1991-05-27

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 22, 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order.


Mr. Cole:: The time for the government allotted time for the next speaker will be divided by two members, one from Lotbiniere and one from St. Catharines.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short point of order before we get on to the last day of the throne speech debate.
This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this matter. It refers to a comment made by the government House leader in the last issue of the Hill Times. I know there has always been an anxious moment on all sides of the House during Question Period to enable more people to ask questions. The House leader for the government indicated that the opposition, apparently during some discussions, refused to extend Question Period each day.
I would just like to make this clear. We would like to suggest that we add 30 minutes each day for Question Period to allow additional members of Parliament an opportunity to ask questions of the ministers. I just wanted to make that point very clear. We are prepared to add 30 minutes to Question Period-


An hon. member:: Do I hear 35?


Mr. Cooper:: I appreciate the interest of the hon. House leader for the New Democratic Party in Question Period. I am also intrigued by his offer now, now that negotiations have been completed and the package has gone through the House.
We too are interested in reforming Question Period. We look forward to doing some further work on it and I am sure that the hon. member will have some representations that he can make at that time.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not at the meeting at which the hon. member opposite apparently dismissed the suggestion of extending the length of Question Period. So that the record is very clear, there were really no negotiations whatsoever with regard to the reforms that took place in this House. Basically it was a take it or leave it package. Those of us on this side of the House opposed most of the reforms which were taken by the government. However, if the hon. member is now concurring with my colleague, the House leader for the New Democratic Party, and they are now prepared to extend Question Period, the question ought to be put forthwith so that we may have unanimous consent in order to extend the Question Period for the remainder of this session.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Perhaps the hon. House Leaders on both sides of the House would care to meet outside to continue their discussions. I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss the matter this morning. If hon. members agree, I would prefer the House to revert immediately to debate on the Speech from the Throne.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere, for ten minutes.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this morning to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice concerning an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne-although my speaking time has unfortunately been cut somewhat-because although a Throne Speech is not detailed in the same way that a Budget speech is, in

May 27, 1991
The Address
this case, mentions, essentially, the major challenges facing us and proposes ways of meeting those challenges.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the Throne deals first of all with Canadian unity, and the challenge to Canadians to choose the kind of Canada we want. When we talk about unity, we cannot isolate unity from economic prosperity, and I will get back to this later on in my speech. And when we talk about prosperity, if we are at all serious about what we are saying, we must necessarily mention education, because here again, we have a major problem where the Goverment of Canada must show leadership in providing the necessary solutions. And speaking of challenges, when we think back to last summer's native crisis, I think that here again the Speech from the Throne provides some very concrete solutions. The same applies to our economic problems; to that cornerstone of our Canadian values, the family; and also to one particular group in our society where this government has provided a number of solutions to enable the disabled to play a more active role. The same applies when we talk about government responsiveness, about making members better able to represent their constituents, and about this government's commitment to cutting government spending and reducing the debt.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the first subject, Canadian unity. In the Speech from the Throne, we see that the government has promised to appoint a committee by next September that will consult with legislative assemblies, in other words with the various provincial members, and with Canadians in general. There is an important element here, the government will formulate proposals, to be referred to the committee. There has been a lot of criticism and there have been many suggestions about how to deal with this problem, how to meet this challenge and how to provide solutions, but the fact remains that this is not one more exercise in consultation. We must not forget that this committee will have concrete proposals to discuss, and in the present unity debate, we see that the Goverment of Quebec, for instance, has also appointed a committee that will apparently receive Ottawa's proposals.
Mr. Speaker, receiving the proposals is fine, but in the light of our past experience-and this is where Quebec adds an important dimension-proposals submitted by Canada should first be ratified by what is called English Canada. This is where the committee plays an extremely important role, because, once again, it will have concrete proposals from this government.
The committee will then consult English Canada in particular to be able to come to Quebec so that we can finally find a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I looked at the comments of the media and the general public on that aspect of the Speech from the Throne. One need only put forward a solution to hear all sorts of criticisms; everyone has his own solution. What I found unfortunate in all those criticisms is the negativism. For example, the Meech Lake Accord is always spoken of as a failure. If we want to be objective and see things differently, we could say that Meech Lake nearly succeeded.
Mr. Speaker, you know that in this wonderful country, Canada, it is not for nothing that the first ministers have spent a great deal of time discussing the amending formula at federal-provincial conferences since 1965. Everyone seemed to agree that unanimity was practically impossible; so much so, Mr. Speaker, that when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, Mr. Trudeau, who was then Prime Minister of Canada, also tried to obtain the unanimity rule, but seeing how difficult it was, he forcibly repatriated the Constitution without Quebec's agreement. He understood so well that unanimity was impossible that he later inserted this famous unanimity rule at the time of repatriation so that when we had what is now called the Meech Lake Accord, Prime Minister Mulroney had to use the laws, regulation and rules imposed at repatriation, namely the three-year deadline for the various provincial legislatures to ratify the accord unanimously-that is, all ten provinces and the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I said Meech Lake was practically a success because, as you will recall, within the process imposed by the previous government, this government was able to obtain the unanimous consent of the provinces on two occasions: the first time in 1987, at what I will call the beginning of this debate, when all First Ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada,
May 27, 1991

ratified the accord; and a second time on June 9, 1990, when the 11 First Ministers of this country again ratified the Meech Lake Accord.
So Meech Lake was not really a failure. It was almost a success. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that with this new experiment, this new committee and this new department, if each and everyone of us takes a positive and constructive attitude instead wanting to tear the country apart, I am sure we will meet the challenge that Canadian unity represents.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has almost expired. I will therefore conclude my remarks on the economic aspects, and more specifically on education, a subject that has aroused some very fierce criticism in connection with provincial jurisdiction. In this country, from Vancouver to Halifax, we have an illiteracy rate of 30 per cent, which means people who do not know how to read or write. Forty per cent of our young people do not finish high school. I think someone has to take the lead, but I repeat, although the government announced that it would intervene in this field, it also said that it would do so without encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about unity and the Constitution, we cannot overlook the aspect of our economy, and especially our young people who are the future of this country.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne rightfully linked the two concepts of national unity and economic prosperity.
They certainly go hand in hand. In fact, they support each other. We all agree, as a country, that we must be competitive in order to maintain our standard of living.
We tend to forget what a large percentage of our Gross Domestic Product is dependent on foreign trade. This percentage is even more than that of the United States and Japan. We have to be cognizant of this fact when we consider economic policies for the country.
There has been a great deal of change and restructuring of our economy as we move to meet the goal of making our economy more competitive. We would all like this change to be calm and rational, however that is not always the case.
The Address
We cannot be reactionary and think that we are going to rely simply on a market of 26 million people for goods and services. That is unrealistic in the world today.
First, we must break down the trade barriers that exist within our own country between the provinces. We have to develop a free market within our own country. This is one of the goals of the throne speech that I certainly endorse.
In order for Canadians to be competitive we are going to need a great deal of co-operation among governments, business, labour and everyone else in the country. This is one aspect of the budget speech from the province of Ontario that I would certainly endorse, although I cannot support the large deficit financing associated with that budget.
That type of thinking in the past is one of the reasons that the federal government finds itself in its current position with very little room to manoeuvre.
The issue of competitiveness is one that is foremost in my community of St. Catharines at the present time. We see the spectre of cross-border shopping, which is affecting the retail industry as well as other areas of the local economy. People certainly have the right to get the best value for their money wherever they can, as long as they abide by the rules and pay the various duties and taxes on these goods.
The answer to this matter is not to close down the border, as some people have suggested, but to make sure that our industry is competitive. This requires all levels of government to review their taxation and regulation policies, and business to look at its own practices in order to ensure that it is competitive. Governments at the municipal, provincial and federal levels have to review their policies and do everything they can to ensure that our industries are competitive.
This is a complex matter. It is not a simple matter. People would say there is a simple solution to it, but as with most things these days, that is not the case. We all have to look at the problem, all deal with it, and all accept ownership of it.
The automobile parts industry is also important to my area. This is an industry that is also in a very tough, competitive position. Again, governments at all levels must review their policies to ensure they are not penaliz-

May 27, 1991
The Address
ing these industries. The industiy has to review its practices in order to ensure that it is using technologically advanced processes and that it is creating high quality value added parts. It has to use new technologies in order to compete. Labour also has to do its part to ensure that these industries are competitive.
Economic prosperity will allow us to deal with the matter of national unity. I have had the opportunity, as a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, to travel across Canada listening to individual Canadians speak about the Constitution and the amending formula. The committee is currently considering the recommendations we received from across the country regarding the amending formula. Therefore, I will not comment on that particular aspect of the matter.
However, the committee heard many of the goals and aspirations of the various regions and groups in the country. I agree with those individuals who have stated that this round of constitutional negotiations must be the Canada round. It is going to take a great deal of compromise, tolerance and understanding. It is something that we have to begin.
The aboriginal people want the concept of self-government to be discussed constitutionally. There may be some difficulty because the definition they attach to that concept varies across the country. As we negotiate land claims that concept is included in some of the settlements. As I mentioned, it means different things to different bands in different parts of the country. That is going to create some difficulty in trying to entrench that concept constitutionally.
The aboriginal people also mentioned the concept of consent regarding any constitutional change affecting them. We will have to try and deal with this matter and realize that the concept of consent is very similar to the concept of veto. We have heard about this concept in other contexts in conjunction with the Constitution.
The various aboriginal groups feel they can define exactly what is meant by protecting their language and their culture. Although, as we have seen, it even affects our institutions and maybe affects the entire Constitution itself. We have to try and deal with this matter. Again, it is a complex matter, something that is not very simple.
We heard from the people of the north that they would like a return to the pre-1982 state of affairs regarding the creation of provinces, in which the individual territories negotiated with the federal government in creating new provinces. We also heard of the discontent of the people of the north with the current provision in the Constitution about the extension of current provinces into the territories and the method by which that could occur. They feel slighted by that. They want that matter addressed in the current round. That is something we will have to deal with as well.
We heard from minority language groups in the various regions of the country. They have expressed a strong desire for their language and rights to be protected. As always, we have to be cognizant of their interests as well. We have to realize that there are one million francophones outside Quebec, and the need for the rights of the anglophone minority in the province of Quebec to continue to be protected.
Quebec feels that the rules of the game have been changed on it in the last 30 years by various means. It has expressed this in the Belanger-Campeau report and the Allaire report. We want Quebec to be part of the constitutional process, and it is necessary that we deal with this matter. We cannot emasculate the federal government but we must give recognition to the need for Quebec to protect its language, culture and uniqueness within the Canadian mosaic. It was well set out within the throne speech and it is a matter that we are obviously going to have to deal with.
The people of the west and some in the Atlantic region desire an institutional means in order to recognize the regional diversity of the country. There has been a great deal of energy put into the concept of a Triple E Senate in order to recognize this diversity. I have some hesitancy in saying that this would actually solve all their concerns in this regard.
We heard an expert from Australia who mentioned the Australian Senate which was set up with equal numbers of senators from each of the states within the country of Australia in order to try and resolve these regional differences. It was found that party politics and party discipline took over and the original concept of the Senate in that regard has gone.
May 27, 1991

We also heard the concerns of multicultural groups and women who want to see their hopes and aspirations mirrored in the Constitution. It is not going to be an easy task to resolve these interests, but we certainly must make the attempt to accommodate these various groups.
I do not believe that we should shy away from our diversity. I think that is a central facet of the Canadian character. We have searched for an identity. We are not all the same. That is what makes us different from countries such as the United States. We do not look for a melting pot. We have to celebrate our diversity and realize that it exists. Overhanging it all is the concept of Canadian citizenship. We have a great deal to be proud of in this country. We have accomplished a great deal together. We certainly are a country of geography but more and more we are country of history. We share a common history and we have to be proud of our Canadianism, recognizing the diversity which exists below it.
I think that is the way we can go to make this country a great country.
I am also confident in the idea of giving more power to backbench members of Parliament. It is something that may do a lot with regard to the regional differences in this country.
I am confident that the three main themes outlined in the Speech from the Throne are matters in which this country has to progress. The challenges have been set out well in the Speech from the Throne. It is now left to us to shoulder our responsibilities and deal with these matters in order that we may go forward as a confident, vibrant country in the world.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the throne speech, especially since my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin is one of the farthest away from Ottawa. In the eyes of my constituents it is probably thousands of miles farther from Ottawa than it really is because not only in Cariboo- Chilcotin but in rural constituencies across Canada people tend to feel that the system is there for the major centres in the country and for central Canada, but it is not there when they need it for small town Canada.
When we get into a topic such as the throne speech we have people from the centre of Canada, especially from the media and the opposition, leading Canadians, talk
The Address
about its relevance, whether it is hitting the target that it was supposed to and whether it is what Canada should be dealing with over the next year or two. Many of them have been very critical. Many of them have said that it does not do the task.
It made me settle back and do a bit of thinking as to whether it did address the issues that the people in my constituency and in many other rural constituencies feel are important. I was fortunate in that over the past few weeks I had the opportunity to actually spend time with my constituents. As a western member, it takes me 24 hours to go to my riding and back on a normal trip. It is very difficult for me to get intensive time with my constituents. Over the past few weeks I had that opportunity.
I can say that the people I met with and the issues they discussed turned out to be those things that are in the throne speech. The things that were critical to the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin are in fact what is considered by this government to be critical to the people right through Canada.
I had the opportunity to deal with people in the schools, the students and the teachers. I met with business people who were concerned with the economy and employment. I met with native leaders regarding the problems that we are encountering in our area as they pertain to their aspirations and how quickly we are able to deal with them. I was able to discuss with people topics of tolerance and understanding which are not unique to that area but are qualities which are going to be required across Canada in the resolution of the major problems that we are facing today.
What are the Speech from the Throne items critical not only to us here in Ottawa but to the people in the rural ridings and in particular Cariboo-Chilcotin? I will try to go through and itemize the key themes of the speech and explain why they are critical to smaller towns and communities.
Unity: people may question whether that is the principal issue in my area because we have, technically speaking, no communities of francophones in Cariboo- Chilcotin. The people of that area are critically aware of the issues involved in this. They recognize that the resolution of this long outstanding problem is one that is going to be very important not only to Canada but to

May 27, 1991
The Address
them. We had the opportunity to address a number of groups over several days.
Something that the Speaker of this House, John Fraser, has been doing is something that I think is a real service to Canada. He has been trying, when he has time, to address groups. Some of the themes he covered in some of his addresses I would like to point out because they are the ones that some of the people in my area, especially the students and some of the business leaders, feel are critical to this debate.
The Speaker is very knowledgeable in the history of Canada and in the history of its traditions and was able to point out, like nobody else I had listened to, the bearing of history and the need for us to understand it and to know what it is telling us in trying to deal with the unity issue today. Most people, like me, when they think of Canada tend to go back to our Constitution of 1867 and deal with Canada since that time.
The Speaker in his discussion took us way back beyond that to the origins of Canada, indicating that it was the French-speaking communities with the English-speaking communities and the aboriginals who were here before us who formed the essence of what is now Canada. When the English-speaking people of Canada under the British defeated the French-speaking people of Canada on the Plains of Abraham, a remarkable thing happened. Unlike other parts of the world where vanquished and defeated people are treated like beaten people for some reason or other-I do not know the wisdom of this and some will criticize it but I will be maintaining it was a very wise move-they recognized that they did not want to treat the francophones of Canada as a beaten people.
They wanted recognition of who they were and their differences. In fact they were given four guarantees at that time: that they would be able to keep their language, religion and culture, and that they would be able to retain their legal system rather than that of the British.
Because of that decision, which many people may question, some significant things happened that in fact resulted in our ability to call ourselves Canadians today.
Shortly after that decision the American Revolution took place. At that time Canada remained strong with Britain. When I say Canada I am referring to Quebec as well.
The French speaking people of Canada honoured their alliance with the English speaking people of Canada. Because of that, history was probably changed. If the French speaking people of Quebec had sided with the American colonies, the Canada we know today would probably not have occurred.
Subsequently, in 1812 there was also the war between Canada and the United States. In fact, not too many people know that Canadians actually got as far as Washington. We were responsible for burning the White House. That is probably not something we want to brag about too much today.
In the War of 1812, because the French speaking people of Quebec had been treated with tolerance and understanding, they sided with the English speaking people of Canada. They were able to remain intact as a Canadian entity.
Since that time, we have gone through many points of history that I will not try to repeat here. The francophone communities in Quebec and in other parts of Canada, and the English speaking people in the rest of Canada, have been able to stay united and work together.
Because of the difference and the ability to work together, we have retained Canada as it is today, the Canada that we know. Because our ancestors were able to do that, that is the reason why we, not only in the House of Commons but right across the country, must and will ensure that Canada remains intact during our tenure here. That will probably be decided over the next few years.
The unity issue goes beyond just the Quebec fact. I think everybody has realized that. Whereas the Meech Lake discussion did deal and was trying to address the problem with the Quebec issue, we have gone way beyond that now.
In dealing with the fact of unity this year and next year, we must be concerned with dealing fairly and properly with the province of Quebec. It also entails being fair and equitable, and dealing with honour with all the other regions of Canada.
May 27, 1991

Today, nobody thinks we are going to be able to resolve the issue of Canada and its unity by dealing strictly with the issues in Quebec. In many people's minds, the issues pushing up in other parts of Canada, such as British Columbia and the western regions, are just as, if not more, critical. If we do not find solutions to these problems, the reasons for the feeling of alienation by the people in the west and other parts of Canada, we do not have a chance of finding unity for the rest of the country.
It is not just Quebec now. We are able to deal with the regions. Anybody in today's forum realizes that if we do not deal fairly and equitably with the natives, our aboriginal peoples, we will not be able to reach a consensus.
I will deal with the issue of government reform briefly. It is of interest to the people of small communities such as those in Cariboo-Chilcotin. To a great extent, their inability to relate to us here in Ottawa on how we operate is causing many of the problems throughout the country. They are sick and tired of the partisanship, not just from the opposition parties, but from all parties of this House. They want to know that the members who are sitting in this House are representing them in an honest, proper and respectful manner. Any of the steps that we take, as members of Parliament, to achieve greater respect for the people in this House by our constituents is very critical.
One of the members opposite is saying: "Talk to your side of the House". Yes, we will talk to our side of the House and I hope that he will talk to the people on his side of the House. It is all of us together that will be needed to make these changes, but it is the people of Canada that will be the great beneficiaries because they deserve a better system than they have now.
When it comes to the economic competitiveness that was highlighted in the Speech from the Throne, the people in my area of Cariboo-Chilcotin could write the book on this. They cannot survive unless they are economically competitive. In fact, the principal industry in Cariboo-Chilcotin is the principal industry of Canada. It is the forest industry.
The Address
In fact, we produce in Cariboo-Chilcotin 7 or 8 per cent of all of the softwood lumber that is produced in Canada. We cannot think of the economic situation without thinking about world markets, the Pacific Rim, the U.S. and the European markets. We cannot think about those unless we as a nation, and we as a people in our area are truly competitive. It has been in a world market situation for years and years. It is because of that that the industry in our area has responded.
I can remember during the 1981-82 recession the changes the forest industry in British Columbia went through. The changes that they had to make in the subsequent six and seven years to remain competitive on a world basis were substantial. They have totally transformed how they operate. In fact, they are a world class producer. They can compete with anyone on the world in their products. That of course is the ability that we require right across this great land of ours. All of our industries that can be competitive must be. That of course is the issue being addressed in the throne speech.
I could go on, but I would like to start to wrap up now with what I consider to be the most important message that we could bring to Canada during this throne speech; that is, how are we going to be able to achieve the resolution of the major problems that we are facing. I maintain that we have to find a way to change the national self-image.
I am a parent, I was an educator at one time. I think anyone who has been in either of those positions realizes that we cannot create strong children or strong students unless they have a positive self-image. They have to start believing in themselves and in their abilities.
As a nation we seem to have taken a totally opposite tack. Every time I look around I see people telling us why we as Canadians are failures, why we as Canadians cannot succeed. We are told through the media and by so many of our leaders that environmentally we are backward, environmentally we are offenders in the world environment. That is absolutely untrue. We are one of the most significant nations in the world in addressing the problems of the environment and succeeding in it. We have thousands of examples of where we are doing things that no other nation has been able to achieve. We very seldom talk about them.

May 27, 1991
The Address
When it comes to our attitude as a nation regarding our competitiveness, we are continually being told that we cannot compete, that we need to put up barriers to try to protect our industries and our people. That is implying that we do not have the ability to compete with nations around the world. That is absolutely not the case.
To return to my riding, I would like to close with two points. I travelled through my riding from the north end to the south. There are many communities but farther south they tend to have more and more extreme economic problems. I went to Litton, which is at the veiy southern end of the riding in the middle of the Fraser Canyon. It is a very small community. It has basically two industries: ginseng, which employs very few people, and a sawmill.
Just one week prior to my visit one of our national banks found it necessary to remove the sawmill's line of credit. Of course it had to shut down. It did not have the cash flow to continue. This mill employs in the neighbourhood of 100 people directly and half of those people are native Indians who are totally dependent on the income they receive from it.
When I arrived in that town I expected the attitude to be one of gloom and doom. I expected to be hit with all of the problems the town was facing and demands for me to come up with solutions that I would not be able to provide. It was exactly the opposite. I went to that town and met with the native leaders, the leaders of the town, and the people from the mill. I did hear briefly about some of their problems.
However, the people spent more time talking about some of the solutions to those problems. They spoke of how the community like it never had before, natives and non-natives alike, was pulling together to try to resolve the economic and social problems it faced. That is an example of one small town in Cariboo-Chilcotin that is a model for all of us in Canada to follow.
My last point is to indicate again how small town Canada can help to show us the way. We have heard much said about the intolerance of Canada, especially as it pertains to the new situation concerning the RCMP officer who recently graduated. That graduate is going to be serving his first duty in a town in my riding. It was with great pride that I read several articles in the paper, one
editorial in particular, which indicated that in this small town of the Cariboo we were going to be able to show the public of Canada what real tolerance, tolerance at the street to street, block to block, neighbour to neighbour level really means. It is going to be happening in Quesnel, British Columbia.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for speaking up for rural Canada in this House and letting us know a little bit about the views and ideas of his constituents.
I have a similar rural riding to his. I too have been through my riding asking my people their views on Canada, the future of Canada, and where we are going as nation. Some of the issues they talk to me about, I am sure he also runs into in his riding.
I am wondering if we could exchange notes. Possibly we could share and talk about some of the solutions put forward by his constituents.
One of the important matters concerning rural Canadians in my riding is the economic situation of rural Canada and the effect that the high Canadian dollar and high interest rates have had on rural Canada, especially the agricultural industries. I also have some ginseng growers in my riding, as does the hon. member. My riding is mostly tobacco, ginseng, cash crops and supply managed crops. My agricultural constituents are really concerned about the effects the high dollar and interest rates are having on all their products and the uncertainty in the international community regarding the GATT negotiations.
Another of the areas that many of my entrepreneurs and small businesses talked about were the effects of the GST on them doing business. Even talking to students going through the schools, the first thing they brought up was the effect the GST was having on them buying certain materials they need not only for their schooling, but in their day-to-day lives.
The other thing that was talked about a lot in my riding was the closing of rural post offices, rural post offices being the significant spot in many of our rural communities where the federal government is represented. What rural Canadians were saying on the post office issue was that they wanted fair treatment with urban Canadians in terms of having a postal service in their communities.
May 27, 1991

These are some of the issues being brought up in my community, and I am sure the hon. member heard these same concerns in his riding.
In terms of native issues, I have a large native constituency in my riding: the Six Nations, the Mississau-gas and the New Credit. They were really concerned that no action had been taken in some time regarding the issue of land claims and Indian self-government.
I want to have the member's comments on these areas. Maybe he could tell us some of the solutions he has come up with.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the positive way in which he has actually brought his questions out.
It is interesting that we both represent rural communities but, in many ways, there are differences from one rural community to another. I will try to highlight some of them.
The impact of the U.S. dollar, the high value of the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar, is of critical importance to the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin. Obviously most of our economy is based on the exporting of softwood lumber and it is based in U.S. dollars no matter where we sell it in the world. It has been a problem for some time. Of course the critical problem with the lumber industry is world trade and the world markets. They realize that. The demand has to be there. When you get into times like we are in now, that does have a critical impact.
I have explored for many years any ways in which we could, as a country, try to influence the dollar. I had an economist address it for me recently. I asked him specifically if there were more things we could do to reduce the dollar. The answer I got was: "You could do minor things, but basically the reason why we have a high dollar is because the people in this world have confidence in the Canadian dollar as an investment." It is foreigners investing in the Canadian dollar that is driving it up. I do not think that is something that you and I would really want to change overnight, even though the high dollar is critical to us.
I agree with your point on the high interest rate. The high interest rates there have been over the past year has affected the people in my area, not nearly as much as it
The Address
did a few years ago when the interest rates went out of control, but they definitely have affected them. However, I really believe that we should not be talking about high interest rates right now. Our interest rates now are very reasonable. We have the lowest interest rates now that we have had for years and years. There is not an industry in the country that would say we cannot exist or compete with the interest rates we have now.
Our job in this House and as a government is try to ensure that we retain those low interest rates. To do that, we have to follow with the restraint program that we are following and, of course, take all of the steps that are possible and necessary to keep the inflationary heat out of our economy.
Another issue you hit on was the GST. It was brought up in my visits to my constituency. In the opinions I received, it was not critical to any of the industries in a negative sense. It was a frustration adapting to.
There are still many things that we have to do to make it work better.
Most of them, especially in the business communities, recognize the reasons for it. We are a province that has to export, and exporters realize that the manufacturers' sales tax did hurt us and that the goods and service tax, no matter how annoying it is, is there to make us more competitive, to help us in our world trading.
I have 60,000 square miles of rural Canada in my riding. Obviously, I have many, many post offices, some the normal variety of post offices run by Canada Post, but many have been modernized and turned over to free enterprise. In a few communities some people are terribly upset with the situation. Most have accepted it, and feel in many cases they are doing a better job.
Some communities resent terribly not so much what has happened but the way it has happened. They have not had a chance to have the input that they would like. But in most cases the post office, which is a critical element of every one of these small communities, is functioning well in my area. We had problems a year or so ago, but basically they seem to be not only happy with it but in many cases are indicating that some of the changes that have taken place have, in fact, made the service better, better in a way they had not realized before.

