1992-09-17

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to table, in both official languages, a list of Order in Council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), the appointments are deemed to have been referred to the standing committees indicated in appendix.

I think there is consent for the following motion:
1.	Thai, during the consideration of Government Business No. 12,
a)	not more than one amendment to the main motion from the Official Opposition and not more than one amendment to the main motion from the government may be moved;
b)	after a representative of each recognized party has spoken in debate, the question necessary to dispose of any amendment moved by the Official Opposition shall be put forthwith without further debate and any recorded division demanded shall be taken forthwith;
c)	at no later than 5 p.m., all questions necessary to dispose of any amendment moved by the government and the main motion shall be put forthwith without further debate and any recorded division demanded shall be taken forthwith;
2.	That, not withstanding the provisions of government business No. 12, the Standing Orders and the usual practices of this House, following the disposal of government business No. 12, Members be allowed to debate the subject matter of government business No. 12, provided that,
a)	during such debate, the Speaker shall not entertain any dilatory motion or quorum called and the House may sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment;
b)	when no member rises to speak, the Speaker shall adjourn the House; and
3.	That Private Members' Business be cancelled on Thursday, September 17, 1992 and the item which was scheduled to be considered on that day be permitted to retain its position on the Order of Precedence.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties with regard to this particular motion. What is not contained in the motion is reference to the bill that we will be beginning shortly, Bill C-91. I take it that our understanding is the correct one, that the government will lead with a spokesperson and that the Official Opposition will have a spokesperson. The New Democratic Party will have a spokesperson as well. Thereafter the completion of that debate, which may take place prior to twelve o'clock noon, we would then commence the debate on Motion No. 12.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That is understood. I would hesitate to put a time limit on it because the times for the first two speeches are open-ended. I would anticipate that what my hon. friend says is quite correct.


David Charles Dingwall: Having heard from the parliamentary secretary, I take it that we will just commence the debate at second reading of Bill C-91 and we will not complete it today and it will be adjourned for another day. On that basis, I would give the consent of the Official Opposition to the motion as read by the parliamentary secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Routine Proceedings Motion agreed to.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
This report concerns meetings of the subcommittee on the CSCE of the Civilian Affairs Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly which was held in Bonn, Germany, from June 14 to June 17, 1992.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions.
Under Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present the first group of 142 petitions, duly certified and containing approximately 5,200 signatures of citizens from Burlington, Hamilton, Ancaster, Dundas and Stoney Creek. The petitioners support Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy in her efforts to have the importation of killer cards into Canada stopped.
They applaud the efforts of the Minister of National Revenue for his statement in support of his action that has halted killer cards at the Canada-U.S. border.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the laws to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in Canada.


William James Kempling: The second group contains 22 petitions with approximately 2,200 signatures. These petitioners urge the government to stiffen the penalties for violent crimes and point in particular to Miss Nina de Villiers who was brutally murdered on August 9, 1991.
The petitioners ask the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to continue to review all legislation that deals with public safety and negotiate, where necessary, with the provincial authorities to ensure that the
laws are amended to reflect the concerns expressed by the petitioners on public safety.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first one is signed by a large number of people within my own community, particularly people from the Indo-Canadian community.
The petitioners point out that family class and assisted relatives have always been an historical part of Canadian immigration. They also point out that family class and assisted relative persons have relatives to assist them in finding employment, housing and learning Canadian language and custom, thus speeding their integration into the Canadian society.
They also point out that the government's present proposal is going to downgrade and make it more difficult for family class and assisted relatives to obtain immigration visas.
They call upon this government to forgo its bill and make family class and assisted relatives its first priority for all immigration.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a large number of people from British Columbia, particularly seniors, who are frightened about the dramatic escalation of drug costs in this country.
They call upon the government to withdraw Bill C-91 and to rescind Bill C-22, the Patent Protection Act, so that we may have a truly generic drug industry in this country with true competition in order to keep drug prices down.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the petition I wish to present to the House today is with regard to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Section 745 allows those convicted of first and second degree murder to make applications to the court for a review of their parole eligibility date.
Section 745 is a vehicle to allow convicted killers to be released prior to serving their full sentences; after 15 years this application can be made.
The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to remove section 745 from the Canadian Criminal Code.
September 17, 1992


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada launched a very important and very significant proud to be Canadian tour earlier this year.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit to the House of Commons a petition which has been signed by many residents of Brandon-Souris and other parts of Manitoba.
The petitioners are pleased to participate and to take this opportunity to nurture a positive lifelong relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and the privilege to present two petitions on behalf of the residents of the beautiful riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

The first petition is a petition by my constituents calling upon the Parliament of Canada to make it such that the Government of Canada refuse to participate in the Three Gorges Dam project in China.
The citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are very concerned about this issue and have asked me to table this petition before the House.
It is my honour, privilege and pleasure to do so. JUSTICE


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which I would also like to table in the House of Commons at this time.
This petition concerns the case of Christine Lamont and David Spencer who have each been sentenced to 28 years in prison in Brazil.
We certainly hope that the minister of external affairs and the Brazilian authorities, who I hope are watching television right now, ensure that justice is done for Mr. David Spencer and Christine Lamont to expel them from their country and to return them to Canada.
Routine Proceedings TELECOMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my first petition is from petitioners from my riding of St. Boniface which is the geographic east-west centre of Canada.
They want to ensure that the use of foul language on radio and television, in English and French or other languages, is carefully watched by Parliament in terms of the functions performed by the CRTC.
They point out that unfortunately there is derogatory and foul language used on television and radio, including the use of the name of God in vain. They feel that this is contrary to the basic principles that they are trying to utilize in raising their families.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition with respect to the GST on books and other reading materials. These Canadian petitioners ask that this tax be removed immediately.
They point out that there has never been such a tax in Canada and that in most countries in the world with a value added tax there is no such tax. They believe that it is contrary to our democratic principles and to certain objectives such as the increasing of literacy rates in Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a final petition with regard to petitioners who seek to ensure that the government review not only the promise that the Prime Minister has made to remove the goods and services tax on books and reading materials, but also its reductions and cuts in transfer payments to provinces for education.
Here again the petitioners believe that it is contrary to government statements to assist young people in preparing for their future and the creation of jobs. It is contrary as well to enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of our nation.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 248 and 335.


Mr. Taylor: Since April 1, 1991, what is the total amount of fees demanded by government departments and agencies under the Access to Information Act and (a) how much was paid in fees over the same period (b) What is the average and median demand for fees (c) What is the percentage of requests for which fees are demanded in relation to the total number of requests?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: The following data relates to the Access to Information Act and fees for the period of April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992.
Total fees collected	$125,155.40
Total fees waived	$35 348.60
Total fees	$160,504.00
Total requests completed	$10,175
Average fee collected	$12.30
Median fee collected	$70.00
Median requests completed	27
Average median fee collected	$2.59
Total times fees waived	2,712
Total times fees requested	7,463
Total requests completed	10,175
Percentage of requests for which fees were collected 73.5


Mr. Breaugh: Why is the Department of National Defence spending $200 million on a contract to purchase 2,750 Italian designed light military trucks instead of purchasing Canadian-made ones?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: While the winning bid is based on a truck of Italian design, the vehicle will be produced in Canada at the Western Star plant in Kelowna, British Columbia. Western Star Truck Inc. was the successful bidder since its proposal best met criteria regarding operational needs, overall cost, industrial and regional benefits, support, system engineering, and delivery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent act, to amend another act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. Today I welcome this opportunity to introduce the second reading of Bill C-91, the Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992, a bill that strikes a balance between the needs of a dynamic Canadian economy and the needs of consumers.
This legislation will help create new jobs, attract new investment in research and development and provide new export opportunities for our many manufacturers of patented drugs. It is also a guarantee that Canadians can continue to buy patented drugs at a price that is and will remain reasonable.
I think we should look at the two aspects of this balance. As far as economic benefits are concerned, Bill C-91 is another step in the government's program to modernize and rationalize Canadian patent legislation. In a global economy that draws its strength mainly from Canadian and international know-how, ideas and innovation are essential to be able to compete on international markets.
Any nation that wants to maintain a high standard of living must remain at the forefront of scientific development and technology. To maintain its status as the country with the best quality of life in the world, according to the UN, Canada must have patent legislation that rewards creativity and attracts investment.
Under Bill C-91, pharmaceutical products will be allowed the same 20-year protection as tools, communications systems and medical products. This legislation

September 17, 1992

Government Orders
will reward innovative research and medical discoveries that enhance the quality of life of Canadians.
This legislation will help bring the Canadian patent system more into line with the systems of our main trading partners. In a global economy, businesses will prefer to invest in countries that offer the best possible environment for their investments. Without effective patent legislation, Canada will not be able to attract investments in manufacturing, research and development that create specialized, well-paid jobs in rapid growth industries.

I would like to .say a few words about things that will change as a result of bringing our patent laws more in line with those of other industrialized countries.
Since Bill C-91 was tabled some erroneous reports have appeared. I know that members on both sides of this House will want to clear up some misunderstandings during the debate on this bill.
Currently a drug typically enters the market 10 years after its patent is filed. The generic can enter on average seven years later, or around seventeen years after patent application.
The new proposals would add, on average, about another three years to this period. This means that generic products would come on the market 20 years rather than 17 years after patent application.
Once the patent expires generic drug companies can compete openly with the company that invented the medicine. This is more consistent with other industrialized countries with whom we are competing for investment.
I believe that members of this House will agree that an added three years of market exclusivity is reasonable, in particular when one considers the benefits of the policy which moves Canada in the direction of a dynamic, world-class pharmaceutical industry.
At the same time this government will ensure that these benefits do not come at the expense of Canadian consumers. This is the other side of the balance, and I know that all members will applaud the measures of this bill to ensure that drug prices remain reasonable.

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board will be given new powers to monitor the prices of both existing and new patented medicines. Its new powers will allow the board to order price reductions, impose fines and, depending on the circumstances, impose jail sentences on offenders who refuse to abide by the orders of the board.
I know many opposition members will support these measures.
Members on both sides of the House will recall the stormy debate around the patent legislation reform in 1987. A number of opposition members protested vigorously when the government implemented the first stage of this reform. The other place blocked government business for weeks in a vain attempt to reverse the decisions of this House.
Consider what hon. members of the opposition said when the amendments to the Patent Act were introduced in 1987, they maintained these amendments would raise the price of drugs. They said the changes would stimulate research by multinational pharmaceutical companies at the expense of Canadians who would have to pay more for drugs.
We must recognize that they were proven wrong. From January 1987 to December 1991 the price of existing patented drugs increased by an average of 2.9 per cent annually. Those are the latest figures available for this four-year period. This rate is well below the Consumer Price Index which stood at 4.4 per cent during that period; in fact it is about half as much.
The opposition was wrong about price increases, and I will show how it was also wrong on other issues.

We will recall that critics did not believe that the pharmaceutical companies would live up to their commitments for increased R and D spending. The innovative industry promised at that time to double R and D spending as a per cent of sales by 1996, from 5 per cent to 10 per cent.
They have done it and, moreover, they have done it in five years ahead of schedule. By 1991 R and D spending as a per cent of sales in Canada had reached 9.7 per cent to a point where the industry is investing over $375

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
million per year in R and D in Canada. The cumulative total is $1.1 billion since 1987 with basic science research comprising the fastest growing component of that total.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in new pharmaceutical investment has poured into Canada. Canadian universities and hospitals have benefited from research and development funding by pharmaceutical companies. In fact the innovative sector has become the single largest funder of medical research in the country. This industrial sector employs more than 18,000 Canadians and through its contribution to medical research institutions, hospitals and universities, helps to maintain and create many more jobs in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote some comments received from university research centers across Canan-da.
I have here a letter from the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa, Mr. Seely, who wrote:

I am writing to add my support to that of many others in the biomedical community for the recently announced intent of the government to introduce new legislation regarding protection of intellectual property. This would bring us into line with the other G-7 countries in the world and I think do much to facilitate pharmaceutical based research in Canada.

I have also received a letter from the Acting Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, Mr. Chodirker:

extended patent protection for the brand name pharmaceutical industry has created a significant opportunity to attract additional research revenues into Canada.

I also want to quote Dr Cameron, of the Department of Medicine at Vancouver General Hospital:

The brand name pharmaceutical industry has certainly been involved in a very major way both in continuing medical education
activities, and in research and development both through their own company and support extended university based research.

I could refer to other letters because I have received dozens of them, but I will end by quoting a statement made by the President of the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Mr. Jean Guibault:
We absolutely must grant the Canadian pharmaceutical industry a protection comparable to that which is granted to its foreign competitors, or else we stand to lose the massive investments made in Canada by these companies, as well as thousands of veiy high-quality jobs generated by the research done here.

This growth of the pharmaceutical sector and its massive investments in R and D have not been detrimental to consumer interests. The balance we created in 1987 with the creation of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has worked to benefit consumers. In 1987 the Liberals and the NDP argued that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board would be ineffective in maintaining reasonable drug prices. They maintained that the board had no teeth.
What has happened since then? We have seen that the board has been an effective guardian of the interests of Canadian consumers. The proof of that is in the pudding. Price increases for patented drugs, well below the rate of inflation since the creation of the review board in 1987, are a testimonial to the board's effectiveness. People said in 1987 that it would not work but it has.

In fact Canada's drug companies have complied with the board's directives to such an extent that until recently, the need to hold public hearings to review allegations of overpricing did not even arise. That is proof that the board has muscle and the opposition members' fears have proven unfounded, all in all.
The board's powers fitted well with the regulatory regime established in 1987. They have proven to be effective. In 1987, our opponents claimed that the generic drug industry, which had grown considerably between 1970 and 1987 thanks to its ability to reproduce patented medicine as a result of the inadequate patent protection that existed then, would die and that this would be bad for consumers.
September 17, 1992

The generic drug industry is not dead, far from it. Since 1987 it has grown 180 per cent. That is a long way from a dying industry. The generic drug industry benefited from BUI C-22 passed in 1987 and it wUl also benefit from this one. More than half the sales of the generic drug industry come from drugs the patents of which have expired. The law wUl change nothing as far as that is concerned.
Furthermore, in the next few years, the patents on many drugs wUl expire and generic drug companies will be able to produce them.
In summary, the generic drug sector wUl continue to grow. Consumers wUl continue to benefit from the resulting savings. The actual effect of the policy wUl be to extend by about three years on average, from 17 years to 20 years, the period that generic drug companies must wait from the date of the patent application untU they can reproduce a brand name drug.
This bUl will only create conditions that are more like those under which generic drug companies operate in the other industrialized countries.
We have succeeded in achieving a balance between consumer protection and industrial development. That drug price increases have been kept at an average annual rate below 3 per cent, which is much less than inflation, is striking evidence of it.
The provisions of Bill C-22 have worked. We have proven the skeptics wrong-one might even say that they have been confounded-and we will now continue what we were doing.
Nevertheless, with this bill we are certainly not going back on our commitment to protect consumers. We are abolishing the mandatory licensing regime, but we are giving new powers to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. All hon. members who demanded a stronger board in the 1987 debate should support these measures.
The bill strengthens the mechanisms for monitoring the price of patented drugs, both existing and new, by giving the board new price rollback powers. The structure of fines and penalties outlined in this bill empowers
Government Orders
the board to recover up to twice the amount of excess revenues generated by excessive pricing.
Through the bill, businesses that refuse to comply with board orders or refuse to provide pricing or sales and expense information will be subject to fines of up to $100,000 per day. Individuals could face fines up to $25,000 dollars and the possibility of jail sentences of up to a year. The board's orders will have the same effect as a court order and failure to comply could be considered as contempt.
These provisions will give the board very sharp teeth and strong jaws. Members of this House can be assured that the prices of patented medicines will remain reasonable as a result.
I have heard claims from some of the hon. members opposite that new patent protection will increase the health care costs by $1 billion. To say that such a figure is exaggerated would be a drastic understatement.
In fact, the cumulative increased costs of drug purchases by pharmacies and hospitals as a result of the elimination of compulsory licensing will amount to about one-eighth of what the opposition alleges.
From 1992 to 1996, it is estimated that the cumulative increased costs as a result of increasing the protection for the innovators in the pharmaceutical industry will amount to $25 million per year.
Let me put that into context. In 1990, patented drugs at the retail level accounted for about 3 per cent of total expenditures of health care in Canada. The increase in costs that will result from the elimination of compulsory licensing will add to this, it is true. The increase represents $1 per Canadian per year or less than one-twentieth of 1 per cent. It is one-twentieth of 1 per cent of the total health costs in Canada.
It is reasonable to start us on the road to a dynamic, globally competitive pharmaceutical industry in Canada. It is reasonable in order to obtain highly skilled, highly paid jobs in a growing high-tech industry.
Above all, it is reasonable in order to see the development of new medicines that will increase the health and quality of life of Canadians. New medicines will in fact lower health care costs in the longer term.

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
This legislation is about reasonableness and balance. It is a vital component of the government's agenda to help Canada enjoy prosperity in the years to come.

We must consider this measure in the context of the government's overall economic program. This program was revealed shortly after our government was elected in 1984 and was part of the economic renewal program proposed by the then Minister of Finance who is now Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Government stuck to this program, and it paid off.
The agenda for economic renewal is meant to prepare the Canadian economy for the future. The global economy has already entered the 21st century and it will be based on know-how.
The standard of living in Canada will no longer depend on traditional sources of wealth such as our plentiful natural resources and inexpensive energy. Neither will it depend on our production capacity. It will depend on our capacity as Canadians and Quebecers to compete in this global economy and to innovate in order to add value to products, services and manufactured goods and carve a niche for ourselves in the world markets.
The prosperity of a nation and its capacity to improve its standard of living in the global economy will be determined by such factors as innovation, flexibility and search for excellence.
These cannot be harvested or created from scratch like our sources of prosperity have been for the past few decades. They haye to become a part of people's lives. They must be imprinted on the future generations. They are the fruit of consensus and commitment.
Ib prosper in an economy based on know-how requires adjustments in labour skills. The new economic environment demands constant product and technology innovation. It requires using and adapting the very best ideas and the very best technology from whatever part of the world they originate.
It also requires commitment to research and development to promote new ideas and technologies that Canadians could then sell or export to other parts of the world.
No country in the world, including Canada, will achieve prosperity based on these factors by closing the
door or putting up barriers to international trade and investment.
Change has a global reach on the economic scene and it affects all nations. The conditions for wealth and prosperity have changed drastically and forever for all nations.

Around the world countries are exploring new ways to create industries to cater to demands that did not exist even a decade ago. They are looking for new methods of training people in scientific disciplines and providing work skills to meet those new demands. They are changing some of the basic institutions of their countries in order to make them more flexible and ready to adapt to technological change.
In order to prosper in the global economy, Canada must promote high quality, improve value, apply best-practice technology and sharpen managerial skills. Above all, Canadians must become very good at fostering excellence in science and technology.

As part of the Canadian government's economic agenda, Bill C-91 will enable us to achieve this goal.
To conclude, what we have here is a well balanced legislation which enables us to bring about the necessary changes to prepare Canada for entering the global market and provides us at the same time with the necessary provisions to ensure the protection of the consumers.
I call upon all hon. members of this House to set aside the somewhat petty attitude that prevailed during the 1987 debate and be more open-minded now. We are at the crossroads of the global economy and we do need tools such as this one to promote economic development, high technology, job security and well paying jobs to make sure that we will be able, together with the pharmaceutical companies, to make major investments across the country that will total billions of dollars in a matter of a few years. We cannot do it on our own and neither can they. However together we can.
I urge my colleagues in this House to support this bill to allow such investment to be made in Canada as soon as possible.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into debate on a very important piece of legislation that has just been put before Parliament.
The piece of legislation I refer to is going to change the rules of the game forever. It will affect every single Canadian consumer, affect research and development in Canada and the very survival of a two-sided drug industry in Canada, that being the patent of the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the generic industry in this country.
Before I start, I want to make it extremely clear that this debate is not about taking one side over the other, about swallowing the package of facts as they see it from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association or indeed on the other side of it, going over to the generic drug manufacturers and taking as gospel truth every fact that they purport when they come out in support of their industry.
This debate first and foremost has to be about Canadian policy development that must, as its underlying foundation, be made in the best interest of Canadian consumers.
I would like to premise my remarks by indicating that the pressures have been great on many members of Parliament, from both sides, in this very vibrant and important industry in Canada. The Liberal Party's position, which I will enunciate today, is a position that has been agreed to after careful consideration of the facts, independent facts; after a careful review of past Liberal Party policy in this area; and, most important, after consultation with all the stakeholders and that includes the pharmaceutical manufacturers industry in Canada, the generic manufacturers industry as well as consumers, research and development and health care institutions across this country.
Before we start this great debate it is important that Canadians who are watching have some understanding about how we arrived here today. Back in the 1960s there were three parliamentary committees which reported that the average cost to Canadian consumers for pharmaceuticals in Canada was much higher than comparable economically developed countries around the world, the countries that we do our trade with.
Government Orders
As a result of those three reports, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, introduced a piece of legislation in this House. Effectively that piece of legislation spawned and saw the birth of the generic drug industry in Canada.
At that point in time they tried to moderate prices by legislating competition. What they tried to do was to say, from this point on, for drugs that are under monopolistic patent protection in Canada, we are going to try to moderate those prices because we believe they are too high for Canadian consumers. We are going to allow for those patented drugs to have a compulsory licence issue. If another company comes in and makes an application to produce a generic form of the drug it would be able to do it and in return it would give a percentage of 4 per cent of the sales back to the holder of that particular patent.
I have read the debates. The large companies and primarily the multinationals complained bitterly that they believed that that particular bill would lead to a flight of capital in research and development dollars from the large and very important pharmaceutical manufacturers in Canada.
In addition to that, they said that there would be a slippage in their percentage of market share and that these companies which must make a profit so that they can reinvest it into research and development of new products would be greatly diminished. That was the debate at the time.
What happened is that years later in the early 1980s, when there was still this cry that the compulsory licensing was abhorrent to a free market system and that it was not doing the job that it was intended to do, is the Liberal government-the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel was the consumers and corporate affairs minister at the time-commissioned a study to try to find out whether or not the system of compulsory licensing in Canada was indeed detrimental to the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.
They went to a very respected Canadian, Mr. Eastman, and asked him to compile a report and to put that report to the minister and to Parliament. Something happened in the intervening years and unfortunately the Canadian population found itself governed by the Tory horde opposite after the 1984 election campaign. I will tell you

Government Orders
what happened when the Eastman report was delivered in 1985 it had some shocking facts in it. In 1983 alone a system of compulsory licensing was put in place by the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. The system of compulsory licensing has saved Canadian consumers about $211 million over what they probably would have paid if there was not generic competition. In addition, they had a good look to find out whether or not the legislation as claimed had a detrimental effect on the profitability of the large multinational drug companies that do nearly all of the research and development.
The Eastman report clearly found out that that was simply not the case. It found that the drug companies operating in Canada were able to maintain and indeed increase their profitability more than they were increasing its profitability in other countries where there was no generic competition. The report also pointed out that the pharmaceutical industry in Canada had lost a percentage of its market share.
At the very time that it was losing a percentage of its market share, and it was a small percentage, it also found out that its profits had increased. Therefore, it seemed that we had found the proper balance and that with the introduction of compulsory licensing back in 1967 that we had indeed created a uniquely Canadian solution to the lack of competition in the drug industry in Canada.
Not only that, as an aside, as a plus, as a bonus, we had spurred not a multinational generic drug industry in Canada, we had caused the creation of a Canadian generic drug industry, an industry that, as I said earlier, not only saved Canadian consumers in excess of $200 million in 1983 alone, but has grown to now represent about $400 million in sales and employ over 2,500 Canadians.
The experience seemed to be a positive one. If there was any question at that point in time that the system should be changed to wholesale for the sake of change, it simply was not borne out by the facts contained in the Eastman report which was tabled in 1985.
The world was changing in 1985. We had right wing governments right across the world. We had Maggie Thatcher and her Tories in England dismantling that economy. We had Ronald Reagan in the United States.


An hon. member:: Who?


Ronald MacDonald: Ronald Reagan, the guy who increased the food lines by about 300 per cent in every American centre, who set about to disenfranchise the poor and the downtrodden in American society and who had a free market dream that you support success and that you damn failure.
In the early 1980s there was a real change in what was going on in the United States trade department. Indeed, in 1981 the Reagan government appointed Mr. Ed Pratt to head the United States top private sector trade advisory panel. This individual is past president of Pfizer Incorporated which is a very large and very important pharmaceutical manufacturing company.
In the next few years it became very clear, when Clayton Yower was appointed as chief U.S. trade negotiator, that the number one trade irritant that the United States was raising with the Prime Minister and his Tory ministers opposite was, above all things, our compulsory licensing. It was not whether or not our steel products were going in at a subsidized rate. It was not on softwood lumber. It was not any of those things. It was on our system of compulsory licensing in Canada.
When Ronald Reagan was in Quebec City for that awful shamrock summit where we saw the spectacle of the Prime Minister of Canada not only embarrassing himself by hugging up to the President of the United States, but singing with him. It was the most embarrassing moment in Canadian history. He bellied up to the president. There was a report in the paper at that point in time that the number one issue that was raised by the VP at that point in time, who is now President Bush, was the current Tory government's slowness in getting rid of this demon called compulsory licensing.
It was pretty clear that it was way up on the agenda in the United States. What we did not know at the time and which we have subsequently found out is that this government's agenda is not driven by what is in the best interest of Canada, but is driven by this country's Prime Minister's absolute mania with being a friend of who ever is the President of the United States. Whatever is the priority of the President of the United States then becomes the priority for public policy-making in Canada. Good luck to the 27 million consumers in Canada.

The shamrock summit took place. They had not yet started to fish down at Kennebunkport. That was yet to come. However, the interests of Canadians in having a unique situation where we could have a patent medicine industry investing in Canada and producing new products for Canadians and a generic industry that moderated prices is going to change forever.
I want to refer back to 1986-1987, to the bill which was brought in, Bill C-22. It was a precondition for the Americans to enter into that awful free trade agreement from which we all now suffer.
A couple of the members opposite are shaking their heads. I want to quote from a document called Pharmaceuticals, Patents and Politics-Canada and Bill C-22. Bill C-22 was the bill that effectively changed compulsory licensing in Canada and laid the groundwork for Bill C-91, which will kill compulsory licensing in Canada.
I want to quote from this document: "During this period of time, 1986, the Conservatives continually and vigorously denied that there was any connection between the free trade agreement with the United States and changes in compulsory licensing, but the facts made their denials hard to credit".
The U.S. deputy chief negotiator in the free talks said that Ottawa did not want intellectual property to be in the free trade negotiations. They did not want to appear to be negotiating that away as part of the free trade agreement. Whatever changes they were going to make they wanted them to be viewed as being in Canada's interests. That was a high priority issue for us. We are not above flagging the importance of resolving the issue to the Canadian negotiator for the success of over-all negotiations.
I want to further quote: "The Americans gave the final proof of the linkage between the two issues the day after the successful conclusion of the negotiations" for the free trade deal, the FTA. A U.S. summary of the agreement said the accord contained a clause, "to make progress towards establishing adequate and effective protection of.pharmaceuticals in Canada by liberalizing compulsory licensing provisions. It was only after Conservative politicians"-these guys opposite-"demanded the removal of that section that it was dropped from the final text". The proof is clear.
Government Orders
Bill C-22 back in 1987 was more about pleasing our American neighbours than it was about its stated intentions, which was to increase research and development in Canada. The government persisted. When a government has a majority, it can pretty well do what it pleases. It introduced Bill C-22 and that is the legislation we operate under currently.
What did Bill C-22 do? Bill C-22 effectively extended patent protection in Canada. It increased the level of monopolistic patent protection and allowed for compulsory licensing for about 17 years, in most cases. Do not forget that as a nation we are always trying to increase our research and development, a noble and worthy goal to set and a cause to pursue.
The pharmaceutical industry in Canada at that time said: "If we get the extended patent protection which is in Bill C-22, we know that it will extend the period of monopolistic patent protection. If that is done, we are prepared to increase the level of research and development as a percentage of the gross revenues that we are putting into Canada".
At the time of Bill C-22 these companies were only putting in about 5 per cent. They had agreed in public that they would go up to 8 per cent by 1991 and 10 per cent by 1995. The timeframe for Bill C-22 was to be from 1988 to 1995 with a cabinet review to see whether or not the stated goals were being achieved in 1991 and then a full parliamentary review in 1995.
One of the most difficult, heated, boisterous debates in this House during that time was over this drug patent legislation. The Liberal Party stood on its principles and said that before we started charging Canadian consumers for increased profits with large drug companies we wanted to make sure the seniors in this country, the provincial pharmacare programs and each and every consumer was not being unduly gouged. We believe that the system put in place by the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra back in 1967 should not have been thrown out. The Eastman report, which this government likes to quote a lot, showed that it actually was working in this country, that we had done something differently and most of all it was working.

Government Orders
The Liberal opposition led by our current House leader said no to the government. This was before the government ripped the guts out of Parliament so that we could not hold up legislation any more and it could do whatever it wanted. We held up that legislation for nine months, for nine solid months.
We made sure that the government had a public commitment by the pharmaceutical manufacturers for increased research and development in Canada in exchange for the extension of patent protection. We were concerned about the impact of extended patent protection in Canada on Canadian drug prices.
At that point in time we forced the government to come in with a monitoring agency called the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board. The pharmaceutical industry said: "If you give us this extended protection, we will guarantee that we will keep the increase in the price of drugs below the cost of inflation. We will guarantee that we will increase our level of R and D", that is to the levels I have previously mentioned. The government agreed that there had to be a mechanism in a more monopolistic environment to protect Canadian consumers, and it formed the PMPRB.
The Liberal Party insured that if the majority opposite forced through a bill there were some protections and clearly stated goals and objectives in Bill C-22.
One of the other things pharmaceutical manufacturers indicated was that if the bill went through and they were given this extra period of monopolistic protection, not only would they increase R and D, not only would they keep our drug costs down, but they would create up to
3,000	new jobs over the period this legislation was to be in force. That was about 3,000 new jobs at that point in time.
The results and the success of these companies in meeting those targets are highly questionable. In the fourth report of the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, a government owned agency, clearly indicated that the pharmaceutical industry in Canada was at about
9.6	per cent or 9.7 per cent. Clearly it is getting very close and will meet that target of 10 per cent of R and D to revenue, but the problem we have and a lot of professionals out there have is the very definition of research and development.
The scientific community, is desperately in need of investment so that it can create new products, so that it can create new drugs and so that it is viable and competitive. It found that it was not getting the new money that was coming into the system. The PMPRB, in its fourth report, clearly indicated in 1991 that there was a tremendous amount of money put back into what was defined as R and D by the pharmaceutical manufacturers industry, but in actual fact basic research, the stuff that creates new drugs, new pharmaceuticals in our Canadian laboratories, was only at 26.5 per cent of all the money spent. The rest of the money it was spending in actual fact was going to a lot of clinical research and a lot of marketing. I do not think that is really high-tech R and D. The universities I have talked to said: "We have received a few bucks but not what we thought". Maybe the definition of R and D was wrong.
I want to quote today from the paper, and I cannot believe the minister did not quote it himself. There is a report today in The Montreal Gazette: "Few benefits from the 1987 drug patent changes, study shows". This is a report from the government's own department that was prepared-it is now in national papers across Canada- in advance of the Minister for International Trade going down to sell us out in Mexico in the North American free trade talks.
I quote specifically what it says on research and development: "There has been some improvement since 1988 in basic research, work to discover new drugs. In 1990 it accounted for 26 per cent of research spending, compared with 19 per cent two years earlier. The study suggests that Canada is unlikely to become a centre for basic drug research". To quote a government document: "In general R and D is conducted in the corporate headquarter's home country to foster closer linkages with over-all corporate policies, the study says".
I do not know if we got the types of jobs we were supposed to get as a result of these research and development dollars being spent. Most of them are going into other things. Most of them are going into product development. The universities have not benefited to the
September 17, 1992

extent that Liberals want those universities to benefit from the dollars that are made, the revenues that are generated, by multinational and foreign drug companies.
I said that I would quote wherever possible documents that are not from either side in the industry. The PMPRB's fourth annual report stated: "The location of significant research in the pharmaceutical industry is principally determined by the location of the parent firm's headquarters".
An OECD report entitled "Multinational Enterprise Governments and Technology" stated: "Whenever governments have tried to encourage pharmaceutical innovation in countries where it only exists at lower levels, the results have been disappointing".
Indeed and article in The Montreal Gazette on this very issue stated that the situation was very clearly not as it seemed. It said: "High quality jobs promised by the drug industry include cleaners".
What about the 3,000 jobs we were promised? A new report out clearly indicates that 3,000 jobs have not been created, that in actual fact to date it is slightly over 1,300 jobs and that in some parts of the industry across Canada there has been a slippage of jobs.
I want to quote again from this article. It is in today's paper. It is not something that we have dredged up. We read it in this morning's paper. It is quoting the government report about the investment in new jobs in Canada and the type of jobs that the pharmaceutical industry has actually created. It states: "In 1987 the brand name drug producers and the government predicted the new law would create 3,000 jobs by 1996. The study's authors, using figures provided by the brand name and generic drug makers, concluded that only 1,386 jobs were created between 1987 and 1990 and nearly half of those jobs were in marketing and sales with only a third in research and development", the very sector that was targeted for growth back in 1987. It did not happen. It is not there. The facts are the facts and the facts speak for themselves.
It is fairly clear that the experience with Bill C-22 has not been what it should have been. We have had the government and the PMPRB which is mandated to do three things. The Patent Medicine Prices Review Board is supposed to do three things. First, it is supposed to monitor the increase in the price of drugs that Canadians pay year over year, because the commitment given by the
Government Orders
industry in 1987 was that it would stay below the rate of inflation.
Second, it was to do was to monitor the entry level price of drugs to ensure that consumers were not gouged by the large companies, generic or otherwise, that were to be introducing products into the marketplace at a higher entry level price than was justifiable.
Third, it was supposed to do was monitor the rate of research and development investment that had been promised by the industry.
The government and the PMPRB have come out and said that they have done their job. There is only a 3.2 per cent or 3.3 per cent actual increase in the price of pharmaceuticals in Canada, but some other compelling reports have said that the PMPRB simply has not done its job and that either it is comparing apples to bananas, there is something vastly wrong with its methodology or it just cannot do the job of protecting Canadian consumers.
The following Canadian insurance plans have reported substantial increases in the price of drugs since the passage of Bill C-22. The Ontario government pharma-care plan reports that in reality consumers are paying 13.2 per cent more for drugs in Canada, not the 3.4 per cent that the PMPRB likes to quote and that the minister opposite quoted.
Since 1988 the Green Shield health insurance company, one of the largest insurance payers in Canada for pharmaceuticals, has kept a computer record of every prescription it has paid through its insurance program. It has been well over $1 billion in claims. It says there is something wrong because the real cost is going up at 11.4 per cent per year.
The Manitoba Health Insurance Plan reports a 12.3 per cent increase per year. The fourth annual report of the government's own board, the PMPRB, says that even though price increases on existing drugs have been below inflation, which I contend is not the case, costs to consumers, third party insurers and provincial drug plans have increased at a faster rate chiefly because of the substitution of new drugs for those previously prescribed.
If the Canadian public thought it was going to get moderated increases in the price of drugs as a result of Bill C-22, we have been conned. I do not know how many times this government can say that everybody else is wrong and its board is right.

Government Orders
Government members should talk to the provincial health ministers. They will tell them that the actual cost of provincial pharmacare programs has gone through the roof. The New Democratic government in Ontario that claims to be first and foremost the government that wants to look after people just de-listed a number of pharmaceuticals. If people on fixed incomes or seniors get sick, they are not going to be allowed to get those drugs. This is an erosion of the universality of health care. Health care means having available to them regimes, pharmaceuticals and drugs to make them well again. That is what it means. The people on low incomes are being denied that by provincial pharmacare programs because the government's PMPRB has turned out to be a toothless tiger. It has not worked. It is clear that it has not worked.
Here we go today. We have a drug industry in Canada that was supposed to be operating under a regime. That regime of compulsory licensing was given seven years of extended patent protection under Bill C-22. The government is going to change it now. It might have done a cabinet review. They should have come to Parliament and told us if there was something wrong with the enforcement mechanisms or if their goals were no longer attainable.
All Canadians were supposed to be operating under that regime until 1995, but government members had a surprise up their sleeve. Guess what happened? They were back at the negotiating table for the North American free trade deal with their buddies in Washington and Kennebunkport. They were out fishing and the only fish that was hooked was the Canadian consumer, and it was by the American president in Kennebunkport.
All of a sudden the government decided to change the rules of the game without any substantive evidence that Bill C-22 had been effective in controlling prices or increasing the level of real research and development to what it should be in Canada. It came in with a new bill and what a bill it is.
The minister of health did not want this bill up this week. The reason it is up today is that the minister was embarrassed. He did not want it debated on Tbesday and Wednesday because he was meeting with provincial heath care ministers, the very provincial health care
ministers mentioned in section B of The Gazette today: "Provincial health ministers join to fight drug costs". He is meeting with provincial health care ministers. The reason this bill was not up on Monday and Tuesday of this week was that it would have been an embarrassment to the national minister of health because he could not have explained away the rising drug costs to provincial governments. They put it off until the end of the session: hopefully that there would be a couple of speakers and everybody would forget what they were trying to do.
The negotiations started again with NAFTA. The government made a decision. In speaking to a group of pharmaceutical manufacturers' employees in early December the minister of health indicated clearly that they were going to harmonize with the United States and that they were going to kill that awful little beast called compulsory licensing, that beast that was saving Canadian consumers perhaps a quarter billion dollars a year in drug costs. If they did not do it then all of a sudden the multinational companies that had kept the 1987 commitment in terms of R and D would leave Canada. They were going to run off again. Where were they going? Would it be to Mexico? I do not know what they were going to do. That is what they said. They said they were going to effectively eliminate compulsory licensing altogether in Canada. They said they were going to increase effective patent protection.


An hon. member:: What did GATT say?


Ronald MacDonald: That is an interesting point. My colleague over there from the consumer and corporate affairs committee says: "What did GATT say?" This is a point of contention.
The GATT negotiations have not been concluded yet. They are still hung up. There is no GATT agreement. There is a draft report which has not been accepted called the Dunkel document. That is what it is. If they are starting to put Canadian policy forward based on some foreign document with some fuzzy dates that they pulled out of their navel, the guys opposite will deserve to get kicked out sooner than later. They are supposed to be governing in the best interest of Canadians, not for their friends on the multinational cocktail circuit, which is exactly what they have done here.
What has happened here? They said that they were
going to do away with compulsory licensing in Canada.
September 17, 1992

Not only are we going to do away with compulsory licensing in Canada, but guess what, folks? We are going to do away with it retroactively. We are going to change the rules of the game retroactively.
For generic companies that would make applications for generic licences, products currently in patent, we are going to turn the clock back. The government did not bring the legislation forward until June but made it retroactive to last December 22. The Minister for International Trade got up and said: "That is the date on the Dunkel document".
What in the name of God is the Dunkel document? It is not a document of this Parliament. It is a piece of paper that will be changed 50 times before it gets signed, if it ever gets signed. Let us not fall for that ploy.
This is what it has effectively done. This is the crux of the issue here today. Not only is it going to do away with compulsory licensing but it effectively is going to give those patent drug companies in Canada three additional years of patent protection, that is three additional years for drugs that are currently in the marketplace.
I want consumers to understand what this means. It means under the old legislation that when a company entered a product into the marketplace, drug B, they entered it knowing that quite likely if it was a leading edge drug, at the end of seven years in the marketplace there would be a compulsory licence issue. The facts are the facts, independent, both sides of the industry, wherever you look: Whenever a generic licence is issued on average, the cost to consumers for the drug drops by about 25 per cent.
We have all these drugs currently in the marketplace. They went into the marketplace expecting that after seven years they could be faced with generic competition, which would mean probably that the price would go down by 25 per cent in the last three years.
The government says: "No, no, no, no, no. For all the drugs currently in the marketplace you are not allowed to get a generic licence, and we are going to give a windfall window of profitability of three additional years to those companies". This amounts to a minimum of
Government Orders
about $600 million in possible additional profits to foreign based multinational drug companies in Canada.
Each and every consumer in Canada who will be purchasing those drugs during the last three years when they should have been subjected to competition are going to pay through their pockets. Each and every provincial Pharmacare program is going to pay from taxpayers' pockets as well.
Increasingly, over and over again, provincial Pharmacare programs are going to have to do what Ontario did and start delisting the most expensive products.


An hon. member:: It is going into someone's pocket.


Ronald MacDonald: There is a lot of money in somebody's pocket and it certainly is not going to be in the pockets of Canadian consumers.
We have said that this bill is the billion dollar bonus bill for those companies, and we think it is wrong. The Liberal Party consistently has fought retroactive legislation because it is wrong. It is close to contempt of the parliamentary process.
This piece of legislation is wrong. It seeks to change the rules of the game in the middle of the script. This bill is wrong because it does not provide adequate protection to Canadian consumers, if indeed it does go through. These companies effectively have killed generic compulsory licensing in Canada.
The minister came forward today and said: "We are going to give this new and improved PMPRB", the same PMPRB that he has got up time after time in the House to defend its figures. During the press conference, he and the Minister for International Trade on June 23, when they introduced this piece of terrible legislation, admitted by their comments that the PMPRB maybe had not done its job, so they are going to have to strengthen it.
How are they going to strengthen it? They put the powers of roll back. They stripped it of its ability to issue a generic licence to keep prices down, but they were going to have the powers of roll back. I have here and I would like to table it at the end of my speech a legal opinion that was prepared for the CDMA, one of the sides in the industry, so you can take it for what it is worth.

Government Orders
The individual who it was prepared by is a respected lawyer in this company, James MacPherson, Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. He clearly puts out arguments on both sides as to a constitutional challenge against section 81 of this new bill, which is the section that would allow the PMPRB instead of issuing a compulsory licence to make sure there was no price gouging and could roll back. It is highly questionable in this report as to whether or not a court of law would deem that clause to be unconstitutional. If it did deem it to be unconstitutional, guess what would happen? We would have an industry in Canada which effectively could not be controlled on price increases by generic competition and the very new mechanisms, the guts of the new bill to protect Canadian consumers, could be ruled unconstitutional.
What you would have is an unregulated longer monopoly period for drugs in Canada. Who is going to benefit from that? I do not think the Canadian consumer is going to benefit and the minister's people should have known this.
There have been other cases before the courts about whose jurisdiction this properly falls into. This did not fall out of the sky. People should read it and I want this tabled in Parliament today because it is an important document. If the minister is not aware of it he should very quickly make himself aware of it. He may make a decision that he is not going to proceed with the bill at this point in time.
In addition, the Liberal Party is concerned that we have a minister of health that just yesterday, before we even started debate on this bill, agreed with provincial governments at this conference in St. John's, Newfoundland, saying that they were so concerned about the possibility of this new bill raising prices for consumers in Canada that the provincial health ministers have formed a task force to suggest amendments to a bill that had not even been introduced at second reading for approval in principle in the Parliament of Canada.
For goodness' sake we have respected lawyers coming out and questioning the wisdom. We have provincial health ministers that have already established a task force before the bill was ever debated in the House of Commons. If there was ever a piece of legislation introduced that should be withdrawn and looked at again in greater consultation this is it, but the government will go ahead.
The other thing I have mentioned is that it could be $400 million or $600 million in windfall profits for these companies. The companies have come back and said if the bill passes-and I want to be fair to them-we will invest $400 million in new investment in Canada. I do not know how we make policy in this country. I thought we made polity for the greater good of Canadians.
I do not like the approach of any industry in this country that comes and says you pass this legislation for me and I will do this. If you do not, I will not. I do not like that type of pressure being put on me as a parliamentarian because I do not think it is right.
Further, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that would compel the PMAC drug companies that do great work in this country to increase their level of research and development. If this bill does go through, and the government has the majority, we will be proposing amendments to the bill to ensure that if there are extended periods of patent protection that a higher percentage of R and D dollars to revenue is spent in Canada.
We want a more rigorous definition of what R and D is and we want some of that money put over to private sector bodies representing the universities and health care teaching institutions so that money can be invested in those facilities and so there is a net benefit to the educational system in Canada. That is what we want.
It is clear as well that this government is probably trying to kill any aspect of compulsory licensing in this country because south of the border there have been some congressmen who have said: "Gee, what are they doing in Canada? " There was a Senate committee on aging that just reported the other day. The Senate committee on aging said this the other day. They looked at the average cost of drugs in this extended monopolistic system in the United States to consumers and in some cases found the same drug in the United States where there is no generic competition before the expiration of patent.
Do you know what they found? They found that some drugs in the United States, some of the most current drugs, are up to 64 per cent higher than what they are in Canada. In the United States they are now looking at the system of compulsory licensing as a way to moderate prices for American consumers. Once again before this government goes to the polls and gets its you know what wiped by the Canadian electorate, it wants to push
September 17, 1992

through this bill to please people not in Canada, but in the United States.
The Liberal Party will oppose the bill in its present form and the Liberal Party will oppose the complete elimination of compulsory licensing. The Liberal Party will oppose any piece of legislation that effectively increases the level of patent protection in Canada without dictating and mandating that there be a greater percentage of research and development dollars in this country.
In conclusion, I want to say this debate has not been an easy one. I want to put this on the record if you will just bear with me for a second.
In the last 72 hours I have received more calls from lobbyists and former lobbyists in this industry who have indicated things like if we would moderate our opposition to this bill for Canadian consumers, maybe we can get some investment in Atlantic Canada.
I find that approach absolutely abhorrent. If anyone out there watching thinks that is the way the Liberal Party dictates and makes its policy, they are sadly mistaken.
In conclusion, this bill is not a good bill for Canadian consumers. It is a bill that cannot be allowed to pass as it is. The Liberal Party will continue to be vigorous in its opposition in debate in this House to protect Canadian consumers and the viability of both sides of the drug industry in Canada.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to rise and speak on this bill. It is a very significant piece of legislation and most Canadians already are aware that it is detrimental.
Unfortunately I have limited time so I cannot deal with all of the points within this bill. I want to talk about three or four significant things such as why the government is proceeding at this time, the whole question of cost, and job creation.
It is very peculiar that the government would proceed with the bill at this point. Let us take a look at how this bill was introduced. It was introduced in the dying days of Parliament in June. It was set over and is now being introduced this week when the country's focus is on the Constitution. The government was originally going to
Government Orders
bring it in and force it through closure. It backed off because of the uproar that has already started in the country, particularly among provincial governments.
The government is pushing it forward for a number of reasons. It wants to see if it can get the jump on those opposed to this. All we have to do is pick up any paper or talk to any consumer group in this country and we will find opposition. Seniors are frightened because they know their drug costs are going up.
I will read what the Canadian Health Coalition states: "It will mean increased drug prices for consumers and even greater stress on the health care system. If hospitals and other institutions have to pay more for drugs, they will have fewer dollars for other services. The squeeze on the system will become even greater".
Other people like Walter MacKinnon, president of the Cape Breton Health Coalition, states: "The bill is a gross betrayal of the government's primary role of looking after the best interests of Canadian people".
It is not yesterday, contrary to what the previous speaker said, that the provinces' health ministers formed a task force looking at the whole question of drug pricing. They did it in their meeting in March. They had people working on this program for a number of months with a view to reporting back to the health ministers in December.
One of the reasons that this bill is being pushed forward right now is that this government wants to rush it through before the provincial deputy ministers of health could bring back their report on a national drug services formula.
Yesterday in the federal health minister's meeting with the provincial ministers, the issue came up. The provincial ministers made it very clear that they are unhappy with this bill. Lo and behold, guess who agrees with them? The person who agrees with them is the hon. minister of health for the federal government. He said yesterday: "Their concerns have a good chance of being addressed. We hope that it will be possible that it can be put in the bill". Already the minister is admitting that this bill does not address the concerns of the provincial ministers of health.
It would be much more of a proper procedure for the government, when it knows that these concerns are not being addressed, to simply withdraw the bill and then

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
reintroduce the bill once those concerns have been addressed.
We have had private drug plans expressing concerns about this bill. We have had labour unions expressing concerns about this bill. We have had a major legal opinion that says the guts of this bill, the very reason this government is saying that it is bringing this bill forward, which is to give the prices review board some power to do something, some powers to roll back prices, is probably unconstitutional.
Instead of doing the honourable thing and holding back this bill and referring that matter to the Supreme Court, the government has decided to push ahead. I am left wondering why. The only conclusion one can come to again is that there is a parallel between this bill and Bill C-22.
Bill C-22 was brought in prior to the introduction of the United States free trade agreement. It was a precursor that the government had made a promise to the American government that it would deal with this matter of licensing so that it would not have to be specifically dealt with in the free trade agreement.
Now we are in the middle of NAFTA negotiations, a North American free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, and here we have the government again putting through legislation to harmonize its legislation with what the United States wants. Again, it is simply because the government has made a commitment to George Bush as part of the North American free trade deal to get this matter taken up.
The minister said this bill was a balance. If he and the Conservatives think the balance is to increase cost to the consumer, loss of jobs in the industry, threatening the 2,500 jobs in the generic drug industry on the one side and on the other side increased profits for the multinational corporations, they are right on.
What I think the Canadian public has to do is go back and look at what this government promised in terms of the drug industry when it introduced Bill C-22, which extended the patent protection for the multinational drug corporations. It made a number of promises and again it is repeating these promises.
One of the things it promised was that there would be no increase in the price of drugs. It would make sure that there would be a moderation.
First of all, let us take a look at what the Prices Review Board said. It said that 40 per cent of all new drugs
coming on to the market exceeded the guidelines. All the multinational companies did was bring the prices on excessively high and then increase them 3 or 4 per cent. Is that really great for the consumers? We would have been better to let them bring them on at a low price and then increase them at 8 per cent. There has been no containment of the prices.
Green Shield has documented clearly that the increase in drug prices is not the 3 and 4 per cent that the government talks about but rather 11.4 per cent.
Under competition, which the government normally espouses, with the introduction of generic drugs there has been a containment of costs. There is documentation showing that when there is competition for one generic drug against the patent drug, the price is reduced by 20 per cent. If there are five competitors in the generic area, the price is reduced by an average of 45 per cent. If there are 10 versions the price is reduced by 72.5 per cent.
The government, on behalf of the multinational corporations, wants to ensure that there is an extension of the patent protection so that this type of competition is not forcing the multinational drug companies to bring their prices under control.
One of the things the government talks about is making sure that the drug industry is profitable. I guess that is true. No corporation is going to stay in business very long if there is no profit. However, if you take a look at the profits of the multinational drug corporations, even in a time of downturn in the economy, they have made excessive profits.
In 1990 an inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry in Ontario found that profits after tax on equity of the pharmaceutical companies were almost 25 per cent, compared with the best in the manufacturing area of about 11 per cent. What we have here is a pharmaceutical industry that is making dramatic profits compared to any other type of investment in this country. This government is saying that it needs more protection so it can drive its profits up even farther.
Returning to the Green Shield study on this question of the introduction of drugs on to the market, which the prices review board has documented, 40 per cent of the cases in 1990 and 1991 are in excess of the prices review board guidelines. Green Shield was able to document that since 1988 costs of new drugs coming on to the
September 17, 1992

market have doubled since the introduction of the patent legislation.
What you really had was the government saying it would set up a review board but that it really had no method of controlling or monitoring the entry price. The companies have simply entered their price in a high manner and then have carried on. It has doubled since the legislation was introduced and will continue to double.
Before the introduction of compulsory licensing, Canada had the highest cost of drugs in the world. What we have here is a potential that this bill will go through, patent protection will be extended for another 10 years, the court will strike down totally section 81, saying that it is not constitutional for the prices review board to have the power to roll back prices, and what we will get is an unregulated, extended monopoly which continues to gouge Canadians, to gouge health care and to gouge old age pensioners.
When we were studying health care costs in Canada, it was documented that the fastest growing proportion of health care costs in Canada was in the drug area; not acute care hospitals, not physician services, not community services, but drugs.
We had another study looking at hepatitis B and the bringing in of a vaccine. We had a spokesperson for the drug industry appear. We asked him to explain why the vaccine for hepatitis B in Canada costs $30 a dose and you have to have three doses. It is mostly bought in bulk for $90. In New Zealand, because of a government program and because New Zealand will not accept the price the multinationals are manipulating, it is $7 a dose. We asked why there was the discrepancy, and how its drug prices were brought onto the market in Canada. He said: "It is basically what the traffic will bear, what we can get away with". This is a spokesman for the drug industry. He said: "That is how we price the drugs. We can't get away with $30 in New Zealand, but we can in Canada".
I want to turn my attention to one of the other hollow promises made in Bill C-22, and that is the creation of jobs. The government said repeatedly that there would
Government Orders
be 3,000 research jobs, not maintenance jobs or cleaning jobs but research jobs. I want to quote a couple of statements by the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The then minister said: "Increased research spending will generate a minimum of 3,000 high quality jobs for Canadian scientists and biochemists". That was said in December 1986. The same minister made a similar statement in November 1986, as reported in Hansard: "I know that 3,000 young scientists are anxious to have a research opportunity in Canada".
What do we have? What is the record of jobs under this bill? One of the reasons I am sure they are trying to rush this through is that they hoped their own report would not become a public document. However, unfortunately, like many things that the government is finding out, most things eventually surface to public light.
The report says that there are few benefits from the 1987 drug patent changes. Dealing specifically with the area of jobs, there were supposed to be 3,000 new research jobs but the report points out that there were only 1,386 jobs created and over half of those jobs were in marketing and sales. All a doctor needs is another drug salesman to come around knocking on his door with another drug sample. That is where the jobs were, in marketing, in making more television ads to convince the Canadian public of what good corporate citizens they are. That is where the jobs were created. Only one-third of those jobs were in research and development. That means that about 450 jobs were created in research and development, not 3,000 as this government talked about.
At the same time, what has happened to jobs in other parts of the drug industry? There has been a dramatic loss of jobs in drug manufacturing. Basically what has happened was that the pharmaceutical companies got the patent protection. Canada is such a small market they did their manufacturing offshore. We have become a warehouse and we then distribute the drugs.


An hon. member:: That's not true.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The minister says it is not true but I have a list here giving specific job losses over the last two years by the multinational pharmaceutical companies. It gives them specifically: Allergan, 62 jobs in Montreal; Alcon Canada, 48 jobs; Bristol-Myers, 124 jobs lost. It goes on.

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
These are not the mythical jobs that the government talks about-3,000 jobs.


An hon. member:: Not true.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The member says "not true". Not true? There is documentation listing the specific firms and the specific losses of jobs. The total is over 700, and that does not count some of the ones in which there were losses of jobs but they could not put a figure to it. For example, when American Home Products was acquired by A. H. Robins there was a loss of jobs. They were not able to document how many so they did not count them. Even without counting there was a loss of jobs.
Their own documents cannot document 3,000 jobs. Show us the 3,000 jobs in research and development. Show us where they are specifically. They cannot because they are not there. What we have is a bill that is going to protect the drug industry and is not going to create jobs.
I just want to turn my attention to one other thing, and that is the duplicity of the Liberal Party that stands up in this House and says that it is opposing this bill. Yet the Liberal critic for science and technology has clearly said that he and other Liberals support this bill.
Who is the chief spokesperson for the multinational drug companies? It is none other than Judy Erola, a former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the Liberal government. She was the shepherd who was supposed to be watching the sheep, she was the shepherd on behalf of consumers. The shepherd has not only become the chief spokesperson for the wolves but she has become the chief architect of the attack plan of the wolves. That is the duplicity of the Liberals with regard to this bill.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member and it concerns the Green Shield plan and the prices review board. Is he not comparing apples and oranges? Does not the Green Shield plan cover all consumer drugs, both patented and non-patented? In fact, the Green Shield covers things like billing fees from pharmacists and so on. Does he not think it is unfair for him to compare apples and oranges by comparing the Green Shield plan? In fact, the Green Shield plan could deal
with the increase in the price of medicinal brandy prescribed by a doctor because that is an item that goes through the pharmacy, while the prices review board refers only to patented medicine.
As a further question, I want to ask him what the Liberal candidates' chances might be in Montreal, given their stand and the split in their party. The Liberal science critic, who realizes the importance of intellectual property, not only in patented medicines but in other areas, has written a letter to each member of the Liberal caucus saying: "Opposition would be a serious mistake". I further quote: "In order to maintain existing jobs and obtain additional investment in today's global market we need to provide patent protection comparable to that which exists in other industrialized countries". This was reported in The Toronto Star this morning. That was a letter written by the member for Saint-Henri-West-mount. What does he think the chances of nominated Liberal candidates are in that area?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked two very interesting questions. I cannot really speculate on the last one. However, I know the chances for nominated Liberal candidates in my province of British Columbia, particularly in ridings in which there are a large number of seniors, goes down dramatically when they begin to realize that the Liberals are playing their traditional game of speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
In order to protect their seats in Montreal they are allowing their critic to issue statements so they can have something to show them in Montreal, but they will speak out of the other side of their mouths in B.C.
I do not know about their chances in Montreal, but I know that their chances in the rest of Canada certainly are not going to be enhanced by this kind of discussion.
I also think that the Liberals should speak to their former consumer affairs minister, the person who is really the architect of the publicity campaign behind the multinational corporations.
Going on to your first question, which is also very important, it is not just the Green Shield study but other studies. Various provincial pharmaceutical plans have documented the price coming on. Green Shield has documented prescription drugs coming on. It has documented the new drugs that came on at double the price and then increased.
September 17, 1992

As for this whole business of the prices review board, there is another thing that is happening around it that the public should be aware of. The multinational drug companies have found another loophole in this prices review board. Genentech was the first one to do it. It is a major heart pill that is quite difficult to manufacture. The volume in Canada is so small, in terms of a world-wide program, that it is probably really not economical for a generic drug company to start manufacturing it in Canada for a Canadian market.
It had its application in for patents. The prices review board started looking at its price and, my gosh, discovered that the price for the product was so excessive that it was going to say it was above the guidelines. The minister of health for the province of Ontario intervened. What did it do? It said: "That's fine. We will simply withdraw it from the patent review process. We'll say it is a public product. Then you cannot have any control over the price".
This bill is a long way from being passed. This bill is going to be fought by the New Democratic Party right to the end.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for Surrey North that I know that, and I can appreciate it, this is his first tenure as a member of Parliament representing that great constituency.
My colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth, and my colleague from Saint-Henri-Westmount had an opportunity just last week to be in British Columbia and visit that particular area of the province. The hon. member should take very serious note of the polls which reflect the high support that the Liberal Party of Canada has in that particular province, as well as in that riding.
Before the hon. member stands in his place and uses such terms as duplicity he might want to examine the full meaning of the word hypocrisy, which he has practised in this House of Commons since he has come to it.
On each and every occasion that he has had an opportunity to speak he has tacked onto the end of his speech different challenges to different political parties, knowing full well that very little time remains in order to debate that particular assertion.
Government Orders
Perhaps the hon. member, in his great eloquence, would stand in his place and give a clear and unequivocal undertaking to all members of this House that his friends, Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Premier Roy Roma-now and British Columbia Premier Michael Harcourt will come to Ottawa and make substantive presentations before the legislative committee that is studying this particular bill.
Furthermore, the hon. member should know that the policy as enunciated by the hon. member for Dartmouth is the consistent policy that we have taken since we introduced legislation over 20 years ago with regard to this particular subject matter. If there is any hypocrisy or duplicity it is in the mind of the hon. member opposite.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition House leader has been around this place a long time. He knows that it is unparliamentary and out of order to accuse individuals of hypocrisy. It is one thing to accuse political parties of hypocrisy or duplicity or a variety of other things, but it is quite unparliamentary and out of order to accuse individuals of hypocrisy. That is stated clearly within the rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask the hon. opposition House leader to withdraw the personal accusation of hypocrisy that he made to the hon. member for Surrey North.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will check with Hansard, but I thought that the hon. member was talking not about someone in particular but in general.
Therefore I hesitate to grant the request made by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona until I have checked the transcript of what was said in this House.
I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. [English]


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to check the "blues" and tapes because I think you will find, at least on two occasions, the opposition House leader referred to the hypocrisy of the member for Surrey North. He

Government Orders
used the expression "the hypocrisy in the member's own mind", I believe.
If you check the tapes and find this to be true, I would ask you at some subsequent point to ask the opposition House leader to respect the rules of the House and withdraw those personal allegations.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: It is interesting that the hon. House leader talked about my riding of Surrey North. As everybody knows it is one of the fastest growing ridings in Canada. I have spent the last four years working very hard to represent all aspects of that community. I am sure the House is quite interested that the Liberals have had a nominated candidate for the last two years running against me. She is a woman with quite impeccable credentials, who is very well known in the community and has lived there for 25 years. Of course the Liberals support gender equality, so what did they do? They just dumped her. They unceremoniously organized a meeting in which people from outside my riding of Surrey North came into the riding and dumped her, pushed her aside. That is what is happening with the Liberals in my riding.
If the hon. House leader for the Liberals wants to stand up and debate what is going on in Surrey North, I think he should have some more information. The previous candidate for the Liberals and many, many Liberals in the riding who have worked very hard for the Liberal Party for the last 20 years have come to me in the last two months and said they will be supporting and working for me. They cannot understand why the Leader of the Official Opposition engineered the dumping of a community person in my riding of Surrey North. Why would they allow the long arm of the bureaucracy of the Liberal Party in Canada to reach from Ottawa down to Surrey and dump a community leader?


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because, of course, many people have just referred to comments that I might have made and that are reported in the media today. I raise a question of privilege in order to briefly set the record straight, as I see it. If you allow me, I will be very brief.

I would like to respond to what the member for Surrey North said. It is incorrect to suggest I support this bill without reservation. I believe amendments are called for in a number of areas.
I also believe it is wrong on his part and certainly unhelpful to try to win points in this debate by scaring senior citizens. Clearly, added sales revenue can only come from consumers or taxpayers. I would point out to the member many senior citizens are covered by provincial health care plans. I believe we have to strike a balance between the needs for investment and the needs of consumers. That is the approach I am taking.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that was not a question of personal privilege or anything like it. If the member wants to enter into debate on the merits of the bill or on what has been alleged he said about the bill, that is one thing. He should not be allowed by the Chair to get up on a spurious question of privilege like that and be heard.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we always smile when we see our opposition colleagues argue among themselves. Apart from that, it would be very interesting and I would really appreciate it if the hon. member for Saint-Henri- Westmount later in this debate could tell us exactly what he thinks of this bill in order to clear it up for all Canadians. It would be interesting. I hope that he will take advantage of the opportunity given him in this debate to speak out on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I hope that that puts an end to these exchanges. Hon. members will understand that until he knows whether it really is a question of privilege, the Chair must let the member concerned express himself. Messages on this have been exchanged on both sides and I consider the incident closed.


David Charles Dingwall: I do not know if there has been a communication breakdown or not. I thought I had explained and had consent from all three parties in the House and members who were present here when the parliamentary secretary rose to read the motion with regard to an adjournment motion, that after each speak-
September 17, 1992

er from the recognized parties had intervened in the debate this morning, we would proceed with the debate of the adjournment motion.
There seems to be some confusion with regard to members on the opposite side. I know my colleague may wish to say a few words on Bill C-91. If that is the case, perhaps we could hear him while they are waiting for the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps you can explain, Mr. Speaker, why we are not proceeding with the adjournment motion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for being out of the Chamber when this matter arose.
The opposition House leader and I had an exchange earlier this morning. I hope we do not have to resort to the "blues" to find out, although we may need to.
My understanding of that exchange, based on my response to the question raised by the opposition House leader was there would be one speaker each at the outset on the adjournment motion. I understand second hand the opposition House leader understood we agreed there would be one speaker each on Bill C-91. That was not my understanding. That is the source of the difficulty before us.
I have not had an opportunity to make consultations on this side to see what our best course of action is, but I can assure my friend opposite there is no intention to mislead or be difficult about the arrangement. If he misunderstood me I did not intend to mislead him. The understanding I thought we had among the parties was there would be one speaker each at the outset of the debate on the adjournment motion when we got to it after Question Period this afternoon.


David Charles Dingwall: I know my friend across the way knows I know he would not mislead me intentionally, but just for the record, the parliamentary secretary is correct.
He did state in the motion, for the purposes of the adjournment and the amendment, which would be forthcoming from the official opposition, we would be one speaker per party. That is written in the motion as tabled and as spoken by the parliamentary secretary.
I thereafter interrupted the proceedings and indicated to the parliamentary secretary opposite, for the purposes of Bill C-91, there would be one speaker per party and then we would proceed with the adjournment motion.
Government Orders
I believe my colleagues in the New Democratic Party gave consent to that, as well as the government.
It was on that basis I gave consent from the Official Opposition to the motion which was so eloquently read by the parliamentary secretary.
I do not wish to make this any more difficult than it is. If the parliamentary secretary wishes, we could perhaps hear the hon. gentlemen behind him for a few moments. We might go behind the curtain and try to resolve this difficulty.
I was clearly of the understanding we would begin debate on Bill C-91 with representatives of the official parties speaking and then move immediately to the adjournment motion.
I would like to hear from my colleague from the NDP.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if it is any help, we in the New Democratic caucus were under the same impression as our Liberal colleagues that there was an understanding there would be one speaker from each party on Bill C-91 and we would then proceed to the debate on the adjournment motion.
As the opposition House leader has suggested, I am open to hearing the member, who just left the Chamber for a few minutes, in order to have discussions, if that would be helpful, to check the "blues" or whatever. Certainly that was the understanding we had here as well.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think we have the solution at hand.
It is not a major issue with us whether we proceed with the adjournment debate now or later. We may be prepared to move a motion as soon as we have the appropriate individual in the Chamber. Then we can commence the debate.
I think those of us Canadians who have observed the constitutional discussions have seen that when human beings communicate there is an opportunity for misunderstanding. I think we are now prepared to proceed.


Pierre Blais: I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word "Chair" in
both paragraphs, the following:
but no later than November 16, 1992.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but we are not yet on this motion. We were still on Bill C-91, the Patent Act, when there was an exchange between the parties on how we should proceed for the rest of the morning.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. These kinds of accidents do occur.
Pursuant to our understanding on the floor of the House of Commons earlier this day, we have now adjourned the debate with regard to Bill C-91 and we will proceed to Motion No. 12. Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs might wish to stand in his place and read Motion No. 12.
Thereafter a debate could follow and members could intervene to make their views known with regard to the subject matter at hand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Do I understand the wishes of the House correctly? Is there unanimous consent to adjourn the debate on Bill C-91?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN
Pierre Blais: That, upon the adoption of this Order, this House shall adjourn to the call of the Chair; and
That, at any time during such adjournment of the House, the Speaker may, after consultation with the Government, cause the House to sit for the sole purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill or bills, and following each Royal Assent, the Speaker shall, each time, further adjourn the House forthwith to the call of the Chair.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, finally we have come to Motion No. 12, which has been placed on the Order Paper by the government House leader and fortunately or unfortunately we have been able to get to this motion today.
I have to say that in proposing this motion to adjourn the House without a date of return by the Government of Canada, it is making history. It is the first government since Confederation to admit on the floor of the House of Commons that it is politically and morally bankrupt. It is clear that the Latin phrase sine die, without a date for return, is unacceptable to those of us in the Official Opposition, as I am sure it is unacceptable to Canadians across this country.
I want members to know that I have offered, both privately and publicly, that during the duration of the debate with regard to the referendum that some accommodations could be made to keep the House of Commons and the proceedings before the House opened in order that individuals have an opportunity to express their views and for the government to take positive action to provide economic, social and other forms of assistance to Canadians.
The chief government Whip and I participated on a nationalized television program on which I offered at that time, as well as in private, that perhaps we could sit three days a week and perhaps we could undertake that there would be no surprises with regard to motions of confidence. We also agreed that we would be able to pair with members of the government opposite so long as the House would sit. The opportunity for the government to account for its policies and an opportunity for us in the opposition to provide alternatives to that polity could then take place.
That has fallen, I say quite sadly, on deaf ears.
I agree that it is essential that hon. members be given time away from parliamentary duties in order to attend the unity referendum campaign. I am not convinced that it is necessary for the House to adjourn this early in the campaign. If members of other parties tell me that their communications with their constituents have deteriorated so badly that they need so much time to re-establish them for the sake of national unity, I am willing to set aside my contrary inclination.
What I cannot understand is that the government has allowed itself to decline to a level at which it admits that it is overwhelmed by the difficulties into which it has led Canadians and that it cannot find it within itself to recommend any solutions.

As an example, we have in Canada today a major economic crisis which has gripped the country. We have
1.6	million Canadians out of work, we have an equal number plus who are on welfare rolls, we have students who have not had meaningful work this summer, denying them an opportunity to return to post-secondary education. We have single women who cannot afford child care and are therefore unable to enter the work force. We have fishermen without fish, we have farmers without the proper compensation for their hard labours and we have an unbelievably high incidence of urban crime in our country.
The Government of Canada has sat idly by and perhaps the best demonstrable example of sitting by and doing nothing has been the proposed airline merger between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific. We and other members of opposition parties have questioned the government continuously as to what its policy is or is likely to be. So far we have heard from the minister responsible for transport who has taken a laissez-faire attitude toward the situation.
We find in the west, particularly in British Columbia and Alberta, in the Atlantic, in my province as well as in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, P.E.I., many parts of Ontario and certainly many parts of Quebec that if this airline merger takes place the result will be the dislocation of thousands and thousands of jobs directly as well as thousands of jobs associated with the airline industry.
I think of the travel industry and rural communities in various airports. I will give one example, rather personal and somewhat subjective in my own constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond. At the airport, what will happen to the employees of Air Atlantic and Air Nova?
Obviously there will be a substantive reduction. When you lose 50 per cent in an area which has unprecedented high unemployment, as in parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, the blow is triply devastating.
I find it inexcusable that the Minister of Transport would waltz into this Chamber, provide no course of action, no leadership, other than to say it is a private matter and his hands are tied, he cannot do anything. The House will now adjourn and we will not have an
Government Orders
opportunity to make that minister accountable to the thousands of employees, the numerous communities and industries associated with the airline. We will not have an opportunity to force this minister into being accountable and to show some leadership with regard to that dossier.
Mr. Speaker, you come from an area of the great province of Quebec and you have a history in your province, a great history, but you have had a history of individuals who have served in federal cabinets as ministers of transport who have taken significant leadership when it comes to transportation in this country.
What has the present minister done with regard to the airline issue and the proposed merger? He has gone to sleep. Every analyst in this country, every worker in the airline industry knows the two major airlines were going at it like two bulls in an arena. He sat idly by. He did not call them in and say there is a public interest here and we must attempt to try to resolve this in the best interest of Canadians, the best interests of the employees, the corporations and the shareholders involved and have a meeting of minds.
That is what Jean Marchand would do if he were here today in that capacity. However, this minister has done nothing. It is not his responsibility, obviously. He is saying to this Parliament and thereby to all Canadians that he, as the Minister of Transport, has no obligation to act in the public interest.
In the city of Toronto, in the city of Montreal and elsewhere across this country we are going to find that there will be countless numbers of individuals without work who have been involved in the airline. This minister and this government will not be in the House to account for the government's inaction with regard to the proposed merger. I find that to be totally unacceptable and a demonstrable act by the government opposite of its laissez-faire attitude as it relates to the Canadian economy.
I take little satisfaction in the fact that in shutting down Parliament the government is reducing the amount of time available to deal further with the largely destructive list of legislation that is presently on the Order Paper. The state of the nation is such that that Parliament's being in session would constitute pressure on the government to address these problems.

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
If the House were sitting for its regularly scheduled autumn sittings there would be 50 daily Question Periods in which the opposition could push and probe the government hopefully into positive action. There would be, in addition, five opposition days during which we could suggest suitable courses of action. That opportunity will not be with us. For every day that the House does not sit, there is one less Question Period for calling the government to account. For every five days the House does not sit under our rules, there will be one less opposition day. If the House does not sit until after the middle of November the rules delete all of the autumn opposition days.
When the government forced the present rule changes on the House in the spring of 1991,1 and my colleagues from Ottawa-Vanier and Saint-Leonard warned the Canadian people and this government that the government would find it difficult to fit its legislative timetable into the reduced number of sittings in each year. We could not foresee how remorseless its use of its streamlined closure rules would be.
The example of the demonstrable act that will live for many, many years against members opposite was just last evening when the Conservative Party, not just the Prime Minister of the day and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, killed forever universal family allowances in this country. I know the news media has given it a bit of attention. There are some out there who will say they will benefit to a certain extent. The question will be in January and February when thousands and thousands of mothers across this country will no longer have a family allowance cheque for their children. If one does not think it is important, think of the sneakers that have been purchased with family allowance cheques.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: They are getting more money.


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member opposite will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.


Mr. McDermid:: Be fair.


David Charles Dingwall: I will be fair and accurate. There are thousands and thousands of Canadians in this country who need that family allowance. The government says it is going to top up some and take it away from others.
The reality is there are a good number of individuals who do not just want to have family allowances coming into their household each and every day. They need it to purchase the sneakers, sweat shirts, and jeans. They need it to pay for the dentist and get their hair cut. That is something I have never had to worry about like my hon. friend opposite, but that is the reality. They need the $4.50 to take a taxi to the dentist or the doctor, despite the claims from the government opposite.


An hon. member:: The people who need it are getting it.


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member says that the people who need it are getting it. The hon. member's subjective interpretation of what is needed is quite different from mine.
We also could not foresee they would become so bankrupt of policy opposite they would not want to use the time available to them. We objected to the reduction of opposition days and we object now to their further reduction by doing it through the back door. If they could not do it through the front door, they are now doing it through the back door.
Once again we in the Official Opposition oppose and oppose vigorously that method of governing this great country.
No wonder Canadians are so cynical about politicians at the national level when a government, voted in by the people of Canada, acts in such an uncaring and insensitive way. If national unity were the only difficulty facing Canada one might understand the terms of this adjournment, but it is unfortunately only one of the problems.
Unemployment reached 11.6 per cent in June. It is the highest since this government took office and has remained at this unacceptably high level for three consecutive months. Since June the number of unemployed Canadians has increased by 71,000. The outlook for the future looks grim. The help wanted index declined five points in August.
Gross Domestic Product growth slowed in the second quarter of this year, posting a mere .7 per cent gain on an annualized basis. This followed a 1.7 per cent annualized rate of increase in the first quarter, making it highly

Government Orders
unlikely the Government of Canada will come anywhere sell the deal, which looks increasingly unlikely to pass in close to its forecast of 2.3 per cent growth for 1992. the United States.
On the basis of the composite leading indicator, it is doubtful economic activity will pick up significantly in the near term. The indicator continues to inch upward at the rate of .2 per cent per month. This is not a sign of robust recovery.
Bankruptcy figures are, to say the least, an absolute unequivocal national disgrace. There have been 2,156 more bankruptcies in the first seven months of 1992 than in the corresponding period in 1991.
I practised law. I did some insolvency work. Do you know what a bankruptcy does to an individual and a family? Do you know the potential it can have to cause havoc? It can have a lasting, lasting, lasting effect.
The retail and construction industries, which are employee intensive, were particularly hard hit. Housing starts plunged 14 per cent in the month of August, almost certainly a direct result of the uncertainty in the labour market. Retail sales and manufacturing shipments have been flat and if there is an improvement one month there is inevitably a disappointment the next. There have been few, if any, visible benefits from the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and I am sad to say what we predicted did, in fact, happen. Gordon Ritchie, the number two negotiator of the free trade agreement and a government appointee has said the macro economic policies of the government "-have been highly perverse, cancelling out temporarily and perhaps permanently many of the benefits of the free trade agreement."
The government protests that the free trade agreement was one of the greatest things that ever happened to this nation. I say to them, let us run an election and let the people decide.
The government has negotiated a badly flawed North American Free Trade Agreement without a subsidies or anti-dumping code that will lead to continued harassment of Canadian exporters. The government broke its promises to provide adjustment programs for workers in industry adversely affected by the Canada-U.S. deal. It is doing nothing to prepare business and workers for the North American free trade agreement, except to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars on phony propaganda to
Sometimes one has to get very personal to get one's message across. We have the likes of the Minister of International Trade spending millions of dollars on an orchestrated propaganda campaign to sell the North American free trade agreement, when fishermen in Newfoundland have to wait in line to get a number in order to get unemployment insurance. At the same time, farmers in western Canada worry about their compensation because of crop failures and students cannot return to university or find a job or any prospect of a job. What does this government do? It spends millions of the taxpayers' dollars to sell the flaws of the North American free trade agreement.
On any objective, national, regional or international test, one would have to conclude that kind of public policy is absolutely idiotic for Canada at this time.
Even if the North American free trade agreement does pass in the United States, that country is preparing programs to offset any dislocations. President Bush wants to expand federal job training by $10 billion, and his opponent Governor Clinton has made the expansion of job training programs a centrepiece of his platform. Despite its promises, the Canadian government produced no such programs following the Canada-U.S. deal, and it has publicly stated it will bring forward no new adjustment assistance programs in response to the North American free trade agreement.
The minister responsible for employment and immigration had the audacity to stand in this House last week and this week and try to sell to this Parliament, and thereby to Canadians across this land, that somehow the existing programs were what the government meant to be in terms of the adjustment programs. That is not what it said in the debate of 1988 prior to the federal election. That is not what it said post-1988. That is not what it said with regard to entering the negotiations in the North American free trade with Mexico round. That is not what it said then, but, again, what can one expect from this administration? Can you expect candid, honest, forthright responses to questions which are of great concern to Canadians? I think the answer is obvious to all those in this Chamber who watch our proceedings and have seen and felt the nasty hand of this negative administration.

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
Canadians in every region are suffering and no more so than in my own region of this great country. I think of my fellow citizens in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and in my own region of Cape Breton in Nova Scotia. Government policies have created unemployment, while making unemployment insurance benefits less accessible and at the same time failing to provide adequate training and retraining opportunities.
Programs for the victims of the Atlantic fisheries closures, as we all know, are insufficiently funded and hopelessly, inadequately staffed. Victims of western crop failures are denied emergency assistance. Federal policies have caused the cost of education to skyrocket, while decreasing temporary employment opportunities and student assistance, thus throwing even more young Canadians into the ranks of the unemployed.
I have never in my entire adult life witnessed such a grave summer for students as I did this year. There have been more calls and representations from parents, students, their friends and relatives with regard to the lack of employment opportunities, not only to pursue postsecondary education but any type of training. What is there? We have the Minister of Employment and Immigration saying the government thinks it is important to spend millions of dollars in advertising on a prosperity agenda. We have the Minister for International Trade saying to those very same students we have to spend millions and millions of taxpayers money promoting the North American free trade agreement.
In the face of all this, what does the government propose? It proposes to do nothing. It proposes to send Parliament away for an indeterminate period so it can continue to do nothing. For the time being, the unity issue may well predominate. I do not vigorously oppose that sentiment, but to suggest you can carve it out and place it over there as one dossier having no consequential effects, that is, the economy having no consequential effects on the national unity debate, is just not in the cards.
It may well be that Parliament should be adjourned for the duration of the campaign. As I have said in my opening remarks, we could have made some arrangements with members opposite to allow members in all of the regions. I sat through a debate and a referendum in 1980.1 sat on the government side. The difference is this is a national referendum and that was the provincial referendum. What we did in 1980 could have been duplicated in 1992.
As a backbencher on the government side, I had to remain here for most of that time while my colleagues from Quebec, each and every one of the 74, went into the province of Quebec and sold the yes side to keep national unity in Canada. Arrangements were made. Numerous members from the hon. minister's party were in opposition, and I make reference to the hon. member for Yellowhead. They participated vigorously and actively in the province of Quebec in that referendum. I salute him for his efforts and contributions.
As a national institution, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and say the economy can sit on the sidelines until we resolve this little file over here.


John Horton McDermid: This has everything to do with the
economy.


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member will have an opportunity to participate. The fact of the matter is that they are inter-related. Therefore the hon. member does agree with my thesis. Therefore the House should sit. The government should put forward a positive program to try to address the evils that are in the Canadian economy instead of running away from its responsibilities.
We have heard it all including the arrogance of the hon. minister opposite and, more important, the arrogance of the administration opposite: only the government has the solutions to the Canadian economy. Let us find out if the Canadian people, for instance in British Columbia, agree that the Tories have the solutions to the Canadian economy. They are at 12 per cent in British Columbia and they are doing very well in their bastion of support in western Canada on the prairies, at 20 per cent.
Their national support is overwhelming. They have all the solutions. No one else has any solutions. Their standing is at 21 per cent in the polls. Such arrogance and insensitivity by the administration has a destiny with failure during the next federal election in this country.
September 17, 1992

There is no justification for this House to agree to an open-ended adjournment. The motion as read by the Clerk of the House says that the House will adjourn to the call of the Speaker.
Canadians and those who view these proceedings must understand what is being suggested here. They are suggesting that the right hon. Prime Minister and all of those members opposite will call Parliament back whenever they feel like it, not when they should, but when they feel like it.
The Constitution says that they have to call it within 364 days. Technically, we could be adjourned for 364 days while they make Orders in Council to appoint their friends to boards and commissions. We could be adjourned for 364 days while unemployment soars. We could be adjourned for 364 days while the welfare rolls double, while Canadians who are in need of medicare are suffering, while students are without work.
It is absolutely incredible to suggest, imply, and then state on the floor of the House of Commons that we will be adjourned until the call of the Chair, until those who occupy the senior positions in the cabinet of the right hon. Prime Minister have an inkling that perhaps Parliament ought to be called back.
I do not think that is what Canadians want. I think Canadians want to know now when we are coming back. What are the proposals that the government will put forward? What will the opposition say to those proposals? What will be the alternatives suggested by opposition parties or other interest groups in the country? They want to know. This government does not care.
This government does not care about this institution. It just cares about the keys. It cares about the keys to the limousines in which the minister gets driven around each and every day. That is what he cares about. That is the only thing that the minister opposite cares about.


John Horton McDermid: We care about Canada.


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member opposite says he cares about Canada. That is a good statement, because I agree with him.
I think in his heart he does care about Canada. Equally so, I think there are millions of Canadians across this country who care about Canada. However, it is the
Government Orders
responsibility of a duly elected national government to not only use its heart with regard to national unity, but it must use its head.
I suggest to the minister that he is not using his head. If he used his head he would realize once and for all that national unity is directly linked to the Canadian economy. To suggest that members on this side are not concerned about one or the other is totally absurd.
The minister finally agrees with my thesis that both are very important. You cannot say to a fisherman who cannot get enough to feed his family, you cannot say to a coal miner who cannot get unemployment insurance, you cannot say to a student who cannot find work or enroll in a post-secondary education that national unity has nothing to do with the Canadian economy.
That is reality. That is not arrogance. That is not insensitivity. That is not playing down the national unity card. That is telling it like it is.
I stood in this House not many days ago and supported the government motion with regard to the referendum. I will go to my riding and I will fight on the yes side. I will join with ministers opposite with regard to national unity, but I will not lie. I will not mislead the Canadian people.
The economy is very, very important in this debate. If ministers opposite do not realize how important it is they run the risk of upsetting the apple cart in different jurisdictions in this country.
There should at least be an early date for Parliament to resume its activities. I have offered, privately and publicly, some suggestions. I have offered an opportunity to negotiate, to try to set in motion with the government opposite a way in which we could work this out, but everything has fallen on a deaf ear.
I believe strongly in this great country and I believe that the economy is an important fundamental to the national referendum. I do not say it is the only one, but it is fundamental. Therefore, I urge members opposite not to dismiss it.
I urge members opposite to realize, as I am sure many of them do, that it is hard to sell national unity to those who are hungry. It is hard to sell national unity to the homeless. It is hard to sell it to students, as I said earlier, without work and opportunities to improve themselves.

September 17, 1992
It is hard to sell it to regions, that for years have been labelled by those in the media and by some in this Chamber as the have not regions of the country.
My province is a great province. At one time, in early Confederation, we enjoyed great prosperity. Today, in many quarters of that great province the dream of prosperity is a dream that they read about in a textbook. I think of the historic capital city of my province, Halifax. It has high welfare rolls and high unemployment. I think of my own area of Cape Breton, where the figure is beyond the national average in some quarters by three and four times-that is 33 per cent to 44 per cent.
I make this intervention highlighting the difficulties that those of us in other regions of the country-not only in the province of Quebec or in the province of British Columbia but in provinces like mine and elsewhere in this country-have ahead of us on this particular issue. I hope the House would come back at an early time to debate those concerns, hear the policy initiatives of a government, respond to the opposition and get on with the job of building a great country.
Canadians want to have a reason to vote yes, and voting yes takes in more than economic reasons. Let us be candid. The government is right on that aspect but it is so wrong if it intends to dismiss that as a major issue in this referendum campaign.
Therefore I move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by inserting between the word
"Chair" and the semicolon, the following:
, which shall be for a date no later than October 28, 1992. [Translation]


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


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you might find that disposition to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, when Canada built the national railroad from coast to coast, it was a structural way of linking each region of the country with other regions. Symbolically the Canadian railroad has accomplished much more than this. It joined the country and unified it as one nation.
The Student Unity Train will travel across Ontario, picking up students at each stop along the line. That is why it is only fitting that during these difficult times the Canadian railway system is being used as a symbol of continuing and strengthening Canadian unity.
Symbolically, the Canadian railroad is much more than this. That is why it is important that Canada's future, the students, be recognized for their efforts to join and unite this country.
Thanks to the University of Western Ontario and the University of Toronto, young Canadian students from universities across Ontario will be boarding the train in October to promote Canadian unity.
In addition, I want to congratulate the Canadian Ethnocultural Council which this morning announced it will support the Charlottetown accord but would propose some improvements to the Canada clause to meet some of their concerns.
Multiculturalism is what Canada is all about.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, many
Canadians have invested a great deal of time and energy
to arrive at a proposal for constitutional reform.

As we prepare for a referendum on the proposal, many of us feel that a resolution of this crucial issue is essential now. I am amazed that anyone would suggest that we place this fundamental issue aside. To suggest that we turn our attention from the Constitution to the economy is even more baffling. Political stability in any country is crucial for economic security.
The strongest action we can take to improve our economy is to vote yes in support of the proposal for constitutional reform on October 26.


CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I support the unity agreement that was reached at Charlottetown, although Canada's largest women's organization has come out against it. Everyone has the right and the responsibility to look at the accord and make their own decisions free of intimidation and threats of loss of funding.
I am confident that the accord is not in any way a threat to either equality rights or social programs. In fact, women have made some gains in this accord and social programs are guaranteed in the Constitution for the first time.
NAC has the right to voice its concerns and to have them taken seriously and discussed. I want to ask the government to refer NAC's concerns about equality rights in the Canada clause to the Supreme Court. That would go a long way to relieve the worries that some women may have about this accord.


CANADIAN VETERANS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board demonstrated their total insensitivity to the veterans of Canada with production and distribution of The Valour and the Horror. They denigrated the contributions to Canada and to world peace by Canadians who served our country in Europe and Asia.
Veterans have protested. Veterans are even in the process of taking action on the basis that the material is essentially hate literature and that it inflames people against veterans. Notwithstanding this, the National Film Board is carrying on its program of distribution of The Valour and the Horror to all who want to rent the material from the NFB.
I call on the Minister of Communications to forthwith stop the National Film Board in this distribution.


CANADA POST
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about post offices in my constituency.
Just recently the St. Vital post office was virtually totally closed and the post office brought about changes to St. Germain, a little community in the southern end of the constituency, changes for the worse, I might add. What has this government done with its postal policy? Marion Grocery, Drake Pharmacy, Metro Drugs, McCullough Drugs, Tache Pharmacy, closed, reduced or cut.
First, there were the supermailboxes, then there were increases in postal stamps with the GST on top of the postage stamps. Now, there are reductions, cuts and what have you.
Who is being inconvenienced with this kind of policy? Everyone is, but clearly people with disabilities, particularly physical disabilities, are finding it extremely difficult to go further, seniors as well and business people too. These people will remember them.

Yes, they will remember their policy.


HOUSING
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for their decision last February to allow first-time home buyers to purchase a home with a 5 per cent rather than a 10 per cent down payment.
During the seven months that have passed since the program was initiated, it has been used by some 42,600 home buyers and 73 per cent of those purchasers would not have been able to buy a home without this program. It has been used most by couples in their late twenties who have an average household income of between $30,000 and $60,000. Almost 60 per cent of the buyers to date have been renters for more than five years, and 18 per cent have been renting for more than 10 years. Clearly this program has been a success, not only because it has increased home ownership, not only because it has increased the supply of available rental

accommodation, but also because it has increased consumer spending and helped to create badly needed jobs.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Amid the hustle of the October 26 referendum date lurks another looming deadline, the renegotiations of the Montreal protocol. I would like to remind this government that we cannot afford to put life on hold for the next six weeks and lose sight of other important issues facing this country and our world.
Canadians have had ample evidence of the disappearing ozone layer this summer. Sunburns and sore eyes were common complaints for most of us. As I have frequently warned, Canada's location in the northern hemisphere means we feel the effects of ozone loss more than most peoples of the world.
In spite of this, the Canadian government will not support the U.S. proposal to phase out methyl bromide. This highly toxic chemical is estimated to break down the ozone at 30 to 60 times the rate of CFCs. The Americans know this must be banned, but our government is wimping out and supporting only stabilization.
Without firm phase-out dates, no alternatives or substitutes will emerge. We will continue to fiddle while the ozone burns.


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, foetal alcohol syndrome is a matter of great concern. I have risen often in the House to address the major and often tragic problems that are involved.
The health issues committee released the FAS report in June of this year calling for government action to help battle this devastating condition. I am pleased the government shares this concern as it mounts the first national symposium on foetal alcohol syndrome to take place in Vancouver from September 30 to October 2.
I personally congratulate the minister of health for his efforts to take one of the recommendations of the committee's report and make it a reality. I believe that the symposium will be a positive step toward the goal of eliminating this national tragedy affecting so many Canadian children and families. The workshops, speeches and panel discussions will assist in educating the medical community as well as provide support to those who are fighting on the front lines against the foetal alcohol syndrome.
There is more that must be done, and I hope the other recommendations of the report will be implemented as soon as possible.


NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, here in this House out of 295 seats, only 40 are held by women. While that indicates a steady improvement, clearly we have a long way to go. I support efforts to encourage the participation of women in politics, but I have concerns with a system whereby seats are designated for women.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has decided to oppose the Charlottetown constitutional agreement, in part due to the lack of a quota for women in the Senate. I disagree with their position. While we should look at ways to encourage more women to run for politics, I believe that in a democratic process women should get elected like everyone else, based on their merits and their abilities. I believe that many women have an important contribution to make to this country, but in my view there are better ways to improve the participation of women in politics than instilling a quota system.


CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I
want to take this opportunity to praise our government's
decision to invest once again in the potential of young

people in our society. The plan is to inject $24.6 million into the Co-operative Education Program.
In addition to being given an opportunity to use the knowledge acquired in school, students will also be able to acquire job experience. These young high school students will have a chance to give the private and public sector the benefit of their dynamic approach, while the latter will be able to give students the benefit of their experience and know-how.
It is imperative to invest in tomorrow's generation. Our government realized long ago that in an increasingly competitive world, we must give our young people all the tools they need to maintain the level of excellence of this country.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on October 26, Canadians face an important test with a single question. It is a test which will challenge their vision, their understanding and their hopes for this great country.
Like many others in this Parliament I will be saying yes on October 26, not because the Charlottetown agreement is perfect. It is not. It is, however, an agreement forged from a Canadian tradition of compromise, tolerance and generosity which is recognized and respected around the world.
It is an agreement which allows all Canadians to say yes, yes to a new constitution recognizing our diversity and addressing historic grievances, yes to a new social contract which is an example of people from disparate backgrounds living and working together in harmony, and yes to a constitution which allows us to move forward with confidence to confront the challenges of a global economy.
I would encourage my fellow Canadians to reflect deeply on how they will meet the challenge on October 26. I will be saying yes to Canada.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Samia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it is welcome news for communities along the Canada-U.S. border, including my riding of Samia-Lambton, to see figures indicating fewer same-day trips to the U.S. compared with the same period last year.
In spite of the news, I remain adamant that it is far too early to claim victory over the cross-border shopping war. Progress has been made, but governments and other stakeholders must not lose sight of the fact that our retailers in border communities are still losing billions of dollars in sales across the border.
One area for continued action must be the elimination of third party tariffs. Those already removed by the federal government were indeed well received by our local retailers, especially on electronics. This has led to lower prices in Samia-Lambton.
The Retail Council of Canada has submitted an extensive list of further products for tariff removal to the Department of Finance. I urge the finance minister to give serious and immediate consideration to these proposals. I am convinced that this is the type of ammunition which our retailers need and require to help them to do battle on the cross-border front.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is happening again. First, there were three airlines, then two, now one. At one time in this country, there was a multiplicity of railroads, then there were two. Now CN and CP are beginning the process to make it one.
CP has announced that the two carriers are close to a merger of their Ottawa Valley lines. They are going to set up a new company to maintain this line, while each carrier would pay to use it. Is this the beginning of the ultimate merger of the two companies? I believe the answer is yes.
This merger, like that in the air, is a direct result of government policies, deregulation and taxation. Will this government ever learn that the population of Canada can only sustain one of each of the modes? I hope they learn before it is too late.
Oral Questions AIRLINE INDUSTRY

September 17, 1992


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, this government has a responsibility to Canadians to reregulate Canada's airline industry. The proposal to merge Canada's two airlines is to deny Canadians access to a safe, affordable and serviceable air industry. The present proposal will affect not only the flying public but also the thousands of Canadians who stand to lose their jobs.
When deregulation was introduced in 1987, it promised increased competition which would bring lower prices, better service and a stable industry. Instead, Canada has lost several of its established carriers, almost
9,000	highly skilled jobs and has two airlines facing huge operating losses and a massive combined debt load of $4 billion, thanks to destructive, predatory policies of this government.
We, on this side of the House, have been warning the government that an airlines crisis was imminent, given the effects of deregulation and high operating costs and taxes. Yet the government has tried to portray this merger as a private matter.
This government must reregulate to ensure the industry operates in a Canadian-controlled, competitive market environment, maximizing affordable, accessible and safe air travel for Canadians.


PERSONS CASE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, the annual Governor General's awards in commemoration of the persons case will be presented on October 20, 1992. The awards commemorate the lengthy political and legal battle that culminated in October 1929 with women winning the constitutional right to be recognized as persons.
The persons case was an historic milestone in women's efforts to achieve equality of opportunity in all of society's endeavours.
In 1979, on the 50th anniversary of the persons case, the Governor General's awards in commemoration of the persons case were created to recognize the outstanding contributions toward promoting the equality of women in Canada.
To date there have been 71 recipients of the award. This year's recipients are of equally impressive calibre. The awards publicly recognize the history of women's advancement in Canada. I am sure I am joined by all members of this House in saluting the efforts of the awards recipients past and present.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on a day when Parliament is about to adjourn for so many weeks, it is incumbent on the Official Opposition to raise once again the plight of youth unemployment, running at about 20 per cent across this country and in my home town even higher than that.
It is unacceptable and unthinkable that the Government of Canada would allow unemployment to run so high and not take any remedial measures. This country has had a series of youth programs to meet high unemployment in the youth in past decades and in more recent times through Katimavik, the Company of Young Canadians, and various other summer and winter employment for young people.
From the benches of this side of the House, once again we raise our voice to ask the government to take remedial action to deal with this social problem that is so acute and so impending on everybody. Ihke the necessary action and reduce youth unemployment in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Canadians have watched with great concern developments in the international currency markets over the past 48 hours. Now the Bank of Canada has responded by increasing interest rates for the second week in a row.
Is it the view of this government that this crisis marks
the end of declining interest rates in Canada? What
plans does the government have while we are still in a
September 17, 1992

Oral Questions
recession? We still have 1.6 million Canadians unemployed and interest rates appear to be on the upswing.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the opposition did not stand up for the last 19 weeks when bank rates were dropping each and every week.
The interest rate increase today of 20 basis points is a reflection of the interaction between the exchange markets and the money markets here in North America.
We do not expect with the settling of the situation in Europe interest rates to rise significantly. I might say to my hon. friend that with the rise in the bank rate, we do not think this will precipitate a rise in the prime rate or the mortgage rates that are being loaned to the public today.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that unlike the government, this party has been standing up for the unemployed for a long time.
Yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister took great delight in quoting International Monetary Fund projections for Canada's economic growth and inflation rates. One IMF forecast he neglected to quote was the forecast for unemployment in Canada.
The IMF says that next year Canada is going to have the highest unemployment rate of all G-7 countries. In light of this fact, will the Acting Prime Minister and the government introduce a major job creation program in Canada, as has been requested by the Leader of the Opposition for the last number of months, to get this economy working again?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, artificially priming the economy is not the answer. That has been tried before and it has not worked. I might remind the hon. member, since he is talking about the IMF and about employment, that he neglected to mention to the House and to the people watching today that the IMF projects that the largest employment growth taking place in Canada will be dramatically much larger than in all the other G-7 countries in the report.
I might also draw to my friend's attention the quote from the IMF report yesterday. "Canada's economy should rebound more rapidly in 1993 than any of the other major industrialized nations". It goes on to say: "A solid foundation for a strong economic expansion seems to be in place", the report said about Canadians, citing "a wide margin of unused resources, substantial progress in reducing the structural budget deficit, an inflation rate that is the lowest among the major industrialized countries and sharply lower interest rates".
That is good news. We believe in good news, not pessimism.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. minister has availed himself of the opportunity to refer to international reports.
I am sure this minister and this government are aware of a report released this week by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which advised industrial countries to increase spending on public works to help get the world economy moving again.
In light of this report and in light of the thousands of jobs it would create, why is the Government of Canada dragging its feet on creating a national infrastructure program for this country which would put thousands of Canadians back to work? Why is it dragging its feet?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister have made it very clear that in co-operation with the provinces there is a plan now to work on the national highway system.
The ministers of transport are meeting today in Quebec City to discuss this issue and to work on those plans that the federal government is committed to. I am sure that announcements will be made at the appropriate time.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister.
While the government is spending millions of dollars on a subjective advertising campaign touting the benefits

Oral Questions
of free trade with Mexico, Statistics Canada informs us that manufacturing shipments dropped over 2 per cent in July alone.
Why does the government not include in its advertising campaign-the brochure that it sent to everyone across the country-the fact that we had a $2.1 billion trade surplus in 1983 and that today we have a deficit of nearly $30 billion? Why would it not tell the truth once and for all?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question gives me the opportunity to report to him Statistics Canada revelation this morning that we have had our sixth straight month of increased exports for Canada.
Two further statistics emerged. This sixth straight month means that we are running about a $19 billion surplus this year. We will be having the highest surplus that we have ever had because of it.
Finally, when one looks at numbers more carefully and when one looks at the manufacturing sector, what happened in 1991 since the trade agreement, compared with 1988, is that manufacturing as a proportion of our over-all exports has increased from 24 per cent to 26 per cent.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister would have everyone believe that things are going well by giving us positive statistics, but I would like to give him one so that he can explain it to us.
If the statistics that he is giving us are true, why have
27,000	manufacturing jobs been lost since the free trade agreement was implemented? A quarter of these jobs have been lost in Quebec in the last three months.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member of something he may not have noticed. There is a world-wide recession going on which has reduced the manufacturing output of virtually every country in the world including Canada.
I should have taken my hon. friend with me this past summer because every week for 19 weeks I opened a
different plant across Canada that was expanding or increasing its capacity. These plants had two characteristics. First, they were manufacturing plants. Second, they were high-tech plants and, third, they were all exporting about 80 per cent of their production.
This part of our economy is growing. It is helping to lead us out of what has been a very difficult economic period.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are related to the North American free trade agreement and I would like to direct them to the Minister for International Trade or a spokesperson today.
Recently Carla Hills admitted to the Senate finance committee in the United States that some industries in the United States would lose jobs because of the North American free trade agreement.
Yesterday another high ranking U.S. official told the Senate that 11 industries including the steel, chemical and refining industries would find substantial incentives for relocating facilities to Mexico.
With the Americans being this candid, will the minister stand and inform the House whether or not his government has done these same kinds of studies and notify all Canadians if the same industries will be affected in Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Hockin, I wish I did not have to do the hon. member's homework for him.
We have published market development studies on NAFTA. All of them indicate very significant opportunities. This market is only 1 per cent of our exports so it is not going to make a tremendous difference overnight.
Let me just tell him that the market development studies are there for him to read: telecommunications equipment, electronic components, tourism, hotel and restaurant equipment, shipping documents, customs regulations, oil and petroleum industry, machine tools, forestry, harvesting, automobile industry and agricultural equipment. I think there are 22 different reports here.
September 17, 1992

Every one foresees increased export opportunities for Canada.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I hate to upset the minister on a nice, quiet Thursday, but he did not answer my question regarding my research and I am shocked. The minister speaks about one page in the report. I want to address another specific question to the minister and I hope he answers it.
The North American free trade agreement has called for a 62.5 per cent content for all manufacturing of automobiles sold in North America without tariff restrictions to be built in North America under this agreement. There is nothing in this agreement to stop the flow of capital for a new capital investment in the North American agreement to be attracted to Mexico because of low wages.
What has the government decided to do as policy to guarantee that the existing jobs here in Canada in the auto industry are not shifted to Mexico because there is nothing in this agreement to stop that from happening?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have told my hon. friend this before in the House and outside the House, but currently 86 per cent of all our imports from Mexico in the automobile parts sector have no tariffs against them whatsoever. If the Mexicans were going to put us out of business on the automotive sector, they could have done it last year, the year before, or this year.
The other 14 per cent of the tariffs are minimal. The problem we have with Mexico is that it has tariffs against us. It has quotas against us. This agreement over 10 years gets rid of those tariffs and almost immediately gets rid of most of the quotas.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the only documented authoritative research production that I have seen was done by Professor Harley Shaiken at the University of San Diego in California. He points out a simple fact at the end of his research. All in costs for automobile production and parts production in Canada are $32 U.S. per hour. All in costs for the United States are $36 U.S. per hour. All in costs for Mexico are $4.80.
Oral Questions
Have the government and the minister insisted on a fair and level playing field and, to maintain the investment in this country on that basis, have the government and the minister insisted that Mexican wages come up to ours rather than ours going down to theirs?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to see if I can find the article of last May. The chairman of Siemens in Canada, a large auto parts and electronics producing company, gave a very interesting interview in which he said that he was going to concentrate most of his expansion in Canada rather than in the southern United States or Mexico. He said the reason he was going to do it was that labour was only about 13 per cent of the cost of the production of his product.
What makes his product competitive is technology, skills and labour turnover. He finds that his labour turnover rate is about one-tenth in Canada of what it is in Mexico or the southern United States.
As a result of that he has confidence in this country. He projected 9,000 jobs for his firm alone in Ontario. Instead of expanding in Mexico or the U.S., he has chosen Canada.


EDUCATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is acting for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
A new school year has just begun but for many young Canadians rather than lining up to pay tuition fees they will be lining up for welfare or to register for UIC. Thousands of students lack the funds to continue their education.
What does the government plan to do to help these students continue their post-secondary education?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a similar question was asked of the minister of employment yesterday. The minister did underline the fact that Canada is probably the second country in the world that invests the most in education with respect to the many students we

September 17, 1992
Oral Questions
have in Canada. Therefore I do not think we should have any shame.
With respect to whether or not there is more to be done, obviously we have the training programs in place to which my hon. colleague seemed to allude when he said they would be waiting in line, a program that was delayed for more than a year by that party.


EMPLOYMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon the House of Commons will be adjourning for the referendum campaign.
I would like to know from the minister what the government's agenda will be to deal with the unemployment problem over the next six weeks. Specifically what does this government plan to do to help the 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the government did not wait for a referendum campaign to put the programs in place in order to deal with that situation.
The hon. member should take the time to look at the programs and to look at the increase in the funding of those programs that was put in place by my colleague, the minister of employment, over the year, notwithstanding the obstruction of that side of the House.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In Cape Breton the unemployment rate is over 22 per cent. Many would say it is much higher. A great number of people are going to face a very bleak winter. The government has had appeals to increase the amount of job creation funding. If they do not have an increase the money is going to be exhausted before the end of the fiscal year.
Will the government recognize the difficult situation that exists and increase job creation funding today?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to another college on the other side of the House, the minister has already increased the funding in the last budget, notwithstanding the fiscal situation that Canada faces in a world recession. I am sure the funding that was provided, again notwithstanding the obstruction for over a year in putting the program in place, will deal with those situations.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing. I am going to suggest something the government can do without it costing anything.
Those who are receiving unemployment insurance cannot attend university or training programs because they would not be available for work, but there is no work. Will the government, at least during this period of high unemployment, and particularly in areas of very high unemployment, allow those who are on unemployment insurance to attend training programs and university so they can at least have the training to make them available for the work when it does occur? It will not cost the government anything. Will the government do that?


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I inform my hon. friend that program is already in place under the fee payer program. I suggest that he contact his constituents and ask them to go to the Canada Employment Centre and apply under the fee payer program. He will be surprised how successful that can be.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism who I believe is acting today for the Minister for International Trade.
Water is clearly a good as that term is used in the NAFTA. It appears as item 2201.90 in the draft tariff phasing schedule. In the absence of any specific exemption for water from those sections of the NAFTA which limit or prohibit government restrictions on the exports of goods, such as those in article 309, Canada's policy of

preventing large volume fresh water exports will run afoul of Canada's commitments under the NAFTA.
Can the minister identify any provision in the NAFTA, not in Canadian policy but in the NAFTA, which would exempt a government restriction on fresh water exports of any kind from those sections of the deal limiting governments' rights to control exports of goods?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very academic and somewhat convoluted exposition. I assure him very briefly that under NAFTA large scale exports of water will be the following: zero.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, as water is clearly included in the tariff schedule as a good, and since the minister seems unable to point to any provision in the NAFTA exempting Canada's policy of prohibiting bulk fresh water export, in light of the NAFTA what steps can the minister take to ensure that Canada's no-bulk exports policy will always prevail over American thirsts?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party raised this issue over and over against the FTA when the FTA came forward. It was phoney then and it is phoney today.
Here are the provisions under NAFTA: as in the FTA, only water packaged as a beverage or in tanks is covered in NAFTA and water itself was not discussed during the NAFTA negotiations with the United States and Mexico.


GIANT GOLD MINE
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Labour.
It has been four months since the strike began at the Giant Gold Mine in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. The federal mediator has long since flown the coop. Negotiations have been halted. All this government's efforts have clearly failed to resolve the crisis.
The government has obviously taken a holiday on resolving this crisis. Will the minister or the acting
Oral Questions
minister act responsibly and meet with the union members who are anxious to get back to the bargaining table now?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, in response mediators have met with both sides, but they have not been able to come to a resolve. We all know that the length of this work stoppage is certainly causing concern to the community.
I would also like to advise the member that a request from the union has been received re appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner. That is one of the latest developments in this situation.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same acting minister.
This has been recorded as one of the most violent strikes in Canadian histopr. Replacement workers continue to be flown in while striking workers and their families continue to struggle. The strike is taking a devastating toll, as my hon. colleague has indicated, on the community and the economy.
These people are asking for the minister's help. Will the minister act on the request, finally take the necessary action and call for an industrial disputes inquiry now?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the minister has received a request from the union for the appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner. The appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner under section 108 of the Canada Labour Code, Part I, is rarely if ever done in protracted collective bargaining disputes.
I want to tell the hon. member, who is greatly concerned and interested in this dispute, that it is being looked at in great detail to see if that can be a consideration to hopefully help with this problem.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport or the parliamentary secretary.

Oral Questions
On June 12 the Minister of State for Transport told this House categorically that no jobs would be lost in the town of Prescott due to restructuring in the coast guard. Since then it has been announced that 20 per cent of the coast guard workforce in Prescott will be eliminated.
The minister also announced that she would write to all coast guard employees in Prescott to reassure them that their jobs would continue in Prescott.
What is the minister going to say now that these jobs will no longer exist in Prescott, after I and the public were given assurance to the contrary?


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not have full details of the situation. I will refer the hon. member's question to the minister and she will get back to him in due course.


Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, these confused messages we are getting are little comfort to those who are seeing their lives in such uncertain terms in the town of Prescott. Living with this uncertainty has gone on plenty long enough.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport this question. Could I get some assurance today that the restructuring of the coast guard in Prescott will be reviewed, based on the assurance I was given on June 12 in the House that no jobs would disappear. It has now been announced that 20 per cent of the coast guard employees' positions in that town will disappear early in 1993.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give the hon. member my assurance that I will direct his worthy concern to the minister for her consideration.


RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Members of the House will recall that this summer I released an internal CN document which pointed to a great many of the troubles it is experiencing as a result of deregulation and free trade.
The document spoke about the possibility of further consolidation with Canadian Pacific. It talked about
selling off the CN Tower as one of the ways of solving CN's financial problems and hinted at things having to do with privatization, et cetera.
Will the Acting Prime Minister make a commitment in the House today that the government will not do as it has just recently done with the troubles in the airline industry, and that is simply take a hands-off approach and allow the two Canadian railways to disappear or to merge, or in some other way to become other than what they are.
Will it take a hands-on approach, finally see the error of its ways, re-regulate and strengthen the Canadian transportation industry, and particularly rail?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continually wants to rush backward into the past. The government is permitting the airline industry, the two companies involved which are privately owned, to work out their problems. We are assisting them where we can reasonably do that.
In the case of Canadian Airlines we agreed to purchase three aircraft from it, which will help it with its cash flow problems very considerably. After that it has to work out its own problems the best way it can. It is responsible for doing that itself.
With respect to other elements of the transportation industry, and the two railways in question, the government will observe its public obligations. The National Transportation Agency will carry out its duties and I know of no emergency that is affecting the two national railway lines at the moment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, a past in which a great many people, in fact tens of thousands of people, had jobs on the railway when it was regulated, and when the government had a commitment to maintain it, does not look so bad to me or to a great many of my constituents, I can tell you.
It is not just a question of the past, so-called, so caricatured by the minister, it is also a question of the future and the fact of rail as the environmental choice when it comes to moving goods across long distances. This government is allowing that mode to deteriorate by virtue of its lack of action.
September 17, 1992

When will the minister make a commitment to the future? Instead of sitting on its hands, when is the government going to do something about revitalizing the rail industry in this country by regulating it so that it can be the preferred mode?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is a real example of a modem day Luddite. The main energy source for the railways used to be coal. At that time you had to have people shovelling coal to keep the coal in the engines. Fewer people work for the railways today because they are no longer powered by coal. They use diesel oil. You do not need people handling shovels to put coal into the engine.
The hon. gentleman wants to blame the government because the world economy changed, its energy sources changed from coal to oil. That is what the hon. gentleman is asking us to do.
I remember the cries that came from the opposition when the car shops closed in Moncton. As a result of our government policies and regional economic development, Moncton today is booming with new energy, new opportunities seized, because of the help given to them by ACOA. The car shops are long gone, but Moncton is doing better than ever.


PRODUCT LABELLING
Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, my question today is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In the United States when a person buys cosmetics, skin care products, sun tan lotion, et cetera, they know exactly what they are getting because the ingredients are listed on the labels. This is important for a person who is allergic to certain ingredients.
What is being done in Canada to ensure that Canadians will have the same information?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Many Canadians suffer profound, untoward side effects from cosmetics.
Oral Questions
A cosmetic is neither a drug nor a food. Therefore, there is no legislation to force companies to list the ingredients. However, I have to say that over the past five or six years there have been many concerns brought before the Department of National Health and Welfare's health protection branch with regard to specific labelling of cosmetics.
In the United States it was enforced in 1977. We issued an information brochure in 1989. The minister does have it under review and is consulting the industry, the consumers' advocates and the people of Canada.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last spring over 1,000 workers were laid off at Denison Mines in Elliot Lake. At the same time that these workers were being laid off, the government was slashing its local employment training programs by some 75 per cent.
Why is the government willing to spend millions of dollars to provide income support through the unemployment insurance program, but flatly refusing to provide any training? These men and women are coming into UI benefits now, but there are absolutely no funds. Why is the government refusing to provide training dollars for this community which has suffered so much?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows in the last budget that funds for training and retraining initiatives under the Canada manpower act have been expanding on a continuous basis. We have been increasingly finding the money with the help of the Minister of Finance to do this.
It is really unfair for that member to say that unemployed people are not given the opportunity to take further training for new jobs. That is happening and it is happening right across the country.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely, categorically wrong. The training dollars in the Elliot Lake manpower office have been slashed from $2.5 million to $600,000, a 75 per cent cut.


Some hon. members:: Shame.

September 17, 1992
Oral Questions


Maurice Brydon Foster: At the same time, 1,000 more people have been laid off at the uranium mines alone.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, speaking on behalf of the minister, when new moneys are going to be put in? Will it be January 1, when the UI training dollars become available?
I want a commitment from him that he will provide at least $1 million more additional training dollars to that CEIC office January 1. Can he give that commitment this afternoon and give these unemployed workers some hope? Can he do that?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend, and I would like to reiterate what I just said, that this government is committed to helping as many Canadians as possible to get the training they need.
This commitment is shown in the $3.5 billion available this year. This is a $450 million increase over last year. More than 190,000 UI claimants received training under section 26 during 1991, of which 39,000 were fee payers. In 1992 it is expected that about 300,000 UI claimants will receive training under section 26, of which 85,000 will be fee payers.
There has been an increase of some 46,000 fee payers over last year. Demand on the government is extremely high this year. We know that. We cannot help train everyone, but we are attempting with the dollars that we have and with the increases we have put in place to do the very best we can possibly do.
We are doing that right across the country, not only in Elliot Lake.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Conservative MPs on the House consumer committee put an end to what was left of accountability by killing hearings on the proposed CP-Air Canada merger.
I want to ask the consumer and corporate affairs minister if he has figured out what he intends to do to defend air travellers against monopoly pricing and whether he will share his thoughts with this House.


Pierre Blais: I think that at this stage the Bureau of Competition Policy and its director have all the necessary resources to examine the issue of competition in the airline industry, Mr. Speaker.
Canada's two major airlines have announced they are planning a merger. So far, no formal request has been submitted to the Bureau of Competition Policy and this was confirmed by the bureau's director. One cannot examine something that is not yet on the table. The Bureau of Competition Policy will take all necessary steps to ensure that competition is maintained in this country, but the proposed agreement must first be finalized and submitted to the bureau.
In the past, we have always acted very prudently because the Bureau of Competition Policy is a quasi-judicial body that acts independently from the government. I do not intend, and I hope my colleague does not intend to suggest the government should interfere with the bureau's work.


Don Boudria: What I intend to do is to ask the minister about his government's policy for defending Canadian consumers. Canadians want to know.
The minister keeps hiding behind the Bureau of Competition Policy, but Canadians want to know what the government's policy will be on maintaining competition. Or has the minister not had enough time to think about it yet?


Pierre Blais: I do not
think that rhetoric of any kind is helpful to debate. I imagine the hon. member knows the Competition Act, so he also ought to know that the director of the Bureau of Competition Policy acts independently of the government.
I do not intend to interfere with the work of the bureau's director. I said, and so did my colleague, the Minister of Transport, that as soon as a definitive merger plan is submitted by the airlines, it is our responsibility to let the National Transportation Agency and the Bureau of Competition Policy make a complete and exhaustive study of the merger plan and ensure that Canadian consumers are protected and competition is maintained.
September 17, 1992

We intend to do just that, and we do not intend to interfere with any of the duties of these two bodies.


VETERANS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Communications.
The minister will know that veterans' organizations right across the country are incensed about the CBC production The Valour and the Horror, co-produced with the National Film Board.
Veterans' organizations have caused a hearing on this matter in the other place. There have been objections right across the country but the film and the material are now being distributed to all comers by the National Film Board; to every school and every library. Whoever wants it can rent it, can get it.
I was wondering if the minister would stand up and announce in this House he is going to interfere with that distribution, certainly at the present time.


Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as with all National Film Board productions, The Valour and the Horror is also available for purchase and rental in thirteen NFB public distribution centres across the country.
As producer and public distributor of films and videos, the National Film Board has complete autonomy in its creative decisions. I think that since it was created, the board has made a name for itself on the basis of quality and Canadians are very proud of the National Film Board's production.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The Secretary of State's chief of staff is on record as having threatened a women's organization by withholding its funds unless it shuts up about the referendum. All
Oral Questions
Canadians have a right to express themselves on this very important issue in our free and democratic society.
Will this government state clearly that this kind of intimidation by senior government staff will not be tolerated? Will it guarantee to put a stop to this intimidation immediately?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State I would like to assure my colleague that he in fact is meeting at this very time with the Federation des femmes du Quebec to clear up any misunderstanding which may have come about as a result of that conversation.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the tape we heard last night did not leave any room at all for any kind of misunderstanding.
We know that many groups which receive government funding will be campaigning on the yes side, which is the side that I will be supporting. There is a democratic principle at stake here, a very important democratic principle about freedom of expression and the right to state your position.
I would like to hear that the government will immediately put a stop to the kind of intimidation that was clearly stated for the public to hear.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that there will be no intimidation.
As parliamentarians and ministers, we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada that moneys voted by Parliament are in fact used for the specific purposes within the criteria that is required.
That is what the minister is going to assure himself of and I am sure will clear up any misunderstandings on this matter.


IMMIGRATION
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration whom I have advised that my constituent, Nuru Haider, has been told by immigration officials to leave Canada early next month with or without her Canadian bom 15-month old daughter and to return to

Oral Questions
Kenya where in the past she has been assaulted and gang raped by the police.
Is the minister prepared to allow Ms. Haider's husband, who is a landed immigrant and who has a job here, to renew the sponsorship of his wife that he temporarily withdrew or alternatively, will he issue a minister's permit on humanitarian and compassionate grounds? This is much more than just a refugee issue. This is a women's issue.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question of my hon. colleague and transmit the information to the minister of immigration who I am sure will get back to the hon. member as quickly as possible.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance.
The House and Parliament are adjourning later today until late this year. The Constitution is on the front burner of Ottawa and the country. Winter is approaching and we have an economic recession that is painful for all Canadians. It is merely going along its way without any sensitive and substantive response from this government.
Now that Canada enjoys the highest unemployment record along with another country of the G-7 and next year that award will be solely ours, how can this government be indifferent to the economic pain of Canadians and when will it begin to stimulate and kick-start Canadians on putting them back to work so that this country can once again resume its rightful position in terms of economic prowess?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member came a little late to Question Period because that was the same question which was asked by his colleague who is sitting right in front of him in the House.
Let me repeat what I said to his hon. colleague. What he fails to mention is that Canada is going to experience growth next year. It has been projected to have by a very wide margin over the other countries in the G-7 the largest employment growth.
We have been commended by all those who have watched the activities of this government of getting interest rates down in mortgage terms, some figures we have not seen since the early 1950s. The hon. member says results have not happened. Housing starts are up, resales are up rather dramatically, so there is activity in the marketplace.
Jobs have been created. Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been created in the last few months which are very important. There is activity in the country. This fall, we expect to have a modest growth and into next year, very substantial growth, the largest in the G-7.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Indian Affairs.
Mr. Andre Tremblay, one of the Quebec government's top constitutional advisers, revealed at a Quebec Chamber of Commerce committee meeting that the minutes of the first ministers' meetings held in Ottawa and Charlottetown contain secret agreements on the aboriginal question.
Can the minister confirm or deny the existence of such agreements?
If she confirms their existence, can she tell us whether the government intends to make these agreements public so that Canadians, Quebecers and native people can make a fully informed decision in the referendum on October 26?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the coming referendum cam-

paign, we will have more and more of this kind of rumour or public statement from either side of the issue.
Members of this House should have enough experience and maturity to believe those who are worth believing. The coming referendum in Quebec is a great victory for Quebec and a great victory for Mr. Bourassa. I think we should go on that basis and stop believing what anyone might say about anything.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 13284); and the amendment of Mr. Dingwall (p. 13278).
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this is a motion for the adjournment of the House so that members can return to their ridings to participate in the referendum campaign.
It is an opportunity to reflect on the situation that we find ourselves in and on what has happened this last week as we prepared ourselves to go back to our ridings for the referendum campaign. What happened this week is a good example of what is wrong with the situation in which we find ourselves. At the same time as the three leading political parties in the country have managed to come together to co-operate with respect to the yes side in the referendum, in the same week, we see legislation before the House which in my view is part of the problem.
The problem is that at the same time that we have been talking about building up Canada through the pursuit of national unity and new constitutional agreements, renewed federalism, all that sort of thing, the policies of this government have been leaning on the other hand to the destruction of Canada as we have known it and have therefore reduced the resolve of Canadians with respect to the future of Canada. In other words, the Canada that people might once have been stimulated to save, the Canada that people might once have been excited about, felt good about, is a Canada
Government Orders
that hardly exists anymore as the result of the policies of this government.
I think this is one of the reasons why initially we find a general lack of enthusiasm for the yes side in the referendum, because people do not feel good about the country. One of the reasons they do not feel good about the country is that the country has been so transformed negatively as a result of the policies of this government over the last eight years.
You cannot ask people to respond as if they are a community when all the while with the other hand you are tearing down those things which have tended to build up community in Canada. You cannot ask people to act as a community when with the other hand as the government has it has been damaging national institutions, in some cases getting rid of them altogether, damaging national symbols and in some cases getting rid of them altogether.
It is in effect saying to people that we are not a community. There are no borders. As a result of free trade, deregulation and things like that notions of community, notions of acting for the common good are antiquated, are romantic notions.
The government over the last eight years has really acted to discredit the very instincts, the very notions that it would now like to have there as a resource in the yes campaign.
Take for example earlier today when I rose in the House to ask the government a question about Canadian National on an issue I raised this summer about the document I received which called into question the survival of CN. I asked the minister a question about that and I was hardly taken seriously. In fact the minister called me a Luddite, as if I had some inappropriate preoccupation with the past when I talked about the need to reregulate transportation and to strengthen Canadian National and for that matter to strengthen the entire railway system.
I think this is part of the problem. The fact is that particular question of mine and others like it are not even understood any longer by the government. They are not even understood by members opposite.
This last week, for instance, we saw the final vote on the bill which brought an end to the first universal social program in this country, the family allowance, ironically

Government Orders
the night before the funeral of Paul Martin Senior, one of the architects of that particular program.
We saw today the introduction but not the end of the debate concerning an extension of the drug patent laws for 20 years so that the multinational drug companies will be able to make more money as a result of their inventions. In so doing it will bring an end to the kind of drug laws we have had in this country for so many years whereby generic drug makers were able to much more quickly get on the market and produce cheaper imitations of the same drug. This has been a characteristic of Canada.
It is one of the things that people have taken pride in; their health care system both in terms of medicare and our generic drug laws and various things like this. No matter where we turn, whether with respect to our health care system, our transportation system, our education system-and the list goes on and on-people feel that somehow the Canada they were attached to is disappearing. Yet while that is happening they are being asked by the government to save Canada, allegedly by voting yes in the referendum campaign.
I intend to vote yes in the referendum, but I do it only in the sense that I want there to still be a Canada to rebuild when that happy day finally arrives and the government on the other side is defeated. Then we can begin to put together the pieces that have been scattered all over the floor by the government opposite. That is, unfortunately, the context in which we find ourselves.
One of the other things that has been at issue this week as we adjourn has been the government's strategy and position with respect to the North American free trade agreement. Tapes have been released which show that the government in its private conversations does not intend to sell the deal on its merits, but rather it intends to malign and attack the enemies of the deal in an ad hominem way. Ad hominem is one of the first fallacies you learn in first year philosophy. An ad hominem argument is the resort of scoundrels. Instead of attacking the person's position on something you attack the person rather than the argument.
Obviously the government has adopted an ad hominem strategy when it comes to the NAFTA. Rather than defending the agreement on its alleged merits, instead it
intends to attack the opponents by referring to them variously as crypto-communist, NDP, Liberal, pinko or whatever other names it might have for people who are opposed to the agreement.
Actually this kind of rhetoric and name calling points up a dimension of the debate about the free trade agreements that is neglected, in my judgment, and the fact is that these agreements and the debates surrounding them are philosophical arguments. They are ideological arguments. It is a mistake to try to sort them out in terms of whether it is a good deal or a bad deal or whether this tariff has disappeared or access will be had to this or that market on whatever terms and conditions.
What we are debating is the appropriateness of the entire philosophy which underlies the world view of the free traders. The world view of the free traders is basically that there is no such thing as community and that there should not be in place the capacity of communities, whether those communities are understood as provinces, countries or whatever, to act in the interests of the community against the workings of the marketplace.
That is really the crux of the matter and that is why we in the NDP, unlike our Liberal colleagues, are so committed to the abrogation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and to not carrying through with the North American free trade agreement because the philosophy which these agreements assume and reinforce are so contrary to our view of the role of the marketplace in society.
We believe that the marketplace has a role, but it is a role which should be constrained, regulated and controlled for the common good. That is completely foreign to the kind of one dimensional ideological world view that is taking over the world, or at least North America, with the passage of these various free trade agreements.
The timing could not have been worse for the North American free trade agreement in terms of this other task we have before us, that is of trying to get people to see the wisdom of saying yes to the Charlottetown accord. There are so many Canadians who are so angry about the North American free trade agreement and what it represents as the next stage in this destructive process I have talked about, that they are finding it very difficult indeed to separate their anger about that and
September 17, 1992

make what I think is the wise decision about the Charlottetown accord.
Yesterday our House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops, asked the Prime Minister if he would stop this massive advertising campaign on the North American free trade agreement. If there is going to be an advertising campaign in support of the Charlottetown accord, if those ads are accompanied or complemented in the same hour or in the same day by ads in favour of the North American free trade agreement and all this pomposity with respect to prosperity that we get on the radio and TV, et cetera, people are going to be so angiy that they are not going to be able to hear that other message.
All we asked for was a cease-fire so to speak. Obviously we are going to continue to talk about the North American free trade agreement and the government will continue to think about it in its own way, but what we asked for was a temporary end to that advertising so that while we are trying to get people to think about the Constitution we are not going around poking them in the eye with respect to the North American free trade agreement.
I thought that maybe just once, just this once, the Prime Minister would see the wisdom of that and agree to call an end to that advertising campaign. As we said, it would only be on a temporary basis. Though I would like to see it ended forever because I think this kind of advocacy advertising, before Parliament has passed something, is politically wrong. It is an affront to democracy. I feel like the Soviet Union disappeared on the other side of the world and reappeared here with respect to propaganda.
There was a time when this kind of advocacy advertising, when it was first tried by the Liberals during the constitutional debate in 1981, was thought to be terrible by everyone. The really scary thing is the way in which we have become kind of resigned to this. We have become kind of resigned to the fact that the government will spend millions of our own money trying to persuade us of things that have not even been passed by Parliament.
People fuss for a day. The media pays attention for a day and then it is over. It is really no big deal. What are we sliding into here when all of us seem to be resigned to
Government Orders
the fact that this is the way governments work now, that their advertising budget continues to grow and grow while Canadians find themselves unemployed and families find themselves unable to make ends meet? Just think how those millions of dollars could be alternately and more wisely and more compassionately used.
As I say, we have raised the matter but it does not seem to go anywhere. The Prime Minister gets up and says that this advertising is purely explanatory in nature and does not take sides, it is just to provide information. There is a big yawn and the matter goes no further. This is truly mystifying and I think truly scary in the long run.
A number of members here today have mentioned, in a variety of ways, the plight which a great many young Canadians find themselves in. They are either unable to find jobs or, having gone back to school, are unable to find the part-time employment that they need in order to carry on. Certainly the kind of summer jobs that existed when I was a student are no more. I have had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the student union at the University of Manitoba and University of Winnipeg. They have had conveyed to me their concern about the declining ability of students, particularly students from middle to working class backgrounds, to make a go of it at university.
I raise this because when we are talking about the referendum and the future of Canada, the people who have the greatest stake in it are young people.
They are the ones who are going to have to live a long, long time with whatever the consequences are of whatever Canadians choose on October 26.
One of the things that might motivate them on that day will be whether they feel the country and the leaders who are asking the young people to have confidence in them, the leaders who put the agreement together, have enough confidence in the young people to truly invest in their future, in the quality of their education, in their accessibility to that education. It is one thing to have a lot of high-falutin phrases in the Canada clause and in the social and economic union about quality post-secondary education but it is another thing to put your money where your mouth is and make sure that young Cana-

Government Orders
dians, regardless of their circumstances, have access to that high quality education.
In that respect, I cannot think of anything that struck me more strangely and more offensively than learning this week-and maybe I should have known this before, maybe others know it-that the Prime Minister has his teenage son in an American private school. I do not make any apologies for this. I cannot think of a symbol that is worse for Canada than for people to know-better it should have been kept a deep, dark secret, one we never knew-that their Prime Minister sends his child to an American private school. For one thing it is enough that it is private. Second, it is even more offensive that it is American.
Every once in a while I am tempted, like a lot of other people, to think that maybe I am just old-fashioned to think about the class society and that maybe divisions are disappearing and we are all just one big happy family. Every once in a while I get smacked in the face with reality. This story about the Prime Minister's educational strategies for his children reminds me of where I come from, where a lot of my constituents come from, how great the gap is, and I guess how great the gap will always be between us and them.
There are ways that the government could proceed if it were serious about trying to allay a lot of the fears that Canadians have which are preventing them from thinking clearly about the referendum.
The final suggestion I would make, and I put it on the record here, is that the Prime Minister should consider, privately for now, that if in the course of the referendum campaign it becomes obvious that his personal unpopularity is standing in the way of Canadians voting yes for the constitutional package, he should do the right thing and promise to resign if people would vote for the package. If he would put the country ahead of his own personal political ambitions, it would go a long way toward alleviating a lot of the fears that Canadians have and some of the calls that I have had that the Prime Minister is getting in the way of people feeling good about what they otherwise should feel good about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the amendment moved by the Official Opposition.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Allmand	Baker
Chadwick	de Cotret
Harb	Heap
Oberle	Reid
Rompkey	Thacker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the amendment lost.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting round of debate on the earlier motion and we are now engaged in a debate on the adjournment of the House through to the call of the Chair.
We have the opportunity to debate, among other things, the linkage of the economy to the constitutional issue. We have heard a number of points made on that and I just very briefly wish to comment on them. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond suggested the rules of the House of Commons had been changed last year so all of the opposition days for the autumn would be lost. That is not consonant with the facts. One opposition day has already been added to the schedule and others will be added in proportion to the number of days we sit.
Government Orders
listening that no closure rule has been used for well over a year in this House. Time allocation motions have been used, but even they were not used for a 14-month period from the time of the change of the rules until June of this year.
I wonder if this hardened stance on the part of the Liberal House leader relates to a rejection of the further reforms contemplated by the House of Commons. He said we had killed family allowances in Canada. In fact, $2.1 billion is being added to family benefits. That amounts to $500 per family for the working poor. Those family benefits will be received by 85 per cent of all families.
He commented adversely on the economy and ignored the international monetary fund figures for 1993, which show Canada leading the G-7 countries with 4.5 per cent growth next year and 2.2 per cent employment growth, the highest in the G-7. Canada has the lowest interest rate among those countries and the lowest inflation rate. The government has been congratulated by the IMF for holding firm in difficult times.
This motion does not propose to send Parliament away for an indeterminate period. The opposition House leader suggested that Parliament would not sit for 364 days. I suggest, with great respect, that is misleading the House and the Canadian public. What is contemplated in the resolution is the flexibility to have Parliament called back when it needs to be called back, including sufficient eventualities during the referendum campaign itself. I suspect if my friend opposite were to poll members of his own caucus, he would find they want to get out and campaign on the yes side. I suspect he does too, as he stayed here in 1980 as a matter of duty.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party wishes to campaign and does not wish the House to be in session during the referendum campaign. Of course the referendum, has everything to do with the economy. Premier Getty of Alberta commented yesterday if Canada disintegrates we would be moving from G-7 to G-77.
I do believe my friend opposite was contradicting himself and defeating his own argument in his earnest but hapless attempt to emulate his mentor.
He also referred to what he called the remorseless use
of streamlined closure rules to muzzle debate in this I think none of us would ever forgive ourselves, nor Parliament. I would point out to him and to the public would our electors who care about Canada, if we did not

Government Orders
do all we could to promote the positive result on October 26. I am sure most colleagues would agree with that.
Therefore I would move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word "Chair" in
both paragraphs, the following:
"but no later than November 16, 1992".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I therefore declare the motion in order.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, this is a small gain. It is a change of attitude on the part of the government. The date of November 16 is better than maybe, we will see the Chair will decide. Let us say we are not unhappy that the government finally agreed on a date. November is better than no date at all.
The Liberal caucus was concerned whether the government had really given some thought to the problems experienced by Canadians, and whether it was not recognizing its inability to act and to try to find solutions to the national problems regarding the economy and the national unity. The inability of this government to submit concrete proposals to alleviate the problem of poverty in this country is nevertheless obvious. Indeed the government has demonstrated its inability to propose aggressive economic measures to correct the mistakes caused by its administrative incompetence.
The economy is something important because it is an integral part of this element in our country which wants it to work, to prosper and to be united. At a time when our country is experiencing serious economic problems the government says: "We will wait before talking about these issues, before implementing concrete solutions".
This is why Liberals proposed coming back immediately after the referendum, on October 28. Our motion was rejected. I say as I said earlier that it is not great to come back on November 16, but it is nevertheless better than coming back God knows when.
I want to remind the hon. members that the Liberal caucus had made an offer to the effect that the House would come back every week during the referendum campaign as we have done in the past. We could have sat
perhaps three days, with the guarantee-at least from the party representing the Official Opposition-that no delaying tactics would have been used to tiy to embarrass the government. This would have given the government the opportunity to propose useful economic measures to help Canadians find jobs and, in some regions of the country, improve economic conditions.
It is difficult to talk about unity to a hungry person. It is extremely difficult to talk about national unity to an unemployed person. It is impossible to talk about national unity to people who live in a region where the unemployment rate is somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent. Perhaps it is time to reflect on that and realize that a dynamic and strong economy is what Canada needs right now.

We agreed that we should be in the field with the troops to win the referendum. We must win this referendum. It must be a yes win. What we have to lose is too important. The real issue before Canadians is not whether there are in the agreement legal terms, commas and all kinds of concepts that most of us fail to understand, the issue before the Canadian public is whether we have a future together in this country. That is the issue in this referendum.
We agree that we want to be in the field with the troops to win this referendum. The future of the country is too important to most of us, not the shape or the form of the future but the future together. That is what we are talking about. That is why we say we have to be out there supporting the yes side. As far as I am concerned, in Ottawa-Vanier and in the national capital there will be an active committee that will be felt, will be seen, will be heard and I hope will be understood. The question is very simple: Do we have a future together? The answer is yes.
Let us look at the record of this government in this session.


Mr. Milliken:: We will get depressed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It will be very depressing, but that is reality. My friend from Kingston and the Islands is right. It is depressing. One must look back and see what happened so that one can move forward, correct and possibly improve things.
September 17, 1992


An hon. member:: Let's go back to the Trudeau years.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I heard a comment, "Let us go back to the Trudeau years". I was here during those years. I do not apologize for that at all.


Mr. Mills:: It would be a lot better than what we have. He would win every seat in the country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will pass over that remark because that would open up a beautiful debate which I do not want to have at this time because it deals with national unity and the sentiments expressed by people against a personality.

From May 1991 until today we have passed 72 government bills on third reading, 2 government bills from the Senate, and 4 private members' public bills.
During this same session 60 per cent of the House's time has been spent on government orders, while less than 8 per cent of the time has been spent on Private Members' Business.
On behalf of the people of Ottawa-Vanier, my constituents, I have debated such contentious matters as the fiscal arrangements between the federal government, the provinces and federal contributions for postsecondary education and health.
I have opposed the harmful changes to the Canada Assistance Plan and the lamentable budget presented by the Conservative government, which as we know resulted in the closure of the Science Council of Canada located in my riding. I have opposed the abolition of the Court Challenges Program and the end to universal social programs that the government imposed yesterday with closure.
They are so ashamed of their policies that they must impose limits on debate, for fear that Canadians will see that they are intellectually bankrupt.
The Conservatives' favourite target, public servants, was not spared in this session. Besides closing many Crown corporations, resulting in many layoffs, the government forced public servants back to work and initiated an unfair pension bill that is still before the Senate and being discussed.
The advent of free trade with the United States and Mexico, the worsening Canadian economic situation, the growing number of unemployed, welfare recipients and
Government Orders
homeless have made Canadians lose confidence in their system of government.
There is high price of gasoline, the closing of postal stations, the cuts in funding for the housing program and the abolition of the co-operative housing program. Last Saturday I inaugurated a housing co-op, the last one in my riding, because this government has abolished the co-op program. This program first began in Ottawa- Vanier, in 1971.1 have had the honour to preside at the opening of a dozen affordably priced housing co-ops. Now the Conservative government has abolished this program, which was a good one.
There is the privatization of Telesat, the lack of attention to pollution problems in the national capital region. The Rideau River in my riding is polluted and the government has done nothing. We have petitioned and urged it to take concrete action with the province of Ontario, but nothing has been done.
If there was something more positive in this session, it is the constitutional consensus among the federal government, the provincial and territorial governments and native peoples. We have debated it in this House and I have given my opinion on it. I think I have taken a fairly clear position in the debate. I am for the referendum.
All Canadians agree that we are quite fed up talking about the Constitution. That is true, I admit. I know what I am talking about because it happened to me again yesterday. Someone told me that he would vote no in the referendum. I asked him if he had read the package. He said no. I told him that was too bad.
Uninformed decisions do not make good decisions. Therefore I urge Canadians to contact their members of Parliament or the committee to request information on what we are dealing with here. There is no need to pay too much attention to the wording, to the form of the agreement. Let us look at what it is intended to achieve. Its purpose is simple: to determine whether or not we want to remain united. Do we or do we not have a future together? That is the question. The wording is not that important. I am not familiar with constitutional drafting. What can I say? Not every one is excited to the point of spending their days and their nights drafting constitutions. We are sick and tired of talking about the constitution. Let us move. That is a good idea. On October 26 we will decide our collective future. I hope it will be a

Government Orders
positive decision. At any rate I pray to God that it will be, for our sake, because we stand to lose too much.

I want to talk about the economy because I really believe we cannot talk unity to Canadians who are hungry, who are badly housed and who are unemployed.
Those on the government side, and I heard them today in Question Period, say that the recovery from our prolonged recession is on the way, but I am not convinced yet. I wish it was but look at the facts.
Growth has been very low; 1.7 per cent in the first quarter of this year and even less in the second quarter. These are not the kinds of figures that are going to provide us with a strong recovery and the government knows that. Our growth is fuelled chiefly by our exports to the United States.
This means our economy is still extremely vulnerable, with continued growth dependent on the uncertain stability of the American economy as well as those of other major training partners such as Japan and Europe which are-just listen to the news today-having their own economic problems these days.
Yet our exports are the only hope at this time for growth. If there is no growth, there is no expansion. If the philosophy of the private sector is that we must cut expenditures because we have to make some profits and by cutting expenditures they cut staff, that does not create jobs. They must expand. We must give them that confidence. They must acquire this renewed confidence in this country. Once this referendum is over we must see some renewed investments, some stimulants.
In late July of this year the Bank of Nova Scotia presented its depressing outlook for our economy and said that the Canadian economy is going through the worst four years since World War II and we will probably have to wait until 1994 to regain the jobs lost since the recession began in April 1990. It is not me saying that; it is a respected bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia. What has the government done toward new job creation I ask? Nothing.
Another sign of weakness in the economy is that pre-tax corporate profits have fallen 50 per cent since 1988, which is much greater than the 30 per cent they fell
during the recession of the 1981-82 period. Tory times are tough times, as I hear one of my colleagues reminding me.
The fall in profit means that job creation will continue to be slow for some time and the government still sits on its hands. Furthermore, debts are at a record level relative to disposable income, with the average household using nearly 10 per cent of take home pay to pay off debts. Consumers are taking their time to pay off their debts before they are willing to spend more. It is unlikely they will ever return to the spending levels of the 1980s.
There has been no relief, and none is in sight, for the jobless with the Tories at the helm. Unemployment is at an eight-year high of 11.6 per cent; 1.6 million Canadians are unemployed, and that does not count those who have abandoned all hope of ever finding a job. Nineteen per cent of students who have graduated from our universities and our post-secondary schools cannot find jobs. Those are alarming statistics.
During July, full-time jobs decreased by 129,000 while part-time jobs increased by 100,000. This decline in full-time employment was the eighth decrease in the previous nine months. Last month, the economic forecasting firm Informetrica recommended that Canadians should complain more loudly to the federal government so that it will do something about the disgraceful level of unemployment. Informetrica believes that the jobless rate will not improve before 1996. That is three and a half years from now.
Are Canadians supposed to give up working for three and a half years? We all know that the longer one is out of the labour market the more difficult it usually is to re-enter it. As unemployment benefits run out people are forced to turn to welfare, since there are few jobs available.
In 1991, 8.5 per cent of the Canadian population, that is two to three million people, were on welfare. Does this government not believe that this is totally unacceptable in this country?
The National Council on Welfare recently pointed out that the number of Canadians on welfare is rising, partly as a result of changes that the Conservative government has or has not made in job strategy. Unemployment legislation is not encouraging at this time.

Government Orders
In my riding of Ottawa-Vanier there are many poor children and many families receiving social assistance. Tax statistics for 1990 show that the lowest income earners are both single parents and couples of Ottawa- Carleton. The over-all area of the national capital. It is discouraging. The demand for welfare in Ottawa-Carleton grew by 42 per cent last year. This is supposed to be fat cat city. This is supposed to be Ottawa, the national capital, the fat cat city. There was a 42 per cent increase last year in welfare cases. As of March there was a case-load of 29,428 individuals or families on welfare in this area. This year the increase is expected to be about 24 per cent. All together about 12.8 per cent of the population will receive some sort of social assistance. It is depressing.
These living standards are particularly damaging to the future of children. I know that the members care for children. A report published by the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton in September 1990 found that 14 per cent of children in this region were living in poverty, based on the 1986 census. That amounts to more than 19,000 children in this area. We can imagine that the situation has only worsened given the length of this recession.
In the city of Vanier in my riding the rate soars to 31 per cent of children living in poverty. That is truly unacceptable by any standards, by any Canadian standards.
However, all the government offers to these people is legislation like Bill C-80 which was passed last night, with time limitations imposed by the government so that we would not have time to explain to Canadians what it was all about.
Bill C-80 will change absolutely nothing for the poorest families. Single mothers on social assistance will receive no additional benefits from Bill C-80. In Ottawa-Carleton 33 per cent of single mothers with children live in poverty. In my riding 20 per cent of my families are single parent families, mostly run by women. They have a hard time making ends meet.
I beg this government to come up with policies that will help the poor, that will help the badly housed, that will help the unemployed, and to do it quickly.


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, my colleague said it would be important to be in the field during the referendum campaign. I could not agree more, and that is exactly what the members of the Bloc Quebecois will do. We have to be given the chance to speak freely even so.
No later than yesterday the Federation des femmes du Quebec denounced a decision by the Secretary of State of Canada about the delay in the annual grant payment to the federation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I shall remind the hon. members that the questions and comments must relate to the speech made by the previous speaker. In this case the motion before us deals with the adjournment of the House. Therefore I ask the hon. member to speak to the point.


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we talked about how important it is for all Canadians to vote on this issue. My colleague said in his speech: "Read the documents before voting". I figure I am on the right track.
Yesterday some people were told they would not get their grant unless they formally agreed not to take an official stand in the debate. They were told: "If you are being fed by those who champion a cause, it is just too bad. You have to make choices in life".


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has the floor is waxing eloquently on something that is not very relevant to the subject matter at hand or is in response to the numerous very thoughtful comments that have been made by my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier.
I am wondering if the Chair would take under advisement, not in any way to prejudice the hon. member from making interventions, the rule of relevancy and would adhere to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I shall once again call for the co-operation of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie in speaking strictly to the point.

Government Orders


Gilles Duceppe: Let me repeat word for word what my hon. colleague said. Of one of my constituents who wanted to vote no he asked: "Did you take the time to read the documents?" I guess there are people who have and who want to make themselves heard. Some did, like Alliance Quebec, and they get grants from the Secretary of State. Others would like to, but they are told they are threatened about loosing their grants."
I would like my colleague to explain how he expects us to be able to go into the field. He did talk about going into the field to discuss the national unity issue with all Canadians. How can this be done? Are we committing ourselves, as Canadian parliamentarians, to abide by the Quebec referendum act?


Marcel R. Tremblay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
As I read over government orders, it occurs to me that what is being debated is the adjournment motion. However, I fail to see how the hon. member's remarks fit in with the present adjournment debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am willing to show some flexibility in this case because the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie did refer to comments made by the previous speaker. I would ask him to conclude.


Gilles Duceppe: 
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to answer this question, and I welcome the opportunity to do so.
If I understood the adjournment motion correctly, this is supposed to be an open debate in which members may raise a variety of subjects or issues. That is what I did during my speech. I talked about the economy and
national unity. I think the question is relevant because it concerns a matter I raised in my speech, namely whether the Charlottetown agreement should be supported by all Canadians. I think it should. I know the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie does not agree, but in a democratic society he has that right. I do not agree with him either, but in any case the Charlottetown agreement is a compromise. If we look at the definition of the word compromise in the dictionary, we will see it means an arrangement in which mutual concessions are made.
Mutual concessions were made, and I think that should be sufficient. As I said several times in my speech, the issue is not whether these are the proper legal or constitutional terms but whether we really want to live together and have a future as Canadians, and that is what I say when people ask whether the answer to the referendum question should be affirmative or negative. My answer is affirmative. We should have a future as Canadians.
To answer the hon. member's specific question, I think he is speaking on behalf of a group in Quebec that complained when an assistant to the Secretary of State called to say that he expected the group to remain neutral in the referendum campaign. I do not know exactly what terms were used by this person, but I heard the story today on the national news.
I would not like to see anyone gagged in this debate, a democratic debate in which I expect my colleague and I will often disagree. I often disagree with him, but we respect each other as individuals, and I think that is democracy.
I am not worried about the fact that some members do not like the question. I am not surprised since they are bent on destroying my country, but I cannot help that. They will try to convince Canadians they are right, and I hope they do it democratically. However, I think the hon. member will be very disappointed in the results, because the yes group will win.
As for his specific question, I am a member of the opposition, so I cannot speak for the government. As far as I am concerned, I do not think anyone should be gagged. Just because they are receiving government grants is no reason why they should not speak out. The minister might have more information, but this is not my province. I am from Ontario, and I would be concerned if this happened in my own riding. I realize he has the right
September 17, 1992

to ask the question, but I think he realizes it is not up to me to provide the answer.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to listen to the excellent presentation made by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier.
I wanted to ask him something in addition. There was something he left out, and I am sure he left it out because of time constraints. I have a question, well I will not be greedy.
How does he feel about the timing of the GST on top of all these things that he mentioned? How are his constituents reacting to that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, they hate it, they hate it, they hate it in every language, official or unofficial. They would love to have an election on the issue.
All I can say to my colleague from Newfoundland, as chairman of the public accounts committee, is that I wish the government would have the guts to do an evaluation of the GST program as a financing tool of government. I think it would find out that it would be rejected by 90 per cent of Canadians and it would find other means of maybe getting the revenues, but not the GST. It is a bad tax and we know it.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House today to address this motion of adjournment.
There is a basic question that I want to begin with. Why is it that my party wanted to stay longer, wanted to return during the referendum, and wanted to come back sooner? There is a very simple answer, and my colleagues would agree, which is that there is work to do. There is a great deal of'work to do.

There is a lot of work to do, but I will concentrate on the economy and then go on to the Constitution and the referendum.

Let us talk of the country today. By all standards, by all evaluations, people would agree that we are in serious
Government Orders
difficulties. Unemployment exceeds 1.6 million. Student unemployment this summer was 17.7 percent. It was the worst summer that students have ever experienced. I know that things are tough everywhere but that does not make it easier for Canada.
There are now 2.2 million people on social assistance programs.
It is over two million Canadians who need to take advantage of those to find the basic benefits of living. We have food banks which will nourish over two million Canadians this year. There will be two million Canadians who go to those food banks.
There may be some who go more than once, obviously, but that is an astronomical figure. It is much, much too high. It is totally unacceptable. What is worse is that roughly 40 per cent of the people who will have to go to those food banks are young people, 18 years of age and younger.
If you look at the poor in this country, it depends upon whose statistics you use, you have between four million and five million poor. They are people who are living at the level of poverty or below the level of poverty. That is really, really unacceptable.
The majority of those particular individuals are women. More than one million of those people are children. There is work to do. There is a great deal of work to do.
In my province of Manitoba we have one of the worst problems in Canada with respect to poverty for children. We have thousands of homeless people in this country, and they need to be attended to.
I come from a background of education and I take a great deal of interest in what is happening in our country.

About 30 per cent of young people have dropped out of school now. They do not know exactly where to go and what to do with their life. That is another challenge for the government. I know that there have been many initiatives and many efforts have been made to correct the problem, but we know very well that there has not been much success.

September 17, 1992
Government Orders

I wish my colleagues would come to my office in Winnipeg at 238 St. Maiy's Road and examine some of the files of people who have come in with concerns. I have some people with double degrees, masters degrees, young men and women who are extremely competent, highly motivated and who are skilled but cannot find a job.
Some can find very short-term jobs at extremely poor remuneration. I had a student of roughly 30 years of age with a masters degree in economics who had a six-week contract working at $6 an hour during the summer. That is all that could be found in the city of Winnipeg.
I have a number of other cases like that which are just as painful for me. It is extremely difficult to try to assist. I cannot create jobs. I cannot create the conditions under which jobs in fact happen. Therefore, I ask the government to look at this and to come back, hopefully in this session, with some new ideas, a bit of enthusiasm, energy and creativity so that we can get the country back to work.
I have talked about the unemployed. I could talk about the people who are on social assistance, who feel badly because they want to work, but they need the profit from those programs. They feel as if they have been forgotten. They feel as if they have been stigmatized, as if they can no longer make a useful contribution to our country.
When citizens start to feel that way it is a very difficult process to reverse.

There are men and women in that group who are really very committed, who would like to work and want to work and want a better future for their children and their families, but there are very few opportunities and very few jobs out there.

When we talk about work to do, there are a number of things that we could do co-operatively over the next few weeks if we wanted to. We could not only examine the unemployment insurance programs, the unemployed, the training and retraining programs that are perhaps needed, the creation of jobs for those who want to work,
the social assistance programs, how we deal with the provinces and whether or not the caps that we have imposed on the social assistance transfers to provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario are fair, we could examine our veterans' programs to ensure that they too are getting the very best of what they ought to be getting.
One of the things that we have forgotten about our veterans as they grow older, some of the difficulties that they have experienced during the wars are becoming increasingly acute and troublesome. There are some adjustments that need to be made there.
We could at the same time look at people who have disabilities, quite apart from the fact that they are very unhappy about having been left out of the current constitutional proposals. They were initially in the government proposals. They are among the poorest of the poor in Canada.
If my memory serves me correct, they were talking about three million-plus people. What are some of the things that we ought to be doing, could be doing, should be doing in order to assist these individuals?
What about our seniors, those who have worked to make this country what it is, to permit you and me and many others to enjoy the benefits of a great nation, one of the finest if not the finest in the whole world? Are we treating them as well as we could, as well as we should, as well as we ought to be doing?
I have in my office at the present time a number of cases with respect to immigration. There are some very unfortunate things that are happening. I had a particular instance where a gentleman was being married. He wanted his brother-in-law to come to the wedding and he could not. I had another situation where there was going to be a religious ceremony for a child in the family, the grandparents wanted to come to participate and they could not come. Why could they not come? I guess there was a fear that these people would want to stay in Canada. They had property, they had family and they had all kinds of commitments at home.
We could be reviewing some of those particular laws and procedures to see what could be improved. We could also be seeing, examining and reviewing what is happening to our young people today, our students. I mentioned initially the summer of 1992.
September 17, 1992



1 talked about it in the House of Commons yesterday. There was an extremely high unemployment rate of nearly 18 per cent. It was the worst summer ever. What could we do for those young people who wanted to take training or retraining courses, who wanted to return to college or university, who want to prepare for a more promising future in which they would be able to contribute fully to the country's development and to develop not only their talents but also this majestic country of ours?

We could look at what is happening to our young people, why they are feeling as they do and what it is that they need in order to grow and to contribute fully to develop not only their talents but this great country. We could have stayed longer. We could have come back a bit earlier. During the period between now and when we do return we could have spent more time discussing the child benefits act. We could have spent much more time doing that. Perhaps the results would not have been different, but at least people would have felt that they would have been heard. We also could have done so much more with respect to the bill that came forward today, Bill C-91, with regard to drugs and medication and we did not. We did not because we are limited in time.
We really need to address all of those problems and many more. I also believe that we need an economic blueprint. If nothing else, it would be a symbol that government is really trying to respond to the needs of Canadians from an economic perspective.
I want to talk briefly about the Constitution, the Constitution proposals and the referendum. I will be voting yes on October 26.
[I will be at the yes side with great enthusiasm even though I have realized that there are some serious difficulties with the proposals. If we look at it over all, it is a deal that needs to be endorsed by Canadians. I will be speaking as clearly, as loudly and as insightfully as I can about that. However, there are a number of things that we might have done if we had been here. I am really
Government Orders
quite concerned that there are a number of unanswered questions. I am not talking about the proposals themselves, but let me ask a question: Can students who are studying in another city vote during the referendum and, if so, do they know that they can and do they know what the process is? What about, for example, these young people who are pages here, many of whom I suspect are from other provinces, will they be able to vote? Will they vote here? Will they vote at home?
What about students who have gone to universities in other countries? A young woman came into my office roughly three weeks ago who said: "I am going to graduate school from one of the American universities, but I want desperately to vote on referendum day. Will I be able to?" I am trying to follow that up.
While I am quite concerned about the groups that I have mentioned, there is another group of people who may be forgotten. There are possibly thousands of Canadians living and working abroad. Will they get the opportunity to vote for their country on referendum day? What about people who are living in other countries but are still citizens of Canada or visiting other countries and still citizens of Canada?
These are some of the questions that I would have liked to address during this period of time, and perhaps I can do so through other means, but clearly the House would have been an appropriate one.
I just want to raise a couple of other points. There is information out there that is required. I talked to a number of individuals about these constitutional proposals and the referendum bill. They heard from a fair number who would be supporting them. They indicated so and told me why. There were a fair number who said no and told me they could not because they did not understand them. They had no material and that is a real problem. I know there are efforts being made. I know it is easy to criticize, but at the same time it is so absolutely essential for something that is simple, readable and objective to be distributed to Canadian citizens.
I have no real fear. If they get the information, if they feel it is from a credible source, they will say the right thing on October 26.

Government Orders
Another thing we could have done if we had been in the House of Commons during that time and if there had been exaggerated claims on either the oui or the non side, we would have been here to bring about a bit of check and balance. We could have said: "Whoa, just a minute. That is not quite correct", and we could have played that kind of mediator, arbitrator, judgmental role and I say it in a positive sense. Because we will be gone, we will not be able to do that.
I would like to complete my remarks by simply saying the following. I congratulate the students and the universities who will be involved with the Unity Train with regard to the constitutional proposals and with respect to referendum day. I think it is a wonderful initiative and I am particularly delighted that it is the young people who are meeting this head on. I call upon the young people of Canada to make sure that those who are older than they are do not let them down. I want them to stand up and to speak out for this great country.
We of a certain age tend to see the world perhaps somewhat differently than the young people do. I hope they will stand up and tell us what they think. I hope they will do so with a generosity, a spirit and an openness of heart and mind that will motivate their parents and those older than them to see the world a bit more from then-perspective. I think very often they see much more clearly than we do.
I also want to commend the Ethnocultural Council of Canada for having said yes. I recognize that they have certain concerns. I hope we will make a genuine attempt to respond to those.
I want to point out how delighted I was to have received a fax message from a little organization qui s'appelle reseau. Translated I think it would be network.

It is a Manitoba women's group that speaks for women who are ready to say yes to these constitutional proposals, knowing that there are always weaknesses, with this accord or any other. They are looking at the whole thing and thinking of Canada's future. They told me and the others that they would support the agreement.
I will conclude with a wish.

My wish is that when the Government of Canada returns, when the House of Commons reconvenes that the government will have an economic blueprint, a developmental plan that will give hope to Canadiansm, and hopefully that will be done subsequent to a yes vote on October 26, un vote pour le oui, and we can start rebuilding this great nation and ensuring that it remains number one in the world.

I am now ready to answer questions.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague from St. Boniface on his remarks. I believe that he has touched upon something that many Canadians are talking about right across the country, not just our youth. I know in my riding I am experiencing a lot of difficulty because of how many people feel about all the elements of the entente or the accord, whatever you want to call it, the consensus report. It is not an accord obviously because none of the premiers really signed it.
I am beginning to sense a real backlash in the city of Toronto. I make no apologies for having my own doubts about it.
I noticed I was not recorded as abstaining the night of the vote. I did not quite understand that. If we do not explain all elements of the accord, and if all of a sudden a sense of distrust builds in the community, then the vote the Prime Minister wants is not going to be achieved.
At this time I am not sure if I agree with the Prime Minister's proposal. I am concerned about something and would like to ask my colleague a question. I agree with the idea of the referendum. I agree with the sovereignty of the people, but do you not think the accord will be in danger unless we explain all elements of the accord and what they mean, and stop branding Canadians as anti-Canadian if they decide they do not agree with the accord.


Ron J. Duhamel: I thank my colleague for his comments and his question.
Yes, we must explain the accord. The great challenge
is to explain it so that Canadians believe whoever
happens to be explaining it is telling the truth.
September 17, 1992

That is a real problem because politicians from all political parties are really quite suspect at all levels of government. I said a few days ago I hoped somehow we might have a third party say, this is what it is all about. That is not as easy as it sounds either, because there are third parties who think rather differently.
There has to be a sincere attempt to explain it the way it is, not oversimplified and yet not overcomplicated. It is essential for people to realize there has been a sincere attempt by the first ministers of this country with the four aboriginal leaders and the leaders of the two largest opposition parties, to come forward with a set of proposals that have a reasonable chance of responding to the grievances of Canadians. There is no guarantee. That is the message I personally want to get across. I will try to explain it as objectively as I can. I will try to say I am not sure I could have a better deal. I would love to say with honesty that I could have, but I do not believe I necessarily could have under the circumstances. This is a fair attempt to bring the country together.
I called upon the young people of Canada to stand up and make sure their views were heard, because they tend to see the world perhaps a bit more clearly with fewer biases. I recall an elderly person who called me and said she hoped we politicians were not about to start destroying what Canadians have worked so long to build. I asked this person to stand up as well and contact her friends so the seniors could remind us what we have.
Perhaps it would be a coalition of as many people as possible. The young and those who are older could get together and try to build a bridge to ensure this country continues.
If we do not get the information out clearly, quickly and in a way that is understood, and if people just lay back and say it does not matter, then I really fear for our country because it does matter.
I am going to vote yes. I pray it will never happen, but if this country does not stay together, I want to be able to go to bed every night and say I did what I could. I said yes, to try to keep my country together.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question related to the economy.
The Prime Minister of Canada said in this House two days ago the Constitution and the economy are co-
Govemment Orders
mingled. I agree with the Prime Minister. I think that was factually correct.
The problem I have is that right now the economy of this country is in the intensive care room from coast to coast. It seems to me when the economy is in this shape, to shut down the nation's boardroom is totally irresponsible. There are situations evolving week to week and day to day. Never mind the low interest rates because there is not a bank in Canada right now that is helping small and medium sized businesses. The minister does not have to listen to me. He can go out and talk to small businesses across this country. We can have 5 per cent interest rates, but if the banks will not lend it out what good is it?
The Conservatives look at the interest rates but they do not see what is going on in the country. In my city where there are 600,000 people out of work they wonder why we are shutting this place down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put all questions necessary to dispose of the amendment moved by the government and the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next vote is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, the House shall now proceed to debate the subject matter of Government Business No. 12. There are three minutes remaining in the questions and comments.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from St. Boniface. It has to do with the economy and is very specific.
We are asking the people of Canada to trust this government over the next 30 days. We are asking them to trust that this document is great.
Do you think it is right to ask the people of Canada to trust this government when it is shutting this place down and our economy is in such disastrous shape?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I certainly could not say I have been asked to trust the government over the next 30 days, and I do not say that in a partisan way.
The Prime Minister, the first ministers of this nation, the two leaders of the opposition, and the four aboriginal leaders have asked us to trust that this is a reasonable option.
With all due respect to my colleagues, and I have great admiration for some of them, I could not trust the government if it was their document. The document has been endorsed by all the other parties and therefore I am willing to say it has a reasonable chance.
I do not like the idea we are leaving. I hope we can come back if we need to. I agree there are two sides to this coin, the Constitution and the economy, and I use the following analogy.
If my wife and children were in a situation where they thought they might want to leave me, I would have a lot
of difficulty worrying about my job. On the other hand, just because I have a good job does not mean to say they are going to stay with me.
There are two sides to this coin and I think we have to deal with this referendum, but we need to deal with the economic situation the moment we get back. It is critical we do so because whatever we gain on October 26 will be lost, assuming we get a yes vote.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this adjournment debate as well. I want to state a number of concerns on behalf of my constituents.
Last week in New Westminster I attended a memorial service honouring Pauline Jewett, who was my predecessor here in the House of Commons for my riding. She represented her constituency before me with pride, commitment to this country and honour. Sadly she passed away this summer.
At that memorial service I reflected on Pauline's career and her tremendous accomplishments serving the people of Canada and the constituents of our riding. Many of those accomplishments originated right here in this Chamber.
I also reflected on Pauline Jewett's vision of our country. Pauline was first and foremost a committed Canadian. She loved and believed in the potential of this country. She believed in the potential of our people. She believed in the Canadian gift of understanding and, as some say, the Canadian gift of tolerance. Yet today the constituents from the riding Pauline represented, the constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby, like those in every other riding in Canada have grown increasingly disillusioned about this country and our federal government.
I find the vision of hope and tolerance Pauline Jewett identified as the Canadian way has now been pushed to its limits. At the very time this country should be stepping forward, it threatens to step back and I ask why. What has happened?
The answer lies in the sad legacy of this federal government and the harmful policies it has been pursuing in our country. The fact is that Canadians feel deserted by their federal government. But when I look back on the federal government policies I have seen implemented in this House in the last four years, I understand why Canadians feel this way. I understand why my constituents are so concerned, because I see the effects of the Conservative government policy and the


Government Orders
residue of past Liberal administrations right in my own community, at home in New Westminster-Burnaby.
I am concerned for my constituents when I see the federal government sign the North American free trade deal. Without any debate in this House of Commons, a tripartite agreement has been signed. For my constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby this means productive working people who form the very foundation of our economy could now be competing with Mexican workers who earn less than a dollar an hour.
I am concerned for my constituents when I watch the federal government make Canadian jobs our number one export, thanks to the trade deal they negotiated with the United States.
For the constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby, many of whom work in the forest industry, this deal has meant they have had to witness the Tory government stand by while the U.S. slaps restrictive countervailing duties on our wood products. Yet when we tried to rectify this disastrous mistake, when we on this side of the House put forth a motion to end this loss in the workforce, what happened? Both the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against us. The trade deal continues and the job losses continue.
I am concerned for my constituents when I note that thanks to federal government policy we have record unemployment. Food banks have been our only growth industry. My constituents in British Columbia look to the government for help in retraining and for job creation programs. To these people who want to work this government says its fight is with inflation, it has no money to create jobs or it cannot do anything to stimulate the economy.
I am also concerned this federal government has made huge cuts in transfer payments to the province of British Columbia. The federal government has produced propaganda documents like Learning well, living well and Prosperity through competitiveness, which encourage Canadians to seek further education. At the same time these documents are produced, our children are being turned away from universities, from colleges and from vocational schools right across this country.
When the need for post-secondary education has never been higher, Douglas College in my riding has had to turn away record numbers of potential students, students who qualified, because the federal government is not backing up its competitive rhetoric with competitive dollars.
I am very concerned that this federal government has also cut the federal co-op housing program and cut back drastically on social housing programs. In my riding many residents of Burnaby and New Westminster will now remain on waiting lists for affordable housing. This decision means the loss of thousands of jobs building new units and renovating housing. It comes at a time when housing has never been more expensive for the average resident.
The residents and the workers of New Westminster- Burnaby are concerned for the Fraser River which flows right through our community. We have learned recently that the changes made in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans policy, mismanagement, and the lack of enforcement have contributed to the disappearance of 1 million salmon from our salmon stocks in the Fraser River.
I was pleased to hear, just as I entered the Chamber, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has named Peter Pearce and Peter Larkin to head an investigation on these missing sockeye salmon. We must resolve the discrepancies in the numbers of fish entering the river, reported catches and the number of fish that made it to the spawning grounds. Those numbers are so much lower than expected. We must ascertain why these sockeye runs did not meet the projections that we were told about.
This is one of B.C.'s major industries. We cannot afford in British Columbia to have happen to the salmon fishery what has happened to the cod fishery in Newfoundland.
What about taxes? My constituents, like all constituents in Canada, are upset about their increasing tax burden. Unfortunately I must tell them some simple truths about this government and its priorities. The sad reality is that instead of lessening the tax burden of hard

Government Orders
working individuals, this government has chosen to help others.
This federal government allows business entertainment deductions costing taxpayers $1 billion a year. This federal government continues a Liberal loophole which allows Canada's wealthiest families to hide assets from taxation in private trusts. This federal government continues to shift the tax burden away from profitable corporations on to the backs of hard working individual taxpayers. This is a shameful record.
Finally, the constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby do not understand how this federal government can spend $4.5 billion on 50 submarine hunting helicopters and yet at the same time tell us that there is no money to build our crumbling infrastructures right across this country.
I received a letter from the mayor and councillors in Burnaby expressing their concern for our community's aging infrastructure and pointing out exactly that $4.5 billion for helicopters could be much better spent on building up Canada's infrastructures.
There is also no money, we are told, to help the unemployed retrain and find work, no money to help the disadvantaged have access, no money for single parents to have child care and no money for women to have equality. We are told there is no money to put food in the mouths of the hungry. Yesterday we saw the end of Canada's first universal social program. We saw the end of the family allowance program in this country. Again the reason was no money.
At the very time that Canada needs to step forward, at the very time Canada really wants to step forward, at the very time we need modern solutions to complex problems, this country's modern needs are being remedied by Conservative witch doctor economic theories that already have failed with previous Liberal administrations and have already failed in.other countries in the world under Thatcher and Reagan.
Is it any wonder that my constituents in New Westminister-Burnaby are concerned? What this government must understand is that the Canadian people are an investment. They have worth. They have value. Yet some here with the power to make a difference choose not to.
I am appalled when I hear this federal government say it can do nothing more to help Canadians. I am appalled that this government does not invest in our most precious resource, our people, our children. I am appalled that other party leaders choose to say nothing and offer no solutions merely because they are ahead in some polls.
When they choose to do nothing, they do not deserve to be our federal government. We do not want governments that choose to simply shrug their shoulders or leaders who keep their heads ducked low. We do not want governments that choose to turn their backs on all but a few. We do not want governments that choose to sell our sovereignty.
The constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby want to see a society that is the sum of all its parts, not just a few big cogs. They believe a society is judged by how it treats all its people, not just the privileged few and they believe the federal government has a moral obligation to help to empower Canadians and to help those who are unable to empower themselves.
To do so, we ask that the tax burden be shifted off the backs of those who work the hardest, suffer the most and are the hardest hit. We want to protect those social policies which are the foundation of our national identity, like medicare, pensions and the universality of all of our programs.
We want a federal government that will fight each and every day for women's equality, for eliminating violence, for ensuring pay equity, for breast cancer research, for reproductive choice and for electing more women here to the House of Commons.
The federal government cannot be detached from its policies. The government cannot be ignorant of the human face to the numbers that it crunches. There are essential issues in our society which must be addressed. These are issues such as jobs, social programs and the environment which require immediate attention.
These are the key issues that, when we return to this House of Commons, we must all address.
We are adjourning tonight. Many of us are going back to our communities in order to work on the referendum. The majority of us in this House will be working on the yes side of the referendum. I sincerely hope that when we return in November we are still talking about the
September 17, 1992

national dream that is Canada, the national dream that we hope to leave for our children who follow us.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to my hon. friend's intervention in this debate.
I appreciated first of all her reference to her distinguished predecessor whom we will all miss. I had the privilege of serving in one Parliament with the late Pauline Jewett and developed an immense respect for her and for her respect for the truth even when the truth hurt her own cause.
I wanted to ask my hon. friend a couple of questions about some points that she made in her speech, the first with reference to the North American free trade agreement which she suggested had been signed without debate in the House. That is substantially true but it is the normal pattern of treaties which the Government of Canada enters into.
My hon. friend was here in December 1988 when we debated the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We had extensive debate prior to the November 21 election and we could say that was the free trade election.
I can forecast for my hon. friend that there will be a very extensive debate on that subject once the treaty comes for ratification to our Parliament and to those of the other two participating countries.
I do hear from parliamentary colleagues in Mexico and they are puzzled. They ask why a social democratic party in Canada would be opposed to the idea of a partnership with a country such as theirs which is seeking to bring itself closer to the economic level of Canada and the United States. Would that not be good for all of us and would this treaty not provide for it?
I believe the treaty would provide it, but that social democratic party, being my friend opposite's party, seems to take the view that immediately there would be something of an unlimited labour pool among the three countries and that we would be competing with Mexican wage rates. My hon. friend made that very point. She said that we would be competing with Mexican workers who are being paid $1 an hour. My understanding of the treaty is that would not be the case at all. It would be a partnership.
Government Orders
My second point is that my hon. friend said there had been huge cuts in transfer payments to British Columbia.
I do not believe that to be the case. I believe what has happened is that the rate of increase of the transfer payments to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario is being held at 5 per cent.
Does my friend, being a good social democrat, not agree with the principle that the wealthier provinces, her province, mine and the province of Ontario, have a responsibility to accept a slightly lower rate of increase- and 5 per cent is not bad in these times-so that more can be allocated to the poorer provinces, which is the case?
My final point is with reference to Bill C-80, which passed the House yesterday. The reason for the changes in those family benefits is not that there is no more money. In fact, $2.1 billion more in family benefits is being allocated under these changes so that there will be $500 more per family per year for the working poor in Canada. In the spirit of the late Pauline Jewett, I am sure that my hon. friend would see it as her duty to convey those truths to her constituents.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite raised a number of points that he listened to when I was speaking and took issue with. I would say in terms of the trade deal with the United States there was debate in this country and in this Chamber before this free trade deal was signed with the United States. There was an election, he is right, fought on mainly that one issue. There was debate in every region of this country. There was discussion in town halls, at political meetings and everywhere across the land. It captured the national news every night.
In the case of the North American free trade deal, there has not been any of that discussion. There has not been an opportunity in the House to debate this issue. There has not been an opportunity for the people of Canada to debate this issue. I am confident that having had the experience in Canada, the last four years of the trade deal with the United States, Canadians do not want the North American free trade agreement. That is why this government is spending so much money now on propaganda on this deal, advertising on radio and television. It knows Canadians have experienced first hand the effects of the trade de al that this government signed with the U.S. They have experienced huge job losses. Up to a half a million manufacturing jobs have disappeared from this country, some of which have been replaced

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
with jobs in the service sector; McJobs, flipping McHam-burgers. Canadians know they do not want to continue on that course.
I would agree with the member in terms of working in the underdeveloped world to raise the standards of living there. I would agree with him if this deal had anything at all to do with that but it does not. The European model, in which are shared common standards and common wages, is altogether different than this North American free trade agreement. The European model does have something to go for in that venue. It will set minimum wages and minimum standards in the environment. The North American free trade deal includes none of that.
The member spoke about the transfer payments to my province of British Columbia, the cutbacks. There have been cutbacks; $166 million less has gone to the province of British Columbia for health care alone by the changes that this government made in the Canada Assistance Plan. I want to tell the member opposite when he talks about sharing with Canadians, British Columbians have shared with the rest of Canada since we entered Confederation and British Columbians are committed to the principle of sharing across this land.
However, the poor in British Columbia are just as poor as the poor in any other section of this country and the battered women in British Columbia are just as black and blue and beaten as the battered women in other parts of this country. They are deserving of the support of this government in terms of transfer payments. It is a very weak argument that he presents.
Family allowance is our oldest universal social program. In 1984 the Prime Minister of this country said that universal social programs were a sacred trust, not to be tampered with. This is tampering with a capital T. It is eliminating the universality of the family allowance program. The new child benefit program is not indexed to the cost of inflation and will be worth less and less every year with fewer and fewer families being able to benefit from it in future years.
It is the Machiavellian plan of this government to cover fewer and fewer families as the years go by. At the beginning of the new year, 1993, suddenly some families will receive a bit more in monthly support payments.
However, what those families do not understand is that at the end of the year when they probably would be expecting the child tax credits and other credits through the income tax system, those will no longer exist.
I would bet right now with the hon. member that he will have had his election before the folks find out the truth of this program.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak in the House before it is adjourned.
This has been a short session of Parliament, but perhaps may have been one of the most important. With the debate of the referendum question and the approval it received in both Houses, Canadians from coast to coast to coast must now do some soul-searching in preparation for the October 26 referendum.
We must look deep into the soul of our nation, see its true value and see it for what it truly is. It is a gift that we cannot afford to lose.
I have voiced my support for the referendum question and my acceptance of the Charlottetown accord reached on August 28. I stand firm in my belief that the constitutional deal reached by federal, provincial and territorial governments and the representatives of aboriginal Canadians is not a perfect deal, but it is a deal that will allow us, as Canadians, the opportunity to reorder our constitutional priorities in a way that will reflect better who and what we are as a nation and, most important, what we will become.
I am committed to return to my riding to campaign for the referendum, urging my constituents to vote yes. As a member of the Western Arctic, I am satisfied that the aspirations of northerners and aboriginal peoples will be met through this agreement as it has not been done before.
We now have the inherent right to self-government and the pre-1982 conditions for the creation of new provinces. I am very proud to say that northerners and aboriginal peoples have made a significant contribution to what will become the renewal of Canada. The great white north is a unique place and is truly Canadian. Canada is a northern country.

A young friend of mine named John Bethel from Edmonton once told me that the very first time he ever went to the north was when he truly felt Canadian. He was on his first trip to the north. I have travelled from coast to coast to coast in this country and I am always reminded of how very few Canadians have ever experienced the north, and conversely, how very few northerners have ever experienced other parts of Canada. If you leave it to Canadians to discover one another, a lot of comradeship and a lot of loyalty to the country is expressed.
The north, in and of itself, is untouched and its overwhelming beauty is something we want to share. Its rugged geography is something that challenges the physical ability of any Canadian that ventures into the north. The pure, clean air and the respectful relationships that northerners have with the land and nature is something to be shared with this country.
While there is a possibility that the constitutional crisis may be over, this is not true of the economic crisis. For people living in the north, where is the road to economic recovery? Where is the road to resources that Diefen-baker started? Not one mile has been added since we have had this new government.
This does not seem to be the government that has the answers for our country or for our part of the country. Highway infrastructures remain to be put in place and the impending airline merger will deliver but another devastating blow to an already fragile economy.
Northerners remain isolated from the rest of Canada, from the mainstream transportation routes and economy. Northerners do not have the luxury of choosing between the bus, the train and even travel on the highway by car from one community to another as most other Canadians do. Many times we are solely dependant on the airlines.
We cannot afford to isolate our communities, cut off our economic business and tourism ties and decrease our standard of living. The government must ensure Canadians, especially northerners, that air travel will remain accessible and affordable. It is and should be for Canadians living in the remote regions of this country a very basic guarantee.
Government Orders
Because the House is adjourning, I would also like to focus on another critical issue that affects my riding, I would like to take the opportunity to urge the government to take the necessary and responsible action to bring about an end to the Giant gold mine strike in Yellowknife. The strike is now reaching into its fourth month. There has been violence and extensive vandalism. People are losing their homes and their families are suffering. There is many a sad story to tell of homes that are now vacant, of the lost dreams of those people who wanted to make the north their home. Those people are no longer in the north. They have gone elsewhere to look for other opportunities because they had no choice. This unhealthy atmosphere is affecting the whole community of Yellowknife and its local economy.
The union wants to get back to the bargaining table and the workers want to get back to work. There is no mediator. The mediator flew the coop. Management refuses to move on the dispute. These people need assistance and federal government intervention.
At one point I asked for anti-replacement worker legislation. The most provocative thing to do in a strike is to bring in replacement workers. It undercuts the morality and the ethics of a good workplace regime. We asked for a meeting with the minister and were refused. We have now asked for an industrial disputes inquiry. A resolution is urgently needed. We cannot afford in our already fragile economy another situation that will affect individuals, their families and their children.
As this House adjourns, the First Nations people have made great progress in this constitutional round of talks but there are many outstanding issues that have to be dealt with. The government continues to overlook a very critical aboriginal issue.
If members remember, in the summer of 1990 we had the Oka crisis. Many Canadians thought we had closed the door on the Oka crisis but they should know that it has not been resolved. This government continues to stall in its efforts to expedite a solution to the longstanding issue of purchasing property south of Route 344 in the village of Oka in exchange for the Pines.
The inability of this government to settle the issue contradicts and reneges on the Prime Minister's promise to consult with aboriginal peoples and respect for the fiduciary responsibilities of the Crown toward them will be built in the process from the start. This the Prime

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
Minister outlined in his four main pillars. This is not a real estate deal as may be the intention of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is a land settlement and the federal government must uphold its fiduciary responsibilities and resume a fair negotiation process as had been agreed to in the framework agenda.
The conflict between all parties involved must be resolved so that the relationship may be re-established to discuss issues that are so important to the community of Kanesatake, such as the issues of justice and policing, and much needed and promised funding to establish a healing program. The crisis was such that the community needs this healing program urgently. The department has yet to deliver on its commitment for funding.
I want to deal with another issue that has a direct reference to the Canada clause. The Canada clause states:
the aboriginal peoples of Canada, being the first peoples to govern this land, have the right to promote their languages, cultures and traditions and to ensure the integrity of their societies, and their governments constitute one of three orders of government in Canada;
In effect, this statement renders the requirement of the extinguishment clause outdated.
The extinguishment clause is extremely divisive and should be abolished, if not for its contradiction to the Canada clause then for the moral and legal travesty that it is.
In my community and in my riding there was a major comprehensive claim that failed. One of the reasons the claim failed was that people were asked to cede, release and surrender their aboriginal rights and claims to their land, in fact all of their rights. This is totally unacceptable. What has happened now is that we have a very fragmented process in which smaller groups are going for regional claims within which there are further divisions, in some of them not in all of them.
The human rights commissioner said two years ago: "It is not an exchange. Whichever way you cut it, it is extinguishment. It is the release, the surrendering and ceding of rights".
It is an outdated, colonialist method of governing and it is unacceptable in light of the intent of the Canada clause, as well as the over-all agreement.
The federal government, specifically the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Department of the Environment, must also uphold its responsibility to support the hunters and trappers of Canada. The government has done nothing to support the Indigenous Survival International group, which has put forward a proposal to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs that has not been responded to. It has asked for money to train trappers on humane ways of trapping. The British Parliament, which is in another country, has a lot of impact on what happens to our hunters and trappers.
The British Parliament has identified 13 species to go on the endangered species list. Twelve of them are Canadian and have a direct reference to how aboriginal and northern Canadian trappers will maintain their livelihood.
There is a need to educate and inform aboriginal trappers and others of the potential implications for all trappers that may result from the European ban.
Aboriginal trappers need an opportunity to make informed decisions about their future involvement in the fur trade. If not, they may be placed at a disadvantage in comparison to their non-native counterparts, who are better organized and better informed. Both DIAND and the Department of the Environment must play a key role in the education process.
I believe that we have reached a critical juncture in Canada, a point at which we will never be again if a no vote prevails. We have reached the point at which we are now by consensus. The chemistry of individual leaders and heads of governments will never be at the same point it was at in Charlottetown.
We have gone beyond the point of debate. I know in my heart and in my mind as a Canadian and as a responsible politician that it is time for the question to be put forward to the Canadian people. Thus we have the referendum.
The referendum is about choice. People will have the opportunity to take possession of the future of their country. I know this in my heart because there have been a number of times throughout the constitutional process

that I have stood alone on a number of issues. I stood alone when we discussed the issue of the Triple-E Senate, because there was not always unanimous consent.
I stood alone on the creation of new provinces because not everybody believed in a bilateral process. I stood alone in questioning the issue of distinct society because even months ago, six to seven months ago, people thought the debate was over. I felt as one individual that I fought hard during that opportunity given to me to make the appropriate changes. I feel the time for debate is over, because this country now needs a yes.
I also stood alone when we talked about massive decentralization of powers to the provinces because I felt, as a strong federalist, that I could not see the emasculation of government and the gutting of the core of our government. I am a believer in a strong central government, but I believe the time for debate has lapsed. The time to fight was during all those conferences, the first ministers' meetings, committee meetings, and high-level negotiations. Now is not the time for debate, now is the time for decision making.
We have gone through numerous rounds on the Constitution. Now is not the time to question the details, because I believe the minor deficiencies of this deal do not outweigh the total good that it will do for this country. I believe that we will not ever again reach a point at which as many people who are responsible for negotiating and making those decisions will come to the same mind on these issues. I believe that we can do a lot worse, and we may if a no vote prevails.
I believe that because I have been there. I believe that because I have taken a stand on principle, because I believed in a strong central government, because I was willing to hold tight to the belief that a Triple-E Senate spelled fairness and equality for all provinces in this country and in all parts of this country.
That time has gone. This is not a debate about the past, this is a debate about the future. Now is when our country needs a yes, when the north needs a yes, when the future generations of Canadian men and women depend on a yes, and when aboriginal peoples in Canada need a yes. I believe in my heart that a no vote is a no to
Government Orders
all the things that I have aspired to since I became an elected politician.
I have worked hard because, inasmuch as I fundamentally disagreed with the Meech Lake accord, I felt that politics is the art of the possible. If it were possible to amend Meech Lake I was willing to accept Meech and amend it. It was never amended, the amendments did not pass. We had failure during Meech Lake.
I look at this deal and I see Meech plus, I see Meech amended. It has the criteria for me and for what I was given and mandated to do when I was sent to Parliament to achieve constitutionally. It has done that for me I believe, in terms of how I fit into Canada as a politician, how the people in my riding fit into this. We have achieved something far greater than we were able to achieve in previous rounds. I do not believe that I as an aboriginal woman, for instance, can put my own individual rights ahead of the collective rights of my people.
There is a no committee of aboriginal women. I believe that no and that injunction they seek flies in the face of everything that I have worked for, along with aboriginal men in leadership, along with other men, along with other leaders, along with all the people who have struggled to reach this critical point. We are at a juncture at which we cannot go backward, we must go forward.
If we say no to Canada, if we say no to this deal, we say no to the opportunity for our people to better themselves, for our people to become autonomous, for our people to have the dignity, the respect and the equality to make their own mistakes after 125 years. We say no to the Northwest Territories that has gained a concession it wanted. It has gained something. It has gained the opportunity to become a province if it so desires on a fair and equal basis.
This country is a great country, but the instruments of governing are not perfect. People who run governments, leaders who head governments, are not perfect. We as a conglomerate of individuals who constitute Parliament are not perfect. We try to find the highest level of consensus. We try to find common ground.
This is one time when I appeal to the people of Canada. If they vote no they vote no to many of the things that we have achieved. We have not achieved everything and we may have lost some things, but I think the gain is far greater than the loss.

