certainly not our intention, not in the Speech from the Throne and not in our comments, to criticize one particular jurisdiction. We are merely asking all Canadians to take a long hard look at problems in education, to find the causes and, finally, to come up with the solutions.
As far as the GST is concerned, Mr. Speaker, this government had the guts to act after the previous government refused to do so, following reports from at least four task forces and commissions of inquiry, each of which concluded that the Government of Canada should eliminate the manufacturers' sales tax and thus enable our manufacturers to meet world competition head on. The only way to remove the tax on manufactured products was to replace it with a tax on consumption. We had the guts to do that, Mr. Speaker. For a whole year, the two Opposition Parties put up a ferocious battle against this salutary, energetic and courageous measure.
When the government finally put the bill through the House of Commons, the Opposition transferred the debate to the other place, where it did not belong, and they urged the Liberal senators to wage a fierce battle against a tax that is the best and the fairest tax we could have, a tax that will prove in the years to come, to all Canadians, how energetic and courageous we were to make this decision.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. minister, when he was speaking, mentioned the green plan. He also mentioned the Fraser River basin and the work that is being planned there.
I wonder if the Minister of Transport is aware that the debris control program on the Fraser River, as we speak, is being dismantled because we have not had funding from two out of the three ministries responsible for federal funding in that program. Fisheries has cut back on part of its $45,000 and forestry is looking at cutting
May 21, 1991

back. The only department that has come through with its $90,000 portion has been the Coast Guard.
My question concerns what comes down the Fraser River. When I talk about what comes down I am talking about the logs and the flotsam and jetsam that come down the river during the freshet. The debris catch basin catches 135 pieces every minute during the freshet. The catching of those 135 pieces means a tremendous impact on what will not be coming down the Fraser where fisheries is taking place, where fish habitat is, where sports fishing takes place, where houseboats are and where industry is plying the Fraser.
The $180,000, which is the federal government's share of the Fraser River debris control program, is a very small price to pay for the tremendous job that debris control does. Some 90 per cent of the debris caught in that is debris as a result of natural causes and not as a result of the forest industry. The forest industry has undertaken to pay one-third, the provincial government is paying one-third and the federal government, under three ministries, is all over the map on it.
We are talking about a green plan and protecting and enhancing the Fraser River basin and the government is showing its lack of seriousness by not having full commitment to the debris control program. It should enhance that program so that the sludge left at the end, after the good stuff is cut for fire wood or chipped for pulp, could be chipped for hog fuel, if we had a way to use hog fuel, as opposed to being burned. That is how the government could be serious about the green plan and the Fraser River.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he would comment on just how serious the government is on the Fraser River basin.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleague from the most western province her concern with the Fraser River, which is certainly one of the nicest waterways in this country. I have had many fortunate occasions to visit that area, and I certainly would like to see that area cleaned up as soon as possible because it would further enhance the beauty of the province of British Columbia.
The Address
I would like to reiterate here that this government has adopted a green plan which has been recognized by the knowledgeable authorities in the world as the best green plan ever adopted by any government in any country. We have repeated, many times, that we will implement that program over a given period of years.
We have to live with the constraints that we inherited from previous governments, but our commitment is there and the cleaning up of the Fraser River basin is one of the main commitments of the green plan.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. There is much in the speech that one could speak on for quite a long time, not that the speech really has much substance. It does, however, touch base with a variety of issues that are important and deserve attention from this House and from members.
However, this morning I would like to touch on just two areas with which the Speech from the Throne deals. One concerns the question of national unity and the other area I would like to discuss is the question of productivity and economic growth.
First, concerning the question of national unity and the constitution and ways and means of getting constitutional change in Canada, I personally believe that what we need is a constituent assembly. I felt this way when Mr. Trudeau, of the former Liberal government, brought in its constitutional proposals. I believe a better way of dealing with a broad, sweeping change of our Constitution would be through some form of constituent assembly.
For a while, the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Yellowhead, supported that proposition. He advocated it for a short period of time, then he withdrew the idea. I thought he was wrong in withdrawing it. I wish he had continued to press for some form of constituent assembly.
What has occurred in the 1980s in terms of attempts at constitutional change just reinforces for me the necessity of having some form of constituent assembly. I believe our present institutions, Parliament and the provincial legislatures, as well as provincial and federal political parties are not suited to deal with the constitutional issue. I suggest that political considerations play a major part in our discussions and in our decisions concerning the Constitution. That is not surprising; whether we are

May 21, 1991
The Address
provincial or federal politicians, our concern is getting re-elected. That is the nature of the job and the role that we have. It is a job requirement, so to speak.
Our concern with the politics of it is an ingredient that is always there. I do not think I am divulging any caucus secrets, but when we sit around the table and discuss things like the Quebec veto, and I am sure this occurs in the Liberal and Conservative caucuses, a great debate occurs among the members, depending on the region you are from. The debate very often goes in terms of: "Can we sell this back home"? In other words, what are the political dimensions of this?
On top of that, going through the decade of the 1980s and toward the end of the 1980s, politics, political institutions, legislatures and parliaments have lost a lot of respect and credibility among Canadians. They see us very often as playing the political role rather than doing what the public feels is good for the country. In many ways this is simplistic, to be sure.
The fact that it is a widely held belief and feeling that we are just functioning for our own political interests and not for what is good for the country disables us from getting the credibility in dealing with this most important issue of national unity and the question of whether Canada, as we know it today, will continue to exist in the years and decades ahead.
My preference would be a process of consultation. All political parties on the federal and provincial levels would consult with various groups and get people from those groups to sit on a constituent assembly. We would have representatives from labour, business, the farming community, fishermen, women's organizations, native organizations, the arts, the universities and from a broad spectrum of Canadian society. The way I envisage it is somewhat similar to what many of the bands in my district have. There is the position called "elders", the elders of the band.
I would like to see a constituent assembly of elders from Canada to sit down-give them a year or two years-to discuss among themselves how this country can function. I would like them to get to know each other and the nuances of the various geographic districts as well as of the various specific interests and concerns that women, native people and that labour must have. Through discussing these interests and concerns, a
proposal can come forward in which there is equality and justice for Canada. They can propose a way of governing ourselves that would make sense and that would be acceptable to the Canadian people.
I would then suggest that proposals be put forward in a national referendum so that people supporting, advocating and educating the public on them would not be just politicians. They would be the representatives of the women's organizations, native organizations, labour, business and the various groups and components that make up our broad mosaic and are members of the constituents assembly. In this way, they would find the common concerns for example of women in Quebec and outside Quebec. The question of Quebec and the distinctiveness of Quebec would be reflected in their discussions.
Personally, I see this as the only means by which we could resolve the constitutional impasse that has been created for us. I must say this constitutional impasse has, to a certain extent, been the result of political considerations that were involved and which have created, to a large extent, the situation we are in today. I do not believe that our political institutions are capable of untying the knot that we are in now.
The other area I wish to touch upon is the question of productivity and economic strategy that the Speech from the Throne talks about. Again the Speech from the Throne talks in glowing terms. Often the rhetoric in the speech is correct.
I noted, as well, one part of the speech the Speech from the Throne calls upon:
Canadian business, workers and governments will be asked to work together to generate at least two and a half million new jobs by the year 2000 and to raise the real incomes of Canadians by at least twenty-five percent, by the same year.
In other words, the Speech from the Throne and this government calls upon business and labour to work together and to co-operate. That is a lofty notion. Excuse my cynicism when I hear it coming from this government.
This government has done more to alienate labour and to set one group of people in society against the other group in our society than any other previous government that I am aware of. This government talks about increased productivity and the importance of education. Excuse my cynicism, but this government has done more
May 21, 1991

to cut back on research and development, and postsecondary education than any government that I am aware of.
To be sure, I have not been here all that long. I have been here only since 1979, but I must say that in the 11 or 12 years that I have been a member, I have never seen such systematic cutbacks to post-secondary education, the science councils and the research councils than what has occurred under various budgets introduced by the government opposite.
There is no doubt that if we are going to survive economically, we have, as a society and as a country, to begin to focus our capacities and our assets as a nation. We must be able to bring private capital, labour, science, the public sector together to focus on certain economic strategies and goals. When you look at the successful economic models in the world today, whether they are Taiwan, Japan, Germany or other European countries, you would see, Mr. Speaker, that they have been so successful because they have been able to focus, to bring together and to harmonize the various assets they have as a country; to bring capital, the resources of the scientific community, and the public sector together to act as a co-ordinator and initiator and to ensure that public policy is in harmony with the goals.
To achieve that in this country I suggest requires quite a different attitude by this government. While this government might pay lip service to the goals, its actual record and its actual deeds have been the opposite. Rather than creating harmony, it has created disharmony; rather than being able to bring together and to focus, it has done the very opposite. It has split this country and its people into various factions and groups at war with each other.
As well, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the models of Taiwan, Japan, Germany and other European countries, you begin to notice that the public sector there plays a very important part. Even in Taiwan its steel companies are publicly owned because it fitted in with its industrial strategy.
This government opposite is so ideologically driven that it will privatize for the sake of privatization. It will not step back and ask the question: "Does it make sense
The Address
to have this particular enterprise in the public sector or not". It refuses to look at the question in this light.
The government is ideologically driven. It is part of the new right that assumes that any public involvement is bad. It says, just leave it entirely to the private sector and the private sector somehow or other will create new wealth and that new wealth will be distributed creating new jobs and opportunities and so everyone will be happy and well off. It is obvious that this has not worked.
If this government is serious about an industrial strategy, it has to drop its ideologically motivated and driven agenda. It is not appropriate in the 21st century. We have seen, mainly in the English speaking world, Canada, the United States, Great Britain, go through a new right era, the era of Ronald Reagan, the era of Maggie Thatcher and the era of this particular brand of the Conservative Party, which I hasten to add is different from the old Conservative Party of Stanfield and Diefen-baker.
This Conservative Party is the new right that originates in the United States. It has captured this party and has derailed it from the great tradition of the Progressive Conservative Party.
The type of Rambo capitalism this government encourages is not the model that would allow us to remain competitive, to have the leading edge technologically, to produce an economy that has decent wages, that has the production of new wealth in order for all of its citizens to benefit.
The first thing this government has to do, if it is serious about an industrial strategy, is to understand that the state does have a role to play in the creation of wealth as well as the question of the distribution of wealth.
We can also look at past Liberal economic strategies. Often, to tell the truth, they did not work that well. Quite often it was a case of throwing money at the problem. It was not all that smart. A lot of the money was wasted. It did not produce what the Liberals hoped it would produce.
The whole mad scheme that the Liberals introduced in the dying days of their government of the scientific research tax credit comes to mind. Billions of dollars were wasted, a terrible waste. It just benefited smart

May 21, 1991
The Address
accountants and fly-by-night operators who took advantage of this tax loophole. Had the billions of dollars been actually used in directed grants to our universities, to our research councils, we could have gotten much more benefit out of that loss of tax revenue.
The hallmark of Liberal economic strategy very often was waste. Money was given to people who did not need the money. Grants were given to certain businesses, and not to other businesses, which gave some businesses unfair competitive advantage over other businesses.
This practice continues with this present government. We hear stories now and then about certain businesses getting grants from the government, putting at a tremendous disadvantage that business' competitors.
The question arises whether the state should be involved in selecting winners. I would shy away from that. No, the state does not pick the winners. However, surely the state, in co-ordination with labour, business, and the scientific community, can select certain areas in which we can specialize, in which we can marshal our resources to ensure that we are successful in that area. The decision of picking winners is not one that a few bureaucrats in the government should make but a decision that should be made by a larger group of people in society.
The other thing that is important when we talk about an economic strategy or a social contract is that this government has to sit down and have some honest words with their business friends, and particularly Mr. d'Aqui-no and the Business Council on National Issues. It happens too often that governments, whether this government or the previous Liberal government, have given tremendous tax advantages or direct grants and loans to certain businesses, which then in turn have taken those gifts and very often moved south of the border. There is a certain social responsibility that requires that companies receiving special grants and subsidies or tax treatment remain in the country.
The other thing the government has to talk to its business friends about is their responsibility to pay their fair share in taxes. I am tired of hearing the business council and members of this country's large wealthy families lecture us about getting the deficit under control, while they who have benefited most from the
deficit, from the economic growth that has occurred because of the deficit, are the ones who pay the least in terms of taxes.
Talking about the types of rip-offs that occur, the Minister of Finance said in February of this year in a small press release, No. 91-018, Draft Legislation on the Income Taxation of Trusts, that when this legislation is passed by this House the government will defer billions of dollars of tax revenue that large wealthy families-the Eatons, the Bronfmans, et cetera-should start paying.
The Liberals in 1972 in their tax reform, when we changed from an inheritance tax to a capital gains tax, allowed the very wealthy families to defer paying taxes 21 years on their accumulation of wealth-the increase in the stocks and the bonds and the real estate that they held.
They were allowed to place that wealth into a trust, but there was a rule imposed that required them to start paying taxes on that wealth 21 years down the line. This government is now going to defer that for a whole other generation. I find that outrageous and obscene. If we are going to have an economic strategy with labour, management, business, and the public sector co-operating then everybody should also be paying their fair share in taxes.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I wished and hoped that the comments of the hon. member would have focused on the Speech from the Throne. I was quite disappointed to see him moving his cannon away from shooting at the government to shooting at the Official Opposition. For the record, when the hon. member was talking about Liberal policies and investing money in certain programs, what problems does the hon. member have with the national health care program, one of the finest national health care programs in the world. Is he suggesting that the Liberal government, or future governments, should not be investing money in a national program such as health care?
The hon. member spoke about fair taxation. I wonder about fair taxation when the only NDP government in Canada introduced an 8 per cent tax on top of the 7 per cent GST. Is there any fairness whatsoever in that way of doing business? Why would the hon. member not go to his colleagues at the provincial level in Ontario and ask them to introduce some fairness in the provincial tax

The Address
system so we would not see the 7 per cent on top of the 8 per cent, tax on top of taxing?
What is the problem is with the hon. member when he talks about a fair taxation system and turns around and attacks the Liberal initiatives of the past? If we leave it to my colleagues in the NDP probably everyone in the country would be poor. They do not seem to like anybody getting ahead in our society and getting rich, even without taking away from those needing assistance.
He spoke about the educational system and tried to attack the government. I am not here in order to defend the government, but I was quite amazed that the first province across Canada to oppose any kind of move toward reform of the national education system was Ontario and its NDP government. I wonder what the hon. member's position is vis-a-vis that. Is he going to communicate to his colleagues, the NDP Government of Ontario, that there is a need to reform the educational system across the country? I would like to hear his comments.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises quite a few issues. First of all in my criticism of this government and previous Liberal governments I generally tried to direct my comments to the question of taxation and industrial strategy. He talked about health and what the former Liberal government did in that area.
As with many things, including the economic strategy of the former Liberal government, very often it was hit and miss. There were some successes and some failures. They introduced some good legislation in terms of health care, yet let us not forget that it was the Liberal government that started moving away from block funding.
He then asks the question about tax fairness and ends his comments by asking what I have got against wealth. I accept that the accumulation of wealth is part of our society and has some desirable aspects to it, but to have large wealth not pay a cent of tax I find a little too much. I wonder if the hon. member really believes that large wealth should not be taxed.
I look here at an editorial from The Financial Post of March 27, 1991, which talks about the deferral of the trust tax. The editorial ends up by making this statement:
There could be substantial sums at stake in allowing trusts to defer capital gains taxes further. Taxpayers should be told how much revenue is at stake, and who will benefit most by allowing trusts to defer capital gains taxes for many years beyond the 21 already allowed.
Another editorial, by Diane Francis in the Macleans' issue of December 25, 1989 asks this question:
I'm all in favour of a society that encourages the creation of wealth, but I certainly hope that courts, politicians and tax officials remember that taxes, like death, should be as unavoidable for the rich as they are for the rest of us.
There has got to be some basic fairness that everybody should pay their taxes.
On the question of education and the Ontario NDP government's decision not to participate in the national testing, I am sorry, I do not know enough about the particulars of that situation to comment on it intelligently-


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke quite strongly about the idea of a constituent assembly. I certainly know that we share the concern of many Canadians that there has got to be a better way of involving people across this country.
When I was going home on the plane last weekend, I talked to a gentleman who is on the citizens' forum. We got talking about the findings that are very general across Canada: citizens, generally, are hostile, cynical and disillusioned with government, with their Prime Minister and with most politicians. This also ties in with the feeling of isolation of Ottawa and government and politicians being so far from local ridings.
I was suggesting that maybe-and I would like the member's view on this-what we should be trying to do is get MPs and Parliament to establish a regular system of citizens' forums in local communities. Hopefully it would be non-partisan. Perhaps several MPs could host forums in a given city, for example, and they could be held on a regular basis, perhaps three to four times a year. They could be advertised through our householders. It would give people a chance to discuss issues, it would give a

May 21, 1991
The Address
consensus from citizens that we could bring back to Ottawa, and it would also make us more accountable to local communities and local people.
I think it would be very easy to do it without a lot of expense because we have offices in the ridings and we could rotate where it meets and so on.
I wonder what he thinks of this idea, whether it would have any validity in trying to make our democracy work more at the grassroots level.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a great idea. I think it has got to be done on a non-partisan basis.
I would dearly like to tour my constituency of Regina- Qu'Appelle and the constituency of my colleague from Regina, the hon. member for Regina-Wascana. We could go to both the city of Regina and to our rural communities and talk about the problems we face as a country and where the agreements and the disagreements lie so that our constituents have a better sense of what is going on here.
The real bottleneck, in terms of grassroots democracy, is in this place right here. The Speech from the Throne deals with it to a certain extent, and again excuse me for being cynical. Yes, we had the McGrath commission report and its recommendations to increase the importance of committees. At one stage we all seemed to agree that members of Parliament have got to be more independent so that what our constituents are telling us will be addressed in the House of Commons or in committees. This government has done more to hinder and obstruct committees, especially those committees that are independent and those members in their own ranks who have independent thoughts and feelings. This House is more partisan than I have seen for a long time, at least since I have been a member of Parliament.
The ability for us to act more independently as members of Parliament representing our constituents, rather than representing our political Whips, is less today than it was 10 years ago. If we are going to have real grass-roots democracy, this is the place that needs to be reformed. First and foremost, it is the thinking of this government that needs to be reformed.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate at this time. It is one
of the few opportunities for private members to address this House on the many issues that concern us and most important, on those matters that are of particular concern to the constituents who elected us.
First I want to take a moment and talk about Durham constituency, which I have the honour of representing here.
All of Durham constituency lies within the regional municipality of Durham. There are also within the Durham region two other smaller but more densely populated constituencies represented here by the members of the ridings of Ontario and Oshawa. Also one municipality in Durham lies within the federal riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
Durham is situated immediately to the east of metropolitan Toronto, and we have rich, rolling farmland and pine forests. Resort communities, such as Lake Scugog, are renowned throughout North America for their sports fishing. Also, Durham boasts a major industrial complex centred on the auto industry at Oshawa.
Durham is a community in which anyone would choose to live, so it is no surprise that it is one of the fastest growing centres on this continent. While providing ample space in which industry, commerce and families can prosper, it is readily accessible as well. Through it runs Highway 401 and principal transcontinental rail lines. GO trains and buses link Durham with Toronto and the rest of Ontario's heartland. Oshawa airport offers excellent passenger and freight service to more distant points. In short, Durham is open for business.
Anyone who gets to know Durham will agree with me that there is no better place to live, to work or to play. I say that advisedly. I have lived there most of my life and my family has been farming in that area for almost 200 years.
During the recent recess, we all had a valuable opportunity to get back to our roots, back to our constituencies, and to talk with the people we represent. That is an essential part of the democratic system. I want now to speak for a few minutes about some of the issues that are foremost in the minds of constituents, that concern me as a member of Parliament, and which I trust we will be addressing during this third session of the 34th Parliament.
May 21, 1991

As a member of Parliament, I am very pleased to see comments in the throne speech about increased independence of individual members in the House of Commons.
I doubt that there is a mature Canadian who is not deeply worried right now about our nation and how its future will evolve. It is all too easy to blame these worries on the present government and on the Prime Minister. I know many people do, including some members opposite. They are ignoring history and reality.
Finding ways to accommodate the demands of Quebec and French-speaking Canadians has been a top agenda item for every federal government at least since the quiet revolution in the early 1960s. Various approaches have been tried, offering Quebec particular status, seeking to make its people as one with other Canadians through bilingualism and guaranteed language rights. Succeeding governments had the best of intentions and wanted to make this work. Today, 30 years down the road, support for Quebec sovereignty has never been stronger and that province's future relationship with Canada is the most urgent question facing us now.
It is a complex question, as was detailed in last Monday's throne speech. All of us who have served through this Parliament are, or should be, aware that there are no simplistic solutions. I believe if we have a will to keep this country united, we can do so.
That is what I hope this session will achieve. I am sure that the great majority of Canadians feel the same way. We are seeking in the end a country which we each can love and cherish in our own way, though our reasons may differ due to our origins, our backgrounds, or the geographic regions in which we live. .Within that we want an equality that is qualified only in a very limited way for any group or region.
We have an excellent justice system built on heritage and tradition which incorporates safeguards to ensure fair treatment for all. It bothers me and many others to see these safeguards misused perversely. Our extradition laws should be tightened so they can no longer provide a haven at the expense of our taxpayers for those who enter Canada solely to evade criminal prosecution in other countries.
The Address
Surely changes are in order to prevent similar misuse of our generous immigration provisions for refugees. Almost every day we hear of cases involving those who enter Canada illegally and seek to stall extradition or deportation by claiming refugee status to which they are not honestly entitled, with the knowledge that the required hearings process will take months, if not years, during which they remain here, often at public expense.
One sometimes wonders whether the bar associations and law societies can condone the actions of lawyers who counsel clients to abuse our laws and the charitable instincts of Canadians in this way.
Preserving and improving our environment is a very broad concern. I am confident there is an ever-increasing public demand for action and results, which is how it should be. Our world is our most precious possession. Diminishing it in any way could only lead to our own destruction.
Our basic, continuing aim must be to leave this planet in better shape than we found it for the generations which follow us.
For Durham constituency, as for all of central Canada, improving the water quality of the Great Lakes must be a priority consideration. While much has been accomplished, we still have a long way to go. Although the levels of concentration of many chemicals in the Great Lakes have decreased significantly over the last two decades, they remain above acceptable limits.
Ottawa and other governments have recognized this. Canada and the U.S. have signed agreements aimed at eventually stopping the discharge of all pollution into the Great Lakes. This is a principal focus of the federal green plan.
In late 1989, the federal government announced a five-year, $125 million clean-up, with special attention to the most severely polluted locations in the Great Lakes basin. A recent agreement with Ontario will reduce threats to the waterways from high risk contaminated sites. Because virtually all the waterway is shared with the United States, what many of us want to see is a Great Lakes clean water agreement, similar to the clean air agreement for controlling acid rain and other airborne pollutants which was signed in March by the Prime Minister and President Bush. This agreement was only achieved as a result of some unusual high-powered lobbying of Americans and their elected representatives by our government and by dedicated public interest

May 21, 1991
The Address
groups. Similar action may well be needed to achieve international co-operation necessary for a determined campaign to restore the Great Lakes.
Man-made pollution is not the only problem. The St. Lawrence seaway and the international shipping it attracts have brought some natural threats to the ecology. One of these was the sea lamprey. A more recent arrival is the zebra mussel, which has begun to plug intake pipes, affecting drinking water and threatening the very ecosystem of some Ontario lakes. Research indicates zebra mussels and other foreign pests may well have come here in the ballast water of foreign freighters which was pumped out while the ships were on the Great Lakes.
During this session I hope to introduce a Private Member's Bill amending the Canada Shipping Act to require that all ships dump ballast water while on the high seas, before entering the St. Lawrence seaway and other inland waters, with a very stiff fine for non-compliance. This should prove a significant step toward protecting and restoring the ecology of the Great Lakes, a water system which contains close to one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply and which we have too long taken for granted.
Anyone living in or near urban centres has to be concerned about municipal waste and the resulting demand for rural landfill sites in which it can be dumped. In Durham we have had to contend not only with our own waste, but with growing pressure to accept massive amounts from metro Toronto. This almost reached a crisis stage. Fortunately, public awareness of the need to reduce, re-use and recycle and of the advantages of composting has been having a noticeable impact.
I think it is worth remarking here that by next year Durham region will have achieved a 25 per cent reduction in the amount of waste going to landfill, and fully expects to make that 50 per cent by the end of the decade. It demonstrates how strong the public concern is about waste and the willingness to participate when people are given leadership.
It is important that we follow the intent of the packaging protocol which has been established. It is even more important that individuals who have already reached a 50 per cent reduction in the volume of waste
leaving their homes be given leadership so they can go farther in reaching their personal objectives of minimizing household waste. I would suggest that we are now at the stage where legislation could be proposed and enacted, with the co-operation of the business community, to set specific targets and deadlines for eliminating unnecessary packaging. It need not be an onerous process. People want this. Smart industries will know that less packaging is the way to attract new customers.
In any discussion of municipal waste, another bugbear is so-called junk mail, the mass of unrequested advertising and promotion flyers which is delivered to our homes each day. Presumably it must be an important source of revenue for Canada Post at a time when it has begun to run in the black after decades of staggering deficits. Obviously, some people appreciate receiving this mail and respond to it. If it did not pay, retailers would not use this form of advertising. There are also a great many who abhor junk mail and they tell me about it constantly.
In attempting to deal with this issue, I think we should start by closely examining legislation that is now before the European Parliament to restrict the sale of mailing lists to direct mail organizations.
The European Community proposes that people must agree in writing before their names and addresses can be used in this way. One can anticipate the howls of protest from certain sectors of the business community. But here again, I believe they could be shown it would be smart and even profitable to stop antagonizing so many Canadians in this way.
My final words will be on the touchiest of all subjects these days-taxes. I want it understood that no one is more anxious to reduce taxes than I am. In that respect, it was my pleasure last winter to initiate and head a committee of our Ontario caucus that went through the Public Accounts of Canada and recommended a number of areas where substantial cuts should be made to federal spending.
Some of those were included in this year's budget. I regret that some other suggestions were not adopted, including cuts in the allocations for this House and its members.

I hope the Canadian public will understand just how effective this government's controls on federal spending have been. Average increases have been below 4 per cent, well under the inflation rate. Legislation outlined in the budget will restrict spending increases for future years and restrain future governments.
One might only wish that some other levels of government, including the province of Ontario, would show similar self-discipline. It is long past the time when all governments and elected public bodies must realize that, no matter how spending responsibility is rigged, jigged or shuffled about, it is the same taxpayers who pay the final tally. That includes you and me, everyone else in this House, and all the people across Canada.
The other day I spoke to an irate citizen who had just received his property tax bill. It was from his municipality, which is not in Durham, I might add. I am not sure that he did not hold me partly responsible. Certainly, he sounded so. He pointed out that his property taxes would be going up about 12 per cent this year, on the heels of a 10 per cent rise last year, with a similar 12 per cent tax boost forecast for 1992.
Yet, his personal salary increases for the past three years have barely kept up with the rate of inflation. My friend noted that almost 60 per cent of his mounting property tax is due to education.
The throne speech spoke of the "learning culture". We are putting enough money into education and retraining, but we must redeploy some of that funding to maximize the potential of every Canadian.
There is a basic message in all this, a warning which we can only ignore at our own peril. People are demanding governments that cost less and that tax less. They want government that is lean. If they do not get it, the taxpayers are going to become mean.
The taxpayers of Canada do not have deep pockets. In many cases, their fingers have already touched the bottom. Spending trends in Ottawa have been reduced significantly over the past six years. But more needs to be done. Now, other levels of government must recognize that the party is over and the onus is on them directly to stop overspending.
The Address
I have covered a number of issues in my remarks, all of which are important to me and to my Durham constituents. I believe the Speech from the Throne has outlined the correct course of action for Canada and Canadians.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the member for Durham did speak about a number of things, as he indicated, but it seems to me that a major part of his speech was on the question of junk mail. I hope he does not think that amid all the problems we have in Canada today including national unity and economic problems, which I will get to in a moment, that junk mail is really a major concern of his constituents. Because if it is, they are certainly different from my constituents. For example, we have one in eight children who are allegedly not getting enough to eat in Edmonton and something like 50,000 people unemployed in Edmonton. I would seriously question whether his constituents' major concern is junk mail. If I misunderstand the member I hope he will correct me.
He mentioned that the party is over. But I would remind him that his government, which virtually talks about nothing but financial restraint to anybody who will listen, and not many people will, has added about $214 billion to the national debt of Canada, about $30 billion a year including this year.
I happen to have some statistics from the recent Economist magazine. I will just mention a couple of these things. Canada's industrial production for the last three months has gone down 10 per cent. That is one of the highest rates among the OECD countries. Our GNP is down 1 per cent on a yearly basis. Retail sales are down about 15 per cent. Unemployment, of course, is at 10.5 per cent.
The government is going to be massacred on this record in the next election, and I assume that the member will have something to say about these figures.
Let us take consumer prices. They are up on a three-month basis by 12 per cent. The only country that is worse than Canada in this regard is Sweden at 18 per cent. On a one-year basis, of course, prices are up 6.3 per cent. Again, only Sweden, Australia and the U.K. seem to be worse.

May 21, 1991
The Address
The current prime lending rate is worth noting at 10.25 per cent in Canada according to the Economist magazine.
What on earth does he think the people of Canada are concerned about, to end it? Does he think it is junk mail?
I am told that the member for St. Boniface will speak next on a matter of education. I might again ask the member, as I asked the last member who spoke for his party, the Minister of Transport: is he prepared to criticize the Government of Ontario which has the primary responsibility for education? Why, for example, is the Government of Ontario not prepared to take part in a cross-country test on the educational system?


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: I am quite happy to respond to what were, I believe, the questioner's three main points.
I have not gone back through my speech to check, but I believe I had two paragraphs on junk mail in a 20-minute speech, so junk mail was hardly a leading component of my speech. Possibly if the member represented an area just outside metropolitan Toronto, where just a few months ago six potential land fill sites were selected for receiving garbage from metropolitan Toronto, he would understand the sensitivity in those areas. Of course each one of those blocks represents hundreds of acres of prime agricultural land. Municipal waste, a small component of which is junk mail, is a very high-profile issue in my riding. Needless to say, the member is not aware of the significance of this issue in our part of the country.
I certainly have no problem resting my case on that particular matter.
As far as spending trends are concerned, any Canadian can check the audited Public Accounts of Canada and see the spending trends of Canadian governments of all political stripes since 1970. One will see I believe, since 1972 through to 1986, no government in Canada ever collected enough money to pay for programs, let alone one cent on interest and principal.
Any Canadian who has a mortgage and does not pay the interest or the principal for a period of something in the order of 16 years would have some appreciation of what their personal financial state would be. That is the situation in Canada.
Since 1986 we have been raising more revenues than we are spending on programs in any individual year, but it is still not enough to pay off interest on an old debt. In 1984, which was the worst year, there was a shortfall of $16 billion on programs alone, let alone the more than $22 billion shortfall on interest.
We have had a major turnaround, from running a tremendous deficit on operations to a surplus, but a surplus that still is not a big enough to pay interest on the old debt. Essentially, the build-up in total debt which occurred under the current government is compound interest accumulated on previously established debt.
While I wish that more could have been accomplished to minimize the impact of that compound interest, the facts are there for anyone to examine.
As far as the learning culture is concerned, I appreciate the comments of the member. I think the concept of the learning culture is much broader than just the educational system, although that is certainly part of it. It applies to the attitudes and the desires of individual Canadians to improve themselves at whatever job they may be doing or hope to do in the future. It does involve the entire primary, secondary, university, and subsequent retraining programs of one type or another that, as groups or individuals, we might seek to make use of. It is important that all governments co-ordinate their activities so that the money that goes into the whole learning process for Canadians is used for maximum benefit.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to address the Speech from the Throne and I want to do so from two perspectives: first, what the address does not in fact speak to and, second, what the Speech from the Throne does address.
What does the Speech from the Throne not address? I think colleagues from all sides would agree that when one reads it very carefully there is indeed nothing that attempts to respond to the plight of the almost 5 million poor in this country, most of whom are women and over 1 million of whom are children. Neither does it speak to the difficulties suffered by the 2 million Canadians who are on welfare. That is most unfortunate.
May 21, 1991

Neither does it address the whole question of the food banks. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, there is an estimated 1.8 million Canadians during the year who will in fact be fed at those food banks, in a country such as ours which is considered relatively rich. By the way, it is important to note that perhaps 40 per cent of those individuals are children and young adults.
Neither does it address the question of the unemployed, the slightly more than 1.5 million people who are out of work today in Canada.
I was talking to a young woman during the weekend who desperately wants to work, desperately wants to find a job. She is extremely articulate, presents herself particularly well, and is anxious to work. There is no employment which is sufficient to help her raise her two children. There are jobs. Some of them are part time with minimum wages and poor benefits. That is unfortunate.
A week ago last Saturday, at an open house in my constituency, I met a young man who is well educated and has special skills in the area of marketing. He is a new Canadian and a member of a visible minority. He has been unable during the last 10 years to find suitable employment.
There have been short-term jobs but they have paid very, very poorly. There has been absolutely nothing upon which they could build a future. The Speech from the Throne does not address the plight and the concerns of those individuals and many hundreds of thousands of others like them.
The speech does not address the whole question of bankruptcies either which, if one compares March of this year with one year ago, have gone up over 50 per cent. What about those four small businesses in my constituency, the federal constituency of St. Boniface, that have gone out of business? What will it do for them? What will it do for its workers, for the men and women who were employed, some of whom were working for many, many years and now are without work, but who have families, who want what you and I want for our families, who want to be able to hang on to their homes, who want to be able to feel as if they can grow and prosper in our nation. The speech did not address the question of those bankruptcies where many people are put out of work.
Some members will recall my raising in the House of Commons the plight of almost 2,000 Canadians who were victims of the bankruptcy of Route Canada. We have tried every way to get the government to try to
The Address
respond to their needs. What has happened? It has shielded itself behind the investigations that are going on, rather than reach out to those men and women and try to make things right. These are men and women who had worked for many, many years. Some of them had no severance pay, no holiday pay. Some of them are still owed wages and other types of benefits.
Surely those are issues that touch the very fibre of what it is to be a citizen in Canada, and they might have been addressed.
What is there for farmers? I was speaking to a farmer yesterday who indicated to me that with the growing stress of attempting to run a farm in uncertain markets, with uncertain policies emanating from the federal and provincial governments, it is becoming increasingly difficult to operate.
What about small businesses? I met a proprietor of a small business just a few days ago in my constituency who said to me: "I wonder why I am doing this. When I look at the number of hours that I work, and when I look at the profit at the end of the day, at the end of the year, when I look at the red tape that there is with respect to a host of government regulations, both federally and provincially, when I look at the additional work that is necessitated because of the goods and services tax, I wonder why I am doing this. I," he said, "and many others are seriously considering whether or not we should continue to operate our own firms".
He asked whether there would ever be any relief in taxation because, quite apart from paper work, that is another issue. He pointed out that taxation had been increased not only at the federal level, but at the provincial and municipal levels as well. He was aware of the 34 tax increases that have been imposed by this government, which has made his workload much heavier, which has made his profits much thinner and which has increased the risks of operating a business.
This Speech from the Throne did not address the whole issue of day care for parents who need assistance. I met a young woman who was married and had a child. She is no longer with her husband and has an infant. She has a job that pays around the $6 per hour mark. She has no place to put her child. Even if there was, if she could find one, with the wage that she earns she probably could not afford it. Yet I admired the courage of this young woman. She was very young. She had a great deal of spirit, a tremendous determination. She simply wanted

May 21, 1991
The Address
to work and raise her child so that he could grow up and be a productive citizen.
In the Speech from the Throne there is no reference to recession. We are in a massive recession. We know that the deficit is in excess of $30 billion. It has been about that for a number of years. The debt will soon be $400 billion. That debt, which was less than $168 billion in 1984, according to a signed statement by the former Minister of Finance, is now going to be close to $400 billion. What does it do to allay the fears of Canadians with respect to that deficit and that debt?
Those are some of the points that the Speech from the Throne might have addressed, to reach out to Canadians and make them feel as if there was hope, as if there will be a tomorrow, as if things will fall into place, and provide them with some assurance that this great and prosperous nation will provide them with the opportunities they want and require in order to live in dignity.
What this Speech from the Throne addressed- [Translation]
National Unity. Some statements are fairly interesting; unfortunately, I think they are rather vague. I understand that the Prime Minister no doubt wants to have some flexibility but on the other hand, it does not reassure Canadians very much about what is happening. They are nervous. Obviously, they are very, very nervous. There is not too much assurance that linguistic minorities will not be sacrificed, an assurance that I would have liked to see in the Speech from the Throne. You certainly know that there are all kinds of rumours going around Canada that some fairly well placed people believe that one of the things that might be done is simply to sacrifice linguistic minorities, supposedly to make the country more united.
I would have liked to have a firm statement on the protection of linguistic minorities. And I can assure you that if support for linguistic minorities is ever removed, there will be a storm of protest across Canada because
these minorities have been protected, continue to be protected and want this protection to continue.
As for the bill or the initiatives that could have been taken on national unity, many people have noted that time has been wasted. They would have liked us to proceed as soon as possible, because if we continue according to the government's timetable, it is not impossible that once we reach the end of the tunnel, we will not have much time to correct the mistakes made along the way. It would be unfortunate to find ourselves in a situation where we would not have time to solve this major issue.

Another point made in the Speech from the Throne was participating in prosperity, la prosperite pour tous. The speech contained, and I understand that all political parties have a tendency to do this, exaggerated claims with respect to the Canada-U.S. agreement on trade and the benefits that another trade agreement with Mexico would bring. In the speech there is a comment with respect to the removal of interprovincial barriers. I find that extremely positive. I find though, that the exaggerations on the control of spending are really, really misleading. There have been reductions and they are around 3.7 per cent. However, let us admit that this has been achieved by cutting transfer payments to health and education. Who has picked up the difference? It is the provinces and the municipalities.
My colleague mentioned just a moment ago that people were complaining about the provincial and municipal tax bills. Of course, because the federal government has withdrawn. It turned over the cost to the provinces and municipalities which turned it over to the people.
Perhaps, the most glaring issue are the comments with respect to education, I do not mean to be unkind but they could be termed hypocritical. They are more rhetoric and the rhetoric has been excellent. It was excellent before the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition. It was excellent before and during the 1984 and 1988 elections. However, nothing has happened except for massive cuts. There is flagrant contradiction in the whole area.
May 21, 1991

The Address
He talked increased productivity. We know that better education, training and retraining, research and development contribute to increased productivity. What do we do? Slash, slash. I have mentioned it so often. Cuts in 1986, cuts in 1989-1990, freezes for 1990 to 1995. During that period of time $10 billion, not million, fewer dollars have been targeted for education. No wonder the provinces and municipalities are suffering.
What about the reductions in research and development. What about the cuts in science and technology and investments in literacy?
The goals are laudable. I have to admit that, but there is nowhere any indication as to how the federal government is going to help the provinces or others realize those particular goals. I think that is unfortunate.
There was a lot of talk on the part of government in the Speech from the Throne regarding productivity and efficiency. That is a bit of a contradiction, some people would say a flagrant contradiction, because we have a government which says the right things but does the wrong things.
I understand very, very well that we have a serious financial problem. Are there not other ways to deal with the problem besides dramatically cutting spending on health and education?
['Translation\
Could other possibilities have been considered? Were there other alternatives? I think there could have been some. It is unfortunate that they claim to be controlling spending when they pass the costs on to the provinces and municipalities. We must look at it in terms of revenue, because as you know, revenue was over $70 billion in, 1984, I think, and now it is over $130 billion.
So there has been an extraordinary increase in taxes from all sides.

The goals, yes, they are worthy of being pursued, but we need less talk. We need action. We need to ensure that something is done, because our eroding competitiveness is directly related to a number of factors and one of those factors is our investment in education. Government is fond of saying:

-that investment in education exceeds that of most OECD countries. Yes, but be careful. The comparison is valid for elementary and secondary education, but less so for post-secondary. So let us make the distinction.
I know that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the other ministers are aware of the distinction. Do not try to fool the Canadian people, please. We must tell them the truth.
If I have time, Mr. Speaker, I will make a final point on the efficiency of government. The government says in its Speech from the Throne that it has reduced the number of Crown corporations by 24. Yes, but does it talk about the price paid in terms of efficiency, service and number of layoffs?
The government talks about 90,000 employees who were eliminated or cut. It talks about men and women as though they were products that are cast aside once they are used. But we must ask another question: Honestly, how much money was saved by cutting these 90,000 jobs? How many contracts were awarded to replace these employees? That is not discussed.
It is somewhat like the topic of job creation; we must also look at the other side of the coin. How many jobs were taken away? It is one thing to say, "A job is a job" but I can assure you that working full time for a reasonable salary with benefits that help us support our family is much better than something part-time at a very low salary.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue, but I have the feeling that my time is almost up. I see that I still have a little time left, so I will go on.
I will give a short summary. The Speech from the Throne touches on a number of issues like national unity, the economy, the efficiency of government and of course, education. These are all important topics but we must not forget, dear friends, that we must look not only at what the Speech from the Throne says but also at the issues it does not raise.
I just mentioned the unemployed, people who are fed by food banks, the poor; I mentioned those who live on social assistance; I also mentioned the small businesses and larger firms that went bankrupt and the people who

May 21, 1991
The Address
will go bankrupt. Canadians would have liked something to be said on those issues, but there was nothing.
I also deplore the government's trying to make Canadians believe that control on spending is much sounder than it is. The government should also tell them that although it has controlled spending up to a point, at the same time it has transferred the burden to the provinces, municipalities and people like you and me. I believe that is very important. When we talk about job creation, let us look at the other side of the coin. Let us talk about the number of jobs that were eliminated, let us talk about the number of jobs that were created, but let us also talk about the quality of those jobs and what that means for our constituents.
Neither must we forget that eliminating the Public Service raises another very important, downright fundamental issue: How much money was saved? Or were enough contracts simply given out to exceed any so-called saving?

When we look at the theme national unity, we have to ask ourselves questions about the massive cutbacks to VIA Rail, the privatization of Air Canada, the massive attack on CBC, the 20 per cent reductions in employment, 27 per cent I think it is nationally, and about 20-some per cent in Manitoba, what have they done to national unity. When we talk about economy and government efficiency, let us be very honest. Let us put the facts in front of the Canadian people so that they can understand what it is that you are trying to do and what it is that we are trying to do.
With respect to education, I understand it is always very, very tempting to say the right things. This, in a sense, is a win win proposal for the government because it talks about education, which is important to all of us: elementary, secondary and post-secondary, but actions speak louder than words and the actions have simply not followed the words.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on the hon. member for St. Boniface's response to the Speech from the Throne.
He made some very strong innuendoes, in fact, accusations that the federal government is practising its restraint on the backs of the provinces and the municipalities.
I think the figures really speak for themselves. Over the last six years, government restraint has controlled our expenditures at 3.7 per cent per year. The provincial governments' growth in their expenditures has averaged 6 per cent and 7 per cent and in some provinces, as high as 10 per cent. There was absolutely no impact on the transfer to the provinces up until this year's budget and last year's budget.
Last year, he implied we had a massive attack and although there was an increase, it was cut back by a half of 1 per cent over what it was planned. This is far, far less than a massive attack on provinces and municipalities.
I would ask the member for St. Boniface if he feels that the provinces should continue to spend way in excess of inflation, way in excess of what the federal government spends and should they not have any sense of restraint in their own programs?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I note that it is posed in good faith. Clearly, I believe that all of us should be showing restraint, whatever level of governments we represent and whatever programs we tend to advocate.
At the same time, the government talks about the 3.7 per cent control of expenditures. I am sorry, I guess I did not make my point well The provinces are in the neighbourhood of 6 to 7 per cent. He is quite right. One of the reasons that the provinces are in that range is because of the massive cutbacks.
With all due respect to my colleague, the first cutbacks started a long time ago. For example, the most significant one was in 1986; 2 per cent cut in the transfer formula for health and education. That was followed in 1989-90 by another 1 per cent which was not executed because there was a freeze that came along for two years, which has been extended to 1995.
When I talk about massive cutbacks, that is another point I want to make. Not only the provinces and the municipalities have had to shoulder that additional load because they could not downsize quickly enough to accommodate that lesser revenue.
May 21, 1991

I mean it is very difficult to downsize the universities, the colleges, the schools, the hospitals and what have you. Not only that, but the other side of the coin we have to look at it in a more global context.
There are two issues here when you look at it in the global context. It is the accumulated impact of those reductions over time. Because the base is lower if you freeze it or cut it, the percentage increase over time is less. There is the double whammy if you wish. There is the accumulated impact of the cuts over time and there is the percentage increase which has been applied to a smaller base.
The point that I am making is yes, I agree with you that we must continue to show restraint. The federal government, to a certain extent, has shown restraint but let us explain to Canadians why that figure is as low as it is. Let us be fair with provinces and municipalities, and not dump on them without recognizing that one of the reasons that their taxation rates are going up-there are others-is because there is less assistance from the federal government and from the provinces as they tend to fill in that vacuum.
That is an extremely important point. It is not being made in a partisan kind of way. If you look at what I said, you will recognize that this is true.


Mr. Cole:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, under Standing Order 43(2), I would just like to advise you that the government speakers-one from Wild Rose and the other from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia- will be splitting their time so they will be going into 10-minute speeches with five-minute questions and answers.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech, our government proposed specific targets for Canada concerning the direction of our educational system.
As a result, our government has outlined educational goals and strategies that will lead us into the 21st century. Canada already spends more money per capita on education than almost any other industrialized country in the world.
Our review of educational performance has led us to ask why Canada as a nation does not appear to be getting a greater economic return on its substantial investments. Our government believes that educational goals reflect a
The Address
changing labour market. This does not necessarily require more funding, but rather a shift in emphasis toward a more active orientation.
As more countries become self-sufficient with agriculture and flood the world market, Canadian farmers will no longer be able to rely solely on agriculture in the future.
Technological advances and increased competitiveness reflect a changing labour market which demands a highly skilled and educated labour force.
Canada has failed to rank above the middle level in several international comparisons of student achievement in mathematics and science. We have a low rate of engineers and scientists in our work force. In particular, women account for only 13 per cent of the engineering degrees and 30 per cent of math and physical science degrees.
Canadian industry spends less than half as much on training its employees as American industry does, a fifth as much as the Japanese and an eighth as much as the Germans. This is not the kind of performance that will guarantee increased prosperity for our children. It has given rise to concerns whether the next generation of Canadian men and women will be the first to have a lower standard of living than its parents had. The challenge of Canada's training system is to provide individuals with ongoing opportunity to acquire productive skills that are needed in the marketplace. The focus of our government is to link educational and economic goals-specifically the future competitiveness of Canada's work force is in a knowledge-based economy. If Canada is to reverse its economic decline we must improve math, science and technology standards.
Canadian men and women must have access to both the skills and the life-long learning opportunities necessary to improve their job prospects and to ensure their own prosperity. Despite the great dedication of so many talented educators and administrators, Canadians are questioning whether the country's approach to learning is adequate for the future.
Our government recognizes that Canadians are concerned about education and would like to see Canadawide goals established for the year 2000. This will require provincial endorsement and co-operation.

May 21, 1991
The Address
Our goals include cutting illiteracy rates in half, ensuring that 90 per cent of Canadians attain high school diplomas or the equivalent by the age of 25, doubling the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, science and engineering, and quadrupling the training provided by employers to their employees.
Students and parents, employers and employees, educators and governments, will be asked to work together to develop a learning culture. Just as we have developed an environmental culture, we all must play respective roles in the future.
Continued prosperity depends on technological competitiveness and Canada faces a critical shortage of scientists, engineers, technicians and technologists in the coming decades. The role our government is playing to enhance our future competitiveness is to encourage studies in the natural science and engineering through the Canada Scholarship Program. This program will benefit 10,000 recipients, half of whom will be women.
We have also jointly developed a very encouraging program in several provinces to persuade young people to stay in school and complete their education. We have created Centres of Excellence programs which link Canada's best minds in universities and the private sector.
When unemployment insurance was first introduced, it was meant to be a temporary means of living while unemployed and searching for another job. There are now some Canadians who make collecting unemployment insurance benefits a lifestyle and it is at the expense of other Canadians. Many unemployment recipients feel a sense of helplessness and low self esteem when they are unable to qualify for various employment opportunities as a result of their limited educational background, which deters them from obtaining a job.
In the past, an unemployment insurance recipient was unable to upgrade the skills required to become more employable without jeopardizing the benefits. Our government realized that this unemployment cycle needed to be broken. As a result, we launched a major new initiative, the labour force development strategy, to help the unemployed acquire the skills they need to change with a changing world.
An example of such a program is the literacy training program for unemployment insurance recipients. Unemployment insurance recipients usually jeopardize then-benefits if they are not ready and able to work. Under section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, people can now take certain types of training without incurring this risk. The new policy incorporates literacy and numeracy training into this category. A literate Canada will benefit both workers and employers alike.
We have done much but more needs to be done. The quality of Canada's human resources, a determining factor of our competitiveness and the engine of our future prosperity, is a national issue. It is not a federal issue, it is not a provincial issue, it is not entirely a governmental issue. It is a national issue and it demands a national response.
Co-operation will be critical. Federal and provincial governments, industry, the universities and consumers all have their roles to play. If everyone can work together on these challenges to reach a common goal, all Canadians in every region will benefit, now and in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minutes, questions and comments period. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


Mac Harb: I was quite impressed with the presentation of the hon. member and I notice she focused exclusively on education. She is to be commended for that. I would like to ask her whether she is aware that the private sector in Canada, particularly the companies that are involved in research and development in high tech, does not invest in Canada as much as other companies around the world do. That is because there is no national strategy that deals with the question of education or the question of research and development. There is no leadership on the part of the government whether we are talking about provincial or federal levels of government.
Rather than focusing all the time on the negative, I would like to mention on the positive side that we do have Northern Telecom, a leading company, not only in Canada and in North America but all around the world, which invests up to 9 per cent, even 10 per cent in some cases, in the area of research and development. That is a perfect example of the great success that our industries
May 21, 1991

could have internationally, only if our government provides them with the tools necessary with the proper method.
I would suggest that rather than waiting until the year 2000 in order to deal with the problem, we have to start now in dealing with the issues of illiteracy and education. By the year 2000, there will be over one million Canadians who will be uneducated and untrained and will not be able to enter the work force in a proper fashion.
Also by the year 2000, two-thirds of all jobs created in Canada will require more than a grade 12 education. So I would suggest that this matter is of great urgency and needs immediate action.
My question to the hon. member is: in her view, what is it the government should be doing now in order to deal with the problem we are faced with?


Louise Feltham: I want to thank my hon. friend and colleague for asking that question.
I feel very strongly that we have, up until now, recognized that there is a concern there.
We do need to have more graduates. We do need our young people to complete school, especially in the provinces that have not themselves dwelt that much on education.
The government, at this stage, recognizes that it is a problem. It is a problem today and it is a problem for the future.
I spoke of the year 2000. We are all looking now at the word "2000". We are looking at the future. We say 2000, but it is not something that will wait until the year 2000 to come into effect. We must start now. People in industry, the employers, are definitely losing the advantage by not putting more money into training their staffs. Yes, we are looking at training and will encourage employers in whatever is necessary. We will stress training over the next number of years leading up to the year 2000.
After visiting Taiwan I became very aware of the need for this country and for all governments, as my colleague has said, to work together. Both provincial governments and the federal government must work together because
The Address
Canada must enter the technological age and must concentrate on technology.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in this throne speech debate concerning a throne speech which set out in general terms the direction for the next session of this 34th Parliament, the third session. This 34th Parliament may in many ways prove to be one of the most significant Parliaments, if not the most significant, in the history of our country.
The first session dealt exclusively with the ratification of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The second session was highlighted by the passage, over the objections of an unelected and unaccountable Senate, of the goods and services tax legislation, the sales tax reform which had been due in this country for some 40 years.
This third session of this Parliament deals with the very future of the country itself. The three themes of the throne speech-unity, prosperity and government responsiveness-find themselves inextricably linked and intertwined.
There is an enormously high level of frustration experienced by Canadians today. A good deal of it is, I believe, economic. However, Canadians also want to feel that their elective representatives are hearing them, are listening to them and acting accordingly. It is clear, as well, that the deficiencies and the inadequacies of a Constitution framed in the 1860s, and modified somewhat 10 years ago without the support of a province which contains some 28 per cent of the population of the country, must be addressed. It is time to shake off the post-Meech doldrums and move to make the changes necessary to our Constitution.
The message from Meech Lake was twofold. First, Canadians wanted into the process. They felt left out. The decision-making seemed too remote. Indeed, after the midway point, December 1988, and the passage of Bill 178 in Quebec, the process was not in keeping with the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Those concerns which arose half way through the ratification process made it, I believe, politically impossible for any province which had not by that time ratified the accord to ever do so.
The second message is one of fairness and equity. Whatever one province is seen to achieve through the process must also be available to others. There must not

May 21, 1991
The Address
be any particular special status for one province or another, no deal for one that is not available to the rest.
That is why the federal government must and will ensure Canadians the opportunity to participate fully in this process of constitutional renewal. This is being done and will continue to be done through a number of commissions and fora.
The citizens' forum, while obscenely expensive, can nevertheless claim that it has received input from literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I believe that there will be some useful input coming forward from it when the report is filed on or before July 1.
Also due on July 1 is the report of the Beaudoin-Ed-wards joint Commons-Senate committee, which has been charged with the responsibility of finding a way out of the impasse, to find a means to achieve constitutional change.
At present, constitutional change requires in many instances the unanimous agreement of the House of Commons, the Senate and the 10 provinces. This requirement for unanimity has caused a constitutional log jam.
It is rather difficult to go into the room to talk about constitutional change when the door is locked tight and no one can get in. To get the door open, we need a key and that is where the Beaudoin-Edwards committee comes in. It will find the key that will open the door to constitutional change.
Once these various reports are in and the government has a chance to digest them, the government will lay out proposals to focus public discussion on the goal of a more united Canada. In doing so, it is important to remember that what we have right now is not all bad. Relative to the rest of the world, Canada is in pretty good shape.
I come from an area on the prairies in Saskatchewan of some 25,000 square miles which is overly dependent on the growing and marketing of grain. My constituents tell me overwhelmingly that they want a continuing strong central government: one capable of setting and maintaining national standards; one capable of managing the eighth largest economy in the world; and one that is capable of responding to the needs of a particular sector or region when it finds itself disadvantaged, as all the regions and sectors of our country have found themselves from time to time.
In Saskatchewan, in my area particularly, we have a very cyclical economy. Sometimes we are on top of the world and are putting in through equalization, and other times-now being one of those times-we take out. That message comes to me clearly from constituents.
They want to get rid of duplication and waste, they want efficient government and they do want to see some decentralization out of Ottawa to the provinces and to the regions of the country.
The objective is not to throw everything out and start over again, but rather to modify and seek change in order to build on and improve that which we already have: a nation which, from the outside looking in, is the envy of the rest of the world. Residents of many other nations would give their eye teeth to enter this country.
The proposals generated over the summer months, after the reports of these various commissions, will be referred to a joint parliamentary committee which will be established to consult with Canadians. This referral is to take place by the end of September.
The committee will then have five months to travel within Canada from sea to sea to sea. It will meet in public session with provincial and territorial counterpart committees.
After receipt of the report in February of next year, the government will propose a plan for a renewed Canada for the consideration of all Canadians. There will be legislation to provide for greater participation by Canadians in the process, if indeed this is necessary.
I believe also that the time necessary must be taken. The unity question must be dealt with in a measured way which permits ample time for input from Canadians every step of the way. Only in this way will the end product be capable of acceptance by the great majority of Canadians.
National unity and economic prosperity go hand in hand and there can be no doubt that insofar as the future is concerned, investment decisions both in Canada and abroad are affected by uncertainty. Interest rates are affected because investors want certainty, stability and sound management.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
May 21, 1991



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, this government has a policy of hiring at Revenue Canada's Data Taxation Centre in Sudbury which discriminates against non-residents of the city and district.
In the past year we have lost over 2,400 of the 4,000 mining jobs at Elliot Lake and we will lose over another
1,000	jobs next spring. This community is hurting, with homes, careers and even lives being lost in the turmoil created by the mine closures.
When one of my constituents applied for a job at the Data Taxation Centre in Sudbury, he was told that he must live in the Sudbury district to be considered for the job. This person is a Canadian citizen. He pays taxes to this very Data Taxation Centre. He needs a job.
I call on the government to stop this irrational, unreasonable and unfair discrimination against unemployed Canadians seeking a job. The government's hiring policy is simply wrong.


SYRIAN JEWRY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufF-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I recently met with members of the Jewish students group Nahon. These students are among many who are very concerned about the oppression of some 4,500 Syrian Jews.
There is an urgent call for action against the Syrian government. Jews are forbidden to leave Syria, they are being tortured and jailed, they are not allowed to vote and their homes fall victim to random, unwarranted searches.
The Jews of Syria are being denied basic rights that are set out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which Syria has signed. The Government of
Canada has always supported the cause of oppressed Jewry and human rights.
Today, along with members of this House, I call on the government of Syria to comply with the UN declaration and allow those Syrian Jews, who wish to emigrate, the right to do so freely.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, during the weekend Canadians were informed that this government is once again secretly considering closures of Canadian forces bases in five communities across the country.
Communities in the Atlantic provinces, already suffering as a result of the recession, stand to be the hardest hit. Three bases are being targeted in that region alone.
Canadians know the economic ruin that befalls a community when its major employer is suddenly removed. In these difficult times, the last thing Canadians need is for job losses and upheaval as the government makes piecemeal decisions about defence spending.
There is no doubt that defence expenditures must be reduced. These kind of secretive, ad hoc decisions, however, serve neither the local communities nor our national defence policy. We call on the government to undertake an immediate, thorough review of Canadian' defence policy before any closures are considered and to assure Canadians that viable alternative economic opportunities will be provided to communities in the event base closures are necessary.


TAXATION
Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, families have changed drastically over the last century or so. Today they are much smaller and they tend to scatter across the country rather than stay in a single location.
Taxation has changed as well. Unfortunately, the changes in taxation have not reflected the changes in the family. We now have a situation which penalizes married couples and gives a tax advantage to singles living together.

May 21, 1991
I am sure that each one of us in this Chamber is deeply disturbed by the erosion of the family as we have known it. Do not let us contribute to that erosion through lack of legislation.
I am very much encouraged by the throne speech, in which the government promised to review our policies in relation to the family. I am very proud to be part of this initiative. I believe strongly in protecting the interests of the family, for it is the very foundation of this great country.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in the past year, rumours of base closures in Atlantic Canada and rumours about military cuts in general have created a climate of anxiety in my region.
Canadian Armed Forces personnel are understandably anxious and worried about where they might fit in the crunch that appears to be on its way.
Armed forces personnel are not alone. The closure of bases in the Atlantic region will be devastating for an economy already hard pressed by government policies to date.
If the reports prove to be true, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, in particular, will be hurt by loss of personnel and a loss of spending dollars and a loss of spin-off jobs.
Air force bases, particularly in Nova Scotia, are an important part of Atlantic Canada's lifeblood. They are also part of our history, our industry and our well-being.
We ask that this government take a long look and think hard before adding more fuel to the fire that is burning up the economy of Atlantic Canada.


POSTAL SUBSIDIES
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work accomplished by native people in remote localities, by native businesses, airlines, merchants, provincial and territorial officials who, through extensive consultations with the government of Canada and the
task force, made it possible to stabilize the postal subsidy for the North at $15 million.
Without this subsidy, the price of perishables in most localities of Northern Quebec would far exceed the prices being paid in areas such as Central Arctic. For example, one litre of milk could cost $10 and a loaf of bread $7.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. Tom Siddon, and his team, but caution will be required in standardizing postal rates.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, recent reports in Kingston suggest that budget cuts at federal penitentiaries may negatively affect public safety.
Corrections Canada employees are, like all public servants, suffering at the hands of this government. To date, 59 positions have been eliminated in the Kingston area alone. By reducing staff there will be fewer guards on duty. Each guard will have to man more shifts. This will lead to overwork and increased stress. In a prison environment, this will in turn create greater tension between guards and inmates and lead to dangerous confrontations.
The federal government's attempts to reduce the deficit by attacking public servants is deplorable. However, by cutting prison staff, the government is not only attacking its employees it is also creating a potentially dangerous situation.
I therefore urge the government to listen to the Union of Solicitor General Employees and provide each institution with the funding it needs to adequately guard federal inmates. The safety of the public and the safety of the staff may be jeopardized if the government does not act.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, whatever one may think of the Belanger-Campeau report, it clearly identifies Quebec's concerns with our 1982 Constitution Act.
May 21, 1991

First, the report makes clear that the principle of equality of all Canadians enshrined in the Charter of Rights does not make allowance for special constitutional recognition for Quebec society.
Next, the principle of multiculturalism enshrined in the charter implies that the French language and culture are on the same footing as other languages and culture and does not require special guarantees in our Constitution.
Finally, the principle of equality of all 10 provinces enshrined in the amending formula of the Constitution implies that any power granted to Quebec must be granted to all other provinces as well, thereby conflicting with both the concept of a unique Quebec and with the views of the proponents of a strong national government.
Essentially, Belanger-Campeau identifies the fundamental differences that haunt our country, differences that we must resolve if we are going to continue to have a strong and united Canada.


