Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):

Mr. Speaker, during the last elections, my Liberal opponent travelled around the constituency claiming everywhere and on every forum that free trade would have nothing worthwhile, and that it would be detrimental to Brome-Missisquoi. Not only was he completely wrong, but in so doing he insulted the hundred or so entrepreneurs in my constituency who show remarkable dynamism. Indeed, between 1984 and 1988, more than $1 billion were invested in Brome-Missisquoi; 1,600 permanent jobs and 1,400 temporary ones were created. In our area, we are not afraid of free trade; in our area, we have confidence in the future. As proof of what I said, two weeks ago Dominion Textiles, a supposedly vulnerable company, announced the creation of 200 new jobs in Magog. Yesterday, General Electric announced a S40 million investment, the creation of 210 new jobs and the consolidation of 150 jobs. This means 560 jobs over two weeks for Brome-Missisquoi! The Leader of the Opposition may call that marginal, but to me this involves the future of young people in my constituency and I feel this is excellent news.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):

Mr. Speaker, Val-d'Or's Societe Espalau is investing in the United States and, through Forage Moderne, it has just opened a new American branch plant which will operate under the name of Modern International Inc. This company will be carrying out exploratory drilling in the United States, mainly in Nevada. It expects to begin work as early as February 1989.

Seventy per cent of Modern International shares will be held by the firm Forage Moderne of Val-d'Or. Through this investment it will gain access to a new market in a region where mining exploration is at its peak.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of initiative taken by far-sighted Abitibi businessmen in the context of free trade.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):

Mr. Speaker, right now, in almost every municipality in eastern Ontario and across Canada, city officials are being faced with rapidly deteriorating municipal infrastructures. The capital costs involved for adequate rehabilitation are well beyond the capacity of any local government.

Sewage treatment plants need millions of dollars to upgrade them to an acceptable capacity level. In eastern Ontario alone, 38 plants fail to meet provincial standards, often resulting in raw sewage being discharged directly into our rivers. This type of pollution is an environmental crime and it has to stop.

The federal Government must co-operate with the provincial and municipal Governments and pay its share of these costs. I urge the House to act swiftly on this matter.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):

Mr. Speaker, Christmas is a time of good food, family, and friends. At Christmas we indulge our loved ones, especially our children.

How sad that this Christmas over one million children in impoverished families will be disappointed. How ironic that, in a country as rich as ours, one out of every six children is denied proper nutrition, housing, and clothing. We allow the potential of all of these children to be jeopardized by a miserly and outdated attitude towards social policy.

The Child Poverty Action Group tells us that over

300,000 children in Ontario, our richest province, are poor. In my own province of British Columbia 126,300 children are disadvantaged, much higher than the national average, and they are going to school hungry.

The National Council on Welfare warns us that the federal Government is systematically cutting all child benefits by 3 per cent a year.

December 21, 1988

Oral Questions

Our children are safe and warm. Is that why we don't care?

Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):

Mr. Speaker, forced to compete with other economic unions in the rest of the world, Canada had no option but to secure its fair share of the market with its powerful and friendly ally, the United States, so as to face up to the many worldwide challenges of the 21st century.

The socialists and the Liberal Party, two reactionary factions whose ideas have yet to reach beyond the threshold of the 20th century, would have us revert to the horse and buggy days of our forefathers.

Mr. Speaker, McLuhan correctly predicted that technological progress, media and communications development, as well as more numerous economic ties between nations would propel us further away from the moribund economic nationalism which leading members of the Opposition are attempting to revive.

Mr. Speaker, taking a leaf from the book of the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. DeBlois), I use a dead language so as to be better understood: Quousque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostral How long will you Liberals and socialists abuse the patience of the population?

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In its judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada declared as it related to the Quebec sign law that it was clear that it was within the power of the Quebec National Assembly to promote the French language as the predominant priority principal language of the province, but not at the expense of excluding minority language rights.

Does the Prime Minister approve of the legislation introduced by Premier Bourassa, applying the so called inside-outside formula which excludes the use of nonFrench signs outside business establishments? Does he think that that Bill meets the test of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment?

Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, in the last two days I have indicated that I neither approve of it nor do I believe that it meets the test of what the Supreme Court said. I indicated this in response to the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and other members of the Leader of the Opposition's Party.

I indicated this morning that the position I have held and continue to hold is that I hope the Government of Quebec could find, as the Supreme Court suggested, a way of accommodating those two fundamental principles of respect for the French speaking dimension of Quebec and respect for the principles enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That in regard to the specific issue is the way we wish it to be done. Anything less than that of course is disappointing to us. I have conveyed this to the House time and time again. I have responded to members of the Leader's Party. In respect of the protection of minority rights in the Province of Quebec, both the Member for Mount Royal and the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace complemented me and congratulated the Government on its stand on Monday and Tuesday.

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

If the Prime Minister is of the view that the legislation introduced by the Premier of Quebec does not meet the test of the Supreme Court judgment, as he just said, how can he approve of that legislation?

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said several times that, in general, he is against applying the notwithstanding clause. Does the Prime Minister approve of the use of this notwithstanding clause in the Quebec Bill itself as a way to get around the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to counter the effects of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada?