1991-05-15

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the report into Canada's newest immigrant, the former Iraqi ambassador to the U.S., raises many, many unanswered questions.
Why did the ministers of external Affairs and employment and immigration resort to finger-pointing, blaming public servants who only did their job, thereby breaking away from that long-standing parliamentary principle of ministerial responsibility?
The Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's deputy, rejected fast-tracking Al-Mashat's case, but that recommendation was ignored. Given that no ministers were supposedly involved, who gave the order to process Al-Mashat at break-neck speed? Was the Clerk of the Privy Council interviewed by government investigators? Three government departments were involved in the case yet the ministers were never informed, and what of the unfair treatment of the thousands of potential immigrants to this country waiting years to be processed?
Yes, it is more than a coincidence. Only a full inquiry will provide Canadians with some answers.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech this week was significant not just in the things it said, but also in things it did not say.
It did not contain even a token announcement of a national child care strategy as past speeches have. It did not contain any measures to address the tragedy of child poverty in Canada, and it did not contain any measures to get people back to work.
This government and this House made a commitment to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. If we are to achieve this, we must be working now to make the changes and set up a timetable for action. Unfortunately this government seems unprepared to make concrete commitments.
But the throne speech did mention a review of policies relating to the family. Tory review is a scary concept to most Canadian families and it may mean elimination of family allowances as some Conservative MPs have demanded.
This government should abandon its band-aid solutions to child poverty and start dealing with the real issues such as pay equity, an adequate minimum wage, adequate affordable housing for all Canadians, a national child care strategy, and full employment policies to get Canadians back to work.



Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I know there will be little debate among Canadians about the old axiom that knowledge is power, or about the fact that education and training are crucial keys to future prosperity in Canada. Yet one of the most profound and disturbing revelations in the throne speech is that Canada has not been getting full value for the very substantial current investments being made in our search for knowledge, skill, and innovation.
I feel sure it will come as some surprise to many Canadians that the federal government alone, both directly and indirectly, is now spending close to $11 billion annually in support of education and training. These priorities are high dollar items in provincial budgets as well.

May 15, 1991
Unfortunately, however, the returns do not measure up. The high school dropout rate stands at 30 per cent and functional illiteracy among adults is equally bad, to state only two examples.
Education is a provincial responsibility in Canada but, jurisdictional sensitivities aside, there is a national interest in nurturing a new culture of learning and in developing co-operative strategies for attaining better educational results. This is a mission to which the government is committed and it is one in which all Canadians will want to join.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, since this government came to power in 1984 it has deregulated the trucking industry in Canada and implemented a free trade agreement. These two moves are systematically destroying the Canadian trucking industry.
Twelve thousand Canadian truckers lost their jobs last year. Others have been losing their trucks and their homes due to United States truckers operating in Canada, yet this government expects them to compete against United States firms whose costs that are about 25 per cent less than those in Canada. Fuel costs are less in the United States, interest rates are lower, repair costs are less, and the trucks themselves cost far less in the United States.
There is no level playing field, and yet this minister stated in the House yesterday that he is waiting for seven studies. Canadian truckers do not need studies; they need action now, government action to save their industry, their jobs and their homes.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, when Canadians think of the great national institutions which bind our country together, they think of the CBC, Air Canada and VIA Rail. They seldom, if ever, think of our political parties and their leaders. And yet a national political party and its leader must strive to find policies that will unite as many Canadians as possible by focusing on what we have in common in spite of the language, racial, regional, social and economic differences that often bitterly divide us.
The membership of a truly national party reflects as accurately as possible the demographic composition of our entire country. The compromises made by political parties, frequently considered unprincipled, are usually made in the name of the great principle of Canadian unity.
The truly national political party has been the only effective institution that we have been able to devise so far for overcoming the deep cleavages among us. It is one of Canada's greatest national inventions.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications remains silent while every Canadian with a telephone has a stake in the enormous corporate showdown for control of our former Crown corporation, the international telephone company, Teleglobe Canada, and its parent, Memotec Data.
To protect consumers from abuse of market power and unfair rate increases, this government in 1987 passed a law preventing Canada's large telephone companies from controlling Teleglobe.
In the interest of Canadian consumers, I ask: Does the government still oppose corporate concentration in this sector? Is the minister the anonymous "government source" who today said that Ottawa would block any changes to Memotec? How is he answering to the BCE chairman who is asking for Ottawa's permission to get his hands on Teleglobe.
While some experts say Teleglobe could fall under control this week without prior CRTC approval as is required by law, we ask: What is the minister doing to see that the letter of the law is respected and followed?
In the interest of every single Canadian who uses a telephone, where does the minister stand? What action is the minister taking to protect a fair telecommunications marketplace?


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 5, a crowd of Dutch people gathered at Groesbeek Canadian War Cemetery to pay tribute to those Canadian soldiers who died so that they might be free.
May 15, 1991

The Dutch do not forget their Canadian liberators of years past. Each year they meet at one of the three Canadian war cemeteries in the Netherlands. The graves of our young Canadian soldiers are covered with flowers picked by school children.
To the Dutch it makes no difference if we come from Alberta, Quebec or Prince Edward Island, to the Dutch we are all Canadians. We are the ones who liberated their country in 1945.
At a time when Canadian unity is threatened, when Canadians are searching, we would do well to look at ourselves as others do and to count our blessings.
Canadians have much to be proud of.


BILL C-79
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the issue of the unusual procedures that were used to proclaim Bill C-79 last week.
By avoiding the normal procedures that are there for proclaiming legislation and avoiding the safeguards and the checks that are in place for that sole reason, the government has laid itself open to an accusation of abuse of power. The government's actions have left the impression that the timing of the proclamation was due to a court case or to an investigation.
I call upon the minister responsible, the government House leader, to rise in this House and list all the information from the MPs involved, their solicitors, or any other persons who acted on their behalf with any member of this cabinet.


THE LATE HON. RICHARD BENNETT HATFIELD
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Although Richard Hatfield has passed from this world, Mr. Speaker, that for which he stood will never pass.
Richard Hatfield was an active participant in Canadian politics dedicated to a strong and united New Brunswick, a strong and united Canada.
He said so simply, as was his way, in an article written for New Brunswick Day:
It doesn't matter where you come from if you call New Brunswick
my placelmon foyer. We have more in common with each other than
any other peoples in the world.
He never wavered in his commitment toward that end and now that we are facing perhaps one of the greatest challenges to the future of Canada, his insight and wisdom will be sorely missed.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost a friend.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, a delegation of three representatives of the Independent Truckers Spouses Association, led by Mrs. Janet Keusch of Alexandria, Ontario in my riding, were here today to attend a previously scheduled meeting with the Minister of Transport.
However, when time came for the meeting, the minister's staff claimed that no meeting had ever been scheduled and of course that the minister was too busy to listen to the plight of the women and children, the spouses of the truckers.
What is the Minister of Transport afraid of? Why does he refuse to meet with these women and children? I can only conclude that the minister is ashamed of his government's policies.
I call upon the minister to meet with the Independent Truckers Spouses Association immediately after Question Period. They will be waiting for him.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the federal government suggests that national unity would bring economic recovery. This is just hogwash. The facts speak for themselves. The government extolled the virtues of discipline and moderation in provincial spending. Result: Ontario's deficit tripled and reached $10 billion. While the management of the economy has to be decentralized, the government suggests centralizing it. Inflation is up in Ontario. The federal monetary policy is knocking out the provincial economies.
So far, unity has produced the following results: inconsistency and recessions. Now we should be looking for more unity. It is clear that this will only produce even more inconsistency and less economic efficiency.

May 15, 1991


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what the interest rates have been since 1979. The rate was 13 percent in September 1979; 12.5 percent on August 25, 1980; 22.75 percent on August 7, 1981; 16 percent on August 20, 1982; 13 percent on August 10, 1984; 10.25 percent on August 23, 1985; 9.75 percent on July 18. 1986; 10 percent on July 31, 1987; 11.25 percent on August 26, 1988; 14.25 percent on August, 1990. And now, Mr. Speaker, it is down to 9.22 percent.


CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the western finance ministers have issued a report that calls for the dismantling of our national medicare program. The report demands that the federal government stop all cash payments for health and instead transfer tax points to the provinces.
The report sets out new program criteria such as affordability, efficiency, flexibility and abandons the Canada Health Act standards, public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility.
Medicare is one of Canada's most treasured programs that holds this country together. I call upon the new minister of health, in the name of national unity, to state clearly that his government is committed to a national medicare program including federal funding and national standards.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, for some time this House has been treated to the featured corporate welfare bum of the month by the member for Nickel Belt.
Which NDP premier did not have the guts to tax the so-called corporate welfare bum pronounced by the member for Nickel Belt?
Whose NDP deficit is now $10 billion?
An hon. member Bob Rae.
Mr. Holtmann Which NDP premier increased his deficit by 300 per cent in one year?
Some hon. members Bob Rae.
Mr. Holtmann Which NDP deficit amounts to $1,000 per person in this province?


An hon. member:: Bob Rae.
Mr. Holtmann Whose NDP economics on a federal scale would create a $90 billion federal deficit?


An hon. member:: Bob Rae.
Mr. Holtmann Who is spending like a drunken sailor today so that our children can pay his bills tomorrow?


Some hon. members:: Bob Rae.
Mr. Holtmann Therefore, is the NDP premier from Ontario, Bob Rae, not eligible for the political welfare bum of the month?


THE LATE MICHAEL B. KIRBY
Mr. Speaker:: It is my sad duty to advise the House of the untimely death on April 23, 1991 of Michael B. Kirby, one of our table officers since 1979. A parliamentary employee for 25 years, Michael died of cancer after a short illness at the age of 51.
Most of us at one time or another have turned to Michael for procedural advice, for interpretation of the Standing Orders, or for information about precedent and practice. His counsel was always wise and thoughtful and usually given with a refreshing mix of Irish wit and charm. He was often seen standing beside the Chair offering your Speaker advice or guidance and he loved as well to recount stories.
A particular favourite of his, was the incident where a noted British Speaker was presiding over a particularly heated procedural row in the Chamber and sent a note to the clerk asking for advice. And, as Michael said it, the clerk sent a note back which said: "If I were you, Mr. Speaker, I should proceed with caution".

Mr. Kirby was a man of sound advice and it was at their own risk that Chairmen would ignore his advice. His dedication and loyalty to Parliament were unequivocal and were always evident in all the functions he performed, be it as committee clerk, head of Journals Directorate, principal clerk at the Table Research
May 15, 1991

Branch, principal clerk of the Public Bills Office or Table officer and Chair advisor.

For those of us who also have had the privilege of having Michael as a friend, his personal warmth and friendship and his unfailing generosity and good humour will be surely missed.
To his wife, Sylvie, and to his family, may I convey on behalf of all members and staff of the House of Commons my very deepest sympathy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The first duty of the Prime Minister is to promote the unity of Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. It is also my duty, and it should be the duty of all members of this Parliament.
How is the unity of Canada being promoted by asking Parliament to remain in the dark until September about the constitutional proposals of this government?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no one is asking Parliament to remain in the dark. The House just came back 48 hours ago. The throne speech debate has yet to conclude. The leader of the NDP and I will be speaking this afternoon and there will be a vote tonight followed by other involvement.
There has been a recommendation from both sides of the House to proceed with care and to ensure to the extent humanly possible that the constitutional initiative is a success. The House normally would rise on June 21, return in early September, and that appears to the government, and indeed to many members of the House, to be an appropriate time to begin the formal sittings of a joint parliamentary committee.
That in no way precludes that committee from spending a very productive summer of work in anticipation of the beginning of its public hearings.
Oral Questions
Therefore I want to assure my hon. friend that while we want to make haste, we want to make haste in a prudent way to ensure the success of this constitutional initiative.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Prime Minister.
It is easy to start negotiations on the Constitution but very difficult to get positive results. We on this side of the House believe that there are a number of important deadlines that must be met and that time is of the essence.
Why doesn't the Prime Minister want to appoint this committee of the House of Commons and the Senate immediately, so that it can start listening to representations by Canadians, based on the specific document which will be submitted to them? They have had these papers for ages. The political will must be there to start immediately, so that by next spring, we will have a solution and will be able to meet any deadlines Quebec might have and avoid backing the country against the wall again, which would be disastrous for the future of this country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand why my hon. friend is in such a hurry.
After Meech last summer, all members of this House asked for more intense consultations with the public. That is why we set up the Citizens Forum and the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee.
These committees will not report until July 1. This means that if we want to be consistent, we should wait until the reports on these massive consultations have been tabled before proceeding with a government initiative.
If the government were to proceed otherwise, I imagine the Leader of the Opposition would accuse me, and rightly so, of proceeding unilaterally, without waiting for the committee reports. We want to wait until the committees are ready, we will analyse their recommen-

May 15, 1991
Oral Questions
dations, and we will be ready to proceed, in the national interest, on September 1.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking since December that we proceed quickly in this matter. We asked that the committee not be limited only to the amending formula but that it hear the views of Canadians on a broader basis. The Prime Minister said no.
It is, in my view, extremely important to give all Canadians the opportunity to participate in a referendum where the Canadian people will be able to say "yes" to each other, and in particular to say "yes" to Quebec. Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee to this House, as he indicated to the press this morning, that he is contemplating having a referendum? Why does he not say right away that there will be a referendum on reconciliation in 1992, before the Quebec deadline?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should do me the courtesy, if he is going to quote me, of quoting me accurately. In respect of a referendum this morning the transcript reveals the following: "Mulroney: I can see a referendum being helpful in a number of ways. I can see a referendum being most unhelpful if it were to divide the country and if we thought that were to be the case, we wouldn't use it".


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the ministers of external affairs and employment and immigration in their report admitted that a memorandum had been sent by senior officials of the Department of External Affairs to the minister's office, but that no appropriate action was taken based upon that memorandum. Those ministers then took the unprecedented step of publicly identifying and blaming a senior official for that serious mistake.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: What has happened to the long-established principle of ministerial responsibility, which is the very cornerstone of our parliamentary
system? I want to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to release all the documents, and especially the memorandum sent to the minister, so that Canadians can know exactly what advice was tendered? I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will now show some leadership and ask the responsible ministers in this case to step aside until a proper inquiry can be had into this very serious issue?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out first of all that what transpired yesterday was exactly what the Minister of Employment and Immigration had said last week would be forthcoming, which was a report on what had happened.
In terms of revealing the names of officials who may have been involved in this, I would point out that it has been past practice very often to use the titles of officials who have been involved in any particular case. In this case, there were only two. From the titles that were used, that can only be one person.
Let me also say that in terms of ministerial responsibility, there is a parallel with the contempt of court case against the then Secretary of State for External Affairs and the then Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning ministerial knowledge when they did not have the information at their disposal. The court said they did not have a legal responsibility.
The cases are not totally parallel, but they are sufficiently similar, I believe, to give us a precedent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House is not a question of civil liability in a court, it is the question of the accountability of ministers for their actions, their officers and their departments. That is the issue.
I want to ask the Prime Minister specifically, because this is in his own office. It is quite clear. It was admitted in the report yesterday that Mr. Paul Tellier, who is the chief public servant and who reports directly to the Prime Minister, knew about the entry of Mr. Al-Mashat several weeks before he was give final approval.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he was informed by Mr. Tellier. If he was not informed, why was Mr. Tellier's judgment not called into question? If the Prime Minister was informed, what did he do about it?
May 15, 1991

I want to also ask why the Secretary of State for External Affairs was not informed by memorandum when, in fact, he was clearly in Ottawa, not travelling in the Middle East, as has been reported.
In other words, the government's whole case is full of holes, omissions and a bucket full of whitewash. Surely the Prime Minister understands that if we are going to have the credibility of government at stake, he has to have a public inquiry into this case. It stinks like a sewer hole.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend could have perhaps saved himself some degree of anxiety by reading the veiy complete report that was submitted yesterday.


An hon. member:: He read it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, he clearly did not. In regard to the specific question that he asked, indeed, Paul Tellier, on March 11, was informed that the Department of Immigration did not support the issuance of a minister's permit, nor any accelerated processing of Mr. Al-Ma-shat's application. The Clerk of the Privy Council was informed and concurred with that judgment. The Privy Council advised the Department of External Affairs that it was opposed to the issuance of this visa. Notwithstanding the firm opposition of Mr. Tellier, Mr. Al-Mashat was admitted on March 30, and we were advised on April 30. These are precisely the points that were brought forward by the ministers yesterday.
There were administrative errors made in the system for which apologies have been conveyed and accepted. It was an administrative error, no more and no less. There is no attempt to whitewash or to denigrate anyone. It was a simple administrative error that was made, acknowledged by the public servants involved and accepted by the responsible ministers.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In the throne speech on Monday, the government stated that the economy was inextricably linked to
Oral Questions
national unity. In that throne speech, there is talk about employment and the need for a low interest rate.
In the throne speech, Canadians were promised 2.5 million new jobs by the year 2000, by the government's own projections, taking into account the growth in the labour force. This will mean that the unemployment rate in the year 2000 will still be around 10 per cent.
Is this government saying that it accepts a 10 per cent rate of unemployment and that such a rate, which now means 1.5 million unemployed, is necessary in the Conservatives' view of what constitutes competitiveness?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that of course is no. What we are seeking to do is to reduce the number of unemployed. From 1984 until the recession hit, 1.6 million new jobs were created in Canada and Canada led the industrialized world in the creation of durable full-time jobs.
We want to replicate that in the next number of years. The process that we propose to follow is one of lower interest rates and greater investment in a non-inflationary climate. It is the only way that durable jobs can be created.
We do not accept the idea of a 10 per cent unemployment rate. In point of fact, when we formed the government in 1984, the unemployment rate in Canada was 11.7 per cent. We reduced it to 7.3 per cent, and we hope to do better in the upcoming cycle.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, despite what the Prime Minister says, the projections in their own throne speech indicated that there will still be a 10 per cent unemployment rate in the year 2000. This means more food banks, more people on welfare, and it will not mean Canadians working.
Today, Statistics Canada reports that same-day trips to the United States by Canadians are up 25 per cent. It is clear that Canadian consumers and Canadian jobs are heading south of the border. The trucking industry has reached a desperate situation. We need only go outside this House to hear what truckers are saying about their situation and the effects of this government's policies on their livelihood.

May 15, 1991
Oral Questions
Ask Canadians across this country, and they will tell you that this government's economic policies are not working. They did not want to hear more of the same in the throne speech.
Will the Prime Minister stop pursuing policies which are clearly making Canada uncompetitive and start putting in policies that will get Canadian families back to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have, of course, a great deal of sympathy for all people in Canada who are confronted with rising costs that make the sale of goods and services and products of various kinds less competitive.
My hon. friend points to the fact trips to the United States border are up dramatically. That probably has been up dramatically since the Ontario budget because with the budget in Ontario gasoline is 14.3 cents a litre, whereas in Michigan and Ohio it is 4.6 cents and 3.1 cents.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The government is well aware that it is this government's policies of deregulation and the trade deal that have directly led to the state of the truckers and of the loss of jobs.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the government said that economic recovery will depend on whether interest rates go down. However, according to a report published in February, at the height of the recession, the Governor of the Bank of Canada intervened directly to prevent a drop in interest rates. Could the new Minister of Finance give the House the assurance today that he personally had a meeting with the Governor of the Bank of Canada to advise him that the government's policy is to continue to lower interest rates?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, interest rates have come down by five percentage points since the high of last year, and we hope that trend will continue. That trend will continue, providing we attack the underlying causes of inflation, the inflationary
pressures, the inflationary expectations and as long as we can keep our fiscal house in order.
I can assure the hon. member that her concurrence with the Government of Ontario in chalking up a huge deficit with complete and total disregard for fiscal responsibility is not the course of action that this government wants to take. I must suggest to her that it is not the proper course for any province or any government to take in these circumstances.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. If the Al-Mashat fiasco is nothing but an administrative error, there should be no fear of an open inquiry. In the report to the immigration and external affairs ministers issued yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning this case, we are told that the investigators interviewed "a number of the officials who had been directly involved".
My question is a simple one: Who were these officials? Which officials were not interviewed? Why were they not interviewed? Did the Clerk of the Privy Council tell the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have already indicated to my hon. friend that the Clerk of the Privy Council was advised of the possibility and he indicated his disapproval with the issuance of a visa to that individual. He conveyed that directly to the department.
Notwithstanding the firm disapproval of the Government of Canada, the visa was issued. When he arrived in Canada with the visa that ought not to have been issued, the Clerk of the Privy Council, again, and I were subsequently advised. In other words, the Clerk-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed. I was advised a month after he got here. We should have been advised by the public servants in advance because Mr. Tellier, speaking for the Privy Council Office, said "do not admit him". Notwithstanding that, he was admitted. That was in violation of the procedures of the Government of Canada.
May 15, 1991


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, on March 11 the director general of case management in employment and Immigration informed external affairs and the Privy Council-and we have heard this-that Mr. Al-Mashat's application should not be fast-tracked.
If he was so concerned that he called the Privy Council Office, why did he not inform his own minister, why did not those briefed immediately brief the external affairs minister, and why did Mr. Tellier not tell the Prime Minister immediately?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is missing a very key point. Of all the questions that are being asked around here on this issue, the key point is this: ministers were not informed. That was the error in judgment, not that Mr. Al-Mashat was admitted to the country, not that Mr. Al-Mashat was admitted on a fast-track. The key point was that ministers were not informed. That is the problem with this case. That is why we are saying there were errors in judgment, and that is what the report that we called for and was made public showed.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, we know that in late February the security intelligence service conducted an investigation to determine whether "Mr. Al-Mashat was a valuable source of intelligence". Mr. Reid Morden, the director of the security intelligence service, was aware of it. Will the government not admit that the director of the security intelligence service, Mr. Reid Morden, informed the former Solicitor General prior to Mr. Al-Mashat arriving in Canada?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there is a committee which meets to discuss matters such as my hon. friend refers to. The membership of the committee changes from time to time. Whoever is familiar with that particular file sits on the committee. All the proper procedures were taken.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this sc-called comprehensive report that the government issued yesterday was strangely silent when it came to the role of the former Solicitor General and the role of the director of the security intelligence service. I put the question to the present Solicitor General: Exactly what was the role of Mr. Reid Morden, the director of
Oral Questions
the security intelligence service, and when did he inform the former Solicitor General?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the role of the director of the security intelligence service and CSIS in these matters is to examine the situation and determine whether or not the individual involved is of any use to Canada in terms of intelligence matters.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the Solicitor General.
In view of the concern of Canadians about the extent to which procedures were violated, and the extent to which a gentleman whose record is documented in a report which I received this morning written by him which includes, among other things, the statement that members of Amnesty International are bigots who make a noise and: "I would like to see one victim of chemical weapons inside Iraq".
In view of that kind of documented background, I want to ask the Solicitor General once again if he will clarify at what point was his predecessor as Solicitor General informed by CSIS that Al-Mashat was seeking to enter Canada? Was that before the visa was issued or afterwards? When was it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the previous Solicitor General was informed after Mr. Al-Mashat entered Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: supplementary, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Prime Minister first of all, why is it that the director of CSIS did not inform the Solicitor General about this very serious matter?
Second, if the Prime Minister is not concerned that the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, who found out about this matter on April 16, did not do any follow-up inquiry whatsoever other than issuing what she called a sharp note after being scraped off the ceiling, and did not even bother telling the next minister of immigration that this was a problem, does the Prime Minister not recognize that Canadians do not accept this explanation? They do not accept civil servants being blamed, and they do not accept this cover-up of ministerial responsibility.

May 15, 1991
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would look at the report which he has in hand, he will first of all see the dates on which CSIS made a routine report to officials and thought that was the end of it.
If the hon. member is suggesting that a sharp note to a department is not sufficient, let me just point out to the hon. member that also in this report it indicates that there was follow-up.
My department and the people who work for me have always recognized that if I send a note, I expect some follow-up. There was in this case.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The trucking industry in our country is taking a brutal beating since the government introduced deregulation, thereby putting our Canadian truckers on an unequal and impossible footing in comparison to their American counterparts.
Since the Prime Minister has spoken so proudly in the past of having been a truck driver himself, when will the government stop hiding behind the studies? Will the Prime Minister request the Minister of Transport to at least have the decency of meeting with truckers. Together we can hammer out real and immediate solutions so that Canadian truckers can once again begin to earn a living, just like the Prime Minister did a few years ago?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that it is precisely to take away from the discussion the type of things he says are not exact.
For instance, he says that the effects of the government deregulation has had a very negative impact on some aspects of the trucking industry. He forgets to say that the federal fuel excise tax in Canada is one-third less than in the U.S.
He also forgets to mention that the removal of the manufacturers' sales tax has reduced the tax on fuel by 2.5 cents per litre. He also forgets to mention that the recent decision of the Ontario government to increase the tax on fuels by 2 cents a litre immediately and
another 2 cents in January is also increasing the problem of the trucking industry.
We did not decide to begin the studies and analyses just for the fun of it. It was understood by all stakeholders in the trucking industry; the provinces, the Canadian Trucking Association, the unionized truckers, the Coalition of Independent Owner-Operators and federal departments, that we would form a task force to examine all aspects of the trucking industry in Canada. That task force decided to have seven studies. They are not frivolous studies. Some of the studies are on the effect of taxation on Canada-U.S. competitiveness, assessment of Canada-U.S. trucking cabotage, comparison of Canada and U.S. trucking costs in transborder-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister can find another way to provide that information. The hon. member for York West.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. It has become painfully obvious that this minister does not understand, or appreciate, the absolute terrible state facing Canadian truckers and their families across the country.
How can the minister and this government expect the trucking industry to survive when Canadian truckers in increasing numbers have lost their rigs, their earnings, their profits, their homes and their dignity to the unfettered American competition? Does he not think it is time that he came out from behind these studies and studied the problems facing real Canadians, that he sit down and get some real solutions so that together our industry may have a chance of not only competing but of surviving?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the customary way of doing things by members on the other side, we believe in the notion that before we can arrive at solutions we must identify the real problems. This is what all the stakeholders have decided to do, not just the government itself. They have agreed that before we can discuss things intelligently, we must have the facts.
We have met with the Coalition of Independent Owner-Operators group that represents 7,000 members. I have met with representatives of the Canadian Trucking Association. I have been open to discussions with all authorized representatives of the trucking industry. We sympathize very much with the truckers. We are trying to find a complete and permanent solution rather than to
May 15, 1991

Oral Questions
try to have temporary solutions, which is the favourite subject of members on the other side.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. Already in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk three trucking firms have collapsed under the weight of this government's policies.
The minister fails to realize that bankers will not wait until he finishes wall-papering his office with studies. Truckers are losing their jobs. They are losing their trucks and they are losing their homes. It is completely in the power of this House to do something about it. What is the minister waiting for?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member was not listening when I gave the previous answer. This matter was the subject of very serious discussions among all the parties involved last June. At that time we established a process of having seven studies that will establish a level playing field. These studies are in preparation and will be given to the task force shortly. At that time we will know exactly what are the complete problems, the hypothetical solutions and we will take that report very seriously.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the minister. The minister said that no action would be taken by the government until all the studies were complete. I have a letter from the former Minister of Transport and it says in it: "I have no intention however of waiting until all the studies are completed to take action".
Will the minister now honour the words of his predecessor and take action today to help these Canadian truckers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that one of the main actions we took to improve the lot of the trucking industry was to remove the manufacturers' sales tax of 13.5 per cent. But we could only do it after a year and a half of bickering by the Liberal Party and their friends in the Senate.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. An environmental disaster has been discovered in Mercier, Quebec. It is clear that Laidlaw-Tricil broke the law. It is clear that this company is an environmental criminal and that the contamination at the Mercier site is only the tip of the iceberg. Will the minister apply the sanctions provided under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Will the government act now?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I was informed that containers had been discovered on a site, a lot in Mercier. The hon. member is probably aware that a memorandum of understanding between the federal and provincial governments provides for clean-ups of unsupervised sites. Now it seems that this particular site, as the hon. member implied in his question, belongs to a company known as Laidlaw which has started clean-up procedures. I may remind the hon. member that under Quebec law, the company may be charged. Meanwhile, we will let the investigation proceed and testing continue, and subsequently, Mr. Speaker, we will take appropriate action, if necessary.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec is sick and tired of being exploited by environmental criminals who unlawfully use the provinces as a dump for dangerous products. My question is directed to the Solicitor General. We have already seen Quebec used as a dump for toxic and dangerous products. We saw it in Saint-Jean, we saw it in Saint-Basile and we see it again today in Mercier. Is the minister prepared to order the RCMP to conduct an investigation of course, with the co-operation of the Surete du Quebec to examine the whole issue of transportation inside and outside Quebec under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and the members of this House that we share the concern of opposition members and the hon. member who just spoke about the transportation of toxic wastes of any kind. However, I may remind the hon. member that it is also important to avoid making general and sometimes unfounded allega-

May 15, 1991
Oral Questions
tions, and that the truth and the facts must be respected. Actually, since I became a member of this government, I have been impressed by the fact that there has been very little political partisanship on environmental issues. There is a tendency to avoid such tactics.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that as far as I know, governments have never taken lightly situations involving the transportation of toxic waste, and that when violations were discovered, they were thoroughly investigated. That is what is happening today in the case of the Mercier site, which was mentioned yesterday on the news and in the media. My department intends monitor the situation very closely, as has always has been its policy in the past, and we will also continue to monitor any similar allegations.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration knew about the Al-Mashat matter on April 12; indeed, she reprimanded her department on April 16, but her colleague, the minister of external affairs says he did not know until May 7.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us today why the minister of immigration did not tell of this matter to the minister of external affairs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the then minister of immigration found out on April 16. The memo was dated April 12 and reached the then minister on April 16. A note was sent back to the department saying that this was not to happen again and looking for follow up. At that point there was no particular reason to inform another minister because there was no way of knowing where the error had taken place.
But what is clearly important is that action was called for on that date, but the report was not made before the transfer of responsibilities to another minister.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I know it is astounding to the Canadian people that there was no
reason to tell the then minister of external affairs about an ambassador from a country with whom we had been at war a scant two weeks before. More important, the minister learned, as she says now, of the Al-Mashat matter on April 16 and allegedly hit the roof. But no investigation began into this matter until May 8, the day after the press broke the story. Inquiring minds would like to know what was the hold up.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, inquiring minds normally take advantage of the material that is put in front of them. As the hon. member will see in the report, there was follow up within the Department of Immigration and that there is, indeed, a note in the Case Management Branch on May 1.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government has attempted to convince parliamentarians and, through Parliament, Canadians that no minister had any idea whatsoever about the arrival in Canada and request for asylum by Mr. Al-Mashat. That is what the government has claimed.
The government made clear in its report published very recently on this whole affair that a memorandum was sent to the office of the former Secretary of State for External Affairs on March 8. This memorandum requested that the minister be informed of the request by Al-Mashat for residency in Canada.
The minister said in her public statement yesterday: "The one memorandum sent to the minister's office via the senior departmental assistant prior to the arrival did not clearly seek ministerial view or concurrence". We are being told that because the memo was less than crystal clear the ministers are absolved.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister table that memo and make it public? Let Parliament judge whether or not ministers were informed of this matter.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as usual we are getting very mixed signals from people in the opposition. On the one hand they say that names should not have been
May 15, 1991

Privilege
released and now they are asking for more names. I do not understand what they want. They do not like the names we released, they want other names. Maybe that is what the difficulty is.
The point is that what is laid out in here was a report to deputy ministers by two neutral people within the Public Service who entered into this issue very carefully. My successor, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, had said a report would be made. A report was made. It is as complete as it can be and it tells people what they need to know.
The critical point which the hon. member continues to miss is that ministers were not told. That was the error, that was what was wrong and that is why ministers themselves were not pleased.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, what we are looking for is not names, we are looking for the truth.
The fact of the matter is that the senior political staff in the office of the minister of external affairs were informed. A memo was sent. The senior public servant, who reports directly to the Prime Minister, Mr. Tellier, was informed. It is incredible that when the ambassador to a country with whom we were at war seeks asylum in Canada, no minister claims to know about it. We simply do not believe it. Canadians do not believe it. Make the memo public and let us judge for ourselves. Put an end to this whitewash and this hanging of innocent public servants.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the report speaks for itself. The report goes into some considerable detail in a very precise form as to what happened during the process of this incident.
I may say as well that in a different case where the two ministers did know in advance that someone was seeking to come to Canada, that was turned down. Therefore, that should have set the stage for any future people who chose to come to Canada under similar circumstances. I do not know what else ministers can be expected to do.


RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Between January 1,1989 and February 10,1990, 81 out of the 174 routes serving Abitibi were eliminated, 69 of them for lack of available crews or trains.
My question is this: Can the minister tell us today why the president and the management of VIA Rail have deliberately cut passenger service in Abitibi on several occasions to the detriment of both patrons and employees of VIA Rail?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I want to praise again the hon. member for Abitibi for his unrelenting concern for his area and all that affects it.
I also want to tell him, as he probably knows already, that VIA Rail is a Crown corporation with its own administrative structure. I can confirm, however, that the Abitibi line is under examination by VIA Rail because of the infrastructure problems it has experienced in recent months. We are still monitoring the situation through, as I said, the administrative structure of the corporation.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I am honestly not quite sure whether this is a point of order or a question of privilege.
I was the seventh member on this side to make a statement today. Out of 12 statements, only five were for this party. I was listed to be the second person from this side to ask a question. Only one question got on. As a backbencher, I think we deserve better than that in terms of being able to ask questions and make statements.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the hon. member's intervention. I know that all hon. members would want me to do the very best I can to make sure that the count is fair on both sides of the House.


PRIVILEGE
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of personal privilege

May 15, 1991
Routine Proceedings
arising from a response to a question on the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 48(2). I provided notice to the Chair on April 15 of this year.
This is the earliest possible opportunity for me to raise this point of personal privilege.
On April 11 last, I placed a question on the Order Paper for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. The question dealt with the involvement of a Dr. Ralph Agard and the establishment of a race relations network. This question was subdivided into eight questions.
I believe that my personal privilege as a member of this House was violated because of a response provided by the minister. My question asked whether Dr. Agard had received any contracts, either directly or indirectly, since April 1, 1985, other than for a feasibility study for the network. The minister's response was "No."
It has been brought to my attention that this response was incorrect and that the minister was probably aware of this fact at the time he answered my questions.
On June 9, 1989, the minister announced three race relations initiatives. The second, according to the press release from the minister's office, was the commissioning of International Briefing Associates to develop a national action plan to propose specific concrete measures that would lead to improved police-minority relations.
I provided the Chair with a copy of this press release. I have also provided a copy of a discussion paper summarizing the consultations carried out by this organization. It is clear from this document that Dr. Agard benefited directly from a contract with the Ministry of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. This is in direct contradiction to the response of the question that I placed on the Order Paper.
How am I to perform my duties as a member of this Parliament if the responses ministers of the Crown provide to questions are inaccurate? Had the minister taken the time since he provided the response to correct this error, I would not have risen on this point of privilege. He has not done so.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to assist me in finding a means to remedy this situation.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fairly obvious to the House and to the Chair that this is not a case of privilege. As the Chair is well aware, there is never a case of privilege when there is a matter of dispute over an answer.
The Speaker is also aware that to any question raised in the House or put on the Order Paper I could rise on behalf of the minister in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and say: "Yes, no, maybe". The truth is that it is an answer and it is not, therefore, a subject of privilege here in this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you rule quickly on this one so that we can get on with the business before us.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind of issue to raise. The hon. member is not satisfied with the response given. The difficulty that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great differences of interpretation on answers that are given. In this case, I think the hon. parliamentary secretary is correct. It is not a question of privilege, it is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given. The hon. member may, perhaps, have another means to pursue the matter.
I thank the hon. member for giving me notice and complete detail of her question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table today the study Crossing the Borders of Privacy, Vie privee sans frontieres.
May 15, 1991

The study was undertaken in response to a recommendation of the parliamentary committee which reviewed the federal access to information and privacy legislation.
 * *


POINT OF ORDER
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek your guidance.
I had guests today, 15 people from the Labour College of Canada and three from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, who were to attend in the opposition gallery and they were turned away, being told that room was being made for 100 guests of the Prime Minister.
I am not sure what to do with this or where to go to seek advice or with whom I should raise the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could come and see me at her very earliest convenience.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table in both official languages the government response to 18 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA REFERENDUM AND PLEBISCITE ACT


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, an act respecting referenda and plebiscites in Canada on questions of public importance.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to present to the House for first reading the Canada Referendum and Plebiscite Act. This is the enabling legislation under which plebiscites or referendums could take place in Canada at the national level. It is the same
Routine Proceedings
Private Members' Bill in substantial form that I have had in the House since July 1988. While there is much discussion from all sides on whether and when there should be referenda, there is at the moment no federal enabling legislation for that purpose and that is the intent of this Private Member's Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr.Speaker, I would like to present a bill, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops, entitled an act respecting a compensation fund for members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Mackenzie, but I have just been informed that the Ihble does not have a copy of the hon. member's bill. We cannot proceed without that. I wonder if the hon. member would like to discuss the matter with the Table and perhaps we could take it up tomorrow.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, my staff has them.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia who point out that the government has cut back millions of dollars to the RCMP and as a result there has been an erosion of service and of effectiveness in terms of police protection. Also, there have been cuts in training, in patrols, and in the ability of the police to enforce laws. Therefore, they are asking the government to consider restoring proper funding to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enable the force to fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia and to remain a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of citizens from my constituency of Notre-Dame-de-Grace condemning the government for critically cutting the budget of CBC and requesting the Parliament of Canada to strengthen the CBC to serve as a primary instrument

May 15, 1991
Routine Proceedings
of Canadian cultural sovereignty, providing high quality service to all Canadians.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 300 petitioners, stating that whereas thousands of eastern Europeans did enter Canada legally in good faith and did subsequently apply for permanent residence in Canada pursuant to the self-exile program, and whereas these refugee claimants who, although successfully established in Canada, are being refused landing at pre-inquiry humanitarian and compassionate reviews, they are calling upon this Parliament to request the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to speed up the processing of any outstanding self-exile applications, to allow self-exiled applicants in Canada to be allowed to work and/or be allowed to go to school, and accept all persons registered in the refugee backlog who are established in Canada for landed immigrant status at their pre-inquiry humanitarian and compassionate reviews. These are hundreds of petitioners already added to the thousands that have been tabled prior to today.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 225 of my constituents of the Bonavista Peninsula, 15 other communities including King's Cove, Plate Cove, Southern Bay, Sweet Bay and indeed from the other extremity of my riding in Lumsden and Bonavista North. These people are very concerned about the deep and drastic cuts that have been made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation because they feel that one of the things CBC does for the Atlantic region and particularly for Newfoundland is to maintain and nurture our cultural integrity. They are particularly concerned about the demise or coming demise of the program Land and Sea.
They call upon Parliament to ensure that CBC programming remains intact, and in particular, that local
programming like Land and Sea be maintained and indeed restored.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to present to this House on behalf of many Canadians a petition asking that a great woman, Marie Sklodowska Curie, be honoured for her scientific contributions to humanity. In fact, she must be honoured.
We believe that the gift of the discovery of radium to heal the sick of the world deserves to be recognized by Canada.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to honour Marie Sklodowska Curie by issuing a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of her birth, November 7, 1992.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by Canadians from Montreal, Toronto, and Scarborough dealing with the subject of a very famous woman who has contributed greatly to the health of the world, Marie Sklodowska Curie.
The petitioners ask a very simple thing, that Canada honour her by issuing a commemorative stamp on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of her birth on November 7, 1992. I certainly think it is a laudable goal.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by many of my constituents, as well as those who live in neighbouring constituencies, dealing with the Senate.
The petitioners reflect in this petition their concern about the Senate's contribution to the democratic debates in this country. It says: Therefore, that the Senate now performs no useful function, is completely partisan and has proven after many efforts to be impossible to reform.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to abolish the Senate outright.
I submit this petition on the petitioners' behalf.
May 15, 1991


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House today signed by numerous residents of my riding of Kingston and the Islands.
These petitioners are concerned about the desecration and destruction of the Canadian flag, which happened recently in the riding of Kingston and the Islands.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to defend the symbol of our country and pass a law making it an offence to destroy or desecrate the flag of Canada.
CIVIL RIGHTS OF CROAT!ANS


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of a number of my constituents I would like to present a petition asking Parliament to support the civil rights of the Croatians in the country of Yugoslavia.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my voice to the petition just presented supporting free choice for the people in that country potentially on the brink of a civil war.
My petition today deals with the great woman who has already been referred to, Marie Sklodowska, commonly known as Madam Curie. She not only should be honoured for her scientific contributions to humanity, but because she has also served as a tremendous role model to young women around the world.
I believe, along with a number of my colleagues, that the Canadian government could commemorate this on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of her birth on November 7,1992 by launching a commemorative stamp. This would certainly speak volumes about the place of womankind in science.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present from my riding in addition to the many petitions that have already been presented on this issue.
The petitioners again call upon the government to reject its current proposals to increase costs to provincial and municipal governments for maintaining RCMP ser-
Routine Proceedings
vices. The petitioners also ask that the government continue the 70-30 per cent cost sharing ratio between the provinces and the federal government for RCMP services to allow our national police force to remain visible across the country as a national body.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: I would suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for York West.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss an urgent and immediate matter, namely the crisis currently being faced by the Canadian trucking industry.
I served the appropriate application to His Honour this morning. It is not my intention to adjourn immediately, but simply request that after the 8 p.m. vote this evening the House of Commons engage in an emergency debate to try to resolve together some of the problems facing the Canadian trucking industry.
I put before His Honour simply a few quick facts. The fact of the matter is that there were some 656 trucking companies in Canada that went bankrupt.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member on an important matter, but the hon. member knows that in making the application one should not slip into debate. However, that takes nothing away from the importance of the application.

The Address
I wish to respond to the hon. member. First of all, I want to thank him for giving me notice and bringing this to my attention.
I should say to the House and to those who are listening and watching that I have watched and listened with great interest debate about this matter, both yesterday and today. It is clearly a matter of very great concern, as has been evidenced by both sides of the House, by the people who are involved in it and, no doubt, by Canadians in general.
However, at least at this time I am not inclined to think that it requires an emergency debate tonight. I will be listening carefully to what transpires in the House. I thank the hon. member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thesday, May 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pronovost for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session; and on the amendment thereto of Mr. Chretien (p. 24), and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 33).
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House and the hon. member for Halifax that the hon. member has three minutes of debate left to her. I will call her in just a moment. That will be followed by ten minutes for questions and comments.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, when I interrupted my remarks yesterday I was presenting some of my views, the views of a number of my constituents and the views of women across this country on the crucial matter of violence against women and its escalation in Canada today.
There are questions the women of Canada are asking, which have arisen due to the Speech from the Throne. They would like to hear from, and are hoping they will hear very soon, the right hon. Prime Minister. We heard in the Speech from the Throne that a blue ribbon panel of Canadian men and women will be appointed to deal
with the question of violence against women. This, as I said, raises a number of concerns.
As I said yesterday, I and several other members of this House have been, since November, members of a subcommittee on the status of women dealing with the question of violence against women. We have heard many eloquent witnesses over the past several months and have more witnesses scheduled to appear in the next few months.
Many of us, many women's groups across this country-such as the YWCA of Canada, the National Action Committee, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, and a number of others-have called for a royal commission on violence against women.
The major reasons we have called for this royal commission is that, first of all, the research into violence against women and its causes still tends to be, in this country and in other countries of the west, anecdotal as opposed to empirical. We also believe that a royal commission, properly constituted, would shine the light of publicity and provide this frightening and rapidly growing problem the kind of notice and the kind of credibility it requires in all comers of this country. The sad fact is that too many people in Canada still believe that incidents of violence against women do not happen to people in the so-called mainstream, that they happen to some mythical underclass who really are the architects of their own destruction.
The women of Canada are concerned and many supportive men in Canada are concerned that this issue not be shuffled off. We want to know what a blue ribbon panel is. More than that, we want to have a royal commission. We want to seek and find and publish the answers as to what the root causes are to the questions of violence against women.
We know, for example, that alcohol plays a part. We know that the cycle of violence from childhood plays a part. We know that economic problems play a part. However, none of these things is necessarily common to every incident. What we need is a royal commission rooted in the experience of women and some men who work in the front lines, in transition houses, in shelters, and in women's centres across this country. We need to hear from police officers, we need to hear from judges, and we need to hear most especially from the women who deal in the transition houses on a daily basis with the battered and injured women who are the victims every
May 15, 1991

day and every night in Canada of an horrendous wave of violence.
I call upon the Prime Minister and the government to let us know what their plans are. I beg them in the name of the women of Canada, indeed in the name of all of those who believe in a truly just nation, to deal with this problem as soon as possible and to deal with it in the way that the women of Canada and those experts in the field have asked.
I call upon the Prime Minister to appoint a royal commission into violence against women.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax has certainly been a leading proponent on the subject of women's issues in Canada. As our caucus critic in that area, she has assumed a considerable responsibility and has had many dealings with women's groups across the country.
In the course of her work with those groups, I would like to ask her if she has encountered any opposition to the idea of the creation of a royal commission to look into the question of violence against women.
I may say, as a passing comment, that I have received widespread support for that idea from women's groups in my own riding that have met with me. I wonder also if she could tell us how she sees the work of a royal commission tying in with the review of current government expenditures in this area, namely, in its support for women's groups and in its campaign against violence to women which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has discussed in this House on past occasions.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his question. Indeed, it is a very relevant question because some women's groups across the country have been leery of the concept of a royal commission.
A colleague of mine from Mount St. Vincent University, the Women's Studies Department, very recently engaged with me in an interview on CBC Radio where we discussed it. The fear of some women is that the matter could be shunted aside into a royal commission, that it could be put on the back burner, so to speak. If they send it to a royal commission, they can forget about it.
This is not the kind of royal commission that women's groups, we on the opposition side of the House, and we
The Address
on the subcommittee on violence against women have been talking about. We are talking about a royal commission that is rooted in women's experience. That is the phrase that has been used by proponents of this commission over and over again. We need women who have spent time and gained expertise in this area, and we have them right across the country in every province, in every region: north, south, east, west. They are there and they are willing to serve.
Let me turn to the second part of my colleague's question on how this relates to government funding. We know there have been great difficulties. We know there have been cutbacks and freezes to women's groups and women's centres which are in the main the referrals and the havens for women who suffer violence. We know there was an initiative announced by the then minister of health, now the Minister of Communications, on second-stage housing. However, we still need action on they very front lines.
By the way, the amount of money the government has allotted for second-stage housing would build one small apartment building in each province in Canada. The problem is we need first-stage housing and first-stage assistance. For every 10 women who seek assistance, five are turned away.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my hon. colleague's comments. Obviously, everyone in this House agrees concerning the seriousness of the problem of violence against women. That is why I was so delighted the Prime Minister and this government have agreed to proceed with a national inquiry into this very issue that the hon. member and so many women across this country have raised. I know that I have received something over
25,000	names on petitions asking for us to take further action in this area.
I see the requirements to be an initiative which ensures that we co-ordinate and integrate, the knowledge that is available and we search for new, creative solutions. In that process we need something that is quite creative. We do not need the sort of old style perhaps royal commission where people sit in a hotel room and just hear briefs from groups. We need the capability of highly qualified, dedicated men and women

May 15, 1991
The Address
who would go out where women are, where women who have been victims, where women who have been involved in the front lines and really find out the causes and seek out, I hope, some solutions.
I would ask my hon. colleague, and other colleagues, to give me their advice on the terms of reference and the kinds of processes that I hope will come from a feminist perspective, that we can think about something different. We have the commitment to the inquiry. What is now important is to make sure that it works, that we have the best people involved and that we will in fact progress to finding real solutions to this societal problem.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for her comment. Indeed I am aware of her interest and her commitment to this. I guess I will turn to Shakespeare: "For a rose by any other name". I am not wedded to the term "royal commission". I do not think any of us are.
What we are wedded to is the kind of creative solutions and creative investigation of which that the minister is speaking. It gives me heart to hear her make these comments.
What is tremendously important, and I believe the minister referred to this, is that we are really talking about the same thing. When the minister refers to going out to where the women are and seeking the answers, that is certainly part of it. I would also hope that this national panel would have as part and parcel of its mandate the academic, scholarly, empirical thrust as well. A great problem, and a problem that we have heard time and again from witnesses at our subcommittee is that we do not have the hard evidence that convinces, with the greatest of respect to the gentlemen in the Chamber, our male colleagues across the board about the seriousness of this issue and that we are going to need-


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


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the member for Saint-Maurice and the member for Regina-Wascana. I have absolutely no doubt that their words will persuade all
members, unanimously, to adopt the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker, in the history of nations as in the life of individuals, there are times when it behooves us to consider the hopes we all have for the future on the basis of past history.
Canada, as a country, and all of us as Canadian citizens have reached one of those crucial moments when we have to draw from our historical background the resolve and confidence we need to face our destiny. In coming to terms with our identity, we must now decide what we want to become.
This session of Parliament is sure to go down in the history of the Canadian Federation.

We have great problems to confront, and it will help if we can maintain a sense of historical perspective. In the debates leading up to Confederation, the public finances of Canada were in bad shape; the economic outlook was uncertain as Britain declared for free trade as opposed to Imperial preference; Lower Canada felt, even then, that its language and culture would be swamped by Upper Canada; and later, Mr. Speaker, there were even separatists elected to the House of Commons-from Nova Scotia.
Some years later, Laurier spoke of his fears for Canada. He said:
The Province of Manitoba is in open revolt-the Province of Nova
Scotia demands its separation from Confederation-In fact-from
East to West and from North to South-the prevailing feeling in
Canada is one of unrest and uneasiness, of discontent and irritation.
Three years later, in 1890, Laurier had occasion to warn that:
We have come to a period in a history of this young country when
premature dissolution seems to be at hand.
But leaders persisted, and Canadians prevailed. [Translation]
Like our predecessors, because of the trust placed in us by our fellow citizens, each of us has the historical responsibility to help strenghten the bonds that hold this great country together.
May 15, 1991

In this House, as members from all political parties, we represent the various regions of the country. We each have our political affiliation and our own views on how to solve the country's problems. However, if we are to succeed, we must never forget that what bonds us is stronger and more precious than any divisive factors that might break us up as a people.
Indeed, the leader of the opposition was right when he said recently that the future of Canada is more important than a political career. At the beginning of this new session, I want to reaffirm that both myself and my party fully intend to work with all members whatever their party who share the desire and the will to build a stronger Canada while, at the same time, respecting the legitimate aspirations of the regions and the provinces.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, now is the time to move beyond special interests. Now is the time to speak for the national interest. That is the role and the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada. There is no greater constituent assembly than the House of Commons and this House of Commons will assume national leadership.
Our constituents have sent us here to debate the issues and to resolve Canada's problems. The problems are serious. But so are the opportunities. Men and women of good will, of vision, who believe in Canada, who know of the magnificence of our own citizenship and our own heritage, will confront this challenge. We will prevail because Canada's interests, the national interests, demands it and Canadians will ensure that that turns out to be the case.
We all have partisan interests and instincts. That is the nature of politics. I occasionally, not often, indulge in partisan comments myself.


Some hon. members:: No, never.


Martin Brian Mulroney: But on this issue, Mr. Speaker, we are all partisans, partisans of Canada.
I have said it before, and I tell this House now, what matters is not the next election, what matters is Canada; only Canada.
The Address
While leadership is required, there is also a time to listen. And we are now listening carefully to what Canadians from every comer of the country have to tell us, their representatives. After the consultation, precise and perhaps far-reaching initiatives will be announced. When that time comes, we will do so with the certainly that the Canadian population has had the opportunity to offer us their opinions and the chance to express their own hopes and dreams and those of their children for the future.
Make no mistake, the government and the Parliament of Canada, all parliamentarians, will play a leadership role in this debate, not simply as arbiters, but as proponents and strong defenders of the national interest.
I noted the comment of one of the members of the Citizens' Forum who said Canadians were ready for a new Charlottetown. Our challenge in the government and Parliament of Canada is to provide a focus for these voices which seek change. I am confident that Canada and Canadians will rise to that challenge.
We are called upon now to find a common vision and a common purpose. Perhaps it is not as complicated as some may believe. Irrespective of where we sit in this House, irrespective of our own personal backgrounds; if we bear in mind our common values of compromise, tolerance and respect for one another's language and religion, culture and region, we will come through this challenging time in the life of our country and Canada will be a better and a stronger nation for it.
We will need all of those values if we are to define a new vision of this country. We are challenged to bring forth not just a vision that Canadians will accept, but one they want.

Those who signed the British North America Act were not dreamers or sorcerers' apprentices. They had a realistic and pragmatic concept of the geographic, cultural, social and economic factors that would determine our future on this continent.

The Canadian economic union succeeded for a very simple reason. It went hand in hand with a Canadian political union. In our history books we focus on Confederation as an act of accommodation and indeed, it was

May 15, 1991
The Address
that. We tend to overlook that it was an act of separation as well, an act of separation from the 1840 Union and that too is an important consideration.
In choosing federalism over a unitary system, we put an end to the notion that the path to Canadian unity lay through submerging our diversity in a unitary state. Rather, we chose a system in which provinces are sovereign in their respective areas, but Canadians are associated on matters we have in common.
Our economic and political union, founded on generous ideals and on sound principles, has proved remarkably adaptable in the 20th century. It facilitated the entry and the development of six "new" provinces into the Canadian family. It has evolved in response to depression and war, the growth of the modem welfare state, massive immigration and the post-war baby boom. In the face of the stresses and strains of the past decades, Canada has developed innovative and sophisticated solutions to meet remarkable new challenges.
Today Canada is one of the world's leading economic powers. Our standard of living has consistently been among the highest in the entire industrialized world.
Our record of growth in job creation has been one of the best among the industrialized, G-7, and OECD nations in the last six years. The strength of our economy and our solidarity have allowed us to implement cultural and social programs that express our generosity, our values and, in many ways, are regarded with envy and admiration by most people around the world.
We are one of the great trading nations of the world and a strong voice for international co-operation. We have earned our place at the G-7 table. We have earned our place at G-7 and we are going to keep it.

Some self-styled economists say otherwise, but the Canadian economic union has served Quebec well since Confederation. In fact, it is rather ironic to hear these people urging Quebecers to leave a federation that, according to them, can only spell economic disaster, and then turn around and say there must be an economic union with Canada.
Mr. Speaker, although they refuse to consider being involved in developing Canada's financial policies, they do want a monetary union with Canada. The Allaire and Belanger-Campeau reports acknowledged that Quebec would be well advised to maintain this union. However, these reports, some of which were not necessarily prepared by the Commission but by certain groups working for the Commission, are on the wrong track when they maintain that economic ties will not necessarily be affected by political separation.
Quebec is an integral part of the Canadian economic union. It is a vast market for other parts of the country and, in turn, enjoys extraordinary benefits as a result of its participation in the economies of the other provinces. In fact, six of our provinces, including Quebec, sell more manufactured goods to other provinces than to foreign countries. It would be unrealistic to think that an economic union could be run effectively in the next century without the central government playing a major role.
Mr. Speaker, why would Canadians jeopardize an economic union that has worked so well and that still has so much to offer? No one claims that Canada is perfect, but we are all aware of the benefits we have enjoyed in this country for almost 125 years. The most eloquent example of economic and political integration today comes to us from Europe, especially from France and England, the mother countries of Canada's two great linguistic families.
All over the European continent, we see nations that have waged bloody wars practically from generation to generation during the last millennium and who, thirty years ago, started to create an open and dynamic economic union of over 300 million people.
Mr. Speaker, how can anyone seriously consider strengthening an economic union that is so vital and necessary to the future of Quebecers and Canadians, while at the same time isolating the members of that union? Quebecers know Canada isn't perfect, Mr. Speaker, but as a Quebecer-and I said as much recently in my own riding of Charlevoix-I know the people of my native province are deeply attached to Canada and that they are very proud of its great achievements.

The Address
Mr. Speaker, in spite of certain speeches and impressions, Quebecers have no intention whatsoever to tear their Canadian passeport and plunge into the unknown. That, I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker.
A month ago, Mr. Jacques Delors, chairman of the European Economic Community, during an official visit in Ottawa, was asked a few questions on national unity. I did not provoke the question. It was a spontaneous question asked by a distinguished member of the public gallery. The answer given by Mr. Delors, a former minister of Economy in the French government, when asked about Canadian unity, could not be clearer; here is what he said here in Ottawa a few steps away from here:
As you know, in Europe, we are working on a certain political union, a federal state. Our conception is federal, he went on to say, and it provides for a common policy on external and economic affairs, a common currency, a common central bank, and an economic policy parallel to this monetary policy, both policies being strongly convergent.
And he concluded:
So, in Europe we are uniting because we believe that nowadays we do not have individually a sufficient liberty of movement to guarantee our autonomy, our well-being and reach our goods.
Certain people in Quebec would want us to believe that, while prosperity in Europe will be gained through unity, our prosperity in Canada and Quebec can gain through disunity. What an illogic and unacceptable statement that is for Canadians and Quebecers!
I am sure that the best way to protect the French language, to guarantee that it will continue to express the characteristic spirit of the French majority in Quebec and of the French minorities outside Quebec, is to maintain the stability of our political institutions and the economic prosperity which derives from it. That is because Canada, unlike many countries, respects diversity, one of it's fundamental principles. The influence of the French language will extend over large areas only if it is used in great alliances and the main international forums.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is quite true to say that the few French immigrants who settled here three centuries and a half ago would marvel at the sight of Canada today, the world's second largest francophone country and, with France, on of the main supporters of the international francophonie.
[English}
The great preoccupation of Quebec and French Canada is now, as it has been for many decades, the preservation of cultural and linguistic heritage. Let us not forget that this undertaking was given in the most solemn way in 1867.
There are political groups in Canada who now tell their supporters that this country should plan to get along without Quebec or that Quebec can and should get along without Canada.
These groups, at opposite ends of the disunity spectrum, stand for fragmentation whereas Canadians and Quebecers have always stood for solidarity, unity and strength. The greatest assurance this House and this country can give French Canada of the respect of its language and its culture is the assurance that that language will be respected and honoured in the rest of Canada now and as we work and live together in a greater and greater way across the nation in our homes and in our lives.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Quebec wants the tools necessary to protect and affirm its distinctiveness. Last June 23,1 said that before we tried again to amend the Constitution, we would have to clear up some of the difficulties and misunderstandings and find a better way to amend the Constitution. So we set up a citizens forum to listen to and gather the views of as many Canadians as possible in as short a time as possible.
I think, under very difficult circumstances, the citizens forum has done a remarkable job. I have every confidence that its final report will be a valuable contribution to the proposals the government will bring forward in the autumn.
Running on a parallel track is the Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, known as the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee, which is seeking the views of Canadians on improving the way we change our Constitution. The excellence of its work has been commented on in editorials across the country.
On behalf of all members of the House I want to pay tribute to members of that committee, who have done such outstanding work.

May 15, 1991
The Address
Clearly, we must find a better way to transact constitutional affairs in this country. I am hopeful that the joint committee will help point us all in a better direction.
The reports of both the citizens forum and the joint committee are due by July 1, and the government will give every consideration to their recommendations in formulating its proposals over the summer months. Then, in a little more than three months, the government will submit its proposals to the new joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The committee will travel the country for several months, seeking the views of Canadians in every comer of this land.
The committee, as noted in the Speech from the Throne, will meet legislators from parallel committees of commissions in other provinces; perhaps on the floors of their own legislatures. It will also meet with aboriginal groups across the country.
This is an inclusive process open to all Canadians. I see nothing exclusionary about it.
I give this House an undertaking, on behalf of the government, that the government will be very open-minded to constructive amendments offered in the spirit of improving its proposals and broadening the consensus that Canadian unity needs and demands.
Reform of the Senate of Canada and of other institutions will improve and ensure both greater fairness and greater responsiveness. Oftentimes we are told that in some cities in western Canada people live some 2,000 miles from Ottawa and yet they feel that they are 2 million miles away because of the manner in which some concerns are dealt with. A lot of that has to do with the deficiencies in some of our institutions and the lack of responsiveness to the calls of the regions. Reform of the Senate and of other institutions to ensure both fairness and responsiveness means a great deal in western Canada and in many areas of Atlantic Canada.
People in Ontario are concerned about the growing costs of government generally and about the need to compete with our world-wide trading partners.
Aboriginal Canadians continue their quest for social justice and constitutional assurances.
This round will be a Canadian round, east and west, north and south, English and French speaking. All Canadians can and will benefit from constitutional reform.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: While there is no doubt that we are living through a crisis in the life of this country, it can also be viewed as an opportunity. It is an opportunity to do even better. The only deadline we face is the time needed to build a consensus among Canadians on how to improve Canada. Our only challenge is to recognize that a strong, economic and political union is fundamental to our collective prosperity.
Today I want to address, very briefly, some of the economic issues and options that will underlie the government's proposals. Others have referred to them. No one is re-inventing the wheel, as the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the NDP has pointed out in different circumstances. The Constitution clearly must guarantee the free flow of people and goods and services, capital and technology within the federation. It must also provide a broad framework for the economic union and establish key economic rights. The need for competitiveness and the imperatives of economic success make it essential that the provincial governments work with the federal government.
We must ask ourselves some basic and blunt questions about the efficiency of our economic union. Is it normal, for example, that internal barriers make Canada a much more balkanized domestic market than Europe or the United States, geographic groupings with 10,12, 13 times the population of this country? Why is it easier for some firms to do business overseas than in a neighbouring province? Should Canadian firms be handicapped by the need to comply with two sales tax schemes; one federal and one provincial? I know some people will argue that we should not have any at all. I see my friend from the NDP applauding, but I can tell him one little fact of life: if you want sound and magnificent social services, we have got to pay for them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I say that with respect to my friend from Regina.

Do we really need three separate security regulators when all over the world countries are moving to a much more centralized regulatory regime? Does it make any sense that a trust company conceivably can face 11 separate sets of rules and regulations if that corporation wishes to operate across Canada when the goal in Europe is to allow institutions in one country to operate under a single licence right across the community? Is the population well served when a provincial government raises its deficit dramatically while the federal government and all other provincial governments seek to reduce the financial burden of the nation?
Sovereignty is the capacity to develop fundamental common values along with the economic strength to sustain and defend them. A country whose public finances drift into disrepair creates problems not only for future generations but for its capacity to act independently and assertively on the world scene. In the conduct of its public finances, Canada has been flirting with danger. Since 1984 we have made some progress in regaining control of the public finances. The rate of growth of program spending in Ottawa since 1984 has increased 3.7 per cent per year below the rate of inflation. In the previous 15 years the annual rate of increase of program spending on average was 13.9 per cent per year every year for 15 years.
There are consequences for overspending. There are consequences for everything we do. I mention this simply to make the point that at the end of the day this nation needs the resources if we are going to remain strong and united. A national debt of roughly $18 billion in 1969 with no deficit was transformed by 1984 into a national debt of $206 billion and an annual deficit of $38.9 billion.
My hon. friend from Newfoundland asks a very good question: What is it now? He is quite right, it was $206 billion and it is now $389 billion, but I want to point out to him that almost all of the increase in the national debt since 1984 is the result of compound interest on the glut that we have had. My hon. friend will understand that, believe it or not, this is not said with the view to scoring a given point. It is to try and make a point. I know that he would make the point if he were on this side, pointing out the gravity of the same problem.
The Address
The problem is that when we began, 12 cents of every tax dollar was going to service the debt. With this size of debt, 32 cents of every dollar was required to pay the interest on the debt. So financing the deficit sucks up huge amounts of capital that are no longer available for education and for health care, defence expenditures, foreign aid, and assistance to building a better quality of life for Canadians.
This Constitution and national unity cannot be discussed in abstract terms. There are some very hard realities that we have to consider. If all of that amount, 32 cents, 33 cents, 34 cents per dollar, the second worst record in the industrialized world, if that amount is going to bond holders, to people holding our debt, that means we have the $20 billion and $30 billion per year going out, which in comparative terms is not going out of other treasuries, that we do not have for investments in infrastructure, for investments in social programs, for investments that strengthen the unity of the nation.
I think it is important to point out because without economic strength, and if you add to the deficit and you continue to add to your debt service costs, then what is left to provide programs for Canadians? How would we fund medical and pension benefits for an aging population? How would we invest in infrastructure improvements? How would we honour our obligations in the world?
I do not think it is a partisan statement to say that to believe in sound finances for the Government of Canada does not signal a lack of compassion. It signals-and I think I can say that on behalf of all members-a sense of realism that, without fiscal discipline and sound economic growth, the only thing that governments can deliver is a fool's paradise and that is not good enough for Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The questions of our unity and prosperity cannot be considered apart. When Canadians are troubled over their future together, it sends very negative signals to the investment community. When our prosperity is diminished, it weakens the foundations of our living together. The unity of Canada is tied to our competitive position in the world and our competitiveness is a pillar of Canadian unity.

May 15, 1991
The Address

The Speech from the Throne mentioned the major problems facing us and the decisions we must make. As we predicted, there are now signs that we are coming out of the recession. Last month, the unemployment rate fell for the first time since last June. The increase in jobs during the past two months was also a positive sign. In April, housing starts increased by nearly 30 per cent over previous months. Confidence in the business community is now at its highest level in seven years. Interest rates, the cornerstone of all genuine and durable economic recovery, dropped 5 per cent over the past year and have gone down 1 per cent since the federal Budget.
However, we cannot, in the long term, continue to take our prosperity for granted. We cannot afford to sit back and rely only on Canada's vast natural resources. A difficult road lies ahead if we are to raise our productivity to the same level as that of our competitors. However, instead of letting ourselves be paralysed by our problems, I say we should take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen Canada.
We must consider how to increase our productivity which alone can create durable prosperity. Government deficits and letting the Bank of Canada print more and more bills leads to inflation. It may get us a few part-time jobs but it does not produce any durable wealth. Productivity alone is the key to a great nation's durable prosperity. Clearly, we have not been able to maximize the principal agent of our prosperity our human resources.
In the Speech from the Throne, it was announced that we would initiate a debate on education, while fully observing the jurisdiction of the provinces in this field, and that we would do so by publishing a discussion paper on learning. Together, as citizens and parents, we must stop the draining away of our young talent and help them stay in school instead of dropping out, now that education, excellence and training are vital to success on the labour market.

The Speech from the Throne set out the problem quite clearly. The issue in this regard is not exclusively or even primarily money. Canada already spends more
money per capita on education than almost any other industrialized country in the world. I believe the exception is Sweden.
From the federal level alone, the federal government spends almost $11 billion directly and indirectly on education and training, to say nothing of the billions that are spent by the appropriate provincial governments in providing facilities and training for our young people.
Yet, the issue remains: results. Three out of 10 students drop out of high school before graduating. In some jurisdictions, it is higher, it approaches four out of 10. Four out of 10 adults cannot read or do mathematics well enough to perform everyday tasks.
Canadian industry spends less than half as much on training its employees as American industry does, a fifth as much as the Japanese, and an eighth as much as the Germans. This is not the kind of performance that will guarantee increasing prosperity for our children.
In fact, it has given rise to a very important question and concern. That is, whether the next generation of Canadian men and women will be the first to have a lower standard of living than their parents.
The Speech from the Throne proposed some important objectives for the nation. These goals could include cutting illiteracy rates in half, ensuring that 90 per cent of Canadians attain high school diplomas or the equivalent by age 25, doubling the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, the sciences and engineering, and quadrupling the training provided by employers to their employees.
One member from the back says: Mind your own business.
I want to tell you: This is my business.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you are here today, it is because one morning you woke up and found out that you were born and you were a Canadian.
It is because you are a Canadian that you turned out to be educated, so prosperous looking and so dignified from time to time.
These are valid and urgent objectives for a nation whose domestic lifeblood is international trade. Only substantial productivity improvements will restore and

sustain our competitive position and under-write our economic security.
The Speech from the Throne emphasized the need for Canadians to share in the benefit of prosperity and nowhere is this more true than in the case of aboriginal Canadians.
I have been gratified by the favourable response to the appointment of former Chief Justice Brian Dickson to advise the government on the membership and terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Affairs.
A few weeks ago in Victoria, I set out some of the progress now being made. First, the fast-track process is introduced to deal with land claims of $500,000 or less. Second, in order to accelerate claims processing, the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to approve settlement payments without reference to the Treasury Board will be increased from $1 million to $7 million.
Third, some $355 million will be dedicated to this initiative over the next five years. This represents a quadrupling of resources for this program.
Fourth, the process will be made fairer by the establishment of a specific land claim commission.
Fifth, in co-operation with Indian leadership over the next few months, a joint Indian government working group will be established to address unresolved specific land claims process and public policy issues.
Finally, pre-Confederation land claims will be accepted for consideration for the first time.
Another native agenda initiative designed to help Indian leaders build a better future for their people is the Pathways To Success program. The objective of this program is to create a skilled, competitive aboriginal workforce. We anticipate investing approximately $200 million per year in aboriginal labour market programs.
As part of the native agenda we have increased the budget of the Indian post-secondary program by $320 million for a total expenditure of more than a billion dollars over five years. This year government assistance is making it possible for 22,000 Indians to go to college and to change their lives. When the member for Saint-Denis and I were going to college, there were fewer than
The Address
a hundred aboriginal students. This shows that some slow but steady progress is being achieved.
Perhaps the combination of the royal commission, strong support by Parliament and government, and constitutional change will provide our aboriginal peoples with the justice and the respect they have long deserved but have too frequently been denied.
Recently, the former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Sonny Ramphal, said: "Canada is a model of stability in a multicultural world, and the breakup of the country would be seen as an encouragement for other societies to fly apart. Canada", he said, "has been something of a flagship of stability in a world of multicul-turalism; the Canadian model has been replicated around the world."

A handful of professional pessimists keeps focusing on the flaws in our political system. Of course there are flaws. No one ever said Canada or federalism were perfect. There are flaws, but the same professional pessimists who concentrate on those flaws and are always trying to obscure the greatness and strength of Canada, would have us succumb to their siren song and thus undermine our belief in the unity and greatness of this country. In Quebec, they are promising people the moon, and referring to economic and political unions that are purely imaginary. There are others outside Quebec who would have us believe that the best way to deal with the pervasive malaise in this country would be to separate Quebec from Canada.

Both sides of this pessimistic equation-those who want Quebec to leave Canada and those who insist that division is inevitable-both of these graduates, with doctorates in the school of pessimism, are completely wrong and they will be repudiated by history.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: People who think Canada is a set of building blocks that can be rearranged at will or who think Canada can function just as well without one of its basic components are badly mistaken.

May 15, 1991
The Address

To strengthen our economic union, the federal government must exercise key economic powers and both levels of government must work together to secure our prosperity.
I believe it is possible in areas of federal jurisdiction to integrate explicit and effective inputs from regions and from citizens into the making of laws and policies. We must also find new and imaginative mechanisms to manage the interdependence of the federal and the provincial governments.
A look at the attribution of powers in 1867 provides a guide to the genuine thinking of the Fathers of Confederation when they created this country.
You will see that the erosion of many of those powers over the years has brought about quite a different country from that which they contemplated. This explains some of the serious problems that provinces feel, particularly as they are further and further removed from the centre, as they are more and more concerned about their capacity to protect language and culture and regional interests.
And so we must find new ways to manage the interdependence of the federal and provincial governments. Federalism is a balance between the need for central authority and the scope for decentralization to meet local aspirations. Its genius lies not in its perfection, because no system of government yet devised is perfect, but its genius comes from the fact that it combines self-rule and shared rule, sovereignty and association.
The challenge we face is to rebalance our federation, not to throw it out. This will be the most important challenge that we have to meet during this session. The eyes of the nation are turned toward this Chamber and all of its members. It is not the time to exacerbate our differences; I think, Mr. Speaker, it is the time to extol our diversity. This is not the time to weaken our country; it is the time to strengthen our resolve. It is not the time to point fingers; it is the time to join hands. This is not the time to turn our backs on the common destiny; it is the time to prepare a better country for all of our children.
On July 1, thousands of Canadians, young and old, French speaking and English speaking and first Canadians and recent immigrants, will stand outside this building and look to the top of the Peace Tower. They will see there the maple leaf, be witness to our history and the emblem of our future greatness. Indeed, my friend says "a great flag", and he is 100 per cent right.
Our challenge is to reject the call to selfishness and division and to point the way to a better Canada, a Canada that is more open and fair, and generous and free, which will become the pride of its citizens and a model for the entire world.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East has very generously assisted the Speaker. I recognize the hon. member for Yukon.
The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to express our gratitude to the Official Opposition for its courteous gesture to allow our leader to make some remarks regarding the throne speech. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could also seek unanimous consent to allow my leader to complete her remarks during her response.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that indeed that had been the proposal in the rule changes that we had negotiated at the end. It is too bad it could not be automatically part of the rules, but of course we would extend that courtesy to the Leader.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the government's Speech from the Throne as well as on the Prime Minister's remarks just preceding this.
We have heard many members of this government say that this session could be the most important one since Confederation and I and my party certainly agree with that. We have also heard the government say that imagination will be required to move forward and emerge stronger from this crisis in which our nation finds itself. Again, we in the New Democratic Party agree with that. I have heard from this government that we are at a turning point in our history and once again, we agree.
In listening to the Speech from the Throne, what is most striking and most disturbing is that there is nothing in it to meet the challenges confronting Canada now. It contains the same old responses, the same failed eco-

nomic policies and the same flawed constitutional process.
It is saddening that this government has chosen and is determined to follow the same old course, because being at a turning point means turning. The government refuses to turn. Instead it goes blindly ahead and takes Canada into another dead-end. We must turn to find new directions and new ways, to find a destination and a new future for Canadians. That is the responsibility for all of us.
The throne speech identifies unity, competitiveness and responsive national government as priorities. Indeed, they should be because in the six years since this government took power, Canada has moved to a large degree from unity to disunity, from being globally competitive toward being globally uncompetitive, and from having functional national institutions to national institutions such as VIA Rail and the CBC that are mere skeletons of what they were when this government took power.
These are issues which must be addressed and I will do that today, but in a very different way than this government. I propose that we follow a people's agenda, an agenda that serves Canadians and Canadian families.
It is clear to everyone, except a few across from us in this House, that the Conservative corporate agenda has failed Canadians. I want to ensure the Canadian people that our party will not stand by and watch these six years be followed by another six years of this kind of failed economic planning.
This Parliament is charged with one responsibility this session. That responsibility is to work to build the kind of Canada that all Canadians want to belong to.

It means drafting a Constitution that will unite this country. It also means creating an economic, social and environmental partnership among Canadians and between governments and the people they represent.
Canada as we know it today is a country where 1.5 million people are jobless, where the gap between the rich and the poor is widening by the day and where the middle class is in the process of disappearing.
Our health system is in jeopardy, our education system is deteriorating and major social programs are being
The Address
eliminated. Moreover, the crucial environmental challenges we are facing are left unanswered. Every day sees another institution, a symbol of our Canadian identity, such as VIA Rail, Air Canada or the CBC, undermined or simply eradicated. The links that bond this country together are being cut unscrupulously. The problem is that the Prime Minister make a lot of fuss about the need to save Canada, but then his Minister of Finance tables a Budget that strikes at the heart and soul of this country. It will take more than declarations of love for Canada to save this nation and allow it to grow. It will take a government capable of making concrete commitments toward giving the country a strong and fair economy and strenghtening our social programs and national institutions. We will need a government committed to shaping Canada to be a better place to live for all Canadian men and women.
It would not be fair of me if, based on no evidence, I accused the government of a gap between its rhetoric and its action, so I draw your attention to the last throne speech delivered in 1989. It said that one of the government's objectives was:
-to maintain a caring, compassionate society which will be able, through continuing economic prosperity, to meet its obligations and responsibilities to those who are less fortunate and in greatest need.
What did the government do toward this end? It introduced the clawback to old age pensions and family allowances. It abandoned funding of unemployment insurance. It announced the delay of long-promised national child care programs. It introduced the GST. It capped funding for social programs to B.C., Alberta and Ontario. It froze transfer payments for post-secondary education and health care.
I have not read the most recent edition of the Oxford Dictionary, but it seems to me that unless the meanings of caring and compassionate have changed-the words that this government in 1989 said it cared about, that it wanted to make sure existed in Canada-they have been revised by what this government has done. The policies I have just cited which have been put forward by this government have nothing to do with caring and compassion, but everything to do with indifference to the ordinary Canadian.

The Address
Surely if we are to have a renewed Canada, we must build a nation in which all people can share in its bounty, in which all Canadians can participate and in which all Canadians feel they genuinely belong.
In this throne speech, the government speaks of the need to build an economy competitive globally. Global competitiveness is the new corporate catch phrase and I am sure we are going to hear a lot about it in the months and years ahead. The question is not whether we should be competitive, of course we should be. The question is how do we get there.
The government and the corporate community insist that there is only one road. That is to further cut workers' wages, to reduce benefits, to cut social programs, to provide fewer government services, to weaken government and diminish standards to the levels of countries such as Mexico.
There is another way. There is not just one way to become competitive. There is another way and that is by investing in people. It means investing in research and development, investing in training and education. It means strengthening programs which increase economic security, ability and productivity of workers to compete with high wage, high productivity and low unemployment countries such as Germany.
The choice is clear. We can reduce Canada to the lowest common standard or work to join the world's best. We, on this side, say let us work to join the world's best.

The hon. member for Mississauga South who will chair the Fiannce Committee stated recently that the Canadian worker, and I quote, "can either work harder for a lesser pay or not work at all. It is quite simple. That is what competitiveness is all about."
That may be how this government defines competitiveness but, for the record, the New Democratic Party will not let the govemement use this argument as a pretext to close down plants, to drive farmers to the brink of banckruptcy and to trample the rights of the Canadian workers' families.
The government must recognize that it is unacceptable that, for the sake of competitiveness, we have 1.5 million jobless people in our economy.
That is totally unjustifiable, Mr. Speaker. The NDP finds unacceptable as to the Canadian people.
The government undertook in the Speech from the Throne to create 2.5 million jobs by the year 2000. The question is how can that be done. That the government did not say.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this vague commitment will bring little comfort to the 10 percent plus Canadians who are without a jobs in 1991. It will not reassure the Canadian men and women who will loose their jobs in 1992, 1993, 1994 and so on, because this government has its mind set on pursuing destructive policies such as free trade, the GST, and high interest rates combined with an overvalued Canadian dollar.

While the 2.5 million job creation figure may sound impressive on the face of it, the reality is, given the fact that more people will be entering the workforce this decade and given the growth in the size of the workforce, the creation of 2.5 million jobs between now and the year 2000 will mean an unemployment rate, not of 4 per cent, not of 5 per cent, but of 10 per cent in the year 2000.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: This government is planning for permanent unemployment. A 10 per cent unemployment rate in Canada-millions of Canadians out of work-is not the New Democratic Party's definition of competitiveness. It clearly is the Conservative Party's definition of competitiveness: some workers have to be out of work; some workers cannot work; and some workers cannot be productive because that is going to be in the interests of this nation.
We say that is not in the interest of this nation. The human deficit is the largest deficit we have in Canada today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The Prime Minister will say: "Well, we have created a lot of jobs". There is also the question of what kinds of jobs are being created.
A few days ago the finance minister said that to him, a job is a job is a job. There is little one can do in the face of such an insensitive remark but to ask the minister if he believes that a single mother forced to take a part-time job, making $100 a week, has a job just like a cabinet
May 15, 1991

The Address
minister who makes thousands of dollars a week or a lawyer or a corporate executive who makes over hundreds of dollars an hour.
What would he say to the women some of my colleagues spoke to yesterday, one of whom has a husband who is a trucker and has not had work for eight months, thanks to the policies of this government? Here is a woman who supports her family by making $300 a week, working six days a week, paying $625 a month in rent and who has not been able to buy her teenage daughter anything new in two years. Would that minister tell that woman that a job is a job is job? Well it is not. It is poverty.
Job creation is about more than poverty wage jobs. It is about creating full-time jobs that have decent wages and dignity. It is about pay and employment equity. It is about ensuring that child care is available for all Canadians who require it in order to make a living.
Job creation is also a matter of improving training, research and development and education. This is the front that this government has failed miserably on. It promised the trade adjustment program after the trade deal. For most Canadians, it never happened. Its cuts to the National Research Council have devastated that council, and that respected institution and this government's spending on R and D continue to lag behind those of our international competitors.
In the education field, after years of cutting transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education, with cuts of $3.8 billion between 1990 and 1995 alone, for this government to turn around and identify education as a primary national objective in the throne speech is the ultimate hypocrisy.
You cannot cut post-secondary funding just a mere three months ago and now identify education as a priority. Somehow, the government's actions have to match its words. Strong curriculum and teaching objectives and goals are all part of quality education but adequate funding is crucial. I would suggest that if this government is serious about education and about attacking the problem of illiteracy, it restore funding immediately.

One last comment on the economy, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note that the Speech from the Throne finally recognizes-better late than never-that economy and national unity are closely intertwined. I have been saying so for a long time.
To the Saskatchewan family facing the loss of its farm because of excessively high interest rates, interest rates are a matter of national unity. To the Windsor worker who has lost his job because of free trade, free trade is a matter of national unity.
To the young woman laid off by a textile industry in Montreal, it is also a matter of national unity. To the northern residents who must pay the GST when everything already costs so much, taxes are a matter of national unity.
Thus, for the sake of national unity and competitiveness, I ask the government to recognize once and for all that free trade, GST and high interest rates are bad policies that must be rescinded.

I would now like to comment on some of the other aspects of national unity in the agenda put forward by this government.
I would like to address in particular issues concerning the constitutional aspects of national unity and the call for non-partisan co-operation. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the future of Canada is more important than the fate of any one political party. It is more important than the career of any one of us in the House of Commons. Our decisions and actions in the coming months must be guided by that reality. The good of the nation comes first always.
I believe that we can find a way to work together for the good of the nation. I say to this House with honesty and with a depth of emotion that the members of the New Democratic Party will do all that we can to work to forge a common future. That is our responsibility and we take it very seriously.
At the same time, I say with honesty and emotion that the members of the New Democratic Party and all Canadians cannot be handed a take it or leave it deal and be told to accept it in the name of non-partisanship. Non-partisanship is about bringing people together into the process from the beginning. It is about truly listening,

May 15, 1991
The Address
incorporating constructive suggestions put forward and it is about respect. It is about respecting the views of others and it is about true co-operation. Non-partisanship does not mean playing by only one set of rules, the government's rules; it means setting the rules together.
I say to the government and to the Prime Minister: Let us begin by opening up the process. The establishment of another traditional parliamentary committee I think will signal to most Canadians more of the same, more of the old way, more of politicians talking to other politicians and more delays in dealing with the real issues.
This House could move to immediately establish a constituent assembly based on Canadian reality and on Canadian needs. There are many other models across the country, but we do not have to just accept those. We have enough innovation here. We could create our own, one that meets our own needs. We should establish that format so that Canadians are directly involved in the process from the beginning.
If we cannot start with something new, how will Canadians have any confidence that the result will be a new and renewed Canada?
I believe that we could have a constituent assembly where there would be elected officials and non-elected officials, where there would be a genuine guaranteed participation of aboriginal groups, women, northerners, multicultural and official language group communities in addition to participation by our elected colleagues in territorial and provincial legislatures.
I know the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Prime Minister will say that a parliamentary committee, the traditional way as opposed to a constituent assembly, has been established by this government because it is up to elected representatives to take responsibility to set the course of the nation. By doing so, they will say, elected representatives will gain credibility and the trust of Canadians.
We elected representatives do have a crucial role but surely the way to earn the trust and support of Canadians is to demonstrate that we have been listening to what Canadians have been saying. Canadians have been saying: "We want a different way. We want to feel included in the process from the beginning".
It surely cannot be that difficult to be somewhat creative, somewhat innovative and to try something new
that will respond to the calls from the public and will be a truly co-operative effort in forging this new nation.
As it stands under the government's proposals now, which I hope it is prepared to reconsider, with the various committees that have been travelling the country and will travel the country, in the final analysis it will be the government itself that will be able to retain all levers of control, to decide what evidence it will hear and what it will listen to. Will it just perhaps follow an agenda that it intended to follow all along? That is something that we all as parliamentarians have to address; we are saying to Canadians at the beginning that their views count. I suggest we can do that by a process of including a broader range of people right from the beginning.
We must continue to work for a fair and open process because Canada quite simply cannot withstand another failed round of constitutional discussions.

As for the content of those discussions on national unity, my party will continue to put forward ideas that we sincerely believe will contribute to strenghtening our national unity.
We have already made positive suggestions on the contents of a new Constitution and on the need to not only conclude a constitutional agreement but also agreements on economy, environment and social programs.
Therefore, I ask the government and the Prime Minister, in the spirit of the call to non-partisanship that is reflected in the Speech from the Throne, to consider those propositions and try to integrate them into a program to strenghten national unity.
Let me close by saying that having recently travelled extensively throughout the country, I have seen a positive change in the mood of the country. I think some of the acrimony or the bitterness that emerged after the Meech Lake process has diminished, and Canadians are really beginning to renew their search for compromise and agreement.
I am optimistic that we can succeed in meeting the many issues before us, in meeting the unique responsibilities of Quebec, the home of French language and culture in North America, and in addressing the real concerns of aboriginal people, the west, Ontario, the
May 15, 1991

north, the Atlantic provinces and all the people who live within our borders.
I believe we can, through acknowledging diversity, make that diversity our true strength, our true uniqueness as a country. The goal must not simply be keeping Canada together; the goal must be building a truly better Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: There will in the coming months be much discussion about what is wrong with Canada, but let us never lose sight about what is right with Canada. Ours is really a marvellous achievement, an achievement of diverse cultures coming together, of people separated by great distances creating common bonds, and of individuals and communities sharing common values and common objectives.
I recently read something that a Canadian song writer, Andrew Cash, wrote when he returned from a trip to India, an old country that has a long history. He observed that Canada:
- has more space and time than, perhaps, any other nation in the world to be thoughtful and innovative, not just in accumulating wealth, but in the field of human understanding, in pioneering new ways for different peoples to live together in harmony.
It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to take this session of Parliament and use it to be thoughtful and innovative, to find new ways for Canadians to live together, to work with all Canadians in building a Canada that says to the world: "This is what can be achieved when a nation takes the gifts it has been given and dedicates itself to creating a society that values and cares about each and every one of us".
The New Democratic Party pledges to the Canadian people to work toward and offer constructive suggestions to make sure that this great country of Canada, the one that many of us grew up in, will be here for our children. In my view, we do not have the privilege of dealing away this country. We must take the responsibility for building it. I look forward to that task, as does my party, with great enthusiasm.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we heard the Prime Minister calling
The Address
Canadians to take heed to the celebration that we will experience here on Parliament Hill on July 1.
The Prime Minister did not talk about the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who this July 1, like this June 1, like this May 1, will be experiencing hunger and frustration and disappointment and despair because this government is not meeting its responsibilities to Canadians.
I listened to the Prime Minister remind us of the fact that this is a country that must operate in the public interest. I could not agree more.
I have watched this government for six and a half years. This has been a government of the private interest. The private interest of American Express. When it wants to deal, there is a turn around time of 24 hours. The private interest of the Iraqi spokesperson. Thousands upon thousands of people around the world are waiting in line for months and years to come to Canada, but he receives a quick turnaround because he has a private interest.
The private interest of the Boeing Corporation. We remember when the Prime Minister, a mere two years ago, stood in the House and said that he was introducing legislation to save those jobs. Now the single largest employer in the city of Toronto has its livelihood threatened by a takeover from a company that is asking for $500 million in taxpayers' aid before it even guarantees Canadians jobs.
What is the public response of this government? Since the Tory takeover in 1984 of over 900 foreign takeovers, Investment Canada has not overturned a single takeover.
When the Prime Minister talks about the private interest and asks us to rally around the public interest of Canadians, I say to the Prime Minister there is a public interest here. There is the public interest of the women in the gallery today who were in tears. The members opposite may laugh and chuckle but those women were in tears because they saw their families' livelihood being dealt away by a trade deal signed by this Prime Minister.
In my own community there is the public interest of the steel workers. From December 1989 to December 1990, imports of steel from the United States, during this

May 15, 1991
The Address
great window of opportunity supposedly created by the trade deal, increased by 166 per cent while exports from Canada to the United States decreased by 12 per cent. Is it any wonder that in my own community over the last year unemployment has increased by 67 per cent?
I want to say to the Prime Minister that when he tells Canadians to wave the flag on Parliament Hill on July 1, he should also tell Canadians that by restoring the economy, the sound economy of this country, we will begin the road toward constitutional and economic sanity.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a fine speech today in the House and I would like to believe him. He has mentionned the fact that we must work together, that we should not indulge in narrow partisanship about the constitutional issues. I feel the same way and I completely agree with this idea, Mr. Speaker.
But we must remember, Mr. Speaker, who has indulged in partisanship for the last three years concerning the future of our country. It is the same man on the other side who claims now he is going to revitalize Canada, the very person who has created a situation where people, across the country, do not believe in our Canada.
It is neither the leader of the Opposition, nor I, the member for Hamilton East, it is not the other hon. members who have gone to Quebec, time and again, to tell them: "If the Lake Meech Acord is not ratified, you will be humiliated." It is the Prime Minister who has kept spreading this rumour. That is what he is doing, Mr. Speaker.
A wave of the magic wand and the Prime Minister is supposed to be able to restore a sense of team work here in the House of Commons. I want to believe him because I agree with the statement made by the House leader of the government side that this is probably a turning point in Canadian history.
Those Canadians outside the province of Quebec who see the constitutional question as just another chapter of Canadian sabre rattling are wrong. Those outside the province of Quebec who think they can merely excise the wishes-

-the will, the aspiration and the history of a people who has been living here for 400 years, I will tell them: You are wrong!

Those people outside the province of Quebec who believe, as does the leader of the new Reform Party, that you can have a Canada without Quebec are wrong.
There are two parties now on the federal scene who aspire to achieve political success at the expense of the country. On the one hand you have the bloc-

-who wants a Quebec without Canada. On the other hand, you have the Reform Party who wants to have a Canada without Quebec.


An hon. member:: They are crazy.


Sheila Maureen Copps: But in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, every hon. member, whatever his political colour or history who really wants to have a Canada, should understand de facto that it must include Quebec.

Those people in my own province who recently spoke before the Ontario committee on constitutional reform and believe that somehow the cost of separation would be borne only by a single province, their neighbouring province of Quebec, are wrong.
Thirty billion dollars worth of business takes place annually between my province and the province of Quebec. Those who think that we can arbitrarily cut them out of the Canadian equation at no cost to the rest of Canada are dead wrong.
The constitutional clock is ticking. On this side of the House we made very specific proposals. Last December we called for the Prime Minister to act immediately to give the parliamentary committee of Beaudoin-Edwards an expanded mandate. My leader, Jean Chretien, the only national leader to appear before the Belanger-Campeau committee, spoke in a very eloquent fashion about the steps that must be taken immediately to restore constitutional sanity to this country.
What have we had from the Prime Minister? We have had a disgusting exercise of constitutional strip-tease. He takes it off one by one by one. Two months ago he announced that he would be announcing an announce-
May 15, 1991

ment of an announcement next September of a committee that might have a chance to report sometime next year. Yesterday he announced the announcement of the committee of which the membership will be announced in September and we still do not know whether the committee will be mandated to examine a notion as simple as either a national referendum or a constituent assembly. Further chapters to follow.
I say to the Prime Minister, the time for the constitutional games are over. Now is the time to act, and to act in the best interest of all Canadians.

The Prime Minister told us earlier this afternoon- and I think everyone, including me, would agree with that, that the Parliament of Canada and our ability to survive as a nation is much more important than the fate of any political party, and that is true. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I, as a Canadian, cannot help but ask myself a question, and I know that is tough. Some members close by will tell me: Mrs. Copps, you are being much too hard on the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, do you think the Prime Minister can in fact regain the confidence of the people, after having lied so many times about the constitutional issue?
A few weeks ago, I held a public meeting in my constituency and about 300 people attended. I can tell you this was not an English community meeting, which does not even really exist, since 34 of the 35 people who took the floor chose not to speak in their mother tongue, English, and all of the participants, who wanted some answers about the economic situation, the interest rate policy, the monetary policy, and the constitutional policy, said: In order to rebuild this country, we have to get rid of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we know the economic problems. We know the inflationary problems caused by this government's insidious GST. We also know that Canadians are unanimous on one question and it is that this Prime Minister has rolled the dice one too many times.
If this Prime Minister really cares about Canada, then maybe he should rethink his political future. Maybe he should step aside and give a chance to somebody who
The Address
really wants to rebuild this country. Maybe he should take the high road and let Canadians, by way of an election, choose for themselves the leader who can rebuild a true Canadian constitutional family. Take it to the people.
This Prime Minister expects all Canadians to rally around the absurd notion that he has taken the politics out of constitutional discussions. I sat here in the House when my leader was away on medical leave and watched the Prime Minister tear strips off him daily in his absence. I sat here as the self-same Prime Minister then called out to the opposition and said "we must be non-partisan".
We all realize how important this country is, and I for one was among those who were prepared to take a very difficult position on constitutional reform and support the Prime Minister, as I did in 1987. I believed that the capacity for reconciliation and the greater good of the country was more important than single political initiatives. But the Prime Minister has betrayed us too many times, and for him to come into the House today and ask Canadians to believe that he will be non-partisan on the issue of constitutional reform is just too difficult for Canadians to believe. It stretches the credulity of even the most silent backbencher on the government side.

Mr. Speaker, the next 14 months will be crucial in the history of Canada. I am not sure that the tide has turned yet, although the leader of the New Democratic Party said so in her remarks. But I think we have the ability to make the tide turn.
For example, we made very precise proposals in that regard. In fact, they included elements of Senate reform, elements of monetary policy reform, elements of power sharing reform, elements providing that all government levels would have to respond to the needs of every citizen and that any decision on power sharing would have to be made in the interests of the citizens, not of the government level.
When my leader attended the Belanger-Campeau Commission and when, after his appearance, he issued a statement in Montreal, he was very clear about the

May 15, 1991
The Address
timetable that we expected. Unfortunately, the government ignored it. I do not know why it is dragging its feet. Mr. Speaker, we already lost six months and we expect to lose another three. We lost almost a year before the Prime Minister gave Parliament the tools that are needed to reform the Constitution.
The Prime Minister argued earlier that the word of the people, the uppermost word, is the word of the Parliament. Why, then, does he not give us the tools, right now, so that we can start working to reestablish the constitutional sovereignty in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party are prepared to start working now. We are prepared to start working today, because the constitutional clock is ticking and too much time has already been wasted.
We ask the Prime Minister, why wait until fall? Start now with the process of allowing the people of Canada to have their say through their elected members of Parliament. Unlike the NDP, we do not want to wait until Spicer and Beaudoin-Edwards report. Certainly their reports can be complementary to the work that is being done by this parliamentary committee, with the objective of looking at all aspects of constitutional change.
Given the time frames that are facing us, whether or not they are of our own choosing, they are a political reality. The time has come to get down to business in this Parliament.
It is strange, as we talk about the future of the country, as the Prime Minister himself says, so much is at stake. Why is it that we are the only Parliament in Canada that is forbidden by the fiats of the Prime Minister to deal with issues other than the simple amending formula in the Beaudoin-Edwards committee? It makes absolutely no sense that that committee's hands should be tied at a time when we should be listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
We have proposed a Canada round. In fact, a number of the proposals articulated today by the Prime Minister, were taken, as a matter of fact, from speeches delivered on several occasions by the Leader of the Opposition. He called for the Canada round because he understood that
for constitutional reform to truly work, it has to involve the empowerment of every Canadian. It cannot be a special interest exercise.

We believe that we have the political will and that, when they realize that they are wanted by the rest of Canada, Quebecers will say yes to Canada. The time has now come for the Parliament of Canada to say yes to Quebec, to say yes to the distinct society and also to say yes to Senate reform and to power sharing among regions which will really reflect a renewed Canada.
The task is weighty and time is running out. The time has come to start working and we expect that, right today, the Prime Minister will appoint a new constitutional committee to really do the work that must be done in order to restore to Canadians their confidence in the best country in the world.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Hamilton East was complaining about the record of Investment Canada.
I share her concerns about that deplorable record. That member was a member of the Liberal Party, which was in office until late 1984. When we look at its record, we find that Canada had more foreign ownership and control per capita than any other industrialized nation and more than many developing nations.
Despite FIRA's record, less than one half of the approved foreign take-overs intended to increase their investment or provide any new jobs. Since the beginning of 1984, 15 per cent of those approved promised neither new jobs nor new investment.
I am wondering whether the member associates herself with the attitude of the Liberal government of those days with respect to FIRA and the way it used it, or believes there should be a new policy toward foreign ownership in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unfortunately, the member should talk to his colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I do not know how many times in this House the member for Vancouver Kingsway has urged that the government re-institute FIRA because he thought it did such a good job protecting Canadian investment.
While he is talking to his colleague, he might want to pass a word along to the premier of Ontario, who not only closed his eyes, but kissed Varity good-bye as it moved its operations from Canada to the United States.
The former Massey-Ferguson got the blessing of Bob Rae when it moved off to the United States with Varity Corp.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Hamilton East and I can say that she talks a lot-very well by the way-but she does very little.
Mr. Speaker, if we could give an award for partisanship, the hon. member for Hamilton East would win handily if it were put to a vote. I never heard the hon. member, although the government did not always-
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, nobody is perfect and no government is perfect, but the hon. member for Hamilton East has never, not even once since I am a member of this assembly, acknowledged that the government was trying to do something. She conveniently forgets that it is this government, our Prime Minister, who recognized the distinct society and worked assiduously to try and save Canada.
We would not be talking about the Constitution if it had not been for her party, if influential members of her party had not done the utmost behind the scenes to sink the Accord. She is now saying that the Canadian federation is in need of changes, but between the talk and the action there is quite a gap, as she seems unable to propose anything. Her leader says one thing, only to contradict himself the following day.
We are talking about transfer of responsibilities to the provinces. That is what the provincial governments want, but her leader is against any transfer of powers to the provinces. Could the hon. member for Hamilton East tell us-as deputy leader of her party-whether she is in favour of transferring powers to the provinces? What kinds of powers would she agree to transfer and how
The Address
would she do it? Let her make some suggestions, we might find them interesting.


Sheila Maureen Copps: But at least our leader had the guts to put these proposals before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, while your leader won't even raise the question in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I can talk about the political aspect of Meech. Is that all right? Don't ask me about the rest, because if the hon. member thinks the Prime Minister did a good job, it is because she does not know Canada outside Quebec. He sent a gentleman who could not even run for dog catcher, former Senator Lowell Murray, who was sent across Canada to sell Meech Lake. Why? Because he wanted to go back to Quebec to tell them: You have been humiliated! The reason people will not accept Meech Lake is because they are against Quebec. He used Meech to damage the Liberal Party, but he did not bother to say one word outside Quebec.
I made speeches in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, to explain how important it was for Quebec. The Prime Minister sent Lowell Murray. Come to my riding, Mr. Speaker, and ask ten people who Lowell Murray is. They don't know.
They don't know him from Adam.


An hon. member:: The dog catcher!


Sheila Maureen Copps: He couldn't even run for dog catcher. Imagine!
Our position on the transfer of powers was clear. We stated quite clearly there is nothing sacred about the division of powers. In fact, we have to start analyzing the division of powers between the federal and the provincial governments. We should start, bearing in mind what is good for Canadians, what will minimize duplication and repetition, and what gives us the best return on our investment. That is what we want to do, and this was made quite clear to the Belanger-Campeau Commission on several occasions but, unfortunately, the hon. member insists on claiming that her leader is the only person with a political position.
If he really wanted to sell Meech Lake, he could have done so by acting responsibly as the leader of the government. What we have here is not the leader of a

May 15, 1991
The Address
government but the leader of a political party, and that is why my speech was partisan as well.
It shocks me to hear him claim he is going to save Canada, when he cannot even say the same thing in both languages, in English and French, across the country.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: I have a veiy short question.
The preceding speaker from Hamilton East, I am quite sure, has taken note that nowhere in the throne speech was there one word in reference to medicare, the cornerstone of our social policy in this country and not a word. Does she not find it strange that at a time when medicare is being eroded this government does not even lend one word of support or encouragement to medicare?


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not surprising if you look at the financial record of the government. In the last budget the former Minister of Finance, who is now being charged with the responsibility of making us competitive, savaged the transfer payments from the federal government to provinces for health and for post-secondary education. The savage cuts by the Minister of Finance and by the Prime Minister really laid bare for all the world to see how false their claim is that they are now going to invest in education and health care for Canadians.
I think the proof was in the pudding when the government recently defeated a motion by the opposition to defend medicare. It is not even prepared to vote for it in the House of Commons.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pleasure that I rise today to comment on the speech of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, which opened this session of the 34th Parliament.
His Excellency has expressed, on behalf of our government, a number of particularly pertinent themes. Our overriding concern at this time must be for the unity of our nation and, within that context, for all of the elements which contribute to a strong and vibrant Canada. This includes creating a political structure within which all Canadians can find free and full expression for their aspirations.
It also includes, as the throne speech rightly points out, the assurance of economic prosperity, of a clean environment, of improved representation and of a stable, compassionate and caring society.
If, as the throne speech states, the family is the most fundamental building block of Canadian society, then the elements of a strong and vibrant Canada must include the protection and nurturing of the family. It is for this reason that our government has committed itself to review its policies in relation to the family
This is a commitment that I and many of my colleagues have worked hard for and I want to express most sincerely my appreciation to the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues for listening to our concerns on this issue.
I am also grateful that this government has indicated that in the context of its over all plan for constitutional reform it is prepared to act to ensure that our support for families is effective, fair, efficient and above all, that the rights of families to choose their own lifestyles are protected. This commitment, I believe, is confirmed by the statement that "the test of constitutional reform will be fairness, effectiveness, efficiency and the protection afforded to the rights of all Canadians".
The family is the most fundamental building block of Canadian society. Strong families have had, and will continue to have, an enormous effect on building and strengthening our nation. No matter what part of the country we come from, we see this impact in our history.
We recall the early settlers of both our founding nations; the families of United Empire Loyalists who established themselves in the maritime provinces-

In Quebec, we know that families have been for a long time one of the pillars of the Quebecer society. Family respect and loyalty have played a key role in the building of the Quebec culture which is so rich, warm, distinct and open to the rest of Canada.

In Ontario and western Canada we celebrate the remembrance of our families, who often came in waves of immigration from England, Ireland, Germany, the Ukraine, from China and many other Asian countries, in fact from throughout the world. Everywhere in Canada our aboriginal peoples celebrate the endurance of their
May 15, 1991

families and often-times heroic endurance that has given them the strength to survive enormous cultural, social and economic change.
Whatever our origins, we all look back on our families and relate stories of how their courage and determination built our nation. It is only with strong families which feel secure in their inheritance that we can continue to grow and prosper as a nation.
I have to say that there are problems. Over the years our laws, particularly taxation laws, have not kept pace with the changes in society and in family structures. In our well-meaning attempts to fix problems we have created an extraordinarily complex system of deductions, credits, refundable credits, exemptions, support payments, sales tax credits and support programs; a system which almost no one can understand and one in which different elements often work at cross purposes or to the disadvantage of certain lifestyles, particularly traditional family lifestyles.
Although I will highlight certain examples today, I cannot refer to all of the anomalies in our laws and regulations which conspire against the family. Let me say, however, that I recognize that most of them are paradoxically rooted in the concept that the traditional family is the norm, and in old-fashioned and sometimes inappropriate concepts of dependency.
A simple example of this is the well-known case of two senior citizens each receiving the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement. If they get married, they lose about $3,000 per year. Similar situations occur with veterans widows' allowances. If the survivor marries, the allowances are reduced or cut off. Examples abound in the Income Tax Act and I will come to these in more detail later.
The issue is that we constantly put an economic disincentive on marriage and that the government through its policies interferes in family decision making, particularly as it relates to child care.
Let us examine, then, the tax system as it affects families. I wish there was a way to make it simple but there is not, and that is part of the problem. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you and my colleagues will bear with me.
The Address
The first issue is the impact of the tax system on marriage. Although the tax system is essentially based on individual income, rules have been introduced relating to certain credits where eligibility credits are based on family income. The GST is a good place to start. First let me say, without apology, that I support and supported this progressive and much-needed tax reform because I know that consumption taxes are fairer than income taxes which only penalize success. In my view, there is one important flaw in the GST. It relates to the credits for low income earners.
Because the rules refer to family income, the result is that two people living together, each making only $24,000 per year, that is with a family income of $48,000, can retain full GST credits and bonus credits totalling some $580. The minute they are married they lose the entire credit because their family income now exceeds the limit. In fact, two people making only $17,000 each would not be eligible for the credit if they were to marry. Add children to the family and the benefit to the unmarried couple is even more significant.
Another example is the principal residential exemption. Under the income tax system, profit from the sale of a home is considered non-taxable capital gains. This exempts the taxpayer from any capital gains tax on the sale of a home. Marrieds are permitted only one exemption because they are not permitted to share income. Since persons who just live together can share income, they are eligible for two exemptions.
There are also problems with the capital gains exemption, which I will not detail today because of the lack of time. However, they are similarly related to the examples just given.
What is also surprising is the rules for disabled attendant care. If an unmarried spouse is disabled, he or she can pay their spouse for care and claim a $5,000 deduction at income tax time if the disabled partner's tax rate is higher than that of his or her spouse. Again, marrieds are prevented from doing so by the attribution rules.
The equivalent to married exemption was intended to give single parents the same tax advantages that married couples enjoy, that is a spousal deduction. Unfortunately, many unmarried couples are manipulating the credit to their advantage. Unmarried couples with children can

The Address
claim two equivalent credits, each worth $1,400. As a result, the unmarried couple can be almost $1,300 better off after tax.
Let me give another example. The threshold of the refundable child tax credit is $24,800 and is based on family income. Unmarrieds can each make $24,000 and still receive their full credit. A married two-income family with the same incomes as the unmarried couple will lose the entire credit because their family income exceeds the threshold. In fact, the married family could have a family income of $17,000 less than the unmarried family income and still lose their entire credit.
The second major issue in the tax system is the combined effect of having only one earner in a family, along with the effect of marriage.
The first of these examples is the effect on family allowance. Family allowance rules require that the higher income spouse in a married family report the family allowance as income. Unmarried families can avoid this rule; the lower income spouse can claim the family allowance and reduce the tax burden of the higher income spouse.
The unmarried couple also benefits under the new family allowance repayment rules. Here family allowance benefits under this scheme are available in full only until the individual's income reaches $51,000. Unmarrieds can avoid the repayment threshold either through income splitting or by the lower income spouse claiming family allowance.
Two earner married families may not be able to use income splitting measures but they do benefit from the fact that the threshold is based on individual income. In a one-income family, the benefits are taxed back when the family's single earner's income is $51,000. A two-income family, however, with each parent earning $51,000, for a combined total of $102,000, retains their benefits in full. Concerning the child care deduction, if you are married you cannot pay your spouse to remain home and care for the children. If you are unmarried and living together with children, you can pay your spouse for caring for the children and then claim the payments for child care expense deduction which amount to $4,000 for each child under seven and $2,000 for children ages seven to fourteen.
Within the marriage category, however, the one income family is hit the hardest since it is only eligible for a $200 tax credit supplement to cover all the costs of raising children within the home. The working married couple on the other hand can obtain the full benefit of the deductions. The full costs of raising children within the home are not considered by the present system. The system interferes with parental decision making by making out of home child care the preferred economic option. The system is not neutral or passive.
To summarize the impact of just some of these rules, I would like to table an analysis of the tax circumstances of two families in Ontario. I have that here in both languages. In these examples each family has $60,000 of income. Similar examples could be presented from each of the provinces, but of course I am only presenting one here as an example.
One family lives a traditional life-style and has one income and three children, two under seven and one child over seven. One of the parents cares for the children at home. They are married. The other family is the same in every respect except that one of the younger children is unrelated to the others, both parents work-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We require unanimous consent for the hon. member to table a document. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Al Johnson: The other family, as I was saying, is the same in every respect except that one of the younger children is unrelated to the others. Both parents work, earning $36,000 and $24,000, for a total of $60,000. The adults are not married.
Let me say at the outset that this analysis is designed to dramatize the impact of the Income Thx Act on these two families, but it does not by any means use all the loopholes that are available. It may seem incredible, but the total taxes paid by these two families differ by over $12,200. That is over $1,000 per month more tax that the traditional family pays. Almost half of this can be related to the $36,000-$24,000 income split. The other half is due only to the fact that the traditional couple is married.
May 15, 1991

In the examples that I have tabled, the income splitting effect has been separated from the marriage effect by also including data for a married couple with the same income split.
The tables show that the total taxes of a one earner family with three children and a family income of $60,000 are more than $6,700 higher than the two income married couple with the same number of children and the same income. The total taxes of a married two income couple with three children and a family income of $60,000 are more than $5,400 higher than the unmarried two earner couple in the same circumstances.
As I have said, the combined effect is that the total taxes of a one earner married couple with three children and a family income of $60,000 are more than $12,200 higher than for the unmarried couple in similar circumstances.
There is no doubt that we have a problem, but where do we go from here? The answer lies in the throne speech. We must carefully review not just tax legislation but all legislation that affects families. There is no easy solution. We are all aware of the difficult financial circumstances Canada faces with its mounting debt and seemingly intractable deficits. We need a complete review of all legislation and regulations that deal with family. Fairness must be the keystone of any response that we develop.
The other guiding principles in the throne speech-efficiency, effectiveness, and the protection of individual rights-must also be fundamental to our response. Directionally we must be certain that we are fiscally responsible. Family support already costs this government over $10 billion a year. Our challenge therefore is not to spend more money but to do a better job with what we have. The issue is fairness.
One of the difficulties we have is defining the family and developing laws that treat all families fairly. I submit that the definition of a family should not be based on relationships between adults, but on the presence and circumstances of children. Children define families and are its most vulnerable members.
Surely there are opportunities for us to combine the dizzying array of family support systems-family allowance, GST credits, child tax credits, equivalent to mar-
The Address
ried exemptions, spousal credits and social assistance plans, all of these-into one meaningful payment that can be directed to children based on their circumstances, not that of their parents. This would allow more meaningful support to be directed, for example, to children in single adult households who are truly disadvantaged. It would also mean that parents would have a greater freedom in deciding whether or not to care for their children at home.
An alternative would be to develop a system of family taxation, a system through which people gain access to preferred methods of taxation through commitment to family responsibilities.
Another approach might be to extend all family attribution rules to all persons in a household.
It is not my purpose today to propose an all encompassing solution to a very complex problem. Rather, it is to applaud our government and our Prime Minister for their forthrightness and courage in opening this subject up for discussion and for committing to review all aspects of government policy that relate to families.
An opportunity exists for us to re-establish the family as a unifying factor as we design our constitutional relationships. I can foresee a national program of family support that binds the country with common standards and commitments to national well-being, similar to our national medicare program and our pension legislation.
It may be appropriate to establish a program that is consistent nationally and can be augmented by provinces or regions to account for local differences in living standards, culture and lifestyles. This would mean abandoning the Canada Assistance Plan, but we must not be afraid to establish clearer responsibilities and delegate taxing authority to the specific level of government that has the spending responsibility.
Clearly, I support constitutional models which have some shared responsibilities, but which limit the national role to setting and taking responsibility for minimum national standards. I prefer universality and I hope that we can get away from complicated tax brackets.
In closing, we are faced with many problems, but also with an historic opportunity. In the context of revitalizing our Constitution, we can reassess our approach to families and develop laws which are, above all, fair to all families, which are effective and efficient, and which return to parents the primary responsibility and the

May 15, 1991
The Address
ability to choose what they consider the best form of upbringing for their children.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments and maybe ask a question here or there.
Listening to the Prime Minister this afternoon and the hon. member who has just spoken, there seems to be a linkage in the throne speech between Canadian unity and the economy. I agree with it and our party has been saying it all along. I am glad that the government has finally realized it.
I do not understand how, if you examine the economy and what is happening and the policies of this government, it can put forth such a throne speech and believe in it. It is certainly not doing anything for the economy, or more accurately it is doing the wrong things for the economy.
I want to give a very specific example. In my riding, the unemployment rate has gone up in the last little while. Nationally it has gone down and the government has bragged about that, but it has gone up in my riding. The unemployment rate is at 18.5 per cent in my riding. Last week, Canada Post announced that it would eliminate
11.5	jobs at the post office in Campbellton, a city in my riding. It is going to relocate those jobs to another city farther south where the unemployment rate is much lower.
That does not make sense. I would have thought that since the unemployment rate is so high in an area, the government would try to at least preserve what employment is there, if not add to it.
There seems to be a movement in government toward a lack of compassion or thought. People are just a bunch of numbers. The government is eliminating the federal presence right across Canada while trying to convince people that this is a country that has to remain united.
It is unbelievable that there is nothing in the throne speech about job creation. We are talking about 10 years from now. There might be the creation of maybe 2 million jobs, or whatever.
What is happening today? That is the key-

Mr. Speaker, 1,500,000 Canadian men and women are looking for work across this country. There is nothing in the speech from the Throne that can give them hope. There is nothing in it for the fishermen or the workers in the mining and forest industries.
I ask the honorable member who has the floor if he can explain why the Speech from the Throne contains no job-creating program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Calgary North, I must say that I have five questioners here, six now.
If you would like to use this question, I would like to get everybody in. It will be a little difficult, but I will try.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in response to that rather rambling question, which was somewhat unconnected to the speech that I made.
I think the issue of jobs and the health of the economy is best outlined by the way the interest rates have been coming down. The government has been applying its economic policies to get this country moving again.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I want to very sincerely applaud not only the remarks that my hon. colleague made today, but the tremendous and intense effort that he has put into the family caucus.
As you may or may not know, he chairs the family caucus. It has been a refreshing time since the hon. colleague has taken on that role.
He made a comment that seems to underlie his motivation. It dealt simply with fairness. That is essentially what he is after.
I will ask a question and then follow it up with a bit of background to provide the basis from which the question comes. It concerns the family caucus.
I am inquiring whether the family caucus has addressed child care as it relates to the child care needs for single parents, as it relates to those who choose to stay at home, the relative fairness of existing tax laws, and that sort of thing.
The background I wish to provide the member I gained from knocking on doors. There are situations where single parents have found it beneficial to them and their
May 15, 1991

family to stay at home and raise their children, on the one hand. On the other, there are people who prefer to stay at home and raise their families in an environment where there is a spouse working and bringing income into the family.
There is the question of income tax rules affecting both of those situations. I also knocked on a farmer's door where the wife said that if the husband hired a tractor driver, the tractor driver's wages are deemed to be a business expense while if she hires day-care and rides the tractor, the day-care expenses that she incurs are not deemed to be an expense.
That is the background for that question.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague.
I would like to mention that the issue is certainly fairness. Within that issue is the issue of choice. We cannot develop a program that gives everyone the choice to do just what they want to do because of economic limitations.
We have to develop a program which delivers support to children so their parents and guardians can best choose what type of child care they should have. Within that concept, I would be willing to see considered a system whereby spouse can pay spouse to look after children. We could do away with the spousal deduction and allow it to be compensated for by one spouse to another in the tax system.
That system would also lead to homemaker pensions, and things like that. I think there is a lot to be said for that type of approach.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast, then the hon. member for Northumberland, then the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia and then the hon. member for Oshawa, in that order.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am glad to see that the hon. member is involved with fairness for families, but will he tell us how he thinks that raising taxes, I think it is 33 times since 1984, primarily for low and middle-income Canadians, has helped the state of the family in Canada.
The Address
Will he tell us how his interest rates have helped low and middle-income families pay mortgages? How his prolonged high dollar has helped families try to keep their jobs?
Will he tell us one single thing his government has done since 1984 that has helped the cause of building stronger families across Canada?


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, as far as the economic issue of raising taxes is concerned, we do not deny that we have raised taxes to take care of the deficit left to us by the Liberals. I do not want to get into a long discussion on that.
As far as the one single thing the government has done, I think we should look back at the $130 million announced in the last session to help with the problem of violence in the family.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in the member's earlier comments, he, as have other members in the House debating the throne speech, referred to the section in the throne speech, and I will quote it:
Our unity is strengthened by a strong economy.
Certainly, everybody in this House knows that we lack in a strong sense of unity in this country at this time and we certainly lack a strong economy.
It goes on to say in the throne speech:
The disunity in the face of the global economic challenge invites
decline.
As we stand here and debate, there is a growing crisis in our country that is brought about by actions of truckers across this country. I would say that action is simply symbolic of a crisis that is expressed to me day after day after day by constituents in my riding.
However, I get the sense on this side of the House that members on the other side of the House do not have that same sense of urgency and crisis existing in their constituencies.
I feel that we have right here in this House of Commons a constituent assembly and that many of us are prepared right now, today, to get on with the issue of our Constitution and our unity issues.
I want to ask the member of Parliament across the way if he has personally heard stories of the frustration and crisis among his constituents. If he has, how does he respond to his constituents and tell them to wait that it

May 15, 1991
The Address
will all come to pass. I have a terrible time trying to assure my constituents that their economy is going improve and that their country is going to stay together.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment briefly. If the member opposite would like an example of how disunity invites decline, she should have listened to the member for Hamilton East a little earlier.
As far as the other comments are concerned, I know very well the frustrations of unemployment, having experienced it at times in my own family. I also know that the only way to get the country back on a healthy track is to stick with firm policies that reduce the deficit, bring interest rates down and get the country back to work.


An hon. member:: Very wise.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I really only have a comment. I commend the hon. member for Calgary North on what I think was a very outstanding, meaningful and practical contribution to the debate. I know the hon. member for Calgary North has developed a reputation as a hard worker, especially in this area of research into family issues, and fairness and equity in family taxation.
It is good that this House acquiesced unanimously to allow the tabling of some documents which the hon. member prepared. I would urge that all members have a look at them. I think it provides some important background material for deliberations which may come down the road.
I think that there are ways of rolling together this plethora of programs that we have relating to the family, to child care, to child tax credits and so on, of putting them perhaps all together in a more meaningful way, a way which may not require more money being spent. I think it is important that we not tiy to buy our way out, the way the opposition has suggested, the way the opposition have acted in the past, the way the present Ontario government suggests, that somehow you help young people by mortgaging their future.
I just want to congratulate the hon. member. One question I would ask him is: how can he justify in any way the actions of those who suggest that in order to solve the problems of today, we borrow more and more and more. Does he see that as a solution to the needs that have been expressed here today by opposition members?


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, veiy briefly, I do not see any excuse for borrowing money. As I said in my presentation, we spend some $10 billion a year now on family support. I think we have to do a better job with it.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the sincerity and the thoroughness of the arguments the member put forward about things that were wrong with the tax that he supported just last year.
I am a little lost and confused. In this Chamber perhaps you can make that argument that this is all very well in the long run. I would like to ask him one simple question. Outside this Chamber, on Wellington Street this afternoon, are families whose lives have been ruined by the economic policies of this government. Has the member tried to go out there and explain it to them?


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, once again very briefly, I just want to explain that it is quite possible to support a tax like the goods and services tax and not be in agreement with every particular aspect of it.
The member opposite may recall that the report on the technical paper on the goods and services tax issued by the Standing Committee on Finance in November 1989 also commented on this problem and the need to come back to the inequities that may exist in the GST credit system. I do not think I need apologize at all for that. This is an area that needs substantial work in the future.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker,
I realize it is traditional to thank the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne at the outset of one's remarks. I will have the pleasure of doing that in a few moments.
I am still basically a broadcaster by instinct, and so I will lead my remarks with the news that today, May 15, within the past 24 hours, the man who was supposed to become the president of Yugoslavia, Stipe Mesic, was the man who told me that he would be the last president of Yugoslavia as we have known it.
When a parliamentary delegation, as part of the Canada/Europe Parliamentary Association met with Mr. Mesic three weeks ago, I asked the then Vice-President from Croatia: "Mr. Mesic, I ask this question with sadness, but will you be the last president of Yugoslavia?" He answered me directly: "Mr. Scott, you asked the question with sadness, I answer it with joy. Yes, I will be

the last president of Yugoslavia." Well, Stipe Mesic never got the chance to take over as head of one of the most politically turbulent countries in the civilized world, which I will point out in a few moments, makes Canada's troubles seem like a calm cul-de-sac with little butterflies, by comparison.
Not simply because of tradition, but also because of admiration for both gentlemen, may I sincerely congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, and the hon. member for Regina-Wascana.
As you know, I have been around here covering Parliament in the news business, or sitting in this place as the member for Hamilton-Wentworth since 1958. During those 33 years, I have sat through dozens of throne speeches, and their movers and seconders, and I cannot remember in recent times when I have heard more eloquent testimony to the reasons this country should hang together than those presented by the former Mayor of Regina and my friend from Quebec, a fellow journalist by background. Well done, Larry. Their genuinely expressed feelings, from very different parts of Canada, about what it means to keep this country united, lead me directly to what the throne speech says about how we are viewed outside these borders.
Around the world Canada is respected for the constructive role we play in global affairs, for the protection we accord human rights. Millions of people around the world would gladly give up everything they have for the privilege in living in Canada.
Never did I realize that so profoundly as during a recent visit to Yugoslavia and Albania. I spent the Easter weekend in Albania, which is one of the most brutally repressed countries in eastern Europe as a result of 50 or 60 years of communism, as a result of an assignment by the Department of External Affairs. I also spent an unforgettable two days in Bulgaria while we were in eastern Europe. I will have more to say about those countries on another occasion. It is because there are so
The Address
many hundreds of thousands of Canadians of Yugoslav origin that I must weigh my next remarks carefully.
This 24 hours in Yugoslavia could be truly historic; today, May 15, could signal the end of Yugoslavia as we know and treasure it.
Let me quote the distinguished Toronto Star columnist, Richard Gwyn.
The country's present is defined by its past. North of a line essentially within Slovenia and Croatia you are still in central Europe. The towns and hamlets, neat and orderly, as if belonging to a poor province of Austria, and above all clearly European. South of the line, you are in the Balkans; everything is much poorer, is harder and starker and much more clearly Slav.
Mr. Gwyn points out:
While in London last week, the Croat president Franjo Tbdjman declared provocatively 'Serbs are another world and another civilization from Croats. It has long been probable that south Slavs, or Yugoslavs, would discover eventually that the common denominator was not enough to keep them together. Former President Tito did this by the power of his personality and by terror'.
To many Croats the creation of Yugoslavia was a forced partnership. The Croatian people never expressed a will to enter this state, according to one Croatian journalist. This two-way deep-seated mistrust has bubbled over as Croatia and Serbia clash over their differing views of a future Yugoslavia. The Serbian president Milosevic-and I will refer to him in a moment-and President Tbdjman "like to fight; they enjoy the hate", contends Milovan Djilas, a former communist dissident and long-time observer of the Yugoslav political scene.
Some analysts say the current crisis-the tanks, the armoured vehicles, the troops, the shootings, the deaths-has been used by the communist leader of Serbia, Slobodad Milosevic, to "step up demands for emergency measures" to stop Stipe Mesic from assuming the presidency of Yugoslavia today. Serbia is also determined to prevent Croatia from holding a planned referendum on independence this coming Sunday, May 19.
As of today, President Milosevic seems to have got his way. Mesic is a Croatian who is understandably vehemently opposed to the Serbian president and all his works. I guess that is why the Serbian president and others in the collective presidency ganged up on Mr. Mesic and denied him the natural right to the presidency.

May 15, 1991
The Address
Tourism is a $2.5 billion a year business for the country of Yugoslavia. It has been severely harmed by the last several months of unrest. Hardest hit have been towns along the Adriatic coast, like Makarska, which earn their livelihood from foreign visitors. The dispute in Yugoslavia sharpened several weeks ago when Croatian policemen were sent to protect Kijevo, a Croatian village inside the Serbian enclave. Serbs replied with a blockade of all traffic into the village, cutting off food and medical shipments.
Shortly after the Yugoslav army arrived to act as a buffer between the two sides. Croatians were incensed that the army, which is led by a predominantly Serbian officer corps, did not move to open up the road to Kijevo and they organized a demonstration against the military in Split, a coastal city with a major garrison.
That protest and others damaged Yugoslavia's reputation. Those pictures toured the world. As Yugoslavia reaches the front pages and the TV screens of the world media, I believe it would be foolhardy to think that we can contain the unrest and turmoil to the confines of southeastern Europe.
We are now watching the unravelling of an international state, the total collapse of the political and economic structure of Yugoslavia. Holding this country together, or as we discovered while travelling through the various republics, this country of countries, with apologies to my right hon. friend from Yellowhead, will be a dangerous game requiring great skill. Maybe the whole thing can be settled peacefully. Canadians of Yugoslav origin tell us that "a just divorce settlement can be reached after an unhappy marriage". Maybe, but do not count on it.
If anyone attempts by force to create a new state of states, the army will be called in, violence will be the continuing inevitable result and then equally inevitably, you will have a civil war. That episode would widen, I believe, into a much larger regional crisis extending far beyond the borders of Yugoslavia and would attract world-wide attention and concern.
I hope the Canadian government will urge the Secretary General of the United Nations to stand by and be ready to move quickly with UN mediation efforts in Yugoslavia if the situation deteriorates in the way I fear
it is doing now. The United Nations has been effective elsewhere around the world in containing those painfully difficult transitions on how to get from communism to democracy. That is really what this whole struggle in Yugoslavia is all about as tensions between the Serbians and the Croatians and the Muslims reach a fever pitch.
The Canadian delegation of parliamentarians to the various republics in Yugoslavia heard everyone talk about a peaceful resolution. We urged everyone to dissolve the union or restructure it, but do it peacefully. I can vividly remember the moment when I sat next to the President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic. I literally erupted. I had my finger wagging, pleading with the communist boss of Serbia that we Canadians do not mind demonstrations. We tolerate and occasionally enjoy them in our country, including all the horn honking in front of the Parliament Buildings today. "But please, please for God sake", I asked the Serbian president, "try to avoid the international bloodstains of Yugoslavia's reputation by keeping your demonstrations peaceful as we try to do in Canada".
The official translator was simultaneously whispering in the president's ear. He kept nodding in apparent agreement. I am not sure what the enthusiastic handshake at the end of our encounter really meant, but I believe the violence one reads about on the front pages these days indicates that President Milosevic took my pleading with all the seriousness that he thought it deserved.
Yugoslavs are entirely on their own now. The west is no longer worried that the Soviets will try to exploit the situation now that the cold war is over. I am sad to say it, but I echo the words of Yugoslav's Mesic: "Croatia and Slovenia are just too European not to leave Yugoslavia sooner or later and enter Europe itself". I am deeply convinced after my travels through the many republics and the two provinces and after conversations with hundreds of Yugoslavs that some sort of loose federation is the only answer to the survival of the country as we know it. Were it not for the comments of somebody like Mesic, as I mentioned at the outset, I would optimistic that the collective presidency of the country might somehow result in a decision for the continuation of the multiplicity of states within a state. That collective presidency is meeting as I speak at this moment.

Even as a perennial optimist, I am doubtful about the outcome of this Sunday's referendum in Croatia and the resulting fallout. Now, as the crisis deepens, I think it is going to mean that Yugoslavians are going to have to keep stiff upper lips and white-knuckle their way through this, with hopefully a dash of diplomacy thrown in. Otherwise Yugoslavia may be just hours away from a full-fledged civil war.
Indeed, Slovenia has already been heading outward toward western Europe. Slovenia's local parliament has passed laws of dissociation from Yugoslavia. Does that sound familiar? Outright independence in Slovenia is planned for June. Croatia would like to do the same except for one slight problem. Of its five million people
600,000	are Serbs. Again, does that sound familiar? Quebec has 5,300,000 population, the English speaking minority, 637,000.
The tragedy of Yugoslavia sends a very real message to Canada. It is hard to believe that even the most nationalistic Quebecers cannot understand the consequences of dissociation, or separating. Quite simply it means the disintegration of Canada as we know it. Just as we are seeing the disintegration of Yugoslavia as we know it now, I thank God for the thrust in the throne speech which says, in effect, let us build Canada as we know it but let us build it better. I do not want to see my country break apart the way we are watching it happen right now in Yugoslavia.
The other welcome direction in the Speech from the Throne is the fact that individual members of Parliament will be allowed freedom from discipline by the government in order to give expression to our views and the views of our constituents. I am taking the government at its word so here goes.
I want the goods and services tax, the GST, removed immediately from feminine hygiene products. This government is taxing the menstrual cycle while exempting donated male sperm and sperm banks from the GST.
Time after time, phone call after phone call, I have received the same answer from the Department of Finance: "Sorry, feminine hygiene products don't qualify under GST-exempt regulations. They cannot be zerorated like male sperm".
The Address
I want the Minister of Finance to give me logical reasons why not. So far, all finance officials have told me is that these products are not health/medical related. I believe they are.
While I have received the utmost co-operation from both finance department officials and spokespersons from the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound, I am still waiting for answers that make sense. I am going to keep the questions going until I get those answers, and until we get the GST removed from feminine hygiene products.
If I have time I would also like to draw to the attention of the House the outrageous largess that this government is lavishing upon one of Canada's greatest and wealthiest superstars, Wayne Gretzky. Why on earth should the Canadian taxpayer be subsidizing a Calgary-based company, Kevin Sports Toys, to the tune of $1 million for the "Great One's" blessing on NHL insignia and colours, with royalties in the millions, to the disadvantage of one of my Dundas companies, M.A. Henry Ltd., which is trying to make it on its own without government money?
Since M.A. Henry stands to suffer as a result of Ottawa's $1 million to Kevin Toys of Calgary, will somebody please tell me why this is being done at all? Why is this government not playing on a level board hockey table top? Can't Wayne Gretzky make enough millions on the ice without dipping into our pockets?
Mr. Speaker, I hope to have the chance to put these and other questions as the days in this Parliament roll on. I thank you and hon. members for your attention.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the hon. member, but I was in my office and I missed some of what he said.
He addressed a very important issue, the situation in Yugoslavia. As he said, Mr. Mesic was not elected president. He was vice-president and it was his turn to become President of Yugoslavia. I think the vote for his presidency was four in favour and one abstention.
Yugoslavia is going through a very difficult time. The people of Yugoslavia have different views of what their country should be, as do we in Canada. We have the same type of problem. There are differences of opinion about what Canada should be.

May 15, 1991
The Address
It is a very difficult question. I wish to ask the hon. member one particular question. Does he believe that the Croatian people have the right to self-determination? I attended the election Mr. Tbdjman as President of Croatia. It was a free and democratic election.
The people of Croatia had spoken. They said: "We want a somewhat looser association within that confederation." Does he believe that the will of the people should be respected?
At the same time, I would like to congratulate the hon. member in speaking about the GST and how unfairly it is applied to certain products. I hope he will continue his fight. He should get the help of all the members.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: It is a very tricky question that the hon. member for Calgary Northeast has put to me, about whether Croatia has the right to secession. The democratically expressed will of the people could mean that it would have the right to secede if it did not affect the welfare, the outcome and indeed the entire viability of the country as a whole.
As I pointed out, there is a huge Serbian minority in Croatia which has, for obvious reasons, very real concerns about Croatia trying to secede and joining Europe. This is what the fight is all about.
To say that the Croatian people have the right to secede and the right to independence, well. Vice-President Mesic, the man who almost became President of Yugoslavia, has said that if he did not become president, he would work for Croatia's independence and secession.
I feel that if Croatia left Yugoslavia, it would be the end of Yugoslavia as we know it and that would be a tragedy. In the same way, if Quebec decided to leave Canada, it would be the end of Canada as we know it and that would be an even greater tragedy.
I really believe that if there is a will and a way for the states in Yugoslavia to co-operate in some sort of loose confederation and keep the country together, that is the best way to go.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker,
I was encouraged by the last couple of moments of the hon. member's intervention on the throne speech.
I wondered, for a little while, whether I was sitting in on a debate at an external affairs committee. I know that the hon. member is very interested in the affairs of Yugoslavia. I was under the mistaken impression that he was going to try to relate that, in one way or another, to the throne speech. But, he recovered and he talked about the independence of members, addressing himself to the unfair imposition of the GST, but stopping just short by noting only one unjust application of the GST. I would have hoped that he would have gone further. I also would have hoped that he would have elaborated even further on the question of government financing of industries in various parts of the country, willy-nilly on an ad hoc basis, without putting forward an appropriate industrial strategy.
I was mildly encouraged because, quite frankly, on hearing of the troubles of Yugoslavia and eastern Europe and the Balkans themselves, I wondered whether in fact he was going to, at the same time, avail himself of the opening that the government had presented to him by saying that the throne speech accomplished one very important factor, which was to free all hon. members so that they could give the appropriate advice to this House and to the government. In that way, he could avoid such problems by looking at the inequities and the wide open vacuums, the caverns of emptiness in the throne speech by telling this House and members on this side just what it is that his government would do specifically, not only what but how they would solve the problems that they have outlined as a result of the enormous dirth of educational abilities that his government has outlined.
What would he do specifically to alleviate some of the problems that we noted, and as he has noted in his good report on Yugoslavia and other parts of the world, with respect to immigration? Are we going to have, as he would suggest, an industrial policy designed to get us out of the doldrums into which his government has driven this country? Is he going to address, by using the kind of independence that he says he would like for all members of this House, the position that would give us the kind of wealth and security and unity that all Canadians crave today?
May 15, 1991

Why did he forgo the opportunity to avail himself of the enormous occasion presented to him in this speech by diverting to Yugoslavia?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, that was one heck of a speech. If I could have the unanimous consent of the House to continue for another 40 minutes, I might be able to address some of the issues that the hon. member has raised.
Let me just say this. This is the government which is allowing members of Parliament the freedom and independence to speak out even if it happens to embarrass the government or even if it happens to go against the government. I never noticed that happening in previous governments, particularly the one in which the hon. member represents now. I think that is something to be applauded. I think the Speech from the Throne has made a wonderful move for this House to be able to give us, as individual members of Parliament, backbenchers, on behalf of our constituents, total freedom to speak out and I have done that on a couple of issues.
Sometime, Mr. Speaker, when I have the chance and when you will give me an extra 20 or 30 minutes in front of the hon. member, I would be delighted to answer his questions.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member for Hamilton- Wentworth on his comments, particularly the sensitivity that he has shown towards women in his remarks. It is not the first time that this member has shown that kind of enlightened attitude towards women. I am pleased to know he is working towards removing the GST from feminine hygiene products such as tampons and sanitary napkins.
I raised this in the House of Commons before the GST was passed and I have written to the minister and have not had a satisfactory response. I would ask the member whether he would also work towards removing the GST from birth control products. In an age when sexually transmitted diseases are rampant in this society, I believe that the GST should be removed from condoms. Even some provinces do not tax these products.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments. It is a very worth-while suggestion. I am sure that officials in the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance will hear those representations.
The Address
I stress and emphasize that the removal of the GST on feminine hygiene products is related directly to health. This is definitely a health issue. I would like the Department of Finance to respond to that first. I am sure they will take your representations into consideration. I do, and I will make the point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a privilege for me to take part in this debate on the throne speech. I appreciate the opportunity to put a few thoughts and concerns on the parliamentary record.
The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth can certainly count on my support in his efforts to remove the GST from feminine hygiene products. I would also hope that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would support the efforts of many, many Canadians, millions of Canadians, to have the GST removed from reading materials. After all, we live in an age of increased awareness about the need for education. In the opinion of this side of the House, the GST is a barrier. It is a barrier to reading, a barrier to education. The sooner it is removed from reading materials the better.
As we discuss the throne speech that was delivered this week, it reminds me of some observations that we made some weeks ago when we were thinking about this particular event, the delivery of the throne speech. There were a lot of commentators in Canada saying that the throne speech was to be this government's renaissance, this government's renewal. This was the document that was going to signal to all Canadians that this government was going to turn a comer. It was going to stop some of its bad old ways and adopt some new ideas, some new plans to give Canadians some hope, to give Canadians some plans to get us out of the recession.
I have looked at and listened to the throne speech and I would have to say, humbly, that it is empty. It was nothing more than a lot of rhetoric. Nothing more than a lot of words.
After you listened to the throne speech, would you want Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister for four more years? I doubt that many Canadians would answer yes to

May 15, 1991
The Address
that question. Only a pretty devoted Tory could answer that question in the affirmative.
Let us just take the national unity issue, for example. Are we farther along on the road toward national unity than we were before Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister of Canada? Not on your life. This country is in a mess. There are few Canadians who can recall so much disunity, so much doubt about our future. It is because of a Prime Minister who acted like a fool and was thinking more about himself and about power than he was about his country.
There was a referendum in the province of Quebec in 1980 and federalism won. The Constitution was patriated shortly thereafter.
In fact, the Prime Minister supported Mr. Trudeau at the time. There was no suggestion from Brian Mulroney then that Quebecers were humiliated. That is the word that the Prime Minister has used, that Quebecers were humiliated by the patriation process. It certainly was not his notion then, but somehow it is now. He was the man who went from coast to coast to coast in this country saying that if Meech Lake is defeated it is a rejection of Quebecers, something that could not be further from the truth. Yet that is what the Prime Minister said.
Is it little wonder we have so much disunity in this country? Is it little wonder there is so much grave concern for the future of this country? It is because we have had a Prime Minister who, to use that cliche that has been used so many times, rolled the dice once too often.
I worry that he is the kind of man who is apt to do it again. He is a man who will put his own political interest ahead of that of Canadians, ahead of that of this country. That is deplorable.
We were hoping on this side of the House that there would be some kind of plan. I am still on the issue of national unity. We were hoping the throne speech would contain some kind of plan to deal with the national unity problem head on. What did we get? Just more promises of talk, more promises of studies, more promises of commissions. That is not what this country needs now. This country needs leadership, firm leadership because we are in perilous times.
We cannot just fool around, dither, stall and wait until next fall for some kind of government plan. The clock is moving and we should not be waiting around.
On the issue of national unity, would we want the Prime Minister for another four years? The answer is a clear no.
Let us look at the issue of the economy. Remember how the Conservatives offered so much hope? We went through the recession in the early eighties. Not only did we have a recession, but the debt piled up. We had a deficit and the Tories came along and said: "There will be a Renaissance. There will be a renewal of the economy. Elect us and just watch us. See how we turn the economy around". A lot of Canadians bought into that. They elected the Conservatives. They elected Brian Mulroney.
Now it is almost seven years later and the economic despair that Canadians feel rivals the despair that was felt by our parents and our grandparents back in the so-called dirty thirties. Look at the figures: 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. Those are depression figures. Just in the last little while 19,000 Canadians have lost their assets through bankruptcy. Children are going hungry in this country, children are going to bed hungry every night.
Yet it was this government who said: "Give us a chance and we will revive the economy". They talked about the deficit and they talked about the debt.
We all know that the debt has doubled since 1984. People wonder where the the government spends all the money.
They increase taxes, they increase the debt 100 per cent, and they ask: what do they get for it? What do they see? How they howl about the deficit. How they bemoan the deficit. Very little happens, very little happens. It is a conundrum. It certainly is a conundrum for almost all Canadians, a government that says that a deficit is so pernicious to the economy that it really blocks our hopes and dreams for a better Canada, and yet it just sits there. It does very little about it.
It makes you wonder and it certainly makes you cynical. I have come to believe that this government would like to have the deficit there, perhaps forever, because it is the stick it uses to beat us over the head. It is the government's raison d'etre. Everything it does is all in the name of deficit reduction. It goes ahead and destroys our public institutions, our democratic institutions and

destroys Canadians' ability to have a better economy, all in the name of deficit reduction. We get the destruction, but we never get the deficit down. It makes you wonder, does it not?
God forbid if we ever had this government for another 10 or 20 years. My guess is that if it were here for another 10 or 20 years we would still have its deficit. It has absolutely no credibility whatsoever when it comes to deficit reduction, none, absolutely none.
Remember the former Minister of Finance, now the Minister for International Trade and some other things, and how we had to have high interest rates to beat down inflation, to wring inflation out of the economy? We have noticed in the past few weeks a reversal. Now we have to have lower interest rates. So what is it? Is it high interest rates that Michael Wilson espouses? Is that what he embraces? Or is it now lower interest rates?
There is the high dollar. The former finance minister, who preaches an economic philosophy that is supposed to be the be-all and end-all to our problems, creates a high dollar which is a barrier and an impediment to our exporters. How many business people in this country have asked for a lower dollar? How many business people have asked for lower interest rates? The government does not listen, except now in the last few weeks when there has apparently been this conversion on the part of the government, on the part of the former finance minister, and I suppose on the part of the current finance minister that we need lower interest rates.
I ask the question again: Would we really want the Prime Minister for another four years? The answer from this side is no. I notice that the good Minister of Justice would like to have him for another four years. I think she should reflect on that. I think it is a poor reflection of her judgment.
It seems to me that based on this throne speech this government is jaded, it is exhausted, it has no ideas, it is drifting and it is stalling. It is in stall and it has lost absolutely all moral authority to govern.
The Address
Canadians have said that in spades. They do not want this government around any more. Just look at the polls. They do not want this government any more. The sooner they can get rid of it, the happier they will be.
Medicare has been eroded by this government. It is the cornerstone of our social programs-my guess is that 95 to 99 per cent of Canadians support it-and yet there is no mention of medicare in the throne speech. In the last session of the House, we on this side put forward a motion asking the government to reaffirm its support of medicare. It said "no".
It voted against that motion. Now we find-given its negative vote on the motion, and it should not come as any great surprise-that there is no mention of medicare in the throne speech.
I come from western Canada. There is no mention of Senate reform. I think that the Prime Minister alluded to some kind of Senate reform. He was very vague in his remarks this afternoon but in the throne speech there was no suggestion of an elected Senate; none whatsoever.
Western Canadians are demanding a greater voice. They are demanding equality. That is what they want. They want a change in their parliamentary institutions. Western Canadians want an elected Senate right now. What do we get from this government? Zero.
Western Canadians will disapprove of any government that continues to bury its head in the sand.
I could not find the word "agriculture" in the throne speech, and yet down on the farm times have not been tougher.


An hon. member:: You should have tried farming in 1980 and 1981, or in 1979.


John Harvard: Try it in 1991.


An hon. member:: They are trying it.


John Harvard: They are trying, and you are not helping. What do you do? You open up the borders to our wheat.
There are many wheat organizations in this country that said: "Keep the wheat out." You would not listen because you are so bloody arrogant. You never listen. You are despicable. Absolutely true.
Farmers do not want American wheat.

May 15, 1991
The Address


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is going to be an opportunity for questions and comments very shortly. The hon. member still has two minutes left in his speech.


John Harvard: The reason American wheat is allowed into Canada is because of that poorly negotiated free trade agreement.
We have had a wheat board in this country for more than 50 years; a very good agency working on behalf of farmers. This government, through its policies, will likely destroy that agency.
The Wheat Board has served Canadian prairie farmers extremely well and yet this government says: "We will let American wheat in and we will put the Canadian Wheat Board at risk."
That is the kind of thank you that Canadian farmers get from this government.
Let me just say something in my last couple of moments. It concerns the credibility of this government and, in particular, the credibility of the Prime Minister. There is no credibility. The government is now telling us that ministers, including the first minister, knew nothing about the Iraqi ambassador being allowed into Canada. If you can believe that, you can believe any kind of preposterous story.
What does this government say in the throne speech? The throne speech talks about a learning culture being the cornerstone of this government's agenda for prosperity and yet it is this government that has cut some $160 billion from transfer payments. The government has the gall to say that in the throne speech.
I have just one more thing to say but I will leave it there because I know I am out of time.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments. I know my hon. colleague across the aisle would very much like to put forward a credible debate, so I would just like to suggest a few changes in dates.
He started his address talking about the referendum in 1980 in the province of Quebec, one which all Canadians who valued the future of the country supported. The Prime Minister of the day made it appear that if Quebec citizens made a decision to stay within Canada, he would then address some of the concerns and the outstanding grievances of the province of Quebec. That was in 1980.
That same Prime Minister, just so the member opposite recalls, brought home and developed a Constitution in Canada and presented it without the signature of the province of Quebec, the very province representing the very citizens that in 1980 that Prime Minister had told: "We will address your concerns in the future."
The Prime Minister today, Brian Mulroney, addressed those concerns and will continue to work to address those concerns.
We can speak briefly about the notwithstanding clause. It has been identified by Manitobans, the province that the hon. member comes from, as something they do not like because it allowed the province of Quebec to implement legislation which we all find difficult to understand. That was put forward in the Constitution created by the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and the member sitting opposite, who supports him and tries to glorify him in his absence.
We have, in the Speech from the Throne, the identification of a future. We have, at the present time, commissions, such as the Spicer commission, talking to Canadians. We have the Beaudoin-Edwards commission from the House of Commons and the Senate talking to Canadians. We have put forward another opportunity for people to express themselves.
I want to take just a second to respond to the member's comments regarding leadership. There are examples of leadership, some are very recent. Let us talk about what took place in the Persian Gulf and the leadership that was necessary at that time and was shown by Brian Mulroney, both nationally and internationally.
Let us contrast that leadership to the leadership shown by the leader of his party who identified the need, but as soon as it became difficult said: "Canadian men and women serving and providing world security should be returned home." Then, in 48 hours, he reversed that decision and said: "Well, they are there now, they may as well stay." That is not the leadership that the Canadian people want. I think the hon. member understands that there is a contrast and the present Prime Minister stands as a leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James. Before the hon. member answers the question, I would like to say that the hon. member for Sudbuiy will be recognized, the hon. mem-
May 15, 1991

ber for Cambridge and the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Chaleur. Please use discretion.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I will touch briefly on two or three areas raised by the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
This man talks about leadership and yet we have a Prime Minister who has redefined leadership as being a slave to George Bush.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Harvard: That is his definition of leadership. It is very reasonable to believe that it was George Bush- they never want to hear the truth, they just howl and bark like dogs, that is what they do- and the White House which wanted the Iraqi Ambassador to come to Canada and not to their country. Guess what? The Prime Minister of Canada says: "Yes, we will bring him in".
The hon. Minister of Agriculture speaks of the events of the early 1980s. He conveniently does not tell the House who the premier of Quebec was back in 1981 and 1982. It was a chap by the name of Rene Levesque, who would have never signed his signature to any document that would have recognized the success of Canada and certainly the success of federalism.
One more thing. The hon. Minister of Agriculture speaks of the notwithstanding clause. Again he conveniently forgets to tell us who pushed the notwithstanding clause. It was one of his Conservative lodge brothers, Sterling Lyon, then premier of Manitoba. He attacks the notwithstanding clause as I do. The Prime Minister attacks the notwithstanding clause, yet when it came to Meech Lake did the Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Mulro-ney, try to have the notwithstanding clause removed?


An hon. member:: Of course not.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a very spirited speech.
When I sit in this great Chamber and someone speaks and gets that kind of reaction from the other side of the House we know how uncomfortable they are feeling. They ought to be very uncomfortable.
The Address
I have a question for my colleague. I listened to the Speech from the Throne. I have an excerpt and it shows the lack of reality surrounding this government. It says, and I am quoting from Hansard, page 3, May 13, 1991:
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has helped to secure the
Canadian economy in difficult times.
Where are they getting this idea? Today we have truckers blocking highways everywhere, complaining about the lack of jobs, the lack of a level playing field. That is very symptomatic of what is going on across the nation. There is a loss of jobs, a loss of anything that we might have had that was good.
I ask my colleague where are we going and what can we do for the people of Canada if this government will not listen?


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, there is no hope that this government will change the free trade agreement. It made a mistake. It made the mistake more than two years ago and it seems more than happy to live with that mistake.
If this government found any positive figures whatsoever, any positive numbers to support the free trade agreement, it would be hollering from the roof tops every minute of every day. The fact of the matter is that there are no positive results. There are no positive figures. They are negative.
Somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 jobs have been lost. Plants have been closed. Hundreds and hundreds of businesses have been closed. So there is no hope. What we need is a new government and the sooner Canadians get it the better.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, last week the province of Ontario came out with a budget and I would like the member to remember these simple numbers. Two years ago the province of Ontario had a balanced budget. Now they want to run a budget of $9.7 billion, $10 billion, and $9 billion and $8 billion, and $8 billion for the next four years. The premier of that province defends it by saying that today they are only paying 11 cents of the tax dollar toward the debt and they can keep it under control.
In 1968 when Prime Minister Perfect took over, we had a balanced budget and the federal government was paying 12 cents of every dollar on the debt. At that time
Congratulations to my colleague.

May 15, 1991
The Address
he and his finance ministers started to run deficits, and at the end of the reign it was 32 cents of every tax dollar that was being used to pay down the debt.
I know the hon. member will give me a very straight answer. Is he telling me that the policy of the Liberal Party is to build the economy by continuing to build up deficits? He seems to be suggesting that the policies of Prime Minister Perfect are exactly the policies Premier Rae is following in Ontario.


John Harvard: I am glad that the hon. member from Ontario has taken note that Ontario had a balanced budget a couple of years ago. My memory tells me that it was a Liberal government.
But, no, I will answer him honestly, it is not the policy of this party to build prosperity on deficits. That is not our policy.
Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker. This government for more than six years had a golden opportunity to deal with the deficit. It had a golden opportunity to deal with the debt and it failed. It failed miserably. And what do we see today? More bankruptcies, more despair, more unemployment, more closure of plants-that is what we got from this government. We do not have to take any lessons from these people.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the learning culture in the throne speech. Does my hon. colleague agree with me that when we talk about learning culture it is just a use of words rather than action? If we look at the action of the government in the past on education, we see that it has placed the GST on books and magazines, which is actually a tax on learning. It has increased postal rates on community newspapers. It has taxed student loans. It has made cuts in transfer payments which are to post-secondary education so it has increased the cost for education. In my estimation it is a historic failure.
I am wondering if my colleague could comment on this learning culture that the Prime Minister wants to institute.


John Harvard: I alluded to this matter toward the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker. The government talks about a learning culture and yet this is the government that has taken, on four separate occasions for a total of $160 billion, out of transfer payments. It has destroyed our public institutions so I ask the question: "Who is going to
finance the reduction in literacy in this country?" We have a serious problem with respect to illiteracy but it has diminished our public institutions to such an extent that we cannot cope any more.
It is the same thing with education, exactly the same thing. It is just more hypocrisy from this government.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today, and I thank the House for giving me this opportunity. I believe this Speech from the Throne was one of the most important this government has presented and I think that it meets the aspirations and expectations of the Canadian people as to what we want to become.
Mr. Speaker, I represent the marvelous riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, as you know. There are 55 municipalities within my riding, from Lac-des-Deux-Mon-tagnes, at one extremity, to Plaisance, in the Petite Nation area, at the other with Morin Heights and Saint-Adolphe-d'Howard to the north. Culture is febrile in my riding which I would describe as a microcosm of Quebec society and perhaps our Canadian society. Indeed, it is predominantly French-speaking, although a substantial English-speaking minority lives in the La-chute area, in the north and centre of the riding. As a matter of fact, those are people I come across regularly and they have been living in harmony with the francophone community forever.
Of course, it happens that we have some minor of problems communication, but friendship, or the neighborhood spirit as we say, makes for good relations. We too have our share of marginal elements who would like to sever our connections with the rest of Canada or to force the people of Quebec to take actions much more centered on one issue. As the . saying goes, it is not a matter of the head but of the heart. So, for my constituents, the whole constitutional issue is veiy much a matter of the heart.
I think they have been deeply hurt by the failure of Meech. That is what I hear when I tour the riding anyway. I consult my constituents as much as I can and let them know for instance when I have breakfast with some of them as I do sometimes-be it only for my personal satisfaction-that I would rather spend seven
May 15, 1991

days a week in my riding meeting and discussing with them, but that duty calls in Ottawa.
What I am told on such occasions, Mr. Speaker, is that they want respect. The French Canadians want us, their fellow citizens, to respect the fact that they are Frenchspeaking and want to live in harmony in the predominantly English-speaking North-American culture. I think that the English-speaking community in my riding misundertood, and certainly did not quite stomach-I have to mention this to give an accurate account of what they tell me, the Quebec sign law, Bill 178. They saw it as an attack on their personal and individual rights while, for their francophone counterparts, it was merely a collective expression of the will to preserve their culture and to save whatever little French fact was left in North America.
Mr. Speaker, the men and women in my riding are also telling me that there is, of course, a world of difference between what is told and what actually happens. The constitutional debates have always been emotionally charged. That is nothing new! Take the 1980 referendum for instance. Just this past Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, people I considered as ardent nationalists and separatists were telling me that, with the passing of time, they are not so sure anymore that Quebec should separate, that separating would be a good thing for Quebecers. They have come to realize that, finally, every effort should be made to save this great country of ours.
We often forget to remind ourselves that our country is the second largest in the world, with its border stretching over 8,850 kilometers. That is huge. There is a saying, Mr. Speaker, according to which one cannot appreciate what one does not know. Often, we think that the people of Manitoba and Alberta must be quite tough. But that is not true. When we travel there, we feel very welcome. Some of my constituents visited Western Canada and they were delighted, and even surprised, by the reception they got.
Mr. Speaker, whenever I travel throughout Canada, I know I will be warmly greeted by the vast majority of Canadians. Quebecers have always had a strong personality. They are very open. They try very hard to speak English when English-speaking tourists stop them for information or directions. Quebecers are a very generous people. Everyone I met either in Atlantic or Western
The Address
Canada have told me: There is a world of difference between what we hear and what really happen. Sometimes, we get a dangerously distorted picture simply because of some minor details.
Mr. Speaker, if I mention all this it is because I want to relate an incident which has affected my constituents very deeply. When a very small group of dissidents trampled the Quebec flag in the Sault Ste Marie area, I think it was, when-


An hon. member:: In Brockville.