CANADA POST
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the matter of national unity. I would like to express the concerns of thousands of Canadians who are outraged by this government's dismantling of our national postal service.
To date, over 950 federally owned and operated post offices have been closed or privatized. Many of these closures cause hardships for residents who deserve first-rate postal service and are losing postal service altogether. Many of these people are our seniors and handicapped people.
For many communities, the post office is the only visible federal presence. After gutting the CBC and VIA Rail, this government will deal another serious blow to Canadian unity by closing down hundreds of post offices.
On behalf of the residents of communities like Avon-more, Ontario; La Redemption, Quebec; Mabou, Nova Scotia; Brandon, Manitoba; and Pitt Meadows, British Columbia, I strongly urge this government to stop post office closures and to work to improve our national postal systems.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, the latest VIA Rail annual report proves that the government did the right thing when it forced it to slim down before it would suffer a heart attack. Here is some good news. First, customer complaints went down 60 percent last year, while praise for VIA Rail and the new service it offers increased substantially. Second, the on-time performance of VIA trains increased from 65 percent in 1989 to 80 percent in 1990.

In fact, the only bad news in the VIA Rail annual report was about passenger revenues during the first half of 1990 which were below the targets. The only reason for that was the negative publicity created by the Liberals and the NDP surrounding the introduction of the new service.
Shame on the opposition on that question.


TOURISM AWARDS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday evening in the Montreal Congress Centre the national Quebec tourism award ceremony was held.
I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to report to this House today that Abitibi-Temiscamingue won top honours at that occasion, as the International Film Festival of Abitibi-Temiscamingue was awarded the most prestigious award, that is the Prix de ['excellence touristique (award of excellence in tourism), for contributing over the past ten years to the Quebec cultural and tourism recognition. This high distinction crowns ten years of efforts and relentless work to turn a regional festival into a national and even international event.
So, I want to congratulate, in my name and on behalf of my constituents, all the organizers of this festival for this great success. Well done!

May 21, 1991


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, after studying and hearing countless witnesses last spring on Public Service 2000, the public accounts committee had very serious concerns about the so-called reform to the Public Service.
It strongly recommended that before proceeding with legislation or administrative changes, the government should establish a special committee of this House of Commons and should refer all recommendations from Public Service 2000 to that special committee.
The white paper on Public Service 2000 was tabled over five months ago and yet the President of the Treasury Board has still failed to heed the advice of the public accounts committee of this Parliament.
By stomping all over collective bargaining rights, gloating over thousands of lay-offs, spending countless taxpayers' dollars fighting court cases on equity and fairness in government, the government has proven beyond a doubt it knows better how to dismantle, destroy, and demolish than how to build a nation.


PORNOGRAPHY
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, without question the very fibre of our society and family life is being threatened by an ever-increasing criminal element goaded on by suggestive pornographic material so readily available in video shops and on our bookshelves. Despite the efforts of many concerned people, hard core pornography still exploits children and degrades women. It is a frightening reality that child abuse and battery of women is on the increase.
We heard in the Speech from the Throne the importance of protecting our children and the stability of family life. I have heard from many constituents who believe that tough legislation to control the distribution of pornographic material is a necessary step in ensuring our children, our women, and our society have the protection they deserve. We have not yet put this
legislation in place. Let us not continue to delay. A strong and healthy Canada depends on it.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, like my father before me, there are tens of thousands of individuals waiting to adopt Canada as their home. There are tens of thousands of families waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. There are tens of thousands of refugees waiting for their first hearing.
Canadians and immigration applicants certainly would like to know, in fact they demand to know, how it is that Mohammed Al-Mashat managed to jump the queue and get through the entire immigration process in just 28 days, leaving them behind.
The tens of thousands of immigration and refugee applicants want to know-actually they are now fully aware of-the motto that this government has on immigration policy: It is not who you are or how desperate your case, but who you know.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, as a reward for their responsible and competent gulf contribution our armed services are going to be rationalized and down-sized. This is sneaky and ominous bureaucratic fuzz for saying that cuts are coming that will adversely affect Canadians from coast to coast, including my native province of Nova Scotia, where we have had a history of servicing the services that has been a long and time-honoured military tradition, and whose economy very much depends on servicing the services.
So far, all we have had are rumours and resignations and silence from the minister. Surely before any decisions are made there has to be an open and thorough debate of defence policy. Canadians must be involved and what better way than through the new parliamentary committee on national defence. The committee's first priority next week should be public hearings on this vital issue and they could do no better than to start in my home province of Nova Scotia and perhaps in its shire city of Halifax.
May 21, 1991


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, each spring the Porcupine caribou herd migrates past the most northerly community in my constituency, Old Crow, as they make their way to calving grounds on the Arctic north shore. For 20,000 years the Gwitch'in people of Yukon and Alaska have depended on the Porcupine caribou herd for their livelihood, all the while practising sustainable development in its purest form.
In 1980 the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established to protect this way of life from exploration and development. But this could all change. President Bush wants to open up the refuge for oil and gas development and a key committee of the U.S. Senate is to vote on this matter today.
I call on the ministers for external affairs and environment to meet with their U.S. counterparts to reinforce that exploration in that refuge is simply unacceptable to Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On the weekend the Prime Minister said during an interview that Canadians were responsible for the present economic and constitutional situation. When will the government stop blaming Canadians for the present situation and act responsibly, since this government is responsible for the serious problems facing this country?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we are going through some difficult times. We have a very serious slowdown in the economy and the unity of the nation is under question. Obviously it is going to require a broad-based public debate to deal with all of these issues.
Oral Questions
The issues we face are very complex. They can only be resolved on the basis of Canadians working together in a partnership. I think we have to draw all Canadians into the process, to come forward and be a part of the solution. We must deal with the issues in a manner that is traditional and in keeping with the Canadian way of life.
I sense that the Leader of the Opposition has indicated his full co-operation in addressing the issues that confront Canadians. I welcome that and look forward to his co-operation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say the Prime Minister is quite wrong to blame Canadians. Canadians are not suffering from a lack of affection for their country, they are suffering from a lack of affection for this government.
Today the Conference Board of Canada said that the recession will be much worse than had been predicted only three months ago. It said that seven of ten provinces would experience negative economic growth this year.
When will the minister realize that the economic policy of this government is a great failure? The government has given us a new Minister of Finance. What we need is a new set of economic policies. If the Minister of Finance wants our co-operation, he should listen to us, reduce our interest rates so they are more competitive with those in the United States, reduce the Canadian dollar to improve the competitiveness of Canadian goods and services. Then we will be on the road to recovery. But he should listen to us once in a while.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition gets political on this very important issue. However, it allows me to say that during the time when he was the Minister of Finance the Bank of Canada rate climbed from 7.5 per cent in September of 1977 to 11.25 per cent in May of 1979.
What has happened with this government is the fact that interest rates have gone down by 5 percentage points over the last year. There is clear evidence that business confidence is improving, housing starts are improving, housing sales are improving, automobiles sales are improving, the unemployment figures are going down, not up. There are some positive signals on the horizons, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to be over-optimistic

May 21, 1991
Oral Questions
but I want to assure my hon. friend that all the indicators are leading in the right direction.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we thought we had a new Minister of Finance, but this is the same old stuff that we heard from the previous Minister of Finance. I would like to tell him that when I was Minister of Finance Canadians were working.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: At that time, we had Canadian economic policies.
I would like to know from the new Minister of Finance when he will take his responsibilities seriously. If this government decided that we need a new Minister of Finance, it is because we need new economic policies. When will the Minister of Finance do his job?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the fall-out of the policies of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in the government and occupying the position of the Minister of Finance, we saw the unemployment rate at that time at 12 per cent. It was 16 per cent in the province of British Columbia. It is considerably less now. Canadians and Canadian enterprises have created 1.6 million jobs in a climate that was positive.
We have serious inflationary pressures which must be addressed. The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that very well.
I regret very much that he does not like me being a bit old-fashioned, but I can tell him that unless you get the fundamentals right and unless you deal with the underlying causes of inflation, inflationary pressures and expectations, you will not be able to bring interest rates down. If you are not going to bring interest rates down, you will not have a turnaround in the economy.
I repeat again, we are heading in the right direction. All the indicators suggest that, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition is just going to have to be a little more patient because when we get the fundamentals right, the Canadian economy will start to grow again.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it relates to the crisis faced by the Canadian trucking industry.
As the minister knows, last week the human face of the difficulties and frustrations facing Canadian truckers was brought to Ottawa and is still here for all to see.
The minister subsequently met with the workers. We debated the issue in this House. We, the Official Opposition, offered the minister and the government a package of alternative options that can work if put to use.
Therefore, I ask the minister whether the government is finally prepared today to announce some immediate relief measures that will serve to alleviate the overwhelming burden that truckers face as a result of the policies of this administration.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that over Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week, I and the officials from my department met with the spouses and the truckers themselves to examine this situation.
The conclusions of these meetings according to my officials are to the effect that two sets of recommendations have been outlined by the owner-operators. The first set is what one can call the political agenda in that they are going back to the free trade agreement, the GST and deregulation of the industry.
As far as the GST is concerned, I said last week in this House that there is nothing wrong with the GST as far as the trucking industry is concerned. For one thing, the tax on fuel has been reduced by 2.5 cents per litre as a result of the implementation of the GST.
As far as deregulation is concerned, there is no intention on the part of this government to go back on the question of deregulation. From all quarters, we are hearing that deregulation has been veiy beneficial to the Canadian people as such.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the minister must be talking to American truckers because they are the only people who have gained from deregulation, not Canadian truckers.
May 21, 1991

Oral Questions
Not only has this government been hiding behind seven studies for almost a year, but we have gone through one week of protest, discussion and debate and the minister continues to abdicate responsibility and fails to show key leadership at this critical period of time.
I return to the minister. What is it going to take to wake up this government and to resolve this issue immediately rather than hiding constantly behind studies? Temporary relief measures, even at that, are not incompatible with his studies.
Can the minister tell this House when the truckers can expect some real action, some real solutions and some real sensitivity to Canadians for a change?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before that the recommendations were of two orders during the meetings last week. The second order is related to the operational costs of the truckers. We have examined many of these issues and found at the end of the day that the recommendations today are exactly the same as those which were made by the representatives of all segments of the trucking industry last year. Those recommendations gave rise to the formation of a task force that is made up of all representatives of the trucking industry.
The owner-operators on the street at the present time refused to be part of that coalition. That coalition and all the other segments of the industry are saying today they are in agreement with the processes that have been implemented. They agreed to have these seven studies. These studies are going to be released on May 27 and the task force is going to meet on June 4 and 5 to make their recommendations.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. There is one thing that no study needs to be done to tell us, and it is that these truckers parked outside this House and many like them across this country are losing their homes. It is creating many family problems and truckers are losing their businesses. We do not need a study to tell us that.
There are two concrete things this government can do. One clear problem that the truckers have is related to the GST and the fact that they have to wait five to six months for any rebate. This costs them thousands of
dollars, which they have to put up front. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will not ensure that those rebates can get to those truckers when they need them and second, whether he will acknowledge that the deregulation policies brought forward by the previous Liberal government and continued by his government will be reviewed and regulations brought in so that Canadians truckers can compete in the Canadian market?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to remind the leader of the New Democratic Party that the GST replaces the federal sales tax. The truckers paid federal sales tax before. They did not get any rebate. They had to swallow it. In the case of the GST, they get it refunded as an input tax credit so it really does improve their competitive position in that it does reduce the cost of doing business.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the personal instances that we have seen what this government's policies have done to the independent trucking industry.
The trucking industry is one industry that has been devastated by this government's policies. The steel industry is another, particularly the policy of the U.S.-Canada trade deal. This week the United States Congress decides whether it will give the fast track to the trade talks. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister what work the government is doing now to ensure that in two years' time we will not have another devastated industry lined up on Wellington Street because of the policies that this government is pursuing around the trade deal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I again want to remind the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party that transportation was not a part of the free trade agreement, so it has nothing to do with the allegation that she suggests.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the transportation industry is not on a level playing field in Canada. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister was simply, what preparations is the government doing, given that the United States is going to fast track the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade deal? But on another subject-

May 21, 1991
Oral Questions

Carla Hills, the U.S. representative at the tripartite negotiations, has confirmed that the United States wants to put culture on the table. Ms. Hills suggested that culture could be adequately protected with cultural exhibitions. Will the minister confirm that culture will never be part of two-way or three-way free trade?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party knows full well that the government's position on this has not changed. Culture is not on the table, never has been and never will be.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In his absence, I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
This weekend there were press reports of a recommendation to cabinet that included closing Canadian forces bases, two in Europe and a number all across the country. In view of the fact that Canadian forces performed so admirably in the gulf, and in view of the fact that many people want to know their long-term security at those bases, will the minister confirm or deny these reports? Will he say why the government continues to operate on ad hockery and will he say why it refuses to bring forward a defence policy for this country?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. colleague recognizes the very important role that our Canadian men and women played in the gulf. It was interesting to note this weekend the accolades which our naval personnel received.
With respect to the defence policy review, yes, indeed, and I think my hon. colleague would agree that the changing international situation, the changing fiscal situation, requires us to look at the future of defence policy in this country. That work is under way. Based
upon changing assessments of threats and new roles for our people, decisions will flow from that about the appropriate size of the force, the appropriate infrastructure and equipment that will be required for the future.
Until cabinet has had an opportunity to look at those proposals, it would be inappropriate to discuss any specific aspects of it. Following those discussions, of course, I am sure my colleagues will look forward to discussions about the future defence policy for this country.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the international situation may be changing, but it is changing in this country to getting worse. We are in the middle of a recession now and there are areas that depend economically on defence establishments.
Will the minister give an undertaking that before any changes are made in defence policy, there will be a full review which will be in consultation with all the people of Canada. Will she give that undertaking?


Mary Collins: Obviously, in looking at a defence policy for the future, there are many aspects that must be considered: the international situation, Canadian security, the numbers of people and roles they must play.
I think it is evident, though, and I am sure my hon. colleague will agree, that some changes to infrastructure will be required. In fact, we are looking at all aspects of infrastructure. In looking at that, of course we look at the social and economic effects of changes in our infrastructure, and that will be part of the considerations that will come into our cabinet deliberations.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Over and over again, this government has told Canadians that the GST is revenue neutral. On November 12, the Prime Minister said in Calgary that the GST would not cost Albertans a nickel more than they now pay. But today the truth comes out. The Consumers' Association of Canada reports today that 72 per cent of products
May 21, 1991

monitored by them have cost more than the government promised they would.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: how can he possibly reconcile the statements made by the Prime Minister, in his home province of Alberta, with the facts as they are presented to him today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it might interest the hon. member to know that the Consumers' Association of Canada just issued a news release which indicates that this is not an official study by the Consumers' Association of Canada.
What they do say is that the Consumers' Association of Canada believes that Canadian consumers deserve a full and comprehensive quantitative study on the impact of the GST on prices in the Canadian marketplace. We agree with that.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister should get his quotes straight. It says:
This has not been released as an official study of the Consumers'
Association of Canada at the present time.
My question to the new Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister is this. Will he please tell us which of the only two possible scenarios could explain the startling discrepancy in facts? Either the former Minister of Finance could not count straight or his government misled the Canadian public about the disastrous effects of the goods and services tax on their own pocketbooks.


Mr. Speaker:: There are ways to get around making statements and putting questions which are unparliamentary and I do not want the hon. member skating too close to the edge.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refuses to deal with the present. He may want to take the House into his confidence and tell us whether he would rather deal with the past or the future.
Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment.
Canada's forests are being overcut according to the majority of professional foresters, and Japanese corporations are leading the pack with activities that would land them in jail at home.
Will the Minister of the Environment ask our Prime Minister to deliver a message while he is in Japan this week that clear-cut logging inside our largest national park, Wood Buffalo, is unacceptable and that Daishowa should stop that activity, that clear-cutting 40,000 square kilometres of Alberta without an environmental assessment is unacceptable and Daishowa should stop, and polluting the Peace River upstream of Wood Buffalo National Park and many Northwest Territories communities is unacceptable and Daishowa should stop those kinds of activities in Canada?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say today that the member is being consistent with himself in statements that he made last week in the House of Commons. They seem to be blanket statements that do not always correspond to the facts.
I think the record will show that, as far as this government is concerned, we will have been the government to have created a full-fledged Department of Forestry to deal with issues directly related to forestry, to have brought in a green plan that brings together sustainable development, to make that happen for Canadian people, and that, in this context, we intend to deal with all forestry issues as they come along.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that this minister has crawled under the same blanket and he endorses foreign nations logging inside our national parks.
I have a supplementary. Mitsubishi and Daishowa are clear-cutting 120,000 square kilometres of Alberta, an area one-third the size of Japan. They will pollute the Peace River and the Athabasca River upstream of our largest national park.

May 21, 1991
Oral Questions
Will the minister send a message along with our Prime Minister for the 10 days that he is in Japan that Albertans and Canadians care about the environment and when a project like Mitsubishi's ALPAC is turned down by a federal environmental assessment, no means no, and this new Minister of Environment will stand behind decisions that are made by panels, not beside them like his predecessor did?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need any lessons insofar as dealing with the environment is concerned. We need to take no lessons from the hon. member or people from his own party.
The member will also know that certain projects that he is referring to have gone through environmental assessments and they have been dealt with at both provincial and federal levels. There are assessments that are there, there are processes that are there now that are even under review, that there will be legislation and has been legislation brought before this House to deal with environmental assessments. All these projects and future projects will be dealt with with one single important consideration in mind that all members share around this House and that is with dealing with the environment and sustainable development.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
Last week, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the James Bay Agreement has force of law. As a result, the minister not only has the authority but the obligation to take his responsibilities seriously. This judgment is a clear contradiction of the agreement signed with the former minister on February 12 to split the Great Whale project study.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Could the minister confirm that the study will not be split, and that infrastructures will not be separated from dam construction? Could the minister confirm that he will reject his government's unsavory policy on the Great Whale project?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that I had a meeting last Thursday with my colleague, the Quebec Environment Minister, representatives of Inuit groups and representatives of the Cree.
To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, it was the first time all four parties were around the same table, and it was at our request.
At this meeting, Mr. Speaker, we reached the following consensus, and this includes my Quebec counterpart: everyone agreed that for environmental purposes, it made more sense to conduct the study on the Great Whale project as a whole, instead of splitting the project in two for this purpose, as had been the case.
Mr. Speaker, it was not our decision to split the project study in two. After last Thursday's meeting, I can also inform you that my Quebec counterpart intends to have a meeting with the parties-with representatives of his own government-to find out whether there is a possibility to consider the project as a whole for environmental purposes.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the report we had on that Thursday meeting. The Minister of the Environment of Quebec has stated unequivocally that the problem he is having with his own cabinet arises out of a lack of support from this government for the environment. That is very clear and this minister is not going to get away with that kind of insipid, weak-kneed response.
The minister either takes a stand now or he stands forever condemned, along with his predecessors.
The issue is very, very clear. The Federal Court of Appeal has spoken. It said that the 1975 James Bay Agreement has the force of law. It has the force of federal law. This government has the right to move.
The only question in this House is: Why will this minister not stand up in this House and state unequivocally that this government will stand behind its own laws?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member pretends to get his information.
I was in a meeting with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment for Quebec and with representatives of the Inuk and of the Cree, no later than last Thursday night.
As I have already said, all parties, including the provincial minister, agreed at that meeting that for environmental assessment, it was a lot better to undertake an assessment based on all of the project and its cumulative effects, rather than split the project in two. I
May 21, 1991

Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
was very happy to hear that coming out of the mouth of my hon. colleague of the environment for Quebec.
He also undertook at that meeting to go to his own government to try to see whether it could change its approach vis-a-vis this project, which we were very happy to hear. We will see what the outcome of that meeting is and we will then go on to deal with the environmental assessment of the project.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Recently a member of this government admitted that the average processing time for a Canadian citizen to be reunited with a spouse married abroad was 900 working days.
Many of these Canadians were devastated to learn that Mr. Al-Mashat and his spouse were admitted in just 28 days.
I ask the minister why his government has fostered an immigration system that offers special treatment for the elite but only delay and despair for ordinary Canadians?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks that she is helping Canada by trying to portray our immigration system as a system favouring the elite over poor people, then I submit with respect that she is not helping her country, Canada. We have no such system in this country.
Last year, 212,000 people immigrated to Canada and they were not all former ambassadors.
The situation of Al-Mashat is going to be looked at by a standing committee of this House and it will do its task.
The answer to the member's question as to why will be answered then. Please, do not tell the world that in Canada we favour the elite over ordinary people who immigrate to Canada according to the rules.