May 27, 1991
The Address
You closed on the issue as it pertains to the native Indians in your riding and in mine. Of course in British Columbia we have never had, except for a few isolated examples, any treaties. So within British Columbia the issue of Indian land claims, Indian title, Indian rights, is a critical issue today. I spent many hours last summer at blockades in various parts of my riding. They were not as large as the ones you encountered in Quebec and central Canada, but no less critical to us out there. The issue is one about which the native leaders that I met with are cautiously optimistic with respect to the role the federal government is playing now. They see the negotiation process taking place in British Columbia and they see that they have their involvement in it.
I would say that scepticism is still there, but they are cautiously optimistic that we are dealing with their issues in a proper manner now.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, today is the final day of the special debate on the throne speech which was presented on May 13, 1991. We have had six days of debate on the speech, but there has been nothing said so far by the Prime Minister or any of his ministers to try to explain or justify its contents that changes the essential reality. The Speech from the Throne is an admission by the government of just how precarious a situation we have in this country, a situation that has been created in large measure by this government.
The Prime Minister says the problem is that Canadians are lacking in patriotism and they should be more enthusiastic about their country. Well I say that Canadians are not lacking in patriotism or in enthusiasm for their country, they are lacking enthusiasm for this government and its policies, which are undoing the very fabric of our nation.
It is difficult for a lot of Canadians to have faith in the future of their country when they are uncertain about their own economic future.
In this throne speech, the government appears to have finally realized that there is an important link between the economy and national unity.

My party and myself have been saying for a long time that a strong economy gives a boost to national unity and that Canada can only achieve its maximum potential in an increasingly competitive global economy as a strong and unified nation.
Unfortunately, the government has not provided a clear and meaningful economic agenda in this throne speech. Three months ago, Canadians hoped this government would provide a new plan for economic recovery in its February 1991 budget. In fact, Liberals called for such a plan. It was nowhere to be found then and it is nowhere to be found now.
At the time of the February 1991 budget, just three months ago, the government said that inflation is economic enemy number one and must be kept in check with high interest rates. However, in the throne speech on May 13 we were told, and I quote: "economic recovery depends on reducing interest rates".
This latter day conversion may signal that the government is finally willing to recognize that economic damage is caused by fighting inflation solely with high interest rates and by making the fight against inflation a higher priority than job creation and economic growth. It may signal that the government is ready to consider other ways of dealing with inflation, ways that will not have the disastrous side effects of massive job losses and a shrinking economy produced by this government's present policies.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not the only country to want a low and stable inflation rate but it is certainly the only one prepared to achieve this goal at any cost!
The Economic Council of Canada has been keeping a close eye on the experience of countries such as Austria, Norway, Sweden, West Germany and Japan which have managed to control inflationary pressures somewhat without a drastic increase in their level of unemployment.

The Economic Council of Canada, the government's own advisory body, identified in the other countries I have listed what it called a "social partnership" among business, labour and government. This social partnership, the council said: "seems to offer the key to controlling inflation without creating an unacceptable level of unemployment".

The partnership is based on compromise among the three players on a wide range of economic policy issues and, the council adds, it must begin with a political commitment on the part of the government to full employment. There has been no such commitment from this government, not in the budget and certainly not in this throne speech.
Without consultations on economic goals with all of Canada's economic stakeholders, we must fear that the Bank of Canada, with the support of the government, will continue to fight inflation principally with the blunt instrument of high interest rates and ignore the economic and human costs of lost jobs and lost business activity.
This means that the government would be relying on the very policies that got us into the recession to now get us out of it. That simply does not make much sense.
In the throne speech the government says it wants to create 2.5 million jobs by the year 2000, nine years from now. At first glance, that looks pretty good on paper. However, on closer examination it is clear that the government has set its sights extremely low. Even the finance minister's own department confirms that between 1970 and 1979, more than 10 years ago, the same number of jobs, 2.5 million, were created in a much smaller economy. In that nine year period, from 1970 to 1979, economic growth averaged 4.7 per cent, significantly more than the 4.0 per cent growth rate for the period up to 1995, as predicted in the budget of last February.

This government also failed, Mr. Speaker, to mention in the Speech from the Throne the other economic factors to be considered to get to this 2.5 million jobs figure. Without any indication of the projected population growth or labour force involvement, for instance, the job creation forecast by this govemement in the Speech from the Throne is not of much value.

For example, Canada could create 2.5 million jobs by the year 2000, but still have double digit unemployment of more than 10 per cent. Would this percentage level be acceptable? The government's answer cannot be found clearly stated in the throne speech. However, by setting
The Address
out these targets, it looks like a 10 per cent unemployment level would be acceptable to this government.
I am sure the answer of Canadians is that this level is simply not acceptable. They would not want this to be the target of the government. They would not want this goal to be in effect 10 or 20 years from now. The government should realize that simply setting as a goal something that could happen anyway is just not good enough. Canadians deserve better.
What about the nearly 1.5 million people who are looking for work and need a job right now? What about those people who have lost their jobs permanently through plant closings? What about the job requirements of a growing population? If the government had wanted to back up its words on job creation, we would have seen a commitment to full employment in the throne speech. The 1.5 million Canadians now looking for work deserve such a commitment. This government has an obligation to provide this commitment and to work at starting to carry it out right now.

Mr. Speaker, government policies must ensure coordination among the various factors which will put us in a competitive position-interest rates, tax system and other policies-if we want to achieve sustained economic growth.

The throne speech identifies the importance to Canadians of being able to compete effectively in international markets. Speaking of guaranteeing our economic future, the government says we should begin by "equipping ourselves to compete with the best."
These are beautiful words, but they ring hollow when they come from a government that has decreased its own spending on research and development as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product-the over-all size of the economy-every year since 1986, especially after the Prime Minister had promised to double the level of spending on research and development in this country.
The former Minister of Finance, now the Minister for International Trade, has admitted that: "Canada's investment in research and development has been low by the standards of the main industrialized countries". It was his own budgets that in effect cut spending on

The Address
research and development and science and technology programs.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association says that Canada's ability to compete with its major trading partners is only 85 per cent of what it was in 1980, with most of the reduction occurring in the last half of that decade since this Conservative government came to power. Canada, which relies on exports for almost 30 per cent of its prosperity, has lost 20 per cent of its share of world markets in the last five years and its share of world export trade fell from 5 per cent to 4 per cent.
Fundamental to any country's ability to compete are its exchange rates and its interest rates. Business leaders in our export sector, one of the cornerstones of our economy, continue to identify the high Canadian dollar and high interest rates as key contributors to Canada's declining competitiveness. In addition to helping bring down the value of the Canadian dollar, lower interest rates would also make it easier for companies to make the capital investments necessary to bring about higher productivity and to become more competitive.
Other factors in becoming more competitive include a country's tax system and the quality of its human capital-its people. Government policy must ensure that the ingredients for becoming more competitive are co-ordinated with business and labour to help achieve long-run productivity growth.
The throne speech waxes eloquent about the need for Canada to invest in its people-its human capital. The government already had an opportunity to do something about it three months earlier in its February budget. What did we see? Not only no new programs to help Canadian workers gain the skills they would need to compete with skilled workers from other countries, but we saw that the government actually cut $100 million from its Canada Jobs Strategy. The throne speech did nothing at all to make up for that omission.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, even before we can become internationally competitive, we should take a close look at our national stakes. In the Speech from the Throne, the government was forced in fact to admit that "regulations [-Jmake it simpler for producers to ship their
products abroad than to sell them in neighbouring provinces."

The throne speech calls for an end to interprovincial trade barriers by 1995. This is a worth-while objective but the government set out no clear plan of action on how to reach it.
In 1987, before the government concluded its free trade negotiations with the Americans, Liberals called for a reduction in interprovincial trade barriers within Canada. We believed then as we believe now that our first priority should be free trade here at home-right here in Canada. Why should we embark on discussions for a trade deal with Mexico before we have created conditions for free trade here in Canada?
The same high interest rate policy of this government which has helped undermine our ability to compete has also helped drive up the Canadian dollar to its highest level in years. This, in combination with the GST and other tax policies of the federal government-not to mention the higher gasoline and other taxes imposed by the new NDP government in Ontario-is helping to create an unprecedented exodus of Canadian shoppers to the United States.
It is estimated that in Ontario alone cross-border shopping will result in about $1 billion in lost retail sales this year, representing up to $80 million in lost provincial tax revenues and corresponding, or perhaps larger amounts in federal tax revenues.
I am told that in Kingston, Ontario, a community of about 100,000 people, a report for its Chamber of Commerce by the accounting firm, Ernst and Young, says that cross-border shopping will cost the area 500 jobs and cost local merchants $78 million in lost sales. Kingston is about one hour away from the nearest major American city.
Let us take a look at Windsor, Ontario, 10 minutes away from a major American city. A recent study by the University of Windsor suggests that Windsor and the surrounding Essex County could lose as many as 4,600 jobs and $281 million from their local economy this year alone, all due to the direct and indirect effects of cross-border shopping.
The number of Canadians making day trips to the United States increased 30 per cent in 1990 and is expected to increase even more this year.
May 27, 1991

In Windsor, this past March, more than 25,000 people paid duty at the bridge and at the tunnel. That is an increase of more than 500 per cent from April 1988 when just over 4,000 paid duty. In spite of this increase, the president of the Customs and Excise union local in Windsor says that at times the customs officers are so swamped that they just wave through passengers in cars who would otherwise have to stop and pay duty on their United States purchases. Sometimes as many as six in ten cars are waved through.
This government has not only created the cross-border shopping problem with its policies. It willingly allows thousands of dollars in duties and taxes to go uncollected every day. Canada Customs must be given the resources to properly staff border crossing points. The idea here is not to have some kind of border police force, but rather to make it smooth and efficient for those Canadians who shop in the United States to pay the duties and taxes they owe. It is only fair because these duties and taxes are in effect collected on the same kind of goods when they are sold right here in Canada.
The fact that the provincial sales tax is not collected upon entry into Canada also adds to the uneven playing field that presently exists.
The Minister of National Revenue tries to say that this cannot be done, that collecting two kinds of retail sales taxes on two different sets of items is too complex. He says he will collect the Ontario tax only if it is changed and harmonized with the federal GST, that is, if it is imposed on all the same items in the same way. This is nonsense.
All the minister has to do is go to any store in Ontario and he will find clerks with relatively little training and experience who are dealing with these same two taxes in their current form day in and day out, calculating them and applying them to the right products in the right way. If these retail clerks can do it so can our more highly trained Customs officers if our Minister of National Revenue will tell them to do it.
After all, our Customs officers are already collecting provincial taxes for the Ontario government on liquor brought in by individuals without any problem and
The Address
without these taxes being first harmonized with federal taxes on liquor.
Why is the Minister of National Revenue hesitating? I think it is because he wants to use the issue of the provincial sales tax at the border as a form of political blackmail designed to get the Ontario government to bring in its own form of GST. That is wrong. The federal GST is already enough of a burden without the minister and this Conservative government trying to create more GST at the provincial level.
Furthermore, the federal government and the Government of Ontario should not be so quick to dismiss the idea put forward by border community mayors of differential gasoline taxes in areas close to the American border. After all, a system like that has been operating with provincial gasoline taxes in Quebec for many years. This would certainly go a long way toward making the playing field level for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Your time to address the throne speech is over unless you obtain the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House agree?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that with respect to the current concern about negotiations with the United States on the matter of trade with the United States and with Mexico, we know that in order to get approval from the Congress for fast-track negotiations President Bush promised that before any deal with Mexico would be signed there would be adjustment programs for workers who would lose their jobs because of a new trilateral free trade deal involving Mexico. He promised that companies would not be able to use any trade deal with Mexico to get around tougher environmental and labour laws in the United States.
There have been no such commitments from our government and there should be. Adjustment programs were promised by the Prime Minister during the debate over the last trade deal, the one with the United States. After the deal was signed he backed down on that promise. We now see the resulting economic damage in terms of lost jobs and closed plants day after day.

The Address
No wonder we in the Official Opposition question why Canada should be at the table with Mexico and the United States at all unless and until these questions and uncertainties are clearly and positively dealt with.
I say by way of conclusion that it is not good enough for the government to talk in its throne speech about how great the economy will be eventually. This talk has to be backed up by policies that reinforce our national institutions and by policies that help create strong and swift economic growth.
In order for Canada to remain united it is important that Canadians have confidence in the economic future of their country. That is why we Liberals have been calling for policies that will help us restructure and modernize our firms and retrain our work force.
These steps are truly needed to increase our competitiveness so that we can have strong companies and strong growth in both jobs and output all on a long-term continuing basis.
There are some Canadians who say that at present we should focus only, or at least mainly, on the economy and on developing and implementing those government policies that would help get it moving again. However, Canadians cannot expect to get help from their national government unless we continue to have a country, one united country, from coast to coast to coast.
Therefore, along with giving priority to our economic problems, we must at the same time pay attention to concerns about national unity. Let us also recognize that we cannot have an effective united country without an effective national government.
By strengthening our economic base and our unity as a country, we will be making the best possible preparation for the challenges of the future.
This throne speech does not help us to make such preparations and, therefore, deserves to be rejected by this House and by the Canadian people.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I was most pleased to listen to my colleague from Windsor West stating the case for Windsor with respect to the question of cross-border shopping with emphasis on the number of Canadians who are shopping in Detroit which, if you time your entry into Detroit correctly, you can get there in five minutes rather than ten.
I wonder if my colleague would elaborate a bit not just on the issue of Canadians going into Detroit but on the effect of government policies on the movement of Americans into Windsor and the impact there is on the retail trade and recreational establishments in Windsor which a few years ago were doing quite well with tourism.
To pursue a quite separate and distinct issue with respect to the throne speech, I would be interested in hearing my colleague comment on an omission from the throne speech.
In spite of the suggestion of targets for education and training there was no mention whatever of research and development targets, in spite of the promise of the Prime Minister in 1983 that the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product expended in Canada on R and D must be doubled.
There is also the fact that in other contexts it is widely reported that the government has abandoned all targets whatever for R and D, so I would like to hear his comments on the impact of that significant policy omission and policy change with respect to economic development.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an important point.
There is a very substantial hospitality industry in the Windsor and Essex County area catering to Americans who come over to shop, to dine in our restaurants and to spend a day touring our various places of interest. This industry has been severely damaged by the GST and earlier by the high dollar.
These additional costs have been discouraging Americans from coming over as they have been for years to dine in our restaurants, to shop in our stores, and to visit our tourist attractions. These are mainly day trips.
They are further discouraged by the high volume of traffic at the bridge and the tunnel which causes them to have to wait in line for several hours, sometimes, before they can get across.
This is another reason why we need more staff at these major border crossing points and why there have to be provisions, as we find in a number of international airports outside Canada, where people, like Americans coming to Windsor to shop or to dine who have nothing to declare should be dealt with separately and differently
May 27, 1991

from people who are returning and have to be examined for purchases they made and for duties they owe.
This is an important aspect of the whole problem of cross-border shopping. The government needs to take action on this problem before more permanent damage is done to the economy, not just that of Windsor and Essex County but of all Canada. Most of our population lives within a short drive to the American border. The whole economy is affected by this problem being allowed to drag on without more effective action being taken.
Furthermore, if this government is interested in making Canada more competitive, then the throne speech should have set out some clear targets and objectives for improving the performance of the economy when it comes to research and development and science and technology. All we have so far are the cutbacks in recent budgets by this government of support for private sector and university initiatives in research and development and science and technology. This is not the way to make this country more competitive.
I regret that the throne speech has not corrected the errors of past budgets in this regard. I hope there will be action taken before long, because our country needs to work together, with business and labour supported by government, to improve the level of its competitiveness. That means new and improved government policies when it comes to research and development and science and technology.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a great privilege to rise today as a participant in this historic throne speech debate.
This debate is about the future of a great nation. This debate is about a vision of a stronger Canada for our children. This debate is about building a better Canada for all Canadians from sea to sea to shining sea.
The Speech from the Throne serves as a foundation and is a critical element in the success of our nation. It demonstrates the commitment of our government to Canadian unity, prosperity and responsiveness.
The issue of Canadian unity is an important one. Canadians are now at a turning point in their history. This country is a great nation. We have constructed a country with generations of men and women determined to make a home for themselves and a future for their
The Address
children. Tolerance and fairness, courage and compassion, individual enterprise and neighbourly co-operation have always succeeded in overcoming obstacles and erasing doubt.
Now is the time for us to use these skills to strengthen Canada so that it can meet the challenges of the 21st century.
While we know that a country is more than just a constitution, we also know that a constitution should unite a nation. Canadians across this country should see themselves and their hopes and aspirations mirrored in their constitution. That is not the case today. Therefore, no other task is more crucial than making the constitution more relevant to the citizens, the peoples of the various regions of this country.
Many agree that the final constitutional product is vital for Canada's success. However, it is becoming increasingly more clear that what is also important is the constitutional process. All Canadians must have the opportunity to participate in this process. All Canadians need to get involved so that our way of life can be preserved and enhanced for future generations.
Federal, provincial and territorial governments are now engaged in consulting Canadians on different aspects of making changes to the Constitution. At the federal level, the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future was created to bring Canadians together to talk about the fundamental values and characteristics of Canada.
Parliamentary committees will continue to consult Canadians to find better ways of making constitutional changes. Through these mechanisms and processes Canadians are now developing a consensus about the basic values and aspirations that should underlie constitutional reform.
All of this contributes to an increased understanding among Canadians of how much we have in common as well as an awareness of what we stand to lose. Once we have heard an as broad as possible range of views, and only after receiving and considering the summations and reports of the public commissions and parliamentary committees, the government will propose a plan for a renewed Canada to the people of Canada.

May 27, 1991
The Address
Our government is committed to Canadian unity, but the job of attaining that worth-while goal is not a task for government alone. Canadian unity will be achieved only through a combined effort of all Canadians working together for a better future. Canadian unity will be realized when Canadians recognize and accommodate each other's differences while at the same time focusing and building on our similarities. Together we will build a better Canada.
Our government, in addition to being committed to Canadian unity, is also committed to securing Canada's prosperity.
Canada has one of the highest standards of living in the world and a quality of life second to none. There is no guarantee that such progress will continue. Simply relying on the things that have helped us succeed in the past will not be enough to improve further our material welfare and quality of life.
Restoring economic growth is essential. We must go beyond this to attain economic prosperity. Canadians must work more effectively together in a partnership for prosperity to meet Canada's competitive challenge. As the world economy becomes increasingly more competitive, Canada has been falling behind its trading partners in its ability to compete in the global marketplace.
The most telling indicator of Canada's future economic challenges is its productivity performance. Unfortunately, our productivity performance-how efficiently we produce goods and services-has been deteriorating.
The 1984 agenda for economic renewal outlined the competitive challenge facing Canada and subsequent actions helped to provide a better framework for restoring productivity growth. 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.
Governments have a responsibility to create an environment that encourages the growth of competitive and successful enterprise. The 1991 budget announced actions to restore fiscal balance and move toward price stability. This will lead to a stable broad economic environment, increased confidence in the Canadian
economy and will strengthen Canada's ability to compete in a touch 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, 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 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 problems. Only then can they be a part of developing solutions.
I would like to conclude by discussing another very important issue to Canadians, and that is Canadians and their environment. Canadians do care about their environment and are concerned that it is preserved and protected. We are all taking action to protect it and are personally involved in finding solutions.
Canada's green plan is a comprehensive $3 billion action plan which expresses this government's commitment to work with Canadians to manage our resources prudently and to encourage sensitive environmental decision-making. The green plan is proof that the government is listening and responding to the environmental concerns of Canadians. It was developed as a result of extensive consultation with Canadians from all walks of life. It is timely, responsive and sensitive to the needs of Canadians. The government has forged a series of environmental partnerships beginning with individuals and ranging through special interest groups and the private sector as well as municipal and provincial governments. Environmental partnerships extend to the international level as well.
Canada's green plan provides Canadians with information to help them make informed decisions about the state of the environment and to help them understand what we as individuals and as a nation can do in addressing the problems. We realize that unilateral action in itself will not solve all environmental problems. Solutions require everyone's involvement and everyone
May 27, 1991

has a part to play so that we may live in a clean and healthy environment now and in the future.
In conclusion, the Government of Canada in its Speech from the Throne has demonstrated and reaffirmed its commitment to national unity, to economic prosperity and to responsiveness to Canadians. The challenges that the country and the government face are serious challenges and they are challenges that are not unknown in other counties around the world. When we look around the globe, we see other challenges in countries like South America and the Soviet Union, countries having difficulties with violence. When we view all of that and we consider the situation in Canada, we recognize that we do live in a great nation but that we have a lot of room to grow and the challenges are great. These challenges will not be met with an ununified effort.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. Your time is over. Questions and comments, five minutes, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the hon. member on a well done presentation.
In his speech he spoke a little bit about the comparative position of Canada internationally and he stressed the importance of education and research and development as a means of improving competitiveness. These are very good comments, they are excellent comments.
I would like to add one dimension to this whole debate and that is the productivity question, which has been coming up on a regular basis in discussions. I might suggest that you can put all of the money you want into education and research and development but productivity by itself is not going to improve. Productivity will only improve in Canada if we are able to remove all of the barriers between the provinces and if we are able to ensure and secure a market for corporations and companies which produce goods.
The reason I say this is because one of the reasons Canadian goods are more expensive than American or other goods is because many of the companies that produce those goods have short runs on those goods. For
The Address
example, a company that manufactures chairs, plates pens or pencils will produce for a local market. If the market can bear 100,000 pens or 100,000 plates, the company would produce that quantity, while other corporations might enjoy bigger markets and perhaps produce 500,000 or 1,000,000.
As a result of that, the unit price will be reduced and the consumer will get the benefit of that reduction.
I want to hear the comments of my colleagues on the question of removing the barriers between the provinces and the target of 1995, which is very far off and should be moved up.


Mr. O'Kurley:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa for posing such a thoughtful question. Indeed, the trade barriers between provinces are certainly an obstacle to increasing our economic growth. There are a number of things that can be done to address that concern.
We could eliminate a number of things. We could eliminate the policies that favour one province's suppliers over lower cost producers from other provinces. We need to eliminate regulations that often make it simpler for producers to ship their products abroad than to sell them in neighbouring provinces. We need to eliminate hiring policies that give preference to provincial residents over those from other provinces. We also need to eliminate occupational standards that restrict work opportunities for residents of other provinces.
One recent estimate put the number of barriers to interprovincial trade in Canada at approximately 500. The government's goal is to see barriers to interprovincial trade, services and investment come down by 1995 to allow Canada to become a single integrated market.
The savings to taxpayers and consumers of creating such a market could be as high as $6 billion, about $1,000 a year for a household of four. Further, today investment and technology flow with ease across international boundaries, markets for goods and services are specialized, and decisions on production are made on a worldwide basis.

May 27, 1991
The Address
I agree with the hon. member that one of the major issues that the Canadian government should address is interprovincial trade barriers.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise and say a few words on the throne speech. The throne speech is an occasion for members to give some of their personal views and their advice to the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
I, first of all, would like to commend the Prime Minister and his cabinet, as well as the government caucus, for taking some very tough decisions over the last six years and sticking with them. The government needs to be commended for its goals in this throne speech: to emphasize national unity-on which I will say a few words-and to talk about maintaining our high Canadian standard of living, and indeed increasing it.
The fact of the matter is that, even with all of the problems that we have, when we look at Canada vis-avis all the other countries of the world, we come off very well. There are two external measures which we should never forget about. The first measure is the tens of millions of people trying to get into this wonderful country as refugees, often at great personal risk to themselves. There are many thousands each year who are drowned in boats and killed trying to get to safe haven countries like Canada. As well, there are the tens of millions who are trying to come as immigrants. That is an external measure of how well we have done in this country.
I often think that it is the result of the media which constantly are stressing the negative, constantly stressing the very legitimate points of conflict between our ethnic communities in Canada, between our federal government and our provincial governments, and between our regions. That is constantly emphasized by the national media and, indeed, is constantly emphasized here. The problem is that once we permitted television in the House, these conflicts were aggravated because we all play to the television, rather than address the problem. As a result, people tend to forget that Canada is really doing a lot better than we realize, and the immigrants are proof.
The second external measure is the recent study by the United Nations. Nobody can claim that the United Nations is trying to help Prime Minister Mulroney and his cabinet, but the fact of the matter is that when it
measured the human development index for 160 countries of the world-which measures such things as literacy, life expectancy and personal basic disposable income-Canada finished second out of all the countries in the world. That is an external measurement which tells me that as a nation we are doing far better than we are prepared to even give ourselves credit for.
My comments concern that. Frankly, I think Canada has proven itself. I cannot imagine why we, as a people, would permit any group of extremists, whether they are in Quebec or in western Canada, to break this wonderful country up. The one thing that is crystal clear is that if we break this country up we will all be substantially poorer and, for many years, will have an enormous problem trying to redefine ourselves. If Quebec separates then the natives might separate from Quebec and the Out-aouais might separate from Quebec.
In the west, southeastern B.C. has often wanted to be part of Alberta and in the Peace River country there are similar pressures on the opposite side.
When my eastern European constituents come up to me, they say: "Mr. Thacker, don't mess around with your borders because once you start doing that it is a never-ending process." We could break right down into individual cities wanting to be separated. We cannot have that. This is a wonderful country and we have to work together to keep it together.
The Prime Minister deserves more credit than he gets for the leadership he has provided to this country. The courage he has shown and maintained is really quite extraordinary. He deserves credit because he has his cabinet and his caucus behind him. The government caucus deserves credit if we look at reality.
In 1984 we came to power with a certain set of policies. People, whether from the C.D. Howe Institute, the Economic Council or the Department of Finance, have done extrapolations. If we had carried on with those policies from 1984 to today, the deficit would be over $70 billion and the national debt would be well over $500 billion. Obviously there had to be changes.
The opposition has opposed every tax increase, every cut in spending and, yet, had it been in power it would have had to make similar types of choices. The opposition might have acted slightly different, but we could not have permitted the policies of 1984 to continue because we would have a 50 cent dollar. Anybody who thinks their nation is richer when its dollar drops in value just
May 27, 1991

does not understand the reality of economics and does not know the examples of many other countries which have tried to lower their dollar. It might help for a month or two, but beyond that it is a disaster. Countries have to face up to their basic underlying, structural problems, they have to meet the world economy as it is rather than as they think it ought to be. That is the real problem for so many countries, they have not faced the world as it is.
I believe the Prime Minister deserves a lot more credit for the free trade agreement, the GST and, in this throne speech, the comments concerning education.
We know that education is entirely a provincial jurisdiction, but it is also clear that if the Fathers of Confederation were putting the country together today, they would have given power to the federal government over post-secondary education because that is an area where we are not getting enough specialization and graduates to cope with the world. The reason is quite simple, we have 10 countries with regard to post-secondary education and there is enormous overlap and duplication. We need to have a much stronger Canadian hat vis-a-vis education. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not call for that, but we as a national Parliament have to provide leadership. That is what this throne speech does.
Also, for the first time, the national Parliament is starting to say: "Look, provinces, you have turned this country into 10 separate nations vis-a-vis provincial economic development and provincial rules on regulation of industry." We have more barriers to the free transfer of goods and people and commodities in this country than they do in Europe where they are separate nations. Imagine Europe, where they were killing millions 50 years ago, now have fewer barriers to the transfer of money, capital, labour and educated people than we do in this country, which is supposed to be a common market.
I blame this Parliament and I blame past governments, most of whom were Liberal, because the national government should have been stopping these provincial rules that have blocked this nation from being a common market.
The Address
Section 121 of our Constitution clearly sets out that Canada is a common market. This Parliament should have been blocking these rules by using the power of disallowance, for one thing, to keep goods and capital flowing freely across this country. We must start to address that problem and it will take a few years to work it out.
My last point is vis-a-vis the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, why are we in this position? It is because in 1931, Canada became a sovereign nation in every respect except one, the amending of our Constitution. Our previous leaders in this country could not agree on an amending formula. Every Prime Minister since then has tried to patriate the Constitution and come up with an amending formula; whether it was Mackenzie King, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker, Pearson, or Trudeau in the 1970s. When they could not get unanimity, they all properly backed off because the country was being built, it was growing and we still had the second highest standard of living in the world.
Mr. Trudeau decided in 1980, when he got his last majority, to change that. He virtually forced through a patriation of the Constitution as well as a Charter and both have turned out to be disasters. It would have been wiser to have backed off, but he did not. Now we are into this mess. He forced the patriation. Quebec did not sign. After six years of being out, the ten provincial premiers came together representing all three parties in the country and said: "We have to have the Constitution patriated. We have to get Quebec in to sign", because the business of the nation was being hampered. So, in 1986, all ten premiers agreed to have a round. That is what led to Meech Lake.
In Meech Lake, we had all four political parties, all premiers agreeing to it, and then it failed because of the opposition parties in a couple of provinces, as well as a weak Conservative government in Manitoba did not have the courage to stand up and speak for the nation. So we are into it, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to be able to comment on the Supreme Court of Canada and its decisions. The other thing Mr. Trudeau did in 1980 was to transfer massive power to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court, in a couple of

May 27, 1991
The Address
decisions on abortion, on Bill 101, have caused a malaise in the country. Formerly these matters were always settled by way of political adjustments and political compromise. But the court has the power to come down with a hard ruling and that has caused enormous malaise in this country. We are a long way from working it out.
I regret that my time has expired. I need at least 20 minutes to get through what I would like to say.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this final day of throne speech debate to put forward some of my comments and some of the comments from people in my constituency with reference to the plans of this government for the future and the plan that the government seems to have put in place for the past.
On the first page of the throne speech the words jump off the page:
This session will be a turning point in Canadian history.
There are many turning points and we are at a turning point in Canadian history. As I travel throughout my riding, as I travel across Canada into various provinces and territories, I find that there is a good deal of dismay at where this country has been taken over the last six and a half years, both socially, economically and politically.
It is interesting that in looking at our thrust toward unity of the country the Prime Minister would be so callous as he was the weekend before last, when he said that Canadians are not patriotic. Those types of comments simply are not helpful when we are trying to bridge the gap between Parliament and the ordinary Canadian voter. I object to that type of statement as do the people in my riding and I am sure across Canada.
One of my constituents, Mr. Jim Miltimore of Sum-merland, phoned me and I spoke to him again on the weekend. He vehemently opposed this. He and I feel proud to be Canadians. We are patriotic in our own way. We as Canadians are not necessarily demonstrative. We are not chest beaters. We are not flag wavers. We believe, or have up until now, in our country.
It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister, while talking of the turning point in Canadian history, talking about unity of the country, participation in prosperity, and a responsive government as he has in this throne speech,
at the same time he slaps the people of Canada with a comment like that. Those types of comments are not helpful.
I have spoken of the three main tenets of this throne speech, Canadian unity, participation in prosperity, and changing the way that Ottawa works-that is a responsive government. I want to speak first about Canadian unity and how the members of my community see some of this, and what I have seen in my participation in the finance committee, in the past public accounts committee, and in various travels across the country and throughout my riding.
Unity goes much further than simply talking about constitutional matters, it goes into economic and social well-being. If we look at some of the occurrences across Canada over the last few years, we have watched some of the things that people see as unifying forces being eroded. VIA Rail is an example. Sir John A. Macdonald made the agreement with CP Rail. The Canadian National Railway followed as a unifying force, making Canadians from coast to coast feel as if part of each other.
We have other modes of transportation. We have better highway systems, better air links, but the fact is that many of the small communities, rural Canadians, depend upon the railways, and railway service has been eroded. Our branch lines have been cut. Essentially the whole rail system has been lost in my riding alone. The Kettle Valley Rail Line has been abandoned and they are now in the process of taking it out. The section from Spences Bridge through the Okanagan, through Merritt and Princeton, have also been abandoned approximately a year ago and will soon no doubt be removed.
This is the type of thing that has unified Canada in the past, and with upgrading can unify Canada again. But they are not the only things. The attack on CBC radio and television by this government has been a terrible thing for rural Canada. In my riding alone I have had many petitions and letters of objection. People listen to the CBC for programs such as that hosted by Peter Gzowski, Cross Canada Checkup, Double Exposure. I can go on and name many radio programs listened to by many people in my area. CBC programs in all areas of Canada are always listened to and watched. A good
May 27, 1991

strong national television and radio network has a unifying effect upon Canada. That has been eroded.
Another matter which was debated in the House on Friday on a New Democratic motion is the funding of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This is a major factor of unification within Canada. I would like to quote from a study and a submission made by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to the government in summarizing the federal benefits of the RCMP.
I will quote directly from its fourth point: "The contribution to national unity is beyond dollars and cents.
What price does one put on the presence of the RCMP at our council inaugural meetings or the ever-present white and blue cars on our highways and streets?
It is incumbent on the federal government to sustain the image of national unity. In western Canada the RCMP provides policing and the federal government derives a great benefit to the national identity. The federal government is greatly underestimating the contribution of the RCMP to national unity in these negotiations."
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a part of Canada's heritage. It is looked upon as a unifying factor by many people within Canada. The former Solicitor General proposed to substantially increase the cost to the extent where municipalities in my riding began talking about other options to RCMP.
It does not help to unify Canada when we erode some of the very systems that have brought this country together. Let me give some examples of the problems of passing on taxation from one level to the next level to the next level. Ultimately it comes out of the same pockets: the taxpayer's, the property owner's and the ordinary, middle and low income earner's.
In Penticton, with a population of approximately 25,500 people, the increase the former Solicitor General
The Address
has proposed, under the present system, would be almost $176,000 in increased policing costs for that community.
That passes on a major cost to the municipality. In Summerland, with a population of approximately 8,400 people, the cost is staggering: $72,663 extra under the new formula. In Merritt, also in my riding, with a population of approximately 6,100 people, the cost would be $118,831 in addition to what it is already paying.
The hon. member from Brant, the New Democratic Party Solicitor General critic, has written letters to the Solicitor General pointing out the importance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the unfairness of adding this extra tax burden to the local taxpayers and the major place that the RCMP takes in Canadian unity.
I implore this government to rethink the cost of policing and to rethink passing those costs on.
I would like to quote from a letter I received. It was a letter to the right hon. Prime Minister from Mr. R. J. Shewfelt, the mayor of the municipality of Summerland. Let me quote two sections of that letter to point out the feeling in our area toward the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and toward the anticipated increases in cost. The mayor says:
-we are- a level of government picking our tax dollars from the same tree, the taxpayer, and we find the shifting of responsibility to this degree completely unacceptable and unthinkable. We beseech you to please rethink your application to this agreement as we find it absolutely deplorable.
Mayor Shewfelt goes on to say:
If this action were to come to fulfilment, it would only further alienate the west and we feel this is a very real danger. We feel the west is a trading partner, and surely, we are entitled to the same consideration being given to the third world countries to develop and implement trade.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a real part of British Columbia, a real part of national unity. We in our communities in the Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt riding want it to remain as the main area of law enforcement in our area.
Let me move on to another area. The government has spoken in the Speech from the Throne about more funding for education, et cetera. What we have seen in

The Address
Bill C-69 and in the last budget is the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan and the cap on Established Programs Financing.
It is interesting that some of this is just getting out into the various ridings and they are coming to realize that once again it appears to those in the west and to those in the east, those who are being hit by bills such as Bill C-69, that we are being treated differently. We are being discriminated against for the fact that we live out of the golden triangle of the east. The capping of those funds is because right now we happen to be doing reasonably well economically in comparison, for instance, to Ontario throughout this recession.
Let there be no mistake. There are problems and there are many bankruptcies, but people are realizing that the tax burden is simply being shifted down. Although perhaps the taxes will remain the same at the federal level and they may even remain the same at the provincial level, the municipalities must balance their budgets. In balancing their budgets, they have to come up with the tax money to cover these various expenditures. Taxes are passed on to the property owner who lives in the municipality.
The boundary country has some 200 signatures attached to a letter from Mrs. Thelma Drinkwater of Greenwood, British Columbia. I would like to quote this letter, recently received by my office. It says:
Please find enclosed a petition signed by more than two hundred voters. We protest the passing of Bill C-69. Our taxpayers are already paying out more of their income than they can afford to cover the cost of the Social Services Programs. If we do not receive our fair share of Federal support it will either mean a raise in taxes or a cutback in this service.
Neither of these options are acceptable. We therefore plead with you to make our feelings known on (this) subject.
I speak out, as I have on Bill C-69, to point out to this House that here are 200 people from areas such as Greenwood, Grand Forks and Midway who are speaking out through me in objection to the passing on of taxes to property owners in these areas.
Another thing that unifies this country and assists rural Canada is our telephone system. Before the CRTC right now is an application by Unitel to break down what is known as a monopoly. It may be thought that it is a little bit unusual for someone from the New Democratic Party to speak out for a monopoly. In this case it is very clear that if we deregulate to the extent that Unitel
wishes or let Unitel in on the long distance telephone responses, we are going to run into major problems, problems that certainly Unitel does not want to talk about.
Right now we all know that there is a subsidy of somewhere between $23 and $39 a month for local telephone services. We also get though this our telephones installed for a very limited prices and all of our servicing done for nothing. We do not pay for our local telephone calls. This is at the expense to some extent of greater long distance rates; a way of equalizing, if you will, the difficulties that rural communities have in communicating with each other.
If we allow Unitel to break in to the lucrative long distance market and drop those prices, we are going to see what happened in the United States seven years ago when the cost of local telephone service will go up substantially on every one of our bills. Those people now in the lower income levels who barely get by on the little amount of income they have will no longer be able to afford the luxury of a telephone. Telephones are so essential in keeping in contact with each other in rural communities and so essential for emergency services in rural communities where transportation of a public nature is unheard of. I am worried about this sort of thing happening.
Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that my time is up. My understanding is that I had 20 minutes of time. I still have two minutes of time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Canada Post in the rural areas has to be built up and it is being broken down.
Let me move on briefly to the area of participating in prosperity.
Some of the other members have referred to crossborder shopping and the difficulty for the small business community. We cannot knock people for wanting to get the best value for their dollar.
Right now, they see a problem with what is occurring in Canada. They want to get the best value for their dollar, but they are also protesting the high taxes they see as a problem in this country. The GST, the high interest rates, the high dollar and, to some extent, the free trade agreement all have something to do with people going across the border and buying their goods.
May 27, 1991

It is interesting to look at the free trade agreement as it affects communities such as Osoyoos where I live. Right on the border in Osoyoos, one of the local retailers there, Super Value Store number 36 owner Keith Sheardown, has written me a letter in which he sets out the problems he has just in the area of milk, cheese and what not.
He points out that a Super Value store some 30 miles further from the border is able to sell its milk at a substantially higher price than he does.
While he charges $4.45 for a four-litre jug of milk, across the border that same jug of milk is $1.99. He cannot sell the milk at the same price and this causes problems. It costs jobs and bankruptcies. We are certainly seeing an increase in the number of bankruptcies in Canada and in British Columbia, partially caused by the problem of cross-border shopping.
The throne speech sets out so many things in such glowing terms, but if we look at the history of this government and if we look at what is happening to Canada under this government, it is deplorable. I have one word for this throne speech as a result of that history. That word is: "hypocrisy".


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, part of my riding bounds on the riding of the hon. member who has just spoken. We both have large, beautiful but rural areas. Many of the comments he made indicate that the message he is getting from his constituents is the same message that I am getting from my constituents regarding CBC, RCMP and education.
I guess it is part of the filtering process that this House and the members provide. Many people in my constituency and his constituency give a totally opposite side of that story. I guess that is where the different political parties serve their function, in doing this filtering and in trying to decide what the different solutions are.
It is interesting. Somebody on the weekend from his riding spoke to me about the CBC and felt it was absolutely ludicrous that as a government we are continuing to subsidize this national network to the tune of $1.4 billion.
The Address
They agree that this is a good function to perform in Canada, but is it necessary to subsidize it at that level?
In fact his constituents are encouraging me, and I am sure him as well, to try to retain the value and the benefits of CBC, but to continue to cut the deficit and our subsidies to it.
The same message could be had for the others. One area on which I have to stand firm with my colleague from the Okanagan is his concern for the potential problems for rural Canada as a result of the possible breakdown of the current monopoly situation regarding communication.
I can see as a former businessman the potential for competition by not only businesses but people who live in the ribbon across Canada where 95 per cent of Canadians live.
For rural Canada, it will create a real problem. My question to the hon. member is this: Does he, through his thinking and dealing with this problem, have any potential solution? If Unitel is successful, is there some way that the people in the rural areas of his riding and mine could continue to receive the assistance and the assurance of service that they do now under the existing monopoly system?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: I thank the hon. member for his question.
I will deal with the Unitel situation first of all. In examining what has happened in the United States as a result of the deregulation of the telephone services, in some states it has become massively difficult for lower income people to get service because of the increase in prices, as I pointed out earlier, on existing service. Those are provided. It appears right now that, from the Unitel application as I understand it, Unitel simply wants to get in on the long distance, it does not want to service the smaller communities.
If that is broken, experience in the United States shows that we in the rural communities are in for added cost. We are going to end up taking the lumps for the break up and deregulation of the telephone services.
As I understand it, in British Columbia B.C. Tel, although objecting to UnitePs application, at the same time has put in an application to the CRTC to be able to charge those various rates. That is my understanding. I

May 27, 1991
The Address
am not certain how solid it is, but that is my understanding.
It is an indication that the gears are in motion to increase the cost of telephone services if this goes through, particularly to those of us in rural Canada who depend on the telephone network in order to network, whether it be in business, socially or for emergency services.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my good friend from Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt and it is with respect to the Kettle Valley. I have often wondered, being from Lethbridge, why Kettle Valley was closed down many years ago, because it seems to be a more direct route to the coast.
I am wondering if he might comment on that. I know it was cut by the previous government and that was many, many years ago.
With respect to the RCMP, the people who have approached me are always surprised when I give them some additional information. For example, when they find out that the federal government is paying 25 per cent of the RCMP costs, I say to them: "Why should that be? When the Quebec Provincial Police are funded entirely by the Quebec taxpayer and the Ontario Provincial Police are paid for entirely by the Ontario taxpayer, why should the people in those two provinces pay extra taxes to cover the RCMP who are, in effect, the provincial police force in our respective provinces?" When they see it from that point of view, they often admit: "It is true. They should not be paying for it. We should pay more to handle our own policing."
As for the CBC, when we came to power it was getting $800 million. Today it is $1.4 billion. That is an absolute increase of enormous proportions. It is cutting back for the same reason other media outlets are having to cut back, because there is less advertising as a result of the recession. Why should the taxpayers make up that difference, rather than the CBC having to cut as the other media outlets have had to do?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: First of all, I will deal with the specious argument that Quebec and Ontario are not benefiting. If we look at where forces are placed, although we are getting municipal forces in, say, British Columbia, in Ontario and in Quebec we have the Canadian Law
Enforcement Unit, CLEU, which deals on a broader basis with drug law enforcement and major crime enforcement across Canada. We have many benefits accruing to both Quebec and to Ontario as a result of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In 1951, for instance, British Columbia had a provincial police force. As a result of the unity question, to some extent because of the idea that bigger is better and the new technologies that had to be kept up with, it was felt in British Columbia at that time that the better route to go was to dismantle the provincial police and go with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As we have seen in some major investigations, it has probably proven to be somewhat of a good move, especially when we watch the various municipal or provincial police forces keeping information in an investigation to themselves instead of sharing it resulting in two or three ongoing investigations. There is a definite benefit to all communities and to Canada as a whole from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Let me move on to the CBC argument. In Canada, as a young nation, we have something that I think the members opposite are ignoring to some extent, and that is the cultural aspect of Canada. We are a young country, 124 years old. Our subsidies to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation gave opportunities to programs like Tommy Hunter and Don Messer in the maritimes. People such as Anne Murray received their big break on CBC. If it was not for groups like this and symphony orchestras, for instance, presenting major productions on the CBC, we would not be as far ahead right now in Canada culturally. It services that which is not served by the private sector.
I am sure my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin was probably talking to a broadcaster about this.


Dave Worthy: No.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: He indicates he was not. Without the CBC we would not have had the type of cultural progression that we have had over the past 124 years in Canada. That is something that is beyond money. It is something that we, as Canadians, have to cherish and encourage in order to assist our own cultural communities, whether it be the visual, the spoken or the audio arts.
May 27, 1991

The Address


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker,
I was going to comment earlier that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin had a faulty filter, but I was able to get that in anyway.


Mr. Fisher:: Do it again.


Steve Butland: Do it again? Okay.
I have a question for my colleague concerning the throne speech. I will not go as far as he did and say it is hypocritical, but it may be and I respect my colleague and know his opinion is very commendable. This is a time when the country needs direction. The wondrous words of the throne speech have no direction for Canadians.
A lesson that I have learned from the hon. member, and I think we should all take it, concern his comments about specifics from constituents in his riding and reports to the House. I think the government should take note of that. He quotes from real people and real situations.
The government has a throne speech that gives us a formula for the future, but it has absolutely no ingredients. I would ask the member to elaborate very briefly on that comment.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that if we look at this throne speech and at the past throne speeches since 1988, we do have many of the same ingredients. We do have some of the same wonderful words.
If I can simply quote the conclusion of the throne speech as an example, it says:
My government will work with Canadians to achieve its goals of
unity, prosperity and responsive government so that all Canadians
feel themselves a part of this country, so that all Canadians have an
equal opportunity to share in its bounty-
We have seen in the legislation over the last couple of years an attack on the unemployed through the UIC bill, an attack on average Canadians through the GST, and an attack on the environment through cuts in the environmental bill. Yet the government talks about the wonderful things it is going to do. Actions speak louder than words.
In this particular case, the government's actions belie what it has said in this throne speech. That is why I say this is a hypocritical document.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I thank the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Outremont.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak through you to my constituents and Canadians on what our Prime Minister has presented in the Speech from the Throne.
I understand that I immediately follow our colleagues from the NDP and that there are ideological positions that seem fairly firm to us. They seem to be saying and do say that the Speech from the Throne is a rehash and presents nothing for immediate action. If we really look at the Throne Speech, and I believe I do not do so in a partisan or aggressive way, we realize that before finding the recipe, we must again identify some ingredients and especially the pillars on which a society that is developing extremely rapidly must build its future-and the future is now.
Coming back to the Speech from the Throne, we see three basic points in it. Therefore the government's plan is in three clearly identified parts. First comes unity. As we say in the Speech from the Throne, a united country is the best guarantee for the survival of our way of life. Psychology, sociology and a knowledge of society and nature are the basis for this statement. There is no doubt that to have diversity, common projects are necessary and unity must be a prime consideration. Without unity, there is chaos. The government therefore wanted to put first and foremost this basic concept of national unity, a united country, and to do so, as other speakers have said, the government will set up some committees that are necessary, not superfluous, to determine more precisely the pith and essence, the thinking, needs and dynamics of individuals and the population as a whole.
The second part, as was said, deals with prosperity. For an organization to prosper, it must have unity of thought, action and direction, as teachers of management know. Prosperity is a result of this unified approach. The government is not afraid to say that it wants this prosperity under certain conditions and identifies very specific objectives: participation in the creation of 2.5 million new jobs. This is a concrete goal, a goal that can be reached since the Conservative government, from

May 27, 1991
The Address
1984 on, has been constantly faced with goals difficult to attain, but identifiable, identified and reachable.
So, 2.5 million new jobs and an increase of at least 25 per cent in real income by year 2000 are a necessity. The last few years we have heard talks about an apparently vanishing middle class in our society, which would have only richer and poorer people. There is no need right now to discuss this argument. But there is no doubt that, with an increasingly fast development in our society, this so-called middle class is having difficulty ascertaining its future, and that is why the government, conscious of its responsibilities and conscious of the evolution of society, has decided, on top of creating jobs, to increase by at least 25 per cent the real income of people. This will allow society to develop more in terms of well-being.
The third point: the government, as always but in a more immediate way, wants to be more responsive to the concerns of the people. The priorities of the citizens are, as they should be, the main concerns of the members of this House. This is the third element of the Speech from the Throne and I am, I repeat, very glad to be able to comment on what our government is doing in that field.
If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will quote broadly from a document submitted to the Belanger-Campeau Commission. For reasons only it knows, the Commission did not make much use of this submission by the Professional Corporation of Psychologists of Quebec. The paper is entitled: "Collective identity and evolution of Quebec society". It seems appropriate, in the context of the Speech from the Throne, to pick and read to you a few quotes.
Almost at the very beginning it says: "-the increase of mental health problems is isomorphic with the severity of the social problems encountered the last few years." Psychologists often use expressions- You are motioning to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have only two minutes left when I have not even started. I will go faster.
Quebec has one of the highest rates of suicide among young people in the Western world. Overconsumption of tranquilizers and sedatives-the reason why it is said we are going through the tranquillizing revolution-problematic relations with the ethnic minority groups-which were again illustrated by the native crisis-an aging population, all of which do not hang well with the shaky
integration of our youth on the job market, the overall modification of the family structure, an impoverishment of social groups most vulnerable to the economic slowdown, and, lastly, as is often reported in the newspapers, the growth of openly demonstrated forms of domestic, family, urban and racial violence and others.
I must cut my comments short, because I do not have much time left. But, Mr. Speaker, if the psychologists, with all their conscientiousness, inscribed this statement at the very beginning of their document, it is essential that our societies come back and take up this notion of a united country.
Let me conclude-Do I still have time left, Mr. Speaker?
I would like to read you an extract from an article. I am quoting myself if I may: "In the past, Quebec's history often merged with that of Canada. This cannot be otherwise because we are part of Canada. Quebec's importance on the federal political scene gives us a good indication of the influence we have always had on the orientation of Canada's destiny. The importance of Quebec in the Canadian entity can only grow bigger, if such is our wish. We are, today, in a position to play an even greater part than ever before. In a not so distant time, the Quebecers will be considered by the rest of Canada as the ones who sounded the alarm when it was still time to do so.
I would have liked to tell you that Sir Wilfred Laurier, twenty years after Confederation said, as the Prime Minister mentioned-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Outremont, but I have already given him more time than was allowed to him.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Bou-rassa.


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation.
I would like to ask him a few words of explanation. As a psychologist, when he was talking about the concerns of the citizens, which are, by their very own nature, individual concerns, how does he think that, as a government, we can reconcile individual priorities with government priorities, which are to insure the collective
May 27, 1991

well-being and, consequently, the well-being of the majority?


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking such a relevant question. There is no doubt that individual and collective needs can go together, provided that this concept of unity is put forward, as is indicated in the Throne Speech.
Within a concept of unity, individuals can find some sort of personal satisfaction through the fulfilment and the development of the whole group. As a matter of fact, you can find autonomy in the recognition and acceptance of your reliance on others. It is only through this recognition of your reliance on others that you can find autonomy. It is only through its reliance on others that Quebec can find its own autonomy and at the same time recognize that it belongs to a bigger whole, Canada.
But I repeat in concluding, Mr. Speaker, that it is this first theme, which is exciting, and which is presented in the Throne Speech, this fundamental concept of unity, a united country, which is the best guarantee of the survival of our lifestyle.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot ask my question en frangais but that will come in time.
The hon. member talks about collective rights and the issue of unity. I would like to know what his feelings are on the collective aspirations of aboriginal people within Quebec and throughout Canada. How do they fit into the scheme of constitutional reform and the effort to achieve unity in Canada? How do the aspirations of aboriginal people fit in with the prevailing Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other considerations?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The hon. member for Outremont has 60 seconds.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer in French, if I may.
I think this question is absolutely relevant, fundamental and necessary. It is one that has to be brought up in the debate. It is rather easy, I would say, for a member from a minority group such as I am to understand the
The Address
fundamental needs of the group you belong to. As I said, we can only recognize someone else's need once we have come to terms with ourselves. There is no other way. I would say that both Quebec and Canada are going through a maturing process right now and the more the country and the people will get to know themselves "from within", the more they will be able to integrate and involve minority groups which should have their place among us because it is through such groups that Canada can grow. I hope that we will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I thank the hon. member for Outremont. Unfortunately, his time is up. On debate, the hon. member for Levis.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 1991, the government formalized the major national concerns of the Canadian people and outlined what the main themes of the federal legislation and administration will be for the next few years. In view of the present constitutional concerns of the Canadians, it was normal to define this constitutional context in the Speech from the Throne. But we also know that, as important as national soul-searching might be, it will never prevail over quality of life, the preservation of our social programs and the protection of our environment in the eyes of the Canadians, all of which depends on the productivity of our capital and human resources. The Speech from the Throne, of May 13, 1991 stated:
Increasing economic prosperity is first and foremost an issue of
people.
We are entering the age of knowledge and how well Canadians live will depend on how well they learn. To face this particular challenge, the government announced the forthcoming release of a work paper on education.
The federal government is wondering if the $11 billion it spends every year on education is well spent. The results are not convincing: "Three out of ten students drop-out of high school before graduating. Four out of ten adults cannot read or do math well enough to perform everyday tasks."
Included in the Speech from the Throne are the following education goals for the year 2000: cutting illiteracy rates in half; ensuring that ninety percent of Canadians attain high school diplomas or the equivalent by age twenty-five; doubling the number of post-secon-

May 27, 1991
The Address
dary graduates in mathematics, the sciences and engineering; and quadrupling the training provided by employers to their employees.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should find innovative means to help us achieve those goals, at a minimal cost. In Canada, education is financed by the school boards with property taxes, and by the federal and provincial governments, mainly through taxation and loans.
Consequently, almost $11 billion are transferred from the federal to the provincial governments, where those $11 billion are eaten up by various provincial bureaucracies, major education institutions, universities, school boards, et cetera.
All those institutions try to anticipate our collective education needs, that is the number of students opting either for humanities or sciences, the number of elementary schools, the number of colleges and universities, the various services provided to students, the curriculum, the option systems, the credit systems, students' preferences and the demand.
At one end of this planning pyramid, you will find schoolchildren and students who often have to attend schools not of their own choosing, travel by more or less adequate means, and specialize in hard-to-define areas because of the very large number of options available. Too often, the only reason students stay in school is to meet the criteria set by the experts and in the end, get a diploma in whatever subject, also certified by the experts.
Mr. Speaker, I think our education system has lost its focus which should be our students. Our education system does not realize that we live in a market economy. To change the system, the bureaucracy will have to give way to the laws of supply and demand, and to achieve this, all levels of government will have to change their funding programs for education.
Instead of letting public funds, as so often happens, serve the interests of huge bureaucracies, they should be channeled directly to the beneficiaries, in other words, the students.
Governments will have to start implementing a system that provides students with study qualification certificates.
With these certificates, students will be able to choose their subjects, schools, teachers, and so forth. The qualification certificate system could initially show a preference for science and engineering, since those are the areas where the need is greatest and where we have the most catching up to do. The system will encourage private and public educational institutions to compete and also give those institutions an incentive to be more market-and efficiency-oriented. This system would also be a major incentive for the big bad unions, which, unfortunately, are often so concerned about the vested rights of their members that they tend to overlook the needs of young people and the labour market.
The qualification certificate system would do away with a burdensome bureaucracy that has not always proved to be worthwhile. Transfers to lower levels of government must be replaced with transfers to the users themselves.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians must be able to make their own decisions on their future. It no longer makes sense to have bureaucrats decide what careers our young people will choose and how they will prepare for those careers.
In fact, President George Bush recently suggested that U.S. federal funds for education be made directly available to the parents of young Americans, so it would be up to parents and their children to choose their schools or other educational institutions.
Mr. Speaker, in our discussions on educational reform, we should take a look at some examples on the other side of the border. The city of Milwaukee, in Wisconsin, has made qualification certificates available to enable its young people to choose the schools where they want to study.
Similar programs have been implemented in Iowa, Arkansas, Utah, Ohio and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, this concept of channeling transfer payments to young students will form the nucleus of my representations to those who govern this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Questions and comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cardigan.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, as members of Parliament begin the third session of
May 27, 1991

Parliament, it is appropriate to look back over the last two and a half years since I was elected to serve the Cardigan riding.
In the period of time since I was elected, I have learned many things and I have met many people. The most important thing I have learned is that serving the hard working people of eastern Prince Edward Island is one of the best jobs I could have.
I thank the people of Cardigan for the trust and respect they have placed in me. As I listened to the Speech from the Thone, one thing kept entering my mind, and that was the government record. For my constituents, the people of Prince Edward Island, it is difficult to find much good in the record over the last seven years.
While this government has presided over the six best years of economic growth, the disparity between Atlantic Canada and the rest of the country has grown. While the economy was booming in central Canada, the fishery was failing. While the government was talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, it was jobs leaving Prince Edward Island. An example is the closure of the CFB in Summerside.
This government has had six years of expanding revenue and still has failed to control the deficit. In all fairness, the record of the government is bad. With a record like this behind it, it is hard to believe any of the vague promises in the throne speech.
Much of the throne speech is concentrated on the constitutional crisis that we are now facing. I would like to make perfectly clear that Quebec was not left out in the cold when the Constitution was brought home in 1982. Quebec was led by Rene Levesque, a man who was dedicated to Quebec's separation. Then Prime Minister Trudeau could have offered Levesque the moon and the stars and he would not have signed. Only one thing would have been acceptable to the PQ government in 1982, and that was Quebec's separation.
The situation grew worse when the Meech Lake Accord died last summer. I will not get into the argument of whether Meech Lake was good or bad. Today that is not important. What is important is why the accord failed.
The Address
The one person responsible for the failure of Meech lake was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister pushed and pushed until people were backed into a corner. Most people react negatively when pushed into a corner. With his famous "roll the dice" comment, the Prime Minister destroyed much of the goodwill in the nation.
The decision now is: Where do we go from here? We in the Liberal Party do not want to play politics with the country. That is why we support the principle of a new constitutional committee to evaluate the concrete constitutional proposals. However, we disagree strongly with the timetable the government is trying to impose.
The new committee is to start work in September and is to complete work by January 1992. The framework is simply too short. Because the committee is to develop the government's negotiating position, it will just leave a few short months before the proposed Quebec referendum.
The Prime Minister is painting the country into another comer where he could roll the dice again and lose again. To avoid that situation, the government should put its cards on the table by June 1 and have the committee start working thereafter. Anything that would save time certainly should be considered.
I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker, what I think should go into a renewed Constitution. Any constitutional change should reflect the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All Canadians have a strong attachment to the charter. The preservation of our fundamental freedoms is supreme, and no amendment to the Constitution should change that.
We should also look at writing an inspiring statement of the nature of Canada. The statement should outline all those things that make Canada the best country in the world. It should state the values that we share, commitment to our two official languages, recognition of our diverse cultural heritage, recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec society and recognition of the role of the aboriginal people.
When the Fathers of Confederation wrote the Constitution of Canada in 1867, they divided the powers, giving to each level of government the powers they felt appropriate. What was appropriate in 1867 may no longer be

May 27, 1991
appropriate today. After all, the world has changed a lot in 124 years.
The fundamental principle must be that the power should rest with the level of government that can handled the matter best. The focus should be what is best for the people, not governments, bureaucrats or politicians. In many areas the federal and provincial governments could co-operate. An example is the environment. The federal government should be able to set up guideline legislation stating national standards, leaving it up to the provinces to adapt these national standards to regional and provincial realities.
Historically the federal government has used its spending powers to enter into areas of provincial responsibility. The problem in the past has been how to reconcile the limitations of the spending power with the needs of national standards.
With a change in the division of powers, it becomes possible to achieve a constitutional limitation of the federal spending power without compromising national standards.
Over the last year much attention has been paid to the problems facing Canada's aboriginal people. There is a broad consensus and understanding in Canada of the need to deal with their status, rights and claims. A constitutional reform package must enshrine the rights of the aboriginal people to self-government.
As it stands right now, most areas of the Constitution can be amended with the 7-50 formula, with seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population. However, for many Canadians this is not acceptable. A new amending formula should recognize the basic equalities of the regions of the west, Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Each region should have a veto on any constitutional changes that are not in the interests of the people living there.
These are the things I would like to see in our new Canadian Constitution. The stumbling block is our attitude, because in many ways we are our own worst enemies. Canadians are often too harsh on themselves and other Canadians, and that has to change. Far too often we get caught up in the small problems of life. We get caught up in the rat race of life and do not take time to consider how good we have it here in Canada.
With all our problems, and there are many, it is difficult to look under the grey tarnish at the sparkling silver underneath. It is often said that Canadians envy Americans because they are so patriotic and proud to be Americans. The time has come for each and every one of us to say that we are proud to be Canadians. I am proud to be a Canadian.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for a very insightful speech on the Speech from the Throne.
I do believe it is a time for all Canadians to look deeply within ourselves to come up with the solutions to the unity problems that confront us. If we cannot resolve these problems, then we cannot continue with this wonderful life created for all of us.
If the member has a moment, perhaps he would like to spell out some of the economic problems and consequences of this government's actions and whether he feels this throne speech answers any of them.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.
There are numerous economic problems. The disparity between the Atlantic region and the central part of the nation has increased over the last number of years.
One of the areas I am involved with is fisheries. The lack of the government's initiative to put funding into wharf repair has been a major problem for the fishermen of Cardigan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I am sorry but I have to interrupt the hon. member. It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Members' Statements, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 31
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out to this House and all Canadians that the Medic-Alert Foundation has designated the month of May as the Medic-Alert Month.
May 27, 1991

The Foundation is a non profit organization that has helped protect some 600,000 Canadians in the last 30 years. Those Canadians enjoy not only a distinctive identification bracelet recognized in Canada and across the world, but also a 24 hour a day health emergency information service. This service is particularly important to inform health professionals in cases of sudden illness or accident.
The theme selected this year for the Medic-Alert Month underlines its role: "Medic-Alert speaks for you".
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate that excellent organization for their efforts, and to formally support their statement designating the month of May as the Medic-Alert Month.


SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Department of Fisheries and Oceans announced that it would not be honouring a contract with Georgetown Shipyard in my riding worth $7.5 million and over 100 jobs, a contract that had been signed for 15 months. Because of the signed contract, the shipyard could not seek other work or pay penalties to the federal government.
This contract cancellation is yet another blow to the people of Prince Edward Island. Crumbling wharfs, increased lobster sizes, and now this.
When the new minister was appointed, the people of P.E.I. had hoped for better treatment than they received from his predecessor. Sadly, this is not the case.
I urge the minister to take action now. He should restore the contract now. Failing that, he should provide compensation to the shipyard to help preserve the jobs of 100 people whose UI has run out.



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, once again the lack of a comprehensive shipbuilding policy is rearing its ugly head. Instead of there being adequate work for all shipyards in all regions, and
instead of government work being assigned on the basis of ability of the shipyards, it has apparently been assigned on the basis of who has more clout in cabinet.
How else can the weekend's announcement of the withdrawal of a $7 million fisheries patrol boat contract from the Georgetown shipyard on P.E.I. be explained. They obviously have no clout with cabinet.
Canadians want fairness. They want the frigate contracts awarded to the region or regions which need the work most. They want the work done in yards that know how to build ships at a cost Canada can afford. What they do not want is a contract awarded on the basis of the minister of defence having been a former vice-president of one of the two competing companies.
Canadians want fairness. Hopefully for the people of Pictou, Halifax, Dartmouth, Port Weller, Thunder Bay, and Georgetown, this and other contracts will be awarded fairly, not by the politics of fragmentation.


PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-East):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Access Awareness Week and I would like to invite my colleagues to support those men and women, in their ridings, who try to help people with disabilities participate more fully in the socioeconomic life of our country. In just four years, this national week has allowed us to create an impressive network of partners from coast to coast. Today, thanks to this partnership, people with disabilities can hope to have equal access in areas such as transportation, housing, employment, recreation and education.
This strategy supplements other measures taken by the government in order to promote equality of opportunities for the disabled, including a review of legislation concerning the disabled, the 1991 post-censal survey on disability, and tax measures announced in the February budget.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that considerable progress has been made with regard to the integration of people with disabilities. It is also true that the Decade of Disabled Persons, declared by the United Nations, has had a positive impact on our national week, but we should not stop there. We must keep going and not be afraid to

May 27, 1991
innovate because, as is said in this year's theme, "Access is a right".


ETHIOPIAN JEWS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the world witnessed an incredible humanitarian exercise by Israel for its lost and isolated tribe, the Ethiopian Jews-called Falashas, which means outsiders. They brought home 14,500 men, women and children in a family reunification exercise of great daring that ended their exile of 3,000 years. In a dramatic airlift, expeditiously carried out over 36 hours with complex logistics, there were at one point 28 aircraft filling the sky winging their way home.
The importance of this undertaking at this time in the history of Israel, while coping with high unemployment and the integration of an overwhelming Russian immigration, is of particular importance. It is a message of hope from a small democracy where neither race nor colour nor creed will stop them from responding to their brothers and sisters, wherever they might be.
This is an important message in today's uncaring world. I ask all to ponder what other nation would, could and would want to undertake such a mission. May this success bring personal enrichment and fulfilment to all. Yasher Koach.


CFB CALGARY
Mr. AI Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Forces Base Calgary plays a major role in maintaining Canada's defence capabilities. It should not only remain as part of our strategic defence network, but it should be improved and strengthened.
As our defence needs evolve, it will be increasingly important for Canada to have strategic forces concentrated and well positioned to respond quickly and efficiently to national and international requirements.
Canadian Forces Base Calgary, at the centre of western Canada, is particularly well suited to provide immediate response in our region. The city of Calgary provides first-class infrastructure and community support for the
base. This allows the base to focus on its operational requirements and makes it one of the most efficient in the country.
I urge the Minister of National Defence, if and when he is considering base consolidations, to recognize the importance of Canadian Forces Base Calgary to western Canada, and particularly the mutually beneficial relationship that it has with the city of Calgary.


COAL MINING
David Charles Dingwall: The Westray coal mine in the Tory provincial constituency of Pictou East is the home of the premier of the Province of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Don Cameron.
The Westray coal mine has entered a contract with the Nova Scotia government whereby it will supply 300,000 tonnes of coal for a 15-year period.
This particular operation has been supported by the Government of Canada. It is one of the best examples of the free enterprise system. There are 300,000 tonnes of coal going from a coal mine which is in direct conflict with the Cape Breton Development Corporation situated on the island of Cape Breton.
What is disgusting about this particular operation is that this 300,000 tonnes of coal is guaranteed by the Government of Nova Scotia even if they do not mine it out of the ground. What a wonderful free enterprise exercise by the federal Conservatives of Brian Mulroney and the premier of Nova Scotia. Shame on both your houses.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, handling of immigration cases has repeatedly been in the news of late.
Last week in Manitoba, the CBC aired an investigation report concerning allegations concerning the conduct of an immigration consultant in the city of Winnipeg.
As a direct result, it appears that we have three subsequent investigations being conducted into activities of three individuals around this case.
May 27, 1991

But, there are no rules or regulations governing immigration consultants. As a result, many immigrants and potential immigrants may be taken advantage of due to their frustration with the immigration system here in Canada and by their fear of becoming a victim of others.
I urge the minister of immigration to communicate with his provincial counterparts to instil some order to this widespread chaos.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today a rally of Canadian friends of Burma reminded us that one year ago today, the people of Burma elected an opposition party to 457 seats, more than 80 per cent of the Parliament of Burma.
This amazing democratic victory was blocked by the military supporters of the former dictatorship of Burma, according to Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department.
The military refused to allow any of these opposition members to be seated in Parliament and imprisoned more than 70 of them, along with many hundreds of leaders of the parliamentary opposition.
Nevertheless, Canada continues to recognize this unlawful and violent military regime. Petro-Canada, of which the Canadian government is the sole shareholder, has a contract to develop oil in Burma for the enrichment of the military.
I call on our government to condemn publicly this military attack on parliamentary government in Burma, to recognize the lawfully elected government, to withdraw recognition of that military dictatorship and to cause Petro-Canada to abandon its contract with that dictatorship.


SOCIETE RADIO-NORD INC.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Societe Radio-Nord in Abitibi-Temiscamingue is going ahead with a restructuring proposal for its AM radio network and news service.
People in the great region of Abitibi-Temiscamingue will lose their local news bulletins on television during the summer.
The company rejects a work-sharing proposal for all employees. The union was ready to make concessions representing some 20 percent for all employees.
Mr. Speaker, the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region will lose its right to express itself on television and on the Radio-Nord Inc. AM network.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last week's decision by the National Energy Board to limit Ontario Hydro's application to export electricity to three years instead of the requested fifteen years is good news. Ontario Hydro could not tell the board how the energy will be generated and what the environmental impact would be.
The National Energy Board made the right decision. If our economy becomes more and more dependent on the export of electricity, we will continue to damage and even destroy the environment in Canada to satisfy the insatiable energy appetite south of the border.
Instead, we should support like-minded Americans who are pressing for energy self-sufficiency through conservation, efficiency and the development of renewable resources of energy such as biomass. We should do the same in Canada.


ONTARIO BUDGET
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when most provinces are doing their best to control spending and reduce the burden on taxpayers, the Ontario NDP government has chosen to spend $9.9 billion it does not have to artificially stimulate economic growth.
After long months of fighting the war on inflation through prudent fiscal management, interest rates are beginning to fall and many economists are predicting the recovery will begin in the second half of this year.
At a time when most provinces are doing their best to control spending and reduce the burden on taxpayers, this budget threatens to bring back high interest rates. It will not be just the people of Ontario who will suffer as a result of this wanton spending. If the economy grows too

May 27, 1991
Oral Questions
quickly, inflationary pressures and high interest rates will return and choke growth in provinces such as New Brunswick where the economy is not as strong or diversified.


OPENING OF EMBASSY IN JAPAN
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have here a draft copy of the menu used at the extravagant buffet reception hosted by the Prime Minister at the opening of the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo. At one table there was loin of muskox with pheasant cocktail sausages, and another with wild turkey brochettes in almond nuts. If that didn't suit your palate, you could visit another table of smoked char with dill mustard sauce. To say nothing of the dessert tables featuring delights of peach crepes in whisky or wine jelly in tulip lattice.
Only a few privileged people attended this feast. In contrast, last fall 225,000 Canadian children had to use soup kitchens, food banks or breakfast programs. Do they understand why this government feels the Tokyo extravaganza was a better use of taxpayers' money than reducing child poverty? The 6,671 Canadians who went bankrupt in April were not among the lucky few at our Tokyo palace. They and their families can look forward to meals that will definitely not compare to the Prime Minister's buffet.
Canadians are not pleased at all with this government's version of "let them eat muskox".


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Access Awareness Week, a time to recognize the contribution of Canadians with disabilities to the life of our country. It is also an opportunity for Canadians from all sectors of society to join together in partnership and to recommit ourselves to breaking down the remaining barriers to full participation, both physical and psychological.
The theme for 1991 is "Access is a right". People with disabilities have the same right as their non-disabled
fellow Canadians to become full and active partners in our country's social and economic life.
The federal government is profoundly aware of the need to ensure equality of opportunity for Canadians with a disability, a rich human resource we cannot afford to ignore.
In 1985 the Prime Minister issued Canada's declaration on the United Nation's Decade of Disabled Persons. Since then, the government has built a solid record of leadership on issues affecting persons with a disability.
As the decade of disabled persons declared by the Canadian government draws to a close in 1992, it is reassuring to note the government's continued and unwavering commitment. I call on all Canadians to join the government in pursuing the goal of full participation and equality for all citizens.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In Quebec, the number of people looking for work rose from 346,000 in March 1990 to 468,000 in March 1991. During the same period, Mr. Speaker, the official unemployment rate rose from 10.4 per cent to 13.9 per cent. As a group, young males were the worst off, with an unemployment rate of nearly 24.4 per cent.
What does the Conservative Government intend to offer in the way of concrete measures to help half a million Quebecers who are desperately seeking work?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a matter that is important for young students across the country.
This year, under Challenge 91, we intend to spend more than $28 million to encourage the private and public sectors, since both have a responsibility in this area, to help our young people with summer jobs.
May 27, 1991

And that is why this year, $28 million will be invested in the student employment sector to help these young people find jobs.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister, who probably received this aggressive pamphlet against the recession, published by the Confederation of National Trade Unions.
On the weekend, on Friday, the Quebec Liberal caucus met the CNTU to discuss the recession. Does the minister realize that although the same pamphlet was sent to all ministers in the Tory government and all Quebec members, they have yet to respond and meet the CNTU? The unemployed don't want vague promises. They want a concrete and specific program to deal with the unemployment crisis.
Is the minister prepared to implement the CNTU's six concrete proposals for dealing with the recession in Quebec?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on the six proposals mentioned by the hon. member.
However, I can inform him that if we here in Canada want to try to achieve the kind of economic recovery that will help create jobs so that the young, the not so young and in fact everyone will have a job in this country, we first have to deal with the structural problems in our economy which were addressed in the last budget brought down by my colleague, the present Minister for International Trade and Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
It's all very well to let people believe the problem can be resolved by throwing money at it, but during the past few years, this government has proved that structural measures are needed to ensure durable employment for everyone in the future. And that is what we intend to do, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear from the minister's hesitant manner that his government has been marking time, especially since the free trade agreement was signed with the Americans.
On the weekend, people at the CNTU told us that Montreal was like a war zone, with the number of industries in major sectors that have been closed as a
Oral Questions
direct result of the free trade agreement with the United States.
About 7,602 jobs have been lost in Montreal as a direct result of free trade. What does the minister intend to do about this and how is he going to get jobs for those 7,602 workers who were directly affected as a result of the implementation of the free trade agreement with the United States and have received no help whatsoever from this government? What are you going to do, Mr. Minister?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is arguing for a return to local employment initiatives and creating nebulous jobs to make people believe that everything is okay we are not going to do that.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy introduced by this government is aimed at helping our workers adjust to market changes.
The hon. member is fond of telling the world that these lay-offs are a direct result of free trade. On the other hand, I could give a list of economic activities that could also qualify as a direct result of free trade.
Listen, Mr. Speaker, it's like being in a storm, and of course the Prime Minister would like to tell the wind and the waves to stop, but that won't stop them. We cannot, unilaterally, try to prove that the real situation is different.
He knows exactly what I mean, and that is why we intend to keep implementing existing programs to help our workers, not further the political aims of the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport.
Hapag-Lloyd, a major international container shipper, has announced it is pulling most of its business from the Port of Halifax because of the intolerable rail rates charged by the CN monopoly.
This move will result in the loss of hundreds of jobs and over $20 million annually to that local economy.

May 27, 1991
Oral Questions
I ask the minister if he is prepared today to take the necessary steps to have CN lower its rates, and will he instruct the National Transportation Agency to conduct a full inquiry into CN's rate setting structure in Atlantic Canada, or will we have to sit back and wait as the Port of Halifax is allowed to die and drown in a sea of government indifference?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the premises to the hon. member's questions are inaccurate. The situation that is causing a problem for the Port of Halifax is the problem of over-capacity on the high seas between the various shipping lines. It is not a problem of railway rates from Halifax to Montreal.
Those shipping lines have made a business decision based on ocean economics. In fact, a Halifax port official has stated that even if CN had reduced its rail rates to zero, it would not have prevented this move by Hapag-Lloyd and ACL to shift certain business in the way that they have.
We are working with the Government of Nova Scotia and CN to attempt to overcome these problems, including discussions on a double-stack container service which would give certain cost savings. We will continue to work to see if there is an answer to this situation, which we certainly regret and intend to attempt to overcome.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about reducing CN rates to zero. It might be a nice idea if they would give it a try.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Canadian Pacific has long enjoyed massive funding from the federal government which has helped it, among other things, to purchase the Delaware and Hudson Railroad in the United States. This railroad lures business from the Port of Halifax to the ports of New York and Philadelphia because they have better freight rates.
When is this government going to create the atmosphere that gives Canadians a break? When is it going to change the tax structure? When is it going to finally create a truly level playing field for the Port of Halifax?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, every time the government has attempted to change the tax structure in Canada, it
has met with vicious and sustained opposition from the members of the opposition. It is certainly a change to see that one member of the opposition wants the tax system changed.
Another problem, of course, that makes the situation more difficult is the problem of geography, which is a significant factor. Halifax is further from mid-Canada and U.S. markets than New York, and that is another factor we have to contend with. The situation that we are now attempting to resolve in Halifax was not brought about by government action. It was brought about by a surplus of shipping space on the north Atlantic, and that is a fact that no government can overcome.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is Acting Prime Minister today. The Prime Minister has touted this trip to Asia as a mission to increase trade in Canada. Recently in the Throne Speech the Prime Minister exhorted members of Parliament to be more non-partisan. Yet, on the first trip out after the throne speech, he performed the magnificent Kreskin trick, he reads the minds of Chinese businessmen and he dumps on Ontario. My question for the Acting Prime Minister is this: Why is the government jeopardizing trade investment in Canada by bad mouthing Ontario, which has suffered most from this government's economic policies?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Government of Canada did not write the budget of Ontario. We simply reported it.


John R. Rodriguez: He did more than report the budget of Ontario. In fact, what he did was he read the minds of Asian businessmen and came up with the conclusion that the deficit in Ontario was the most important problem on the minds of Asian businessmen. Mr. Nakawasa, the head of the Japanese Businessmen's Association, said: "No, that is not true." Mr. Tom d'Aquino said he had been there for 24 hours and he had not heard Ontario raised once. So my question to the Acting Prime Minister is this: How does he reconcile this blatant political partisanship with the government's reported statement time and again in the throne speech
May 27, 1991

that we ought not be so partisan in our comments in this House and outside the House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Lo Yuk Sui, identified by Julian Beltrame no less, as a local businessman in Hong Kong said, and I quote the article: "Lo was also critical of Ontario's recent $10 billion budget deficit and said he might not have invested in the regal property if he had known the NDP government would raise taxes".
I think it is important for us all to understand that actions that we take in Canada are going to have consequences internationally.


John R. Rodriguez: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. This trip is characterized by the Prime Minister's bad jokes about refugees, by his attacks on his own country, by extravagance and sumptuous living. Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that taxpayers do not have to pay for a trip whose sole apparent purpose is partisanship?


Charles Joseph Clark: That was not the purpose of the trip. That does not characterize the trip.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister and it is on the same subject. The Prime Minister claimed that he was going to the Orient as the chief salesperson for Canada. What he has succeeded in doing, deliberately, in a political way, is besmirching the reputation and the name of a province which happens to have the largest manufacturing base in Canada and which is hurting desperately. Yes, there is a question. My question is, why is the Prime Minister, at a time when there are thousands upon thousands of Ontarians who need jobs, using cheap political purposes to besmirch the economy of Ontario?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Con-
Ora/ Questions
stitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that he is not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister himself told a lie in Japan and Hong Kong. He claimed that business men and women-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please put her question. I am not going to have preambles like that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So here is my question: Why does the Prime Minister pretend that Ontario's economic policies are hurting Canada's development when he knows very well that what is hurting us now is the economic policies of the Government of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, part of Canada's problem is its reputation, which can affect foreign investment, a problem created by the Ontario government's budget. I believe that it is fair for the Prime Minister to mention this reality among others he mentioned in a series of conversations to promote Canada.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise questions on the same topic with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who also happens to be a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario, which presently has over 500,000 people unemployed.
Considering that the Prime Minister's statements were totally and completely rejected by the Japanese officials with whom he met, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to issue a denial of the comments made by the Prime Minister of this country while in Japan?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.

May 27, 1991
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister's constituents will be very pleased and surprised to know exactly how much this minister represents their interests.
I want to ask the minister this question again. Considering the Japanese officials plus the Canadian business people, like Thomas D'Aquino, head of the Business Council, confirmed that this issue has not been raised in these discussions; that this matter can and is creating a major problem for investment in this country, what does the minister intend to do to correct this very serious mistake, this flub, this foolish mistake of our Prime Minister?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I was in Hong Kong and Japan last November. I talked to investors in both places and they were quite positive on the policies that the Government of Canada had been following, policies to get the debt problem under greater control, policies that led to the free trade agreement, the goods and services tax which will make us more competitive as a country for investors looking to invest in Canada; the range of policies on improving our trading capacity, improving the regulatory environment, privatization, all these policies are very highly respected by investors in Hong Kong and Japan. That was the subject of the Prime Minister's speech in both places.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Knowing full well that Asian investors are looking at Canada very favourably, that Japanese investors are investing heavily throughout all of Canada-particularly on the west coast-does he think it is appropriate, and in spite of all these other yahoos yelling right at the moment, do they think it is appropriate that the Prime Minister of Canada goes out and purposely bad-mouths one of Canada's major critical regions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Prime Minister was doing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, in response to that answer, is this. Is it not appropriate to expect the Prime Minister,
when he goes abroad to promote trade with Canada, that in spite of perhaps some of his personal priorities, he considers himself to be representing all parts of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate for the Prime Minister when he is abroad to represent all parts of Canada, which is what he does. It is also appropriate for members of this House of Commons, when they are commenting on activities of the Prime Minister or, indeed, of others abroad, to get their facts straight and not to tiy to play partisan games here on the floor of this House.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Half an hour ago I watched the Prime Minister on national television indicating that the Japanese were very preoccupied, very concerned with Ontario's annual deficit, that it was a major deterrent to Asian investment in Canada. I watched immediately thereafter Tom d'A-quino, travelling with the Prime Minister, indicate there had been no such discussion of Ontario's deficit. I watched the senior Japanese trade official say that the matter had never been raised and was not a concern.
I have a serious question to ask the minister. Why has the Prime Minister of Canada suggested publicly and in Asia, in front of potential investors in the Canadian economy, that this matter is indeed a preoccupation and a deterrent to investment when in fact we have been told by officials, both Canadian and Japanese who were in the room, that there was no such discussion of the matter? Why is the Prime Minister acting this way?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House who has had any experience with international investors will know that particularly after a series of measures, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the national energy program, a steady accumulation of a national deficit, there was very real concern in Japan and elsewhere about the investment climate in this country.
One of the things that this government has done-and it has been difficult, controversial and opposed by members on the opposite side-consistently through the last seven years is try to turn around that reputation so that

this country can continue to merit the confidence of investors around the world.
That is critical to provinces like his, it is critical to provinces like mine and it is critical to this country. So it is naturally appropriate that a Prime Minister, who was elected to try to encourage people in other parts of the world to share confidence in this country and to invest in it, should continue in that practice when he is abroad, which is what he is doing.
I would hope that hon. members in the New Democratic Party and their allies in the Liberal Party who are trying to defend the Rae budget will take a look at the broader picture of what the Prime-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, members of this party are not interested in defending the Rae budget. We are interested in defending the 1.5 million Canadians who are looking for jobs.
We find it shocking that a Prime Minister, the country's chief salesman, would tell investors to stay away from Canada.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister a very straightforward question. Would he concur with the Prime Minister of Canada in recommending to Asian investors that they avoid Ontario, avoid Canada as an investment opportunity? Does he concur in that shocking advice by Canada's Prime Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the Prime Minister's actions consistently since his election as the head of this government to improve and to establish a strong reputation for Canada as a stable economy that can attract investment from at home and from abroad precisely to allow us to continue to create jobs in this country, a process at which this government has one of the best records in the history of this nation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. He still has not given a clear and convincing explanation as to why the Prime Minister in Japan said, and I quote: "Obviously the question of public finances is the single most important factor in any judgment the Japanese make", when the head of the huge Keidanren Japanese man-
Oral Questions
ufacturers' association said this is definitely not the case and they are more interested in their own profitability.
Will the Acting Prime Minister give an explanation of this. He has not done so so far.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member in earlier incarnations met with the Keidanren. Certainly they knew of him and of his works. I have met with them and my colleague, the minister of industry and of trade, has met with them. We know, as the Prime Minister does, that there is a profound and continuing concern about the investment climate in this country among the Japanese.
He will know that as a result of changes this government introduced, in part to deal with the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which he introduced, there were at least two major investment missions carried out here by representatives of the Keidanren and others in Japan precisely to assure themselves about the economic climate in this country. Of course they are interested in this climate. All of their activities and all of our contacts with them over the last several years including, I am sure his own, indicate that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister; if the Japanese are so interested in the question of public finance, can he explain why the Prime Minister had to admit that at the dinner they had with him, they did not even bring up the subject. That does not show much concern, does it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what on this Monday afternoon has caused the two opposition parties to come-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The 1.5 million unemployed Canadians.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes. We are interested in the 1.5 million Canadians in search of jobs too. We know that requires an investment climate in this country that will attract investment from abroad, and that is what we are seeking to achieve.

May 27, 1991
Oral Questions STEEL INDUSTRY


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Union and administrators of the Canadian steel industry are in Ottawa today. We all know that the Canadian steel industry is at peril.
The minister is no doubt cognizant of the fact that the American share of the Canadian market has tripled and our share of their market has been cut in half in the last couple of years. Elere is an opportunity for this government to help Ontario, rather than bad-mouthing it.
Will the minister demand that the American steel producers voluntarily restrain their exports into this country, as we did into their country in 1986? Will he demand they reciprocate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, I will be meeting with this group later on this afternoon. I imagine this, among other things, will be raised by our friends from the steel industry.
I want to caution my hon. friend in taking the steps that he has proposed. While there are difficulties at this point with increased exports from the United States into the Canadian market, it is largely related to the extensive strikes that we had during the summer and early fall last year. We are hoping to be able to get that market share down. In that regard we are quite pleased to hear that Stelco has announced a recall of 1,500 workers over the course of the next month or six weeks, which is an indication of a growing market penetration for the Steel Company of Canada.
If we are to take the path that my hon. friend is suggesting, we also must realize it is a two-edged sword. We have been fighting voluntary restraints in the United States market and I would expect that my hon. friend would support us in continuing to do that.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the sword only has one edge and it is always against Canadian steelworkers.
The United Steel Workers of America are pursuing the possibility of an employee buy-out of Algoma Steel, a concept now commonplace in the United States.
Will the minister endorse the concept of employee buy-outs and recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, any fiscal actions to promote such an initiative.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As one individual, I am supportive of employee share ownership. I think it is a very positive element in the operation of any company. In principle I have no quarrel with that at all. Whether my colleague the Minister of Finance would support that with tax incentives or other things along those lines, is a question I put to my friend the Minister of Finance. He may wish to respond to my colleague opposite.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, given the Prime Minister's lack of knowledge of government policy, we would like to continue on a different subject. Given the Prime Minister's solemn promise to accept thousands of new Vietnamese refugees, is the minister of immigration going to increase the quota of government sponsored refugees, and will the minister now increase funding for that program?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said last week, refugees are a world-wide problem and we all have to do our share. Canada is a leader in refugee resettlement and under the five-year plan which the Prime Minister was referring to we will continue to be a leader and we will continue to do more.
If the hon. member would recall the five-year plan which my predecessor brought forward in this House it called for more immigrants to Canada and that is what the Prime Minister was referring to.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Prime Minister has done right so far in his trip abroad is that he has not lost his luggage.
The minister will remember his predecessor announcing just last November in this House that the government would be accepting 13,000 government sponsored refugees. However, according to statistics of arrivals for the first five months of this year, the government is not meeting the humanitarian responsibilities it defined for itself. How can the minister of immigration expect to bring in thousands more new refugees, government
May 27, 1991

sponsored refugees, as promised by the Prime Minister when this government is ordering cutbacks on its current quotas and current funding? The minister has some explaining to do.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, is it fair to Canada to picture us as reducing when in fact he knows that this year we have 13,000 government sponsored refugees targeted to be brought into Canada.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: You haven't met the quota.


Bernard Valcourt: Well, it is not the end of the year if you would care to check.


EDUCATION
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines -Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for youth. In view of the fact that the government has cut back in its transfer payments to the provinces for education and therefore the students will have to pay more for tuition, and in view of the fact that because the GST is in place, these students will have to pay more for their books, will the minister increase the annual budget for student summer employment and will he reinstate immediately the five student employment centres which were closed last month?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the budget for this year's Challenge program was increased.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, the Challenge program cannot be said to be a great success. In many areas of the country we have unemployment rates for students which are double and triple the annual average over the past few years. Specifically I want to deal with the high school students.
Will the minister implement a program specifically designed to help high school students get summer employment because many of these will be going into
Oral Questions
our universities and they will be facing a very bleak future if they do not get these jobs.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my hon. colleague look at what the government has done. We do have a program to that effect exactly, where priority is given to high school students. Recently I announced the opening of more that 400 student centres for summer employment, particularly aimed at high school students.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed in an interesting way to the minister of fisheries who answered questions for the Minister of Transport, who is sitting in the House, directed by the member for Halifax and the member for Dartmouth. I hope the minister of fisheries in his capacity for ACOA was answering the question. Otherwise I think we had better have some points of order at some stage as to what is going on.
Even though the Minister of Transport was sitting here in the House, assuming that the minister was answering on his behalf of ACOA and admitting in part some of the answer of the minister about the world-wide situation, is the minister aware, as he was being briefed by the member for Halifax West, that three years ago the Halifax Court Commission brought up their proposal and warned the transport committee and other relevant ministers about the situation in the port of Halifax vis-a-vis New York, Montreal and/or container shipments?
Will the minister responsible for ACOA let this House know what ACOA is prepared to do in diverting ACOA moneys to help finance the bridging problems for the double stacking? How close is the Crown corporation and CN agreeing with the Government of Nova Scotia concerning the double stacking and help for Halifax?

May 27, 1991
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to have a question to answer from a former colleague on this side of the House who, as usual, has asked the only relevant and pertinent question in the House today.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: The situation with respect to the transportation of container traffic through Halifax to Montreal and points west is not something that has come up overnight.
The possibility has been known about for some time, and discussions have proceeded between the Government of Canada, CN, the Government of Nova Scotia and interested persons in the port of Halifax itself to try to see what can be done either to avert or overcome that problem. It is still being worked upon, particularly with respect to the question of double stacking of railroad cars.
In addition, I have been reminded that on several occasions when attempts were made on this side of the House with respect to Coast Guard operations and the use of ice-breakers in keeping certain rivers open and the question of user fees, tremendous opposition has come from the Official Opposition side of the House.
At one point, there was a filibuster actually undertaken by the member for the west coast of Newfoundland, Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. He began a filibuster to prevent such user fees being charged. On another occasion, the member for Kingston-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we are getting away from the question. The hon. member, a short supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Very short, Mr. Speaker.
I would have been interested in hearing what the situation was in terms of the discussions that had taken place several years ago about the diversion of ACOA moneys to help in the financing for the bridging problem with the double stacking.
Since my hon. friend brought up the question of user fees, I would hope that either he had talked to the
Minister of Transport to make sure-he can check the facts on this-that the fees for the pilotage of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority where it is now recovery is treated on the same basis as the Laurentian Pilotage Authority which is not following the government direction.
Would he or perhaps the Minister of Transport, who is the real minister here, please give a report to the House on that?


John Carnell Crosbie: I know, Mr. Speaker, that I am addressing a real member with respect to that question.
On the question of these port charges, I will have to check into that and get the hon. member a report on what exactly has happened.
With respect to the question of ACOA, if it can play a useful role in this situation, it will as it always does in Atlantic Canada.


RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Transport.
The railway routes in remote areas are presently the subject of a comprehensive study examined by Transport Canada and the relevant provincial governments.
My question is as follows: Can the minister tell us today when this study will be publicly released and when it will be completed?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I admire the hon. member for Abitibi for his perseverance in dealing with this important issue. I want to assure him once again that we have indeed received the study that he is mentioning and that we have also received an interim report from the Royal Commission on Passenger Transportation.
The Royal Commission is making interim recommendations concerning this type of routes and we will certainly be able to answer the question of the hon. member within a few weeks.
May 27, 1991


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
This week 20,000 truck loads of contaminated and toxic soil will be removed from the Expo site in Vancouver and dumped on federal land belonging to the Fraser River Harbour Commission, only one kilometre from the Fraser River.
This decision was made behind closed doors without any consultation. A toxic dump on federal land next to a key fishery is unacceptable. A toxic dump next to prime farmland on federal land is unacceptable.
Will the minister immediately stop this proposed dump and start an environmental assessment review process? Further, will he announce his plans in the green plan for the clean up of the Fraser River?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to find out that the New Democratic Party has become fans of the green plan lately because that was not the case before.
I will be very happy to consider the request made by the hon. member. On the specific issue she brings up in the House, my understanding is that the Fraser Valley Harbour Commission is doing an initial assessment. Out of that initial assessment, which I will be happy to look at, we will then determine what course of action is the best considering whatever the assessment would come up with.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the trucking of this toxic and contaminated soil is to start this week. There has been no assessment. If this soil is too bad to have residential development on it and has to be trucked out of the Expo lands, why is it fit for soil dumping one kilometre from the Fraser River, next to a very important fishery, right next to prime agricultural land in the metropolitan area of Vancouver? Will the minister stop the dumping this week and start the EARP today?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have already said.
Oral Questions
My understanding is that the Fraser Valley Harbour Commission is doing an initial assessment of what this soil contains. I will be very happy to look at that report once it will have been forwarded to me and to act upon it.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last Friday, in response to a question regarding CP Rail's possible diversion of trains through the United States, which could result in the elimination of at least 200 trains per year going through Manitoba, thereby hurting Winnipeg, Brandon and other western communities once again, the minister said: "It is not up to government to make business decisions." Agreed.
Does the minister know that CP Rail has received and continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in subsidies to improve east-west transportation links? Will the minister intervene immediately? Will the minister meet with the CP president now in order to save western Canadian jobs?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the hon. member would be consistent in his examination of this situation. He mentioned in his question that CP Rail is getting some grants from the Government of Canada. We determined, very long ago, that we wanted all business enterprises in Canada to be self-supporting and to reduce the burden of grants that are given by the taxpayers through the government to transportation companies.
At the same time, we want these companies to be competitive. We are working in close co-operation with CP, CN and the other transportation industries to make sure that they are capable of meeting the competition.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the minister is removing subsidies from grains.
Through policies such as privatization and deregulation, the government continues to destroy the trucking and rail passenger industries. Why is the government doing the same to the railway freight system?

May 27, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the member does not seem to have understood. We want all the industries in Canada to be competitive. We are taking all the necessary measures to make sure that they become competitive. It is only by being competitive that they will remain in business and will provide jobs for Canadian rather than having subsidized jobs.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation, led by the right hon. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today some of the questions that we heard from the opposite side bordered on personal attack and were very close to imputing motives to certain ministers.
It seems to me that some of these questions were not in spirit of this House, nor in the spirit of what is prescribed by Beauchesne and certainly not in the spirit of what we have pledged as a new order of conduct in the House of Commons. I would hope that hon. members in the future would choose their words more carefully because I know that they would want this House to reflect well in the public eye.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege to inform the House
about a matter concluded this month, which began in 1988 when I was sued by Bernard Roy, who was then the personal principal secretary of the Prime Minister, on the grounds of slander for statements that I made about him outside this Chamber.
I would like to inform the House that in the past few weeks the action was dismissed and my lawyer's costs were paid.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there are some difficulties on this side. I do not believe the minister's microphone was turned on. Some people would say that the minister's lights have been out for quite some time. I would not say that.
Perhaps the hon. minister could rise while the microphone is being turned on and speak slowly so that his colleagues in the front and members opposite may hear.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 81(5) and (6), I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1992, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing
Committee on Agriculture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 27, 1991

Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the fifteenth report of the Canadian section of the Assemblee intemationale des parlementaires de langue frangaise.


PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-9, an Act to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, be read the first time and be printed.


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

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-208, an Act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to amend the Department of Agriculture Act.

The purpose of the bill is to delete the section of the act which permits the Governor in Council to assign powers or duties to the Minister of Agriculture. These powers are currently used to create new agricultural programs. The report of the Auditor General of Canada tabled in this House, I believe in 1989, recommended that this power be deleted from the act. This bill carries out that purpose and will require the minister to come to the House if he seeks to establish a new agricultural program rather than create it on his own without proper authority.
Routine Proceedings
That is the purpose of the amendment to the act. It is a short and very simple act which I hope will commend itself to all hon. members.


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

John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition sent to me recently by a number of Public Service employees of Agriculture Canada, the Summerland Research Station in particular: "Whereas the government has introduced a new budget which outlines the need for fiscal restraint in this time of recession; and whereas the government has imposed a zero per cent wage hike ceiling on federal public employees for 1991; and whereas the recent 10 per cent total pay increase given to members of Parliament should be rolled back in keeping with this policy of restraint, wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to implement the aforesaid request."


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens from the great city of Logan Lake, British Columbia, who are concerned about the government's decision to cut back on Royal Canadian Mounted Police funding.
They point out in a number of ways how this has affected their community, how this may result in increased levels of lawlessness throughout the region and are asking the Government of Canada to reconsider its funding cuts to the RCMP and provide the police force with a mandate and the ability to continue its role as the only visible police force for many British Columbia communities and a viable symbol of Canadian unity.

May 27, 1991
Routine Proceedings NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it has been over two years since I started working on a project that calls on the federal government to introduce national education standards.
We have circulated petitions across Canada and I am happy today to introduce one of those petitions in the Elouse. The people who signed it come from the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and others.
Today I will introduce this petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, calling on the government to promote and encourage the institution of national education standards in consultation with the provincial and territorial governments and in consultation with educational and professional industry, labour, parents, youths, volunteer organizations and individual Canadians.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present 59 petitions with over 1,500 signatures from the residents of Mabou, Nova Scotia, who are fighting to keep their post office alive.
Mabou has been a thriving community since the 1820s and its post office, serving 410 households, is located in and represents the very heart of this proud community. The petitioners protest the closure of the their post office and petition the government to (1) reverse the decision, and (2) ensure that residents have a say in how postal service is provided to their community, before any decisions are made.
The government can no longer ignore the voices of rural Canadians.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition from constituents from my riding who are addressing the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This government has declared its intention to ratify this convention, but the political will must be there. These petitioners are very concerned that we have one in six children in this country who presently live in poverty. They are asking that this government now, even before final ratification, institute programs which will help and
support those children who are presently living in poverty.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present yet another petition, signed by residents of Kingston and The Islands, protesting the desecration and destruction of the Canadian flag and calling upon this House to pass a law making it an offence to destroy or desecrate the flag of this country.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on the goods and services tax. This- particular petition was signed by my constituents living on Black Creek Boulevard, at 250 Scarlett Road, on Sandcliffe Road, on Cayuga Avenue and on a number of other streets within my constituency. They are urging this government to finally come to its senses and to realize that the goods and services tax is destroying this country and to rescind it immediately forthwith.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition wherein the petitioners humbly sheweth that this government has cut back millions of dollars to RCMP services throughout Canada, resulting in a multi-million dollar loss to British Columbia, and the consequences of these cuts have been the reduction and erosion of service and effectiveness of police protection.
The results of these cuts have been the reduction of training, patrols and travelling expenses for the RCMP serving our communities. We, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to consider restoring proper funding to the RCMP so that it can fulfil its mandate and role as the visible police force for communities across British Columbia and remain as a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
May 27, 1991


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


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Certain items on the Order Papers die on prorogation, including all the questions that are on the Order Paper.
This House has agreed to revive certain government bills. One of them, in fact, was passed last Thursday.
I was wondering if the government might be willing to revive certain Order Paper questions, particularly question 501 which I tabled last April 11 and would run out today in the ordinary course of events.
The question asks the government to give us information regarding its cuts to CUSO, OCSD, Canadian Teachers' Federation, Canadian World Youth, Canadian Crosswords International and CECI, and what the specific criteria was.
I was wondering if the government would consider reinstating these questions as part of the process of allowing things to go past prorogation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised the question. In fact, we have on the Order Paper right at this very moment a motion to reinstate a number of government bills.
Perhaps the hon. member would want to speak with his House leader to see if there might be agreement to pass that motion on a nod.