Government Orders
I appeal to people in the north, because not coming out to vote is like a no vote. It delegitimizes the right to speak out afterward. They feel their rights have been sold out. They should come out and express that because a referendum is about choice.
I think it is equally devastating when people do not vote. So Canada, I appeal to you to vote, come out and vote. Remember that this question is bigger than one individual. It is bigger than one group. It is all of the components of what constitutes Canada. I ask you on October 26 to come out and vote yes.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I know you are a good navigator, you have just demonstrated it.
I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, five members and two staff persons of the Standing
Committee on Forestry and Fisheries be authorized to travel to
British Columbia for three days in November or December in
relation to a study on west coast fisheries issues.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we on this side of the House in the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, give consent to the motion in a magnanimous way.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm that we support the motion, in particular because one of our colleagues, in fact, called for the trip during Question Period earlier this week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mifflin):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 13284); and the amendment of Mr. Edwards (p. 13278).
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important to speak on this debate.
Frankly I feel the Canadian people are being severely short-changed by their government and by their Parliament. We in the opposition feel that the duty to Canadians is not being adhered to at a time when this country is experiencing difficulties greater than any difficulties it has experienced since the Second World War.
We have sat for the better part of two weeks. It is the government's intention to resume the sitting of the House on November 16, which will mean that we will be sitting for one month prior to the Christmas break and House rules state that we will not be coming back until after February 1.
It means that in the past seven months of this time of trouble and uncertainty for this country, this House will have sat six weeks. I cannot condone that. As a parliamentarian I feel we are making a terrible, terrible mistake.
Canada's attitude to politicians is bad enough now. I would venture to say in the minds of Canadians that politicians have now slipped behind loan sharks in their estimation. We are going to sit for six weeks in seven months at a time when this country is looking for direction, is looking for answers, and is looking for cohesion and leadership to deal with the serious-and I cannot stress that too much-problems of this country. We are abandoning, we are jettisoning our responsibility. Our House leader stated, and I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond completely, that we recognize the importance of the referendum debate. We must win this referendum debate. We must keep this country together. If we do not win the referendum debate, and to anyone who feels he or she wants to vote no, then I say to that person, conceptualize in your mind where you see your province after the referendum because certainly it is going to mean the break-up of Canada.
!-S:

September 17, 1992

That is not defeatist. I do not feel I am defeatist. I did not support Meech Lake because I did not think it was a complete analysis and consideration of what we needed in this country. Not having supported Meech Lake, I want to say right now that we are on a precipice. We must decide whether we want to keep this country together.
I say that as an Atlantic Canadian. I defy anybody to see in that proposal anything for Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canadians are great Canadians. They are true Canadians. They have fought in two world wars, the Korean conflict and have continued to support this great country. They will continue to do so.
Atlantic Canadians recognize that the time has come not to say to this government that we support your thinking because Canadians do not support this government's thinking. The time has not come to say to the premiers that we think they are doing a great job because we do not think they are doing a great job.
The time has come when Canadians want to say we believe that this once again can be the country we know it can be. Even with this government's attempt to suppress its greatness, it is still the greatest country in the world. The potential for further greatness lies only in leadership and caring by its elected government. This can come with a change of government.
Most of all, what Canadians are now saying is that we need, each one of us in our hearts and together, to recognize that we need to save this country, that unless we together can support this country, it is going to split apart.
This is not something mechanical, a piece of paper, a little piece of inventory. Watch the national news concerning Yugoslavia and what is happening to that once great country. I am not saying Canada is going to be another Yugoslavia, but I am saying that the greatest sickness in this world is not AIDS, it is not heart problems, it is not cancer. It is prejudice. It is prejudice and sometimes fear.
When we combine the fear of the unknown, the fear of uncertainty with the baser instincts of humanity, we are going to have an ugly situation and we are going to go from something that is sublime to something that is
Government Orders
ridiculous. We are going to go from the greatest country in the world to something that is not going to be even a reasonable facsimile of what this country is at the present time.
I say to people who have watched the news and who have seen the dead eyes of the children in Somalia, who have seen the parents of these children not being able to move because they are too weak, who now cannot live even with nourishment. They have done this so that all the food that they have possessed will go to their children. Their children are walking orphaned.
There is a story of a young boy, 8 years old, and his sister, 12, who left their parents because their parents could not even move. They walked toward the camp in Kenya. Somewhere along the way the boy and the sister became separated. Two weeks later that eight year old boy walked into the camp in Kenya.
We can mount a sophisticated, complete and utter devastating war such as the one we waged in Iraq and yet we cannot get food to starving people in Somalia because we say the government is on our side; we have to be careful of the warring factions and people are stealing it.
I say those excuses are not good enough. We in the Canadian Parliament are showing our concern for our country, for the economy and for the world picture. We are adjourning. We are going to sit for six weeks and seven months. Boy that is dedication, that is really getting involved in what is happening in this country and what is happening in our world. It is a disgrace.
We would agree to pair with the government. We would even agree to there being only 10 people on each side of the House. If members feel they have to be in their ridings-and we all have to be at some point to negotiate and to win this referendum-then for heaven's sake we encourage them to go there. We encourage them to become involved in this tremendously important debate, but we say keep the House going. There are other concerns.
We now have an international monetary crisis. Because of the problems in Germany and because of the cost and the inflation resulting from incorporating 17 million additional Germans into the whole German Republic, there is now inflation in Germany. It has raised its bank rate. Money is flowing from the other European countries into Germany because the investors get a

Government Orders
higher return on the money they are investing. There is a tremendous drain of capital from Britain, Italy, France and the other countries in the European Common Market. They are in a state of financial chaos. Hopefully it will be resolved very shortly, but it will hurt Canada and the United States because money is international. It transcends borders; it transcends governments. It is a very touchy thing.
Our interest rates were at their lowest point two weeks ago and were really no stimulation to our economy. Manufacturers are just hanging by their fingertips, hoping this recession will soon end. They are hoping they can withstand the recession, and when the economy starts to go up they can start planning for the future. They are worried. They were worried even when we had our lowest interest rates. Now that the interest rates are going up, it is going to discourage a great many of these people.
It is going to worry those who have to renew mortgages, although our mortgage rates now are lower than they have been for some time. These are concerns that we have to address because we are the Government of Canada. We are the people representing Canadians. We have to be able to address these concerns. Things come up so quickly and they have to be addressed.
Canadians do not even feel comfortable in our large cities in being able to walk the streets. Yet what are we doing? The Minister of Justice promised us new legislation concerning young offenders. Are we going to be able to deal with it in the six weeks we have before February 1? Are we going to be able to do this or is it once again going to be another stall? Is it going to be another pronouncement that is going to try to entice the Canadian people into thinking the government is doing something when in effect it is doing absolutely nothing at all. It cannot do anything if it is not here.
What about urban crime? What about the prevention of crime? What are we going to do? We hope that the Standing Committee on Justice will pursue this in November. The minister has planned a symposium for March at which he wants to hear feedback. We have child pornography in Canada, we have prostitution, we have 10 and 11 year olds taking guns to school and we are going to want to get some feedback in March on these problems. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is not performance. That is not serving the needs of the
Canadian public. How can we serve these needs when we are only going to be here for six weeks out of a total of seven months? This is incredible. We want to deal with the referendum, but we do not want to jettison our responsibility for every other concern that the Canadian people have. Is this government saying that it can only deal with the referendum, that it cannot walk and chew gum at the same time? This is incredible, absolutely incredible.
The people in Atlantic Canada are not going to be satisfied with this. We are going to have the worst winter in Atlantic Canada that we have had in my memory. We have had, even with this House sitting, the government turning its back on us. We have had the fisheries collapse. We have had the tourist industry drastically, drastically reduced. We had the government take away our passenger rail service in eastern Nova Scotia and now it wants to sell the rail line to the private sector in eastern Nova Scotia. It has cut back our airline service drastically.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is selling Canada down the drain.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It has allowed the container boats to leave Halifax in large numbers. It has completely ignored the needs of our post-secondary education and our health care when dealing with transfer payments and equalization payments.


Mr. O'Kurley:: That is not true. That is just not true.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It has. The reason is that it is convenient. We have only 32 seats in Atlantic Canada. The government can say: "We do not have to worry about Atlantic Canada because it does not have that many seats". I am telling you that the people in Atlantic Canada are first-class Canadians. There is only one level of Canadian in this country and that is first-class Canadian.
As soon as we recognize and we dictate a group of our Canadian public to be second-class Canadian citizens, we are abandoning the principle role of Canada that all people are equal. People who have been here for four or five generations, people who have just arrived in this country, people who live on the east or west coast, the northern territories and central Canada, all Canadians are equal. That is not the way it is becoming. That is not the way this country is being run at the present time.
September 17, 1992


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We should have an election.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: There is an elitism that just permeates the establishment in this country and the greater number of Canadians are gradually, gradually falling away from the prime level of importance in the eyes of this government. Oh, sure there are overtures made for instance that there are going to be things done in our justice system: We are going to deal with urban crime; we are going to deal with the Young Offenders Act; and we are going to deal with poverty and unemployment. But we cannot deal with those if we are only going to be here for six weeks out of seven months. We cannot deal with them if the House is not sitting even if this government wanted to.
We cannot afford it. There is more than one way of a country completely decaying. Constitutionally is only one. Neglect for those in need is another. There is neglect for the regions which depend and want the assistance of their federal government and the people who cannot help themselves. The people of this country are now being told that their needs are listened to but because of the debt we cannot help them. I am telling you that it was not the poor and the disadvantaged in this country who caused the debt. It was politicians. I will be absolutely clear that the poor and disadvantaged in this country should not pay the price for the mistakes of the politicians in Canada. However, these mistakes and these needs cannot be addressed if this House is not sitting to deal with them. How are we going to deal with them if we are not here?
I wish the government and all parties well in the referendum. I just hope and pray that we will be successful. It is vital, but there are other things too. They may not be coming to a head, they may not be coming to a focus in the next five or six weeks, but they too are vital. Although they may not have the immediacy, they are vital because they represent the needs of Canadians. If these needs are allowed to slip and if they are put off, Canadians suffer and Canada suffers. The fibre of the country, our belief in ourselves and what we as Canadians want for ourselves and for children suffer.
I would ask the government to reconsider its motion.
Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have immense respect for my hon. friend who has just spoken. He is well known in Parliament and elsewhere as a fair and just man, so I was startled by some of the things he said.
The first point that I would like to make by way of commentary is that there was an implication-I know my hon. friend did not say it explicitly-in his remarks that the government ceases to function if Parliament is not sitting. That of course is not the case because the administration of government goes on, initiatives can be followed through, policies can be executed and indeed they will.
My hon. friend has a genuine concern for the poor and disadvantaged. He has demonstrated that in a distinguished parliamentary career. That is why it troubles me a bit that he seems to suggest that such elements as urban crime, which is a real problem, and prostitution, which again is a real problem, are not being recognized by the government. In his fairness, I think he will acknowledge that there have been more justice and Solicitor General initiatives by this government in the last 18 months or so than in the past number of years, including into the previous administration, and each one of them is a step in a progressive direction. At least I think most of those initiatives have had the general support of my friend.
The hon. member mentioned cutbacks in transfer and equalization payments. We had an exchange earlier with the member for New Westminster-Burnaby in which I pointed out that her province of British Columbia, rather than having been cut back in transfer payments, has been limited to a 5 per cent annual increase, as has my province and as has Ontario in order that more can be freed up to benefit provinces such as Nova Scotia.
Before I conclude, there is one other point. I think I heard my friend say that the government had cut back airline service to Atlantic Canada. If that is true, I would like to hear how the government cuts back airline service since the government has been accused of the sin of deregulation. I do not know how a government can cut back if it is not in the regulating business and it has got itself out of the ownership business as well.

Government Orders
My fundamental question to my friend, and I will conclude with this, is if the no side wins will we have a country, with or without all the ills that my friend points to and which genuinely do need to be addressed? The final point arising out of that question is would he or would I be able to look ourselves in the face if we neglected to do everything within our power to persuade our voters to vote yes in the referendum?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can deal with all of the points brought up by the hon. parliamentary secretary, who is an excellent member of Parliament and I know is concerned about the future of this country.
I want to address the first point he made wherein he said that the government is still going to be here, is going to be sitting even though Parliament will not be. That, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has said, is not a relief to Canadians. Also, it is not representative government in that the people who elect their representatives expect their representatives to be present. If the point of view of their representative is defeated in the House of Commons, then so be it, that is the way the parliamentary system works. But the point of view is put forward. I think that is very important.
Also, the government sitting is not going to help get criminal justice legislation through. It is not going to be able to put the legislation before the House so that it can be dealt with, because you need to have the consideration of the House of Commons in order to put this legislation through, to deal with it. The government may conceive in its own mind what it wants to present, although I do not know of it having done so, but it can. It is not going to be presented if the House of Commons is not sitting.
The other feature, of course, is that a lot of what was done in some of the better legislation of the Minister of Justice-and I talk about the gun control bill and the replacement of the rape shield provision-was done in conjunction with groups and with all members of the House of Commons. Our committees met and they went over it and as far as gun control, before there was a bill that the minister withdrew. Then there was a special committee to consider the subject. They submitted their report and then a new bill was presented. They were pleased to do it. It does not matter to me. The minister
can take full credit for it. That is not important. The fact is there is good legislation there.
There are parts of the criminal justice and solutions to our problem, they are there. However there are holes that have to be filled, and some of these holes I have mentioned on some of the subjects I have talked about.
I agree, the government per se-and this is one thing I will agree with it on-did not specifically cut back airline service. It did, however, privatize Air Canada. By privatizing Air Canada, Air Canada ceased to be an airline that had to be represented in all parts of the country, that had an obligation to service in Canada. Air Canada was formed because this is a vast country with a small population, and the population is centralized. If we are going to offer Canadians first-class service, if we are going to have Canadians feel that they are not second-class citizens, they must have a service that warrants that. The privatization of Air Canada has had an effect.
If this country votes no, certainly it will be devastating. If even one province votes no it is a setback. I would say to anybody that if they feel their place is in their riding to do this, fine. I want to say to a member of Parliament who feels that they are doing what they can through their yes committee or through whatever else they have to do, and still has extra time, that there is a place here in Ottawa where they can get together and deal with the other concerns of the Canadian public. I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. I would have hoped that the government would have done this. However, it chose not to. Maybe in its interest it really believes that we have to give it full flight and that this cannot be done, we cannot meet here. I do not understand that, frankly, and that is the reason for my concern.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Cape Breton- The Sydneys a short question because I support him when he talks about the frustration of having the House of Commons in a six month period only open for seven weeks. I do not think most Canadians will buy that. We are talking about going out and discussing a constitutional agreement which is inextricably intertwined with the economy.
Does my colleague think that because the House is not sitting and because this government has so little trust, as he stated in his speech, knowing that this document is just loaded with economic meaning, there is some danger that good parts of this document might end up
September 17, 1992

suffering a backlash because of the low trust of this government?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Certainly the record of the government is a direct factor in the referendum debate. I think all of us, certainly on this side of the House, have a duty to ask Canadians to please not confuse their feelings toward this government with the greatness of this country and what we share as Canadians and what we can make of this country.
I say to Canadians that this is important. I also say that Canadians know the difference and there will be an understanding but it is going to take a moment of reflection not to connect the two.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys. He always delivers a very thoughtful presentation. This evening without notes and with great feeling he delivered an excellent presentation and I am sure we are all proud of him on this side of the House.


An hon. member:: Absolutely. Right on.


An hon. member:: I think we should extend the hours a little longer.


An hon. member:: Unanimous consent to extend the hours.


Fred J. Mifflin: This is encroaching on my time. I will quickly move on to the subject at hand which is essentially on the same note as the previous speaker.
I will be going to my riding. I have voted yes for the referendum and for the question and I will be doing as much as is required to ensure that those who want to vote yes will have the opportunity and those who are thinking no will certainly have the choice to speak with me, discuss the issue and discuss the fallout for this country as a result of a no vote. This is not the time or the place to spend time talking about that because I really do have other issues.
Running a country is a question of priorities. You cannot do everything so you have to do something and you have to do something in order of priority. I would say this is probably the highest that we have ever had. If you
Government Orders
equate yes and no to keeping the country together, as I do, it is the highest priority.
We are all fairly educated, experienced people of an age when we know the difference, more or less, between right and wrong. We can do more than one thing at a time. I believe that we can campaign for the referendum and still run the business of the House of Commons at the same time. It may require that we operate with 20 members rotating from time to time or 10 members or 15. I do not know what the formula should be but I do believe that the Canadian public is going to be dismayed if it finds that its House is shut down until a month before Christmas and then is not going to open for another month after that. There are too many things going on in the country right now that are left hanging.
It reminds me a little bit of a ship in a storm. The navigation has gone somewhat berserk. It is foggy. The engines are not working properly and it is almost apparent, not inevitable, that the ship is going to founder on the rocks.
What does the ship's company do? What does the captain do? He does a lot of things, but one thing he does not do is abandon ship. He tries to do what he can. He tries to repair the engines. He tries to have a seaman's guess at where he is and take his ship out of harm's way.
I would say with a certain degree of agreement in this House that we as a country are very much standing in harm's way right now. I believe we have to come to the rescue of the country to prevent it from going further into harm's way and by putting the constitutional debate behind us and getting on and running the country.
That is very important but I believe it is also important to run the government other than administratively to have the opposition have the government accountable for the things that it is doing. I want to give one example and it is an example that I am very familiar with. I do not need to read any notes and I do not need to quote any figures.
For eight years the government has been running the fishery in this country. It is not an easy job. I am not going to stand here and say that it is an easy job. There are a lot of variables and a lot of uncertainties. However,

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
bad decisions have been made and mismanagement has been there.
From the early part of February when the northern cod cut-backs and the moratorium that would eventually come were announced by the government, this opposition day after day questioned the government, caused it to go back to the drawing board, asked it to think of compensation, suggested some ideas of compensation, wrote letters to the government and spoke with its constituents. Eventually on July 2 a compensation package was put forward.
I can guarantee that the opposition's role in that particular issue was very important. It was important enough that a compensation package was delivered. It was not perfect but that is not the issue here now. The compensation package was delivered.
There are a lot of people who still concern themselves with whether they are eligible and if they are eligible why they have not been compensated. There are certain areas of concern in the fishing industry such as vessel owners, who I am very concerned about, who have to maintain their vessels alongside. I am not talking about very small boats, I am talking about 65-footers costing upwards of $1 million.
They had to pay the loan. They had to pay the light and they had to pay the power and all the other bits and pieces to maintain their vessels alongside. They need special compensation. They have not been looked after.
Those involved in the trucking industry related to the fishery cannot change their system to do trucking for other sectors. For one thing, the other sectors are not there because of the economy of my province right now. However, they are not geared that way so they as well are out of work because of the northern cod moratorium. They should be looked after.
There are the small fish handlers and the smaller processing plants that buy fish or take on fish. The larger plants that depend on the northern cod to keep going take fish from these smaller plants to make sure that the peaks and the valleys are looked after. They are as related to the northern cod as those who have been compensated.
I know the minister is looking at that. My point is that it is the opposition that calls the government to account that helps the government run the country. It might not like it that way, but that is our system of parliamentary democracy.
There are a number of things that Canadians are concerned about right now and I am going to list them. I will not have time to speak about all of them. When I go back to my riding I can tell you I will not be faced with a number of people standing on the border of my constituency asking about the referendum,. I will create interest in the referendum, but my constituents are interested in the economy. They are interested in jobs. They are interested in what is happening to our social programs, particularly with what has gone on in the House this week with the demise of the family allowance program. They are interested in investing in people and in what the government is doing for them. They are interested in who cares for the underprivileged and poor; the people who do not have jobs or money and have children to look after and no place to go. They will ask me: Who cares for me?
There is concern for the youth. I have said many times the future of our country depends on our youth. I can tell you they are disillusioned. I will come back to that.
I mentioned the question of trust in this House two days ago. There are a lot of constituents out there who have problems with politicians, not just on the government side but on all sides of the House. I think there are reasons for that and I think we can rectify them. There is education and the whole business of parliamentary debate.
As I have said, I will not have a chance to talk about all of these, but let me just say a couple of things about the economy. God knows there have been enough speeches about the goods and services tax in the House. I do not intend to make another one this evening, but the goods and services tax was described by a number of people as the most unpopular tax in any country at any time. It did not take a Ph. D. in economics to figure out that whether or not the government needed the GST when it was causing the country to be in a recession, it went ahead and not only allowed the GST to happen, but pushed it through. Extra senators were brought in at a cost to the government of $30 million, to say nothing of the other

aspects of it. It was so intentional at a time when all the red flags were hoisted saying: "Don't do it. For God's sake don't do it now. Wait until the economy changes".
What happened? The government went ahead and did it. What does it mean? It means every single person has to pay $787 more a year to live. It means a couple with the average 1.2 children spends $2,375 a year more to live. That is a lot of money when you have no discretionary income, no job and no money coming in. Where do you find the money? What a time to introduce the goods and services tax.
I am not going to speak about the free trade agreement tonight, but last election we were speaking hypothetically because we did not know what the free trade agreement was going to do. We now have some evidence of it, four years later, and I do not like what I see. I have no problem with free trade, but this agreement has not been a good one. I have heard all kinds of figures mentioned about the number of jobs we have lost because of free trade. It is upwards of 1.2 million. Now if even half of those people are related to free trade that is too many.
I could go on to other aspects of the economy, but I want to move on to the business of jobs. I have the terrible distinction of having a riding that has the second highest unemployment rate of the 62 unemployment regions in Canada. I think northern Manitoba has the highest. I am not proud of that distinction and am trying to rid myself of it, but I cannot seem to do it. It used to be when people in my riding did not have jobs they went to Toronto, but now there are 600,000 people unemployed in Toronto and looking for jobs. They cannot go to Newfoundland because they will not find any jobs there. There are over 1.5 million people in this country without jobs.
Is there a better prospect for tomorrow? A very credible organization says next year, of all the G-7 countries, Canada will have the highest unemployment rate. That does not warm my heart at all.
I recall the Prime Minister saying social programs were not going to be touched. It was a sacred trust. In the space of four years we have seen changes in old age security and the family allowance. We have seen a great change in the unemployment insurance rules, which has certainly not been beneficial to my riding. We have seen the beginning of what could be the end of medicare.
Government Orders
I do not want to scare people but I do not like what I see. Payments are being cut to the provinces; the Canada Assistance Program is being capped; people are having to pay for things they cannot afford; we start to think about legislation that would put an end to medicare and those things worry me. I think they worry everybody here in the House.
There is the subject of investing in people. There is a level of anxiety in this country now that is bothersome. It used to be when you went to foreign countries the people would tell you Canada was a lovely country and if they had been here they would say this in spades. They would say they could not wait to go back to Canada. We have people who come to live in Canada. Why do they come to Canada? They come because we have a great reputation. In the last couple of years, in the rare times I have been out of the country, it is not quite the same. People say they do not understand what is happening to our country and wonder what we are doing to ourselves.
We used to think Canada was a great place to live. I submit it is still a great place to live. I am hoping, like all of us here in this House, we will continue to make it a great place to live. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am suggesting there is a very big red warning flag, and people are anxious about it from Bona Vista to Vancouver, and I have been in both places in the last week. It is a level of anxiety experienced politicians tell me they have never seen before.
I do not like using trite expressions, but if you look at the over-all record of this government since 1984, it has not really followed, initiated or encouraged policies that really help the underprivileged. I am going to leave it at that.
I have to say, on the positive side, if you want to see what youth can do, have a look at the 1,200 young Canadians who participated in the unity hockey tournament in Toronto. I was lucky enough to have a team from Conception Bay North in my riding and it represented eight or nine communities. When I was there recently for the summer games, which again was another positive youth-run organization, those who participated and their parents came up to me and said "Mr. Mifflin, we need more of that in this country". That warms the heart.
I give this example to show how positive youth are. Their minds are uncluttered with some of the things we bother ourselves with here in this House. I am not saying

Government Orders
they do not have the experience or are not educated about these things, but they are optimistic by nature. I want to see us doing things to keep them optimistic, but it is very hard for me to tell the youth I speak to that we in the government are optimistic for them when the government cuts back on youth training programs that provide work in the summertime to ensure they have money to go back to university.
An organization that represents 450,000 youth, the Canadian Federation of Students, says it is very disappointed because since 1985 $65 million has been cut from the summer employment program. It might be said that $3 million was put in last year but with the round figure is $65 million. It is very hard for me to say to the youth of this country that the government supports them when this kind of thing happens.
I can give a number of examples on trust, but this is the one I am going to cite. On August 24, 1988, four years ago plus, the Solicitor General came to my riding and gave fantastic reasons why there should be a prison in Harbour Grace. He said: "There are 201 Newfoundlanders who are inmates and we can only put 60 of them in Newfoundland. Therefore we must have a prison in Newfoundland for Newfoundlanders so they can be close to their families and be rehabilitated in the proper manner".
He gave a very stirring speech on that. There are 160. Less than a year later, on April 27, that prison was scuttled, finished. Now that is a lack of trust. I would not trust anybody who did that to me.
The government's record on education speaks for itself. Last year there was a reduction of 2.4 per cent in education at a time when the percentage should be going up.
In terms of parliamentary debate, on every major issue in this House we have been muzzled. We get two days to speak on it and that is it. We are muzzled. On Bill C-80, the demise of the family allowance, we were muzzled. On many other things we were muzzled.
Yes, I will go to my riding. Yes, I will do what is required to assist the yes answer. However, I would prefer that this House continue to sit and that while I am there some of my colleagues would be sharing their time to continue to drive home these points that show that,
yes we are our doing our thing with everybody to get a yes vote but after that is over we are going to hold the government accountable for those issues on which I have spoken.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have immense respect for my colleague and I actually have immense respect for many members on the government side.
I was happy to hear in the member's speech his remarks about youth and the unity tournament, because he was right on. We can learn a lot from the youth of this country on how to galvanize and work together. I agree with the member, I wish we had more projects like that with which we could pull the country together.
However, there is something the government side is totally misunderstanding. We on this side of the House are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Yes, there are many people in our country today who are doing better with the lower interest rates. There are many people doing well because of lower inflation. I think the ratchet on inflation was a little too aggressive but I am not knocking zero inflation. How could anyone do that?
It seems to me that the government does not realize we are not on this side of the House to speak for the advantaged Canadians. We are here to speak for those people in our country who are disadvantaged: the fishery that is in trouble right now, the many unemployed people, the people in my community who have no freedom because they do not have a weekly pay cheque, they do not have a job.
We are here to speak for the small or medium sized businessman who has this expectation in his mind that because interest rates on a poster are 5 or 5.5 per cent he can go in and get a loan, but then he goes in and gets shot down because there is very little money being rented out these days. He practically has to exchange money to get money.
Does the member not think that this government is totally misunderstanding what the constructive role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is all about and in fact is showing great disrespect for our legal right to be the watch-dog, to help make this government accountable?
September 17, 1992

Does the member not think that is one of the reasons that the people of Canada have such little trust today, because the government is not allowing us to do our job?


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.
His question is a pensive one in the sense that it concerns what causes people to put politicians, as my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys said, a little bit below loan sharks. I do not think we are quite that bad, but the point is made.
I am barely old enough to remember with any sort of knowledge and intensity of the pipeline debate. However, I do remember the flag debate. At a certain point in time the flag debate had to be closed, but it went on for weeks and weeks and weeks.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Months.


Fred J. Mifflin: It went on for months. At that time, when closure was announced the whole country was up in arms. People said: "Why are we stopping this debate?"
In response to my hon. friend's question, since 1984 this government has invoked closure or time allocation 50 times. That is 50 times in eight years.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Shame.


Fred J. Mifflin: Do I believe that this is one of the causes for the anxiety that I talked about, and lack of trust that my friend talks about? Of course it is.
Canadians elect parliamentarians to come to debate the issues. They do not elect us to be muzzled.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Right on.


Fred J. Mifflin: We spend two days talking about a bill like Bill C-80 in which the government says that it is going to give the people $2.1 billion in five years, but it does not tell them that it took $3.5 billion away from them the five years before. That is bound to cause a lack of trust in any organization. We are part of that organization and we cannot do our jobs as the Official Opposition because we are not permitted to do so by the government.
If the government wanted more trust as a government it would allow us to debate the issues, and perhaps the Canadian people would understand better why some of these measures are being discussed and why some of these measures have to be introduced.
Government Orders
There are few in my mind that we would change our minds on, but at least we should have the opportunity to debate.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Maybe even change the government's mind.


Fred J. Mifflin: Not allowing debate is not allowing democracy.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I find that I am among quite a coterie of members whom I respect immensely tonight, none more than the gentleman from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
Twillingate has gone? I wanted to congratulate him on his thoughtful speech, but I did want to take issue with just one point, and that is the question of muzzling.
I want to point out to the House and to those who are watching this very serious debate that this debate now going on is the result of an all-party agreement that it would be totally open-ended. There is no question of muzzling here. This debate will continue until there is no member who wishes to speak, who wishes to intervene.
It is not terribly unusual for that kind of thing to happen, again through agreement among the parties. I do wish to make a small correction to what my hon. friend said about Bill C-80. I think we had three days debate, rather than two days debate, at report stage and third reading this week.
There was considerable debate at second reading earlier this year. On the question of debate being closed off, my friend from Kingston and the Islands says it was closed off. There has been a fairly loose use of words, not by my friend from Newfoundland, but by others about the word closure. I think the record will show that during 14 or 15 months beginning in the spring of 1991 and ending in June of this year, not once did this government use either closure or time allocation to compress a debate and bring it to a conclusion.
Since then there has been some use of time allocation, which is a parliamentary rule which allocates a particular amount of time to the conclusion of a debate. There has been no use of closure. The parliamentary device of closure, to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected on

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
this, I do not believe has been used since the early spring of 1991.
Time allocation is used in the House only when consent and agreement on time allocation cannot be arrived at among the parties. That is when it becomes a unilateral initiative of the government. There is a tremendous amount of consultation that does go on. As parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I spend a good deal of my time consulting with my colleagues from the opposition and trying to accommodate them. I can tell my friends opposite that even today I made a personal error which resulted in an extra 45 minutes of debate for the opposition.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What beneficence.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That is more than had been agreed upon among the parties.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Come on, you are talking about Canada.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That is just one example. Just to conclude two points, many pieces of legislation, much of the work of this House, are done in committee, as all members will concede. A great bulk of the work of Parliament is done in committee. Just to use two examples, a good deal of legislation that comes out of this place has had many amendments from all sides that have succeeded. My friend from Davenport is here and I think of the environmental bill of the last year or so. I do not know whether it was 100 amendments, but there were scores of amendments that were accepted and they originated from him and from other members of the opposition as well as from government members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time has now expired.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could make a short response to the hon. member's question to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. If there is unanimous consent I have no problem.
Is there unanimous consent to give the floor to the hon. member?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I do not really want to be long. I equally have a great deal of respect for my hon. friend from Edmonton Southwest. He knows as well as I do regarding closure that the rules for time allocation, the way it is right now, give an
advantage to the government over the rules of closure. He also knows closure can only be used on third reading.
The other point is that in 15 months, by golly, we have not sat very much. That is probably one of the reasons why it has not been used. Here are the statistics and I think I need them for the record.
In the 70 years prior to this government's taking over, closure was invoked 13 times. Since this government has taken over it has been used 13 times as well; 13 times in 70 years and 13 times in 8 years.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: When was the last time?


An hon. member:: You have not used it since you changed the rules.


Fred J. Mifflin: The rules for time allocation have changed so the statistics, since they are being derived from a different set of rules and different time frames, really mean nothing.
Those were the main points. Let me finish by saying that when I speak in this House on an issue that is important to my constituents and I am told that I cannot speak because I have no time, the government will not allow it, I think I am being muzzled.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I would love to continue with the debate that was going on between my learned and gallant colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and my very distinguished colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, but I will not except to say that the government House leader knows perfectly well that since the government fiddled the rules of this House, a year ago May I believe was the date that these changes took place-


Dennis Joseph Mills: It is fiddling the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: -it has made it possible for the government to use time allocation instead of closure which is far faster, and he knows this perfectly well. He also knows why closure is not being used.
Just so that the public understands, in order for closure to be used the debate must have commenced, so there has to be a day of debate and then notice of the closure motion is given and the closure allows for the debate to go until eleven o'clock at night. The government moved it from one o'clock in the morning to eleven o'clock at night. Once closure is moved you have an extended day of debate. Therefore, you must have at least part of a day and a full day of debate, and by full I
September 17, 1992

mean from the time the House starts until eleven o'clock at night.
Under the time allocation rule, you must have started the debate all right, but then once you have moved the motion the full day is allocated to it. Therefore, the day of the vote is all that is taken up. Yesterday was a perfect example. We had time allocation at third reading stage on the bill, the vote was put on the time allocation motion right after the Routine Proceedings were over at 3.30 p.m. or so and then the debate went on until the normal completion hour for government business at seven o'clock. The vote was put and the matter disposed of. Therefore, it would be much faster. If the government had used closure on third reading we would have been here until eleven o'clock last night debating that wretched legislation and the government would have been even more embarrassed than it was.
There is a good reason why closure has not been used. The government can also use time allocation on two stages at once and that is exactly what it did on that bill. It can use it on report stage and third reading. Closure is not available in report stage unless there is only one amendment because the debate would be prolonged in any event.
The parliamentary secretary, in saying that it has not been used, is playing a cat and mouse game and that is typical of the games that the government plays with the country and with this House by giving some of the facts and concealing the damaging facts.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: We are going to hear everything now.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, we are going to hear a little more. As the parliamentary secretary says, we are going to get more of the facts.
I want to go back to 1984 to talk about the government's economic record. It was elected on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. We all remember how the Prime Minister paraded around the country, boasting about his capacity for creating jobs and also remember that he was going to eliminate the deficit. That was the highest priority, to get rid of the deficit that the government keeps harping about as the cause of all its current evils. Every time a minister answers a question about the economy it is all because of that awful Liberal debt the Conservatives inherited eight years ago for heaven's sake. They still
Government Orders
have not got over that pill and yet they knew about it and they were talking about it throughout the election campaign in 1984.
We have had 32 tax increases since this government took office. Government revenues have increased by over 50 per cent, I believe it is now the case, since it took office and we still have a $30 billion a year deficit. The government says that it has our finances in order. In every budget we hear how the government has things on course. Remember how the former Minister of Finance, now the super minister, used to say he was steering the course, holding the course, and he had this great course. The course has been repeated deficits and a repeated inability to get control over the country's finances, all because of the free-wheeling, spend-thrift ways of the government in times of economic success when the economy was booming.
Now we have an economic mess created by the government's own disastrous policies. It now says the cupboard is bare and instead of having Parliament sit here and introduce new programs which will help the unemployed, which will help fill the training programs that are now empty because there is no money to keep them going, we are left doing nothing and going off to deal with the Constitution yet again. I will deal with the government's bungling on that issue in a few moments.
In addition to the government's inability to get any control, we have had a disastrous financial policy pursued by the Bank of Canada. The government, in conjunction with its friends at the bank, the governor, has decided that a zero inflation target is appropriate for Canada. Today we witnessed what happened in the United Kingdom when a zero inflation target was finally abandoned by the government. It could not continue with it because it was bringing the economy to its knees. International money markets finally brought about the end of that policy. Yesterday we read that the British government lost something like $3 billion on the foreign exchange markets trying to prop up the pound and raise its interest rates by 5 per cent in one day. It lost control. Finally it lowered the interest rate at the end of the day and let the pound go down. They finally realized that this policy was in error. It has taken a long time. This government still has not realized the policy is in error.