Albina Guarnieri: The last refuge of a scoundrel is an appeal to patriotism.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would put her question.


Albina Guarnieri: My supplementary is for the same minister. At the commencement of the gulf war, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration delivered a directive banning the issuance of visas to Iraqis and Palestinians applying for entry into Canada. Clearly, in the case of Mr. Al-Mashat, who was admitted before a formal cease-fire was signed, this directive was ignored. Does the minister expect Canadians to believe that his officials in Vienna would override a specific ministerial directive during a war without the knowledge of his predecessor?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that there was some discussion in the House on this topic last week and there was an agreement forthcoming from this government that all the issues related to this matter would be discussed in committee. We are looking forward to being at that committee, both my colleague and myself, and all the relevant officials.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When I called the minister's 1-800 line regarding the Meme implant, it was still using figures saying the risk of cancer to women with Meme implants is equivalent to smoking one and a half cigarettes in a woman's lifetime and refers to only one in a million women facing cancer from the Meme. The FDA in the U.S. is saying one in 10,000, but some scientists from the FDA are stating one in 50, or one in 100.
Will the minister tell Canadian women who to believe and what is the minister planning to initiate to clarify for Canadian women the wide-ranging disparities coming from scientists?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, first of all, in response to my first question as minister of health and welfare, I would like to say that my primaiy interest is the health of Canadians, particularly women in this case. I think all

May 21, 1991
Oral Questions
our work, as minister responsible for the department, is for the health of Canadians.
In this case I believe that everything has been done to be as up-front as we could in terms of the information provided. The 1-800 line has been used over 500 times since it has been put in place a couple of weeks ago.
In the medical world, decisions are made in light of information that is available, and I believe that in terms of breast implants that is the basis on which our decision has been made. In this case all information available is referred to the department and, when necessary, we duplicate the control to be sure that the information is the best and we will continue to do that.
In light of the information that we have, a decision will be made in light of the health of all Canadians.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. However, I think it important that we be aware that when there was nothing out of the FDA, this government was waiting for the FDA for stats. Now we have stats from the FDA that say one in 10,000, and some of the scientists are saying one in 50, one in 100, and we are still saying we are using the best information available.
In light of this, I would like to ask this minister if he will make an undertaking that the kinds of projects that Dr. Chan from Calgary, and other doctors who want to do research into the safety of implants, will be funded as soon as possible. Will he give women of Canada that undertaking?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the department received in March the study by Dr. Chan from Calgary and we are dealing with that project. Dr. Chan himself said that he believed that more study should be done.
The hon. member is are asking me for an undertaking on funding. I have not personally received any request from Dr. Chan to provide any help. If this should be the case, we would consider it. There are many researchers in this country who are independently doing this type of research and refer to the department all instructive information that could be provided. We will continue to do that.
First of all, what Canadians, particularly women, want in terms of that issue is the best information available. It is what we do and the department is open to anyone who wants to check if what we are doing is well done. There is no problem with that.


FORESTRY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade, whomever he or she may be today.
A long time family-owned sawmill business in the upper Ottawa Valley which under normal conditions employed about 300 people has closed down its operations, taking 12 million badly needed dollars out of several small communities.
When is the government going to wake up? When is it going to get rid of the 15 per cent export tax? When is it going to lower the high Canadian dollar and give the forest industry and the forest workers a chance to survive? Where is the government's level playing field?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that that particular company was dealing with an eroding resource, a particularly low grade of product. It could not survive based on the specie that was left.
The hon. member should also know that this 15 per cent tax which has been collected is to be used to help that particular industry. We were determined to do that, but we need help from the provincial government in order to make it work.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, this government is the eroding resource.
My supplementary is to the same minister. This government inflicted devastating measures on the forest industry and has done nothing concrete to date to change its destructive policies. This closure brings to approximately 3,000 the number jobs lost in the upper Ottawa Valley alone due to this government's policies.
When is the government going to get together with the big spenders at Queen's Park in Toronto and bring in a federal-provincial forestry agreement that will give the employers and the workers some hope for the future?

What is the government going to do for these unemployed people? Is there any mercy out there at all?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to answer this question. As my hon. friend knows, we have negotiated and entered into agreements with almost all provinces, now except the province of Ontario, which in itself is insisting on conducting more studies before it determines the future of the forest product sector in that province.
I would like to remind my hon. friend as well that the industry is in a normal cycle. In fact, in 1976 the Canadian dollar stood at $1,014 American and the industry survived that. There are other factors that are involved in the lack of productivity of the industry right now. One has to do with the decline in the demand of forest products in our major market, which is the United States. Current signs indicate that the recession has bottomed out and the industry will recover its vibrancy later this year.


ARMENIA
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. She will know that Soviet troops, backed by armoured vehicles and helicopters, have been storming villages along Armenia's border with Azerbaijan for the past two weeks. Earlier this month over 30 Armenians were killed and hundreds were injured when heavy fighting flared up at the border. Many Armenians suspect the Kremlin is giving support to Azerbaijan to punish Armenia for its determination to secede.
My question is: Will the minister intervene either through the United Nations or directly with the Soviets to end this anti-Armenian violence by the Soviet and Azerbaijan authorities?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, clearly we are veiy concerned about the reports of increasing violence in that region, in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Like all members of the House, we regret that this conflict has not yet been resolved. We have called on all sides to show restraint in this dispute and to seek negotiated solutions because it is very important that further bloodshed be averted.
Oral Questions
I think, particularly for Canadians families of Armenian descent, there is great concern. It is up to us and we have been making representations within the Soviet Union. Our embassy has been instructed to convey our concerns directly to the Soviet Foreign Ministry and, Soviet authorities permitting, embassy officers will be making a fact-finding visit to the region so that we can report directly back to those in Canada who have an interest in this.


FINANCE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Earlier in the Question Period he said he is interested in getting the fundamentals right. Well, today the Conference Board said that its "forecast for the Canadian economy,has been revised downward", and it gave as a primary reason that "export performance has been weaker than expected".
One of the fundamentals when it comes to exports is the value of the Canadian dollar. If the Minister of Finance is interested in getting the fundamentals right when it comes to exports, why is he keeping the Canadian dollar so high? Why will he not take steps to bring the value of the dollar down right now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member knows that the exchange rate is established in the marketplace. The difficulty that Canadian industry faces is a lack of productivity and competitiveness, and that is one of the issues that needs to be addressed. The hon. member knows that there have been built up over the last two or three years serious inflationary pressures and inflationary expectations that have to be brought down. As those are brought down, interest rates are brought down. We have seen a reduction of some five percentage points in the last year.
That is the key to economic recovery. There is nothing in the Conference Board report that was not outlined in the budget of 1991 or referenced in the budget of 1990.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, one of the main factors robbing Canadian industry of its competitiveness is the over-valued Canadian dollar, and I

May 21, 1991
Oral Questions
wish that the minister would be more willing to recognize this.
The government claims to be concerned about crossborder shopping. Why will the minister not recognize that one of the fundamentals that is driving Canadians to shop in the United States is the value of the Canadian dollar? Why will he not do something about that right now if he is interested in preserving our retail industry and bringing about a strong economic recovery now and not next year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a fundamental difference in policy. Back on August 8, 1981, his leader at that time saw no reason for an emergency session of Parliament in the face of soaring interest rates and the dropping value of the Canadian dollar, which was approaching a 50-year record low, and
12.8	per cent inflation.
Our policies are not designed to achieve that kind of a Liberal result.


AGRICULTURE
Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and concerns the agricultural safety net program.
Earlier this year I spoke with farmers in my constituency and I asked for their input on the type of program they would like to see implemented to see farmers through until GRIP and NISA become effective. They said: "Keep the program simple and deliver it before seeding".
NISA is now designed to allow farmers to access funds immediately in order to help pay for costs associated with seeding. The minister knows that seeding is currently under way and to date there is no indication that applications for NISA are available.
Can the minister give the farmers of my constituency an explanation as to why NISA applications are not available? And can he give some assurances as to when we can reasonably expect them to be made available?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when the farm support adjustment measures program was announced it included the Net Income Stabilization Account and the GRIP, the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan. I can tell the hon. member that the forms for NISA, the Net Income Stabilization Account, are ready, they can be put out.
One thing my colleague should understand is that there has to be legislation passed in the provincial legislature before we would be able to send those forms out. To this point, it appears that the opposition in the Saskatchewan House is putting a political priority of its own ahead of the priority of the farmers to receive the NISA funds, which they very much would like to have as soon as possible.


An hon. member:: Sounds NDP to me.


THE LATE RAJIV GANDHI
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House of the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi earlier today during election campaigning in the state of Tamil Nadu.
Mr. Gandhi was known personally to Prime Minister Mulroney and to the former Secretary of State for External Affairs. I know that they join with me in deploring this senseless violence.
I express the profound hope of the Prime Minister and of this government that this event will not be allowed to interfere with the democratic process at this very sensitive time during this very important election to India and to those of us who have an interest in democracy and the development of democracy in India.
I know I speak for this House and for all Canadians in deploring this senseless violence and in extending condolences to the bereaved family.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are truly sorry to learn of Rajiv Gandhi's tragic death. We wish to extend our most sincere sympathies to the people of India and to Mr. Gandhi's family.
May 21, 1991



In a world where violence and terror has become so commonplace, it is very hard not to overlook these shocking events. Political assassinations are the most ugly of all political crimes, especially when it happens to someone who has held such a distinguished position in the largest democracy in the world.
We certainly want to share the sympathies the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have expressed, both to the family and to the people of that country.
We hope that this will not result in the further fragmentation and fracturing of that country as it goes through a very delicate and sensitive time.
We point out again the irony of human events. Once again, a member of that family has been struck down. It is a family that has provided such distinguished leadership over the years.
We hope and pray that this event will not result in further loss of life in India at this very important time.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we certainly share the sadness at the tragedy which happened today, expressed by the minister responsible for external affairs.

Certainly, the violent death of the former Prime Minister of India affects us all and reminds us, as if it were necessary, that violence is everywhere and that democracy must triumph.

We would like to express our sadness to the family and our thoughts that democracy will triumph in India. We wish everyone in that country all the best regarding the election which is taking place. Our sincerest condolences to the family.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to join the members of this House, on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, to extend our sympathies to the Gandhi family.
Several years ago, I had the opportunity to meet the mother, who suffered the same fate as her son. We are
Privilege
all touched by events like that in one of the world's greatest democracies and we hope that this event will not be followed by an outburst of violence.
It is regrettable that democracy is thus sidetracked by violence; we bitterly regret it. Our sympathies to the family.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which was initiated by my colleague, the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, and which I confirmed as I was returning to the Chamber at about the time he was concluding his representation on my behalf. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reserving for me that question of privilege.
Section 80, paragraph (2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition states in part:
A question of privilege-is a question partly of fact and partly of law-the law of contempt of Parliament-and is a matter for the House to determine.
I will show that the minister for immigration made an incorrect and misleading statement, which is therefore a question partly of fact.
Section 16 of Beauchesne also says:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions -
I would like to underscore the phrase "and by Members of each House individually". Section 18 states:
-it is clear that many acts which might offend against the law or the moral sense of the community do not involve a Member's capacity to serve the people who have chosen him as their representative nor are they contrary to the usage nor derogatory to the dignity of the House of Commons.
I feel that it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this place when a member knowingly makes a statement that is incorrect. When such a false statement is used to assail the reputation of another hon. member the indignity to this House becomes more serious.

May 21, 1991
Privilege
Hence, when the hon. minister of immigration, in reply to my supplementary question during the proceedings of May 16, said, referring to me:
He was not even able to give me the name, the date of birth, or
address of the person we want.
This statement is on page 194 of Hansard. The minister, by his statement, impaired my ability to fully discharge my duties and obligations as a member of Parliament for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to submit the following as you consider my question of privilege:
First, with respect to the matter of the applicant's name, on May 9 I wrote a letter to the said hon. minister in which I indicated very clearly the name of the applicant visitor, Mrs. Surjit Kaur, for whom I have been making the representation. I am now prepared to table this letter if necessary. I should further inform the House that my office faxed a copy of this letter to the minister's office on the same date and the original was marked urgent and sent by messenger.
I should also inform the House that on May 13, in this Chamber, I personally approached the minister for follow-up and, once again, provided him with the name of the applicant. I am confident no member of Parliament would ever intercede for any person without knowledge of that person's name.
Second, with respect to the date of birth of the applicant visitor, my office was indeed unable to provide this information when first asked by the minister's staff, as we did not have it in our record at that time. However, on May 13 I furnished the minister's staff the date of birth, which is December 4, 1941.
I should add that the bereaved brother in Winnipeg approached the local immigration office on April 30, the day after the death of his brother, Mr. Sidhu Singh. One would assume all necessary information with respect to the applicant visitor, including the date of birth, should have been requested from the family at that time. I personally advised the minister's staff to kindly get in touch with the Winnipeg immigration office for further information.
Third, with respect to the address of the applicant, I must tell this House neither the minister's staff nor the minister himself had ever asked my staff or myself for this information, even though it has been in our case file since April 29. Certainly we would have provided this
information had it been requested. My record, Mr. Speaker, is open for your inquiry.
Thus, the minister was correct, if he meant the information on the date of birth was not initially available from my office when first requested on May 9. However, the name of the applicant has been known to us all along and to the minister's department office in Winnipeg since April 30, and to the minister's office in Ottawa since May 9, well before he requested it. I once again provided him with the information when I approached him in person on May 13.
The address of the applicant, which has been available in my record since April 29, has never been asked of me to date.
Did the minister deliberately mislead the House with the statement in question? If he did, it would be derogatory to the dignity of this House and, thus, constitute breach of privilege. Were it the case I am prepared to make the appropriate motion and seek the remedy of this House.
I realize that ministers make mistakes when they are not informed. I also realize they can make mistakes when they are wrongly or incompletely informed.
In conclusion, therefore, I would still like to believe, in all sincerity, that the minister, in reply to my question last May 16, could have mis-spoken that statement in his reply, considering the atmosphere of the moment, and that he did not deliberately and wilfully mislead the House. If this is the case, I will be prepared to accept an explanation and an apology from him and I am sure he would apologize to this House.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to have the remarks I may have made interpreted so as to try to impugn or in any way reflect badly on the hon. member.
I do not think it is important to go into all the details of this. Suffice it to say that the member's office did provide to my office on May 13, 1991, the details he referred to, as he stated today.
I do not hesitate to apologize to the hon. member if my comments put his dedication or his integrity or work as a member of the House in question. The only point I was trying to make was that we deal with literally thousands of these cases. In that specific instance, I did enquire from the Visa official in New Delhi so I could understand why the decision was made. I am sure the House will
May 21, 1991

agree that no minister should overturn a decision by an official without knowing the reasons why he made that decision. That was the simple point I was trying to make.
Again, I have no hesitation in apologizing to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I want to thank the hon. minister for his gracious and appropriate response.
I also want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for the concise and courteous way he put his case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pronovost for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and amendment thereto of Mr. Chretien (p. 24) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Lapierre (p. 209).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assinibois has the floor. You have two minutes left.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the time left, I just want to quote very briefly from the throne speech a passage which I believe to be the most important. It refers to productivity.
Increasing our productivity across the full range of Canadian industry -manufacturing, resources, and services-is the only way to secure and enhance our prosperity of the longer term. Productivity is the difference between prosperity and decline. The prosperity of all Canadians and our ability to maintain social programs depend on the productivity of Canadians. Increasing productivity requires the collaborative efforts of governments, business, labour and individual Canadians, in all regions.
I believe these are very important words. What can government do? Government can control spending, can try to balance the books and bring interest rates down.
The Address
There is no way on God's green earth that governments can borrow their way into prosperity.
To this end the government has pledged itself to legislate limits to government spending. For the first time there will be actual legislation putting a limit on government spending in this country.
In addition, legislation establishing a debt reduction fund to which the revenues from the goods and services tax and from the proceeds of privatization can be dedicated: further trade liberalization; public service reform; and privatization, where feasible. Theses are all measures designed to make the economy more competitive and to lessen the reliance upon government.
An additional measure is the pledge to work with the provinces in certain areas of education, in the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers and the management of the economy.
It is quite clear that government must control spending and inflation so that Canadians and others can have some confidence in our future.
A sound economy is the solid foundation for a strong nation. All of the hopeful signs are there: the stock market is up; interest rates are coming down; housing starts are up; business confidence is increasing; and employment opportunities are up. The path laid out in the throne speech is the best way to ensure the future: guarantee our Canadian way of life by strengthening and improving the Canadian federation constitutionally and economically.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member and he made the point that national unity was an important theme in the throne speech and that competitiveness was a factor. I realize he has only been here since 1984 I believe, but I would like to know if he has ever known a time in Canadian history since perhaps before the Second World War or the conscription crisis of 1941 when Canada has been more divided, when Canadians in all parts of Canada have been more frustrated, as I think the Spicer committee has discovered.
I would make the point to this member that when his colleague, the Prime Minister, went especially around Quebec last year and said in effect to Quebecers that if Meech Lake did not pass they should consider themselves to be rejected by English speaking Canadians, it

May 21, 1991
The Address
was a calumny, it was untrue, and it was probably the most irresponsible thing that anyone who purports to call him or herself Prime Minister could do in this country.
I would ask the member, as a westerner-I have been to speak to his riding association and I know the community he comes from-how he can sit with a government that has done more to disunite Canadians from north, south, east and west than any other government in Canadian history?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the tone displayed by the hon. member, given the fact that he was I believe elected four or five times as a Progressive Conservative opposing the policies that he now apparently espouses and holds so dear. Perhaps after all he was in favour of the national energy policy, perhaps after all he favours the kind of wanton spending and irresponsible borrowing that characterized the policies of the party that he now sits with, having betrayed the people who voted for him. Perhaps he thinks that his party is God's gift to agriculture and that it would have come forward, as this government has, in response to the needs pf western grain farmers.
It seems to me that embedded in the question and in the emotion displayed in it, there was a good deal of personal animosity toward the Prime Minister. I do not know what it relates to, perhaps the fact that the hon. member having been elected four or five times was consistently by-passed. I can only suggest that it is the apparent reason for the sort of venom and animosity displayed.
I believe and I hope that all members in this House are concerned about national unity. This throne speech lays out a consistent and steady pattern, leading toward the resolving of differences among Canadians and hopefully will lead to a rebuilt Constitution, one which will enable us to progress into the 21st centuiy.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, further to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to take an interest in education, when we know very well that the Belanger-Campeau Commission asked that Quebec alone have authority over education; when we know that the Quebec Liberal Party, the Government of Quebec says that it absolutely wants sole
control over education and job training; when we also know that the Quebec Chamber of Commerce has asked the Government of Quebec alone to be responsible for education and adult training. This means that all Quebecers want education to be controlled by Quebec. So what an insult for the federal government to try to control education in Quebec! This will lead to inconsistency and confrontation and clearly hurt education in Quebec instead of helping it.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with his government interfering in education in the provinces, even if the intention is noble.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Longueuil is easily insulted and always humiliated, in a position of perpetual humiliation.
The fact is that the throne speech clearly recognizes education as a provincial jurisdiction. In fact I have the document in front of me. It says: "My government recognizes that education is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution and respects that fact".
However, I do not think that means that it is not the concern of every Canadian. Whether they happen to be sitting at the federal level, provincial level or municipal level, they want to get the most they can for the spending on education that we have in Canada.
The throne speech quite clearly points out the fact that we have to improve our educational levels, our technological skills, if we are to compete in the coming knowledge age. It is part of being productive and competitive. That is the sense to choose from the throne speech, and I think it is something that all members in this House should be in a position to support.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, today this debate brings us a sense of unease and frustration about the validity of the Speech from the Throne process.
In addition, I would like to focus in my intervention on what the Government of Canada says in the Speech from the Throne on the important issue of sustainable development.
May 21, 1991

Let me deal first with the Speech from the Throne as a political instrument. I would submit that at this stage the credibility, the validity and the significance of the Speech from the Throne have been lost enormously over time. I am not saying that in a partisan sense, because one can remember also speeches from the throne when my party was in power which were not fully implemented. In other words, it is a statement of dreams, a statement of intent. However, it is a statement that because of its lack of accountability at the present time has to be questioned.
We know that Canadians at large at this particular time in history have raised questions about the credibility of the political system. Therefore, I submit that it is necessary and incumbent upon us to raise a question of this kind with you, Mr. Speaker, because it is valid, it is timely and it is necessary.
I will illustrate this point with a few examples to move from the abstract, so to speak, into the practical.
Why am I saying that the Speech from the Throne reduces even further the credibility of politicians? I would ask you to compare the Speech from the Throne of April 1989, in which you will find under the heading "Environmental Imperative" a number of specific proposals. I will start with the one which reads: "The government has also altered its operational practices and enlarged the responsibilities of the Minister of the Environment to ensure that environmental issues are fully considered in the course of its decision making".
That was a very bold, a very promising and a very welcome statement two years ago. If we look at what happened, without reciting a number of events that have proven the contrary, I would only ask you to think back to last week when the courts made a decision on Kemano II and urged that the government apply its own environmental impact assessment process.
This was a decision, is a decision and will be a decision of enormous importance. In other words, the court told the federal government that it was breaking its own environmental impact assessment rules. This was last week, and by comparing that event with what was in the Speech from the Throne two years ago, one cannot help but conclude that something here has gone seriously wrong.
The Address
I would submit that the gap between the rhetoric in the pages and lines of a Speech from the Throne and the action is widening in a dangerous manner.
If you look at the 1989 Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, you will find a statement to the effect that in [DOT]the new environmental agenda the government will limit the environmental impact of toxic chemicals through the development of regulations for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
As of today, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act no new chemicals have been added since the birth of this legislation. Before this legislation came into effect nine chemicals were included, precisely nine out of thousands and thousands of chemicals that were in use out there, and today we still have nine. Therefore, the inevitable question is: What has happened to this important commitment?
Let me move to another example. In April 1989, the government committed itself to improving the quality of our water through new legislation. Nothing has happened since. We had the Pierce report on the federal water inquiry in 1985. We had the publication of a federal water policy in 1987. We had a commitment from the government in April 1989, and we are still waiting for the legislation.
If you want another example, there was a very important policy commitment in April 1989 to protect the environmental integrity of our Arctic regions. What do we find here? We find that a few days before the last session died an Arctic strategy was released. It is another piece of paper; it is not an implementation of an Arctic protection strategy.
I must bring the strategy itself to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because you come from a province which is undertaking or proposing a major hydroelectric plant that could affect the salinity in Hudson Bay. I come from a province where eventually over the decades similar projects will be proposed, with an impact on James Bay, which is part of Hudson Bay. Manitoba is also in the long term likely to produce some hydroelectric plans of that nature.
In the Arctic strategy there is no reference to the importance of the ecological role of Hudson Bay, its salinity, or how it could be affected by these megaprojects as they are being proposed to come on stream.