Lise Bourgault: I'm sorry. That incident took place in Brockville, yes, thank you. The CBC and the media showed us these pictures about 40 times. Put yourself in the place of Quebecers who had just been through all the episodes of the Meach Lake saga, who believed that Canada had finally said yes to Quebec, and who see on their television set, on the CBC, a small group of people soiling, trampling on and burning the Quebec flag.
Then, subliminally, when one sees it many times, one tends to think that the majority is acting that way.
Mr. Speaker, when I meet my constituents, I often tell them: Listen, you say that we should care about spending, that we spend too much, that we are wasting money. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is true. The government machinery is indeed an administrative monster and I hope that in his Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister gave an inkling of great progress in that regard. That government machinery really has to be reformed, because the right hand in there does not know what the left hand is doing. The worst department, in my opinion, is the Revenue Department, the Taxation Department. If you owe money or you are to get some, you are dealing with two different stories, but in the last analysis the guy downstairs does not know what the guy upstairs is doing. It is totally absurd because they are dealing with the same taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, some things also are absolutely incredible. Recently, in my riding, in spite of very harsh budget cuts, we managed to convince the Minister of Transport to grant the municipality of Lachute a small sum of $80,000 to repair the municipal airport located a few kilometres from Mirabel, whose future possibilities are outstanding. But, believe it or not, since it was money coming from the federal government, Quebec had to go through an enormous amount of red tape in order to

May 15, 1991
The Address
enable the municipality to spend this small amount of $80,000 on repairs needed at the airport.
So, the Economic Development Board, the municipality of Lachute, the Chamber of Commerce, all these bodies want to know what is the reason for these anomalies because everybody, including foreign investors, is waiting for these repairs and because it is only a study.
Certain things should not be, Mr. Speaker, and our constituents have reason to complain about government, at all levels. I only mention those two points because there would be too many, and I would need all my time if I were to mention them all.
Also, when I ask my constituents: "Listen, you say that we do not make enough cuts, that we must make more cuts. It is insane, the deficit is way too high. Where will that lead us?" And I tell them: "Give me some examples where we could make cuts."


Don Boudria: Fine. Dear GST!


Lise Bourgault: There, I can tell you that our constituents are just like us. You know, governments really reflect society. We must also submit to soul-searching. We also find it difficult to decide where to cut. It is all very well to talk, but again when it is time to act, all is different. Where shall we cut?
It happens every time-let me digress a little-during the debate on GST, as a matter of fact, most of the business representatives, and I will give no percentages, came before the Committee on Finance studying the tax and said: "Yes, GST is excellent; it's a necessary evil, but you must apply it. Go ahead, there is no problem; tax on manufactured goods is not good for businesses, we agree. However, please exempt us for such or such a reason." So, at the end of the proceedings, we realized that most businesses wanted cuts, but not on them.
It's always the same situation, Mr. Speaker, everywhere. People are concerned with their daily activities, for you know that besides political ideologies, there is a daily life for our constituents and it is not easy. I witnessed plant closures in my riding and I can tell you that I was first to wonder if free trade was responsible for all that. Many of my constituents believed so. But, after
meeting with people and speaking to them, I came to the conclusion that most of those closures were due to mismanagement, overexpansion; those were businesses which used to manage growth but suddenly were unable to manage downsizing. In brief, they were unable to stand up to the challenge.
However, our constituents realize that we are living in an extremely generous society and that we are so spoiled that we consume frantically, Mr. Speaker, me included. I do not say that only for others, I include myself in the picture. So we consumed so much that we did not ask ourselves if it was harmful to the environment, if natural resources were there forever without creating any problem. Our quality of life demands that we own two cars and that we go to restaurants at least twice a week. Anyway, you know, we consume a lot and we work twice as much. Where is the quality of life for the families?
Tbday, we talk about latch key children, those who arrive from school before their mothers get home from work. Why? It is often because the family needs money, consumes a lot, needs a lot of money to face its commitments. Finally, who suffers? It is the latch key children.
Mr. Speaker, where is our quality of life now? That is the question that I ask myself. When women, more often than not-I know that, nowadays, men are greatly involved in the issue of child care-but we must say that it is often women who have to face child care problems. These women work inside the home and outside the home and are exhausted. How do you think families can cope with that without any problem?
Mr. Speaker, we always say that we have the governments that we deserve. But what can we do individually, each and everyone, in our own backyard? What can we do at home to set an example? We say: If things are bad, the government is to blame. But we do not want to look at our own faults. What do we do? Do we consume too much? No. Do you know what we do, Mr. Speaker? We put our garbage on the sidewalk and we say: I don't care where this is going, as long as it is not in my backyard. A truck comes around and goes away with our garbage. But then, when we talk about waste management, sanitary landfills, and so on, we say: "Take that anywhere, but not in my backyard!"
May 15, 1991

You see, we have a conscience. I believe we should, all of us, ask ourselves a question: "Where are we going, and what can we do individually to prove that we can, too, tighten our belt?" We ask the government to cut, but we should be in a position to tell the government where to cut. Are we capable today, when we want services, more services, of saying that we will pay for them?
Mr. Speaker, time is running out, and I still have so many things to add that I would need more than the 20 minutes allowed. I know that I still have some time left, and I would like to come back to the Speech from the Throne. The government said that it would act on the education level. For some persons, it may look as if the gouvemment will intervene in matters under provincial jurisdiction. At first sight, when we look at it cooly, rapidly, we may think that it could be true. But if we analyse it further, we have to look at the clientele it will serve in the long run. This is aimed at illiterate people, people who cannot read nor write, and who are desperate.
So, if we consider the people this is designed for, we will be less inclined to think that it is a question of provincial jurisdiction. Lets take the case of the Canada Health Act for exemple. We have national standards, but this issue falls under provincial jurisdiction. Why not have national standards in education for literacy and the like, while this issue would still fall under provincial jurisdiction? It is something that I would like to know. Like every Quebecer, I fiercely defend my province's juristictions and I would not like an important federal interference in these areas.
The government also mentioned the native issue. Mr. Speaker, my riding went through a crisis last summer. I talked about it in my speech after the Oka crisis. The members of this House should not worry. In my opinion, there will not be another crisis this summer. I do not think so, because the Oka people has once again realized that a very small group-let us not be afraid of stating the facts as they are-a very small group of armed warriors hiding behind masks came to Oka against the will of a majority of Kanesatake citizens. What did they do? Four or five persons managed to attract the national medias' attention and thereafter, everyone thought that all Mohawks were like that. Such a parallel bears
The Address
importance in relation to what I said about the Quebec flag.
So I must say no, Mr. Speaker, though the populations of Oka and Kanesatake have a hard time recovering from that serious crisis, they do not want another one, absolutely not, not even anything close to what happened last summer.
However, now that our eyes have thus been opened concerning the aboriginal question, my constituants and,
I think, every Canadian man and woman, wants to know what sovereignty means. They ask me: "Mrs. Bourgault, does that mean that the warriors, the Mohawks will continue to illegally sell cigarettes and deal in illicit gambling? Is that what sovereignty means? While a few miles away, in Oka, I sell cigarettes and that Indian is also selling cigarettes. Will sovereignty mean that he will be able to sell his cheaper than mine?" Those are basic questions that our constituents ask.
It is the same thing with the administration of justice and family matters, for example. I think all members must have felt a tremendous sadness last week when once again we saw a case of violence against women, a woman who was killed by an ex-inmate and who was kept three days in her apartment. We cannot remain unmoved when we hear about such cases, and with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, I hope we will find solutions. I hope we will go beyond talking and actually find concrete solutions and see how Canadian men and women, how we as a community can stop, can wipe out this incredible and intolerable violence being inflicted on women and children.
Mr. Speaker, I am interested in fiscal justice. There is a group called the alliance for fiscal justice, which has proved beyond a doubt that the tax system is more favourable for couples living common law with children, than for married couples. This is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should change the way Ottawa works, as I said before, but the government and Canadian society must get together to analyse their needs and ensure that the government responds to the wishes of the citizens of this great federation, because, Mr. Speaker, my constituents tell me: It must be attractive. If you want us to stay in Canada-that is what Quebecers tell us-make it sound attractive. Prove that we can live and continue to prosper and be respected as francophones in Canada. If we do that, Mr. Speaker,

May 15, 1991
The Address
they will stay and give us one last chance. Thank you for your attention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully, as usual, to the remarks of my colleague and neighbour. The only thing that separates the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell from the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau is the Perley bridge.
So I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech, in order to know more about the project to replace the Perley bridge. We know that progress has finally been made in that area, and I hoped to learn more about it today. I thought my colleague would take this opportunity to indicate publicly what kind of progress was made in that regard. My question will be another opportunity to give this information.
I have more comments. The hon. member told us that money was being wasted in some government sectors and she mentioned duplication in the National Revenue Department. She could not come up with a better example.
A few days ago, Canadians heard the news that the government ordered special pins to commemorate the first anniversary of the implementation of the GST. It spent $32,000 for GST pins. The first question that comes to mind is why should we remember the GST? Why commemorate this event?
If I were Conservative-I hope that never happens because it would probably be three times worse than being hit by lightning and it would also probably be just as fatal in terms of popularity-but if I were a Conservative, it seems to me that I would try to forget about the GST. I wonder why the Revenue Minister has decided to spend $32,000 in order for Canadians to remember it. Maybe the hon. member could tell us about it.
Finally, I apologize, Mr. Speaker, because I know that our colleague is anxious to answer those questions, but I would like to tell him about the trucking industry. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau is aware that there are many trucks here in Ottawa, as well as owners
of trucks, businesses that have lost assets, and drivers that no longer have a job. I know that she knows a lot about the trucking and construction.
Therefore, I would like her to tell us what she thinks of the future of that industry. She might also want to tell us whether she thinks her government should take action to protect jobs in the trucking industry.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the bridge asked me three questions.
To answer this question about the pins at the cost of $32 000, the only thing that would please me would be to know that it is a Quebec company that has been given the contract for these pins, but I did not see them yet. For this reason, I do not know what to tell him. Yes, Perhaps it seems incredible, but it could be that the government had a little surplus somewhere and that he wanted to encourage a Canadian company to produce pins for $32 000. That's the only logical explanation that comes to mind.
Regarding Perley bridge, Mr. Speaker, that is obviously what I would like but, of course, I know there will not be a new bridge built before the next election. On the other hand, I would like my colleague and I to be able to announce that the construction of the bridge will start on such and such day. The government is deeply committed and he knows it. Environmental studies, the preliminary study has already begun, but once again it is a question of- Imagine three governments: Ontario, Quebec and the federal government negotiating a cost-sharing agreement for the construction of an inter-provincial bridge, while we all know that it is already difficult to find time to negotiate between two persons. Here, three governments are involved in negotiations. It has been a long process; there was an election in Ontario.
But I am very optimistic about the outcome of Perley bridge and again, I know that my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is very much involved and interested and I thank him for the support he is giving me in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I know well the trucking industry. I don't know where he heard that. There are companies that own trucks in my riding and there are all kinds of views about that, but I understand

the truckers from Quebec and the rest of Canada that have problems with this whole question.
[English]	.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, first let me convey my appreciation for the heartfelt comments of the member from la belle province, Quebec, regarding culture and language and the sensitivity of all regions of our country to the fact that we all must work harder to understand one another. We must understand that no matter where you come from in this country, it is unique, it is beautiful, and we all must understand each other better in order to work and live with each other. I hope that spirit of understanding and co-operation will continue during the course of the debate.
Where we differ, of course, is with respect to her comments on the economy. I am a little concerned that the member wants to blame everyone else but her own government for some of the mismanagement of the economy.
While we all agree that the Speech from the Throne talks about being more competitive, investing more in people in terms of education, illiteracy and training, one must look at the past record of this government in order to view whether or not the Speech from the Throne really reflects not only their good words but whether or not those words will be turned into action. One could surely be very suspicious about the fact that the words might be fine but the actions in the past have not been there, and whether or not they will be there in the future surely is suspect.
In light of the fact that her House leader has indicated that the back bench of her party will be allowed an awful lot more freedom, with greater input into the governmental system and the parliamentary system, I wonder if she can comment on whether in fact her government really will stick with its word with respect to allowing the back bench of the government to bring forward some good ideas as to how we can straighten out the economy in terms of some of the concerns that she mentioned. Obviously, rhetoric is not what this country needs any more, it is action and action now.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, right after being elected, I was named to this committee on the reform of the House of Commons. I am one of those who believes that from time to time we should be capable of voting against a proposition of the government, and at the same
The Address
time members of the opposition should be allowed to vote with the government on other occasions.
I certainly agree with more freedom in Parliament. My hon. friend says we want to blame everybody else but ourselves. Fair enough, I agree with that; maybe we, as citizens of this great country, want to blame everybody else but ourselves. So maybe I am an elected member of Parliament representing constituents who are saying that "It is not my fault, it is your fault". We should think of stopping that sort of belief and bring forward some tough new proposals that will keep this country as economically viable as it should be.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Argenteuil- Papineau who certainly spoke from her heart in this House. However, I want to ask her a question about what she said with regard to Quebec because she is very interested in Quebec matters. She made me shiver when, speaking about education, she said she was concerned at first when she heard that the federal government wanted to get involved in education but that she felt reassured when she listened to the arguments put forward by others, and realized that it was a good thing for the illeterates, etc.
I can hardly believe that. She even referred to "national standards". I am convinced that the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau didn't come up herself with the idea that the federal government could set national standards in education. She knows that Maurice Duples-sis would be turning in his grave if there were such national standards.
So, I want to know what she really thinks. I know that she thought about that question. Yes or no, should the government of Canada infringe on Quebec exclusive jurisdiction over education?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted I managed to give the hon. member the shivers with what I said here in the House.
What I meant when I referred to national standards in education-as they say, let's not get carried away, we have to look at this in the perspective of responding to a

May 15, 1991
The Address
serious national problem: the number of Canadian men and women who are illiterate.
Now, whether a more national standard is the answer-I am being very careful, so that my constituents and Quebecers generally won't think I agree with federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions-on the other hand, I am trying to consider the target population, in other words, people who cannot read. I think that with the help of the federal government and the provinces, we could deal with this matter by negotiating an agreement that would be for this particular group only.
So that is what I had in mind. However, all this is still up in the air. We don't know the details of the proposal mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I would be delighted to discuss the matter with the hon. member as soon as we have more details.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate this evening in the time left allotted to me in the throne speech debate.
After having read the document, any Canadian who viewed the debate thus far or read the media could easily draw the conclusion that at the very least, the government was consistent with its record since 1984. It was consistent in the sense of unfulfilled expectations and broken promises.
It was only last week, before the House resumed, that the House leader on the government side said that this throne speech was going to be the most important throne speech in the history of the country, and therefore it was the government itself that elevated the expectations on behalf of Canadians, thinking there were going to be some remedies to the problems and difficulties embracing and afflicting Canadians from coast to coast.
As has been done time in and time out, the Canadian people and Canada have been let down. They had raised the stakes and all that Canadians have received through this throne speech is a document filled with very empty and general platitudes. Not only was it a heightened expectation, but somehow this was supposed to be the second track of how the government was going to usher in "the new agenda."
The first track was with a reshuffling of cabinet some days ago, a reshuffling of the same cards in the same deck. It was a case of the same old tired faces being reshuffled into new positions. If you were a business person and your executives had failed in their departments, I do not think there would be too many business owners today in Canada that would not only not remove those individuals, but in fact promote them.
The second prong of the new agenda was to be this throne speech, probably for the country and, politically speaking, for the Conservative Party. What we have in the pages of the throne speech read by His Excellency the Governor General, is simply a reflection of a very tired, a very insensitive and a very unimaginative government. Its fatigue is colossal, one that has crippled them into trying to crystallize Canadians' aspirations and dreams across the land.
How do we judge a throne speech? One way that the success of any throne speech delivered in this place ought to be measured is how Canadians, average Canadians, relate to this document. That is to say that we should not be engulfed in reading a throne speech for the purposes of members of Parliament, senators and the national media.
Somehow the throne speech has to have meaning to Canadians on the streets of Canada.
When a laid-off construction worker in York West looks at or hears about this document, what does it mean to that laid-off construction worker? What does this document mean to a plant that is either downsizing or about to be shut down on Toryork Avenue in my riding?
What does it mean to a university student who, after completing exams at the end of last month, graduates and is about to seek his or her place in Canada? Does it move a nation? Does it have a sense of purpose? Does it give definition or clarity to a direction of Canada? Does it serve to right the wrongs in the last number of years?
Does it say: "Maybe some policies we ushered in, perhaps with the best of intentions, has not worked? We are prepared to have the strength and the courage of a government to say so, to recognize it and to put something different in its place".
The throne speech does none of the above. The average Canadian who may or may not have a job cannot take solace from this throne speech. If the average
May 15, 1991

Canadian cannot identify with a throne speech, then why do we have the pomp and the ceremony? Why do we spend hours debating a document that 200 feet from Parliament means very little?
It is an abuse of our democratic institution if it has no meaning at the base of our country.
Talking about the aspirations of the average Canadian, one can quickly and very genetically summarize the two great challenges facing our country at this time, the issue of national unity, and the issue of the faltering economy and the recession in which Canadians find themselves.
On national unity, you pick up the throne speech and you search for the answers. There are not any. The response of the Prime Minister on behalf of his government on the question of national unity is delay.
What he proposes in the throne speech is the creation of another committee that will not be mandated until September. To make matters worse, that committee will be given a lifetime of another five months to report back to this Parliament and to this government.
It will not be until January or February of 1992 that the national Government of Canada will say anything definitive about our Constitution when, in fact, the Government of Quebec, to its own credit because it is taking care of its own house, is already making it very precise on when the potential dates of a referendum will be.
We have a national government, mandated to speak for the country of 26 million Canadians, which is unable to say anything definitively until February 1992. That is a shame and irresponsibility at its height.
If the fragile state of the nation was not as bad as it is, then perhaps a bit of time and consultations would have been legitimate and very much warranted.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you: In the midst of a national unity crisis of sorts, we will not hear anything from this government until February 1992. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not because Canadians ought not to be consulted. I am very confident of what I am picking up among Canadians.
They are absolutely sick and tired of being studied to death by this government. Whether it is the issue of unity, whether it is the issue of economy or whether it is
The Address
the issue of trucking, this government simply hides behind the word "study".
On the question of national unity, we have had a number of committees and commissions, provincial and federal, travelling across the country. Canadians are saying to this government: "It is time for our country to be rallied. It is time for our country to be rallied to a point of strength and confidence, not to be rallied to a point of study, indifference and indecisiveness". That is not national leadership. That is only a manifestation of an absence of national leadership and national purpose.
This is the failure of the government. Let us make it perfectly and crystal clear. Let us not have Canadians lose hope in themselves and in their country because we have a team on the other side that cannot shoot straight. Let us not have the failures of the government be the failures of Canada.
That is why my leader, my caucus and my party decided to try to rally that confidence of Canadians. We put out a challenge to the government. We have initiated through a series of speeches across the country a nine point program, a vision of the country that we have asked the government to try to respond to, to try to kick-start a debate, to try to bring Canadians and wrap the strands together. My friends, unless Canadians are confident in themselves and of this country, we will be unable to come to grips with the challenges and the problems that confront us.
We did not wait for a committee to report. We did not wait to appoint our members on that committee. We did not wait for a white paper, a black paper, a yellow paper. My leader did what he does best. He spoke frankly on behalf of this country. He has also given the opportunity to Canadians to ratify through a national referendum.
Yes, a referendum can be divisive. My leader clearly was at the forefront of the last referendum in Quebec in 1980. However, this party also believes that if we are going to get a referendum in Quebec, then what is wrong with extending that opportunity to the other Canadians across the country? What is wrong with not giving a stake to the 26 million shareholders who equally own a piece of this country called Canada? There is nothing wrong

May 15, 1991
The Address
for those 26 million shareholders on a given day to mark their ballot on behalf of Canada.
Therefore, not only do we speak of a vision of this country, a program for constitutional reform, but we have not dithered or dallied: Do we have a referendum, do we have an election, do we have a constituency assembly? We have said: "Give those people, those shareholders, an opportunity at the end of the day to speak for themselves and for their country".
I challenge the Prime Minister and his government not to wait, not to study, not to fiddle while anger, jobs and national unity bum, but to act as they were elected to do. If the Conservatives are unable to act responsibly, if they are unable to provide the leadership, then they do not deserve the responsibility of sitting to the right of the Speaker. They should vacate and vacate quickly.
The other challenge is economic vitality. We have a recession made in Canada by Conservatives. We have the situation where there is a high dollar, high interest rates, plant closings across the country, jobs lost and lost permanently, jobs that will not come back. We have structural changes to make in the face of world change. What does this throne speech say of those realities facing Canadians? Absolutely nothing.
Once again I return to the premise of my argument. If this throne speech does not mean anything for that unemployed Canadians, then the throne speech has failed and failed miserably.
I see that you are signalling me, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to continuing tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have seven minutes, plus ten minutes questions and comments tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
It being 7.45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 55 to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment, standing in the name of Mr. Langdon. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Crosby (Halifax West)	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
It being 8.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 16,1991