Government Orders
What this policy has done is put Canadians out of work. Interest rates have been held artificially high in Canada for too long and Canadians have lost jobs as a very direct result of that.
The additional thing that has done is it has kept the Canadian dollar artificially high so that Canadian exports to the United States are more expensive for Americans to buy. We accordingly have suffered a loss of manufacturing jobs in this country. It has made cross-border shopping more attractive, which has only fueled the recession in Canada as Canadians go south of the border to spend their relatively valuable dollars on American goods.
Had the interest rate been lowered, had the Canadian dollar been allowed to drop, we would not have had the recession that we have suffered through in Canada for the last two and a half years. Indeed, the blame for this whole financial mess rests right on the government side. It has mishandled this from the beginning. It has botched this policy, and it has done it at the very worst time for our country because it negotiated a free trade agreement with the United States and it should have been adopting policies that expanded our trade, not reduced it. Instead of that, we have had the government pursue this high interest rate, high dollar policy, which has curtailed Canadian success in the American market and damaged our future prospects because we do not have the manufacturing industries being established here at a time when they should be to get those exports going.
It has cost us, it has cost us dearly, and it is no surprise that Ontario has lost a great number of jobs.
I will not go into the fact that we have an NDP government in Ontario which is driving investment out of the province willy-nilly, that is only exacerbating the problem. I could go into that at some length, but there is not much point. The people of Ontario know it and they are suffering badly as a result of having that government. Its policies, although not intended to be, are complementary to the policies of the federal government which seem to be to close the province. When my friend from Broadview-Greenwood, speaks of the 600,000 unemployed in Toronto, he knows whereof he speaks and
whereof I speak when I talk about the disastrous effect of these policies on the economy of Ontario.
I would like to turn to the Constitution, having done what I could with the government's muddle-headed policies on the economy. I can only say that what it has done on the Constitution has been an even greater disservice for Canada.
The Prime Minister decided early on in his term that he was going to be the great champion of constitutional reform. He wanted to be another Pierre Trudeau or someone along those lines. He felt that he had the ability and somehow the trust of Canadians to come up with something new that would solve all our constitutional problems. No one has created a worse mess in Canada in terms of national unity and our Constitution than this government headed by this Prime Minister.
I regret profoundly, as do most Canadians, that he ever touched this field, that he ever thought that he ought to meddle in this field. If he had kept his mouth shut and done nothing, if this government had let the issue alone and done nothing, we would not be facing the constitutional crisis that seems to have enveloped us for the last three or four years.
We now have a deal cobbled together that the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, to his credit, managed to work out with a group of premiers of greatly varying political views. As I said the other night in the debate on this, I do not think the agreement is a great one. It is the best we can get, given the situation in which we find ourselves today, thanks very largely to this government's own blundering, stumbling and fooling around with this issue.
I want to say that I am prepared to support this agreement, as I said the other day, and in fact in my own riding of Kingston and the Islands I have invited the other three parties to participate in a joint yes committee and all have agreed. We have established in Kingston a yes committee for the referendum, composed of the three main political parties-my Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. The presidents of all three parties were with me recently and I announced at a press conference with them that we

were working together. They made statements in support. Clearly we disagree; they know full well my views with respect to the fact that the government got us into this mess and the blame I attach to the government for it. But we have all agreed we have to put Canada first in this case and set aside our partisan differences with respect to the question of voting yes. We will have our partisan reasons for doing so, but at least we can agree that a yes vote is essential for our country and we are working toward that goal.
I am pleased that has been the case and I hope the public realizes the reason for our willingness to co-operate in this way. It is not because a great affection exists for the government or because we believe the government handled the case properly. We do believe the future of the country requires a yes vote and in order to minimize the difficulties with respect to that, we have agreed to work together for that purpose.
This week a great Canadian nationalist died. I refer to Bruce Hutchison who wrote for many years about this country. I think there will be many of my own age who in their high school career may have come across some readings by this ardent nationalist for Canada. He spoke about our country and I would like to read a quotation from his book The Unknown Country.
This particular short piece was in a high school textbook, I recall. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary remembers it. I am glad he is back. It is nice to have at least one member here to hear on the other side the speech. The quotation is this:
My country has not found itself nor felt its power nor learned its true place. It is all visions and doubts and hopes and dreams. It is strength and weakness, despair and joy, and the wild confusions and restless strivings of a boy who has past his boyhood but is not yet a man.
This quotation, although out of date-it was published in 1942-nevertheless reflects his ardent feelings for Canada and certainly reflects the present turmoil I think in which many Canadians find themselves as they cast about what their country means to them and what vision they have for its future and worries and concerns about that future.
I think there are some very important changes that have taken place in Canada and I would like to refer to
Government Orders
them for a few minutes because I think it indicates considerable hope for the future.

If we can win this referendum, we will have to recognize the changes that have taken place in past years, especially the changes concerning language problems. In this country, we have often remained two solitudes, as my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard, said in his speech a few days ago during the debate on the referendum question.
I looked at the figures prepared by the Commissioner of Official Languages in his annual report for 1991. The figures that interest me are those on second-language and minority language education programs. It is quite obvious from these figures, that many Canadians, especially young people, have started to study the other official language in school. That is very important for the future of this country. I believe that the interest in languages, and in the other official language in several provinces, is a sign of reconciliation between our country's language groups.
The figures are very interesting. I am especially looking at the figures for the province of Ontario, for example. It is hard for me to read figures in French, but I will try and if I make mistakes, forgive me.
For example, in 1977-78, there were 1,950,000 students in school. This year in Ontario, 883,000 students, or less than 50 per cent of the school population, are studying a second language.
In 1977-78 the French immersion program had 12,000 students in 160 schools. Last year the French immersion program had 140,000 students in 1,180 schools. That is an incredible increase. Moreover, 67 per cent of the primary school population was studying a second language. That is a real increase in the past 15 years since 1977.
These figures indicate an achievement in Ontario, but the same thing has happened in several other provinces where studying and speaking the other language has become very important.

This importance is something that cannot be stressed too strongly because if there are two solitudes in this country, it is the direct result of our unwillingness to work and study in the other language.

Government Orders
I may have mentioned in the House, I am not sure, that during a trip to South Africa last year I was confronted with a group of South African politicians who were fairly bilingual. These politicians spoke English and Afrikaans, which are two of the principal languages of South Africa. There are also others. It was commonplace for many South African citizens to speak both those languages. In fact, I found it extremely common throughout my visit.
The remark was made to me: "Of course we have to study two languages in school and that is why many of us speak this. Do you not have the same rule in Canada?" I said: "No, we do not. You are not required to take two languages in school. You can but you do not have to". They were surprised at that because they thought of us as a bilingual country.
We have things to learn about what goes on in other places and certainly the effective use of the two languages there made communication much easier. It broke down the divisions that existed in their society, at least in so far as those two language groups were concerned and it allowed them to interact with one another, an interaction that happens all too rarely in our country, exacerbated by the geographical limits of the various provinces where changes occur in terms of provincial policy on education and so on. Those problems are going to be with us for a while. I am not saying they will be over.
In this constitutional discussion we had to try to work out a way of keeping our language groups together, our provinces together with their very divergent interests and aspirations and economic situations, and then try, as the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs said, to cobble together some arrangement that would make the country work.

As my colleague from Bonavista-Tfinity-Conception said, our country's future depends on young people.
I am sure that the figures I quoted indicate a change in our young people's attitude which is very important for our country's future.
I hope that with time we will grow to appreciate one another as linguistic groups, as different cultures, and expose ourselves to the other culture in a way that we
have not been able to do because of the language barriers that exist between us.
That aside, we have to try to also cobble together a country that can work economically. The new package that has been put together, while far from perfect and one that could be criticized on numerous fronts, at least leaves relatively intact the economic structure of the country.
Some will say it needed repair worse than some of the other areas, and maybe it did. However, I do not think we are going to get that kind of repair, given the policy approaches of the current government which have done so much to damage the economic fabric of Canada.
The breaking down of our national institutions- [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I forgot to look at the time, you were so eloquent, sir. We must now move to the period for questions and comments.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend for his contribution to this debate in both of our languages.
Even though he and I disagree on the vast majority of issues, I know he loves his country. He has demonstrated that on many occasions.
I want to ask my friend two questions. One is related to the fact that a leader of an aspirant new political party has suggested that Canadians vote no in this coming referendum and that it will be possible, as he advocates, to put constitutional discussions to one side during the life of the next Parliament.
We do not know what the life of the next Parliament is going to be, but let us assume it is four or five years, which is the customary life of a Parliament. I wish to ask my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands what he believes would be the fate of Canada if such a course were followed.
The second question relates to my friend's comments about South Africa. I did not know that South Africa has, in effect, compulsory bilingualism, compulsory in the sense of instruction at least. I would like to ask my friend whether he considers that Canada has in any facet of its life compulsory bilingualism. I think voters in Alberta would be interested in his response.
September 17, 1992


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of the Reform Party to which my hon. friend refers, I know that he has particular problems with that party in his own province.
The rumours are rife that Reform may win some seats in Alberta the next time round. They already have one. The hon. member for Beaver River is-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I notice you are looking over your shoulder, too.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Not in the least. I am encouraging the Reform Party in my own constituency. I invited it to join the yes committee, but I have not received an answer. In time it may yet. I do not know what its approach is. I have not heard. The members of that party may or may not call me, I do not know what they are going to do, but that does not worry me.
I think the leader of the Reform Party is wrong when he makes the statement that this issue will simply be closed for five years. It will not close for five years. I do not think the provinces would agree to allow it to be closed for five years because the constitutional discussions that have gone on have raised Canadians' expectations too much.
That is the problem when you start discussing the Constitution. That is part of the reason why the Prime Minister should never have touched the issue, if he had any sense. Once you start meddling with it, especially when you are not very good at it as we have seen he is not-


An hon. member:: It is over his head.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is away over his head.
Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise a point of order. The member knows full well that the constitutional problem was something that we inherited as a government. It was an incomplete constitutional package in 1982. We had no choice but to deal with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is a matter of opinion. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The fact is that the Prime Minister got in over his head. The whole government got in over its head. Now we are drowning in constitutional soup. If an issue is not raised, people's expectations do not soar. If my hon. friend has any doubts about people's expectations, have them call the head of the National Action Committee for the Status of Women.
It is clear. Her expectations are much greater than his perhaps on this issue or even some of my colleagues who disagree with her. The fact is that the opportunity was there to do something and if it was not done, people feel they have been disappointed.
The expectations in the country are that something will be done, however little. For the leader of the Reform Party to suggest that this issue is just going to be closed off for five years and that nobody will talk about it, is hopeful pie in the sky. It will not happen and it cannot happen.
Indeed I suspect that after this deal is approved, there may be further discussion on this issue. I do not think it will be dominating the national agenda. I think it will be done-


Fred J. Mifflin: I hope not.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I hope not too. I am sick and tired of it. As the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception says, it is not something we want to continue with.
The second question that my colleague asked was about compulsory bilingualism. I said that in South Africa there was a requirement that two languages be studied in school. It was not those two. You could take any two. There was quite a choice of languages that one could take.
Were there a second language instruction or requirement in Canada it would not necessarily, if you follow the South African example, be English and French. It might be English and some other language.
I am not an expert in education by any means. I would have thought that a requirement that one study two languages in school for some period of time would not be a bad idea. Then I am not sure that I should, not being an expert in the area, express my view particularly on that. I would prefer to do that. When I was in school, I can tell the hon. member that I studied four languages. I studied

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
Latin, German, French and English and I enjoyed every minute of it. I would do it again. I must say I have forgotten most of my German and a good deal of the Latin.
Perhaps with help from the hon. member, he can assist me and we can have a speech here in Latin some night.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear that when my colleague for Kingston and the Islands goes to his riding over the next few weeks, he will be constantly reminding people of the flaws in this particular package and the fact that this government's economic record is something we on this side of the House do not support. A great concern I have is that people might perceive that the Liberal Party is endorsing this government's entire package. That is something that really bothers me.
One of the things that I have experienced in my city, Toronto, is that about 99 per cent of the businessmen I have talked to in the last four or five days have not read a single line of this document. It is in my riding office and I beg the business community of Toronto for once to try and take some time to get involved in this. For me, the people of this countiy are supreme. If the people of this country want to vote for this package, then I am not going to get in their way.
I resent the governments-


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, the member started out by mentioning that the Liberal Party did not endorse this particular package. I am somewhat confused. Is he talking about an economic package or he is talking about the referendum constitutional package?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Your attention please. I will be pleased to give the floor to the hon. member for a question or comment or for a speech but it is a matter of opinion.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat for the hon. member exactly what I said. I said that there are some Liberals in Canada-the Liberal Party of Canada because there are some of us in the Liberal Party-who have real problems with this package and I am one of them. I am undecided because there are many things in this package that I cannot get the answer for yet. I have talked to some of the best constitutional lawyers in this country and I think I have a right to ask questions about certain aspects of this deal. For the government to say that I am anti-Canadian or anti-Canada because I am
asking questions about this package-you have insinuated that many times in this House today. If you want to clarify it, that is great.
There are going to be a lot of Canadians who vote against this package in every province of this country. If they vote against this package, we should not call them anti-Canadian or anti-Canada. We should stop saying they are going to be responsible for the break-up of Canada. We are not a bunch of mobile homes here that are going to be moved off.
My question, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, the time for question and comments has now expired.


Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition on this side of the House think that tonight's debate is very important. We believe that the House of Commons should not adjourn, because issues like unemployment, the economy, personal security and many others affecting the national welfare require this House to continue working in September and October. It is really too bad that the government has decided to adjourn for more than six weeks.

This motion reveals one thing very clearly: the government is out of touch with Canadians. In a survey published just 10 days ago in The Toronto Star, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed called the economy and the recession their major preoccupations. Employment was also very high. It came at a very high level of 24 per cent. National unity and the Constitution came at a level of 11 per cent.
This is a clear indication that the mind and the heart of Canadians is focused on matters other than constitutional. It very difficult to understand why, in light of this poll, the government would decide to close down the House of Commons for six weeks.
It seems to me that the government is not really so much out of touch with Canadians, but that it is adopting a tactic to divert the attention of the public from pressing economic and social issues and to focus instead on one and only one matter, namely the Constitution, as if we did not have one. Canadians have had a Constitution since 1982. It is a new Constitution by any normal international standards. It has worked well and it has
September 17, 1992

served Canada well in every part and region of this country.
At the same time, if we look at the picture of Canada, we notice, as other speakers and other colleagues of mine have indicated, that the country is in a mess. Why the government would want to divert the attention of the House of Commons and of the public away from its urgent and pressing economic and social measures is really very difficult to understand. Unless it has a particular scheme in mind, namely that it does not really want to focus on these economic and social matters it is highly regrettable.
This motion to close down the House until November is a real disgrace because it is, in essence, an abdication of responsibility in an attempt on the part of the government to say to Canadians: "We want you to focus on the Constitution and the rest must wait". This is the wrong approach.
There are important matters in this country that require attention. Where will the government be in the next six weeks? Not answering questions in the House that get reported by the media, and which in turn allow Canadians to know the answers to current issues as raised in this place, the House of Commons. The government will be able to issue press releases and engage in a monologue. There will not be a dialogue across the aisle in this House for the benefit of the public, to help them learn what the measures introduced or announced by the government are really all about.
This House will be mute, this House will be silent and the public will be denied the opportunity to have access to valuable information, as is the case when this House is sitting. This is a very serious measure that the government is bringing down tonight.
On this side of the House we should scream bloody murder in the middle of the night because this measure is really unacceptable considering the gravity of the economic and social situation in this country.
The government is closing down the House at a time when the nation is in turmoil on the Constitution, which the public does not understand in its implications and its complexity, for which there is no legal text, on which no study has been conducted to reveal how the proposals
Government Orders
will work out in reality and in practice, on which every day in the last few days we learn about revelations, denials, contestations, and rejections at the provincial level, in parts of the country.
It is becoming controversial. Therefore, it would be in the public interest if the House were to sit to allow clarification on some of these disturbing developments that are now surrounding the integrity of the process leading to the referendum date.
The government is closing down the House. Thus, it is virtually cutting off the public from information about what is happening in a variety of sectors. Thke the economy, and what is happening there. It is cutting off the public from knowing about what is happening in terms of unemployment and what is being done about it.
It is cutting off information about what is being done regarding the North American free trade agreement, how it would affect our working population and the measures that could be put in place to protect those who will be affected. It is cutting off information and dialogue about the environmental effects resulting from the North American free trade agreement.
It is keeping the public in the dark about the measures, if any, that would be taken in order to reduce the very high youth unemployment.
It is leaving the public in the dark about the long-term intentions of this government with regard to the universality of our social security system, in the light of what happened yesterday when the government muscled through the child benefit bill.
It is leaving the public in the dark about the training of the unemployed, and the shortcomings in that very important sector. It is leaving the public in the dark about measures the government may want to take in order to protect the Canadian dollar in case it may be in danger in the weeks ahead.
It is bringing to a halt any intervention in this House on behalf of the fishing communities on the east and west coasts. It does not permit any interested members, on behalf of the forestry industry and workers, to pursue the issue of our dwindling forest resources.

Government Orders
It does not permit members to pursue our seriously backward energy policies that are being adopted by the federal government at the present time. It is leaving us in the dark about the intention of this government to introduce measures related to water quality.
It is leaving us unable to raise the important question of the galloping increases in foreign control of Canadian business and industry. It does not permit the opposition, on behalf of the public, to raise questions about the lack of adequate protection for those whose jobs are rapidly disappearing, about questions on insufficient social housing, about the increasing costs of drugs and medicines for people on fixed incomes, about violence in the cities, about violence in the streets, about the individuals who are abducted despite efforts on the part of the police, about drug education, about the slump in the construction industry, you name it.
From this list, and I will elaborate on some of these points, one cannot help but conclude that it is the height of irresponsibility on the part of this government to close down this House over the next six weeks.
I am looking forward to the questions by the parliamentary secretary, to hear from him how he justifies that particular fact. It is the height of irresponsibility for this government to say to the nation that unemployment is not going to be on our agenda during the next six weeks.
Youth unemployment is at 20 per cent in Toronto, where the member from Broadview-who also has raised this issue on several occasions-and I come from. At 20 per cent it is an issue that now has got to be put to sleep. The repercussions of the North American so-called free trade agreement are going to be so severe on thousands of workers, and their future cannot be discussed and raised in this Chamber for a month and a half because the government has decided that this country does not have a Constitution, because this government has decided that Canadians are unhappy about the Constitution.
Have you received a letter from one Canadian saying he or she is unhappy with the present Constitution? Has anyone stopped you on the street imploring that we need an amendment to the Constitution because there is something profoundly wrong with it and we need a redesigned Senate? Show me one Canadian who goes to bed at night worrying about the composition of the Senate. Show me one and I will give you a special diploma for finding that person. It has become ridiculous.
Let me elaborate a little bit on some of the topics I just raised. When it comes to fisheries, we know there are
hundreds of communities on the east coast in particular, but also increasingly on the west coast, which are facing a very serious winter because of the lack of cod or salmon, because we have overfished. What measures are going to be put into place? There are some we need to examine to see whether they are working. We want to know what we are doing for the long term to bring back the missing stocks, to bring back the means to make a living for the communities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We will not be able to say a word on that matter for the next six weeks.
We know there is violence and uncertainty in the streets. There are abductions. We want to raise this matter in the House of Commons with the Minister of Justice to ensure appropriate measures are taken. We will not be able to do that.
We have learned that between June 1985 and June 1992 some $115 billion of foreign investment has come into Canada and 93 per cent of this went to take over existing businesses. Only 6 per cent was invested to launch new enterprises. This is a devastating statistic. It is a very serious matter. We want to investigate it.
We learned the merchandise trade surplus with the United States was $48 billion in the three years preceding the free trade deal. In the first three years after the free trade deal was signed, it has slumped by $6 billion to $42 billion. In other words, we have lost $6 billion worth of trade in three years. During the same years, Canada went from a surplus of $11.5 billion in the current account to a deficit of $11 billion. There are a number of items which require the examination of parliamentarians and must be raised in this House.
We have an 11.8 per cent rate of unemployment in Canada in the adult population, which is by far the highest of the G-7 group.
In terms of foreign ownership, some 30 per cent of Canada's top 65,000 corporations are foreign owned. These are vital statistics that make the question of the Constitution appear almost irrelevant because we have to come to grips with them. In light of the issues surrounding us from coast to coast, from the economy to social matters, from trade to the environment, we are going to witness a situation whereby the Government of Canada is going to operate without the scrutiny of the public made possible through the daily operations of the House of Commons.
This is an unacceptable decision, which we on this side
of the House reject in the name of the Canadian public.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened again with interest to my friend from Davenport who always makes a reasoned contribution to any debate.
I just wish to focus on one point he made. He challenged us to name one Canadian who went to bed at night worried about the Constitution.
I will try to describe which Canadians do that: there are Quebecers shut out by the Thideau Constitution; 2.5 million Albertans and millions of others across the country who are heart-sick about the disgraceful anachronism that is our present Senate; 790,000 Canadians of aboriginal origin who will at last be reconciled to ordering their own affairs; Francophones outside Quebec and Anglophones in Quebec; Canadians who care about social goals and objectives; and finally, and this may surprise my friend, students of Canada, the unemployed of Canada, the under employed of Canada; people whose economic lives are impacted by things my friend will say are the errors, omissions and commissions of the government, but which are contributed to in large measure by the constitutional uncertainty that besets us.
Now I think my friend will say we brought it on ourselves because we initiated it or mismanaged it. The fact of the matter is, not only was Quebec left out of the Constitution, these other aspects of our Constitution that have truly been dealt with in this Canada round, imperfectly as they may have been dealt with, have been dealt with by the 17 participants as effectively as possible at this time.
I would challenge my hon. friend with the same proposition I put to the member for Kingston and the Islands. If we were to tell Mr. or Ms. Canada to go to sleep and not worry about the Constitution, does he honestly believe we could live through the life of another Parliament not dealing with the Constitution and still keep the country together?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question because it gives me
Government Orders
the opportunity to reply. The unemployed, the people he referred to who are having a difficult time and those who cannot make ends meet are not the victims of the existing Constitution. They are the victims of the wrong economic policies adopted by this government over the last few years. They are the victims of the decision of this government to focus all its energies, attention and time on the Constitution at the expense of economic issues. The fixation with the Constitution has brought about the current problems, not the fact that we have a Constitution that is not working.
The hon. member likes to engage in accusing the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Thi-deau, of constitutional shortcomings. It was a Constitution which his party supported. He was not in the House at that time and therefore he may not recall it, but it received the support of his party and of his current Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. It must have been a pretty good Constitution, if it generated the support of the Progressive Conservative Party at that time, I submit respectfully.
The question that worries Canadians today is related to their ability to make ends meet, not to how many senators will represent them in the upper chamber. That is the question that preoccupies Canadians. Those who have jobs are worried about whether they will have jobs under the North American free trade agreement. Those who do not have jobs are worried about the fact that they may never again get jobs. Those are the issues that are preoccupying Canadians today.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canada is hurting and that we would like to see the economy much better than it is, but I think we have to put in perspective where we are internationally in relation to the rest of the world.
Obviously, if anyone has watched the television screen, listened to the radio or read a newspaper in the last 24 hours, he or she would realize that we are in pretty good shape in this country in relation to what is happening in Europe. In fact we are in pretty good shape in relation to what is happening in the United States.

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
I will cite a number of those statistics when I rise on debate, but I have a question for the member. A headline in The Financial Post of today, the September 17 edition, read: "IMF sees Canada leading rebound". For those folks at home, the IMF is the International Monetary Fund.
It simply states that of all the nations in the world Canada is best positioned to lead the world next year in economic performance. In fact we will come pretty close to leading the world this year in economic performance. That is not rhetoric. It is fact that every one of us in this House, regardless of political stripe, should be proud of.
We are not alone in this recession, but the member would have to admit that we have the fundamentals in their proper perspective. We are in a position from which we can indeed lead the world. The member should recognize that and accept the fact that we have done a pretty good job through some very difficult international times.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte for his question.
He may draw comfort from reading The Financial Post headline on the International Monetary Fund, but that headline is of very little comfort for a mother who is trying to raise two children alone, for someone whose meal depends on the food bank around the comer, for someone who has just lost his or her job, or for someone who knows that his or her job may be lost in the near future because of global competition.
They will not be impressed by the headline the hon. member saw in The Financial Post: "IMF sees Canada leading rebound".
It is a good headline for those who have good jobs with good salaries, but it is not comforting reading for the 11 per cent of adult Canadians who are unemployed or the 20 per cent Canadian youth who are unemployed. To them, the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, is an abstract notion. If it is known to them, they also know how many of these predictions have not turned out true. That is another aspect that has to be kept in mind.
I urge the hon. member to come down to earth and put himself in the position of those who are suffering because of the wrong economic policy of this government obsessed with inflation, a policy which has managed to bring down inflation and at the same time to kill the economy. This economy is not rebounding despite the low levels of inflation, which tells me that the government put its foot on the brake so hard to stop inflation that it killed the economy in the process. That is why I say the economic policy of the government is wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time for question and comments has now expired.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we will be leaving this House for the next eight weeks. That is the subject of debate tonight, as we shut down the House. This has to be the most important eight weeks in the history of this country. Each and every member will leave this House and go back to their individual constituencies to take part in the referendum vote on October 26.
I know there is disagreement on whether or not we should be here or back in our constituencies. There will always be disagreement on that. I guess even those of us on this side of the House can debate whether we should be here or back home.
When I am back home I will be holding meetings throughout my riding. Most members on both sides of the House will be doing that, but obviously some will not. In fact today we put the final touches on the dates of those meetings in what is a very rural riding. We will have 15 public meetings in total which will be very much non-political. We will invite all the community leaders and citizens of the individual communities within Carleton-Charlotte to partake.
In those meetings we are going to step through the referendum and the constitutional agreement reached in Charlottetown on August 28 and discuss their merits so that when we go out to vote on October 26 we will understand what is in that package.
The only way we can do that is to be back in our constituencies and work as hard as we can to get the message out, to explain that package. As I stated in this House on Tuesday of this week, although the question is quite simple the proposals or the agreement itself is somewhat complex. It is incumbent upon all of us in this House to do our best to explain those proposals, to explain the agreement that was reached by the first ministers, the aboriginal leaders, the territorial leaders and the Prime Minister on August 28. We are going to do our very best to explain that package. However, there


September 17, 1992

will be questions and there will be debate on whether we should be here or back home.
I want to put what is happening in this country this very day in context or to explain it the best I can. The member who just spoke, I guess being as generous as I can, pointed out some of the flaws in our country. Indeed we have a number of them and we will admit to those, but I think we have to use real facts and real statistics when we are on our feet in this House. We cannot depend entirely on emotion to get our points across.
Some things have been mentioned in the House this evening with regard to what is wrong with Canada. They have stepped through the environment, fisheries, energy programs, unemployment insurance programs, and the child benefit package that we just debated in the House this week. We can step through each and every one of those and argue that we should be back in the House in the next eight weeks talking about those types of things, talking about the unemployment rate and talking about the fisheries.
However, we have dealt with those matters. We have packages, programs and legislation in place today dealing with those matters. They are not perfect. They will be refined from time to time. When we come back in November we will probably be taking another look at some of them in the House.
We have not forgotten those issues. We have not forgotten the fishermen in Newfoundland. We have not forgotten the cod fishery and the devastation that the lack of that resource has brought about in Newfoundland.
The minister of fisheries announced in the House the most generous package ever announced by the Government of Canada to deal with that very problem. We could agree that it is not enough and it will probably never be enough, but we have dealt with it.
In terms of the environment, Canada leads the world internationally with our green plan. It is the best in the universe. In terms of energy, I cannot speak with much authority in that area, although we do have the parliamentary secretary to the House leader with us this evening who can speak with authority in that area. We
Government Orders
have an energy program, a package and a vision for this country that will work in future years.
We have an unemployment insurance program that was overhauled by this government in attempts to deal with the realities of the work place in Canada. We are doing those things. We have not forgotten those things.
The member talks about single parents, mothers and the jobless in Canada. We have not forgotten those people. We debated the child benefit package or that child benefit legislation that will replace the old family system, the child tax benefit system and the other accompanying tax benefit programs in a very constructive way. The package that was supposed to deal with certain realities out there was a very confusing mess.
When we talk about that we have to focus on what we did in this House as a government. We brought in a package that addressed reality. It addressed the people who need assistance from the Government of Canada, those lower and middle income working families, those poor families who need assistance. We have looked at that legislation and we have a package of which we can be very proud.
If there are other glaring realities that we have to deal with when we return to the House, we will deal with them. However, let us not be confused by some of the rhetoric that has been evident here this evening.
I mentioned earlier that Canada is positioned to lead the world next year in terms of economic growth. That fact is recognized by just about everyone outside the country. Every country in the world recognizes that this country called Canada has done the things that were necessary to move it along the way in terms of economic growth in future years. We have done that and we can be very proud of that.
When I cite those statistics I am not doing it in an abstract way. The member can criticize me for using that in a very abstract fashion, but it is not abstract. It is talking about the very thing that creates jobs in this country, the jobs we want to see. We have gone through some difficult periods and we will probably go through more of them.

Government Orders
When you form the government you have to do the things that you feel are necessary, and we have done them. Now we are being recognized internationally for having done those things.
If we want to get into comparing our record with the record that the previous government had in this country, I will stand up any day to compare. That is not what it is all about here this evening.
This evening we are going to be leaving this place. We are going to be leaving this place for eight weeks to discuss the very future of this country and whether we have a future. I think it is time that we left the politics of this issue behind us and leave here tonight in a spirit of generosity to go out and do the thing that is incumbent upon us to do; namely, talk about the good will of this country, the future of this country, what we have achieved in the mere 125 years that we have had as a country. We must go out and do our best to encourage Canadians to take a very serious look at the proposals we have before us, at the agreement that was reached in Charlottetown on August 28.1 think it is incumbent upon us to go out in a very serious and dedicated way, explain those proposals and hope that Canadians reflect on them in a very genuine way between now and October 26 and be prepared to go out and support a renewed Canada on October 26.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I want to start off by saying that I had the opportunity this morning to attend the funeral of Paul Martin Sr. in Windsor at Our Lady of Assumption parish church. As I listened to the eulogy that was delivered by my colleague from LaSalle-Emard, I was struck by many qualities of Paul Martin Sr., particularly by my colleague's description of how committed his father was to his riding. He said that in the last few days he came to a new realization that looking after his riding was more important than anything else he ever did. That was one of the reasons why Paul Martin Sr. throughout his entire life basically lived in his riding.
The respect that his community had for that dedication, for that service, was certainly exhibited today because there were literally thousands and thousands of people there who participated in this very, very special moment.
As I was listening to my colleagues this evening and as I was trying to figure a way to communicate to the government, I want to remind it of what Paul Martin Sr. was all about.
He was all about looking after his constituents. That is precisely why we are standing here on this side of the House tonight saying to the government that we really wish it would not close this House down for the next eight weeks. It is not just the next eight weeks. We have hardly been here since the third week in June. We have been away all but a couple of weeks. We are talking not sitting nearly five months of the year.
I know that I have been emotional tonight. I am emotional because I have been listening to my constituents all through the summer. I have many constituents who are doing well. I want to say to the member for Carleton-Charlotte that I had a barbecue in my backyard this summer and I had one of the most positive economists in all of Canada, Tbm McCormack, give a speech saying how Canada was going to be better in the 1990s than it was in the 1980s.
I am not speaking tonight as someone who is negative.
I am not speaking tonight as someone who is trying to put a sting on the government. I am here tonight to say to the Government of Canada that I have many people in my riding, in my city, and I know this condition exists right across the country, who are like patients in the intensive care room of a hospital.
There are men and women, single parents with children who do not have a job. Without a job you have no freedom; when your son or your daughter comes to you and asks you for money to buy a new pair of shoes for school or to buy a new blouse or whatever it may be, you do not have any money. In my city, in my riding, there are many people like that.
They are counting on me to be in this Chamber, trying to move the government, stimulate the government, to come up with some hopeful bridge until we get to the point the IMF talks about. We are not there yet. Until we get there we should be in this Chamber dealing and working for those people in our ridings who are disadvantaged.
I have listened to people in the last two months from the business community when this Chamber was not sitting. I do not want to sound emotional. I want to sound reasoned. Believe me, there are thousands of small
September 17, 1992

businessmen in this country right now who are not sure if they can meet the payroll this Friday.
In my riding, and I am sure they say this to the members opposite, they say: "Please, get into that House of Commons and shake up the financial institutions of this country to help us over this period". That is what they are saying to me.
It is a pretty frustrating feeling to think that I have lost the last 60 days in trying to represent them in this House and now I will lose the next 60 days. It makes you wonder, what does an MP do? What I am doing here? At times it makes you feel totally useless.
From 1980 to 1984, I had the opportunity to work for Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. I never agreed with everything that Mr. Trudeau said. He let this place debate. We used to have debates in this place three nights out of five until ten o'clock in the evening. It was a forum where members of Parliament could come, represent and call on the government, to say listen, I have constituents who need attention. I have patients in the intensive care room and they do not want you to say; "hey, sorry, we are not working tonight. We are going off duty". Hey, I am dying. I am about to lose my home, maybe it is my business, and we are going to say; "sorry, we are shutting down".
It is not right. I really, really believe that it is not right. In 1980, when we had a referendum here, we did not shut the House down completely. We debated. All through the referendum, we listened to the opposition when we were in power. Quite frankly, I am concerned. This debate has not reached the debating point yet because it has really been a yes hustle at this moment. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I for one have a lot of unanswered questions on this document. The member said to go back to your constituency and explain the agreement.
I can tell you right now, and I have talked to some of the best constitutional lawyers in this country including the former Prime Minister, this document is full of ambiguities. It is full of contradictions. If it is true that the people of Canada do not trust their politicians, in other words if the central issue is trust, then before I give an answer I am going to try and find out what it means and that is fair ball.
I would like with your permission to deposit with the table tonight a set of questions that I have on the
Government Orders
document which hopefully, seeing as the place is closing down, I could present to the government. Hopefully, it could get them answered for me in the next 72 hours so it could help me do my job. With your permission I would like to deposit my unanswered questions on the floor of this House of Commons on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is necessary to have the unanimous consent of the House to table a report or a paper in the House of Commons.
Is there unanimous consent to table the paper of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank the acting government House leader. I will give him an undertaking that if I get the answers to the questions I have put forward here, some of which I asked at four o'clock in the morning last week, and if I can satisfy myself that I am doing the right thing, I will campaign alongside him without any difficulty-
I say to the government that I am having great difficulty with this accord, this entente. That is another reason why I really feel that it is wrong to shut this House of Commons down, this nation's boardroom, when there is so much going on in this country.
This morning went I went to my front porch to get my Toronto Star the heading said: "11 per cent unemployment".


An hon. member:: That was your first mistake.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member is right, it was my first mistake.
I should stop reading newspapers. However, this was the simple fact, 11 per cent unemployment. These are Statistics Canada numbers.
I am having a real problem with this idea that we are only going to be here for seven weeks in six months when I see so many people who are in economic pain. Governments should understand that part of our responsibility is to make the government accountable. By the government organizing this Parliament of Canada in a way that it has effectively shut down the operation for almost six months of the year by the time the Christmas period is included, I think the people of Canada are going to get very suspect about what is going on. The people of Canada are lying in the weeds right now. You can do all the polling you want but I am not sure that these polls are accurately reflecting what is going on.