May 21, 1991
The Address
What we have instead of protection are nice words, beautiful sentences and lots of paper.
In the April 1989 Speech from the Throne, there is a reference which reads: "My government will proceed with the initiatives to clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River and, together with the provinces, to further the process of cleaning up dangerous land sites".
The remedial action plan for 17 Canadian sites in the Great Lakes and in the St. Lawrence River lacks federal support. We have not seen the action that was proposed in the Speech from the Throne two years ago.
The Speech from the Throne of two years ago proposed the encouragement, the development and the adoption of clean and efficient production processes.
We have a situation where, unfortunately, we cannot say that this has happened. In our tax system, the only write-offs refer to pollution control equipment, a narrow range of devices related to equipment. Clean production processes that aim as close as possible to zero discharge do not qualify yet for tax breaks.
In other words, the government, despite the intent that it expressed two years ago, has not yet been able to come to grips with the use of fiscal and taxation levers and instruments that would allow it to implement what it promised to do two years ago.
We have the commitment by the government, also two years ago, to legislation that would ensure an appropriate environmental assessment review process.
On that, the government attempted to act. In June 1990, it introduced Bill C-78, which did not make any progress during the summer of last year. Between January and April, it was no longer the object of discussions in committee.
In addition to that, it was quite interesting to notice that witnesses who came before the committee on that environmental impact assessment bill were of the opinion that they would prefer to live under the present guidelines than under the weaker and vague clauses that are embodied in the now defunct Bill C-78.
Might I add that the guidelines are the result of an Order in Council decision by the then Liberal government in the spring of 1984.
We have a situation where we are still living in a legislative vacuum, but instead of legislation we have a stronger regime thanks to guidelines that are in place by way of a decision of the courts.
In the Speech from the Throne of two years ago, and before I move on to sustainable development, there was also a commitment by the government to a national child care program.
Inevitably, one has to ask, if one were an average Canadian looking at the Speech from the Throne of two years ago, what happened to that commitment. Unfortunately, we cannot find any initiatives, not even the shadow of a bill in the legislative system, that would indicate that the commitment has somehow been developed and given the necessary political will to move ahead into the legislative system.
Actually, it is not only on the child care program front that we find the Speech from the Throne wanting. It is not only wanting because of what was not implemented since 1989 in the previous Speech from the Throne.
We find an absence of understanding of the social agenda of Canadians at large, the situation being faced by one-parent families, the situation being faced by people who depend on food banks, the situation of people who are waiting to be admitted to social housing, the situation of those who are unemployed and are waiting to be recalled to their job or perhaps are not going to be recalled at all because their previous job has simply disappeared.
The absence of social awareness and conscience in this particular Speech from the Throne is particularly striking and particularly shocking.
I indicated a few minutes ago that the second reason for making this intervention relates to the issue of sustainable development. I must refer you to the present Speech from the Throne. I was astounded to read the following statement under the heading "Participating in Prosperity":
My government will, over the coming months, consult with provincial governments, industry and environmental leaders to explore means of complementing current regulatory approaches with innovative instruments that would achieve positive environmental results-
May 21, 1991

And here are the key words, Mr. Speaker, before you fall asleep:
-without prejudicing economic prosperity.
That really struck me like a thunderbolt. By saying "without prejudicing economic prosperity" the Government of Canada rejects all the commitments it has made so far to sustainable development and the commitments made so far, including the Speech from the Throne of 1989, to the Brundtland report and our common future.
The government is saying that the environment will only count if the economy does not come into the picture, which is diametrically opposed to the principles and recommendations contained in the Brundtland report. This is contrary to what sustainable development is all about because sustainable development means development that can be sustained over a long period of time without prejudicing the choices and opportunities of generations to come.
You can invent another dozen definitions if you like, if you have enough imagination.
The point I am trying to make is that this government, either out of bad faith when it was popular decided to embrace sustainable development hoping that it could ride the popularity of that concept and maintain public support and possibly increase it, or embraced it without knowing what it was embracing, without realizing what sustainable development meant.
This is a government that either attempted to deceive the public or was stupid enough to embrace a concept whose meaning it did not understand. The proof of that was a few weeks ago during Question Period in this Elouse when the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, now minister in charge of federal-provincial relations, in reply to a question from the member for Skeena, insisted that the trade negotiations and the environmental negotiations presently taking place between the United States and Mexico, and eventually involving Canada, would have to proceed on separate tracks. At that point we knew that conceptually this government was unable to understand the significance of what sustainable development is all about.
Therefore, and it was almost prophetic in a sense, the reply given by the secretary of state, that revelation, has
The Address
found its way into the text of the Speech from the Throne. When the government says it will introduce innovative instruments to achieve positive environmental results without prejudicing economic prosperity, it is saying that it has chosen a policy that will take care of the short term, that it will endanger our natural resources and that it will perpetrate the mistakes that have been made in the environment and in environmental policies over several decades, particularly in recent years.
In other words, it is saying that political expediency will come before long-term benefits. It is saying that it endorses particularly in international bodies, in the United Nations and at conferences on climate change, certain principles and concepts in the world community but it does not want to practise them at home. It is saying it has decided that the integration of economic and environmental goals is not a knock on the table. It is attempting to turn the clock back 20 years. What a shame, what a disgrace for the Canadian people.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, there was an article in the New York Times yesterday by an American environmentalist who argued-the member probably saw it- that because President Bush had agreed to factor the environment into the talks that somehow the environment in effect was likely to be safe.
If the member saw the article, I wonder if he would wish to comment on that principle.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have not seen that article but I am aware of the theology being adopted by the administration in Washington which has unfortunately been swallowed hook, line and sinker by the administration here in Ottawa, as demonstrated by the endorsement given almost overnight by the Minister for International Trade of the approach that the hon. member just attributed to President Bush.
There is a lot of environment in trade policies because there are very few other human activities that impinge so heavily on environment and our national resources as trade activities in any jurisdiction. To pretend out of the blue that trade policies have to be considered on one track and then on another track you should consider

May 21, 1991
The Address
environmental policies is an unreal conceptual organization.
If I remember correctly, the administration in Washington went so far as to say that the two would be considered on parallel tracks: trade on one track and the environment on the other. Anyone who knows geometry knows that parallel lines never meet. That fact alone reveals the weakness of this particular approach. A separation of the two will not allow an examination of trade activities with the environment in mind with a concern for the long term. It will not allow a concern for the capacity of natural resources to rejuvenate themselves while anticipating and preventing pollution activities resulting from trade. In other words, one cannot have a meaningful trade negotiation process at the table without having people knowledgeable on the environment as part of that particular trade delegation.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr Speaker, first of all, the start of a new session in the life of this Thirty-Fourth Parliament is a proper occasion to thoughtfully and carefully reflect on our collective achievements, as a Parliament and people. It is also a time to provide both leadership and vision for the long-term future of our nation.
No issue is more important, as stated in the Speech from the Throne, than the unity of Canada. We must learn to overcome obstacles, erase doubts, and strengthen Canada's position to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century which is waiting for us just around the comer.
All hon. members are united in this purpose, as far as I know, and the government's commitment to Canada and to our vision for the future is strong and clear in this Speach from the Throne. If, in our minds, the picture of the future is dim and clouded, and if we remain preoccupied only with the whims and pressures of today, we put at risk our very future.
Daily, we face such constant pressures and exhortations. However, to deal only with today and let the future take care of itself, spend a few billion here and there, invent a new program overnight to demonstrate concern and action, not worry about the national debt, not question the value of existing programs, and not even wonder if a new costly effort is certain to be cost
effective and bring the desired results, is a dangerous and costly attitude.
Keeping our eye firmly on the long-term and staying the course is difficult for some hon. members. Satisfying every want and wish today comes just too naturally. It may play well to the cameras.
However it does not meet our duty and responsibility as Parliamentarians. As members of this House, we must resist the temptation of pressing for instant gratification and magic solutions for every real or imagined need. Magic wands such as popular but ineffective policies are hoaxes. They don't work.
What does work is implementing today carefully-designed measures directed to achieving long-term goals. As I said earlier, the year 2000 is not far off and our focus on the future must not prevent immediate action. This action must be in line with goals for the future. This is the view, and the vision, that is put forward to this House and the people of Canada in the speech from the Throne.
This has been the guiding principle of this Government since 1984. The foundation has been the Strategy for Economic Renewal: We have firmly put the break on the mindless expansion of government programs and expenditures; deficit reduction has been and remains a primary goal; tax reform is yielding economic returns; and free trade and productivity growth open the doors to prosperity and the world for all Canadians.
There is no other route for making it in the tough competitive world we face. Let us not deceive Canadians into believing otherwise. Wise leadership and effective management is our mandate. That demands that we confront directly the complex challenges and problems facing Canadians.
Moreover, that means developing coherent and consistent long-term plans to meet goals and targets and stick to them.
It also means taking the time and devoting the energy to build a concensus among Canadians. Broad agreement among Canadians does not simply arise on command to suit the agenda or meet the demands of those who call for instant solutions. Such a consensus must be encouraged and nurtured in a deliberate and planned way. Leaders must make the commitment and set the course. Knowledge and power has to be shared. New
May 21, 1991

forums and meeting places need to be fashioned. Energy and time must be invested.
To pretend that we have all the answers and reject the need for public consultations-and those critical requirements to make consultation work-is to mislead Canadians.

It is not government but people who have the real power in our society to set the course and make the rules which govern their lives. Certain people in this Chamber question or even ridicule the government's decision to consult seriously and widely with the Canadian people.
The people who are questioning or ridiculing a commitment like this one by the government are, in reality, questioning and ridiculing a commitment to empower people and make democracy work.
As the Speech from the Throne clearly states, increasing prosperity is first and foremost an issue of people. Canada is much more than an abundance of forests, minerals and water. Our greatest strength is our people. Our knowledge, skills and brains are our greatest national asset. They are our ticket to prosperity and they are our ticket to growth, more so than they have ever been in the past.
This is a tough and competitive world that values knowledge more than any other asset. Canadian jobs are being threatened by a new kind of competition. It is not primarily low wage competition that threatens us, increasingly it is high wage competition. Canada is losing ground to industrial competitors who are simply better than we are at inventing, designing, managing, manufacturing and marketing. We must, and we can, outsmart our international competitors.
In this, the information society, the knowledge age, how well we live will depend on how well we learn. Learning, from infancy, in school, on the job, and throughout life.
Governments in Canada spend more than $50 billion a year on education and training, with federal expenditures amounting to over $11 billion. This is a greater expenditure than almost any other developed country in the world, but the results, not government spending
The Address
more money, is the question that should be of most concern to every Canadian.
The importance of learning as our ticket to prosperity is not a new concern for us. The Prime Minister has strongly asserted, over the years, the national interest in calling for all Canadians, all levels of government and all groups in society to recognize and then confront the fact that our performance lags behind other developed nations.
Our government, under the Prime Minister's strong direction, has established a record of important accomplishments to further learning, amounting to billions of dollars in expenditures. This represents an innovative and creative record. Each initiative is targeted to deal with the specific issue. Together they represent an integrated approach.
These new measures, many in my own Department of Employment and Immigration, include the new Labour Force Development Strategy, the National Stay-inSchool Initiative, Canada scholarships from Industry, Science and Technology, major literacy initiatives, networks of Centres of Excellence, Canada Student Loans Policy Review, education for Canada's First Nations, the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy and the Aboriginal Employment and Training Strategy.
In November 1989 at the First Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister defined the challenge and provided the leadership. There was wide recognition and understanding then, as there must be today, that learning throughout life, good jobs and our success as a nation are closely linked.
Who in Canada wants low paying and low skill jobs? No one wishes such a future for themselves or their children. The ticket to good jobs and a good life throughout one's life is learning. The ultimate goal which can be shared by all Canadians and all levels of government is to build an innovative, competitive economy, based on high skill, high wage jobs, a society where all Canadians value learning and fully enjoy the benefits of their learning and labour.
Learning reform is rooted in international competitiveness and is a function of national economic policy. The European commission and the sovereign member nations are forging ahead in developing European-wide targets and standards.

May 21, 1991
The Address
The Americans, the Japanese and other developed nations are confronting this challenge more successfully than Canadians.

Compared to many of these other countries, Mr. Speaker, our human resources are underdeveloped and underutilized. The fundamental problem with learning in Canada is that, compared with other nations, there isn't enough of it, and we don't take it seriously enough. Our prosperity depends on major improvements in the general level of skills held by all, as well as having many more people with advanced and specialized skills. No one party has a monopoly on life-long learning. The provinces have undisputed primacy for schools, a pat recognized in the speech from the Throne. We fully respect the Provinces' jurisdiction. The federal government has long played a major role in adult training. Life-long learning requires that we all work in partnership to confront our competitors.
Future constitutional restructuring in this area is not ruled out. In fact it could be informed by wide consultation. What is proposed in the speech from the Throne is a call for a national consensus on performance, goals, partnerships, and priorities for learning.
To build this consensus, we will now launch a process of consultation throughout Canada. This will represent another major step to further learning. It will focus the attention of all on the benefits of developing a learning culture in Canada.

A commitment has been made to publish a discussion paper on learning. This paper, now in draft form, has been prepared under the close direction of the Prime Minister. It fully reflects his long-standing commitment to learning, to further Canada's competitiveness, and to provide greater prosperity and personal fulfilment for each individual Canadian. This paper will be the federal government's contribution to a national dialogue on how Canadians acquire their skills and knowledge and how our approach to learning can be improved to ensure that Canadians can continue to enjoy the benefits of a globally competitive economy in the 21st century.
The primary aim of the paper is to initiate a national consensus-building discussion on targets and priorities for learning in Canada. While we have some understanding of the extent of the problem and the challenge we
face as a nation, change will not happen unless public attitudes change.
This is the core of what we seek to accomplish, creating a climate or a culture among individuals, employers and all others to both learn throughout life and increase wide demand for better, if not outstanding, performance.
Change will only occur when large numbers of Canadians of all ages choose to make learning a personal priority and an individual responsibility throughout life. Learning is not something done to us by external institutions. Learning is what we can choose to do or not. The enormous personal, spiritual and economic benefits that learning can produce for each individual can be defined and readily understood. They can be a major source of new wealth for eveiy Canadian.
These benefits must be made widely known. This revelation alone could be the spark that ignites an interest in more Canadians to pursue a life of learning and personal growth, and to create demand and support further reform.

Four Canada-wide goals for the year 2000 are suggested in the Speech from the Throne. With Provincial endorsement and cooperation, these could be considered by Canadians: cutting illiteracy rates in half; ensuring that 90 per cent of Canadians graduate from high school or the equivalent; doubling the number of post-seconda-ly graduates in mathematics, the sciences, and engineering; and quadrupling the training provided by employers to their empoyees.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other goals that Canadians can consider in defining a learning system for life that is among the best, if not the best, in the world. Today, I might suggest two more goals that Canadians could discuss, namely to double the number of Canadian youth who participate in a structured learning programs leading to entry-level jobs and to achieve full representation of women in the fields of mathematics, science and technology.
These, and many other goals, will be suggested and examined in the discussion paper. As the Minister responsible, I can inform Members to day that the discussion paper will be tabled in the House within
May 21, 1991

several weeks. I will be a substantial and important contribution to our knowledge.
The release of this paper will be a first step in a process of consultation and consensus building with Canadians throughout the nation.

The release of this paper will be the first step in the process of consultation and consensus building with Canadians throughout the nation.
In the several weeks following the release of the paper I will be meeting with many across Canada to decide on the approach to the process of consultation. Public consultations should start within the coming several months and throughout we want to examine learning as a life-long activity and the reforms required.
I will keep hon. members of this House fully informed and seek their views and support at every stage. Members from all sides of this House have indicated on many occasions support and commitment to the goal of improving our performance and furthering learning for all Canadians. We share the recognition that this is one of the most important challenges facing Canada. We have as a nation one of the strongest, best staffed and amply funded education systems. If together we deliberately build on our intellectual strengths we can take on the world. We will become competitive with the best learning systems in the world and create prosperity for ourselves as we enrich our own personal lives.

Our increased prosperity will help to build the unity of Canada. Not for today alone, but for the long term.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Rosemont, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough West.
The hon. member for Rosemont.