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.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I rose in this Chamber to participate in the debate on the proposed changes to the rules of the House. In that speech, I pointed out that there is a breakdown in our parliamentary system.
The Address
I also attempted to show the principles behind our parliamentary system and how important it is that members of the government recognize those principles in order for our democracy to work.
My comments have clearly fallen on deaf ears. Today I rise to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne is the cause of summons. Simply stated, members of Parliament are summoned here to Ottawa to consider legislation and taxation which the cabinet claims it needs in order to govern. Our mandate as elected members is clear. We have been sent here to Parliament to represent our constituents' interests when we consider the cabinet's requests.
The reason there is such ceremony surrounding the cabinet's request is to symbolize for all Canadians-including ourselves, members of the other place, and ministers of the Crown-the supremacy of the legislature over the executive branch.
On Monday, May 13, we heard several reasons why we were summoned here to Ottawa. One of those reasons was to consider proposals from the cabinet to once again change the way we operate in this Chamber and I quote:
My government will propose further reform so that all Members of Parliament can better fulfil their obligations to their constituents.
What right does the executive branch have to interfere in the operations of this Chamber?
Another of the reasons we were summoned to Ottawa was for the cabinet to inform us that it intended to establish a parliamentary committee to study the proposal to amend the Constitution.
This committee will, according to the Speech from the Throne:
Havel in order to hear the views of men and women across Canada. In each jurisdiction it visits, the committee will be mandated to meet in public session with its counterpart provincial or territorial legislative committee or, where no such committee exists, with counterpart legislators.
How could the cabinet announce that we will be establishing another committee when the original committee has not yet even reported? I do not ask this question to be facetious. The Speech from the Throne said:

May 27, 1991
The Address
The respect of the people for a Parliament and for Parliamentarians
is essential for a healthy democracy. But the appearance, and
sometimes the reality, of excessive party discipline-
-among other things, has-
-eroded that respect in Canada.
The only way the cabinet could have included it in its Speech from the Throne and announced that there will be a committee of Parliament is if it intends to use party discipline to force us to establish it. The hypocrisy of it all.
I would remind the government once again that the committee to amend the Constitution has not yet reported. There is an inherent flaw in logic for the government to pre-empt the work of one parliamentary committee on the grounds that it believes the work of parliamentary committees to be essential. If it respects parliamentary committees, it should be waiting for this committee to recommend how to proceed. If it has no respect for the parliamentary committees, then it should not use them as a mechanism to amend the Constitution.
On May 13 we heard more of the reasons why we were summoned to Ottawa. The cabinet wishes us to consider legislation that it believes will improve unity, prosperity and government responsiveness. On Tuesday the hon. Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the government's policies in the last seven years have resulted in the unequivocal loss of the Canadian public's confidence in the government's ability to run this country effectively-
I agree with the Canadian public and with the Leader of the Official Opposition. However, it is important that the people of Canada realize that it is not the political system that has failed them but the Conservative government that has failed them. Why should the Canadian people believe anything this government proposes in this next session?
The truth is that this government has not honoured the public trust which empowered it to form a government. It has not provided effective legislation. It is time for this government to take some real initiative. This government is a non-committal government. It is not committed to its social policies. It is not committed to its environmental policies. It is not even committed to Canadian unity.
How can we possibly believe that the government is, in any way, committed to the Canadian public.
The cabinet's agenda of some weeks ago confirmed this government's lack of commitment to the Canadian public. It confirmed this government's lack of substance and it confirmed the lack of any effective plan to launch Canada into the 21st century.
The only thing this government is committed to is double digit unemployment, the GST and economic disparity.
I remind the House that at a time when it is imperative for Canada to increase its competitiveness in the world economy, funds have been slashed for education, training and research and development. The very foundations of our economic competitiveness and prosperity are being deliberately and systematically eroded.
Further, while the government eloquently espouses its vision of restructuring the economy, the only vision this government is providing Canadians, after seven years of economic brutality, is that of workers standing on street corners or in unemployment lines. The government has not provided programs to deal with the impact of the free trade agreement. The government has not provided relief for the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians. Nor has the government protected low income Canadians from the GST.
What the government has provided is the first ever made-in-Canada recession, record bankruptcies and government policies directly responsible for an increased deficit. A strong economy is the basis for a united country.
I do not understand how this government can put this country's constitutional crisis on hold again. Why is this government waiting for another committee report? I would suggest that the government is stalling for more time.
They have tried unsuccessfully in the past to resolve these matters. Why would Canadians have confidence in the record of these successive failures? We must solve the constitutional problems immediately so we can move on to the other problems this government has created.
One more item in the throne speech was a commitment to reduce trade barriers between provinces, something that this government has talked about for years now, and still no real solutions have been developed. How can this government be concerned with interprovincial trade when every initiative it has taken since its

initial election has worked against that goal? In 1988, it finalized the free trade agreement with the United States. The free trade agreement works against the concept of cross-Canadian interprovincial trade.
This government talks about education, but how can the government expect provinces to pay for the education cost, to pay for regional development, to reduce illiteracy and to reduce the number of unemployed when it systematically cuts transfer payments? How can we educate with no money? How can we create jobs when every day more and more people become unemployed directly as a result of this government's untenable employment policies.
If there is a lack of productivity in this country, it is due to cutbacks in research and development, cutbacks in transfer payments, cutbacks in education funding and cutbacks in retraining and training programs. How can the government demand Canadian workers to increase its productivity when it ties the hands of these workers behind their backs?
If I may quote from Senator Hubert Humphrey's last speech in 1977, he said:
The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the
dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the
aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and
the handicapped.
How can this government believe it has the moral wherewithal to govern?
The Speech from the Throne spoke of non-partisanship as essential for Parliament to operate. The Prime Minister asks that the opposition recognize its dual role as partisan politicians and parliamentarians.
I would suggest in closing that if the Prime Minister would recognize his dual roles as an elected member of Parliament and as an appointed head of the executive branch, his government would be well on its way to achieving unity, prosperity and government responsiveness.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his analysis of the Speech from the Throne. I thought there were some perceptive comments, and I would just like to ask a question or two.
The Address
Last Friday he was in the House when I detailed some of the cuts to western Canadian provinces undertaken by this government. Many of those he has mentioned here today. These have also ravaged the Atlantic provinces.
I was particularly concerned about the increases that the government is intending to demand of western, northern and Atlantic Canadians with respect to the RCMP contracts.
Today in the House I mentioned how the government was pursuing, possibly by not intervening, the support of CP Rail's potential plans to route trains to the U.S. rather than to Canada, thereby eliminating Canadian jobs and thereby not collecting on fuel taxes, which would be a blow to Manitoba and other western provinces. The government has pursued and continues to pursue policies that are devastating to the whole of Canada.
My question is a veiy simple one. Can Canadians truly believe that a Speech from the Throne such as the one that was just brought before this House will make any difference at all to the unity problems we are experiencing in this country, to the serious economic problems that Canadians are exposed to?


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the comments and the question that he has put forward.
Again I just want to reiterate what I have said so many times in this House. What has happened over the last number of years, deliberately or otherwise, to the regions of this country is that there has been the whittling away of the institutions that we came to regard as part of our Canadian system. No longer do we see these transfer payments coming, and I say this because I mean it. I believe we would like nothing better in the regions where we live than to get away from this transfer payment system. Until something is put in place we are not going to be able to do that. We are not going to be able to do it in Atlantic Canada, in western Canada or in northern Canada.
I believe some days that this government deliberately does this to our regions of the country, but hopefully not

May 27, 1991
The Address
so. We talk about Canadian unity, but if the standard of living is not the same in the regions across this country as it is in the central part of the country then definitely we are not going to have Canadian unity. We are going to pair one part of the country off against the other.
We see another issue on the east coast where the container ports are moving to central Canada because of the rates charged by CNR. I believe this government and any other government in this country still have to play a role in such vital areas as transportation. They have to bring subsidies to bear in some instances so that we can get the goods and services to the markets of this country.
I believe that as long as we keep pitting the regions against one another no matter how many committees we have going across this country we are not going to have unity.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank my friend and colleague for his excellent speech in the House. His constituents are well represented. Indeed, since his election in 1988 he has been an outspoken advocate, not only in our caucus but in this House, with respect to the best wishes of the people of Prince Edward Island.
I would like to ask the hon. member, in terms of government policy over the last six and a half years since this government has been in office: Would he consider that the lifestyle or standard of living in his native province of Prince Edward Island has improved, or are Islanders worse off than they were in 1984?


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one brief mention of the University of Prince Edward Island today. When the students return to the classrooms this fall their tuition fees will be going up 15 per cent. That says quite a bit because we have seen a great reduction in the transfer payments in this area of the country. I believe that if there is some way to get away from having these transfer payments eventually, there will be no one happier than Prince Edward Islanders and Atlantic Canadians in general.
We have not reached that area yet. This government has continued to erode and cut back these payments, and certainly the unemployment rate is up. The money for job training or job training itself has not yet come to pass, so many Prince Edward Islanders and I have seen that
things have certainly not improved in the last number of years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jonquiere has the floor for 10 minutes.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I appreciate having this opportunity to take part today in the debate on the recent Speech from the Throne. It probably was the most important in modern Canadian history, as it deals with three absolutely fundamental issues.
These are national unity, prosperity and government efficiency. I believe it is the most important made in Canada in the twentieth century because, as we know, Canada could well split up in the next 18 months if no solution is found to settle the national unity issue.
Since the Constitution was patriated in 1982, Quebec has been excluded from the present Constitution and has refused to participate in any constitutional conference, even more so considering the outcome of the last attempt, with the Meech initiative.
So, Quebec, more than ever, feels cornered and is not participating in any conference, hence the potential for a split within 18 months. I mentionned I was happy to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because, while my government and our Prime Minister were preparing the Speech from the Throne, my colleagues on the Beau-doin-Edwards Committee and myself were travelling all over the country in an attempt to find a way out of the present constitutional deadlock.
As a matter of fact, we have a four-point mandate to answer the following questions: Should we or should we not hold a referendum? Does the existing constitutional amending formula meet our needs? Should it be changed and, if so, what should it be? Finally, should a constituent assembly be set up to solve our constitutional problems? Add to that the issue of public participation. Let us not forget that Canadians do not want a rerun of what they have seen on television during the Meech episode, with individuals making decisions behind closed doors on what the Constitution of Canada should be. Now, the Canadian people want to take part in the process.
May 27, 1991

So, the importance of the Speech from the Throne is clear in relation to national unity which is linked to prosperity. Constitutional problems of course cannot help this country's economic situation. We can see what is happening with the unemployment level still climbing.
I don't think anyone likes the economic situation we are in and we must strive to find ways to bring that level down, to ensure that more jobs and opportunities are available to the Canadians people.
That being said, I would also like to talk about prosperity, Mr. Speaker. We have set targets. By the year 2000, we want to have created 2,5 million new jobs. We are also going to try and raise the real incomes of Canadians by 25 percent. But all that is linked to the issue of Canadian unity. Unless we come up with an answer within the next 18 months, nothing will do. On the contrary, times will be tough for Quebec and all of Canada.
The Speech from the Throne also mentions an important subject, education; our government talks about national objectives for education. That startles many people, since education is under provincial jurisdiction, especially in Quebec. But basically, in the present debate, the whole question of power sharing under the Constitution must be reviewed. Is it good and desirable for Canada to set national standards and ask the provinces to apply them in accordance with their own particular characteristics? Let us take health as an example. The central government sets standards and objectives for health and tells the provinces to apply them on the basis of their needs. Quebec has its own health care system of which it is proud.
Of course, gradually things must change. We must evolve on the basis of our society's present needs. Quebec wants some changes. Should national health standards be reviewed and updated? Why not?
The same thing applies to education. Ideally, instead of each province setting its own standards in a disconnected way from the others, is it not time to think that it might be much better if we had national standards for education?
We talk about free trade and economic exchanges among the provinces and section 6(2)(a) of the Constitution says that all Canadians can settle in any province of the country. If your child leaves a province with its own education system and goes to another province where
The Address
things are completely different and there are no national standards and no unity in all this, is that good or should we not review this thoroughly to see how it could be changed? But the federal government must not say, "This is the true standard and how we will apply it." It must not be done unilaterally but in cooperation with the provincial ministers and coordinated with them. They together should consider what national standards we should have. Furthermore, these standards should be reviewed periodically because it is no use having standards, an unreachable ideal, if the provinces do not have the money they need to reach those standards.
So when we talk about constitutional reform, with the coming changes, we must review all that.
Mr. Speaker, I still think that Quebec will be part of the next Constitution-and I am sure there will be a new one. It will not be perfect, but if we manage to change the amending formula in order to get rid of the unanimity rule, then, even flawed, our new Constitution would at least enable us to make future changes.
I would like to make an important point, Mr. Speaker, because I heard some of my colleagues talk about equalization. I happened to read in Le Reveil, a local newspaper from my constituency of Jonquiere, an editorial written by Mr. Marcel Martel, who was saying: "Per capita, the Tories give out $548 to Quebec and $1,652 to Newfoundland. Thanks to his Conservative buddies, Clyde Wells must be having a good laugh. Try to figure this one out."
Mr. Speaker, that shows how people do not understand how transfer payments work. There are three kinds of transfer payments: the Established Programs Financing, the equalization payments, and the Canada Assistance Plan.
What is the Established Programs Financing? It is funding given to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education among other things. In 1991-1992, the Established Programs Financing totalled $20 billion, of which $5 billion went to Quebec. Equalization payments are the second most important type of transfer payments to the provinces. Out of $8 billion given out in equalization, Quebec received $3.8 billion, and Newfoundland $938 million. That is what we mean, Mr. Speaker, when we say figures can be misleading. To

May 27, 1991
The Address
say Quebec receive only $548 per capita, while Newfoundland get $1,652 is like saying Quebec is not getting any subsidy. Now, wait just a moment! Newfoundland has a population of 560,000 people; if you multiply
560,000	by $1,652 and then 6.6 million by $548, you will see that Quebec is receiving a lot more than Newfoundland. You have to be cautious when you use these figures.
Quebec is among the provinces receiving more equalization payments than others. In fact, three provinces get no equalization payment at all, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Other provinces receive payments because they are not as prosperous. That is called equalization. Rich provinces pay for poorer ones. It could very well be that 30 years from now, Newfoundland, thanks to an extraordinary find, will contribute more for British Columbia or Quebec. That is the way our country works. Rich provinces should contribute to help poorer provinces. That is nothing to be sad about. It is the very basis of our country and of equalization.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important Speech from the Throne with three themes: unity, prosperity and government responsiveness. Those are three essential issues. We have to find a way out of the constitutional impasse in the next 18 months.
Our Beaudoin-Edwards committee will report to this House by the beginning of July and other committees will try and solve the problems of Senate reform, division of powers and aboriginal rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Questions and comments for a five minutes period. The hon. member for St. Boniface.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by my hon. colleague with whom I sit on the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee and with whom I worked a lot and expect to work even harder in the next few days.
He mentioned, if I understood him well, that Canadian unity had an economic dimension. Personally, I believe it. Without "economic harmony" across this country, can we have unity? I do not think so, and that is more or less what my colleague from my party just said.
But the question I want to ask, and I do not mmention it out of spite, is why this government, for example, might allow CP Rail to reroute its trains through the
United States? It seems to me that could entail possible job losses for Manitoba, for Winnipeg, Brandon and other Western provinces. Allowing such a move, to my mind, would worsen the economic situation and tear the country apart even further, and destroy the bonds already established. That was my first question.
Now a second one. He talked about national objectives, and I really appreciated his remarks, because I believe that we can have national objectives provided they are set in a cooperative way. They should not be imposed by a level on another one; I believe that we have to work together in order to improve the economic situation, national unity, etc.
Does he believe that a new federalism would be fundamentally based on the principle of cooperation?


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first comment or question of my hon. colleague, I would like to remind him that, in the last few years, the government has endeavoured to expand our market in the world.
Canada cannot do business only within its borders, since it exports 30 per cent of its production. Trade between Canada and the United States is a $200 billion a year business. If we look at the provinces, Ontario's exports to Quebec, for instance, total $21 billion annually, whereas Quebec exports to Ontario amount to $17.9 billion.
In that context, and that also applies to our Crown corporations in the transport industry, we must look to foreign markets, among which is our closest partner, the United States, and Mexico, with whom we are working on a free trade agreement.
Moreover, one must not forget that, as of next December, we will have to compete with an economic union composed of 12 European countries. We will then have to face international competition.
That also explains why it is important, in the field of education, that Canada improve its record as regards technology. We are presently not performing well enough in that field and there is room for improvement. The same is true in the field of education, of course, since those two fields are directly related.
What will be the outcome of the next constitutional conference? What will be the powers of Quebec? Will the situation be completely different? It is too early to tell; nobody knows yet, but it is clear that federalism
May 27, 1991

The Address
must be changed and renewed. Yesterday, I was pleased to see your leader, Mr. Chretien, say that Quebec should have a right of veto. This is an issue that our committee has discussed on numerous occasions, namely that Quebec should have a form of protection enshrined in the next Constitution.
That being said, let's wait and see. First, there is the report that will be tabled by our Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, and then the Spicer Commission report will be tabled by July 1st. There is another joint commission of members and senators, that will travel across the country and meet their provincial counterparts. Following that, the government will be in a position to put forward a new constitutional proposal aimed at making sure that Quebec can again be part of the Canadian family and prosper within that context.


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


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to take part in the debate on the Speech from the Throne.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to share some thoughts with my colleagues regarding the intention expressed by my government in the Speech from the Throne to set national goals in education.
If I get into this subject, Mr. Speaker, it is because it appears to have been misunderstood by some members of this House. You know, over the last few days, we have heard some members of this House complain about interference. Others hide behind the curtains, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because the government wants our young people to have access some day to a lucrative and rewarding job. And why, Mr. Speaker? Because this government wants to give future generations of Quebecers and Canadians, men and women, an opportunity to enjoy an even better quality of life.
Why do members hide behind the curtains and shout "murder"? Because our government reacts when our country is about to miss the turn towards an increasingly competitive global economy.
Mr. Speaker, they shout "murder" and they hide behind the curtains. It may be the best way for them to avoid speaking on the issue when they have nothing sensible to say. But, nevertheless, there are facts that deserve that we go beyond partisan politics.
Thirty per cent of our students drop out of high school before graduating. Is that acceptable? No, it is not acceptable. Should we remain silent when the demographers predict that Canada will soon be a country with hardly no manpower? Should we keep doing nothing when we know that half of all the jobs that will be created between 1990 and 1999 will require more than five years of training after high school? Should we close our eyes on the fact that today, only 60 per cent of our workers graduate from high school?
Mr. Speaker, should we not at least react when we learn that Canadian employers spend half of what our neighbours to the South spend for the training of their employees, and eight times less than what the Germans spend? Should we give up all of our responsibilities because we know that our future prosperity depends on the knowledge and the skills that Canadian men and women will have acquired? Should we keep our eyes closed? No. The world and the global economy are going through a phase of radical change. Borders are opening up. Economical and political blocks are emerging. Competition is constantly increasing. We cannot afford to miss the train. We must adapt. We must train our manpower. We must prepare our workers for the future. That is the challenge we have to face and that is what is proposed in the Speech from the Throne.
Quebec found its identity in the early sixties. At that time, Quebecers really took their destiny into their hands. That is the period that was, and still is, called the Quiet Revolution. That revolution that put Quebec on the way of a new prosperity didn't come about by itself. Around the same time, the Parent Report led to a reform of the Quebec education system. That is almost 30 years ago.
Today, when a revolution is already under way in the world economy, it seems more and more that results achieved in education will be clearly insufficient to guarantee all Canadians a prosperous future. To benefit

May 27, 1991
The Address
from this revolution, we must go back to the drawing board, rethink our approach to education and, instead of missing the whole point, we must discuss the question together and find solutions to the problem.
In spite of all this, Mr. Speaker, there are still members in this House who are opposed to the fact the government wants to prepare Canadian men and women to face the challenges of year 2000. For what reason? Because they say that education is a provincial responsibility. But we have always recognized this and we still do. It is written in black and white in the Speech from the Throne and I quote:
My government recognizes that education is a provincial
responsibility under the Constitution and respects that fact.
I think it is very clear, Mr. Speaker. The Premier of Quebec himself, who strongly defends Quebecers' interests, said, and I quote:
We must discuss some form of cooperation for common goals. We
do not see why we should refuse to discuss.
Mr. Speaker, after the Meech Lake failure, the Premier of Quebec stated that his province would have discussions with Ottawa only if Quebec's interests were directly concerned. I believe this is the case.
Quebec is an integral part of the Canadian economic union. It largely benefits from its trade with other provinces since it sells more goods and services in Canada than on foreign markets. It's by opting freely for the federal system, while asserting our distinct identity, that we were able to create our prosperity. That is a system where the provinces are sovereign in their respective jurisdictions, but in which all Canadians have their say on matters which concern the entire country.
Besides, the Belanger-Campeau Commission Report, that some hon. members in this House should read entirely, states with good reason that: "Federalism, as a political organization principle, is characterized by the flexibility of the arrangements and structures that it makes possible".
So, Mr. Speaker, this government always believed in recognizing the regional diversity of the country. By meeting the demands of Quebec in the Meech Lake Accord, this government was recognizing, not only the distinct identity of Quebec, but also the right of the provinces to opt out of national programs, with compensation, when they thought they could administer more
effectively these programs. That was the spirit of the Meech Lake Accord and it is still implicit on this government's actions. So, the discussions that this government will have with the provinces as far as education and training are concerned, will be consistent with this spirit.
Since 1984, our government has taken a lot of initiatives to prepare Canada for the challenges of the year 2000. When we came to power in 1984, you will recall that our country was dangerously mismanaged and heavily in debt. We have not taken the easy way out and we have put in place tools to garantee our prosperity.
A more responsible management allowed us to slow down the growth of deficit. The Free Trade Agreement, taxation reform, privatization initiatives, government spending cuts and a new labour force development strategy are all contributing to a potential enhancement of productivity, flexibility and adaptability, which will be critical to ensure a remarkable quality of life to all Canadians in the Twenty-First Century.
Our initiatives have given results. Since 1984, Japan is the only country that has known a growth higher than Canada's. As regards jobs creation, Canada has been one of the most performing countries of the G-7. But our future also depends on our ability to train workers with more instruction and who are more and more skilled and specialized.
I know that my time is almost over, Mr. Speaker, but if you will allow me, I would just add that quality of life of Quebecers and Canadians is not only a question of exclusive competence or a question of jurisdiction. Quality of life is everyone's concern and it is the responsibility of everyone without exception.
As you know, my Francophone Liberal friends of Quebec talk about the problem of Constitution which has to be solved as soon as possible. They talk about unity, national consensus, but they have signed the repatriation in 1982 without Quebec, a mistake which we have been trying to rectify since then.
The Liberal strategy, Mr. Speaker, must have something machiavellian because the party of the hon. member for Beausejour has adopted this weekend in Sherbrooke a constitutional position copied from Meech Lake Accord.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because I know that my time is almost over, our mission is clear. We are going to continue to work so that the Canadians can continue to be able to benefit from a competitive economy. We have never changed our goals since 1984 and we will not change them in the future. The Speech from the Throne shows that we are determined to reinforce the Canadian unity and our prosperity because both are linked.
By taking maximum advantage of the individuals and the richest education systems in the world, we will be able to compete with any country. The sustainable prosperity that will result will ensure the unity of our country for the benefit of all Quebecers and of the entire Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Questions and comments for five minutes. The hon. member from Welland-St.Catharines-Thorold.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very interesting speech, and I firmly believe that he believes everything he is saying. However, the fact of the matter is that in 1980 the Constitution was repatriated to Canada. Mr. Levesque, then premier, and Mr. Laurin, one of the negotiators for Quebec at that time, stated publicly and subsequently wrote in books that the province of Quebec, for which they were negotiating, would not have agreed to any form of repatriation of the Constitution or any form of the charter of rights.
I have two questions: Was the member aware of that, and what comments would he have to make on this statement?


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. But, I would like to correct an important detail. First, the patriation of the Constitution did not take place in 1980, but in 1982. In 1980, it was the referendum.
Second, of course, Mr. Laurin made some statements at the time, but I think my honourable friend should rather stick to facts instead of paying to much attention to the statements of Mr. Laurin, at the time. Here are
The Address
the facts, Mr. Speaker. At that time, Quebec was sitting at the table for the patriation of the Constitution and everybody will remember very well that Quebec and all provinces were about to find a constitutionnal arrangement. Anyway, for his information, I would refer my honourable colleague to the book written by the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, and more specifically to the chapter written by his present leader, Mr. Chretien. If he refers to these passages, his present leader, the member for Beausejour, says it clearly. You will remember the famous night of the long knives and the ploy of the present leader of the Liberal party and member for Beausejour to prevent an agreement that was about to be made. Really, six or seven provinces were in agreement with the Quebec requests and were ready to conclude an agreement with the other provinces, Mr. Speaker.
Then, when my colleague referred us to the statements of Mr. Laurin, he should also refer us to those of Mr. Levesque, Morin and several other democratically elected representatives of Quebec who often referred to this night of the long knives. I think it is of public knowledge. You know and all Quebecers know, that against tremendous odds, there was a will, at that time. At the time of the referendum, Quebec had said no to separation, but yes to a renewed federalism. That renewed federalism was never delivered, Mr. Speaker.
At that time, did Quebec see the Constitutionnal Accord of 1982, the patriation of the Constitution, as a renewed federalism? I do not think so. And rightfully, Mr. Speaker, the democratically elected representatives of the time, as well as all Quebecers, did not consider it as the promise that had been made to them.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member, whom I find very sincere, tell us whether he is for or against an elected Senate, that is elected, for instance, by the men and women of Quebec? Is he for or against that?