Government Orders
In my community there is a deep, deep sense of mistrust about the way the government is managing the economy of this country. Failing to stand up to defend its agenda, to promote its agenda in a forum of debate, makes the people of Canada suspect and I think it is going to make it very difficult to sell this package.
It was four years ago that I was given the trust of the people of Broadview-Greenwood. Quite frankly, I do not know why we are not having an election. The four years are up. I really admire the skill of the people who surround this Prime Minister. I have said many times in this House that the machine of communications around this Prime Minister is superior. We are not even talking about an election when the four years are up. This government has no mandate to be doing what it is doing right now. Maybe the government's plan is to somehow orchestrate an election in the next three or four months. For all I know, this could be my last speech in the Parliament of Canada. It might be and it could be, I do not know, but I do know this: I can look at every one of my constituents in the eye and say that the four years you gave me I did my best to fight for you when you were in a disadvantaged state.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the member covered a lot of territory. I hope I can touch on some of it with your indulgence.
The member finished by mentioning something in the sense that it could be his last speech in the House and whether or not we would be facing an election. Nobody knows what we will be facing in the next three or four months. Perhaps we could be. I do not know either.
One of the things that we do agree on is that in spite of our differences, we will work the very best we can for our constituents. Whether or not we will be returned to this House, who would know?
I do want to touch upon the comment in regard to when elections are held. He referred to four years as being the tradition, but it is not always. Constitutionally, it is five years between elections in this country, as we all well know. It could in fact be a five-year mandate this
time. Only the Prime Minister knows the answer to that one, but I believe that it will be.
Constitutional agreement is very hard to achieve in this country. The member mentioned that in his speech. What is included in this agreement that was reached in Charlottetown on August 18? I am not a constitutional lawyer either, and on that we agree. Neither one of us is. It is almost a shame that it has to be so legalistic, if you wish, and so complicated. I think it would be much better if we all understood exactly what any Constitution meant.
Obviously Constitution-making is like an economist. As one fellow told me many years ago in my teaching days: if you get two economists in the same room, you will come up with three different points of view because one of them will disagree with himself before the meeting is over. I guess that is the same in constitution making. We have as many interpretations as we do constitutional experts, so there will always be that question as to what does it actually say.
I do want to end on this, in all seriousness. I think we would all agree that in 1867 the constitutional-makers of the day did not have it all right, did they? They did not have it all right. I am sure if they had to do it over again, if they could, they would have done a few things differently. We all agree on that. I think we will also agree this time too when it is over that if we could have done some things differently, no matter what we agree on, we would have done some things differently.
This House is made up of imperfect human beings and Constitutions are carved out by those imperfect human beings. I will be the first to admit that there are parts of the Constitution, even as a lay person, as an ordinary Canadian, that I do not completely understand and never will understand. We must have an abiding faith in the sense that the Canadian people have come up with the best possible package that they could come up with. We will have to leave it to those constitutional experts to determine whether it was good or bad.
We owe the Canadian people the benefit of the doubt. We set out for perfection in 1867 and we did not achieve it. What we did achieve in that 125 years is the best country in the world.
September 17, 1992

That is what we will do this time, given the opportunity, given the chance.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will make my response short.
I would agree that the Constitution has been serving us well for the last 125 years. Many people have said today that it is regrettable that we even got into it.
In 1981 when Premier Levesque did not sign on we should never forget the fact that 72 or 73 out of 75 federal members of Parliament for Quebec did sign on. We should never ever mislead Canadians about that very important fact. That is point one.
Second, the problem that I am having with this particular agreement is that in less than 30 days we have to absorb it and get expert advice. 1 am not anti-Canada.
I am not anti-Canadian. I do not want to see the breakup of Canada. I really wish that we could go through the process of determining whether it is a good package or not and fleshing it out before we sign in a way that gives the Prime Minister and the premiers a blank cheque.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here. Once again, I wish that we could do more of this in the next 36 days that we are going to be out campaigning. I am looking forward to the campaign to try to get people to understand the need for a yes vote on October 26.
However, the fact remains that the problems that plague us today are still going to be here. The Government of Canada would like to put them on the back burner while we campaign for the referendum, as well my colleagues from the New Democratic Party do not really want to have any debate in the next 36 days so they can be out in their ridings campaigning for the next election.
We have no problem with campaigning for the next election while campaigning for the referendum. However, the problems that plague us today are still going to be around, such as the 1.6 million unemployed, world problems such as Somalia and Yugoslavia, the fisheries in the Atlantic, or the bill that was just passed by the House of Commons, Bill C-80 which does away with the concept of universality.
Government Orders
Today, we are presently faced with a possible airline merger between the two biggest airlines in Canada, which will no longer have any competition and therefore will not be subject to the limitations in terms of air fares and other things that they presently must deal with as two competing airlines.
As I said, I look forward to the debates, to the campaign on the referendum while at the same time admitting that there should be an opportunity for the members of the House of Commons to debate the issues of today while talking about the referendum.
I would like to start off with the airline merger. My riding is called Nunatsiaq and to travel anywhere in my riding, if you are an Inuit unable to use a snowmobile quite adequately, all travel must be by air. There is not one community connected to another by road, with the exception of one community which has a road in the winter which is from Inuvik to Thktoyaktuk, part of my riding.
The area that I represent you can only get to by air. Therefore, it is really a big deal for the people of the north when the two major airlines decide that they are going to merge and do away with the competition. We have another airline, owned by the Inuit of northern Quebec called First Air.
I have to smile. The transport minister, when he was asked about this particular company and said that it was Inuit owned, referred to the Inuit as the Cree. I would like him to have better information on who owns which airline. The Cree own Creebec Air and the Inuit own First Air. That is so the minister does not make the mistake again.
First Air, which is in partnership with Air Canada at this point, being a fairly independent airline, is free to compete with Canadian Airlines which also services parts of my riding such as Iqaluit, Hall Beach, Resolute Bay and Cambridge Bay. There is competition in some of those communities. However, Air Canada by association with First Air competes with Canadian Airlines for those communities in terms of air service in passengers and freight.
Just imagine if the two airlines merge, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. There would be no need to compete with the airline that you competed previously with. Air

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
Canada would not have to compete any more with Canadian Airlines because they would be one airline.
What happens is the association with First Air would not be needed any more because there would be no competition any more. Therefore, Canadian Airlines or Air Canadian or whatever it may be called under the new merger would suddenly have no need for our major airline that services Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Hall Beach, Cambridge Bay, Resolute Bay as well as all the Baffin Island communities through smaller engine airplanes.
What happens if Air Canada decides it does not need First Air any more? First Air will not have the means to compete with one big airline in some of those selected communities and therefore will have to cut back on services. If it does, we northerners will all suffer. As I mentioned in the beginning of my speech, the only way to get to those communities is by air.
We could have been debating all this in the next 36 days if we were just able to keep the House sitting while we are campaigning for the referendum.
I hope that if the merger does go through, which, barring divine intervention, it will, I hope that there will be enough safeguards put in place to ensure that the service to the north does not suffer. There is always room for improvement, there is always room to move around, but the air service to the north is pretty good. I hope that if the merger happens there will be some safeguards put in place. We will be trying to ensure that our concerns are addressed by this government as well as by the airlines that are looking at the merger.
I would also like to touch on another area that is plaguing the north and will be very much in the next number of years, the reduction in federal funding for cost-shared social housing in the Northwest Territories. The federal Cabinet has just turned down a request by the government of the Northwest Territories to the Minister of Public Works to keep up the amount of money coming into the Northwest Territories for social housing in the future. As a result, we who were supposed to get 375 units in 1993, SeaLift, will now be getting only 153. There was a housing need survey done just recently.
It was established that there is a need for 3,584 affordable, adequate and suitable housing units. This is an
increase from 3,136 in 1990. In two years there was an increase of 14 per cent in the need for housing.
Again, all our housing has to be brought in. There is not one tree in my riding that we could cut down to make a house. In the winter we can build igloos but they have a limited life span. As soon as the weather warms up, they are gone. This government should take a very serious look at what it has done to the people in the Northwest Territories by slashing the budget for the NWT in terms of social housing, in terms of public housing.
Just to ensure that the people understand how reflective this is of the north, out of the 17 odd thousand households, 14,536 were visited and interviewed, which is roughly 90.2 per cent of all the households in the north. Only a mere 4.9 per cent refused to be interviewed at all, to talk about a lack of housing.
I think the government would be well advised to take a second look at what they have put through. You have to remember in the north the majority of people need public housing. There is not a very big demand for private housing because of the cost of building a house. It is beyond the means of most northerners to finance the building of a house in the north. Only a few do so, although there is starting to be more. There will always be a need for that type of public housing.
I think you have to also remember it is a very expensive proposition to build a house. Not only do you have to import the building materials, you have to import everything else that goes into the house, such as the plumbing, kitchen, and furniture. You still have to build it. The only thing you do not have to import is the gravel for the foundation and even then we have to import the pipes the house will sit on because that is the norm today.
There are all these items we can debate and here we are adjourning for the next one and a half months because this government and our friends in the New Democratic Party do not want to debate the important issues facing us today.
I would now like to go on to what is happening in the Northwest Territories or the Eastern Arctic in terms of the Inuit. On April 14, 1981, the Inuit voted to create Nunavut which means 'our land'. On May 4, 1992, 11 years later, the Inuit voted on the boundary to create Nunavut. On November 2, 3 and 4, the Inuit will vote to
September 17, 1992

decide whether to ratify the agreement, in principle, that has been reached by the negotiators between the Federation of Nunavut and the government of Canada.
I believe in Nunavut. I have a pin here that says 'Nunavut and Inukjuak' depicting Nunavut. I know for a fact we are going to get Nunavut sooner or later. However, the negotiators of the federal government, the territorial government and the Inuit have decided Nunavut cannot be without the agreement in principle for negotiated claims being part of it. For better or worse, that agreement was reached some time ago. As a result, the government told us today if we want Nunavut, we have to ratify the claims even if we do not necessarily like what is in the claims. I maintain that all it would take for Nunavut to be created is political will by this government or by the government of the day and the Inuit. I am sure that if the ratification vote on November 2, 3 and 4 does not go through the Inuit, even if they go back to the drawing board to negotiate the agreement, would still be in favour of going ahead with the creation of a Nunavut territory which would not be an Inuit territory but which would be a public government concept.
I would like to quote the federal negotiator, Mr. Tom Molloy, who said that if the Inuit do not like the way the government is following the terms of the agreement they can always take it to court. If the government is not living up to the Inuit's expectations under the terms of the agreement in principle, the Inuit can take them to court. It is not that simple. If we get an agreement we know that the government will do its best to slow down the process of implementation. But I must also say that this agreement is for our children and the future.
I would like to quote a couple of people. One is a Joseph Aglukark, who is a young man living in Gjoa Haven who says: "The federal government shouldn't be telling us what we can have". He is absolutely right. We should be able to understand what we can have and what we would like to have. The government as well as other people keep saying: "We are paying you. We are giving you $580 million. This young man says: "Within three or four years, they're going to triple what they paid through mining and big game hunters". That is pretty accurate, I think.
Qitsualik says: "The Inuit, who will receive title to 18.3 per cent of Nunavut land, should have received more for ceding their aboriginal claim". What we are doing and
Government Orders
what this government has done is made a precondition to extinguish our claim before we even sit down to negotiate.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate tonight really caps off one of the longest periods that the House of Commons and Parliament will not be sitting in years. In fact, during the period from June 19 to November 16, the House will have only sat eight days. Most of that time, debate has been concerned really with the constitutional agreement which was reached in Charlottetown last month.
The people of this country are extremely concerned with the economic mess the country is in. It is interesting to hear the members of the treasury benches talk about how things will look good in a year or so, according to estimates in the OECD reviews. In fact, over the last four years of the 34th Parliament, and we are almost to the end of a typical four-year term, we have been through an extremely bad time. The economic recession we are in now, which has been going on for some 30 months, is the worst since the 1930s. The impact of the free trade agreement with the United States has been devastating to say the least. It is not just a case of the cyclical downturns we faced in the 1981-82 recession, we are seeing whole sectors of the Canadian economy being destroyed. People have no confidence that the manufacturing sectors will ever return.
We do not see much encouragement in the GAIT negotiations. We hope there will be a new agreement in 1993 but clearly agriculture, in particular the supply management sectors, believes it was sold out in the free trade deal and that it will be further reduced in the GATT negotiations.
The whole western grain economy is in a shambles because of the trade wars that are going on between the European Economic Community and the United States. There is the uncertainty of depending on government payments to supplement income when the price simply is not at a level to maintain farming.
The Government of Canada day after day supports the President of the United States, saying it is all the fault of the European Economic Community, while the President, in order to buy a few more votes in the presidential election, spends a billion dollars to subsidize exports of grain.

Government Orders
When the Canadian negotiators came back from the North American free trade deal, we saw the same kinds of problems they agreed to in the FTA, they agreed to in the NAFTA. There was no resolution of the problems of countervail and subsidy. They did not agree to a subsidy code so the problems of countervail will continue whether it is on steel, softwood lumber of other commodities.
There was no agreement on an anti-dumping code. Every other major international trading agreement, whether it is the European Economic Community, the Australian-New Zealand agreement, all have arrangements there for a subsidy code, for anti-dumping code arrangements so that those irritants do not go on year after year and yet our government comes home empty-handed.
The impact of the uncertainty of the GATT negotiations and the impact of hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost in the free trade deal with the United States, combined with a massive doubling of the debt of the country during the eight year tenure of this government has been devastating. Add to that the uncertainty and the adverse impact of problems for the tourist industry and problems for all small business because of the GST, the economy and the private sector is just weltering under the impact of the government's trade policy, taxation policy and fiscal policy. Perhaps the most devastating has been its monetary policy.
In the period leading up to the recession in 1990 we were following a policy of having interest rates at least 5 per cent higher than the United States. The Governor of the Bank of Canada went on day after day, month after month, bludgeoning the Canadian economy. He wanted to lick inflation. He certainly has achieved that but the anguish, the turmoil and the economic carnage of the Canadian economy, nobody has seen anything like it since the 1930s.
When the Government of Canada signs a free trade deal with the United States and then the Governor of the Bank of Canada imposes an interest rate policy that is 5 percentage points above the United States, which in turn escalates the value of the Canadian dollar by some 15 per cent or 20 per cent between 1986 and 1990, there could be nothing but turmoil and hardship and that is what we are in now.
It is not the Governor of the Bank of Canada earning a
couple of hundred thousand dollars a year who pays the price. It is the forestry worker in northern Ontario. It is the person involved in manufacturing in southern Ontario. It is the person who tends a small business. It is those individuals, such as the farmers in the west, who have paid the price of this government's monetary policy.
In the 25 years I have been a member, I cannot remember as difficult a time in my district. We have literally lost thousands of jobs. In Elliott Lake, a city of
13,000,	we have lost about 3,400 of the 4,000 mining jobs and perhaps another 1,500 or 2,000 in the service sector. That is in a community with very little support at this stage. The government will probably spend $12 to $15 million in UIC payments in that community, and yet there is no money for training. It defies intelligence that the government will not provide training for people receiving quite large UIC payments as income support.
A person in his early 30s who has been earning quite good wages as a production uranium miner may have very few other skills or abilities to get another job. He will be provided with a year's UIC benefits but no training allowance. We had 1,000 uranium miners laid off in Denison mine this past spring. Most of them are coming into UIC benefits now. They had severance pay benefits during the late spring and summer months. Now they are coming into UIC benefits. They should be taking upgrading courses. They should be taking retraining, and yet there is absolutely no money.
I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration about that today and there was simply no answer. Why would the government provide all of this money for income support and no training? At the end of the year, the individual will use up his training or income support and will have no additional training or skills to attract jobs.
This adjournment debate tonight is taking place when we are facing the prospect of a national referendum on the Charlottetown accord on constitutional arrangements. I am sure as we go out to the hustings and work on the referendum, people will want to know why we have done so little for the economy during the five-month period between mid-June and mid-November. Clearly, that is the priority of all Canadians and should be the priority of this government, but the government is slithering away.
September 17, 1992

I want to make a couple of points about the Charlottetown agreement. It really is a very important historic agreement. It is an agreement that has been reached between the Prime Minister, the ten premiers and the aboriginal peoples. It covers quite a large range of issues. It covers a new Canada Clause, which sets out the broad scope of our nation: our Parliamentary democracy; our equality of peoples; our recognition of the distinctive character of Quebec with its French language and culture and civil law. It sets out the basics of our nation.
This agreement also, for the first time since the 1982 agreement, brings Quebec into the Canadian Constitution. In my view that is absolutely essential, because we know the pressures from the separatists and the nationalists in that province. Therefore, that adhesion to the Canadian Constitution is absolutely essential.
It recognizes the desire of the aboriginal people for a new arrangement, aboriginal self-government. We know that the bands across this country are really held in trust by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. This agreement, although it only sets it out in a broad framework, makes provision for aboriginal self-government.
The Constitution makes an arrangement with regard to an elected Senate. The western provinces and many of the eastern provinces, like those of us in northern Ontario, feel that their views are not always heard. Therefore, this agreement provides for an elected Senate that has equal representation from each province. Although some of us would like to have seen it have stronger powers, because we think that makes it more responsible and more desirable, it is the agreement that was reached between the provinces, the vast majority of which are in the regions outside the two central provinces. It does provide a trade-off in which some 34 new members of Parliament would shift from the Senate, essentially in the central provinces.
Government Orders
Those of us in northern Ontario who saw the loss of one seat back in 1976 welcome the opportunity that perhaps we will continue to have the same representation from northern Ontario, some 11 seats, and perhaps even more with the new provision for some 18 additional members of Parliament from Ontario.
The regime sets out an arrangement for a division of powers that would essentially give a stronger voice for the provinces in areas that have traditionally been theirs anyway: urban affairs, tourism, mining and forestry. That is not to say that there would not still be a federal role but it makes provision for agreements and clarifies those divisions of powers.
I do not personally like to see decentralization of a power because I think that the federal government must have the power and strength to equalize opportunities across the country. However, either we have an honourable compromise between those who would rather see a more decentralized federation and those who want a more centralized one, as this agreement tries to do, or perhaps we will not have a country, at least not one that is unified.
The section with regard to economic union does not provide as strong an economic union as those on our side of the House would like to see. It is my understanding that the NDP premiers opposed this negotiation and so it was not possible to provide for it, but the NDP in some of those provinces will not be in power forever. It is an arrangement that can be changed with the support of seven provinces out of ten, with 50 per cent of the population. It can be amended at some time in the future.
Likewise, I think the Senate arrangement could be strengthened simply by the rules of the House. Perhaps there could be an arrangement so that instead of having a joint session whenever the Senate opposed a bill coming through the House there could be a suspensive veto simply by rule of the House for a three or six-month period, whatever was felt to be necessary to perhaps strengthen the effectiveness of the Senate.
I do not think that this referendum campaign that we are leaving tonight to join will be that pleasant an experience because it could well bring out great divisions in the country.

September 17, 1992
Government Orders
A referendum was necessary. Three provinces, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, had it in their rules that there had to be a referendum, so I think that a national referendum was desirable in those circumstances.
I believe that we have to move on. We have to turn the page. We have to settle the constitutional problems. No constitutional arrangement will ever be perfect when you have 10 divergent provinces negotiating with one central government. This covers many concerns such as the concern of a Canada clause to set out the broad scope and the directions of our country.
It puts forward a proposal with regard to aboriginal self-government. It deals with the desire of many provinces for an elected Senate. Clearly the Senate is bound to be elected some day. It deals with the question of the division of powers. It deals to some extent with the economic union.
I would hope that this would pass. It seems to me that we are celebrating our 125th anniversary this year and clearly we have made progress in many things since 1967, in the last 25 years. We are 30 per cent larger. Our life expectancy is five years longer. One thing that we lack is that tremendous esprit de corps, that enthusiasm, that confidence we had in 1967.
I hope that this referendum will bring back some of that confidence, that we will succeed in making arrangements for a new Constitution for this country, that we will reach out and form a new relationship across the country so that we can go on to reaching the opportunity that is there for Canada to provide for its people. We have the resources, we have the people. It is simply a case of putting it together in a constructive way.
I hope that will be the result of this referendum. I hope the country will not be broken by it. That would be the greatest tragedy for this country that could ever happen.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague from Algoma on his usual very common sense type of speech in this House and for his great in-depth interest in our country.
He mentioned the Constitution and some of the divisions of powers that are in the new deal. I am wondering how this will help situations such as he mentioned at Elliot Lake.
One thing that we are faced with today is a very slow process in looking after the older workers' adjustment programs and applications that are submitted. I do not know why we cannot move people into those areas to speed them up and help people out.
There is certainly a lack of training funds. Now the employer and the employees have to contribute the full amount to the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada.
Does the hon. member not believe that if we had a more direct responsibility from the national government in this country and more solid leadership from the national government of this country we could do a lot more in training those people he is talking about? What we need is some direct action to make sure that the funds are there to do it.
I know that in his area and in my area if we took even half the unemployment insurance payments that are paid out every year we could probably train those people and create jobs for them and have them better employed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Renfrew has really hit the nail on the head.
The problem is that we do not seem to have the flexibility in the way that the Unemployment Insurance Act is operated. Clearly, if you are going to have an unemployment insurance scheme in which essentially the employers and the employees put the funds into it, companion to that have to be the necessary training arrangements.
We have uranium production miners who earn very good wages and they are very skilled at what they do. However, when a mine shuts down as we have seen at Denison and Quirk 1 and Panel Mine in Elliot Lake and there are no other mining jobs available, then their skills are totally inadequate.
We had the situation this summer, I think we have it cleared up now, in which the local manpower office was forcing people who were on unemployment insurance to take only 10 hours of training a week. This is prevoca-
September 17, 1992

tional training at a high school. It was not costing anything but it said it has to be limited to 10 hours.
We got in touch with the director in Sault Ste. Marie and he said as long as they are willing to be available to take any job that comes along, they can go to school. Therefore, we were able to get that clarified, but there simply are not the funds.
Last year at this time we had something like 2,400 uranium miners laid off out of the 4,000 who were there two years ago. We got $2.5 million of funding for that. This year in April and May we had another 1,000 miners laid off but the budget for this fiscal year was $600,000.
Imagine one training course in heavy equipment operation or some of those types of courses in which 12 or 15 people for training are taken. The cost of $600,000 for
1,000	employees being laid off is simply, totally inadequate.
Unless the government is willing to take it seriously, UI is going to run out and then these people are going to go on welfare because they have not the skills and there are no funds being provided. That is why I put the question to the minister today in the House, to demand that the money be put in.
Much of the training dollars now come out of the UIC fund, which I think is wrong to start with but that is where they come from now, some $800 million or so every year. That works on a calendar year, whereas the training from the departmental estimates comes on the fiscal year.
I am hoping that additional funds will be made available January 1 so that some of these people who were just going on to UI will be able to be eligible for training funds and to get out of this trap of UI with no training.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to raise the question about the GATT negotiations.
I know the hon. member's agricultural critic has been following this very closely, as have the rest of us who have large farm communities. I must compliment the members in our party who do not have any farmers in the community but who are still taking a great interest in the agricultural difficulties today.
I am wondering, does the hon. member for Algoma think that these negotiations are ever going to come to
Government Orders
an end? Where is Canada going to sit when this is all finished? I would like to have his comments on that because I know we have a lot of farmers out there tonight who are very concerned about these issues. Since the government is closing down the House tonight, at least it should have one last word from a good agricultural critic to let it know what is happening out there before we leave tonight.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the question of the GATT negotiations are closely tied to the politics of the European Economic Community and to the politics of the United States, since essentially they make a deal and everybody else either accepts it or does not.
The referendum on the Maastricht treaty that is taking place in France this weekend will have some effect on those negotiations. There could be no negotiations during this past couple of months because of the uncertainty of the French government as to exactly what was going to happen in the Europe '92 integration proposal, and it is having a referendum on it this weekend. That has called all of the monetary and fiscal negotiations into question these past few days, with the decision by Germany not to lower its interest rates.
The other uncertainty, of course, is the United States and what is going to happen there. I believe that many of the Europeans will try to negotiate, assuming that the Maastricht treaty is agreed to this fall. It is hard to believe that things will really get settled until after the presidential election which is taking place in early November. Depending on who wins that election, the negotiations will be consummated one way or another.
There is sort of a window between the 20th of January when the president will be inaugurated or re-inaugurated, and March of next year. If there is going to be a new GATT arrangement, the negotiations and the final decision will have to be made during that period in order to meet the fast track arrangement of the United States Congress. An agreement would have to be reached during that period if it was to be agreed to by both the United States Congress and the Senate. Clearly, this is causing great uncertainty.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Algoma for that reply on the farm question.

Government Orders
Tonight I have a number of items that I want to raise. Since we must deal with the economy and the problems of the people of this country, the first is the problem of older workers being laid off. I have a number of applications and interested applicants in my particular part of the country, in my riding and throughout the Ottawa Valley.
When one gets the reply that applications will probably not be looked at until next spring, it is pretty devastating news to pass on to constituents, particularly those who have worked at a job all their lives. We want training money and we learn that there is no training money for them, yet the government is making a big issue of re-training people. We all know that we have to train and re-train people from now on, maybe two or three times during the course of their lifetimes.
We are really in a sad plight in this country, and I think it is just horrendous that this House is being closed down tonight with these issues facing the nation.
The training funds that I mentioned, and which my hon. friend from Algoma mentioned, largely come from the Unemployment Insurance Commission funds. We have that famous Bill C-21 on the Unemployment Insurance Act that the government made such a big to-do about and blamed the Senate for holding it up when the Senate was really holding it up for a good reason.
It virtually took the federal government of this nation off the hook by putting them in the position of not having to pay money into the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It has raised and raised again the UIC contributions that employers and employees must pay into that fund to keep it active. This money is also not just used to pay the unemployed as I said before, but also to retrain people.
These are just some of the issues. Sectors of the economy are really hurting. People out there are unemployed who never thought they were ever going to be unemployed in their life. They are in a state of depression and this government decides to adjourn the House for the referendum.
The referendum vote is very important because the Constitution of this country does belong to the people of Canada and they must know what they are voting for
when that day comes. There is a big selling job out there to do in telling people what is in that package; good and bad.
Just recently in this country, and in this Parliament, we have paid tribute to two very senior and long-time solid politicians and statesmen, the Hon. George Mcllraith from the Ottawa area and the Hon. Paul Martin who represented a constituency in the Windsor area in this House for 33 consecutive years. Mr. Mcllraith was here for 32 consecutive years.
They would be appalled to see the government closing down this House tonight. Others have mentioned the short time that we have sitting here in the last number of months. This Parliament belongs to the people of Canada and they expect us to be here tackling the problems of the day. Yes it does add a greater burden on everybody but that is our job.
One thing that is wrong with this place, this Parliament and the House of Commons, is that members do not know one another. We are certainly not going to get to know one another any better if we are not sitting in session.
When I first came here and for a number of years afterwards we had night sittings and the members got to know one another because their offices were closed at night and they were here in the House of Commons. The House of Commons was a place of great importance and the members paid attention to what was going on.
We look at it today and it is a matter of making speeches and sometimes you wonder who is listening in the government and, indeed, within Parliament itself.
I think we should revamp this House. We have had rules revamped before but a system has got to come about whereby the members in this House mix more, the partisanship that we have seen in the House must be toned down, there must be more constructive work done. The leadership must come from the government.
It is not enough to say hello in the hallways and talk across committee tables on Parliament Hill. As you well know, it takes awhile to make good solid friends but when you make friends in the House of Commons you can bridge gaps back and forth across this floor and you can get much more done. Today there is not enough attention paid to the public relations among members here on Parliament Hill.

This House of Commons has to become more meaningful and it is not going to become more meaningful if you are going to close it down, go away for several weeks at a time then come back for a few days, then adjourn for Christmas. When are we coming back in the new year?
Debates and exchanges must take place on the issues facing this country. This is the people's Parliament. People talk about how great Canada has become in the last 125 years, but Canada did not become great in the last 125 years by closing down Parliament in the way that the government is doing tonight.
People talk about serious national issues that arise. Certainly there comes a time of crisis when these finally pile up and they suddenly have to be solved. That is really the position we are in today. These situations quite often come about because of a lack of clear-cut leadership in the country.
In the 12 years between 1848 and 1860 in American history there were a total of four presidents in that 12 year period. They were called the dough-head presidents. They went down in American history as the four dough-head presidents. They were called that because they and their parties would not make a serious decision on any great issue of the day. As a result, they drifted into a civil war in the United States. It was that civil war that had a great deal to do with joining the colonies of this part of North America under the British Empire for self-protection under the Confederation of 1867.
Then we started in earnest to develop links between and among the various regions of the country. I am using this example because the issues of this nation have to be taken absolutely seriously, and we cannot deal with them seriously if the House is not sitting.
We drifted into World War II because none of the great powers would support the League of Nations in those days. Canada was the leading country in the league when it finally folded, and I think that we have always played more than our role in international affairs. We have done so with the trust of other nations of the world. There is a lot that we can do abroad, but there is certainly a lot that has got to be done right here at home.
When things are allowed to drift, as the world drifted into World War II, we lost 45,000 young Canadians who could have been great leaders in this country over the past number of years and into the future. We lost another 66,000 in World War I. A lot of these things happen because of lack of leadership.
Government Orders
I am saying this in an historical sense tonight because, and I do not want to necessarily cast reflections here, I get very impatient when I see Parliament not being taken seriously. We will pay for it and the people of Canada will pay for it. It is not fair to them that this Parliament is not sitting to deal with the things that are really bothering them today.
Blame is always being placed on people in the past. Yesterday, in this House, I was amazed to hear a minister of the Crown still blaming the Liberal government back in 1984 for the problems the Conservatives have had with the finances of this country. That is incredible. It was over eight years ago and they are still blaming the previous government.
During the election campaign of 1984 we all heard from the Tories right across this country how easy it was to handle the finances of this country, how easy it was to solve economic problems, how easy it was to handle the farm problems of this country; all the great ideas that were passed around in 1984. Eight years later they are well on their way to tripling the national debt of this country. These were going to be the wizards of finance of the day.
I mentioned a while ago that the GATT talks are going on and on and on and they are creating a great deal of uncertainty for the farm community of this country. The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex is in my riding speaking to a number of my farmers tonight. I know there is going to be a lot of concern expressed to him about this difficulty.
I said before and I will say again that farming in this country, fisheries and forestry, from pre-Confederation days, going back to real pioneer days, have been the three main staple crops and underpinnings of the economy of Canada. Even today it is the case but all three of these major sectors of our economy have been in trouble and are in trouble and look as if they are going to have some time yet to come to grips with it. There is no vision in this government today.
I like others want to see the constitutional debate brought to a close for the moment and get on with other economic factors of this nation. However, that is not to say that I agree with everything in it because I do not and I would be totally dishonest if I did not say so.

Government Orders
I think that training programs in this countiy have to have some national direction if we are going to use those great terms we here from the government quite a bit, competitive with the rest of the world. We must have some uniformity of training in the countiy and it must be made equal to all people right across the country to receive that kind of training.
We do not want to ever again see the horrendous days that people went through during the depression years of this country when Saskatchewan was almost a broken province. Other provinces of this country were the next thing to being broke. Municipalities were broke.
That is when we brought in the Rowell-Sirois Commission report that I mention quite often in this House. It was the most qualified in-depth study that has ever been done on constitutional issues in this country and on the division of finances within this countiy.
We are well ready for another real in-depth look at this nation in that regard. If we look back to the situations that brought about that very well qualified, intelligent commission, those people were extremely well picked and they did one of the most in-depth jobs of any commission ever appointed in the history of Canada.
I want to give an idea of some of the things that they actually did. The Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, very much related to the constitutional issues that are going on today and the financial issues that are happening today, the Rowell-Sirois Commission as it was best known, had a mandate to examine the distribution of constitutional powers and the financial arrangements of the federal system.
Judicial decision since the 1920s had left the provinces with heavy responsibilities in social fields and the federal government with access to the largest sources of revenue.
The commission's task was to find a new constitutional equilibrium that would distribute revenues and responsibilities in conformity with the needs of an industrial society. Its work was not welcomed everywhere. Premiers Hepburn, Duplessis and Aberhart were loud in their opposition while other provincial premiers worried about the potential centralist thrust of the commission.
In 1940 its major recommendations, which included federal responsibility for unemployment insurance and the establishment of a system of federal adjustment grants to the provinces, were rejected by the largest provinces led by Ontario. But by that date the outbreak of another world war made a rearrangement of federal-provincial revenue sharing a necessity, at least on an ad hoc basis. Moreover, by then King had won the approval of the provinces for a constitutional amendment giving Ottawa the power to enact unemployment insurance legislation.
What has happened today? That great bill known as Bill C-21 took the federal government off the hook on its constitutional responsibility for looking after the unemployed in this country in the sense that it gave it a free hand of not contributing to the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund.
What happens when it does that? It simply throws back the responsibilities for the unemployed, and indeed for the training of the unemployed, on to provincial governments where it was before this whole problem happened. That is why governments went broke in the 1930s.
If the economy does not improve the provinces of this countiy are going to see greater and greater debt thrust on them. Municipalities are going to have greater and greater debt thrust on them. They are at the bottom. They take it when nobody else does it. It is not fair for the municipalities across this country to face that. It is not fair for the provinces to face that. If we are to have a national government in this country, if we are to talk about the Constitution and if we are going to go out and campaign for our Constitution, then it is time the national government of this country, a government of this country, took the national responsibility to do it.
I have difficulty all the way in not supporting this constitutional arrangement to a degree because it does not provide that over-all national leadership we need in this country. I am going to go out and campaign for it, because I hope that in the future a good Liberal government and others in this countiy will come forward with good amendments to that Constitution, revamp it, and once again make the Parliament of Canada important and let Canadians know that there is a national government in this countiy, a Liberal government that

will accept its responsibilities and live up to not only the 1867 Confederation Act, the British North American Act, but the one we have today.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with respect and attention to my hon. friend from Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke, and tonight was no exception. The hon. member covered a wide range of topics, and I am going to comment on just two or three of them.
He said that he would like to see more friendship among members in the House. He also spoke favourably of the idea of improving the rules. I hope he will work with me and my friend from Kingston and the Islands in the latest phase of parliamentary reform, which I think the country and certainly parliamentarians would welcome.
On the issue of a friendship among members, he advocated better public relations among members. Of course the committee system helps with that. He indicated that it does not go all the way. Perhaps we ought to have an ice-breaking get-together when we reassemble on November 16 or whenever we do assemble.
The motion that was approved earlier today provided for the House to return no later than November 16.
I agree with my hon. friend from Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke that we would all like to see the constitutional debate concluded. Of course, Canadians share that feeling. The phrase constitutional fatigue has arisen.
On the subject of Bill C-21 and the reform of the unemployment insurance system, I wonder if my hon. friend would not agree that in a way the chief effect of that reform was to return it to what it was originally intended to be, which is an insurance scheme in which employees and employers pay the premiums for insurance against becoming unemployed?
Would he not also agree that hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed through Bill C-21 into training and retraining schemes, and that is an appropriate source for such funds?
Government Orders
I do wish to correct with great respect an impression that my hon. friend may have left with the House and with the country, and that is that Parliament is being closed down. What is happening is that members of Parliament are being freed to campaign on the side of their choice in the referendum campaign. It was suggested by an earlier speaker that members of Parliament would not have an opportunity to deal with immigration issues and that sort of thing. I for one will be in my constituency office dealing with those matters as well as doing the campaigning.
Finally, my friend mentioned the dough-head presidents of 1848 to 1860. I wanted to ask him whether he was alluding to a particular government, to this government. If he was suggesting that this government has not made, in his words, "a serious decision", I would ask him what it is we have been castigated about tonight by his colleagues.
Privatization, sales tax reform, deregulation, free trade, inflation fighting, the abolition of FIRA and the NEP, national reconciliation through constitutional renewal, GRIP and NISA, all have been done through Parliament. Those were all serious decisions and all taken by this government.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest for his comments. I would say that he is certainly one who makes an attempt to build friendships in this place. I have known him quite well and I have a great respect for him.
He talked about the unemployment insurance fund as being a real insurance scheme, in which people pay their fees. However, it is not just the people who receive unemployment insurance who are paying these insurance fees. It is also the employer who pays the increased fees, but the employer does not benefit from that scheme. It is really part of his expenses in salaries and wages.
In that sense, it is not a true insurance scheme and I do not know how it could be. If it was in the sense that he is talking about, the whole onus would have to be put on the worker to pay the total amount of insurance.
Also, in times that are very difficult such as these, I meant that small businesses are having a very difficult time today. They are a big employer and it is really notfair to load them down with greater overhead at a time when they are doing their level best to keep their businesses open and keep their people employed and off the unemployment rolls. In that sense I listed the constitutional responsibility of the federal government to put money into that fund as well and certainly into

Government Orders
training Canadians. You are going to have to train Canadians in the years to come. You cannot throw this burden on the lower levels of government, employers and the workers, day in and day out in the future. There has to be some leadership in the financial management of these programs.
In his comments about closing Parliament down, that is what is taking place. He said members are being allowed to leave to campaign. What is wrong with giving a number of members time off to campaign? This has happened many times before in this House. You can still keep the House of Commons going. All Canadians will understand that all members cannot be here, but we are dealing with the issues of the country.
In my own case, and I am sure in the case of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, we have some good leaders in our constituencies. Just because we are here in Parliament representing them, the whole campaign is not going to fall flat. There are some very good people out there who we will be on our teams. Some of them have come to me already and they will do a good job. I think it will create a great rapport when we get people from other parties helping out with the campaign and explaining to people what it is all about. One member of Parliament is not going to have a chance to talk to everybody and explain this. You need a committee and a program. You need your committee out there telling people what it is about.
Just because the member is in the House two or three days of the week and out campaigning the rest does not mean the whole campaign on the constitutional package is going to cease because the member has suddenly left to go to Ottawa. I have faith in the people I will have on
my committee to do that kind of work. I am sure every member in the House can set it up that way.
On the term 'castigation', he maintained I said the government was not making decisions. There are some decisions the government has not made. There are decisions it has made that are absolutely wrong. Just because legislation is passed through the House of Commons does not mean it made a good decision. Canadians have to live with those decisions all the time this government is in power.
I do not think just because a bill passes the House of Commons makes it suddenly correct. There are problems with it and people know there have been bills that have gone through this House of Commons that are going to cause them difficulties. Instead of castigating, I think it is being a reasonable critic of the fact some of your legislation is bad. Many people out there think it is very bad indeed, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands says.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They want to give the government the boot.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I would not want the hon. member to feel badly that I am castigating him just because I am telling him there are many things this government has done that are absolutely wrong, and it does not seem to us they are improving a great deal these days either. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since no more members wish to be recognized, it is my duty, pursuant to orders adopted earlier today, to adjourn the House to the call of the Chair, but no later than Monday, November 16, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 29,1992