Mr.   Benoit@: Mr. Speaker, there is incredible federal arrogance behind the rather engaging expression on the Minister of Employment and Immigration's face.
The minister told us: There are problems in the field of education. We spend a lot, but the performance we get is insufficient to face up to world competition.
The Address
Granted, the education system in every country has to be reviewed constantly. But there are also plenty of other problems, Mr. Speaker, that are very important and completely under federal jurisdiction but nevertheless a long way from being solved.
The minister called for a consensus and stressed the importance of economic policy. We know what this government thinks of economic policy. We also know that the Economic Council of Canada says: The most significant obstacle to productivity in Canada is the lack of consensus. That is why we are saddled with a very harsh monetary policy, a real horse remedy-because we are in a country where there is no consensus. That is what the latest report by the Economic Council of Canada tells us. And if anyone expected a new consensus after the Budget speech-well, after Ontario brought down its budget, which represents 40 per cent of the Canadian economy, and after it adopted a policy that is diametrically opposed to that of the federal government, it is pretty obvious this government is far from obtaining a consensus.
We won't mention the constitutional question where, as we know, there is no consensus in sight. And now this government, which has trouble handling its own affairs, decides to intervene to a substantial degree in a field that is entirely under provincial jurisdiction, when it says: Well, there are a few problems, and we intend to help you deal with them.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand on what basis-What qualifications does the federal government have for making a contribution of any kind in this area? In fact, what we need here is a consistent approach. In Quebec, there is a consensus among employers, unions, educational institutions and the government for patriat-ing the entire area of occupational training. They are unanimous on this score, Mr. Speaker.
Could you imagine, a minister with that engaging expression? You would almost forget the federal arrogance behind it, but we must not forget it. Ms. Lise Bissonnette said as much this morning in an editorial which I recommend to the minister. Incredibly, when the federal government can't deal with its own problems, it goes and interferes with education. My point is that education must be brought closer to business and to the

The Address
community. And that is exactly what the various parties want to do in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the hon. member, I would like to say first of all that education is not what we traditionally think of as education, including the little red school house and all that. That is the traditional picture we have of education, as I am sure he will agree. However, that is only part of the learning process. What we are talking about is developing a learning culture, and I am sure he will agree that people learn at home, they learn at school and they learn at work. Knowledge is not a monopoly of one particular jurisdiction. Knowledge is everybody's business at every stage in our lives. We are not talking about encroaching on the jurisdictions of the provinces, but about setting national objectives in this country and getting the tools to turn people across this country into the best qualified labour force in the world. To achieve these objectives the hon. member mentioned certain efforts in this area in Quebec, involving management and labour, and I totally agree that is the way we should go. The federal government is already spending $11 billion. It may well be that once we reach a national consensus, we will agree on a different way of spending those $11 billion.
As I said in an interview last week, we are not "jurisdiction-hungry". We want to develop a learning climate for Canadians across this country, so that even if you come from New Brunswick, when you graduate, it won't matter that you don't come from British Columbia.
The same thing applies to the young man from Newfoundland or the adult student from Vancouver or Trois-Rivieres. We want to create this culture and give our people the best possible skills, because there is a direct link between skills and standard of living. That's the way it is, and we must have this national consensus so that we can start the next century with the most effective tool we have a skilled and highly professional labour force that will be able to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century that is just around the comer.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. minister's comments, particularly as they relate to education. I want to tell him, as I begin my brief remarks, that in this Speech from the Throne there is certainly one thing that we can agree on, and that is the national tragedy relating to illiteracy and education.
It is almost inconceivable that in this country, one of the most developed countries of the world, 25 per cent of the adult population of this country is functionally illiterate. It is difficult to imagine how we got ourselves into this dilemma with respect to simple, basic, everyday functioning in society.
I want to wish the minister, the government and our country well in doing everything we possibly can to alleviate that problem.
I want to turn my attention, just for a few moments, to something else which is mentioned in the throne speech. I would ask the hon. minister to address the concept of the family. The hon. minister will know, if he has been listening to the members of his own caucus when they have been speaking in Question Period and even the odd question to ministers, that the subject of the family is of great concern.
There is one sentence in the throne speech about the family and I would like to quote it:
In addition, my government will review its policies in relation to
the family, the most fundamental building block of Canadian
society.
There was a time when I would not have to ask the minister the following question, but I am going to ask it in any event. What is this government's definition of family? Is it what we have traditionally known to be the family or is it something else? Is this what the government is going to be looking at or reviewing in its review of its policies in relation to the family? That is the first question I would like to ask the minister.
The second question is if this government is in fact committed to the family, the minister, being the Minister of Immigration, knows of the tragedy of family reunification and of the long delays that thousands of people are suffering in this country by being unable to be reunited with their spouses. Will he take a fresh look at this problem and undertake on behalf of his government to speed the family reunification process?
May 21, 1991


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, concerning the first question, I will not attempt to enter into a debate today as to how a family should be defined. When this government states that we value family and its contribution to the national life of Canada, I can best describe the type of family that this government is talking about by just looking at Canadians where they live in family situations. These are the families that we are talking about.
I cannot tell my neighbour who might live in a family that is different from the one that his parents have taught him, that it is not a family because it is not nuclear, because it is not what families used to be.
As Canadian citizens, they do contribute to their communities. The government is committed because it values families for what they produce for communities, provinces and this country.
We only have to look at our own personal background. Where do these values come from? It is not that I want return to discussing the learning culture, but maybe families, for too long, have entrusted many family matters to the school system. Possibly we have been asking our teachers to act as parents, and this is not right. This is the proper role of the real family which my learned friend is talking about.
In the next few months, we will have the chance to discuss in Parliament and with Canadians the role of the family. We will see the programs that the government will bring forward to try to enhance family values in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize for interrupting you, but unless there is unanimous consent, I must inform you that I have shown tolerance and that the questions and comments period has already been exceeded by one minute.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Windsor- Lake St. Clair.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me point out that I am sharing time with my colleague, so I will be speaking for only 10 minutes.
I must say that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has managed a heroic mobilization of platitudes about education without responding in any significant degree to the problem at hand. He offers us another of these study papers, a consultation paper with respect to which he is going to consult with the people of Canada
The Address
to find out on what basis they should consult on education.
It sounds to me as though we are going to have a Spicer commission on education, with equal productivity.
We should recall that the government offered us any number of discussion papers, fora, workshops and committees designed to improve Canada's situation with respect to research and development. This reminds me of the throne speech, which is the topic of the debate.
One of the notable omissions from that throne speech which cannot be missed by anyone is a complete omission of any reference to research and development, to any targets for research and development. That is a true test of this government's commitment to competitiveness and increased productivity, as I understand it.
In documents that the government has provided with respect to the report of the parliamentary committee on industry, science and technology, we see not only an abandonment of the target that was established for research and development and promised by the Prime Minister in 1983, but we see the absurd rationalization for the desertion of that goal and the response of government bureaucrats speaking in the name of the minister, which has to be read to be believed.
It says that a target of 2.5 per cent of GERD for Canada is a highly questionable proposition. It says that other nations that have achieved the target of 2.5 per cent of expenditures in proportion to the Gross Domestic Product are nations that spend a great deal on defence-ignoring Sweden, West Germany, now Germany, and Japan, none of which had the abundant investment in research and development of other competitors.
Nevertheless, they have achieved 2.5 per cent or more of Gross Domestic Product in expenditures on research and development.
We find that, in spite of a consensus among ministers of science and technology that there should be a goal of 2.5 per cent, it is the federal government that is resisting it. However, I would have to say in all seriousness and in all honesty that I am deeply concerned about the failure of Ontario to specifically marry itself to a goal with respect to involvement, and to achieve that goal which the federal New Democratic Party caucus certainly agrees this nation should achieve. The goal of 2.5 per cent, or any other goal, dictates that there must be a mechanism for achieving that goal. It dictates that there must be policies and action to achieve those goals. In all probability the rejection of the 2.5 per cent GERD by the federal government probably implies that this government has found itself incapable of achieving any goal

May 21, 1991
The Address
that implies a mechanism, a policy, an action for its achievement.
When we look at the throne speech, which, like all throne speeches, is as full of platitudes as can be, we have to recognize that the goals set out there for education and training are at least a statement which could give this country profit if it is understood by this government that those goals, too, dictate that there must be a mechanism for their achievement.
We must doubt that those goals mean anything at all. The goals, as I said, are salutary; they would seek to ensure that every Canadian of 25 years of age, or 90 per cent of all Canadians reaching 25 years of age, will have achieved a high school education. It calls for the cutting in half of illiteracy in this country. It calls for quadrupling training in this country and for doubling the number of mathematicians, scientists and engineers in this country.
If one looks at the record of this government, how can any Canadian fail to receive these promises, these goals, with anything except doubt?
With respect to illiteracy, it has become well known that 25 per cent of our population is functionally illiterate, and the government's response to this has been a very cautious, tenuous, private, non-profit oriented volunteer approach to doing something about illiteracy, which has failed abjectly.
It talks about increasing the number of trainees, quadrupling them, in an attempt to catch up to the Americans, who have a rate double that of ours in industrial training, or Japan, which has four times the number of trainees in industry, or Germany, which has eight times. It would suggest to us that now we are going to have a target to at least come up to the level of Japan.
How are we to believe such goals? Only in the last budget $100 million was cut from the training programs that this government is supposed to be providing under the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
The most galling example of hypocrisy is when this government says that it would double the number of
mathematicians, engineers and scientists, which implies that our universities must graduate more. And yet this is a government which, along with the Liberal government before it, has consistently cut back on transfer payments intended to support post-secondary education. Three and a half billion dollars cut from the Established Programs Financing as a result of this past budget. A total of $12 billion over the last decade has been cut from post-secondary education. Now we hear that we are going to double the number of graduates from the most expensive faculties in our universities.
How can anybody believe this government? How can anybody believe this government is serious when at the same time and in the same speech it rejects any mention of research and development? It is a shameful example of the typical hypocrisy that plagues this government.
I want to make note of the last interchange that occurred between the member for Scarborough and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It had to do with family. The member for Scarborough rightfully expressed some concern about any omission of the question of family in any serious context within the throne speech.
In response to that, we had a good deal of moralizing on the part of the Minister of Employment and Immigration that provided no answer.
It is fundamental to understand that the nature of the family has changed in such a way that increasing numbers of our pre-school kids have not developed through the normal processes the skills of learning that are needed for success in elementary school and subsequently high school, university, and so on.
Life-long learning is going to have to admittedly extend through the lifetime of an individual, but it means it is also going to have to extend to an earlier period during the development of Canadians. Day care must be a part of the equation, and that was not mentioned in the throne speech at all. I do not mean day care as a place to put kids while parents work. I am talking about day care that will be a form of education that will provide those skills to kids who are about to enter school, a day care that will create for them a level playing field.
May 21, 1991

These are the kinds of policy initiatives that we need, not more discussion. Our party understands the jurisdictional aspects of education, but our party has also suggested that there should be created at the national level a council on education that will provide the resources, that can underscore the policy initiatives and curriculum changes and other techniques that are going to underlie any future marrying of education with economic goals.
That should be beyond the jurisdictional disputes and the dissension within this country, because our future is at stake, and this government seems to have failed to understand that.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent speech, particularly on education. We know that he is a great doctor and a responsible person. We sat together on the Committee for Industry, Science and Technology.
I rise again today because the federal government wants to get involved into something that is beyond his jurisdiction. We all know, and we cannot overemphasize the fact that Quebecers will never accept any involvement on the part of the federal government in the field of education in Quebec. Education has been a strictly provincial matter since Confederation and Canadians have always wanted it that way. Canada has not helped Quebecers: Quebecers themselves have paid for their education and their training, and they want to continue to work and get appropriate training in order to be successful. This is very important, so important in fact that the commissions that were established recently in Quebec have again insisted on that issue.
The Belanger-Campeau Commission proposed that Quebec maintain exclusive jurisdiction in the field of education in order to properly ensure its future. The Chamber of Commerce of Quebec City has asked the provincial government to assume exclusive responsibility in matters of education and manpower training. In recent months, the Government of Quebec has asked the federal government to take charge of the training of its manpower. This is total chaos! The federal govem-
The Address
ment spends hundred of millions of dollars in Quebec for the training of workers, when it is well known that, in the majority of cases, this training is useless. It is useless because every week people come to my office and complain that they cannot get adequate training since it is already a provincial matter.
So, I would like to ask a short question to the hon. member that just finished his speech: Since the federal government is going to be even more involved in training, does he not think that this will exacerbate the existing conflict, especially between Quebec and Ottawa?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not view education as another platform for national dispute. I am not here to argue about whether Quebec should have more influence, or Ontario should have more influence, or the federal government should have more influence in particular areas of education. This is not an area in which to carry out the constitutional fight. Our kids are not benefiting from it.
I do not dispute that education is and belongs within the jurisdiction of the provinces, just as in the United States education lies within the jurisdiction of the states. But we should have some national consensus, some national direction, and some national understanding that as a nation, not as provinces, we have to exist in this new economic world.
The jurisdictional separation of responsibility in the United States did not prevent a presidential commission on education, Carnegie Foundation's studies on education or any number of long-term initiatives on education to benefit the whole country without stepping on jurisdictional jealousies. I think Canada ought to be able to do the same thing, look to what we should accomplish as a nation in terms of national goals rather than see every issue as an issue on which to express our differences.
I am tired of it, and I think our kids are going to be tired of it when they grow up and find that their skills, their education, and their training were compromised

May 21, 1991
The Address
because we were so busy talking about whose responsibility it was rather than finding what common responsibilities had to be met.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, there are many things in this throne speech which make the people of Canada question this government's commitment to the improvement of the quality of life for Canadians.
A considerable amount of time has been spent in the last few days considering the pros and cons of the plan of action as it was presented in the Speech from the Throne and on the main issues raised in this plan of action, important issues such as competition, unity, prosperity, education, and parliamentary reform.
However, I want to look at some of the things that were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. The quality of a civilization is judged by its treatment of the elderly, the children, and those in need, the so-called underprivileged. We cannot in this modern world ignore the lame, the weak, and the hungry in other parts of the world while we take care of ourselves here at home.
In the Speech from the Throne the government has ignored its responsibility for the needs of the so-called Third World. In fact there is no mention of the hungry world. There is no mention of the need for development. There is no mention of our responsibility in these areas.
The speech came close to this issue once. It said:
Last September, at the Children's Summit in New York, the attention of people everywhere was focused on children at risk. Seventy-one leaders pledged that that moment would last a decade.
Our Prime Minister promised a decade of assistance to children in need. That implied assistance to the world's children. However, the next line of this particular quotation from the Speech from the Throne indicated that the government was somewhat introverted in this particular area because it went on to say:
My government will bring forward a plan to implement the commitments it made that day: the objectives to see Canadian girls and boys better educated, better protected and better nurtured so that they can make their own contributions to Canada's future.
In other words, even as we made a commitment to the world in this Speech from the Throne, we turned it back on ourselves. There was no suggestion that the Prime Minister would continue the leadership he indicated in
that conference, that his promises at that time would be honoured.
In this speech there is no mention of how we will do our share in taking care of the world's destitute.
Along with the slashing of foreign aid spending in the February 25 budget by more than $5 billion over the next five years, this lack of mention in the Speech from the Throne indicates, or at least leaves the perception, that Canada is withdrawing from its involvement in humanitarian aid to those countries needing it most.
Right now is the time for Canada to be aggressive in our leadership in humanitarian aid, aggressive in our involvement with development of Third World countries.
Right now around the world, one billion people live in absolute poverty. One billion adults can neither read nor write. One hundred eighty million children suffer from malnutrition, that is Canada's population multiplied by about six. Three million children die each year from diseases against which they can be immunized. These are the year to year statistics.
Right now we have a special outstanding requirement in places like the Horn of Africa. In the Sudan, it is expected that 300,000 people will die of starvation in the next few weeks, even if immediate food aid is sent into that area. If that aid is delayed, the number of people who will die will increase proportionately to the days and weeks it is delayed.
In Ethiopia, the war situation has brought the food movement to a halt, temporarily we hope. Up to 7 million people are in danger.
In Somalia, there is a mass movement of millions because of food shortages. They are moving from one food shortage area to another. So little organization is available in that particular country that no one knows what can be done or what needs to be done.
I do not expect that Canada can jump in and solve all these situations, nor does the world expect Canada to do it. However, we should not ignore it or even seem to ignore it, which is what the Speech from the Throne does.
Granted there are many problems in the Third World, problems which seem to suggest that we are just wasting good money by giving aid. There is excessive spending in the military. There is wasteful public spending of other types. There are unnecessary projects which are taking a considerable amount of money. There is corruption.
May 21, 1991

There is abusive lending on the part of organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF, which are part of the donor structure. There is trade that undermines the production of the people and, in many cases, the health of the people.
The UN, in a report that was released just a few days ago, suggests that Africa, which has become the continent most in need of aid, receives more than $6 billion in so-called technical assistance. However, too much is spent on foreign experts and too little on building up local institutions and national consultants.
This aid does not reduce the need for humanitarian aid, nor does it mean that Canada should wait for these improvements. The starvation and death statistics will not go away without action. That action is expected of Canada and Canada has to take leadership and give continued aid. We cannot just ignore the problem.
The Speech from the Throne suggests massive increases in spending on education, and that is commendable. If it happens, it should be a continued policy of our government. The government's record of cutting assistance to education does not give us too much hope in that particular area.
However, it ignores the world's need for literacy training. In the Niger only 15 per cent of its adult population is literate, in the Sudan only 23 per cent of its population is literate. So, even as we hope for better education for Canadians, we cannot forget the rest of the world.
Why do I dwell on the Third World when the Speech from the Throne talks about what is happening in Canada? I talk about the Third World because, as we are told daily by this government, we are a global society. Our prosperity, a throne speech theme by the way, is dependent on our ability to be competitive in the world.
Sometimes it appears that this competitiveness must always be at the expense of some other country. I do not believe for a minute that we in Canada can be continuously prosperous while two-thirds of the world is having an increasingly difficult time feeding itself or is being forced into further destitution.
The Address
Canada must keep its humanitarian responsibilities before us at all times. We are falling further behind our commitment to spend .7 per cent of Canadian GNP and we need to make sure that world aid does have an impact on people. At present, 8.3 per cent of the total world aid is earmarked for people, the rest goes to trade development for the donor, projects which the donor thinks are worth while, and other areas of concern.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker,
I was very interested in the very moving comments of my colleague. I certainly know that most of us share his concern that Canada has an international responsibility and that the situation of people, particularly in Africa, is just absolutely desperate.
This was brought home to me in the last two or three days when I met with a constituent visiting here who is quite desperate. He is a refugee from Somalia and is trying to get his family who are in Nairobi into Canada. The family consists of five children he and his wife, four children of a brother and sister-in-law who were murdered and two children of another sister who was murdered. That is 11 children he is trying to bring to Canada.
We have to work at both ends. We have to help people in their own situation first and foremost. Would he also agree that Canada needs to do much more in the area of practical help with respect to the UN Convention on Rights of the Child? We have to do a lot more to help children in particular.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I guess the point I am trying to make is exactly the point that my colleague is making. We in Canada can become very prosperous. We can, as the UNDP has indicated, be number one as far as human development is concerned. We must take our responsibility within the world, particularly the Third World, for human development. That means child development, health care and literacy. The time will come when we cannot continue to be prosperous if a larger proportion of the Third World, with a population growing considerably faster than our own, is not taken care of in its own way and allowed to develop.
At present, for instance, we work through organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF. They put in place structural adjustment which does more harm than good. We as Canadians can have a considerable amount

The Address
of impact on how these organizations work in the Third World. We have not taken that opportunity.
Canada has not taken the opportunity to become an effective leader in the Third World aid structure. We do well. We assist a great many people, but we have not taken the leadership that needs to be taken.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the House that the rest of the government members will be speaking for 10 minutes, with 5 minutes for questions.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate in response to the Speech from the Throne and would like to divide my comments into two parts: the first dealing with the economic side of the Throne Speech and the second with constitutional renewal and the national unity question.
Canada has one of the highest standards of living in the world and a quality of life that is the envy of almost every nation. However there is no guarantee this prosperity will continue. Simply relying on things that have helped us succeed in the past will not be enough to improve our material welfare and quality of life in the future.
Therefore, I am pleased that the Speech from the Throne addressed the very important topic of restoring economic competitiveness to Canadian industry.
During the past four-week break from Parliament I spoke with some 60 company presidents and many of their employees in my riding. The message they all gave me was unanimous: Canadians must work more effectively together in a partnership of management and labour to meet Canada's competitive challenges over the next several years. We absolutely must become more productive and competitive.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I purposely left the government out of that bilateral partnership between management and labour, because the role of government is to set up a free and open economic environment, set ground rules for that competition and working environment, lay down the tax structure and rules for investment and then step aside and allow both labour and management to create economic wealth and prosperity.
Our budget of February 26 of this year reinforced our commitment to restore the economic health of this country. We have made considerable progress to date even though our efforts have been roundly opposed, ridiculed and condemned. Canadians have not taken kindly to suddenly being deprived of the many gifts and handouts of the irresponsible federal government of the Trudeau Liberal era from 1968 to 1984, during which time we saw the damaging fiscal policies that created a near bankrupt position.
Now, unfortunately, these same policies are about to be repeated by Ontario's NDP government. While Ontario will double its debt load in the next four years to a deficit which took 124 years to accumulate, we at the federal level are legislating a mandatory program of 3 per cent spending limits.
Second, we are establishing a debt servicing and reduction fund solely dedicated to offsetting the costs of the public debt. By law, net revenues from the GST and from privatization will flow into this fund.
With regard to enhanced competitiveness and productivity, we are making some progress since, for the first time in 16 years, we have been attracting more direct investment into Canada than has been going abroad.
In 1984, direct investment outflows were over $11 billion. Progressively and incrementally since 1984, investment outflows have grown smaller and smaller. Now we have turned it around.
Currently we are experiencing a positive direct investment inflow of approximately $500 million. Contrary to popular perceptions, according to Statistics Canada, exports from most industries to the United States since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement have risen.
For example, after two years of the 10-year phase-in period of the agreement, sectors such as food and beverages, rubber and plastics, textiles, clothing, furniture, transportation and electrical products have experienced increases in exports ranging from the low 20 per cent to as high as 67 per cent.
Now we are entering into discussions with the United States and Mexico regarding a North American free

trade agreement. We did not ask for this. Mexico did, but there is no way that we could stand idly by while two other nations, our neighbours, negotiate such an agreement. We must participate in the talks if for no other reason than to protect our interests and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Furthermore, this opportunity can be used for Canada's long-term gain in the larger North American free trade zone. I am convinced that this possibility will be beneficial to Canada in the long run, especially in the light of changing global trading realities.
As a representative of a manufacturing constituency in southwestern Ontario, the federal riding of Kitchener, I agree with the Simon Fraser University economist, Dr. Richard Lipsey, who has often appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on trade related matters, that we might consider a 20-year rather than a 10-year phase-in of the agreement for certain industrial and other sectors due to a variety of reasons and differences between Canada and Mexico that are not the case between Canada and the United States.
Before commenting on the second issue of national unity, I would like to add that I am pleased with the sentence in the throne speech which reads: "My government will review its policies in relation to the family, the most fundamental building block of Canadian society."
I hope that this will result in more favourable taxation treatment for the traditional family. I also hope that we will bring in provisions that will make it easier for younger families to acquire a home that they can actually enjoy.
I know that lower interest rates will help tremendously in this direction, but I think we also have to look creatively at other means which would assist that.
Further, I would like to see a tough pornography bill that would protect our children and women from degrading and disgusting violent forms of pornography, which are far too easily accessible in Canada today and which treat our children and women as things and not as human beings.
The second theme of the Speech from the Throne was Canadian unity.
The Address
Much has been attempted to ensure the unity and strengthening of our Confederation. Recently, the Meech Lake round almost succeeded where the constitutional amendments of the early 1980s had failed, that is including the province of Quebec as a signatory to these changes.
Presently, two commissions have tabled their studies in the province of Quebec. Additionally, the Beaudoin-Ed-wards study of Canada's amending formula and the Spicer Commission on Canadian values, attitudes and aspirations are to report by July 1.
Other provinces will soon be receiving their own constitutional studies. The Speech from the Throne announced the creation of another special joint parliamentary committee to bring together the recommendations of these many studies. It will also be given the mandate to meet with provincial legislators and aboriginal groups and to report back by February 1992.
As a result of these many studies and consultations, the federal government will propose its plan for a renewed Canada. Some have said "oh, no, not another committee." However, given the severity of the issue and the attitude of so many Canadians that Meech Lake was developed in secrecy, it is far better to err on the side of yet another open consultation than risk the loss of making real progress, thereby creating the misunderstanding and mistrust of earlier attempts.
It is my hope that when we discuss the issue of national unity, we do so in the spirit of tolerance, compromise and non-partisan debate.
We now need to state what a former president of the United States once said: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." John Kennedy took those words from the French philosopher, Rousseau, who wrote: "As soon as any man says of the affairs of state, 'What does it matter to me?' that state may be given up as lost."
All Canadians must stop thinking pessimistically about Canada today and I would recommend that all would cease all talk of separation and all debate of "let them go" or "good riddance to them" because to me, a Canada without Quebec is no Canada at all.