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that I have unfortunately not addressed that issue in my speech. All I can tell him at this moment is that we must not forget that committees will be struck when convenient to discuss all those issues. And I think that today, not only Quebec's demands, but obviously those of the various regions of Canada must be taken in due consideration. I am sure that, united in their discussions and a consensus, Cana-

May 27, 1991
The Address
dians will be able to find solutions acceptable to Quebec as much as to the rest of the country.
I am from Quebec, and my riding is 98 per cent French- speaking, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you that we are very open-minded. And the people of my riding, as well as the population of the rest of Quebec, are ready to discuss not only the specific problems of Quebec, but also those of the whole country.
I remain very confident that we will ultimately arrive at a solution acceptable to all.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have a chance to participate in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Although very much has already been said, more needs to be said, mainly about the shortcomings of the Speech from the Throne. I wish to concentrate particularly on matters relating to the free trade agreement with the United States and the proposed North American free trade agreement.
The Prime Minister made the bold statement that "the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has helped to secure the Canadian economy in difficult times".
He went on in the next paragraph to say:
My government believes North America-wide free trade is a
logical next step and one that would increase the prosperity of all
Canadians if an acceptable agreement can be negotiated with
Mexico and the United States.
Most Canadians now reject the confident statement that the Prime Minister made in that first paragraph, and therefore they distrust entirely whether the agreement that may be made with the United States and Mexico will be acceptable to Canadians. Whether it is acceptable to the Prime Minister and some of his friends or not is another matter.
As has been pointed out many times, the Prime Minister promised 250,000 new jobs in the first year after the free trade agreement. In the first two years and almost a half we have lost over 400,000 jobs, perhaps not all caused by the free trade agreement but many of them, and we cannot find those new jobs that the Prime Minister promised us.
We have been losing jobs in the food and beverage industry, in the forest industry-not a few jobs here but
thousands and thousands-in the clothing industry, in the electrical and electronic products industry. The workers in those industries know where their jobs have gone. For the most part they have gone south, either to the United States or already many of them to Mexico because the free trade agreement is already bringing in Mexican products at 10 per cent wages under the guise of American products.
Canadians have now begun to see the proposed North American free trade agreement as really a bill of rights for the trans-national corporations, nothing more or less, as a way of reducing our wages and reducing the benefits of our social legislation in Canada and for that matter in the United States and in Mexico.
Thousands of Canadian owned small and medium businesses have been wiped out by the requirement that the Canadian government grant the U.S. corporations what they call national treatment and right of establishment in Canada. This means there is no right of our government to carry out its constitutional obligations for equalizing throughout the regions, no right to assist a Canadian corporation in any way that it does not assist or offer to assist an American corporation, no right to buy from a Canadian corporation on any other terms than it buys from the American corporations claiming national treatment and right of establishment, no right to prevent capital created in Canada by the work of Canadian workers, usually on the basis of plant bought with money borrowed from banks holding the deposits of Canadian workers. That capital produced by Canadians can now be much more freely transported away from Canada to wherever the American based trans-nationals wish to use it without any control by the Canadians who created it.
An extension of that kind of free trade agreement is being sought by the United States, not only as it affects Mexico but as it affects Canada. It will hinder the development of publicly owned and democratically managed enterprises such as health insurance. We have a much higher quality of health at a much lower cost than they have in the United States. It will contribute to blocking the development of child care, which is essential to single parents and for many two-earner parent families.
May 27, 1991

The free trade agreement limits Canada's ability to care for our natural environment by compelling us to continue selling to the U.S. all kinds of energy on the basis of past sales, as a proportion of our past sales, regardless of environmental consequences and regardless of Canada's needs. In fact, the free trade agreement ban on unfair subsidies specifically allows Canada only to subsidize the oil and gas exploration industries in order to benefit the American corporations to which most of the product and most of the jobs will go.
It also allows for a wholesale grab of our fresh water and restricts us from protecting our soil, water and air from pesticides that would be imported from the United States which has a lower standard of protection of the environment.
The free trade agreement, along with deregulation, is destroying our east-west transportation and communication systems. We just had the truckers here a week or two ago pointing that out to us. There are the buslines and the airlines that are suffering in the same way. These east-west transportation systems have been the lifeline of Canada.
What is next? Our sovereignty over our cultural life, our national control over intellectual property and our control over Canadian defence and military enterprises. Canada's few publishing, broadcasting and entertainment industries are already in severe difficulties.
But President Bush is not satisfied. He states that such small Canadian actions as have been taken to enforce investment restrictions in cultural sectors are "irritants" that he wants to see removed in the U.S.-Canada-Mexi-co talks. We had prescription drug patent rights increased as a prelude to the free trade agreement. They now cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, but Bush wants total control of all such patent rights for the multinational corporations or the trans-nationals.
As to defence, even though generally the free trade agreement is being used to ban Canada from subsidizing manufacturing industries in order to help the poorer regions of our country as the Constitution requires, nevertheless a gracious exception is made that permits Ottawa to subsidize the manufacture of armaments.
The Address
Many of those arms manufacturers are American owned corporations.
In return for sending our ships and our planes to President Bush's war in the gulf, the Prime Minister is permitted to sit with President Bush and President Salinas in the North American free trade talks to give away whatever parts of our economic, military and political independence he did not give away three years ago.
What did Canada expect to get from the free trade agreement? What did this government tell us we would get? Mostly it would be easier entry into the U.S. market in return for lowering our tariffs and our non-tariff barriers, and that they would be lowered on the other side of the border too.
Did we get it? No. Fifteen of the sixteen disputes that were adjudicated under this trade agreement went in favour of the United States. One of them went in favour of Canada and that is being challenged outside the authority of the free trade agreement through the U.S. federal courts.
The bill they passed after the free trade agreement amends the free trade agreement, in effect, in favour of the United States, but the free trade agreement prohibits Parliament or the legislatures of Canada from taking action that would be contrary to the free trade agreement.
The American corporations and the American government rule Canada in part through the free trade agreement, but it is not a two-way street. In other words, the free trade agreement is not mainly about trade. It is an agreement that was made under duress, as American rejection of Canadian exports was growing more and more painful. This was a deal that was offered and grabbed by the Prime Minister. It is not mainly about tariffs, because our tariffs are already low and coming down. It is mainly an unequal treaty which gives the U.S. control over the Canadian economy that had been growing over the years but had never reached such a point as it did with the free trade agreement.
In other words, the White House holds Canada in trusteeship to the U.S. based multinational corporations.
Another remark by the Prime Minister in the throne speech was even more ironic, and I quote:

May 27, 1991
The Address
Canada's ability to prosper in a global economy will be determined by the level of Canadians' educational achievement, by the sophistication of our management skills, and by our attitudes to work and to change.
Further down he says:
As part of my government's new agenda for prosperity, a discussion paper on learning will be published to stimulate and focus discussion on education and training.
And there follows some vague, general promises of vast improvements in our educational system.
The experience by which Canadians must judge this is that the government's pledges to cut illiteracy in Canada just are not matched by its present actions. It has been cutting its educational commitment to post-secondary education and training year by year. It promised a labour force development board or national training board. It was announced in January and has not met yet. We do not know whether it will meet. We do not have any idea what it will do. One thing we do know is that after promising a handsome training project at the cost of the workers' and employers' unemployment payments, at no cost to the government, they took $100 million out of that for the gulf war.
We also know that the Conservative sales tax proposals include, for the first time in our history, a tax on books and other reading materials. So much for the Prime Minister's credibility in promising vast improvements in our education.
The fact is that there is mounting opposition for these reasons to the free trade agreement, and not only within Canada. Yes, in Canada I have participated in labour meetings, in the fall in Vancouver and earlier this year in Toronto, in which there was strong insistence that methods will be found to prevent heedless plant closings like the closing of Caterpillar, a profitable plant closed simply to increase the profits of the parent company by finding a low wage, non-union area in the American south, and demands going beyond that, that the people of Canada should have control over the disposition of investments.
There is also growing opposition in Mexico. For several years there were small meetings between expert people in church and labour to establish some of the comparable facts in the two countries. There was a major conference last fall with Canadians visiting Mexico and
alerting Mexican labour leaders, officials of government, unions, universities and churches to the experience of the free trade agreement in Canada, the experience of the job losses, contrary to the promise of job increases.
The Canadians who went also learned more about the suppression of human rights in Mexico and the vote rigging at election time used to maintain the PRI in power, the Partito de la Revolution Institutional, the party that has ruled Mexico for 72 years. It is the party under which assassinations of labour leaders and other opposition critics are rarely investigated by the police and almost never lead to prosecution and punishment of those responsible. These are apparently necessary to keep the PRI in power, including the government of President Salinas.
We also learned how the peasants are being forced off the land to swell the many, many millions of unemployed in Mexico. We learned how the labour laws are not enforced. There are five to ten million children under the legal age of 15 working in the factories. Why? It is because the owner of the factory or the manager is allowed to take a falsified photocopy of a birth certificate and because for 22,000 factories there are three inspectors to enforce the law. They might be able to visit every factory once in 20 years.
We also learned of the so-called benefit of industrialization of the 500,000 workers in the new areas of the Maquiladora strip, mostly runaway plants from the United States and Canada. The effect has been that in Mexico as a whole the buying power of people's wages has been cut in half during the eighties. So much for the benefits to be brought to the Mexican workers by shutting down factories in Canada or the United States. In fact, Mexican trade unionists told some of us when I was there in March that what we need is an international bill of rights for labour.
The opposition is growing in the United States. This winter and spring there has been mounting mobilization against the free trade agreement. It has not arrived at the point of stopping it yet, but the opposition will increase, the more people experience what it means.
At a meeting I attended in Chicago and at a meeting two of my caucus colleagues attended in Washington, we found that more and more groups of labour, church and
May 27, 1991

university experts have been forming a coalition against the North American free trade agreement.
The AFL/CIO has come out solidly in opposition to the agreement presently proposed. There is a new organization formed partly by workers who have lost their jobs in places like Pittsburgh in the steel mills called the Federation for Industrial Retention and Renewal. It is using American legislation, spreading across the country and organizing opposition to the closure of plants. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, but the movement is growing.
Of course the North American free trade agreement is not the whole story. President Bush wants to extend it down to Tierra del Fuego as well.
Four years ago, when this sort of thing was just being hinted at, I met the vice-minister of planning in El Salvador and asked him: "What are you doing about unemployment?" He said: "That is why I wanted to talk with you. We want you Canadians to invest in our cheap labour". Those were his exact words. He speaks good English, and I wrote his words down at the time.
"You have lots of wood in Canada. Send it down here. We will make toys and furniture. We will sell them in the United States. We will get the wages and you will get the profits. Cut the pieces of the jeans, send them down here to be sold. Same thing. That is what the Caribbean Basin initiative is all about".
As I was leaving, he said: "Bring my regards to Sinclair Stevens". Apparently his staff had not told him that we have different opinions among different parties in Canada.
I was at a meeting a few weeks ago in the Caribbean with the Socialist International Parties of the Americas. People from the Caribbean, Central America, South America and North America were there. In the south they were particularly working out local integration, as they called it; in other words, means of defending themselves against the onslaught of the trans-nationals from the north. Generally there was discussion of opposing the North American free trade agreement.
There is a growing international movement, and what we need are trade agreements that are fair to labour. Do not force the farmers off the land to create more unemployment. Give education controlled by the people
The Address
who do the work, need the education and know what they need. The disposition of the capital should be shaped by the workers who created it and who know that we need that capital so they can continue their work and improve on their work. TTiis is the kind of free trade agreement we need, not the kind that the Prime Minister has been promoting in which he gives such fantastic rosy pictures in his throne speech.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member always pertain to the current situation, and I only wish to add some comments.
Last Friday the Quebec Liberal caucus of senators and members of Parliament, which I have the honour to preside, met with the Conseil central des syndicats nation-aux de Montreal, at its invitation, to examine the dramatic reality of Montreal's economic situation. The great speeches of a former president, a distinguished Quebecer, the hon. Jean Marchand were brought to mind. He used to say that Montreal's economy was a reflection of that of Quebec. What he was saying then is still true today.
Today, I simply want respectfully thank those who have invited us and organized such an opportunity for exchange in Montreal. Mr. Sylvio Gagnon, president of the Conseil central des syndicats nationaux de Montreal and Mrs. Monique Simard, the ever popular vice-president of the CNTU. The whole thing was coordinated by Mr. Begin, in charge of the agressive campaign against recession led by the Conseil central de Montreal. We will get back to this topic soon when we have the opportunity to discuss Montreal's economic situation.
Together with my colleagues from the Quebec caucus in Ottawa, I want to thank them for the warm reception. I am sure these exchanges will lead to a new co-operation. I want to address a question to the member. Is he fully aware of the dramatic situation of Montreal's economy? This is my first question.
Second, I would like him to try, with his usual sensitiveness but in his own way, to inform Canadians about the differences between Montreal's economy, a city which is the mainspring of the Quebec province, and Toronto's economy, the city he has represented brilliantly such a long time.

May 27, 1991
The Address


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Denis, for his question.
I will admit that I am not as well informed about the economic situation of Montreal as I am of the economic situation in Toronto. I can assure the member that Toronto has not experienced the level of unemployment that we now have since the thirties. It is worse than it was in the early eighties.
Factories have been closed and closed permanently. In my riding a factory that was making washing machines shut down. The announcement was made within a few weeks of the free trade agreement being signed. Those washing machines are now being made at Whirlpool in Ohio. This factory served half the Canadian market in washing machines. Now 600 skilled employees are looking for work. Some have found it, many have not.
That story has been repeated many times in Toronto. Toronto is of course a rich city by the standards of people who only look at the indices of wealth and growth. We can have a rich city or a rich country with far too many poor people, depending on the way the work is organized; who calls the tune and who gets the benefits.
Toronto has not yet approached the level of unemployment of Montreal and I say that with great respect to the working men and working women of Montreal who have been, as the member has said, the industrial and commercial centre or motor of Quebec and are now being desolated by unemployment in many industries.
I do not know the details of the industrial ownership in Quebec. I believe more of it is locally owned, that is, owned by people in Quebec, than is the case with the branch plants in Ontario.
I believe, for example, that the textile industry and the clothing industry of both provinces are being disastrously attacked by imports. About four years ago a plant employing 200 people in Spadina making basketball shorts shut down. I had toured it just a few weeks before at the invitation of management. It was, according to them, a very modern, very successful operation. It was shut down after an equivalent plant was opened in
Mexico to produce the same thing at wages worth one-tenth of what the management was paying in Toronto, and those Toronto wages, those Canadian textile worker wages, are no princely or princessly salary.
I believe that the textile and garment industry of Quebec, which is far greater than the textile and garment industry of Toronto, must be suffering the same kind of evil from the imports from countries where the government forces the wages down by legislation and by persecution of trade unionists.


Marcel Prud'homme: You are absolutely right. I want this on the record.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the speaker, as we all know, is a very sincere person and I wish everyone in the House were as sincere as he. I notice that the magazine The Economist last week has Sweden's consumer prices up by 10.7 per cent on a yearly rate. Sweden's prime lending rate is about 13 per cent as of last week. Does the hon. member think that we should have the Swedish model in Canada? If we did, does he not think that we would have even worse problems that we do at the present?
Mr. Heap Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have never been convinced that I understand exactly how you can compare Sweden with Canada. Sweden was fortunate enough to be neutral in two world wars. Before that, Sweden was fortunate enough from its point of view to export a considerable part of its population and for the last half century it has had a government that undertook to keep the spread between the richest and poorest from being too great. I believe it has done very well at that, but if it is being caught between the trans-national empires of western Europe and the tentacles off the trans-national empires of the United States, I expect it may be in some difficulty.
I never thought that we should try to model Canada's economy strictly on any other country. We can look at certain ideas and borrow them to try them out. One of the Swedish ideas that was half tried out was that contracts should be negotiated, labour management contracts, in which so many cents per hour would be put into an investment fund of which labour would have an equal share of control with management. There would be joint operation of that investment fund. The idea was
May 27, 1991

not fully carried out but has probably not been very successful.
I think if the original idea had been carried out there would have been higher morale among the Swedish workers. It is very difficult to tell exactly from this distance.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to participate in the throne speech debate and, as you pointed out, recognize that the name of of my riding is both French and English. Probably not too many ridings in Canada have the distinction of having an English and French name in the title. I suppose there may be a few others but I am very proud to represent Portage-Interlake.
I listened to the distinguished member for Saint-Denis and the distinguished member for Toronto debating with an understanding which is usually lacking in this House of Commons, as well as with the respect that should be given and awarded to other members of Parliament regardless of their political stripe.
We talk about national unity, as the Prime Minister did in the throne speech. Part of the problem with this country is the lack of respect for members of Parliament, the lack of respect from one province to another and the lack of respect for our different cultures. That causes disunity within our country.
The goal we should foster is the reassessment and putting back into perspective the reasons we are so happy and successful as Canadians, and trying to find a way of keeping Canada together as opposed to finding ways which divide us.
We should look at the legislatures of the western world. We all have the opportunity on a very regular basis to look at the U.S. Congress and Senate in action, our neighbours across the line. If you would take a few minutes from time to time as I do, you would marvel at the way the elected bodies of our southern neighbours pay so much respect to the elected positions of each other. We just do not do that in this legislature.
I have sat for almost seven years in this House and watched the deterioration of debate to the point where character assassination seems to be the objective, whether it is from this side to members opposite, or from opposite to this side. That shows that we are not quite the sophisticated and cultured elite as we would like to
The Address
think. There is a major problem with our whole attitude and it reflects on the way we conduct ourselves in this Chamber.
I have also had the opportunity, as have some others, to sit in the House of Representatives or the elected Houses of Germany, Britain, Norway and even of Taiwan. There has not been the same opportunity of time but somehow in those democratic houses there is far more respect and far more fair and open debate on different points of view without getting into the character of one another.
This is a fault that I see in this House and I hope all members in this room will try to change that attitude. I know we do not now have the filibustering or the ringing of the bells but we had a demonstration of sorts in the Senate that I think was really not necessary. I do not think political gains were made by withholding for almost a year a bill that this government put forward. That did not serve the purpose. It did point out that we have some shortcomings I think we should address.
I often listen to debate in this House and I think Canadians are judging parliamentarians on the basis of what they have been able to see and pick up here. A negative point of view, whether from the opposition or from the government side, is generally sensationalized in the media the next day. Right now I could make such an outlandish statement that there would probably be five phone calls in my office and I would get all kinds of ink. That is the way I could get some media coverage and probably indicate to my constituents that I was actually here and participated in debate. I believe those things happen all too often.
The throne speech brought forward the idea of trying to find some common ground among all elected members of Parliament to find a way of uniting Canada, of keeping this country strong and united notwithstanding some of those differences ingrained for the last 300 years, and that is the job of this House.
Primarily and foremost, I believe within the next 12 to 16 months it is going to be imperative that every one of us elected to this House of Commons put aside some of our political differences, some of our political antagonisms toward one another and find common ground to keep Canada united.

The Address
Should it become weaker because of our continual friction-which is mostly created, I may say, by politicians and not the common worker, not the individual who is trying to make a living in this country, not one who is contributing to society, not people like the truck drivers who were here last week, or the tobacco farmers who found themselves in trouble in this country, or the steel workers who are meeting in Ottawa right now, trying to find a way to solve some of their dilemma, their loss of jobs- we must put aside some of our frictional differences that lead us to say: "It is your fault", "It is my fault", or "It is the government's fault" from Mr. Trudeau years ago or Mr. Pearson or Mr. Diefenbaker. It is always somebody's fault.
In my view, today is the day we must sit down as parliamentarians and find out what unites us and work toward that end. That way, this House of Parliament will stay with its 290-some members and, in fact, grow.
All this confrontation must come to an end. I see my colleague from Winnipeg, Manitoba, a very distinguished member of Parliament who has sat on a committee with me. I believe some of the committee work in the past has shown that a lot of great work can be done in non-partisan way for the betterment of this country.
I had the opportunity to sit on the Indian affairs committee when I was first elected. I see another colleague of mine, a very distinguished member from northern Ontario. We sat and worked out a lot of great new ideas which were worked into Bill C-31. It is probably not a perfect bill, but I can recall that one, and so does my colleague.
The whole idea is to get away from the controversy, and I think all members should sit down and examine how we can avoid that. Sure, I like heated debates. The number of hours in this House we spent talking about points of privilege, points of order, and differences of opinion that took up the Chair's time to re-evaluate and reassess-and I see some people nodding their heads- when we could have entertained honest and fair debate about how your point of view or mine may differ, and the facts to back it up.
That kind of good, healthy debate is what we should have, as opposed to saying: "You know what he said about me last week, or in the committee, or so on, and you know that report in the paper". This has to be the
goal of this session of Parliament. I believe it is very crucial. We should see a tone in Question Period that is less confrontational. Surely, with an attitude like that, within 16 months or so we could find a true solution to Canada's ills and hopefully by then the recession will be long over and the economy will be booming again.
I support an effort by all members to try and work in a more co-operative way. I would like to present my idea as to what I think the Speaker ought to do when there is a bad practice going on. He should tell those two individuals to go meet out behind the curtains so we can get on with the business of the House, which is debate, debate and debate, good debate, the kind that we see sometimes done by our American colleagues. I sometimes admire them. They seem to have an idea of their land so well in hand that they go after the problems and debate them out there.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague from the government for the comments he has made, particularly a special thank you for his positive comments about my work in Parliament as a member.
I know that when he pleads for some sort of non-partisanship on the major issues of the day that he is sincere.
I, too, want to do exactly that. When we are talking about the country, when we are talking about Canada and what it has been, what it is and what it can be, surely we need to work together. When we talk about the economic development of this nation, of all regions, and about bringing a greater sense of justice to the workers of this great country, we need to work more co-operatively.
However, there is a problem. I recall just a few days ago when I, in fact, had explained to a colleague from the other opposition party what my leader's position was on the Constitution. I had explained it to him personally because I wanted to make sure that he did not misunderstand. It was with respect to what we were proposing to do. My leader had indicated what his preferred position would be and I had hoped that it would take place without any partisanship. I explained it to my colleague, but he got up and took advantage of the situation by pretending and, in fact, indicating quite clearly that he had not heard it before.
May 27, 1991

There are all kinds of traps and all kinds of dangers and I hope that the spirit will prevail. Thank you.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague from Winnipeg for those remarks. Already, I believe, the few words that I introduced into this House are working. If we could just multiply that force, this House will not be such an adversarial place against people's characters and individuals. We may not agree with others' policies, we may not agree whether it was the right decision to spend or not to spend, I will accept that and we will debate that in the House. That is the kind of debate that is healthy, and at the end of the day, well, we will vote on it. However, we must get away from these very personal attacks on an individual's character.
Politicians come here with a little bit of a thick skin generally and are prepared to accept the odd shot. My goodness, I chaired the committee on communications and culture for two years as "that pig farmer". No problem. We had a lot of fun with it and I am sure most others did. My good colleague sitting behind me here recalls some of those times.
My point is that it is all too often taken negatively by the public and can then grow into something that really was not there. We all know that perception is something that we have to live with, but the reality is that it does change from time to time. I am grateful for his comments and look forward to a very aggressive but fair and interesting session of this House this coming spring and summer.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on the throne speech, as we get closer to the end of the debate and having had the opportunity over the last week or so to listen to colleagues on all sides speak regarding the throne speech.
I would like to take a few minutes to present my views and the views of many Canadians who come from the regions of the country and their understanding and thoughts on the direction Canada should be taking, as someone who listened to the throne speech and the promise of a united Canada, a strong Canada, a Canada that will be developed into the next decade.
I would like to take a minute out from that side of it, because I believe this country, if we go back in history to the founding Fathers of Confederation and John George Diefenbaker and Roads to Resources and Sir John A.
The Address
Macdonald and the railroad, was built on the pillars of resources which enabled us to build the cities and the future of this country.
In this period of time it is the regions of this country that are going through some very, very difficult economic times.
I refer to regions where 4,000 single industry towns, communities are being jeopardized with pressures from groups of Canadians and people from around the world who do not recognize or understand that the resources are the pillars of this country.
In the throne speech the Prime Minister and this government recognize the fact that literacy is going to be one of the greatest challenges today and tomorrow. The reason I want to pick that section out of the throne speech is because it is reflected in my riding of Timis-kaming in northern Ontario. It is also reflected in parts of northern Quebec, northern Alberta, the Yukon and Newfoundland. The country we gather our resources from, whether it is in the mining industry, forestry, agriculture or fisheries, it is the livelihood of individuals which may be third or fourth generation, in which their grandfather, father and now themselves have been able to garner a way of life. There was stability in a resource that no one ever thought would be in jeopardy. These people say, my dad was a coal miner, my great grandfather was a coal miner and I had the opportunity to be one too.
When we look at the over-all picture, and that is basically what Canada has to do at this point, we are in an a period of adjustment in the industrial side, in the cultural side, in understanding each other.
I would like to deal with the industrial side of it because it affects a lot of my constituents as well as a lot of individual Canadians, who through no fault of their own, have now lost or are about to lose their livelihood and what they believed in and what they thought would be their future.
Individuals have worked in the mining community, for instance, for generations. They left school at 14 or 15 because they were big, strapping young men who were able to get the opportunity to work underground. At that time if you were good with a shovel, you had a strong back and strong arms, you made a good dollar. You were able to work. You retired, up until a few years ago, without a pension. Of course, the social network has

May 27, 1991
The Address
changed to ensure that individuals now have the opportunity for some small pensions and some good pensions.
The big problems we are now facing are technology changes. In mining, the price is not set here in Canada but is an international world price. Mines that had been operating for 35 or 40 years have closed. Some individuals who are 35, 40, 45 or 50 years old, who were great at what they did, when they look to be employed in northern B.C., northern New Brunswick or northern Ontario, with the technology changes and new mines coming into place, their skills are no longer required, because they are manual skills.
I think that is the industrial adjustment this country has to face. Unless you come from those regions, you do not understand the human side.
Pressures are being put on by policies, whether at the federal or provincial level, to bring in new legislation that adapts to what is very popular in regions and urban centres of the country. I can relate to the fact that policies that were brought in by a provincial government in the Province of Ontario effectively closed down a community in my constituency, Temagami, because it was popular for urbanites to have a playground in which to be able to canoe, to walk through trails. Never once did they reflect on the damage they were doing to individuals in my area who had made their livelihood from forest products, whether it was in the bush operations or sawmill operations. As I speak, after two years, some of those people still do not have work. Their unemployment insurance has run out, some have lost their homes, some have gone on welfare, some have left the area and, unfortunately, some have a very difficult time being able to fill out an application form for a new job.
That is why it is so important for us to be able to make those adjustments. Whether it is in the fishing community or any of the resorts or smaller regions of this country, we have to give these individuals the opportunity to get the basic educational skills required-reading, writing and arithmetic. As a government-I know in my constituency we are certainly trying-we have to ensure, through the educational system, that we can bring the educational skills of individuals up to a level where they will then be able to challenge in a world that is changing. The unfortunate part of it is that a lot of Canadians will
still not accept that it is changing times, times in which governments at all levels have to start dealing with what I believe is the future of this country. I believe the time for partisanship is over. The fact is that we have to be looking at the challenges ahead and be able to deal with them in a manner which Canadians can understand rather than the fact that it is popular to say one thing to get elected, but not deal with the fact that it is individual lives, whether it is in the four basic resources or whether it is in individuals who may be involved and a spin-off from that.
It is difficult for me to understand that individuals from other regions of the country will not allow us to continue on the basis of what this country was built on. I hope more Canadians from the urban centres will start to understand that the wealth of Canada is not in Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver, the wealth of the country and what the country was built on is in the regions of this country. We have to ensure that the regions of this country get the opportunity to be able to move forward with the new technology to ensure and enhance the opportunity for those regions to benefit.
I could go on for a good period of time because it is something I believe in strongly. Before the regions of this country are going to be able to ensure stability, urban Canadians are going to have to understand and give us the opportunity to do so.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, it is now fully two weeks since we had the Speech from the Throne and I have been looking forward to making a few comments about it.
First of all, let me deal with one of the matters raised by my friend from Timiskaming and, before him, his colleague and my friend from Portage-Interlake. I hear them say something that many on their side have said in this debate and it comes through sometimes in responses by ministers during Question Period these last few days, and that is that somehow there is a new credo, the word goes out that there is to be no more partisanship, it is all, from here on, going to be sweetness and light, kind of one party system if you like. That makes for great speechifying, but it does not make for much sense because that is not our system.
May 27, 1991