May 21, 1991
The Address
Let us each dedicate ourselves as Canadians, and each of us as members of the only democratically elected, accountable and true constituent assembly of Canada, the House of Commons, to now work together in healing our great land to preserve its unity and strength for ourselves and our children.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member's observations about the fiscal policy being pursued by the Conservative government. He had some criticism directed toward the previous Liberal government which is consistent with what we hear from members of his party. It has now been almost seven years since the Conservative government took office and rather than standing up and accepting responsibility for the affairs of state, it is still talking about what happened eight, nine years ago, and is still blaming its predecessor for the ills of the country.
I find it really astonishing that members of that party would not stand up and accept the responsibility. I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that the former Minister of Finance in his first budget six years ago said that he would get the deficit down to $18 billion by the end of the decade. That is, presumably, by December 31, 1990.
In his last budget several months ago, the former Minister of Finance predicted a deficit of $30.5 billion for the fiscal year-I believe it is-ending March 31. He missed the mark by the small sum of some $12.5 billion and yet we have members like the one who just spoke, who have the nerve to stand up in this House and give us lectures about fiscal discipline.
I would ask the member to be a bit more humble when it comes to talking about the accomplishments of his government.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that this government has now been in office approaching its seventh year and is asking when is it going to take responsibility for some of what it is doing.
We are pleased to take responsibility for our actions. We have turned around a generation of going in the
wrong direction, and you cannot do that overnight. We have brought in some very significant changes.
The members in the Liberal Party like to suggest that we have doubled the national debt. What they forget to say is that in our first three years of operation, we took the national accounts of all the revenues received that go out for programs spending, and we took a deficit of $16 billion and we moved it to $8 billion, then to $2 billion, and for the last four years we have been operating on a surplus. Were it not for interest and compound interest on the national debt left to us by the party of the member who asked the question, we would now have a surplus, we would have balanced budgets.
What the hon. member is ignoring is that for the last four years of the seven, this government has not added one single penny to the national debt; all that has been happening is compound interest on the national debt.
The hon. member made his point and said he would like a little humility from us. It is taking longer than we had hoped, that is true, but the severity of the problem that was left to us in the compound interest factor is huge and immense and we are working at that.
Look at the legacy of spending in the previous 16 years that created this question compared to the legacy of spending now for the past seven years. Look at the average spending of over 10 per cent in the previous 10 years, compared to the now 3.7. We are now bringing in a legislated ceiling of 3 per cent on spending. We are coming to grips with the issue. We are making some success, and if we can continue in the direction we are heading we can see the end of the problem. Should they ever come back, we would see a bankrupt nation.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: It gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate. This Speech from the Throne touches on several of the priorities that the government has identified for the upcoming session. I believe that this Speech from the Throne identifies many of the priorities on the agenda of Canadians.
What are these issues that Canadians have identified? Canadians are interested in the future of Canada; they are interested in the future that they are going to build for themselves and for their children. They want to know about jobs; they want to know that the government has a
May 21, 1991

definite plan to address the economic problems that block the paths to prosperity.
Canadians know that this government has this plan. For too long they have seen spendthrift governments borrow from our children's future to pay for questionable excesses. That changed in 1984. Although the ability of this government to serve Canadians has been limited by the burden of debt left to us by the previous government, the last budget has shown us that there is light at the end of the debt tunnel.
Canadians signalled their desire for change in 1984 and they reaffirmed that desire in 1988. The reason for this is simple: Canada was in a mess that would only get worse unless a measure of reason could be restored to the way the government operated.
We have gone far to restore that reason, and this Speech from the Throne indicates that we are willing and able to go the distance in providing Canadians with the kind of government that they need and want.
The over-all message that comes from this Speech from the Throne is that it is time for us, for all Canadians, to re-examine our attitudes. Before we can see ourselves reflected in the Constitution, we must know who we are; we need to know more about our history. It is time to search our souls and it is time for us to learn about ourselves and to rediscover the real priorities in life.
I am encouraged by the government's reaffirmation that the family is the most fundamental building block of Canadian society.
This is a very significant approach to the troubles facing Canada today. A strong sense of family leads to a strong sense of self. This strong sense of self brings with it the confidence and initiative that results in a productive and prosperous society, a society free from insecurity-
For too long Canada has suffered from insecurity. We have been without the focus and the sense of purpose that comes from a sound knowledge of self. I believe that if we can strengthen the family, we will strengthen society.
In reviewing its policies toward the family, I believe that it is necessary to restore fairness to the taxation system so that Canadians who choose to be a traditional family are not disadvantaged.
The Address
The Department of Finance will have to look closely at the existing system and find ways to provide fairness for all Canadians, including traditional families.
The government has indicated that it will be bringing forward initiatives to ensure the protection of children within our society. One of the many ways that the government can do this is by strengthening the family unit.
Before I continue, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have just seen the Canadian Armed Forces participate in a world effort to settle the crisis in the Persian Gulf. This participation is cause for great pride. Canada's role in the crisis has drawn Canadians together. It has been a unifying force. Canada has been, and continues to be, well served by the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.
In my riding of Fraser Valley East we have Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. This is the only Canadian Forces Base on mainland British Columbia. It is the proud home of the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment. A major portion of the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment is now on duty in Kuwait doing demolition work, clearing mine fields. These some 300 Canadians are proving with their actions that the training that occurs at the engineering school at CFB Chilliwack is invaluable.
CFB Chilliwack is more than just the home of the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment. There is the school of military engineering and there is also the officer's candidate training school. CFB Chilliwack is also the logistic centre for the militia in mainland British Columbia. It is the only base in Canada where the heavy equipment training can go on year round. It is minutes from secluded and isolated training areas and minutes from urban areas.
British Columbia is a unique part of Canada and CFB Chilliwack is a unique Canadian institution. Without CFB Chilliwack, B.C. would be without a Canadian Armed Forces presence on the mainland. An Armed forces presence is essential. It is essential to note that there are a number of federal correctional institutions within a 30-minute radius of CFB Chilliwack.
During the Matsqui Institute riots in 1970, the forces were called upon to provide assistance and restore order. The significance of this resource should not escape us.

May 21, 1991
The Address
Disaster preparedness is also a consideration, especially considering the geography of B.C.
We, in B.C. and in the Fraser Valley, are well aware of the important role that CFB Chilliwack plays. The base is a unifying element. Rumours that the base may be closed have caused us great concern. After the remarkable role the Canadian forces played and continue to play in the Persian Gulf, and bearing in mind the pride that Canadians felt because of that participation, a very unifying pride I might add, I say let us keep our priorities straight.
CFB Chilliwack is an integral part of the Canadian Armed Forces and an integral part of the community. It is the forces' presence on the mainland in British Columbia and is not a base that can be considered eligible for closing. In 1992 Canada celebrates its 125th birthday; Montreal celebrates its 400th; Matsqui, its 100th birthday. CFB Chilliwack will celebrate its 50th anniversary. I hope that we will be able to mark the four celebrations together.
The Speech from the Throne mentions that we must proceed with caution as we enter into a new stage of constitutional building. What we must do is change our attitude as a society. In addition to strengthening the family unit, we must look at our relationship to the institutions of government. We hear a great deal about rights, but we do not hear a lot about responsibilities.
In congratulating new Canadians upon receiving citizenship, I often take a moment to remind them that with the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship come many responsibilities. I tell them that Canada has become the great country that it is because people have recognized that as citizens they have a responsibility to take part and become involved in our society. As citizens, we define what Canadian society is.
A country like Canada is always changing. It is like a person who is growing up and going through a maturing process. All Canadian citizens, whether they are born here or choose to come here, help Canada to mature and grow. For Canada to be the best that it can possibly be, everyone must take part and contribute. This is the
responsibility. This is the flip side to the rights and privileges.
We must remember our heritage, but we cannot be limited by that heritage. When we share our personal heritage and culture with each other, we create a better society. When we build barriers, we miss out on the benefits of sharing. Instead, we see ignorance and hostility. It is this ignorance and hostility that leads to disunity and talk of separation. This causes me great concern.
My parents were bom in Shawville, Quebec. They homesteaded in southern Saskatchewan and farmed there for some 60-odd years. I grew up on the prairies and having moved to British Columbia, chose to raise my family there. I am proud to be a Canadian and have my roots throughout the country. I am proud to share my heritage with other Canadians who come from other parts of the country and who have come from other parts of the world.
The energy and resources that we expend trying to convince ourselves that we have a country worth having is astounding. I look around me and see what we have in Canada and can only shake my head in wonder. We are the envy of the world.
Yet, the problem of disunity in this country is very serious. If we can once get beyond this issue, we can raise the level of debate in this country and can raise the standard of living. We can re-channel the enormous resources now spent on trying to solve our problems toward creating a better standard of living for our children. Now is the time to act, and we must. We cannot listen to the voices that represent only parts of our country, the voices that would have this country tom apart, the voices that would build barriers to understanding. Instead of encouraging Canadians from all parts of Canada to get to know one another, these parties would have us turn our backs and create new solitudes.
I am encouraged by the Speech from the Throne. The government is committed to unifying the country. By strengthening the family, the fundamental building block of society, the government will ensure that Canada will enter the 21st century in sound shape. These are important times in the life of our nation. It gives me great peace of mind to know that the government in power is choosing a wise path.
May 21, 1991

The Address


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, when the premier of British Columbia met recently with the Prime Minister, she accused the Prime Minister and his government of treating B.C. unfairly.
The Prime Minister responded by promising a list which, to the best of my knowledge, has not yet materialized.
If CFB Chilliwack is closed, has the member given any thought to what the cost of this one more blow by the federal government to British Columbia would be? Does the federal government have any plans to try to even things up a bit for British Columbia?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from British Columbia for that very pertinent question which is on a great many minds in British Columbia.
I might say to the hon. member that a letter has gone forth to the premier. I have just seen it. It is quite an extensive list. I will do my best to get a copy of the letter for the hon. member opposite so that he can see the information that has been sent to the province.
He mentioned CFB Chilliwack. My greatest concern is that the logistics centre for the militia in British Columbia is centred at CFB Chilliwack. When we have our cadet training in the summertime at Vernon, it all emanates from Chilliwack. When we have training that takes place in the Cariboo, which took place last weekend, it emanates out of Chilliwack. When we need a quick response to any disorder requiring the assistance of our law enforcement agencies, it is CFB Chilliwack that is called upon. Yet if that facility were not there, I shudder to think what might happen had we the same problem that broke out in Matsqui a few years back. The hon. member opposite will remember that time. It was a very serious incident. We were concerned about the lives that could have been lost if it had continued. The forces were there. They were able to come to the area. There was no danger to the communities surrounding the institution at the time when the inmates were running rampant.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. There are two minutes left. The hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stand-stead):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member how he could possibly expect the Prime Minister's latest brainstorm, and I am referring to interference by the Canadian government in a matter of provincial jurisdiction-education and manpower training-could help reunite two countries whose respective visions of themselves are so different, and I am referring to Quebec and Canada?


Ross Belsher: I think I heard the hon. member talk about two countries. The last time I checked in my Atlas there was only one country, and the hon. member comes from one of the 10 provinces that is part of the Confederation. I really take great exception to his calling the province that he comes from another country.
The problem is that we have people who are trying to tear our country apart but are not willing to turn around and talk about keeping our country together.
What we have said in the Speech from the Throne is that we have too high a dropout rate before the young people graduate from high school. We are endeavouring in co-operation with the provinces to see if we can cut in half the dropout rate in the provincial school system.
Yes, the provinces under the auspices of Confederation are responsible for the school system, and so they should be. We are not trying to change that. We are working with them, putting our heads together, and making sure that we do not have this tremendous dropout rate which results in Canada being the loser. This is what we are endeavouring to accomplish, and what we are talking about in the Speech from the Throne.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Longueuil.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Speech from the Throne, and we in the Bloc Quebecois, especially, realized that the emphasis was on the fact that Canadian unity was the only way

May 21, 1991
The Address
to strengthen the Canadian economy or save Canada. They say that without Canadian unity, we won't be able to save this country, we will not make any progress, we will not develop, and they even go so far as to include education.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that Canada has been united for at least 20 or 30 years and things are not bad. However, in the process we have managed to go into debt to the tune of $20 to $30 billion annually. That is the only way this country has been united.
So far, as everybody is aware, and especially members of this House, Canada is facing a deficit of $400 billion. To those who may not realize what this means, $400 billion means $400,000 million dollars. Every year, nearly 30 per cent of our income tax and other taxes are used to pay off the interest on the debt alone. A few years from now, this figure will be 50 per cent. As for me, I do not think that the Canadian unity has been well served until now.


An hon. member:: You are right.


Nic Leblanc: The big problem that we are dealing with exists primarily because the union that was seeked, namely the union between Lower and Upper Canada, has become a centralized federalism. At the same time, the provinces and the central government were given powers, thereby setting the stage for regular confrontations. Every day, there is confrontation between the provinces.
At the federal level, members want more and more powers in order to be able to spend more and give theats to the population. This is not necessarily logical; it is not necessarily adequate, but they are only interested in being able to give to the population, in order to win votes. That happens at the federal level.
It is the same with the provinces. In Quebec, for instance they want to regain certain powers in order to be able to give out more money, and to show the population that they have something to offer. That is what brings on confrontation. That is why having 11 jurisdictions in this country is leading us towards catastrophe and bankruptcy. It is essential to decentralize and, we think, go all the way to sovereignty, because in the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec wanted a little more power to function smoothly, just a little bit more power to build a successful society. But no, these minimal requests were rejected. So, Mr. Speaker, what then could do the members of Parliament that were here to defend Quebec's interests in Ottawa? We had no choice
but to resign and form the Bloc Quebecois, as we have done, in order to defend the interests of Quebecers with dignity.
This cannot be done if one belongs to a so-called national party, because when you belong to a so-called national Canadian party, it is impossible to protect the interests of Quebec, since you always have to take into account whether you are likely to win or lose votes in Ontario or in the East.
On the other hand, when we ask questions in the name of Quebec, when we defend the interests of Quebec, those interests are strictly the interests of that province. We are not the least concerned about whether we are going to lose votes in East or in the West.
That is why we can look after the interests of Quebec with dignity. That is also why I ask the Prime Minister of Canada to resign-


An hon. member:: Right now.


Nic Leblanc: -to call an election as soon as possible so that Quebecers can at long last elect members of Parliament who are worthy of them. That is what Quebecers need now.
It is absolutely unacceptable to see our members not using their powers the way they should to defend Quebec's interests.
What I am trying to say is that the Canadian economy cannot function in the present situation. It is now essentiel to decentralize government and even to proclaim Quebec's sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, I will use the minutes that I have left to say a few words on education. I think it is absolutely scandalous for the federal government to interfere with education in Quebec. I just cannot understand such arrogance. And this after several studies were made in Quebec, including the Belanger-Campeau Report, the Allaire Report from the Quebec Liberal Party, and the Quebec government has claimed exclusive jurisdiction in matters of education. The Quebec Chamber of commerce also asks for exclusive jurisdiction in matters of education. Even federalists like the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel have asked and stated that the Quebec governement should have exclusive jurisdiction over education matters.
Thus I cannot understand that conservative members from Quebec who hold the power-I was told that they will vote against the amendment to the amendment and I hope I am mistaken-may vote tonight against our proposition to the effect that the federal government withdraw completely from the area of education. We are told that the conservative members who are in power

and must represent the interests of Quebec citizens will vote against our amendment to the amendment.


An hon. member:: Shame!


Nic Leblanc: That is utterly unaceptable. I cannot understand what goes through their heads. That is why I repeat again that if they deem themselves worthy of representing Quebecers they will stand and vote against this government.
I hope that you will do it. It is very nice to look after one's personal interests to get a litte reward from the Prime Minister, whether it is the job of minister, or parliamentary secretary or committee chairman, but instead of looking after their own personal interests, they should rise, this evening, and vote in favour of our sub-amendment.
It is totally unacceptable and it is really beyond me, as a Quebecer, that a member who claims to look after the interests of Quebec in Ottawa would vote against that proposal.


An hon. member:: They have no guts.


Nic Leblanc: This does not make sense! I cannot find the words and perhaps I would get carried away-


Mr. Rocheleau:: It is a shame!


Nic Leblanc: Yes, it is a shame.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have a few minutes left to tell you once again that the government is trying to fool us by saying that the economy or the national unity will help us proper. By getting involved in the field of education, the federal government will primarily favour confrontation, inefficiency, and total chaos in the field of education and manpower training and development. It is a well-known fact that Quebecers are number one in Canada as regards education; moreover, the Government of Quebec has asked to develop his own professional training programs and, lastly, our school boards and the Government of Quebec, who are responsible for training, should also assume total responsibility for professional training and development. Mr. Speaker, I thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Questions and comments period. The hon. member for Abitibi.
The Address


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question and make a comment.
I would like to start with my comment. The question will be very easy, will it not? Mr. Speaker, I want to say-and I do not have to quote any newspaper like the hon. member on the other side says-that when the hon. member for Longueuil stated that we were only starting to look after the interests of Quebecers in Ottawa, I was reminded of the fact that before he joined the ranks of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member was travelling a lot all over the world. He was not often here in Ottawa- He may have often tried to speak, but he would not do it for long-
Mr. Speaker, I am not at all uncomfortable when I hear the members from the other side; it is just a game for them and I am quite willing to compare his achievements-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please.
It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 50(5), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment and the amendment.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

May 21, 1991
The Address


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Jordan
Rompkey
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:



[Stage Direction]
Hicks	Jordan
McCreath	Rompkey
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
It being 6.15 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 22,1991