Let us be clear what is being said. If they say: "Let us get rid of the adversary system. Let us get rid of the partisan approach to politics," which has served this country very well for more than 100 years, I have to tell the gentleman from Timiskaming and his friend from Portage-Interlake that I cannot go along with that. If, on the other hand, their appeal is to not resort to the petty or the personal, we have never felt that should have been done in the first place. If he can be so good as to sidle up to some of his colleagues who, in answering questions in Question Period, regularly thrive on the personal and the petty, then maybe we are making some progress, if that is the language we are talking.
I suspect he is talking more than that. I suspect he is mouthing the words his Prime Minister has been pushing the last few weeks, that somehow we have to stop being partisan. I have to say to him I do not have any intention of going along with that. I will tell you why.
Our whole system is a partisan adversarial system. It is by criticizing, it is by holding up to public scrutiny the other person's ideas, by their holding up to scrutiny our ideas, that we come up with even better ideas. Our whole system is an adversarial system.
In the rush for sweetness and light, in the rush to find a new millennium, let us not throw out the best strategy of all for getting there and that is making sure that the kinds of ideas we have-whether it is about employment or whether it is about national unity-are held up to the most brutal public scrutiny. In the end these ideas will be so good that they can withstand that kind of scrutiny.
This idea that somehow we are going to put all our disagreements aside just does not wash with me and I suspect is not going to work in any event. Better that the government, of which that gentleman is a supporter, tell us what it has in mind instead of sitting on things until next February in so far as national unity is concerned. Then, if we have a few refinements and a few criticisms to make, instead of asking us not to criticize, the government should put its ideas out now and we can say what we think of them.
Let us get away from this false idea that somehow we are going to have a new millennium, a new credo where it is going to be all kiss and make up. That is not the
The Address
nature of this place. The nature of this place is that you have some ideas and I have some ideas and we are not going to agree all the time. We are sent here by the public of this country to see to it that the ideas we together advance and legislate to become part of the law of the land are ideas that have been held up to public scrutiny, have been refined, not by putting them under the rug, but by attacking those ideas and in the process coming up with even better ways of doing things.
I agree with him to an extent. Let us do away with the petty and the personal. If he asking in the process that we ought to turn a blind eye to the principles that we stand for, we cannot do that. If he is saying when he talks about doing away with partisanship, that we ought to do away with what separates us, I cannot go along with that. If he thought about it a little more, he would not go along with it either.
This speech has been in the public domain for two weeks today, two weeks since the Governor General came to the other place to deliver it. A lot of things have been said about the speech, most of them fairly harsh and the harsher I think the more truthful. It was my leader, the gentleman from Beausejour, the next Prime Minister of this country, who put it very well when he said on the day the speech was made public that this speech was a cruel joke for the 1.5 million people who are looking for work in this country.
That best characterizes what we feel about the throne speech. It also, by the way, demonstrates very well what I was saying to you, Mr. Speaker, a moment ago. It is difficult to tell the gentleman from Timiskaming that we are going to have sweetness and light when they perpetrate on the Canadian people this latest cruel joke, the 1.5 million people out there who are waiting for some help, the fishermen about whom there was not a word in the throne speech. He wants me to lie low on that. It is fishermen and plant workers, 17,000 of them that sent me here in the first place.
There was not a word in the throne speech about the plight of farmers, about the plight of the forestry industry. Somebody asked me to kiss and make up. Somebody asked me not to voice my outrage on behalf of those people in Burgeo, in Ramea, in Francois, in the 158 communities that I represent. If somebody asked me to hush that up and to ignore this government's mandate-

The Address


An hon. member:: It would be impossible to hush you up.


Roger Simmons: I am delighted to see my friend, the new parliamentary secretary for fisheries, a gentleman all the way from Fraser Valley East. The one thing he does not have to worry about is any fish plants closing down in his riding. I am nevertheless delighted to have him on board and I look forward to working with him.
He is right. When it comes to the fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland, it is going to be very difficult to shut me up. I am glad that he knows that much about me already. I am looking forward to working with him.
This throne speech is supposed to be the government's plan of action, the government's road map for the next few months or a year or two, and yet in it there is not a thing, not a thing that would give any comfort or any sense of direction or any hope to those unemployed, to those fishermen, to those farmers, to those forestry workers among others I have mentioned.
Like others who sit in this House I am a politician, and I am proud to be a politician. One of the things I believe all of us in this House have learned very quickly upon becoming politicians is that you cannot be all things to all people but you ought first to listen to what they are saying.
Second, you cannot take them in a direction they do not want to go. That is where this Prime Minister is making one terrible mistake, though I suspect it is not an inadvertent mistake so much as it is a calculated risk which he is blundering on very badly.
The attempt to take people where they do not want to go, by that I have in mind the free trade agreement, the goods and services tax, the shutting down a rural post office, the abandonment of railway lines. People have identified with all those issues and they are having difficulty dealing with now. I am thinking again of goods and services tax, the free trade agreement and other issues.
I realize from your signal, Mr. Speaker, that my time has almost expired, so I will conclude very quickly by saying that this Prime Minister's terrible legacy to this country is threefold. He is perpetrating the shutdown of
rural Canada. He has already wrecked the Canadian economy. Now he has brought a once great country to the very brink of collapse. I intended to say more about each of these, but I see that my time is up. I thank you, sir, for your indulgence.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's comments. I guess that is the difference between those of us who sit on this side of the House and those who sit on the other side.
This government recognizes that we have to move in a new direction and that new challenges are faced in the world. The hon. member spoke about the GST. The party that he represents was in power for 20-odd years. Numerous reports were sent forward to the finance minister at the time, recommending to him that changes be made so that the federal sales tax, which was an anchor around the industrial community, be changed to a fairer tax. But they did not have the courage to do so.
History will show that the unpopular moves which have been made by this government are the ones that will ensure our young people and our grandchildren have the opportunity to meet those challenges.
Is the hon. member prepared to stay in yesterday's world, in a little cocoon? Is he not willing to move forward to the challenges facing Canadians? With the policies that he believes in we cannot play on an international field. Is that what he has been saying to us?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, one would have to agree that my hon. friend comes up with wonderfully interesting question. They have very little relevance to what I had to say, but that is completely beside the point.
Let me go back to his earlier point before I answer that question about yesterday. I thought the hon. member illustrated very well the very point I was making.
We remember his speech which he read very well. We must admit that regardless of who wrote it for him, he read that speech marvellously well.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I did not read a speech. I do not have to read a speech when I want to tell exactly what rural Canada is talking about.



May 27, 1991


Roger Simmons: I take it back. He did not read his speech well. I am sorry for saying that.
The point I make is that when he gave his speech he was very forthright about how we ought not to be partisan. Now, as soon as I make a point with which he disagrees, he says: "the basic difference between us is that we are on this side, therefore we are smart, and you are on that side therefore-"
That is the very man who 10 minutes ago was repeating to us not to be partisan. I interjected the point for him that maybe what he ought to think about was not being petty. He did not hear my plea but got up immediately and started being petty.
We are the people, in his words, who do not have the courage, who sit on that side of the House, and all that kind of nonsense. Where is my evangelist now? Where is the man who appealed to me 15 minutes ago not to be petty and partisan? Physician heal thyself, heal thyself. Listen to your own words.
How about yesterday? He asks if I want to go by yesterday's formulas. No, he is dead on. I do not want to. But I appeal to him first not to rewrite yesterday's history.
He and his party have perpetrated the idea that somehow the government of which I was a supporter at the time had shut out Quebec back in 1982. He knows in all honesty that the late gentleman who was then the premier of Quebec was a separatist and he was not going to sign anything. He knows that the people of Quebec were represented here very well by 74 government members and by 8 or 10 members in cabinet.
He wants to talk about yesterday, this nonsense, this rewriting of history, that somehow the people of Canada and the other nine provinces ganged up. What they did was try to deal as best they could with a premier who had no intention at that time of signing anything.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. Take the word of the gentleman from Baie Comeau who is now the leader of this government, the leader of this gentleman's party, who immediately after the events of 1982 actually went to the trouble of congratulating the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, publicly for the way in which he had patriated the Constitution and brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Address
I thought that was a marvellous gesture on the part of the member from Baie Comeau at the time. I wish now he would have the intellectual honesty to own up to what he did nine years ago instead of rewriting history all the time.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise and speak to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to use that as a backdrop to the remarks I want to make.
In his opening remarks the Prime Minister, through the Right Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn, our Governor General, stated that:
This session will be a turning point in Canadian history. Let no one doubt the seriousness of the challenges we face as a country.
He felt that we had the responsibility and the opportunity to forge an historic accommodation that embraces all Canadians, overcomes divisions and discord, and charts a course for prosperity for the generations to come.
Then the Speech from the Throne continues and says in effect after a few other remarks:
We have been confided the stewardship of this great nation, constructed across an entire continent by generations of men and women determined to make a home for themselves and a future for their children.
There are some things that this government has constructed that in terms of a future for their children have been put much in jeopardy by what I consider to be poorly founded policies on the part of the government opposite.
If this government had not been found wanting in so many areas from an economic perspective, from a social perspective, from an infrastructure perspective, from the kinds of motors of the economy which it has sold off and privatized in a way that has not been helpful to this country, to say nothing of the GST, the free trade and a few other things, I would go into detail in respect to these matters. However, I do believe that before we address the other issues we must address Canadian unity, because without a sense of Canadian unity, a sense of a country that is solid and comfortable with itself, we cannot fundamentally address the other issues, those are the economic ones which can effectively help this country.
The other point that was made in the throne speech is that Canada's history is the history of builders and achievers. Around the world, we all know that we are

May 27, 1991
*
The Address
number two. It is not bad to be number two in the eyes ofthe rest of the world and to be known as a country to which people would love to come and in which people feel honoured to be a citizen participating in the growth and development.
interest of a single political party, to enable the mechanisms that can help this country come together.
We have so little on which we differ that we have got to find the Canadian way and accommodate.
I just wish that were the way we could go about establishing this country. If you look for a way in which we could establish some process and procedures to meet the discomfort and lack of assurance that we are going to be one country, that Quebec and Canada are going to live together, then we have to look to our leader Mr. Chretien, who has come forward with some really concrete and positive suggestions for action now.
I could say that it is rather sad, but I would say that it is not so sad but a happy coincidence that this government has taken the ideas that Mr. Chretien put forward and paraphrased them, you could say, they copycat them. I will not say plagiarize, but I will say that if you look at the throne speech, you will see some very interesting remarks taken almost totally from Mr. Chretien's presentation.
First of all, our leader called for a Canadian round. What did this wonderful Speech from the Throne say? It said it will be a Canadian round.
Second, Mr. Chretien proposed a joint parliamentary committee to hold nation-wide hearings on a set of constitutional principles. It just turned that around a bit and in this government's Speech from the Throne, it was announced that there will be a committee starting some time in September-just a delay from June, which Mr. Chretien called for-and that a decision would be taken by this government after that committee makes its report.
It would suggest new legislation either for a referendum or for a constituent assembly. If Mr. Chretien suggested that the final proposition be submitted to Canadians in a national referendum, I would say that this is close to becoming a copycat approach.
I do not care that it is a copycat approach. I can tell you that-our Leader said this best-if you want to copy what he has done, please go right ahead and do it. We are prepared in the interests of Canada, far beyond the


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Finestone: Our Leader asked the government to consider proposals and not delay the procedures until next February. He presented a whole process for a reform package.
He started by presenting a fundamental concept in November 1990 to the Belanger-Campeau commission and then those were reiterated a framework of nine principles for constitutional reform on April 21 in a very wonderful speech in Montreal.
He shared that openly with the public and in meetings with the new minister of constitutional affairs. This party and our leader, who is more interested in the evolution of Canada than in partisan politics, want to maintain Canada coast to coast, including Quebec and its particularity. Mr. Chretien went on to lay out in a more formalistic manner using the Quebec federal Liberal Party Congress, the colloque that we had in Sherbrooke this week, a whole proposal for Quebec happiness, which is a must for Canadian unity.

Canadian unity, of which Quebec's happiness is a necessary element.

I would suggest that this constitutional proposal is solid. It is an excellent reference point for a constitutional position which could be placed before the people. Then there would be something concrete on which reaction could take place, whether by provincial governments, interested parties or the ordinary men and women of Canada. From there we could go on to step three, which would be an amended principle placed before the people in a national referendum. I think that the process laid out by our leader in response to Canadian unity-far before this response to the throne speech-is a responsible action by the only leader who can truly bring Canada together in the future.

May 27, 1991

In order that there be no misunderstanding, I would like the general population to know what our leader has said and what the congress of the Liberal Party of Canada Quebec section had to say this past weekend in Sherbrooke:
Whereas the Liberal Party of Canada recognizes the urgent necessity of profoundly reforming Canada's political and economic structure in order to give the country the dynamism, flexibility and modernism required to successfully face the demands and challenges of the 21st century; (and) whereas the members of the Liberal party of Canada firmly believe that the best option for Quebec remains the adherence to a reformed Canadian federation.
It presents a clear progressive and substantial constitutional reform plan, the fundamental elements of which I would like to lay out for you in terms of national unity and I would call it "our blueprint for Canada".
The first major point is that we reaffirm our faith in a profoundly reformed federal regime as the most capable system of ensuring economic growth, social justice, respect for the principle of linguistic duality, the protection and promotion of the French language and culture, enrichment of multiculturalism as well as respect for minority rights as much within Quebec as in the rest of Canada.
Mr. Chretien spoke eloquently about respect for francophones outside Quebec and respect for anglophones inside Quebec, and he alluded to the barbecue, the Bloc Quebecois under Mr. Bouchard, and the fact that he now is coming around to what Mr. Chretien said two and a half years ago about the fact that Bill 178 was a totally unnecessary bill. One does not protect French by building a sense of belonging and a sense of participation on the backs or by diminishing other people.
The second point we made was that in the constitutional debate, the joint committee, in its final report, integrate in a non-exclusive manner the following reform elements, and I read them as quickly as I can:

(a) to define major national and international objectives that are desirable for the progress of Canada as a whole and respond to the common goals of Canadian citizens, such as being internationally competitive and improving the quality of the environment and the social well-being of our citizens;
The Address Some of the reforms.

A second point here is that a new division of powers taking into consideration: amongst others (1) the identification of the common objectives of the Canadian totality, (2) the determination of the level of government most capable of adequately responding to the needs of the population according to the well-being of the latter, and (3) the elimination, as completely as possible, of the overlapping and splitting of programs and services within the scope of shared spheres of activity, having recourse, if necessary to asymmetrical agreements;

The Third point is as follows:
(c) incorporation in the Constitution of the distinct character of
Quebec, by guaranteeing, for instance:
(i)	the powers Quebec needs to protect and promote French language and culture within its territory, while respecting recognized rights and freedoms;

I have two more I would like to do, if I may. [Translation]
Also:
(ii)	in a reformed and elected Senate, the inclusion of the double majority rule for votes on bills and government decisions that may affect the status, protection and promotion of the French language;
(iii)	a veto right; [and]
(v) the provinces' right to withdraw, with full compensation, from any federal shared costs programs in exclusively provincial jurisdictions, provided that they establish a program which is compatible with the objectives of the national program;


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Unless I have unanimous consent, I will have to interrupt the hon. member. We now have five minutes for questions and comments. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments by the hon. member for Mount Royal. I wanted to ask a question earlier but I arrived just as the previous speaker was finishing his speech. In the circumstances, I would appreciate the hon. member's comments, since she seemed to be showing full support for what the other member was saying, which was that when Mr. Trudeau patriated the Constitution in 1982, he said that in any case, the Quebec government did not want to sign. He seemed to

May 27, 1991
The Address
say that Mr. Trudeau was right to patriate the Constitution just the same and to include a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I am sorry, but I disagree. When one of the major provinces of this Confederation doesn't want to sign, for whatever reason, you don't force the issue like Trudeau did in 1982, especially when you are talking about including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the hon. member is aware, this was done to destroy Bill 101, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms included language rights, although language is an exclusively provincial matter, and by putting this into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, several sections of Bill 101 became ultra vires, so that the Government of Quebec passed Bill 178, thanks to the notwithstanding clause.
So the hon. member was in Sherbrooke, and she mentioned that her present leader had given us a set of guidelines. This is the same man who was there in 1982, and who said recently that he wanted a national referendum, but it didn't matter how Quebec voted, because he would settle the matter once and for all with all Canadians. Furthermore, the hon. member's new leader unreservedly supports the inclusion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it intrudes on the Province of Quebec's jurisdiction over language.
So what does the hon. member have to say about this?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with any of the remarks made by my colleague opposite.
I can only add that his leader at first supported what was done in 1982; secondly, his leader tried to force things through with the Meech Lake Accord and he failed. A Constitution is alive and can be changed along the way, but very carefully. So I do not feel that I need to go on answering, except that I would like to add some comments, some proposals on the motion that was tabled.

I continue about constitutional protection under which:
- the preservation of the proportionality existing regarding the representation of the Supreme Court judges coming from Quebec; the participation of the provinces in the appointment process of Supreme Court judges; the strengthening of Canada's economic integration which ensures: one, a free circulation of persons, goods,
services and capital, two, the creation of an efficient, intergovernmental mechanism of consultation and co-ordination of policies, programs and services, three, an effective regional representation within the Bank of Canada, while maintaining the present independence and authority of the latter; the preservation of the principles of equalization payments; the recognition, the respect and the guarantee of rights of our aboriginal peoples including the principle of self-government.
The members of the Liberal Party of Canada, along with the members from British Columbia have approved this document. We are all very pleased with the fact that our leader has given us a basic document. This government chose to use the words of our leader in its throne speech and in the undertakings that it took and it should accept further advice from him and use this as a basic document which can be amended, starting with public hearings in the beginning of September, rather than going to February of next year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: A point of order, the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I believe in the spirit of co-operation that we have been talking about today that you will find there is unanimous consent to pass the throne speech on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the motion moved by the deputy government whip.

Is the House agreed to the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that it was not our intention to cut anybody off from debate but to allow the debate to go to 5.45 p.m. The agreement was that at 5.45 p.m. the throne speech would pass on division. I think that is clear now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Your attention, please. It seems that there was a misunderstanding. I therefore suggest that the debate continue as agreed until 5.45 p.m. and at that time the motion moved by the
May 27, 1991

deputy government whip will be deemed adopted, since it just was. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Delta.


Mr. Rocheleau:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, you said that the motion was adopted, but it was adopted on division, if I understand correctly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I thank the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer for asking me to be more precise. Yes, the motion was adopted on division.
I again recognize the hon. member for Delta.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to be one of the final speakers in this very significant debate. Of all the throne speeches I have read and listened to, this is one of the most significant. Coming at this time in Canadian history, it is all the more significant. One of the prime features of this whole debate and of the throne speech was the subject of Canadian unity.
The speaker immediately before me quoted the paragraph which I would like to quote, as many others have, which says:
Whatever our background and wherever we live, Canadians share
the same basic hopes and aspirations. We are proud of the great
country we have inherited. Above all, we are determined to leave it
a better and stronger place for our children.
As I thought about our country and about what we would talk about today, I thought that it indeed is a miracle that we are a united country. We see the tremendous size of our country, the geographical differences, the cultural differences, the many different races, the different areas of the globe that we come from, and the tremendous economic disparities that our country has. Some areas are very wealthy and very rich in resources, other areas are very poor with very few resources. Yet we have been able to stick together. However, at this time we are faced with very significant and great threats to our unity.
I have noticed, particularly in the last two months, that when I talk to people on the street, or people phone me up and talk on the telephone, or wherever it may be, I hear more and more that we as Canadians need each
The Address
other. We cannot allow one section of our country to leave. We need the maritimes. We need Quebec. We need central Canada, Ontario. We need our prairie provinces, and we need British Columbia.
We need to know, as well, the actual cost if this country should break up as has been threatened.
I have never seen any specific costs. We have had our economists say there will be great economic disruption, but I think the greater tragedy would be the loss of our social structures. We would see tremendous psychological damage. We would lose our status in the world community. We have just finished a meeting with the European parliamentarians in Victoria, and they were constantly coming and talking to us about what would happen if Canada should break up.
We have been a world example of a nation that has got along together in spite of differences throughout the country. They have, in many instances, looked at Canada and seen how we, despite our diversity, have been able to unite and work together to create a country that has, compared to its population, a tremendous influence on world affairs.
Another aspect of this throne speech that I would like to just comment on very briefly is the fact that we want Canadians everywhere to participate in prosperity. One of the sources of discontent within Canada is the tremendous discrepancy between the have areas and the have not areas. I come from British Columbia where we have great natural resources. We have a great future.
Then we look at the other side of the country, say Newfoundland, where their raw materials are limited, and yet we, as British Columbians, are anxious that the people of Newfoundland will prosper and enjoy the good things that we enjoy in British Columbia.
Through our history we have seen that various regions of the country have suffered while other areas have prospered. I think that, as it says in the Speech from the Throne:
There is much more to Canadian unity than amending the
Constitution. Our unity is strengthened by a strong economy. And
prosperity is enhanced by a united country. But disunity in the face
of the global economic challenge invites decline.
We need to very seriously consider that as we consider the next couple of years in our country's history. This government has done some very significant things to

May 27, 1991
The Address
equalize the prosperity in the country. There was a great deal of anger in my part of the country over the very high interest rates, as I know there was in the maritimes. We felt that the outlying parts of the country were being punished by the rapid inflationary processes that were going on in southern Ontario.
As these interest rates have been allowed to decline, and as we have seen the equalization of opportunities to develop new industries across the country, the government is to be applauded for this very positive step. We hope that these interest rates will continue to drop, that we will see more and more opportunity for Canadian business.
As we prosper, as our economy becomes stronger, we will see that gap between the U.S. interest rates and our Canadian rates decline. This has been a great concern to many in business in Canada.
There is another area, also regarding this, that we need to look at very carefully as a government, and that is to reduce the amount of paperwork that we have inflicted upon our Canadian businessmen. Think of all the various government reports that are required. It is all very well to make it financially possible for them to prosper, but I think we also need to look at other areas where we have put unnecessary burdens upon our Canadian businessmen.
As we only have a short while, I will not go into all of the other details. In talking about the prosperity and ensuring that all Canadians participate in that prosperity, I would like to speak briefly about the Canada- U.S.-Mexico free trade arrangement. There was much debate, much controversy about the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. Of course, there is ongoing debate at the present time about a deal with Mexico and how it would affect Canada.
I hope that we will not just be involved in rhetoric in this debate but will see some very sound research done so we as Canadians will know precisely how the free trade agreement with Mexico and the U.S. will affect us as Canadians. I have heard many reports. Just this weekend I had a long discussion in Victoria about how British Columbia will benefit from the free trade arrangement with Mexico.
We need to not just take a public relations person's word for this, but I trust that the government will bring out the facts that will indicate how much better it will be if we have a true North American free trade area. While we were with the European parliamentarians we discussed a great deal of what will happen in 1992.
A tremendous trading bloc will be developed in Europe and it will, of course, be protecting its own self-interests versus North American interests. There will also be discussion of a possibility of an eastem-asiat-ic free trade arrangement.
These are the areas. While we are talking about economic factors, we need to comment again on the fact that it is essential that all levels of government control their spending tendencies. Just recently, we have seen in the Province of Ontario a situation where a provincial government, flying in the face of all other governments, has raised its deficit at a time when we are trying get these things under control. More and more of our Canadian dollars are being spent to pay off interest on money which we have borrowed from our children. It is grossly unfair.
In my last minute, I would like to talk briefly about the disabled Canadians who are mentioned in the throne speech. In 1986, there were estimated to be 3.3 million Canadians with some form of disability. Some of them are physically disabled. Some have mental disabilities.
We have seen in the last few years how they have become more and more a part of our society. Yet there is so much more that can be done. I would congratulate the government on its initiative of including the disabled in this particular throne speech. We are looking forward to the specific programs which will be announced as the program is outlined.
I would ask that the government look very seriously at those with mental problems. These people have been neglected in the past. We look at people in wheel chairs, the deaf and the blind. Yet people with mental disabilities are the ones who suffer the greatest.
I would implore the government of which I am a member to make sure that we consider the mental disabilities, the schizophrenics, the depressives in our country who need our help.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to what may be the final speaker from the government side talking about this very fuzzy document called the Speech from the Throne. I have had great difficulty with this.


An hon. member:: Read it in French.


Ronald MacDonald: I think it would be equally bad in both official languages.
One of the problems that I have with the document is that it is long on platitudes, but the government's actions during the last number of years speak much louder than some of the hollow words in the Speech from the Throne.
One of the things in particular that I find offensive is the fact that this document-the member talks about economic competitiveness-talks about economic wellbeing being linked to national unity.
In the last number of years, this government has done everything humanly and subhumanly possible-some people might say-and in its power to ensure that we have not just one or two Canadas but that we have a
The Address
number of different Canadas, all based on the level of input that you can put into society.
The level of economic disparity-he wants to talk about competitiveness-and economic renewal is really what will bring about great national unity. I would like for him to comment for a few minutes about how he could possibly justify the transfer of the burden of taxation from the federal government with its vast taxing powers to the poorest provinces in the countiy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It is 5.45 p.m. and I must end the debate. I remind all members that the motion was carried on division 15 minutes ago.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: That the Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency
the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.46 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 28, 1991